Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 14, 2005, 2:52 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 248
Default

Im sure im not alone in wanting a small pocket camera that needs no post processing , ie razor sharp photos direct from the camera , not many want to spend hours on the computer sharpening ect every shot we take ,my wife and i simply dont have the time ,I know the purist likes to have a soft image to play with but would rather go out thereand take photos than sit behind a screen for hours and hours ,i was thinking of getting a Fuji F10 or F 11but now seeing posts of this nice camera needing post processing, ie soft results straight from the camera .also olympus 800 MJU anouther on our list the other way unuasually sharp nice results but noisy i think the posting said ., any ideas on what small 3 /4 zoom camera produces superb sharp pics without all the messing about post processing looking at panasonicLZ 1 or 2. canon A 610 620,casio P 700,or what have you? for my wife ,she would like very much for her new camera to produce as much as possiblerazor sharp pics straight out of the camera.
rodo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 14, 2005, 3:39 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Default

Digital pics are naturally soft becausethe pixels on the sensor only capture one colour each (there are a few sensors that are different, but that's another story) and so to get a sharp image the raw data needs to be interpreted to provide a pic of full colour pixels. This requires some computing power to do. The camera usually does this for you with the result being jpg images. Small cameras don't have the space for fancy computers inside them though and so the better pictures can be had by interpreting the raw data wiht more complicated software on a pc.
Even so, any half decent camera of recent vintage should be able to provide you with sharp looking jpgs, even though you could almost certainly do better with raw format and a pc.
Your camera probably has settings for how it makes jpg images and you can probably adjust how sharp they come out of the camera.
jacks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2005, 7:19 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
gaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 209
Default

Exactly, every "small pocket camera" from a renowned manufacturer with 3 MP or more will produce nice JPEGs pictures, which you won't have to reprocess.
gaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 9:33 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

The Fuji F-10 is certainly worth considering. It yields sharp well exposed photos and it will give you excellent service and great photos without post processing.

Here is an example photo from the F-20 taken indoors, hand held with NO FLASH, and no post processing.

MT
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 12:27 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

I think all of the cameras you listed will take decent photos right out of the box. The LZ2 and A620 have a combination control and if you set it on vivid it evidently increases the sharpening, contrast and saturation to give more punch. The P700 has separate controls for each and 5 choices each for contrast, sharpening and saturation. You would likely come out closer to what you want right out of the camera with the P700 after a little experimentation.

The LZ2 doesn't have a focus assist light and sometimes fumbles focusing in limited light. That could be a little frustrating, but the 6X optical zoom and true mechanical stabilization might make up for the occasional focus frustration. It doesn't have an optical viewfinder. That makes it difficult to acquire a moving target – especially at 6X. It is also a little difficult sometimes in bright sunlight. You should plan on getting a set of NiMH batteries and a charger. I think Wal-Mart sells an adequate set of batteries and a charger for under $20.

The A620 takes the only movies that are worth fooling with from your list IMO. The 320 X 240 pixel movies the others take aren't very good. You would be limited to short movies because it doesn't have MPEG4 compression, but I don't find you take long movies with a digital camera. A camcorder is much better for movies, but sometimes the camera is all you have immediately available. You would also want to plan on getting NiMH batteries and a charger. It is a very good all-round camera for the price.

My choice from your list would be the P700. But you don't seem to need all of the manual capabilities. You would be paying more for features you don't necessarily need. A digital camera is a great learning tool, but the A620 has most of the controls.

Before you feel too sorry for those of us who shoot soft for post processing, it probably takes me a minute to create a sub-folder and start a bulk action in Photoshop to add some pop to my images for normal viewing. But I still have the soft images with minimum artifacts and maximum dynamic range if I want to work with one.


slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 7:24 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Slipe-

Please excuse my intrusion. However, the poster is LOOKING FOR A NO POST PROCESSING situation.

DidI miss something?

MT
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2005, 3:02 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

mtclimber wrote:
Quote:
Slipe-

Please excuse my intrusion. However, the poster is LOOKING FOR A NO POST PROCESSING situation.

DidI miss something?

MT
I don't think you missed anything. I don't think you bothered to read my post either except maybe the last paragraph, which is a response to rodo's comment about people who shoot soft spending hours and hours in front of a computer getting them right.

The way to avoiding post processing is to have in-camera settings available to get the images pretty much the way you want them in the camera. They usually have to be set only once. I'm not sure that having only two choices available (normal and vivid) is sufficient. It might be, I've never owned a camera that limited in settings. Some of the scene modes also adjust saturation, contrast and sharpening but I don't use them and can't comment on their effectiveness.

rodo didn't say that no post-processing was the one and only criteria. Focus problems and inability to easily use a viewfinder could be considerations.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2005, 7:05 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 851
Default

I think pretty much all cameras, at least those from the major manufacturers, have menu options where you can set sharpness, color saturation, noise reduction, etc.

When you then shoot JPG images, you should be able to set the camera to deliver the type of images you desire.

The post processing, most often, refers to those who shoot RAW and not JPG. RAW always requires post processing, but is not available on all cameras.

Declan
amazingthailand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2005, 12:08 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 38
Default

Come on guys, post-processing is not the preserve of those among you who shoot RAW. It applies to ANY image which needs some form of editing (levels, USM, curves etc.) Okay, so RAW gives you a better image as a starting point (no compression damage, for example, and no damage from excessive in-camera sharpening etc.), just don't dimiss the more usual in-camera image formats as being beyond help in Photoshop (that's the impression I always get when I read posts from 'RAW only' shooters). I think rodo is looking for that elusive camera which produces 'perfect' images which can be sent straight to a printer (allowing for the fact that 'perfect' is different things to different people). Introducing things such as RAW (which, perfect or otherwise, ALWAYS needs some form of processing/conversion) does not help him one iota.
pip22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2005, 12:14 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

amazingthailand wrote:
Quote:
I think pretty much all cameras, at least those from the major manufacturers, have menu options where you can set sharpness, color saturation, noise reduction, etc.
Of the cameras rodo listed that he is interested in, The Fuji F1, Canon 610 & 620 and Panasonic LZ1 & LZ2 do not have separate controls but just a single soft, normal and vivid control that seems to shotgun all three. And the F10 doesn't even have a soft setting. It doesn't appear the Stylus 800 has any control at all. So of the seven cameras he mentioned only the Casio P700 has separate controls for contrast, sharpening and saturation. Selectable noise reduction is very rare except for very slow shutter speed subtraction type noise reduction. I wish more cameras did allow you to turn off the normal in-camera noise reduction, which most have to some degree.

Even with cameras that have separate sharpness, saturation and contrast controls, many just have high, low and normal rather than the 5 level selection available on the P700. I don't think the P700 is what he is looking for if a pure point and shoot with no viewfinder like the LZ2 is acceptable. But it would allow him to get pretty much what he wanted without post-processing. The Casio Z750 has 5 selections each for sharpness, contrast and saturation and has nice MPEG4 movies.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:03 AM.