|
Wife wants a new point and shoot... this S95, can it do zoom while filming video? She needs this crucial feature.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Eyecannon posted:Wife wants a new point and shoot... this S95, can it do zoom while filming video? She needs this crucial feature. No, but the s100 can.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
Costello Jello posted:No, but the s100 can. Cool, thanks... sucks that it's over $400, though. EDIT: any other P&S that have optical zoom for video? Eyecannon fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Oct 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
Eyecannon posted:Cool, thanks... sucks that it's over $400, though. The Sony HX9V has outstanding 1080p 60fps video with 16x optical zoom and stereo mics at the cost of so-so image quality for stills. If video is your most important factor it's what I would recommend. Should be under $400.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
Cacator posted:The Sony HX9V has outstanding 1080p 60fps video with 16x optical zoom and stereo mics at the cost of so-so image quality for stills. If video is your most important factor it's what I would recommend. Should be under $400. Thanks, I wouldn't say that video is more important than stills, but zoom on video is something that she says she wants for her new camera. The 3D shooting of that HX9V is cool, wish it had a lenticular display on the camera... probably gonna be another year or two before I get a 3D TV.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
Eyecannon posted:Cool, thanks... sucks that it's over $400, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Eyecannon posted:Cool, thanks... sucks that it's over $400, though. I think many, if not most current-gen cams can. Just not the premium, larger-sensor compacts yet. Canon sx220/230 can zoom in video, and does decent hd (24fps 1080p, 30 fps 720p). It's now going for $280. The Sony HX9v that was mentioned does much better video - but the Canon takes much better pictures. Also, HX9V is a very slow camera to operate - switching modes takes a few seconds, picture processing, starting video can take 4-5 secs. The Sony is not a bad camera but definitely try before you buy. (I got a HX9V but exchanged it for a SX230 after a few days)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 16:04
|
|
|
ma i married a tuna posted:I think many, if not most current-gen cams can. Just not the premium, larger-sensor compacts yet. Wow, that SX230 looks pretty nice... 14x optical seems too good to be true, and it can record 1080p?! What's the catch? I should have mentioned, that she definitely wants the style where everything basically becomes a rectangular prism, no lenses or weird bits that stick out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
Fuji X10 in stock at Best Buy. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/FUJIFILM+-+X10+12.0-Megapixel+Digital+Camera+-+Black/3684985.p?id=1218426413473
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
HPL posted:That doesn't bother me as much as the lack of information in the finder does. It would be nice to have at least aperture and shutter info as well as something to indicate the focus point or to show the center of the frame since we don't really have any other indicator of where exactly the camera is focusing and whether it's focused of what we want or not. If the metering is as good as on the X100, you won't miss the info. Shoot in Aperture priority mode, hit the aperture for your usage at the start, and that's really the only thing you'd ever need to worry about changing other than the AF button which has a focus confirm light you can see from the corner of your eye.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:If the metering is as good as on the X100, you won't miss the info. Shoot in Aperture priority mode, hit the aperture for your usage at the start, and that's really the only thing you'd ever need to worry about changing other than the AF button which has a focus confirm light you can see from the corner of your eye. It's not so much for metering as it is for knowing what I'm going to get. The problem with cameras with IS is that you'll want to take a photo in low light, but the camera will automatically select a shutter speed like 1/15 or something because it'll work great if the subject is static because of the IS, but when the subject is moving around, it'll be blurry. Cameras without IS usually don't have as bad a problem because they know they have to have at least a certain shutter speed to get a clear photo. I have the same problem with AF film point and shoots unless they're awesome like the Ricoh GR1 series.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
Eyecannon posted:Wow, that SX230 looks pretty nice... 14x optical seems too good to be true, and it can record 1080p?! What's the catch? Battery life is not very good, and the screen (while good) is 16:9 ratio. So 99% of the time, when you're shooting 4:3 photos, you have black bars. Flash always pops up when you turn the camera on, and it's in a place where many people put their fingers (that means you can hold it down, though). I'm not sure what you mean with no lenses sticking out - compact travel zooms definitely extend some (over 2 inches) at full zoom, they just retract back in. When shut off, the camera is only marginally bigger than an S90. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q311travelzoomgrouptest/page3.asp is a very good, detailed review of the camera, along with direct competitors. Look at other sites to get a better idea of the dimensions of the camera, or better yet, go to a local store to handle it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 04:24
|
|
|
Nice comparison shots between the S95 and the X10 here: http://www.jpstevenson.co.uk/s95_vs_x10/ The X10 looks pretty tasty, bokeh is very nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 17:04
|
|
|
krackmonkey posted:Nice comparison shots between the S95 and the X10 here: The X10 seems to be better at balancing highlights and shadows. It seems to favour the shadows more than the S95 so you see more blown-out skies as opposed to lost shadows, which is fine by me because I get a lot of problems with shadow detail on overcast days if I don't tweak the exposure compensation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
Picked up an X10 yesterday. Anything you guys want to see/test?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
Bongodrums posted:Picked up an X10 yesterday. Anything you guys want to see/test? AF in low light, ISO 3200 and 6400.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
krackmonkey posted:Nice comparison shots between the S95 and the X10 here: The x10 looks so much better. The S90/95/100 all seem to have this plastic look. The super fine details are sharp, but medium small contrast just seems far too washed out, but then the actual blacks and whites are too contrasty from the limited DR. The yellows and oranges on the S series always seem sickly to me also. I really wanted to like the S90 I borrowed from a friend, but it just couldn't cut it. The X10 seems to fix all of those problems. The medium details are contrast, there is more bokeh (though I hate how they always focus on things super close, how about some head shots? like real world usage instead of test shots no one else does in real life). And the colors seem 10x more pleasing. The one weirdness is what's with the solid yellow skies on a few of the X10 images?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:The X10 seems to fix all of those problems. The medium details are contrast, there is more bokeh (though I hate how they always focus on things super close, how about some head shots? That's about the only way you're going to get any half-decent amount of bokeh on a small sensor. And yes it does happen in real-world situations like taking photos of flowers or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
HPL posted:That's about the only way you're going to get any half-decent amount of bokeh on a small sensor. And yes it does happen in real-world situations like taking photos of flowers or whatever. On the s90 at portrait length and it's super slow apertures, sure, but on the X10? It's probably going to give a bit of background blur even with the small sensor, especially with a distant background. I just want to see how much/little.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 13:59
|
|
|
The AF on the X10 is actually very fast and still very good in low light. I would say the fastest point and shoot I have ever used. This was also one of the first comments my friends made after picking up the camera. Where would be a good place to host some photos of the EXR modes and high ISO samples?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 18:38
|
|
|
So I'm wondering if you guys can help me out here... My wife and I recently went on a trip to Europe where she proceeded to take ~1800 photos. One problem: the time and date stamp was turned on - so there's a huge, orange, time and date stamp in the bottom corner of the photo. These were all saved as JPEGs (not RAW) on a Canon Elph 100. Is there any hope of removing the stamp? Alternatively, if this is going to be a manual process, are there any tools out there to make the process faster? I don't own Photoshop (nor am I very good with it) and would rather not drop the big bucks required for it. Any ideas?? Thanks guys
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
Lowness 72 posted:So I'm wondering if you guys can help me out here... I believe GIMP is a free software much like photoshop that has a clone tool that is very easy to use. I don't personally have it, but I think it's worth looking into since it's free.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
Or just crop it out if there's room. That's probably the fastest of all. I wouldn't be surprised if something like Irfanview could do a batch crop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
You could set up an action in photoshop to content aware fill them away, but as you said you don't have PS... Got any friends who do?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 18:52
|
|
|
Thinking about it further, batch crop everything, then go through the photos. You may not even miss those two edges of the photo. If you see a photo and wish there was a little more, you can get the original and clone out the date stamp.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
Bongodrums posted:The AF on the X10 is actually very fast and still very good in low light. I would say the fastest point and shoot I have ever used. This was also one of the first comments my friends made after picking up the camera. How do you find the viewfinder, and if you use it, are you ok with it not having any info inside? Can you still rely on the AF to work? Can you see the AF light from the corner of your eye while using it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:How do you find the viewfinder, and if you use it, are you ok with it not having any info inside? Can you still rely on the AF to work? Can you see the AF light from the corner of your eye while using it? Hi. The viewfinder is much much better than all the compacts on the market. Like you said, there is no data in the viewfinder but you can see the green confirmation light which blinks if it cannot focus. With such a small sensor, getting stuff in focus is not that hard and I have not missed once using it. All i do is set it to the center point and focus/recompose. Do it use it? Yes I do, but when you get too close to a subject, it's inaccurate due to parallax. I would say I use both 50/50. I would say the viewfinder is just a bonus. The response of the camera itself is pretty darn good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
I shot a few pics with my XZ-1 at a gig last night, and was fairly happy with it. These were both taken at f/2.4 and 1/8th, with ISO 200. I'm still a bit of a newbie however, and I realised that I could have cranked up to ISO 400/800 or so. What effect would this have had on my pics? If I recall what I have read, I would have been able to halve my shutter time, and therefore avoid most of the blur I can see on these and others? Also I turned off the AF light because I wasn't supposed to have a camera in there anyway. The AF seemed to work well in most cases though, would this have had a noticable effect on the focus? The overly long shutter time seems to have done most damage!  
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 08:29
|
|
|
Isn't it a bit crazy that the Canon S100 costs more than the Sony NEX-5? The camera market has gone to a strange, strange place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 14:17
|
|
|
HPL posted:Thinking about it further, batch crop everything, then go through the photos. You may not even miss those two edges of the photo. If you see a photo and wish there was a little more, you can get the original and clone out the date stamp. Where's a good place to buy aftermarket batteries from? Newegg doesn't have anything for my Pentax Optio WG-1, and Amazon doesn't carry anything at all. Pentax brand-name batteries are like $60, what brand names should I be searching for that won't be horrible prices?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:This is an excellent suggestion. Going through 1800 photos and individually cropping or clone-stamping would be mind-destroying. We used to buy them off ebay until Amazon picked up on it and starting selling them. If you can get them for less than $5 a pop, then don't worry about quality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 00:30
|
|
|
I'm not concerned about quality if I can get them for 1/10th the OEM price. But I don't know where to look - so, ebay, then? Just search for my camera's name plus "battery"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 08:49
|
|
|
That's exactly what I did with my S95, got 2 batteries for very cheap and I haven't noticed any difference in battery life between the cheap ones and the OEM one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 12:37
|
|
|
I got some no-name batteries for my 40D and they don't last as long as the real deal, but for the price difference, I don't care. It's not like batteries are the hugest things in the world, space-wise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I'm not concerned about quality if I can get them for 1/10th the OEM price. But I don't know where to look - so, ebay, then? Just search for my camera's name plus "battery"? If you want to try and save even more money, look up the model number of your battery then look to see if your battery for your camera is shared in any other older camera. For example: battery 50-np may be used in 3-4 cameras made by the same company. If you start ebay searching for those batteries using the different camera models, you will find that the older the camera model, the cheaper the price for the battery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:That's exactly what I did with my S95, got 2 batteries for very cheap and I haven't noticed any difference in battery life between the cheap ones and the OEM one. I found my 3rd party battery lasted about as long - the only difference is that when it died, it died quicker than the OEM. That said - the OEM goes from 75% full to 0% in about only 30 shots, so the 3rd party isn't much worse, practically speaking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 13:10
|
|
|
Has anybody found any good comparison shots of the s100 vs. s95 as far as low light performance goes? I'm still looking at making the jump but I have yet to see any great examples of the s100's improved sensor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 01:42
|
|
|
Tried out the Fuji X10 at B&H today. A few cons I didn't realize.
That being said I tried out some of the MFT cameras, Nikon J1/V1/P7100 and they weren't nearly as appealing as the X10. I guess I'm just spoiled by DSLRs and have too high expectations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 03:13
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:Has anybody found any good comparison shots of the s100 vs. s95 as far as low light performance goes? I'm still looking at making the jump but I have yet to see any great examples of the s100's improved sensor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Gravitom posted:Tried out the Fuji X10 at B&H today. A few cons I didn't realize. I'm struggling to see how this could be perceived as a con. Noticed a new Ricoh GRD came out. The GRD III is still handily the best P&S I've ever owned, although I'd be the first to admit that it fits very neatly in with my needs and wouldn't be for everybody. I don't know about the GRD IV though; they're still charging that bonkers price for it, and there's an awful lot more competition for great, interesting non-DSLRs at that price point these days. Much as I love 'em, they only make sense to me as a 2nd-hand / on sale / eBay find now...
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 10:48
|
|
