Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > H-P

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 18, 2004, 6:23 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7
Default

visit www.fotohp.it.st to see outdoors pics taken with HP735 by me. I am curious if others have taken better pictures with HP735. Well indoors with EV +2 its acceptable only in range of 0.5-1m.
Look at the pictures taken by Steve with Nikon 3200 (named dscn...), and posted on this site at http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...0_samples.html, if those pics were taken with Nikon 3200 (3.2 MP) then any owner of a HP735 must be very proud of his acquisition. Those pics are very blurred and with much noise. Then see samsung digimax U-CA3 also 3.2 MP, well, besides the same problems there is one more, the colors are not good at all.
Also you may see horrific noise in pics taken by Minolta, Konika, Fuji, Pentax Optio 30. Well, my conclusion is that any owner of HP735 should be satisfied and if don`t then sell it and buy a Canon PS A75 or above, but remember, only Canon is better in outdoors than HP. But hey, that`s only my opinion of what I see on steve`s site. If any disagree please write to me at [email protected]
Clive Barker is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 20, 2004, 6:39 AM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32
Default

Clive Barker wrote:
Quote:
Well indoors with EV +2 its acceptable only in range of 0.5-1m.
Hi Clive,

why do you overexpose when shooting indoor?. Do you do that with or without flash?

With Flash, with the 735, and within distance limitations (2.5m), I used to get acceptable to good results, but I never modified exposure: I don't think it is a good practice.

Without flash, as I said in the other trhead, is it more difficult, but not impossible, to get good results. There are 2 possible problems:

- camera shake. All the pictures I took indoor using a tripod came out well.

- very long exposures: HP735 does not have a mechanism (kind ofsecond exposure) to eliminate the white spots that appears incase of long (> 2 secs) exposure time. It is definetely not the right camera to shoot with moonlight or something like that.

Going back to exposure compensation: I learned a trick that works well and is the opposite of what you do: I underexpose, usually-0.7. The images come out a little dark, but this is usually nice to see and you can always enlighten them using a prgram like Paintshop. Please note, however, that I do that with a new camera (HP945). I stll own the 735, but it is used by my wife and my daughter now.

Regards,

Dario

Dario








dariob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2004, 10:14 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7
Default

Not quite +2EV but at least +1EV I have to use every time I shot indoors. I have noticed that appears some extra details with +1EV than 0 EV. Making more bright with photoshop does not bring those deteals wich appears only in +1EV (for me). I saw indoors pictures taken with HP945 and are bad too. But outdoors is good and beacause is cheapper then a 5 MP Canon it is worth to have one.
Also I would recomand Sony DSC-P72 (3.2MP) for indoors, night, dusk or dawn. I have seen a lot of such pics taken with Sony P72. All of them were good. I think the engineers from HP definitely should do something to fix the problem. But 2 years have been past (03-04) and they seems to be so careless. They just stay behind the good name of HP hoping that the people would be forever seduced by this good name.
However about HP - their foto camera (HP735 at least) have a very solid construction, there is no visibil defect about this issue. Also if you block the exit of zoom mechanism the camera simply shut down. Then you may restart and no problem occur. Also if you take off the batteries while the camera is running it will be the same.
Clive Barker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2004, 3:28 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32
Default

Hello,

while I have to agree that HP735 is a little problematic in low light, I am surprised you don't consider HP945 good for indoor and low light in general. I have been using it since one year and I a took a lot a beautiful pictues, with and without flash. I almost came to the conclusion the the best pictures this camera takes are the ones indoor (or outside, at night) with flash. The second best are the ones taken outdoor, in covered days (not in bright sunshine) or at dusk. For some reason, I like la bit ess the ones taken in sunshine.

It is true that HP945 is cheaper than many other 5Mpix digicams, but the image quality is good, as confirmed by most user reviews (see, for example, www.dpreview.com).

The big limitation, however, when using the flash, is the distance (2.5/3 meters maximum). Beyondthat the image becomes dark and can be noisy.

Regards,

Dario

p.s: I can post some pictuers, if you want






dariob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2004, 11:15 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7
Default

Yes, you may post a few. My affirmation about HP945 was based only on pics I have seen on Steve`s site. Beyond 2-3 m there is a lot of noise (big grains) wich does not appears in Sony`s or Canon`s indoor pics. But who knows, maybe you were more lucky. Anyway I have wrote to HP customers support and telling them what to improve and take care about Canon made the A400 (150$) only to put out of the market any cheap 3.2 MP camera. Of course I was talking to the deafs. I told them about ghosting LCD in low light, blurred corners in low light, low speed memory, the new 1.12 firmware version does not improve anything. At least I am satisfied with the good and sharp color reproduction in the summersun light. But the autumn has arrived for two months already. Anyway I wonder if HP engineers are intending to sell their cameras in the northic countries like Norway or Finland where 6-7 months per year the daylight is only 5 hours or less per day. I supposed not. Those people have enough budget to pass over HP` products.
Clive Barker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2004, 1:32 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32
Default

Hi Clive,

if the flash range of the 735 is 2.5 meters, believe it is normal that you ge blurred pictures beyond this distance.

As far as the HP945 is concerbed, plese note that thereis a dedicated forum (www.hp945.com). You can find a lot of pictures there.



Regards,



Dario




dariob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 2005, 10:21 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
proton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 211
Default

http://members.lycos.nl/freddievtb/ahoy1.jpg

http://members.lycos.nl/freddievtb/ahoy2.jpg

http://members.lycos.nl/freddievtb/keulen1.jpg

These were made WITHOUT Flash using sports/action mode!

Occasion: QUEEN+Paul Rodgers concers in Rotterdam(Holland) and Cologne(Germany).

So I can't complain about low light pix, they can be quite good with an HP735!


proton 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 3:51 PM.