|
Chernori posted:Out of curiosity, will an RX100 have a more depth of field than a DSLR at the same f-stop? So, if I'm on f2 on an RX100, it would be more like f8 on a DSLR? I think it's somewhere around f/5.6-6.3, give or take.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
Re: RX100 and general compact camera DOF control Taken from this Zeiss doc: http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b8b6f/embedtitelintern/cln_35_bokeh_en/%5C$file/cln35_bokeh_en.pdf Although the relationship ratio is easy to figure in your head if you know the format size precisely. But basically the 'depth of field' blur of the RX100 will look like f5.6-f16 on a full frame or f4-f11 on APS. Basically not any different than a cheapo kit lens on a DSLR but thats always been the case if not 'worse'. Shaocaholica fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
Regarding the earlier P&S + book + beginner dude discussion, I just bought an S110 based on a brief skimming of this thread a little over a week ago. My earlier camera was a PowerShot A80, a nice little 4MP camera that served me well for almost a decade before it started taking pictures that looked like an old color TV set with a jacked vertical hold. It had manual settings, aperture and shutter priorities, which I would often mess around with just to see what they did, sometimes with a smidgen of understanding, most often not. I loved the thing. It was fun and it took decent enough images. When it stopped working (about 2010), I bought a ~$100 Pentax, more or less expecting equal-to-better performance, given that untold generations of digital cameras had passed. It's terrible, and it's only made me feel terrible. Finally, I could justify buying a new camera, and I got one. This S110 is like something from another planet. It's awesome as hell. I do miss having a viewfinder. And maybe a little bit bigger body to put my hands around. The flash wants to pop up right where I like to put my finger, and the lens ring is almost too narrow to grip. But the improvements are astounding. This week, I went to a local used bookstore and bought a book on photography basics, a full-color, optimistically written thing that assumes no prior knowledge. Now, I may just look at the purty pictures therein, I may learn a thing or two, I may learn to take slightly better pictures for a dabbler, and then forget most of what I learned and take the same idiot snapshots everyone else does. But the point is that, in the end, I'm fairly sure this camera is decent enough to give me a peek into what's possible with the hobby, if I ever decide to get a bit serious. And if not, I still have a very smart camera that a brain-dead ape could take good pictures with, a wallet with some money still in it, and a pretty nice-looking book. Thanks for the recommendation, thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 09:55
|
|
|
The news of the Casio EX-100 got me interested so I mocked this up: http://akihabaranews.com/2014/02/06/article-en/casio-ex-100-f28-107x-optical-zoom-exilim-flagship-model-1309277432 I know lens fidelity affects depth more than camera body size but that was just too much effort. My comparison doesn't show everything especially depth but I think its a good starting point as I see a constant f-stop with 300mm on the long end pretty pratical. Just not sure on Casio's UI. I'm a big stickler for UI. I like no nonsense functional UI thats aggressively responsive and no loving animations or elaborate pictograms and poo poo. Shaocaholica fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
grack posted:You will get a higher DOF due to the smaller sensor, I don't think it's quite that extreme. Wow, this website is really cool. Thanks! An RX100 (with the lens' 10.4mm focal length) should have a depth of field of 19ft at f2, if focused on a subject 10 feet away. A Canon Digital Rebel (with the kit lens' 18mm focal length) has to be around f3.4 to get the same depth of field at the same distance. I didn't realize how little I actually understood about how lenses and cameras worked. I kind of feel like I'm going down the rabbit hole now.  edit -- I hope I actually used that website properly... belated 2nd edit -- thanks for all the information! Chernori fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Feb 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Technical detail is great, but really worry about this stuff after you have a camera to tinker around （or unless you really like to delve into this territory). Unless you prefocus and take
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
caberham posted:Technical detail is great, but really worry about this stuff after you have a camera to tinker around （or unless you really like to delve into this territory). Unless you prefocus and take Yeah, I know what you mean. It will be a long time before that level of expertise influences my photos. Then again, it's probably good for me to know things like a wide lens pushes things apart, while a telephoto lens draws things together. I honestly had no idea that zooming in could change the relationship/proportion of things in your photo (and now I understand why people's faces look a bit weird when I'm close to them with my TG-1...). I have another question actually: I know that being able to shoot in RAW is a big feature of the enthusiast P&S cameras, but is it worth shooting in RAW if you generally don't do any post processing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
If you don't do ANY post processing then don't shoot RAW, you won't be able to upload the files to most places.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
But two years down the road when you have begun processing your photos you'll kick yourself for not shooting raw. I have 500 JPEGs from a once in a lifetime family trip to Africa that are OK but will never be great. Because I thought "naah, this G9 takes great photos and I don't even know how to process RAW files". 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
It's ok brah. It's just a G.... ....can't wait for android/iphone(please) raw support.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:It's ok brah. It's just a G.... I have trouble believing that would ever happen purely because the first thing anyone does after they take a picture is to upload it to Instagram or whatever. To add RAW even as an option would only serve to confuse the poo poo out of 99% of people who use cameraphones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Geektox posted:I have trouble believing that would ever happen purely because the first thing anyone does after they take a picture is to upload it to Instagram or whatever. To add RAW even as an option would only serve to confuse the poo poo out of 99% of people who use cameraphones. I'm pretty sure android/iphone raw would: 1)not be on by default 2)hard to turn on by accident 3)viewable by the native photo app 4)camera roll API for 3rd party apps will have on the fly decode so 3rd party apps will just see virtual 'jpgs' if they aren't specifically looking for raws 5)related to the above, if something like FB looks in your camera roll, it will just see virtual jpegs via the API and when it uploads the file an appropriate jpg is made 6)or perhaps you just get jpeg+raw and never raw only. I really don't see the negatives of raw being a huge 'issue' for people who don't want it. Just like how video isn't an issue for people who just want stills.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Mathturbator posted:But two years down the road when you have begun processing your photos you'll kick yourself for not shooting raw. Is post processing the RAW files really that important? I sort of think of post processing as a way to perfect an already great photo: I wouldn't think that it would turn an ok photo to a great one. Can it really improve a photo that much?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
Chernori posted:Is post processing the RAW files really that important? I sort of think of post processing as a way to perfect an already great photo: I wouldn't think that it would turn an ok photo to a great one. Can it really improve a photo that much? When you take a picture at a certain angle can use a wider lens or over/under expose, use a color filter then it's already a form of post processing in essence. Post processing is a huge step. It can definitely turn a bad photo into a decent one. But the time and effort to salvage a photo requires a lot of work. Almost all magazine, studio or commercial work go through some sort of post processing. The question is, is it "natural" or does it look good? It is another step but it really is a personal preference. I don't think it should be easily dismissed and its traits should be recognized. Don't be krock
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
Chernori posted:Is post processing the RAW files really that important? I sort of think of post processing as a way to perfect an already great photo: I wouldn't think that it would turn an ok photo to a great one. Can it really improve a photo that much? (Not to open up that can of worms but no, I don't think you can rescue a lovely image in post)
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Not for nothing but does the iPhone have the juice to clean up RAW files without slowing the phone down to a crawl and basically destroying the already mediocre battery in the process? Or is this more just a "shoot RAW, then clean them up later on the computer" thing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Not for nothing but does the iPhone have the juice to clean up RAW files without slowing the phone down to a crawl and basically destroying the already mediocre battery in the process? I would say yes to processing power and yes to tweaking in phone and off phone. There are already apps to tweak raw files for mobile devices. Their performance might be an indicator. Also, none of these concerns has stopped the market before. We live in a time of 'code now, deal with repercussions later'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Re: Cellphone RAWs Relevent, posted today: http://connect.dpreview.com/post/6430831685/shooting-raw-with-the-nokia-lumia-1020
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Re: Cellphone RAWs I'll be damned, those aren't bad. Editing a cell phone picture that far is a bit more than I'd want to do but I guess if you really want to do it, go nuts. I'd imagine sensors will improve more and more in the next few years though and make it a more viable option.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
I'm a terrible awful newbie but I want to take photography a little more seriously, and so I'm looking for a decent point & shoot. The Pentax MX-1 sounds like everything I want from a camera, both in terms of picture quality and build, but everywhere I read about it, people are complaining about the slow RAW file write speeds. Do any of you have experience with this, and if yes, how bad is bad? I don't have much experience with RAW but I do have access to photo editing software through work (  ) and would rather buy a camera I can grow into and learn from, rather than a glorified version of my dinky old PowerShot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
bathroom sounds posted:...and would rather buy a camera I can grow into and learn from, rather than a glorified version of my dinky old PowerShot. I don't see how the MX-1 is any better than the current selection of 'glorified' PowerShots like the S110/S120. Are you going for the MX-1 because of price? I see it at ~$200.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
From the MX-1 DP review, for others to be able to comment:quote:Though it relies a lot on its retro looks to help sell itself, at its core the Pentax MX-1 has a good quality lens and sensor that combine to produce great results. Startup is reasonably fast, taking about two seconds, but shutdown could be a bit quicker, sometimes taking three seconds before you can stow the camera again. Continuous speed is only one frame per second, not a surprise in this product category; however, burst mode high can capture about 10 Fine JPEG shots in around 2 seconds. Reducing compression to normal does nothing to change how many frames are captured, nor does changing the output resolution. During our testing we (as usual) shot primarily in Raw+JPEG mode, and didn't like how the camera frequently locked us out of menus while waiting for data to save to the card. Even with our fastest card, a SanDisk Extreme Pro rated at 95MB/s, the camera took three seconds to save a single Raw and JPEG pair before returning the camera's systems to our control, and that includes being able to take another shot. I've been having a ball with my new S110 and I was able to get that for $150 so glorified powershots are worth considering. The DP review of the MX-1 does seem to be net positive, but it seems worth noting to that MX-1 was Pentax's first foray into this kind of camera where another player, like Canon, has a legacy which runs at least 5 generations deep. If you can get it from somewhere that has a decent return policy, it seems like it would be worth a try- the image quality seems to be pretty good for its class, and you can see if the operation is too slow for your tastes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:I don't see how the MX-1 is any better than the current selection of 'glorified' PowerShots like the S110/S120. Are you going for the MX-1 because of price? I see it at ~$200.   ... Not one of the new ones. e. Also it sounds sturdy and heavy in the hand, which I prefer. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Buy a Canon S100 from KEH for $200. Seriously. It's a completely different beast from your old powershot. It's even "sturdy and heavy in the hand." Edit: and you'll grow more as a photographer by having a camera as easily pocketable as the S100. I carried my S90 literally everywhere I went for four years with no regrets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Well if you're going to go used you can get a S110 for $200 on amazon marketplace.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
OTOH the mx-1 has a brass top plate. Brassing!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:OTOH the mx-1 has a brass top plate. I really want it
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
bathroom sounds posted:I really want it Go for it then and let us know how it is. I mean $200 isn't all that much of a gamble is it? Do you have a local camera store you can play with one or one of the competitors?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
The mx-1 is a solid camera, and there's a lot to be said for getting a camera you want even if it's not the best. Doesn't do you much good unless it's something you want to take out and use, you know? e. The fuji xf-1 is also worth looking at, it's the mx-1's main competitor for style/performance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
File write speed is in no way related to skill, so your photos will still suck  If you already have a camera in mind then just go for it. If it sucks you can tell us about it! The Canon S-series gets touted all the time because people always like to ask the question "HEY GUYS WHAT CAMERA SHOULD I GET???"
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
S series is only good buy in the holiday season. Every year there is a window Canon will unleash the remaining stock of the discontinued version for cheap. If you check slickdeals, all major online sites has s110 for 220 around the time after Thanksgiving. Canon did that with S100 in holiday season of 2012 too. This is something you can count on and the window to buy is pretty long. All that the crazy 160 deals were from Adorama and they sold out very very quickly. IMO if you can not get a S camera in that time, or in that price range its not the best deal. S series are too famous and they depreciate too slowly on the used market. Its not a good deal to buy new/used in other time of the year. The Fuji XF1, XQ1 or Pentax MX1 pretty much have the same spec and they depreciate much faster. They are a better option if you are cheap rear end student. Of course the problem is the best performance to price model change every year. Pentax may not even make a follow up of the MX1 next year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Aside from the physical construction and 'specs'. One of the biggest factors for me is the user interface. Too many times have I been temped by a camera that looked great in pictures and had good or great specs but had an atrocious UI making me not actually like using it. I feel like a lot of people today have an attitude of 'there's no better UI than the one I'm used to so I might as well suck it up'. That goes for everything, not specifically cameras.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:The Fuji XF1, XQ1 or Pentax MX1 pretty much have the same spec and they depreciate much faster. They are a better option if you are cheap rear end student. Of course the problem is the best performance to price model change every year. Pentax may not even make a follow up of the MX1 next year. I am looking at cameras like these because I don't have much to spend and I wanted something that wouldn't be as difficult as my iPhone when I'm not in bright sunlight. Is there anything specific in the camera specifications to compare? I'm kind of leaning towards the XF1 because it's a bit cheaper than some of the comparable things, the Pentax looks like it has more physical controls but I think it would be too big to easily carry in my pocket. Also, is there anything to look out for if I was buying a digital camera used? Amazon has loads of used XF1's that it says are in very good condition for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Chernori posted:Yeah, P&Ss have changed a lot in the past decade, especially with the new "enthusiast" ones coming out. I'm so excited to get an RX100 and be able to take exposures longer than half a second! Dof was my major concern when I bought my RX100 but I needn't have worried, you do get a bit less control over it with a DSLR but it's still pretty great especially when shooting wide open:  On a semi related note, a fun discovery I made this week is if you jam your RX100 up against the eyepiece of a microscope then zoom in until the image fills the entire frame you can make some very pretty pictures/videos of microscopic critters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVqh4SNRodg
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
The RX100 DOF equivalent is something like f4.9 on the wide end and f13.4 on the long end according to dpreview. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100 It's the kind of thing you can calculate but I'm too lazy to look up how.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Fortuitous Bumble posted:I am looking at cameras like these because I don't have much to spend and I wanted something that wouldn't be as difficult as my iPhone when I'm not in bright sunlight. Is there anything specific in the camera specifications to compare? I'm kind of leaning towards the XF1 because it's a bit cheaper than some of the comparable things, the Pentax looks like it has more physical controls but I think it would be too big to easily carry in my pocket. Sensor size decide low light performance. S110 120, XF1, XQ1, ME1 all have 1/1.7" - 2/3" sensor, so they all will have very similar low light performance. The RX100 has a 1" sensor, its about 220% larger area, so the low light performance is about 1 stop better. 1 stop difference is what I would call "noticeable to some people but not very obvious."
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
powderific posted:It's the kind of thing you can calculate but I'm too lazy to look up how. Its linearly proportional to the sensor size difference more or less. Just look at this chart I posted earlier: A good general rule is: if the imager is say 2x smaller than 135(FF) then you subtract 2 stops to get the DOF equivalent. 3x, 3 stops. Instead of using diagonals I just use horizontal sensor dimension. Less math that way. I did a lot of this when I was playing with MF and LF since those lens' f-numbers were always going the other way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
Off topic for the P&S thread but I just switched from a 2.8 17-50 on a crop camera to a 24-105 f/4 on a full frame. I was kinda bummed that I was going from 2.8 to a 4, however it seems like I'm losing nothing dof wise and gaining a bit of range (not to mention better IQ from The L lens). That makes me happy and not worried about buying a 24-70 2.8 just yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
I finally got my RX100! It's so much better in low light compared to my TG1. It's really an amazing difference, especially when it comes to colour reproduction. I'm afraid of accidentally smashing the new camera though: all the little doors guarding the ports and the flash seem extremely flimsy. I've been keeping my TG1 in my pants pocket, clipped to my belt loop, but I don't know if the RX100 would stand up to that kind of treatment. I'm worried about bumping into a table and crushing it. Am I being overly paranoid?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
Chernori posted:I finally got my RX100! The TG-1 is built like a brick shithouse but high end P&S cameras like the RX100 and others aren't exactly flimsy. If you're really worried about it you could always get a really basic padded case with a belt loop. I've had an Oly XZ-1 for a while and its taken a few bumps in my pocket without an issue. Yeah, the door's a bit flimsier than the TG-1 doors, but it 'locks' pretty securely and flush to the body so it's not really a concern. I definitely get being worried about busting it, the RX100 is a really nice (and expensive) camera, but a few bumps aren't going to harm the thing. Keep it in a pouch or pocket, and make sure you're using the wrist strap when you shoot with it, and you'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 13:27
|
|