Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 7, 2008, 3:26 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Here is another bounce flash example using the D-40 with the kit lens (Nikkor 18-55mm).

Sarah Joyce
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2008, 7:44 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 32
Default

Well I took some samples to show the problems I've had with my Casio EX-Z1050.

Yes I'm always experiemnting with the EV exposure.I'm sure I've practically 'mastered' my Casios.

But as you can see from my samples the 1050 is even worse than my old Creative cam.It's just so dull and lifeless.I've been very happy with the video however, having made a holiday video with it with is just as pleasing as withmy Sony Camcorder.

Hope someone can help,this is why I was thinknig of a new camera, like a Finepix S9600.


Attached Images
 
Lordy08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2008, 12:06 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

I'm no expert - but your samples got me curious. The first thing I thought of is that the last one is underexposed and definitely has a different white balance than the first two. What color is the wall and curtains? You've used flash with some other type of lighting and I suspect none of them are accurate, but thought the last one might actually be closer than the first two, once the underexposure was corrected. I did a very quick levels change in Photoshop, which would simulate setting the Ev to somewhat over-expose the shot (assuming the camera wasn't set to underexpose) and thought the results were quite nice - I thought the Casio Z1050 captured a bit more detail than the other two. You might trya plus EV and see if that makes a difference, especiallywhen you are using flash(if you are interested, I can post or PM my quick attempt).
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2008, 3:56 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 200
Default

I can understand what you are saying about the "dullness" of the EX-Z1050 image compared to the other two images and agree with mtngal. I did the same thing in Photoshop to get a more pleasing image. The white balance of the EX-Z1050 is much more accurate (assuming that the radiator is white?), but the picture does look underexposed. If you are sure that there is no negative exposure compensation, it is possible that there is a metering problem. Video (which you like) uses multi metering, whereas stills can have spot or multi metering. My wife's Casio is set to Multi metering, with +1 on Contrast, Sharpening and Saturation. Do you know of anyone else who has the same camera that you could compare images with to reassure yourself that there isn't a camera fault before you buy another digicam?
1eyedeer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2008, 10:17 AM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 32
Default

Mtmgal and 1eyedeer,yes thanks, I'd like to see your photoshop experiemnts if possible.

I do use photoshop,I'm not bad at it but still find the results not as good as theQV-R40 .PlusI'd rather not have to go through all my pics on photoshop before they are right!

The QV-R40 pic in my sample is definately closer to the real life colours,the carpet and wall are very veryclose to real life.

I have experiemnted with different white balance settings,they can look better, but usually result in the 'orangey' look,it has more life but looks unatural.

I've just checked my EX-Z1050 and it is set up to Multi Metering.This is someting I've never changed,maybe I should experiement with this?

Thanks in advance!





Lordy08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2008, 1:56 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 200
Default

If the camera is not faulty, you should be able to get bright vibrant images withsun lit outdoor sceneswith auto settings and Best Shot modes. I've never been happy with digicam indoor pictures with or without flash (which is one of the main reasons I bought an entry level DSLR). It sounds as if you have enough knowledge and experience to experiment with settings, so either the camera is faulty or the indoor pictures are too different to the other two cameras for your taste. You certainly shouldn't have to use a lot of post processing with a digicam - the default settings normallygive saturated colours and high contrast. The flash systems are usually poor with either too harsh light or too dark pictures, so I wouldn't expect too much of any non DSLR for indoor pictures. Even my compact Fuji 31fd with acknowledged low noise at higher ISOs is markedly inferior to my DSLR in low light.

Back to your original post, if you do go the DSLR route, low light performance is much better than small sensor digicams but you will probably spend more time post processing images of indoor and outdoor images, and the intitial cost of the body and kit lens is just the beginning!


1eyedeer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2008, 6:32 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

1eyedeer-

That was why I suggested the Nikon D-40. Photos right out of the camera come closest in appearance to your average point and shoot digicam, thus reducing the need a lot of post processing.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2008, 10:06 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

I wasn't so much thinking about using Photoshop to correct the picture, but to get an idea what setting you might change to get a better picture - i.e, by setting the camera to a +EV. Some cameras have a tendency to either over or underexpose pictures - I used to have a very nice camera that tended to underexpose so that it wouldn't blow out the highlights. Once I got used to it, I made use of it's tendency and would set it for a +.5 Ev when I didn't have serious highlights to worry about. Anyway, here's what I came up with - I made the third example a separate layer, then adjusted the levels to bring out the highlights, leaving the first two examples alone.

If you do a lot of flash photography, you might want to think about getting one with a hot shoe, and getting an external flash unit. They would be brighter than the in-camera flash (I've never been impressed any of my various camera's internal flash, and had always disliked flash photography because of that - recently I bought an external flash unit and have been having great fun discovering how much you can do by bouncing light off things, etc.). I haven't looked at p&s cameras in over 2 years when I bought my first dSLR, so don't know which fixed lens cameras would offer a hot shoe or ability to use an external flash.

Anyway, for what it's worth, here's what I came up with using Photoshop and a couple of minutes. I'm sure you could probably do better with the original file and by spending some more time with it.

P.S. Just my experience, but I get much better results at all kinds of things with my Pentax dSLRs than I did with a Panny FZ30. However, I've also caught LBA (Lens Buying Addiction)badly and have spent far more on a variety of lenses and accessoriesthan I did on the two camera bodies I have. I've also had a great time taking some really cool pictures, too!

Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2008, 4:50 PM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 32
Default

I have experiemtned with +EV setting's, it make the pics brighter,but doesen' really do the trick.

I'm starting to think the camera is just lousy.:sad:

There's a thread in the Casio section where someone else had the same problemsI've had:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=14

Mtngal, your photoshop job on my pic is a nice improvement,I've attached one I've just done in photoshop,probably sharpened mine too much.


Attached Images
 
Lordy08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2008, 10:01 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

Looks like you've got a good handle on Photoshop, and if you can't get what you want out of the camera, then it might be time for a new camera.

Everyone has different opinions on what is acceptable for them. For instance, I had bought an FZ30 and never liked what I got from it, while others loved theirs. The Fuji 9600 has a good reputation, but it won't give you as good results as any of the entry level dSLR cameras. I ended up buying a Pentax and have both the K100 and the K10 (I'm very happy with both of them). Every so often I'll find myself branching out into a new area of photography and buying a new lens that would be appropriate for it. I've ended up spending a whole bunch more money than if I had kept the FZ30, but I've been much happier with my pictures - it's been worth it for me. The nice thing is that you can start small (camera body and the kit lens, for instance), then gradually add a lens or two as you find something that what you have doesn't do well - you don't have to buy everything at once. After a couple of years, if you decide you want a new camera, you'd only have to buy the camera body - you continue to use the same lenses.

Jim already posted a list of possible cameras to look at - a good thing is to go to a camera shop and handle all of them to see if you prefer one over the rest.
mtngal 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 5:35 PM.