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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 17, 2009, 6:19 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Yes, but a 100mm lens on a T1i or XSi would be the 35mm film equivalent of a 160mm lens. That would be more like an 80mm lens on your E-620
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2009, 6:44 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Many thanks, TCav-

My bad. I converted the E-620 lens set-up but did not do it for the Canon XSi or T-1. I agree with you completely, it would be effectively 160mm on the Canon cameras.

Well, that might even be a better focal length for the shooting positions java cleve has to use at her gymnasium. Thanks for the correction.

Have a great weekend.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2009, 9:50 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtclimber View Post
Well, javacleve-

We have had a lot of good discussion, especially today, and, as I see it, the camera body choices are being driven by the available lenses. Canon seems to be in the lead, with the XSi, the T-1, and the 50D emerging as good camera body choices.

Lens selection is much more subjective, and depends on the camera user's position when taking photos, and in your gym, as well as the kind.type of photos desired. Cetainly, the Canon 85mm F 1.8 is a contender, as is a longer zoom with at least F 2.8 available on it.

When you went to the camera shop did you handle the XSi? I recall you mentioning handling the 50D. I know size and weight are important to you.

Personally, I would be very hard pressed to see how any point and shoot cameras could be recording really good image quality images based on the lighting that is available in your gym.

Have a good weekend.

Sarah Joyce
Hi Sarah, I handled the T1i, not the xsi, but it felt okay (weight wise, it's about the same as the Oly, actually)...it's just the SIZE that's different (which may seem like a weird complaint, but it comes down to where do I store it and will it get used). So, at the moment, I am re-evaluating my desire for "small" and thinking about where I could keep a bigger camera so that it got use. I'm not sure of a solution at the moment, but it's a consideration. It still comes to cost and the fact that I have other Oly lenses, too...BUT, if I can't get good gymnastics photos with the Oly then is that worth the trade off...
javacleve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2009, 9:54 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Ok, the gym mom came through... here are her photos. Now, when I look at the photo I see exif info, but let me know if you can't and I'll copy and paste it (if you're interested). The data is saying the camera is a Panasonic TMC-DZ5... Keep in mind that these are resized, so the originals will print a little better than these would. The full size image on my email looked very grainy, but when viewed in JASC paint shop at print size, they looked decent (and certainly better than MY photos)...

ETA removed photos until I ask for permission to post

Last edited by javacleve; Oct 18, 2009 at 4:25 PM.
javacleve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2009, 10:55 PM   #45
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

well it does come down to trade-offs.

if you weren't so interested in the gym shots. i would heartily recommend the oly e-620, i think its a fantastic entry-level camera. and for everyday use, it would be superb.

but, it just cannot compete with the canon and 100 f2.0 (in the gym). at least not without putting a lens on it that would cost more than the complete system.

so there is your trade-off and the decision you need to make.

which is more important to you. we have given you all the information. now its up to you.

=)

Last edited by Hards80; Oct 17, 2009 at 11:00 PM.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2009, 12:15 AM   #46
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

The EXIF data is available in the images you posted. The first was shot at 1/50, f/4.8, ISO 800, with flash, and at 27.1mm (35mm equivalent: 160mm). The second was shot at 1/40, f/4.9, ISO 800, without flash, and at 47mm (35mm equivalent: 280mm).

The shutter speeds were way too slow, even though the shots were taken when the subjects were relatively motionless, there was a lot of noise, and the images were soft, especially for a reduced image. I think these are not the best this camera can do, and these are definately not to be envied.

You didn't tell them that you'd be posting these on the internet, did you?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2009, 7:42 AM   #47
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

It just occurred to me that one of these images could have been a single image extracted from a video, and that would explain the quality.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2009, 8:10 AM   #48
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

The EXIF is probably being stripped out because your photos exceeded the maximum file size allowed for attachments. When you're at the screen that allows you to upload a photo for attaching to a post, you'll see those limits. If you exceed them, the photo will be downsized and/or resampled at a lower JPEG quality, and the EXIF information will be stripped out.

IOW, you'll want to make sure your photos are downsized so that their file size is no larger than 2600000 bytes (approximately 253.9KB), and no larger than 1024 pixels on either side. Otherwise, the forums software is going to recompress them at a lower quality and remove the EXIF metadata. For albums (versus forum posts), we ask that dimensions are no larger than 1024 x 768. Otherwise, the same type of recompression is going to occur (so that we can allow you to upload photos, even when they exceed the limits we have set).

So, when downsizing an image with an editor, lower your JPEG Quality settings if the file size exceeds the limits to prevent this issue.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2009, 9:52 AM   #49
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

BTW, javacleve, if the person that sent you those images doesn't know that you were going to post them on the internet, you really shouldn't do it. I suggest that you remove the images from your post, and send them to each of us here via a PM.

And I also suggest that you not tell her that they're here. She would probably feel uncomfortable having a lot of strangers critiquing her efforts.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2009, 4:23 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post
The EXIF is probably being stripped out because your photos exceeded the maximum file size allowed for attachments. When you're at the screen that allows you to upload a photo for attaching to a post, you'll see those limits. If you exceed them, the photo will be downsized and/or resampled at a lower JPEG quality, and the EXIF information will be stripped out.

IOW, you'll want to make sure your photos are downsized so that their file size is no larger than 2600000 bytes (approximately 253.9KB), and no larger than 1024 pixels on either side. Otherwise, the forums software is going to recompress them at a lower quality and remove the EXIF metadata. For albums (versus forum posts), we ask that dimensions are no larger than 1024 x 768. Otherwise, the same type of recompression is going to occur (so that we can allow you to upload photos, even when they exceed the limits we have set).

So, when downsizing an image with an editor, lower your JPEG Quality settings if the file size exceeds the limits to prevent this issue.
Maybe that's it, although I thought I checked that, and resized the images to 800x600...but I didn't look at the file size.
Maybe I am not looking in the right place for exif data, but when I opened her photos all I could see was the camera name and flash "on" -- the other fields were blank.

I did tell her that I would show the photos to others who were interested in a camera for gymnastics (not for critiquing), but I didn't specifically say it would be on the internet...I figured that no one knows who she is anyway since I didn't post her name or anything. However, I see your point, because if she or someone who know her daughter finds her way here, then she could be upset, so I will remove them until I ask her if it's okay.
I just hope the OP got to see them, or if not, lmk and I will send them to you in a PM...
Thanks!

Last edited by javacleve; Oct 18, 2009 at 4:26 PM.
javacleve 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 6:31 AM.