Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Kodak

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 6, 2006, 7:07 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
TheMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 202
Default

Smile please
Attached Images
 
TheMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2006, 7:07 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
TheMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 202
Default

Nice and bright
Attached Images
 
TheMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2006, 7:09 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
wizbummer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 309
Default

These are some of the only pics that came out with acceptable clarity. The darkness does give a feel of an intimate club, which it is, but because of the lighting the fastest exposures I could do were 1/4 second. Using longer exposures made for some cool effects with the lighting, but blurred subjects. Artistic, but not the pics I was trying to achieve.

I'm under the impression that the club you're talking about, easily 3x larger than the one I was in, had quite a bit more lighting. I'll take back what I said about the low-light performance being sub-par and simply rate it "par", but I want to definately illustrate that there is a VERY substantial difference between its low-light performance vs. a dSLR. Noise can be found as low as ISO 200 with the 880, whereas good dSLRs can provide barely noticeable noise up to ISO 1600.

Also, the pics you're taking of patrons... are the posing or dancing while you take the pics?
wizbummer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2006, 7:33 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
wizbummer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 309
Default

Well I see a few substantial differences in the way we've taken the pics, at least with the ones you've provided:

1) You used ISO levels of 200-400, and there is noticeable noise (the wall in pic 2, the neon sign and the bloke's face to the right in pic 3). It's acceptable levels for people buying pics of themselves and friends, as most of them don't demand quality really any better than a disposable. When I take pics of the performers that I hope to be able to sell, noticeable noise is unacceptable for both myself and my customers (they see a "professional" camera, they want professional quality pics). Although noise can be reduced on a computer, the less post-treatment I need to apply to the pics, the better!

2) you were using flash (well diffused, I must say!) For the pics I had taken at the cafe, the flash would certainly bring out the details but totally wash out the mood that the stage lights had set. Plus, it's distracting to performers so I limit the use of it as much as possible.

3) your subjects are posing. Even without using a flash you could get a decent light level just from a longer exposure. Performers don't stand there and wait for you to take the pics, you have to work to their movements and actions.

It's great that the 880 works well for the kind of pics you're taking. The low-light performance doesn't suit well for this particular situation I've mentioned here (a dSLR would fare much better), but for just about everything else, it's proven superb.
wizbummer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2006, 7:57 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
TheMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 202
Default

It's actually a very dark environment aside from the disco lighting. The venue is lit only by fast moving very colourful lights. It's been a nightmare to shoot in there with other cameras I've tried. Most recently the Canon iXUS i Zoom advanced digital which cost me the same price as I paid for my P880 couldn't handle that bar. The photos were always ruined by the fast moving colour and strobe lighting. The P880 had no problems.

I photographed some dancers also, and it captured them without any level of movement blur which is also something my previous cameras struggled with.

I'm happy with the performance already but I know it can do much better. I just need to configure the camera in the darkest bar we promote rather than at home.

Also, what about this time lapse. That's actually a really good feature for the camera. I've never been interested in time lapse photography before given the nature of my interest in photography. However playing with it this evening I've discovered a whole new world of photographic fun. More for my own personal amusement than any professional use. Lots of fun to be had with that... Oh the possibilities are endless :-)
TheMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2006, 8:17 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
wizbummer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 309
Default

The time-lapse has intruiged me as well, but the only time I really tried it, the camera turned off! only got 2 pics!
wizbummer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2006, 9:22 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
TheMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 202
Default

So the lens adaptor allows us to use 52mm lenses and filters to the camera right?

The reason I'm asking is that I've seen a
CRYSTALVUE SHARPSHOOTER 8x TELEPHOTO ( ZOOM ) LENS which I really like the look of. A bit on the expensive side though so thought I'd check it's going to fit before I make the purchase.
TheMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2006, 2:09 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
wizbummer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 309
Default

8x? that's an eBay item right? (I remember seeing lots of crystalvue stuff on there).
If so, steer clear. I mean, WAY clear. More money doesn't always mean better product, but that is the general trend. Take into account that the kodak tcon adapter, which is a quality item, retails for close to $150, at best it's like $110.

Simply put, with add-on converters you will get lots of distortion with anything greater than 2x, unless you spend close to what you did on the camera. Go with names you trust; kodak (of course), olympus, raynox, etc. On another forum (I've forgotten which one) someone had done a comparison between the olympus tcon17 (1.7x) and the kodak's schneider 1.4x with a P880. The olympus had shown some great results with other kodaks, namely the dx6490 and P850, but the comparison shots on this forum showed the olympus to be mediocre with the P880. I have found several raynox lens adapters for decent prices, but still have yet to find any reviews or comparison pics of them used w/ an 880. Raynox makes an adapter that goes up to 2.2x with low distortion, but the thing is close to the size and weight of the 880 and costs $180+.

The P880 is not a high-zoom model and, unfortunately, it seems was not intended as such. The 850 or 712 is so much better suited for it, a 12x base optical that works well with a 1.7x adapter (20.4x), and then you have a decent digital zoom on top of that (up to 5x! but I'd use 2x at the most) Don't be afraid to use the 880's digital zoom at 1.4x or even 2x, it's pretty low on the distortion.

Oh, and the lens adapter tube that kodak sells has to be used with any extra lens attachments. The 52mm front thread is JUST FOR FILTERS! It's not designed to hold the weight of any sort of lens adapters, there is a removable aluminum ring w/ a thin silver line on it, on the tip of the zoom ring. Read your manual closer for a diagram of it. Once removed, you use the adapter tube so that any lens adapter you use will not interefere with the camera's lens, and that's a 55mm mount.
wizbummer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2006, 3:47 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
TheMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 202
Default

Ah... Interesting read there. Thanks for the advice, I'll look into them directly. To be honest I just liked the look of the Sharpshooter. Fancied myself as Manchester's paparazzi :-)
TheMachine 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 12:42 PM.