 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / May 2007best lens on a P&S?
I'm trying to decide if it's worth getting a P&S to complement my Canon 30D, for those times when I can't or don't want to bring along a heavy expensive camera. But I'm demanding. So I'm wondering if there are any small P&S cameras out there with really good optics. The pictures will never make it past 8x10, so I don't need a lot of res. And I'll be using the camera outside, so flash low/light isn't an issue. The PowerShot S1 is tempting, but my guess is that the optics are only mediocre. Can someone recommend a P&S with really good optics? A true pocket sized camera would be great, if the picture quality is high enough. Many thanks. -Joel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free Bible and Mishna printouts in Hebrew: http://liturgy.lashon.net/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I'm trying to decide if it's worth getting a P&S to complement my > Canon 30D, for those times when I can't or don't want to bring along a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Can someone recommend a P&S with really good optics? A true pocket > sized camera would be great, if the picture quality is high enough. Joel - I would look at the sample images at www.imaging-resource.com . Before buying my most recent P&S (a Nikon 8700) I downloaded the house image and printed it to make sure it had enough rez for my purposes.  SignatureMike Russell www.curvemeister.com > I'm trying to decide if it's worth getting a P&S to complement my > Canon 30D, for those times when I can't or don't want to bring along a > heavy expensive camera. If its a second camera it may be worth sacrificing a bit of quality for something useful like it being waterproof. I take my optio wp with me whatever the weather. It is unaffected by rain, sand, etc. >If its a second camera it may be worth sacrificing a bit of quality for >something useful like it being waterproof. >I take my optio wp with me whatever the weather. It is unaffected by rain, >sand, etc. An interesting thought. Thanks. (It seems the W30 is an updated version of the same camera. Yes?) Can anyone comment on the quality of the lens and other optics? There's little point in having a great little camera that doesn't take good pictures. Thanks. -Joel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXIF data for any image or web page: http://exif.posted-online.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I too am looking for a compact for the same reasons as you (something that shoots in RAW, manual settings, good lens, so am interested to hear any replies. You mentioned that you are tempted by a Powershot S1, so I looked on the net to see what it looked like. It doesn't look that 'compact'. I personally would prefer to take a 20D/30D for the difference in size you would save. > I'm trying to decide if it's worth getting a P&S to complement my > Canon 30D, for those times when I can't or don't want to bring along a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Free Bible and Mishna printouts in Hebrew: http://liturgy.lashon.net/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >I'm trying to decide if it's worth getting a P&S to complement my >Canon 30D, for those times when I can't or don't want to bring along a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Many thanks. Canon Powershot S3 IS with CHDK firmware addon for RAW for an extra 2-3 stops of detail at each end. (+ 50 other new amazing things you can do with CHDK installed, check the Firmware Usage page for a full list and examples.) http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK That combo is going to make that camera a much sought-after classic for years to come. It is capable of doing more than most any DSLR on the planet, if not all of them. A shallow DOF (the only thing that DSLR owners keep ranting on about) is easy to accomplish by using a telextender and low-diopter close-up lens combo, surpassing the shallow DOF of most DSLRs. >> Can someone recommend a P&S with really good optics? A true pocket >> sized camera would be great, if the picture quality is high enough. > >>Many thanks. > > Canon Powershot S3 IS with CHDK New name, but the same old sock puppet. The S3 IS is a decent camera, but in no way is it pocket sized. >>Canon 30D, for those times when I can't or don't want to bring along a >>heavy expensive camera. >> >The s5is is comming out this week which will be my second camera my >firts a 30 d. Jean SignaturePhotos http://www.chez.com/anaclet I should add that I'm not interested in any post-processing. These are pictures that are going right from the camera to the printer. -Joel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXIF data for any image or web page: http://exif.posted-online.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I should add that I'm not interested in any post-processing. These > are pictures that are going right from the camera to the printer. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > EXIF data for any image or web page: http://exif.posted-online.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Could not agree more, just like to plug the card in at a photo-lab and pop out the photos, NOT interested in spending 10mins. per photo fixing this and that! Betting the farm on this new Sigma, as most other P&S just dont have *it* photo after photo of brilliant quality. Mind you a BRILLIANT idea from Fuji is taking 2 photos, one with one without flash, that has saved my arse/a.s heaps of times, as more often than not one is spot on and the other is junk Cheers M/P I bought a Canon G6 as a second camera, but I am thinking of getting a Drebel 400 instead (I have a 30D). The G6 has all kinds of features, can even do RAW but it lacks in speed compared to a DSLR. It is too big to carry in a pocket too so that cuts down in usefullness, it takes noisy pictures as soon as the ISO setting is past 100. If I am to carry a fairly large camera, it may as well do things right so a 400XTi with a 28mm f1.8 which is like a "normal" lens on a 35mm camera would be a nice carry along. I have a small 5Mp Nikon 5200 as a pocket camera, in great conditions, it will give a correct picture, but I don't expect much from it. Jean > I'm trying to decide if it's worth getting a P&S to complement my > Canon 30D, for those times when I can't or don't want to bring along a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Free Bible and Mishna printouts in Hebrew: http://liturgy.lashon.net/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I bought a Canon G6 as a second camera, but I am thinking of getting > a [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> >> Many thanks. My Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 has a LEICA label on the lens, and: DC VARIO-ELMARIT 1:2.8-4.9/6.3-25.2 ASPH If you can stand a little noise, sometimes even at 80 ISO, the image quality is very good. At least 10,000 examples: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=lx1&w=all One more: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/178/431988008_bb5042f4ec_o.jpg I don't know about the LX2, although I've heard it isn't necessarily a step forward in spite of its 10MP rating. SignatureFrank ess >> I bought a Canon G6 as a second camera, but I am thinking of getting a >> Drebel 400 instead (I have a 30D). The G6 has all kinds of features, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > If you can stand a little noise, sometimes even at 80 ISO, the image > quality is very good. That's like a restaurant reviewer saying that except for the mouse droppings, the food was quite good. Leica should be more careful about what sensors/firmware people stick behind their lenses. mike >> If you can stand a little noise, sometimes even at 80 ISO, the image >> quality is very good. > >That's like a restaurant reviewer saying that except for the mouse >droppings, the food was quite good. It's not a bit like that. I can't image anyone not being concerned about mouse droppings in their food, but many people (including me) are not much worried about some noise in an otherwise excellent image. I don't know of anyone being poisoned by image noise ;-) SignatureJohn Bean >>> If you can stand a little noise, sometimes even at 80 ISO, the image >>> quality is very good. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I don't know of anyone being poisoned by image noise ;-) While image noise may only rarely kill humans, it wreaks havoc and death on unsuspecting cameras..and pictures...and thereby greatly lowering the self esteem of the photographer. In this weakened state, the body's immune system becomes greatly affected for the worse, causing a huge statistical increase in sickness and ill health. We KNOW where that leads. Proof? (asterisks mine) Noisy chip *kills* Leica advantages http://snipurl.com/1mhc6 However, the noise *kills* the low light performance benefit that generally comes with SLRs. http://snipurl.com/1mhcp the grain and noise *kills* the picture http://snipurl.com/1mhda The speckled, grainy look absolutely *kills* the image quality of this picture. http://www.techlore.com/article/17089/The-Megapixel-Myth/?textpage=2 The evidence is irrefutable. mike >>>> If you can stand a little noise, sometimes even at 80 ISO, the >>>> image quality is very good. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > The evidence is irrefutable. Well, I'm convinced: some people are allergic to noise and have some kind of fit even when the subject comes up; others don't mind giving a little to get a lot. As for evidence, it was a little scattered with regard to the subject matter, and pretty much disorganized overall; if, however, it was a noise-allergy demonstration the evidence was purported to reveal, yup. Nice work on that one. SignatureFrank ess > Well, I'm convinced: some people are allergic to noise and have some > kind of fit even when the subject comes up; others don't mind giving a > little to get a lot. I like to shoot in such a way as to minimize noise as much as possible, but I am not going to surrender the benefits of needed DOF, stopped-down optics, and shutter speed, to avoid a little noise There's nothing to draw your attention to noise more than a total lack of any part of the image being sharp! Noise is one of the first things you notice when a photo is soft. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >There's nothing to draw your attention to noise more than a total lack of >any part of the image being sharp! Noise is one of the first things you >notice when a photo is soft. I'd extend that to say that *any* technical defect will be almost invisible if the image content is good. If the image is boring the eye will wander about looking for all the technical defects. SignatureJohn Bean >> There's nothing to draw your attention to noise more than a total >> lack of any part of the image being sharp! Noise is one of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is boring the eye will wander about looking for all the > technical defects. I agree; however, this is a mis-snip. Someone else wrote the "There's notning ... " paragraph. SignatureFrank ess >>> There's nothing to draw your attention to noise more than a total >>> lack of any part of the image being sharp! Noise is one of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I agree; however, this is a mis-snip. Someone else wrote the "There's > notning ... " paragraph. It's not a mis-snip in the strictest sense. He who typed the paragraph is not quite as obvious as it might have been because it omitted the "Well, I'm convinced" paragraph from your message that was quoted in J.S.'s reply. Check the quote indent levels in J.B.'s reply and the scales should fall from the eyes, revealing that the "There's nothing" paragraph came from the keyboard of J.S., not F.e. Note the two levels of attributions in J.B.'s reply, which was appropriately quoted in your reply. >>>> There's nothing to draw your attention to noise more than a total >>>> lack of any part of the image being sharp! Noise is one of the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Note the two levels of attributions in J.B.'s reply, which was >appropriately quoted in your reply. I had meant to remove the attribution as well as the paragraph that Frank had written since I was replying only to JS's comment. Sloppy snippage by me, sorry for the confusion Frank. SignatureJohn Bean >>>> There's nothing to draw your attention to noise more than a total >>>> lack of any part of the image being sharp! Noise is one of the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Note the two levels of attributions in J.B.'s reply, which was >appropriately quoted in your reply. Hey AS-wipe-AAR, do you ever actually *DO* any photography? It looks more like you just parrot what you read everywhere online and waste your life on the keyboard while manipulating others for attention over the most minor of things every chance you get, just because nobody wants to know you at all in real life. I don't blame them. (The answer to all of that is quite obvious to everyone, but you. A perfect example of another useless internet arm-chair photographer.) I get the strongest feeling that you don't even own any digital cameras, let alone know how to use one. I'm sure I'm not the only one that has figured this out about you. > X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088 > Hey AS-wipe-AAR, . . . > I get the strongest feeling That you're nothing but an ignorant sock puppet that hasn't yet learned the simplest, most rudimentary ways to cover your tracks, even when repeatedly fed clues. No wonder in at least this guise you're named SayWhat? Now wipe off that s.e. grin and gargle. <g> > That you're nothing but an ignorant sock puppet that hasn't yet >learned the simplest, most rudimentary ways to cover your tracks, >even when repeatedly fed clues. No wonder in at least this guise >you're named SayWhat? Now wipe off that s.e. grin and gargle. <g> Yeah, you're SO smart! Way to go, to out him like that! After all, he's the ONLY one on earth using easy-news and that software. Get a clue you dip-sh.t moron. Oh wait, I bet you're one of those total online freaks that thinks EVERYONE that disagrees with you must all be the same person! It's the only way idiots like you can justify your stupidity and keep displaying it for the whole world to see. >> That you're nothing but an ignorant sock puppet that hasn't yet >> learned the simplest, most rudimentary ways to cover your tracks, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Get a clue you dip-sh.t moron. I did, and I see that you use the same software as all of the other sock puppets that share your vocabulary. And wonder of wonders, looking just at this particular thread, *everyone* in it that speaks like you not only uses the same usenet software, but the very same version. And all of the better mannered posters have something in common as well. Not one of them uses your software. Now run along, witling. There's probably a new version of CHDK or PL32 to salivate over. <g> >> That you're nothing but an ignorant sock puppet that hasn't yet >> learned the simplest, most rudimentary ways to cover your tracks, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the only way idiots like you can justify your stupidity and keep > displaying it for the whole world to see. I don't like you. SignatureFrank ess "John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> respomded to someone<g>: > I'd extend that to say that *any* technical defect will be > almost invisible if the image content is good. If the image > is boring the eye will wander about looking for all the > technical defects. This is a nice theory*, but except for the Fuji F30, the current crop of P&S dcams are major disasters at ISO 400 and up; they really are getting to the point of failing completely as cameras. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/ *: There's also the "any image is better than no image" theory, but, again, the performance of these dogs at anything over base ISO is bad enough that this theory is problematic as well. Many of these cameras have lenses that get painfully slow at the long end, so they're essentially flash-only cameras. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >"John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> respomded to someone<g>: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >dcams are major disasters at ISO 400 and up; they really are getting to the >point of failing completely as cameras. David, the thread was a follow-up to Frank's statement, quote: > My Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 has a LEICA label on the lens, and: > DC VARIO-ELMARIT 1:2.8-4.9/6.3-25.2 ASPH > > If you can stand a little noise, sometimes even at 80 ISO, the image > quality is very good. My comments apply to that specific statement - with which I agree. I'm not disagreeing in any way with your assertion about higher ISOs, but that isn't what I was discussing. SignatureJohn Bean > I'm trying to decide if it's worth getting a P&S to complement my > Canon 30D, for those times when I can't or don't want to bring along a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Free Bible and Mishna printouts in Hebrew: http://liturgy.lashon.net/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Best P&S [daylight 2nd] is the Sigma DP1: http://www.sigma-dp1.com/ Just wait a bit please, out soon. Most of the others are much the same, with special mention for FinePix "F" series with its premium sensor Cheers M/P > Best P&S [daylight 2nd] is the Sigma DP1: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Most of the others are much the same, with special mention for FinePix > "F" series with its premium sensor I've been playing with their F10. very, very nice shots. I believe that their later 8.3 MP sensor may have some noise issues, but I've never tried one. On the odd occasion, a bit of purple fringing appears around high contrast edges, but not often enough to be a concern. If the picture is important enough, the fringing can be eliminated via software. The shots are all better than the Panasonic FZ30 I compared it to. The zoom is the Panasonic's only redeeming feature. mike > Michael.Past...@gmail.com wrote: > > Best P&S [daylight 2nd] is the Sigma DP1: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > mike I have a F20 FinePix, and its a bit of a enigma, indoor and macro it will fight a SLR, sunny and outdoors i am NOT impressed with the photos, i print them as they come out, no time to touch them up. Great battery life and the dual photo shoot is a great idea, strong and good quailty construction, no need and Image-Stab. either, it is NOT missed or needed.NO issue with XD card not a issue, priced ok now. Needs more zoom, 6x at least, weird design hard to hold with your fingers, should be smaller size, metal tripod plug needed, side plastic covers are rubbish as is the way you have to charge it Otherwise great step up from the old F420 Will buy a Pana FZ8, want a 12x zoom, and the S6500 is WAY to huge sized to consider [pity] M/P >Best P&S [daylight 2nd] is the Sigma DP1: > >http://www.sigma-dp1.com/ > >Just wait a bit please, out soon. I almost like it, but Sigma claim that "Sigma is not about creating run-of-the mill photographs, or pushing image quality defined by numbers" and then they pretend that a resolution of 2,688 x 1,792 makes a 14.45MP camera, I make it 4,816,896. Besides, the Foevon sensor has a reputation for bad aliasing artefacts and poor colour rendition. Additionally, I would want an optical viewfinder. SignatureIan G8ILZ There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer. ~Ansel Adams > the Foevon sensor has a > reputation for bad aliasing artefacts The aliasing artifacts are from not using an AA filter; not from the Foveon sensor. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> the Foevon sensor has a >> reputation for bad aliasing artefacts > >The aliasing artifacts are from not using an AA filter; not from the Foveon >sensor. True(ish), Bayer sensors usually have an AA filter which Foveon perceive as being to reduce colour aliasing effects in the Bayer spatial colour sampling process and, since Foveon sample all three colours at each point they do not require a "colour blurring" filter and so do not fit such a filter to their sensor assembly. Unfortunately in their enthusiasm to prove the Bayer approach wrong they have failed to comprehend that they are sampling on a finite geometric grid which will cause aliasing. SignatureIan G8ILZ There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer. ~Ansel Adams >Best P&S [daylight 2nd] is the Sigma DP1: > >http://www.sigma-dp1.com/ Sure is a cute website, though it gets annoying if you're really trying to learn something about the camera.... -Joel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free Bible and Mishna printouts in Hebrew: http://liturgy.lashon.net/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Best P&S [daylight 2nd] is the Sigma DP1: > > http://www.sigma-dp1.com/ > > Just wait a bit please, out soon. how do you know it is the best if it is not out? if it is anything like the sd-14, it won't be all that great (and other than a dedicated image processing chip, it is pretty much the same thing). [] > Can someone recommend a P&S with really good optics? A true pocket > sized camera would be great, if the picture quality is high enough. > > Many thanks. > > -Joel Many people regard the Leica optics used on many Panasonic cameras as being the best optics in small-sensor cameras. My own comparisons have suggested that the Panasonic FZ5 and FZ20 optics beat the Canon equivalents (e.g. S3 IS). There are pocket-sized cameras in the Panasonic range, but I have not used them nor tested their optics. Cheers, David > I'm trying to decide if it's worth getting a P&S to complement my > Canon 30D, for those times when I can't or don't want to bring along a > heavy expensive camera. > But I'm demanding. Depends how compact you want, but Canon G7 would be sharp enough for you. Even a cheaper camera like a Canon A570IS probably would. Ricoh GX100 seems to have a sharp lens and is an enthusiast's compact. Most compact Panasonics have pretty sharp lenses. Cheap'n'cheerful Fuji F31fd is another good choice. Androo > I'm trying to decide if it's worth getting a P&S to complement my > Canon 30D, for those times when I can't or don't want to bring along a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Free Bible and Mishna printouts in Hebrew: http://liturgy.lashon.net/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- One of the docs I worked for wanted a pocketable P&S, we suggested he look at the Canon A series, no RAW but if you don't want PP this maybe the camera. He brought back a photo from his son's graduation. Poorly composed the photo of his son and wife were very small in th e total image. He asked what we could do, so we ressed up the photo and did a 5x7 of son & wife from a n 11x14, the image was very nice, reasonably sharp, not noisy at all. The camera has a viewfinder (notoriously inaccurate) as well as the lcd for shooting. It is worth a look. Tom [] > One of the docs I worked for wanted a pocketable P&S, we suggested he > look at the Canon A series, no RAW but if you don't want PP this maybe > the camera. [] > Tom PP? Post-processing? > I'm trying to decide if it's worth getting a P&S to complement my > Canon 30D, for those times when I can't or don't want to bring along a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Free Bible and Mishna printouts in Hebrew: http://liturgy.lashon.net/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry, he bought the Canon A640. Tom |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.