Anyone out there using the Olympus C50. Been looking at that one in the stores and seems pretty nice. I like the size and has a better zoom that the Canon Elph. Anyone out there using it yet?
I'm coming from an Olympus 460 and I loved taking pics without flash in lowlight situations to give them that very slightly blurry look but nice warm colors.
The Sony P9 takes FOREVER to take a pic with little light and therfore are very blurry.
I havent played with aperture yet (can you?) and the ISO only goes to 400.
Hmm... I may look into getting an Olympus again if they are small AND have video features (I *LOVE* being able to take 320x240 MPEGs with audio on the Sony).
Any suggestions?
PS, Xaqtly, what is your satellite upload proceedure? Do you just use a sat phone? I just started in the satellite industry and are creating sreamline solutions, among other things, for using satellites to upload video and anything digital from... anywhere. email me at zo66 AT mac.com if you can... would love some insight to this.
a quick look at the current Olympus cameras tells me that they suck (in regards to features). 15sec max movies, no audio, no rechargable batteries (I hate buying tons of AA batteries), low ISO settings. Plus, even their super consumer cameras are huge (compared to a P9).
Yeesh, they really havent changed THAT much since I bought my 460 in Summer 2000.
Any other recommendations (aside from Sony and Olympus?). Does Nikon compare well to Sony for features and size?
Nikon looks boring as well as the fact that I cant find a single one of their cameras that does movie clips with Audio (and more than 15sec).
The only contender I seem to find is the Canon Digital Ixus v2. Also good price. Does audio with its movies and seems to be limited only by size of card memory. VERY small and 2MP is good for what I do. Am happy with 1.3MP.
I got the canon a40 about a month ago and I'd say it had a pretty good balance between auto and manual options and you can fit a helluva lot of pics and movies on 64MB card. I managed to cram about 120 pics and 6 movies on at once.
[quote] the CCD will pick up more noise. What you are calling grain is that noise. <hr></blockquote>
[quote] sorry, CCD? <hr></blockquote>
The CCD, Charge Coupling Device, is the actual 'film' of the camera. It basically is a chip with many little windows on it, and those windows will return a value between 0-255 depending on how much light hits them.
There are several different advances on this format, from a CMOS arrangement by Canon (I think) to a new arrangement of sensors on the Sigma (New camera)
You can find out more about the capabilities of different cameras by giong to <a href="http://www.dpreview.com."; target="_blank">www.dpreview.com.</a> I believe you can also do side by side comparisons there.
I experience lag on my camera (Nikon CP 990) if it is a low light situation, and the focusing goes all wonky in real dark situations (I play with night photography and light painting) but thankfully this camera has very complete manual control.
I have also taken to using the Slow Flash feature when taking indoor pictures, which opens the apeture a little longer after the flash goes off the get more detail in the background. I have also purchased a small slave flash which I have used on occason to freeze something in the frame. And discovered a little trick of using a bit of exposed film over the camera flash to drive the slave without getting too much light.
The only real limitation I find is I thought I could take photographs and control the camera from the computer. I used to have a Kodak DC260 which allowed this, and I was flabbergasted the Nikon Coolpix could not.
My next camera will no doubt be a more professional model so I can do this, and see the actual image on a 12 inch powerbook screen, confirming the color and sharpness. Hopefully it will also be one which takes different lenses...
>Editted to talk about flashes and their misuse<
Nope. The noise is always going to be prevalent because of the nature of the chip. The new chip by Sigma reduces noise, but it will always be there in some amount.
And the higher the ISO the better when it comes to noise in darker shots.
One way you can try to reduce noise is by blurring the red channel slightly after the picture has been transferred to the computer. The red channel is the one which gets the most noise (If you have photoshop, check the various channels and you will see what I mean) This is by no means a perfect way to do it.
With film, the higher ISO meant the more capable the film was in low light situations. I think it also made the picture a bit grainier. Some people go for that effect...
<strong>Nope. The noise is always going to be prevalent because of the nature of the chip. The new chip by Sigma reduces noise, but it will always be there in some amount.
And the higher the ISO the better when it comes to noise in darker shots.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmm.. I'm going to disagree here.
The ISO sets the sensitivity of the camera (or film, as the case may be). Think of it in terms of gain, or signal-to-noise ratio. Setting the ISO to 400 means the camera will take in more light at the expense of more noise.
Setting it at 100 means less light, but less noise. Then do what normal photographers do-- increase the duration of the shutter (as per the example of 15 ms) to allow more light.
Obviously using something like a tripod becomes mandatory, and the subject shouldn't move so much.
>shrug< I guess. It all depends on the light situation...
1. If you are trying to photograph something in the dark of a city, where there is a lot of light pllution, you will get stray photons, which will affect your picture, if you keep the shutter open too long.
2. If you are going to be using a flash, then you don't necessarily want a wide open apeture as this will affect the light reflected back at you, especially if the flash is on the camera (any reflections will be twice as noticable)
3. If it is full moonlight and there is snow, you will still end up with a lot of bouncing photons whcih will mean you want as fast a shutter speed as you can.
Regardless of what one person says, or another argues with, the camera model and its own inbuilt idiosyncracies will determine which is the best way to take darker shots.
The only thing I can suggest is to experiment... a lot... and learn to read the EXIF data to decide which pictures worked well, and the secret formula which made them work that way. Then (if your camera allows) set a preset before you go out to take pictures. If not, then set up your camera the way you think it will work best for what you have in mind and go out there and do it.
Use a tripod, and a remote if you have one. Any movement on the camera will affect the image.
Try to bracket your shot if you have the time (and the subject isn't moving) and take a bunch of pictures... It's not like they are costing you anything.
Practice, practice, practice, and learn what best works for you and your camera.
That's a very good call. I find it a real bother to download images right now from the camera to the computer.
I really wish someone would release a firewire card reader for Compact Flash. Now that would be a real asset. I don't have a charger for the 990, and it takes battery juice to download. A card reader (especially one powered by the firewire port) would make that chore much easier.
Editted because I put charger instead of card reader (tired... must rest now)
Actually, I am pretty sure that lower ISO will always give you less noise. The whole idea of lowering the sensitivity is that each photon has less of an effect. This means that, to get the same exposure, you have to average over more photons. The central limit theorum says that, as you average over more and more photons you get closer to the true expected value that pixel.
<strong>>shrug< I guess. It all depends on the light situation...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry. I guess I was unclear. I was commenting regarding this statement:
[quote]<strong>
And the higher the ISO the better when it comes to noise in darker shots.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe I'm not sure what you meant here, so I'm just going to make general statements.
<pretending to know what I'm talking about>
The ISO refers to the film's sensitivity to light. Numerically higher means more sensitive to light. This means, for example, that ISO 400 is twice as sensitive to light as ISO 200. This is equivalent to one f-stop.
However, the trade off for this sensitivity is more noise. In film, this is the "graininess" of the film. For digital camera, more noise in the photo.
</stop pretending now>
How you want to take photos in the dark is your choice. I take night photos with a cheap point-and-shoot camera all the time. Here's my current home town, for example.
<strong>I like to buy a Nikon Coolpix 5700, but there's just no way I'm shelling out that kind of money for a 5MP camera without a Firewire port.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah... Firewire, you say?
Then can I interest you in a manly man's camera, perhaps:
Now, sir, this is a camera. No mamby-pamby cameras like previously mentioned. Firewire? It's in there. 5MP? Try more like 11MP. Try 36x24mm sensor size— almost one-to-one with 35 mm film.
<strong>Understood. I'll have to practice secretly fiddling with my camera so no one notices I'm going to get good blackmail shots... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /></strong><hr></blockquote>
You should also try one of the modes that let you take a series of pictures while holding down the shutter.
Comments
The Sony P9 takes FOREVER to take a pic with little light and therfore are very blurry.
I havent played with aperture yet (can you?) and the ISO only goes to 400.
Hmm... I may look into getting an Olympus again if they are small AND have video features (I *LOVE* being able to take 320x240 MPEGs with audio on the Sony).
Any suggestions?
PS, Xaqtly, what is your satellite upload proceedure? Do you just use a sat phone? I just started in the satellite industry and are creating sreamline solutions, among other things, for using satellites to upload video and anything digital from... anywhere. email me at zo66 AT mac.com if you can... would love some insight to this.
ZO
Yeesh, they really havent changed THAT much since I bought my 460 in Summer 2000.
Any other recommendations (aside from Sony and Olympus?). Does Nikon compare well to Sony for features and size?
The only contender I seem to find is the Canon Digital Ixus v2. Also good price. Does audio with its movies and seems to be limited only by size of card memory. VERY small and 2MP is good for what I do. Am happy with 1.3MP.
Hmmm... P9 or IXUS2?
I see no need for anything above 2MP, I'll never print anything bigger than 8x10.
That Canon A40 is looking pretty good.
Also looking at the Fuji FinePix 2800 or 3800.
[ 01-10-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
[quote] sorry, CCD? <hr></blockquote>
The CCD, Charge Coupling Device, is the actual 'film' of the camera. It basically is a chip with many little windows on it, and those windows will return a value between 0-255 depending on how much light hits them.
There are several different advances on this format, from a CMOS arrangement by Canon (I think) to a new arrangement of sensors on the Sigma (New camera)
You can find out more about the capabilities of different cameras by giong to <a href="http://www.dpreview.com."; target="_blank">www.dpreview.com.</a> I believe you can also do side by side comparisons there.
I experience lag on my camera (Nikon CP 990) if it is a low light situation, and the focusing goes all wonky in real dark situations (I play with night photography and light painting) but thankfully this camera has very complete manual control.
I have also taken to using the Slow Flash feature when taking indoor pictures, which opens the apeture a little longer after the flash goes off the get more detail in the background. I have also purchased a small slave flash which I have used on occason to freeze something in the frame. And discovered a little trick of using a bit of exposed film over the camera flash to drive the slave without getting too much light.
The only real limitation I find is I thought I could take photographs and control the camera from the computer. I used to have a Kodak DC260 which allowed this, and I was flabbergasted the Nikon Coolpix could not.
My next camera will no doubt be a more professional model so I can do this, and see the actual image on a 12 inch powerbook screen, confirming the color and sharpness. Hopefully it will also be one which takes different lenses...
>Editted to talk about flashes and their misuse<
[ 01-10-2003: Message edited by: nosey ]</p>
i mean would keeping the ISO 50 instead of 400 with a 15second shutter speed reduce noise?
And the higher the ISO the better when it comes to noise in darker shots.
One way you can try to reduce noise is by blurring the red channel slightly after the picture has been transferred to the computer. The red channel is the one which gets the most noise (If you have photoshop, check the various channels and you will see what I mean) This is by no means a perfect way to do it.
With film, the higher ISO meant the more capable the film was in low light situations. I think it also made the picture a bit grainier. Some people go for that effect...
>Editted to add the 'at night'<
[ 01-10-2003: Message edited by: nosey ]</p>
<strong>Nope. The noise is always going to be prevalent because of the nature of the chip. The new chip by Sigma reduces noise, but it will always be there in some amount.
And the higher the ISO the better when it comes to noise in darker shots.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmm.. I'm going to disagree here.
The ISO sets the sensitivity of the camera (or film, as the case may be). Think of it in terms of gain, or signal-to-noise ratio. Setting the ISO to 400 means the camera will take in more light at the expense of more noise.
Setting it at 100 means less light, but less noise. Then do what normal photographers do-- increase the duration of the shutter (as per the example of 15 ms) to allow more light.
Obviously using something like a tripod becomes mandatory, and the subject shouldn't move so much.
1. If you are trying to photograph something in the dark of a city, where there is a lot of light pllution, you will get stray photons, which will affect your picture, if you keep the shutter open too long.
2. If you are going to be using a flash, then you don't necessarily want a wide open apeture as this will affect the light reflected back at you, especially if the flash is on the camera (any reflections will be twice as noticable)
3. If it is full moonlight and there is snow, you will still end up with a lot of bouncing photons whcih will mean you want as fast a shutter speed as you can.
Regardless of what one person says, or another argues with, the camera model and its own inbuilt idiosyncracies will determine which is the best way to take darker shots.
The only thing I can suggest is to experiment... a lot... and learn to read the EXIF data to decide which pictures worked well, and the secret formula which made them work that way. Then (if your camera allows) set a preset before you go out to take pictures. If not, then set up your camera the way you think it will work best for what you have in mind and go out there and do it.
Use a tripod, and a remote if you have one. Any movement on the camera will affect the image.
Try to bracket your shot if you have the time (and the subject isn't moving) and take a bunch of pictures... It's not like they are costing you anything.
Practice, practice, practice, and learn what best works for you and your camera.
I really wish someone would release a firewire card reader for Compact Flash. Now that would be a real asset. I don't have a charger for the 990, and it takes battery juice to download. A card reader (especially one powered by the firewire port) would make that chore much easier.
Editted because I put charger instead of card reader (tired... must rest now)
[ 01-11-2003: Message edited by: nosey ]</p>
<strong>>shrug< I guess. It all depends on the light situation...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry. I guess I was unclear. I was commenting regarding this statement:
[quote]<strong>
And the higher the ISO the better when it comes to noise in darker shots.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe I'm not sure what you meant here, so I'm just going to make general statements.
<pretending to know what I'm talking about>
The ISO refers to the film's sensitivity to light. Numerically higher means more sensitive to light. This means, for example, that ISO 400 is twice as sensitive to light as ISO 200. This is equivalent to one f-stop.
However, the trade off for this sensitivity is more noise. In film, this is the "graininess" of the film. For digital camera, more noise in the photo.
</stop pretending now>
How you want to take photos in the dark is your choice. I take night photos with a cheap point-and-shoot camera all the time. Here's my current home town, for example.
<strong>I like to buy a Nikon Coolpix 5700, but there's just no way I'm shelling out that kind of money for a 5MP camera without a Firewire port.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah... Firewire, you say?
Then can I interest you in a manly man's camera, perhaps:
<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/"; target="_blank">Canon EOS-1Ds</a>
Now, sir, this is a camera. No mamby-pamby cameras like previously mentioned. Firewire? It's in there. 5MP? Try more like 11MP. Try 36x24mm sensor size— almost one-to-one with 35 mm film.
The price, you ask? Well, if you have to ask...
[edit: extraneous apostrophe. I hate those...]
[ 01-11-2003: Message edited by: GardenOfEarthlyDelights ]</p>
<strong>Understood. I'll have to practice secretly fiddling with my camera so no one notices I'm going to get good blackmail shots... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /></strong><hr></blockquote>
You should also try one of the modes that let you take a series of pictures while holding down the shutter.
my ISO is from 50-400
what would you suggest for DARK indoors shooting a lit up object, either LED's or a cabinet