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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 17, 2002, 12:48 PM   #111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 107
Default

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.pbase.com/jasm/jasm I think I am about to admit defeat I took some images this afternoon in low sun and cold frost and I know Olympus are not into human eye design but the images[3] posted required lightening on most of them I had briefly flirted with a canon s30 and dont recall images so dark.It is painful as I felt on Olympus side when I read the critics on this site.
jasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2002, 1:32 PM   #112
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 20
Default

James don't give up. Those pictures are way better then the first ones you posted. Great job at improving so quickly. The light isn't a big deal, you can fix that in a software program or use you LCD when shooting and bump up the exposure compensation until it looks good to your eye.
Brian_T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2002, 4:13 PM   #113
Senior Member
 
fenlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 251
Default

James,

These pics are MILES better than your first post. The viewpoints are better chosen, the composition is more interesting and the pictures are technically much improved.

The pic of the bridge is a little soft, probably due to the light and a slowish shutter speed, but at the same time the arrangement of the bridge and the reflection is very pleasing. Shows why the pros always use a tripod. It's the one I like best.

In "garden" you have coped well with difficult contrast: it's a much better picture than the earlier one of the same subject. "Stair" is a little uncertain what its centre of interest is, but there are some details in the picture that would be worth revisiting.

These are a big step forward - reason for satisfaction, I should think.

fenlander
fenlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2002, 4:19 PM   #114
Senior Member
 
fenlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 251
Default

Brian,

And I just thought the colour was nicely balanced - says a lot for your retouching skills. What happened to the hunters? - did you delete them?

fenlander
fenlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2002, 7:45 PM   #115
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 26
Default

I am buying my first digital camera and the c-4000 looked great. I noticed that back in November everybody has issues with the CA and focus traits of the camera. Now those problems don't seem to be on the board too much.

Does anybody know it the c-50 is a better camera?
Would I be better off buying a different brand/camera?

I really only have 2 basic requirements - that I can use off the shelf batteries if needed and that the pictures are excellent. The pictures will be emailed or posted online 95% of the time for now - but in the future I may get more into printing.

I'm sure you have been asked these questions a lot lately, but I would appreciate the help. So far the cameras that looked good were the:
C-730
c-4000
c-50
The canon line looks good but they tend to use non-AA batteries. Then there are the "little" cameras. I will probably get a travel camera down the road to take on motorcycle day trips in the area.

It is a lot of money to spend if you end up unhappy - but it will be such a great bargain if it ends up being the "right" camera.
Lodewick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2002, 12:28 AM   #116
Senior Member
 
marcoangels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 243
Default

Okay Fenlander, you suggest I may not be focusing correctly...on the 'badcamera' pic, I spot focused on the house...should I have focused on the skyline, the road, or what?
marcoangels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2002, 3:46 AM   #117
Senior Member
 
fenlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 251
Default

Marco,

Once upon a time... cameras used to have a depth of focus scale printed round their focusing ring that showed the range of distances in focus for any given aperture (depth of field - dof). Nowadays we rely on the electronics.

Several factors affect depth of field:
- focal length (the more you zoom towards tele, the less the dof)
- aperture (the wider the aperture, the less the dof)
- distance to subject (the nearer the subject, the less the dof)

So for a given aperture, if you focus on a nearby object, the dof may be only a few feet. At the same aperture, focusing at 15 feet may give you sharpness all the way to the horizon. This is particularly true of macros, where the dof may be only a few millimetres and it is particularly important to use as small an aperture as possible.

In the case of "bad camera" you were using program mode, so the aperture was probably f2.8, giving very little dof. To get the widest range of in-focus objects in your pic, you should probably have focused at 10-12 feet. This would have given sharp focus from maybe 8 feet to infinity, but the house would probably not have been sharp. To improve on this, it is essential to change one or both of the other variables, i.e. zoom out towards wide-angle (if possible), but most particularly, switch to aperture priority and stop down to f5.6 or f8. Then focus a bit closer, say at 5-6 feet: you should have sharp focus from about 3 feet to infinity.

With three variables to juggle, all these distances are approximate, but I hope the principle is clear.

There are other knock-on effects. If you use a telephoto setting, you need a shorter exposure in order to avoid camera shake. But at the same time you need a smaller aperture to get some depth of field, and a smaller aperture means a longer exposure! At that point you start thinking about upping the ISO to compensate. But that increases noise... It's all a question of finding the best balance of all these factors for the shot you're taking.

Really simple point-and-shoot film cameras use short focal length lenses (around 35mm) with small max apertures (around f8) and this allows them to have fixed focus that makes everything sharp from maybe 3 feet to infinity. The downside of that is that they can't take pictures in poor light except with flash. The C4000 is a more demanding beast...

fenlander
fenlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2002, 6:37 AM   #118
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 107
Default

Thanks I appreciate the support I dont think in the end there is enough time to progress into some mastering of this.I dont mean I stand in a corner in tears its just it is seeming to lack some logic and as an extension to computer use it is good if a little competative.Will try again without seeking attention.
jasm
jasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2002, 11:56 AM   #119
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9
Default

Thank you, fenlander. That was probably one of the best and easiest to understand explanations of aperture and shutter speed I have seen. I printed that one out.
Necron99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2002, 12:04 PM   #120
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 107
Default

Fenlander that was classic.Imight be out of order but I just posted snap of the Waverly in Glasgow taken in auto I wonder if Ishould get this camera back.
jasm
jasm 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 3:43 PM.