The Obituary Page
- kurtster - Apr 18, 2024 - 10:45pm
Ask an Atheist
- kurtster - Apr 18, 2024 - 10:38pm
TV shows you watch
- kcar - Apr 18, 2024 - 9:13pm
Israel
- R_P - Apr 18, 2024 - 8:25pm
Live Music
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 3:24pm
What Makes You Laugh?
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:49pm
Trump
- rgio - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:46pm
Remembering the Good Old Days
- miamizsun - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:28pm
NY Times Strands
- geoff_morphini - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:20pm
Robots
- miamizsun - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:18pm
Wordle - daily game
- geoff_morphini - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:15pm
NYTimes Connections
- geoff_morphini - Apr 18, 2024 - 10:42am
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 10:22am
Radio Paradise Comments
- GeneP59 - Apr 18, 2024 - 7:58am
Museum Of Bad Album Covers
- Steve - Apr 18, 2024 - 6:58am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Apr 18, 2024 - 6:39am
April 2024 Photo Theme - Happenstance
- haresfur - Apr 17, 2024 - 7:04pm
Europe
- haresfur - Apr 17, 2024 - 6:47pm
Country Up The Bumpkin
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 17, 2024 - 5:23pm
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - Apr 17, 2024 - 3:27pm
What's that smell?
- Isabeau - Apr 17, 2024 - 2:50pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:48pm
Business as Usual
- black321 - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:48pm
Things that make you go Hmmmm.....
- dischuckin - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:29pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:26pm
Russia
- R_P - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:14pm
Science in the News
- Red_Dragon - Apr 17, 2024 - 11:14am
Magic Eye optical Illusions
- Proclivities - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:08am
Ukraine
- kurtster - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:05am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Alchemist - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:38am
Just for the Haiku of it. . .
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:01am
HALF A WORLD
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:52am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Apr 16, 2024 - 9:08pm
Little known information... maybe even facts
- R_P - Apr 16, 2024 - 3:29pm
songs that ROCK!
- thisbody - Apr 16, 2024 - 10:56am
260,000 Posts in one thread?
- oldviolin - Apr 16, 2024 - 10:10am
WTF??!!
- rgio - Apr 16, 2024 - 5:23am
Australia has Disappeared
- haresfur - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:58am
Earthquake
- miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:46am
It's the economy stupid.
- miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:28am
Republican Party
- Isabeau - Apr 15, 2024 - 12:12pm
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - Apr 14, 2024 - 11:59am
Eclectic Sound-Drops
- thisbody - Apr 14, 2024 - 11:27am
Synchronization
- ReggieDXB - Apr 13, 2024 - 11:40pm
Other Medical Stuff
- geoff_morphini - Apr 13, 2024 - 7:54am
What Did You See Today?
- Steely_D - Apr 13, 2024 - 6:42am
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes.
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 12, 2024 - 3:50pm
Things You Thought Today
- Red_Dragon - Apr 12, 2024 - 3:05pm
Poetry Forum
- oldviolin - Apr 12, 2024 - 8:45am
Dear Bill
- oldviolin - Apr 12, 2024 - 8:16am
Radio Paradise in Foobar2000
- gvajda - Apr 11, 2024 - 6:53pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- ColdMiser - Apr 11, 2024 - 8:29am
Joe Biden
- black321 - Apr 11, 2024 - 7:43am
New Song Submissions system
- MayBaby - Apr 11, 2024 - 6:29am
No TuneIn Stream Lately
- kurtster - Apr 10, 2024 - 6:26pm
Caching to Apple watch quit working
- email-muri.0z - Apr 10, 2024 - 6:25pm
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse
- Alchemist - Apr 10, 2024 - 10:52am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- orrinc - Apr 10, 2024 - 10:48am
NPR Listeners: Is There Liberal Bias In Its Reporting?
- black321 - Apr 9, 2024 - 2:11pm
Sonos
- rnstory - Apr 9, 2024 - 10:43am
RP Windows Desktop Notification Applet
- gvajda - Apr 9, 2024 - 9:55am
If not RP, what are you listening to right now?
- kurtster - Apr 8, 2024 - 10:34am
And the good news is....
- thisbody - Apr 8, 2024 - 3:57am
How do I get songs into My Favorites
- Huey - Apr 7, 2024 - 11:29pm
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously
- R_P - Apr 7, 2024 - 5:14pm
Lyrics that strike a chord today...
- Isabeau - Apr 7, 2024 - 12:50pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - Apr 7, 2024 - 11:18am
Why is Mellow mix192kbps?
- dean2.athome - Apr 7, 2024 - 1:11am
Musky Mythology
- haresfur - Apr 6, 2024 - 7:11pm
China
- R_P - Apr 6, 2024 - 11:19am
Artificial Intelligence
- R_P - Apr 5, 2024 - 12:45pm
Vega4 - Bullets
- nirgivon - Apr 5, 2024 - 11:50am
Environment
- thisbody - Apr 5, 2024 - 9:37am
How's the weather?
- geoff_morphini - Apr 5, 2024 - 8:37am
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands)
- Babylon - Apr 5, 2024 - 8:37am
|
Index »
Internet/Computer »
Streaming/Media »
Digital Camera question
|
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24 Next |
Alexandra
Location: PNW Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 20, 2016 - 9:15am |
|
miamizsun wrote:stay safe and take/go with a friend No friends answered the call....I'll be ok. Thanks! (A boyscout troop would be even better)
|
|
miamizsun
Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP) Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 20, 2016 - 9:10am |
|
Alexandra wrote:I didn't want to put this in the prayers/good vibes thread (which seems more suitable for people-issues). Please wish me lots of luck in finding my digital camera which dropped out of my pocket on a hike yesterday. I decided it was worth going all the way back out in the Gorge to find (I wasn't given enough time to find it yesterday, since it was a group hike and they had to move on and I carpooled with people)—-because know the approximate area it happened, and feel if I do a lawnmower sweep I have a good chance. I will also notify the ranger in case of any turn-ins (although this particular area is a new park and not heavily traveled). So...any good vibes are much appreciated. Wish I knew a good boyscout troop willing to do a good deed and earn some badges. stay safe and take/go with a friend
|
|
Alexandra
Location: PNW Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 20, 2016 - 8:29am |
|
I didn't want to put this in the prayers/good vibes thread (which seems more suitable for people-issues). Please wish me lots of luck in finding my digital camera which dropped out of my pocket on a hike yesterday. I decided it was worth going all the way back out in the Gorge to find (I wasn't given enough time to find it yesterday, since it was a group hike and they had to move on and I carpooled with people)—-because know the approximate area it happened, and feel if I do a lawnmower sweep I have a good chance. I will also notify the ranger in case of any turn-ins (although this particular area is a new park and not heavily traveled). So...any good vibes are much appreciated. Wish I knew a good boyscout troop willing to do a good deed and earn some badges.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2015 - 6:33pm |
|
haresfur wrote: I ended up buying a Canon Powershot SX60, Wow. 65x optical, $500. That's pretty amazing.
|
|
haresfur
Location: The Golden Triangle Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 22, 2015 - 4:58pm |
|
buzz wrote: Look for a camera that does Raw+JPEG. My Canon G15 does both as did the G9 before it. Learning Raw is not a terribly difficult thing if you have an interest. It is simply a series of steps most reasonably intelligent people could learn if they are willing to spend the time. I suppose it depends on how much improving your photography skills means to you.
I ended up buying a Canon Powershot SX60, although I realise it doesn't have as big a sensor as the grown-up cameras. It does shoot raw+jpeg. I think it is going to be good for me and I can always get something different if I really get to the point where the picture quality is the limiting factor instead of my skill level. The picture in the other thread was taken at maximum optical zoom handheld so I'm sold on image stabilisation. Lots of options to learn but lots that seem basically useless to me. And a few that would be nice to have but are missing. The geekiest is controlling the camera from my cell phone. Still can't get it to talk to the computer over wifi though.
|
|
buzz
Location: up the boohai
|
Posted:
Mar 30, 2015 - 8:26pm |
|
swell_sailor wrote:I've been shooting raw since 2001 and agree that to get the most out of your photos you should be shooting in raw. However, developing a raw file is not something learned overnight. Some people find they really don't have the time and are plenty happy with a jpeg. You might want to get your hands on some raw files and run them through your raw converter to see if it's something you really want to do. If your converter can batch convert based on in camera settings you can always convert to jpeg in batches while at the same time learning the craft one raw file at a time. Look for a camera that does Raw+JPEG. My Canon G15 does both as did the G9 before it. Learning Raw is not a terribly difficult thing if you have an interest. It is simply a series of steps most reasonably intelligent people could learn if they are willing to spend the time. I suppose it depends on how much improving your photography skills means to you.
|
|
swell_sailor
Location: The Gorge Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 30, 2015 - 6:52pm |
|
haresfur wrote: I was afraid you were going to say that. Seems it wouldn't have cost them any more to save raw files.
I realize that the lens gets slow, and probably the extreme of the zoom would be best avoided for artsy shots. The last time I owned a telephoto, it was a 135 mm on an all manual Minolta. Think I had a 2x converter for it - talk about slow. Frankly I'm amazed at how much camera you can get these days. One of the reasons I've stuck with my pocket camera is that I figure the camera I take with me gets better pictures than one I leave at home (helps that it is waterproof). PhotographyBlog seems to prefer the Canon Powershot SX 60 but it is nearly twice as expensive here.
I've been shooting raw since 2001 and agree that to get the most out of your photos you should be shooting in raw. However, developing a raw file is not something learned overnight. Some people find they really don't have the time and are plenty happy with a jpeg. You might want to get your hands on some raw files and run them through your raw converter to see if it's something you really want to do. If your converter can batch convert based on in camera settings you can always convert to jpeg in batches while at the same time learning the craft one raw file at a time.
|
|
haresfur
Location: The Golden Triangle Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 28, 2015 - 5:15pm |
|
buzz wrote: haresfur wrote: I've been thinking about a new camera and have found one that I think may work for me, at a price I'm comfortable with - an Olympus Stylus SP-100EE. I'd like to be able to get better quality photos, particularly nature stuff. Obviously there are trade-offs but the main thing that concerns me is that it doesn't save raw format files. How important do you think that is for getting the most out of your shots? Any other opinions on these superzoom cameras? Too many compromises in the lens? Thanks.
i cant comment on the camera model you mentioned, but if you are serious about image quality, you must shoot raw. I would also be careful about superzooms. they will be very slow at the long end and probably a little soft. When I get home I will look at the model you mentioned. I was afraid you were going to say that. Seems it wouldn't have cost them any more to save raw files. I realize that the lens gets slow, and probably the extreme of the zoom would be best avoided for artsy shots. The last time I owned a telephoto, it was a 135 mm on an all manual Minolta. Think I had a 2x converter for it - talk about slow. Frankly I'm amazed at how much camera you can get these days. One of the reasons I've stuck with my pocket camera is that I figure the camera I take with me gets better pictures than one I leave at home (helps that it is waterproof). PhotographyBlog seems to prefer the Canon Powershot SX 60 but it is nearly twice as expensive here.
|
|
buzz
Location: up the boohai
|
Posted:
Mar 28, 2015 - 3:37pm |
|
haresfur wrote: I've been thinking about a new camera and have found one that I think may work for me, at a price I'm comfortable with - an Olympus Stylus SP-100EE. I'd like to be able to get better quality photos, particularly nature stuff. Obviously there are trade-offs but the main thing that concerns me is that it doesn't save raw format files. How important do you think that is for getting the most out of your shots? Any other opinions on these superzoom cameras? Too many compromises in the lens? Thanks.
i cant comment on the camera model you mentioned, but if you are serious about image quality, you must shoot raw. I would also be careful about superzooms. they will be very slow at the long end and probably a little soft. When I get home I will look at the model you mentioned.
|
|
haresfur
Location: The Golden Triangle Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 28, 2015 - 2:33pm |
|
I've been thinking about a new camera and have found one that I think may work for me, at a price I'm comfortable with - an Olympus Stylus SP-100EE. I'd like to be able to get better quality photos, particularly nature stuff. Obviously there are trade-offs but the main thing that concerns me is that it doesn't save raw format files. How important do you think that is for getting the most out of your shots? Any other opinions on these superzoom cameras? Too many compromises in the lens? Thanks.
|
|
swell_sailor
Location: The Gorge Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 7, 2012 - 10:23am |
|
mzpro5 wrote: Well, you know, I don't want to talk you out of an SLR if that's the direction you want to go. And of course, there's more to it than what I can cover in a paragraph or two. But I really do believe that if you don't take it further than the kit lens, there are lots of better options, some for much less money, like the Coolpix you mention above. I'll check it out. Edit: We all want something different in a camera. This camera looks nice enough, but there are a few things that might make me hesitate to buy it. The lens is pretty bright at the wide end, and not so bright at the long end. That will force longer exposures when fully zoomed, which might equate to poor quality images except on a bright sunny day. The zoom (26x) is far more than I can imagine needing, especially when it's common for optical quality to suffer when we stretch technology to such a degree and put it into a rather inexpensive package. Less might be more in this case. In other words, a $200 camera with a 4x or 8x lens might actually deliver better images throughout it's zoom range than this 26x camera through the same zoom range. Also, while it's not a requirement for me, many people love an articulating LCD, which this camera does not have. Maybe you don't need one either. Some things to consider. And to correct what I was saying earlier about buzz, I think he's using the G15 now. I think I said he was using a G12.
|
|
mzpro5
Location: Budda'spet, Hungry Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 7, 2012 - 10:00am |
|
swell_sailor wrote: There are at least a couple of advantages to an SLR over a compact (point and shoot) camera. One is that they typically use a larger sensor, which can lead to smoother looking images, but this may be less true with modern sensors. The other is lens options. If you want to swap between several high quality lenses, you want a camera that takes interchangeable lenses. But there are lots of disadvantages too, which is why (I suspect) a guy like buzz who can shoot with whatever he likes, chooses to shoot (for fun) with a Canon G12 instead of an SLR. Smaller cameras with a permanently attached lens travel better. They're easier to have with you at all times, which is how you get good pictures. (IMO) Kit lenses are not typically the best quality (like the included 18-55) and images from a camera like the G12 will often better it. (again, IMO) So in my opinion (whatever that's worth) if you plan to buy an SLR and shoot with the kit lens, you'd be better off not buying an SLR. If you intend to add two or three high quality lenses to your kit, then you'll want the SLR. Keep in mind though, that in the end the body itself may be the cheapest part of the kit, and will likely influence image quality less than the lenses, so you'll want to have an idea about the lenses you'll eventually want before you pick the body to mount them to. I'm rambling......... For me the SLR body is more about feel. It's hard to find an SLR that won't take nice pictures, providing the lenses and the photographer are up to the task. What feels best in your hands, and has the controls where you want them, is likely a good candidate. Edit: Here's a review of the camera you're considering.
thanks for the info.
Well maybe it is a bit overkill. I can get this Nikon COOLPIX L810 16.1 MP Digital Camera with 26x Zoom NIKKOR ED Glass Lens and 3-inch LCD for a little less than $200 and 6 month free financing, probably more like something I should get.
|
|
swell_sailor
Location: The Gorge Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 7, 2012 - 9:34am |
|
mzpro5 wrote:Considering a new camera and thinking about getting into the DSLR world. Normally at this time I would not consider getting a new camera as I am saving funds but I can get this one for 24 months same as cash. So you shutterbugs is this a good one? There are at least a couple of advantages to an SLR over a compact (point and shoot) camera. One is that they typically use a larger sensor, which can lead to smoother looking images, but this may be less true with modern sensors. The other is lens options. If you want to swap between several high quality lenses, you want a camera that takes interchangeable lenses. But there are lots of disadvantages too, which is why (I suspect) a guy like buzz who can shoot with whatever he likes, chooses to shoot (for fun) with a Canon G12 instead of an SLR. Smaller cameras with a permanently attached lens travel better. They're easier to have with you at all times, which is how you get good pictures. (IMO) Kit lenses are not typically the best quality (like the included 18-55) and images from a camera like the G12 will often better it. (again, IMO) So in my opinion (whatever that's worth) if you plan to buy an SLR and shoot with the kit lens, you'd be better off not buying an SLR. If you intend to add two or three high quality lenses to your kit, then you'll want the SLR. Keep in mind though, that in the end the body itself may be the cheapest part of the kit, and will likely influence image quality less than the lenses, so you'll want to have an idea about the lenses you'll eventually want before you pick the body to mount them to. I'm rambling......... For me the SLR body is more about feel. It's hard to find an SLR that won't take nice pictures, providing the lenses and the photographer are up to the task. What feels best in your hands, and has the controls where you want them, is likely a good candidate. Edit: Here's a review of the camera you're considering.
|
|
Proclivities
Location: Paris of the Piedmont Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 7, 2012 - 9:16am |
|
MsJudi wrote:Ok, I've decided that I want to start shooting art tutorial videos with my camera and I have an awesome tripod but I need to do top-down shots and my tripod just won't go in that direction. Anyone have any suggestions beyond buying an expensive lateral tripod?? I guess I'm used to older (pre-digital-era) tripods, but I don't remember seeing ones where the camera base could not be tilted 90°. I guess those "Gorillapods" don't really have pivoting bases. I've seen some relatively inexpensive tripods with tilting bases (about $15.00), in Target or Walmart circulars, but I'm not sure how sturdy they are. Anyhow, I'm curious: What sort of artwork/medium would you be shooting? I had though of doing similar tutorial type things myself.
|
|
mzpro5
Location: Budda'spet, Hungry Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 7, 2012 - 9:11am |
|
Considering a new camera and thinking about getting into the DSLR world.
Normally at this time I would not consider getting a new camera as I am saving funds but I can get this one for 24 months same as cash.
So you shutterbugs is this a good one?
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 7, 2012 - 8:55am |
|
MsJudi wrote:Not so crazy: I tried that, but ti didn't work LOL. I'll check Goodwill, though... can't afford a new tripod ATM, I think any expense beyond the pool right now could land me in divorce court. Maybe it's just our neighborhood, but I'm constantly amazed at what people take to Goodwill. Last week there was a UT baseball cap with Earl Campbell's autograph on the bill. Seriously? At Goodwill? But camera tripods are a common item. I bet you could find several for $10 or less.
|
|
NoEnzLefttoSplit
Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 7, 2012 - 8:52am |
|
buzz wrote: That may work in the Southern hemisphere, but not up here on the top of the world.
agh, right. I always forget that.
|
|
buzz
Location: up the boohai
|
Posted:
Nov 7, 2012 - 8:50am |
|
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: Have you tried putting the tripod on the ceiling, facing downwards?
That may work in the Southern hemisphere, but not up here on the top of the world.
|
|
NoEnzLefttoSplit
Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 7, 2012 - 8:47am |
|
MsJudi wrote:Not so crazy: I tried that, but ti didn't work LOL. I'll check Goodwill, though... can't afford a new tripod ATM, I think any expense beyond the pool right now could land me in divorce court. Have you tried putting the tripod on the ceiling, facing downwards?
|
|
MsJudi
Location: Houston, TX Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 7, 2012 - 8:45am |
|
cc_rider wrote: Okay, crazy idea here (I know, you're shocked). What if you could take the center post out of a tripod and put it back in upside down? With the camera platform on the bottom? Probably not possible with most tripods, but maybe a cheap one could work. Goodwill seems to have tripods pretty regularly.
You might still have a problem getting the camera perpendicular to your table, depending how far the platform tilts.
Not so crazy: I tried that, but ti didn't work LOL. I'll check Goodwill, though... can't afford a new tripod ATM, I think any expense beyond the pool right now could land me in divorce court.
|
|
|