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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 5, 2009, 5:04 PM   #161
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default The Canon XS DSLR Camera at ISO 1600

Hi there, Folks-

I am getting up a Canon XS DSLR camera, side by side comparison photos, that were taken at ISO 1600, as well. We want to give equal coverage to all of the cameras that we are examining in this thread.

Once again, because the XS is also a DSLR with a physically much larger imager, the comparison shows that like the A-230 image this is alo a pretty clean image with pretty good definition and with less visible electronic noise.

If you are wondering why all of our photos today (09/05) are indoor photos, we had a cold front move in last night bring heavy rain showers today. We will hop that tomorrow (09/06) we will have better weather and that we can get outdoors.

Sarah Joyce

Sarah Joyce
Attached Images
 

Last edited by mtclimber; Sep 5, 2009 at 5:08 PM.
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 5, 2009, 5:06 PM   #162
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Sarah, you may also want to look at the new A500 and A550 (both with Live View). It looks like the noise reduction algorithms may have improved a bit with the newer models (more of a Nikon look to chroma noise removal at higher ISO speed settings). But, until we see more controlled conditions tests, that will probably be debated.

Neither have the viewfinder size or control layout of the A700 though. They also don't get the A700's better AF system (although many users may not care about that kind of thing).

Oops... I missed your last post (I was probably typing at the same time). Sorry about that. Hopefully, the weather will improve for you.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 5, 2009, 5:11 PM   #163
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Not to worry, JimC-

That also happen to me as well. I am writing an answer, while a new post gets posted. Even though the A-700 is two years old it has a better focusing system, and better viewfinder, than that offered by the new A-500/550 cameras.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 5, 2009, 6:44 PM   #164
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Hi there, T-

Let's see if we can analyze why the photos you took at the football game of the cheerleaders, went wrong. Would you mind if we did that? I think it might be helpful to all of those who are following this thread.

(1) You mentioned a point & shoot camera, what camera was it exactly.

(2) What was the lighting that you used to take the photos?

(3) If you used flash, was it an external flash, or the camera's built-in flash?

(4) If you used either kind of flash, how many feet were you distant from the cheerleaders?

(5) Were you using the fully automatic mode or something different?

(6) Did you move out of the spectator grandstand area to get closer to the cheerleaders in preparation for taking your photos?

(7) Could you please post one of the photos taken of the cheerleaders, to help in analyzing the photo?

Bradley and I hope that you are enjoying a wonderful Holiday Weekend. We have a small shaft of sunlight and the heavy rain has just stopped. We hope that bodes well for tomorrow (09/06), although right now the weather folks are forcasting showers for tomorrow.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 5, 2009, 8:10 PM   #165
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default Kodak Z980 Camera at ISO 1600

Hi there, Folks-

Here we have another ISO 1600 photo from yet another camera. Why is it important? Because it really shows the classic defects in definition and electronic noise. It is so classical in its appearance, that I really want you to see it.

The camera is another super zoom camera, one of the new 24X optical zoom cameras, the Kodak Z-980 camera. As I mentioned earlier, this camera is not a good high iso capable camera. But take a good look. Even in the photo on the left, you can see the color blotchiness. When you look at the 100% crop the blotchiness is very, very evident, the definition is very reduced, and wow, the electronic noise is there in spades! There are multi-colored spots, and the graininess. That is what electronic noise really looks like. After looking at this comparison, you will see why I say that the DSLR camera comparisons are relatively much cleaner.

Sarah Joyce
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 5, 2009, 10:02 PM   #166
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 49
Default

Sony a230 seems to be the cleaner winner in image quality over the canon xs hands down.

Sarah, my little tiny camera is very old - canon powershot a520. It only has 4x zoom and 4 mp. I was able to get on cose to the field (on the track) but was still about 30 - 50 ft. away. The brightness was ok but the problem as stated about was the zoom and lag shutter time. I didn't cound it but it literally did seem to be a good 4-5 seconds. I will attempt to upload them but as you can imagine by my information above the pics stink!!! At this time any camera would be an improvement over what i have.
Thanks,
t
tcn1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 5, 2009, 10:45 PM   #167
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 49
Default


Well after I uploaded them - I was wrong light proved to be a significant problem. Keep in mind the shutter lag is long so buy the time I shot the picture - she moved.
tcn1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 5, 2009, 10:47 PM   #168
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default Examining Your Cheerleading!

T-

Many thanks for the information and your willingness to attempt to solve what happened at the football game with your photos of the cheerleaders.

Unfortunately, you were perhaps dealing with a night time photo and there was hardly any ambient light to assist your Canon A-520 camera in getting the photos. Can we assume that made an attempt to use some type of flash, most probably just the Canon A-520's built-in flash unit.

However, after seeing your uploaded cheerleading photo, I would estimate that you were not 30 to 50 feet from the cheerleaders, as you first reported in your initial post, but more like 8 to 10 feet from your cheerleaders. That gave your Canon A-520 camera a slight advantage. The photo looks much better than it would have looked if you really were really 30 to 50 feet away.

Without any ambient light or any reflective surfaces on that football field, and using the Full Automatic Mode, you would have had to be about 8 to 10 feet maximum, away from that cheerleading squad, which, thank Goodness, you actually were! And you must understand that under those conditions, your A-520 camera would have selected 1/60 of a second as the shutter speed.

So now we have look at that photo in terms of how it could have been better. Staying within the correct flash range for your camera is the first requirement. You got some blurring, so had you selected and set a fixed ISO at say ISO 400, the result would have been a better photo. So a better camera is going to be the first and biggest assist in getting better photos.

Our eyes are really amazing instruments! Because we can see something, does not necessarily mean that we can capture of photo of it.
Our cameras are essentially rather technically limited recording devices. That is where photo craft comes into play. When we know how and why photos are captured, we can, by using better cameras, take better photos.

Given the required time, anyone can learn the rules of the photo craft. We have to be patient, as we take the time to learn our photo craft and to use our digital cameras well. It is through trial, error, and experience, that we will begin to see much improved photos coming from our cameras.

The bottom line is that you, T, can do just that. Please don't give up! i have attached a slightly larger image of your photo to this post. Please remember that when you upload a photo, itis best if it in in a standardized 8" X 10" format, and you should select the size, stated in pixels, as 500 X 400 pixels. That way, all of us viewing this thread will be better able to see your photo in this thread. You are gaining ground and getting better, T. Please don't give up now. You can do it.

Sarah Joyce
Attached Images
 

Last edited by mtclimber; Sep 5, 2009 at 11:31 PM.
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 5, 2009, 10:49 PM   #169
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 49
Default

I am going to show you more of the types - with exception of inside a gym or theater that I would take.
tcn1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 5, 2009, 10:51 PM   #170
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 49
Default

tcn1991 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 9:07 PM.