|
teethgrinder posted:Raw, by its very nature, has to be the full 20 MB, unfortunately. It's an unprocessed dump of all the sensor data. Yeah I think I would have the beam turned off too. Does having to charge the battery inside the camera get annoying? I normally have 2 batteries per camera and charge one from the wall, but then tbh normally at night when I wouldn't need the camera to hand anyway. If you set it to a zoom level, such as 50mm equivalent, and turn the camera off and on again will it return to the same zoom point? I think my S90 does that and it's a nice feature.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
I actually really like having the camera charge the battery. It's one less thing to carry around, and easy to top of the camera whenever I think I might need to leave with a full charge. As well, it's just micro USB so I already have piles of chargers for it, and even an external emergency battery. The camera doesn't remember the zoom level. I've noticed that as an optional setting on other brands. Personally I don't really mind, I like just being able to assume it's at the wide end whenever I turn it on, but don't see why they couldn't just make it an option.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:I actually really like having the camera charge the battery. It's one less thing to carry around, and easy to top of the camera whenever I think I might need to leave with a full charge. As well, it's just micro USB so I already have piles of chargers for it, and even an external emergency battery. Thanks for the extra information. I went and played with one in my local camera shop and i love how customisable it is and the little touches like you can bend the flash back slightly and use it as a bounce flash off a ceiling  I've ended up buying one and am looking forward to trying it this weekend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
So, I'm looking for a recommendation for a digital camera at around the $300-$400 range. I need something with GPS – I'm mainly planning to use this for holidays and day trips, so geotagging is important. Battery life is also important, since GPS can be a bit of a battery drain. I also need something that can work reasonably well in low-light conditions (at least, as well as you can expect for a P&S). I was originally going to just go with the Canon S100, but I've heard reports of poor battery life when GPS is turned on. Has anyone here with an S100 used the GPS much? How long can I expect the battery to last? The other thing that concerned me a little is the zoom. In the past, I've used a (borrowed) Lumix TZ3, which has 10x optical zoom, whereas the S100 has 5x. That said, I don’t really know how often I’ve actually used the full 10x zoom – is there some way I can figure out the zoom level for a given photo from the EXIF data?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 13:09
|
|
|
Berkeloid posted:The other thing that concerned me a little is the zoom. In the past, I've used a (borrowed) Lumix TZ3, which has 10x optical zoom, whereas the S100 has 5x. That said, I don’t really know how often I’ve actually used the full 10x zoom – is there some way I can figure out the zoom level for a given photo from the EXIF data? Dpreview says the lens on a TZ3 goes from 28—280mm. In the EXIF check the focal length. If you're above 140mm, you've exceeded 5x on the Panasonic. The Canon goes from 24—120mm, so if you have a lot of photos above 120mm, I guess you'd need more 'zoom.' That being said, I believe these are "35mm equivalent" focal lengths (based on the images, the Canon is a 5.2–26mm), and the EXIF will probably show actual focal length, not the "35mm equiv." one. In that case, you'll have to do some sensor-based math, I think for the lumix you'd multiply by appx. 6 to get the 35mm equivalent (or divide by 6 to get the actual focal length). For the Canon it's ~4.62. I think. In terms of actual numbers, the Canon is a 5.2—26mm, and the Panasonic is 4.6—46, but they have different-sized sensors (the Canon is bigger). But I'm no expert, and I'm sure someone'll come along and give you a more comprehensive answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 13:48
|
|
|
EXIF data does show zoom (focal length) in mm. Just divide the given focal length by the minimum to get the zoom rating of the specific shot. To be honest, "zoom" means more to the average person when dealing with compacts & superzooms than say focal length because of the different sized sensors, etc. I just wanted to note that if you use something like Lightroom, you can add GPS data later from your phone if you wish. There are probably other programmes capable too of taking a GPX file and merrying them with photos based on timestamps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 14:10
|
|
|
What's my best bet for around $100 for a camera to take detailed photos of small to man-sized objects in an industrial area? Bonus points if it charges while plugged into a PC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:What's my best bet for around $100 for a camera to take detailed photos of small to man-sized objects in an industrial area? Bonus points if it charges while plugged into a PC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
Needs to be retail, work's buying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
Maybehttp://www.amazon.com/Pentax-Adventure-Waterproof-Digital-Wide-Angle/dp/B004MKNJEI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1347405527&sr=8-2&keywords=pentax+optio . It's more than 100, but something rugged like that might be a good idea for an "industrial" area. http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Wat...s=rugged+camera is another option that's a little cheaper. and http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-FinePix-XP20-Orange-Digital/dp/B004JSP8JM/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1347405608&sr=8-14&keywords=rugged+camera for the cheapest option. Either way you look at it 100 bucks is going get anything weather/dust/shock proof at retail price, and any standard point and shoot that's under 100 bucks is probably going to work about as well as anything else in that price range. You get what you pay for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
Zenostein posted:Dpreview says the lens on a TZ3 goes from 28—280mm. In the EXIF check the focal length. If you're above 140mm, you've exceeded 5x on the Panasonic. The Canon goes from 24—120mm, so if you have a lot of photos above 120mm, I guess you'd need more 'zoom.' Thanks for this, it's helped a lot. Apparently I'm zooming in a lot more than I thought I was. On my last holiday, I used the maximum zoom level of the TZ3 in over 30% of the photos I took, and over 60% of the photos had a 35mm equiv. focal length of above 120mm. Of course, that trip included a lot of photos taken from an observation deck in the tallest building in the city, which probably skewed the results a little. Even so, I think I should probably rule out the S100. From the looks of it, the latest successor to the Lumix TZ3 is the TZ30 (or ZS20 in some regions apparently). Has anyone had any experience with this camera? I'm particularly interested in things like battery life (especially with GPS on), and image quality compared to the S100, especially in low light conditions. Or, does anyone have any other suggestions for a camera that might suit my needs? Berkeloid fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Sep 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
Berkeloid posted:Thanks for this, it's helped a lot. It looks like the latest generation of Panasonics is good again. They have best-in-class GPS features, and now that IQ is back up, there's a lot to like. I'd suggest looking not just at the flagship ZS20, but also the lower-spec ZS 15. You lose the touchscreen, and get 16x instead of 20x zoom - but IQ is better and the camera goes for $175 on amazon. Definitely the best deal on superzoom compacts right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
Olympus has announced a new Stylus with a goddamn f/1.8-2.5 lens  E: And from their facebook, RE: Flashes: quote:FL-50R, FL-36R, FL-300R, FL600R are all compatible with XZ-2. 
DJExile fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Sep 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
Canon announced the S-110 which as far as I can tell is exactly the S100 with Wifi and a touchscreen. The lens and sensor are identical. It's kind of bananas how many of these high-end compacts are coming out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Looks like a new G-series (G15) as well. Lens looks better F/1.8-F/2.8 than the G12, but still has the 1/1.7" sensor. Supposedly faster AF and start-up which would be nice. Otherwise not a huge leap forward as far as I can see. Unless you really like the ergonomics of the G-series and don't want to spring for the G1X, seems like this is a place-holder until they can do something more interesting with the line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
I was planning on upgrading my camera this fall but I may wait until either the RX100 gets wifi or the S-series Canon gets a better sensor/lens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
Well hell, I bought my RX100 figuring that more high end P&S on the same level as the RX100 would take a good long time. That'll teach me 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
Hypnolobster posted:Well hell, I bought my RX100 figuring that more high end P&S on the same level as the RX100 would take a good long time. The RX100 is still way ahead in the sensor size department even if some of the other ones have faster lenses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
qirex posted:The RX100 is still way ahead in the sensor size department even if some of the other ones have faster lenses. Definitely, the RX100 has basically a four times larger sensor than the RX100, which is better than having a faster lens just at the telephoto end, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
Hadn't caught it before, but DPReview have posted their in-depth for the RX-100 and are generally pretty favourable. They do mention some limitations regarding depth of field possibilities though, and as that's something that I would definitely want to play with can any of the existing owners here chip in with their experiences in that regard? For some of the shots posted in this thread already it looks pretty good, so was more wondering where these limitations do kick in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
My samples should give you some idea of what can happen, pretty much all of them are wide open for whatever the focal length is: http://jonhustead.smugmug.com/Other/RX100-shots/24468046_kXTCt2#!i=1996273912&k=KjgdMv4 Basically, it'll give you some separation from the background, but not the subject isolation you'd expect from a full size SLR, which is what I think of when you talk about playing with depth of field. I'm sure you're not expecting creamy smooth DSLR with prime bokeh or anything, but I thought it might help if I gave some examples of the RX100 next to full frame DSLR shots at a few focal lengths. 125mm equivalent on the RX100 at f4.9, as wide as it'll go:  The background is blurred a little bit, but you can still make it out, and her face, front to back, is all pretty much in focus. Contrast this to similar focal length on FF, 100mm at f5.6  The far half of her face is already starting to blur, and the background, which is MUUUUCH closer, is more fairly indistinct. Now compare that with the even shallower DOF of an 85mm prime at f2.2:  Just a thin slice of the dudes face is in focus—the tip of his nose and even his eyebrows are out a bit blurry while his right eye is in focus. At the wide end on the RX100, 28mm equiv at f1.8, you can get a little more, but you really have to get up in whatever you're shooting's grill:  And this example has a bit of motion blur, but it's another example of the kind of DOF you can get at the wide end:  I couldn't find anything in my already uploaded photos that was around 28mm at 1.8, so here are two just a little narrower and one a good bit wider: 35mm f2  20mm at f4  So there you go. I think it's a fantastic camera and it's the first compact camera I've ever been happy with as a companion to my full size camera. Whether the DOF is shallow enough for you will really depend on what you want to do with it. I think DPReview had a chart of DOF equivalents at various focal lengths for small sensor cameras somewhere that included the RX100 and most of the other higher end compacts. That'll make it a bit easier to cross shop as it can be hard to think about how sensor size and focal length affect the final DOF when there are so many different combination in this class of camera.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Yeah, that's going to be an issue with just about any compact camera, but the sensor size on the RX100 probably makes it better than most at achieving a shallow DOF.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
I have a baby on the way and want to get a new P&S to take baby pictures, videos (1080/60p), and pictures of my dog. My current camera is a Konica Minolta Dimage X50 so basically everything on the market is a massive upgrade. I was planning to spend around $300-$400, but might be able to talk myself into getting the RX100 if it really is that much better (I saw that Bob Socko was not satisfied with it for taking pictures of his toddler). Mainly I want something that fits in my pocket and that I can quickly take out when I see my baby or dog doing something awesome. I don't care about GPS and have extremely limited experience using manual settings outside of MF (although I'm not opposed to learning to use them). Should I just get the S100 or does anyone have other suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Someone should make a 1/1.7" sensor camera with a huge f/0.5 lens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
Papercut posted:(I saw that Bob Socko was not satisfied with it for taking pictures of his toddler). Bob Socko was comparing the autofocus speed to DSLRs and Olympus m4/3 cameras, I believe. I would be surprised if the RX100 didn't autofocus at least as well as an S100.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
powderific posted:So there you go. I think it's a fantastic camera and it's the first compact camera I've ever been happy with as a companion to my full size camera. Whether the DOF is shallow enough for you will really depend on what you want to do with it. I think DPReview had a chart of DOF equivalents at various focal lengths for small sensor cameras somewhere that included the RX100 and most of the other higher end compacts. That'll make it a bit easier to cross shop as it can be hard to think about how sensor size and focal length affect the final DOF when there are so many different combination in this class of camera. Thanks powderific, that was an extremely useful and helpful response that definitely answers my query. Whilst I don't need really really shallow stuff, I guess I was really hoping for subject isolation but I'll take separation - didn't really consider that distinction before, but your example pics clarify the difference well. A full-size is not an option for me right now since I intend to travel with it (one bag travel) rather than just use it on weekend trips or vacation type scenarios, but I also want more than just a "here is a nice landscape" type camera. Oh and I want to use it underwater too. Yeah, I don't ask for much eh, but the RX-100 ticks so many boxes that I can't help but be convinced it's the way to go now - I'm realistic about what to expect from a compact vs a full-size and this one seems to go above and beyond what I can expect from similar devices in the same class.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 10:43
|
|
|
Costello Jello posted:Bob Socko was comparing the autofocus speed to DSLRs and Olympus m4/3 cameras, I believe. I would be surprised if the RX100 didn't autofocus at least as well as an S100.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:08
|
|
|
Glad I could help. I don't think there's anything else out now in the same size range that has similar quality. You might want to check out a couple mirrorless system cameras just in case you can deal with the extra size though, they have much more potential for shallow depth of field and are still relatively compact. Not compact enough for my needs, and maybe not for yours if you're one bag traveling, but I'd at least handle one in a store to see how it feels. I really don't think you could go wrong with the RX100 if you like what you see and now have a good idea of what you can expect as far as DOF though. I sold off my mirrorless system camera for it and am very glad I did—the size/quality combo is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
So my girlfriend lost her Canon S95 I got her last year (I wish these things had find-my-iPhone style GPS), and I noticed that S90s can be had off eBay for $150 if I'm patient enough. Would it be a noticeable downgrade? She primarily uses the camera for school. She takes pictures of projects in-progress to share with her teacher, finished projects to put into her portfolio. Sometimes she can't get a full set of lights setup to get a perfect picture, sometimes she's got an hour to build a light box. After using an old Casio Exilim, and various phone cameras, the Canon S95 matched all her needs fantastically. The S95 seems to be at about $200 on eBay, which we can do if we have to. Not super interested in the S100 and S110 right now. Both are a little too expensive, and while wifi on a camera seems fantastic, I'm wary of a touch screen. I think we're going to stick with the Canon Powershot S line like the thread recommends, she's borrowing a cheapo Samsung right now, and really noticing the differences. She doesn't want to upgrade to SLR or anything because she loves the size and portability of a point and shoot, and losing a $200 camera is a mild frustration, I can't imagine the nightmare of losing a $400+ camera. Chainclaw fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Sep 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
There aren't a huge number of differences. Same sensor, same glass, S95 has better IS, control layout was changed up for the S95 (broadly hailed as good changes), stereo audio, better video. Unless she's all "I WANT AN S95", she'll be fine with an S90.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:There aren't a huge number of differences. Same sensor, same glass, S95 has better IS, control layout was changed up for the S95 (broadly hailed as good changes), stereo audio, better video. Thanks for the info, but of course after I bid on a few eBay auctions (and luckily lose them), the S95 was found. On the whole point and shoot subject, are there any reviews of the S110 yet? I like the concept of built in wifi, but I can't imagine a touch screen being great for a camera.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
Jesus, I'm sort of stunned at how good the RX100 video looks, but more importantly, how good the mics can be. I recorded some friends giving a little impromptu concert in the barn, recently, and it sounds fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:Jesus, I'm sort of stunned at how good the RX100 video looks, but more importantly, how good the mics can be. I recorded some friends giving a little impromptu concert in the barn, recently, and it sounds fantastic. Do you mean the internal mics or did you somehow attach external ones?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 11:19
|
|
|
EvilRic posted:Do you mean the internal mics or did you somehow attach external ones? Internal. No external, of course. Regrettably. They won't be great for distance or separating your subject from a noisy background, but if you're close up the sound is really pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 12:56
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:Internal. No external, of course. Regrettably. They won't be great for distance or separating your subject from a noisy background, but if you're close up the sound is really pretty great. That's cool. I was sort of hoping you'd say internal as that means I can give it a go at the next acoustic gig my friends do, without having to buy any accessories
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 13:02
|
|
|
EvilRic posted:That's cool. I was sort of hoping you'd say internal as that means I can give it a go at the next acoustic gig my friends do, without having to buy any accessories Yeah - of note, the RX100 does record in stereo, so be careful not to cover up one of the holes on top (it's easy to do and I did it a couple of times). I'd recommend getting as close as you can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
Sorry to revive an older thread, but-- Thinking of getting a new(er) P&S for my wife so she doesn't have to rely on my increasingly gimpy A570. Canon's selling refurbed SD4000s for a decent price, and it looks like the specifications are about right for casual, largely indoor domestic photographing by someone who isn't a camera enthusiast. I have two reservations, though, that maybe someone who's gone hands-on with one could answer: First, would the controls be pretty easy for someone who mostly adjusts things like flash and macro rather than exposure and WB settings? Second, the pictures on DPreview make it look less comfortable and steady to hold than the chunkier, grippier A570--does it fit well in hand?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
So the RX100 mics are pretty good... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TXIGT2T_i0
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 12:55
|
|
|
My birthday is on Wednesday, and my dad got me a Kodak Easy Share Z5010. Now I have FOUR cameras: Canon 450D, Canon S3iS, and Nikon FE. I love my 450D and FE, but is there a better/worse between the Kodak and Canon megazooms? I mentioned that I've been "getting in to photography", which obviously means I need another camera. I guess. I suppose getting this for my birthday is far better than previous years of getting decorative squash, too-small bracelets, and creepy stuffed sleeping puppies that look like dead cats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
I'm after a cheap P&S that isn't too bad, the canon S series sound good. I've found the following two options from within Australia. S95 without warranty, used $210 AU http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Canon-PowerShot-S95-Black-16GB-Memory-card-/160910814485?pt=AU_Digital_Cameras&hash=item2577082d15#shId S100 with 1 year warranty, new - $308 AU http://www.kogan.com/au/buy/canon-powershot-s100/ I originally had a budget of around 200 (I guess) to work with, but does the S100 sound like a good deal? e: Probably going to go with the S95, buying used makes me nervy though. e2: Bought the S95. Dude Sweet fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Oct 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 06:28
|
|