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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 5, 2006, 4:05 PM   #21
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 32
Default

moutain view, but next shot is cropped to cut out the cars and road, and to bring mountains closer with out cutting off at the ends.
Attached Images
 
Want It is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 5, 2006, 4:06 PM   #22
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 32
Default

JimC

Same shot, cropped mountain views! I cloned out the wires across the top, by cloing the sky. The thing I don't like about the cropping is that the size integrity doesn't stay as it should. when cropping the bottom of this, it makes it regtangular, yes I could have made the sides come in as well, but then the photo gets smaller again.

Now I feel like I am totally back to square one with my camera choice if I understand you correctly, that my old camera is capable of more zoom?

Wow, I am so sorry to be such a pain, but I am really trying to learn, and make the right choice!

Thanks sooooooooo much,

Want It
Attached Images
 
Want It is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 5, 2006, 4:09 PM   #23
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Want It wrote:
Quote:
So you are saying that my old camera (Kodak) is capable of more zoom, then the A620? If that is the case, I certainly don't want to go backwards or downgrade in that respect!
No, it's got more optical zoom on the long end (longer focal length) for more apparent magnification.

I was pointing out that it does not start out as wide (when you want to get more into the photo without backing up as far).

That can be handy for landscapes, architecture and interiors (a wider view). IOW, a room could appear to be smaller using a lens that didn't have a view that was as wide, which could be important for photographing your homes for flyer purposes.

Canon does offer an add-on lens that can get you wider, though.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 5, 2006, 7:01 PM   #24
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
JimC
Quote:
No, it's got more optical zoom on the long end (longer focal length) for more apparent magnification.
So let me try to understand this.....lower "mm" is better?

Example-

my old Kodak says 30 mm - 60 mm (as you had said)

The Canon A620 says 35 mm- 140 mm equiv.

So maybe I am not using the correct wording or term, but the A620 is lower range than I had in the older Kodak??

Quote:
Canon does offer an add-on lens that can get you wider, though.
Do you mean add-on lens for the A620, and is the A620 then stepping down from what I had?

Based on everything you said, now, I am not sure if that is the right camera choice for me or not? So again, I don't want to get something thatis of lower anything or same as the DC280.

It is definitely time to upgrade to more features and even better quality photos.

Soooo, now not sure at all what to do????:angry: So what do you recommend??

Thanks,

Want It~ gonna change my user name to "Done With It" or "Frustrated"

Want It is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 5, 2006, 7:26 PM   #25
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Want It wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
JimC
Quote:
No, it's got more optical zoom on the long end (longer focal length) for more apparent magnification.
So let me try to understand this.....lower "mm" is better?
It depends on what you're trying to shoot.

What these numbers are indicating is your angle of view (how much apparent magnification you have).

This is determined by the focal lengh of the lens. With a zoom lens, you have a range of focal lengths.

To keep you from being confused even more, I'll discuss it in 35mm equivalent focal length terms (since it's actually a bit more complex than that when you look at actual focal lengths).

Your Kodak has a focal range of 30mm to 60mm. When you are at your widest zoom setting, you're at a focal length of 30mm. That allows you to get more of a scene in the frame (without backing up as much).

When you are at your maximum zoom setting (more apparent magnification), you're at your longest focal length, which is 60mm with your Kodak.

My point is, that if you are trying to take photos of interiors, you may want something that has a wider setting with it's zoom (so you don't need to back up as much, and can get more of the room in a photo).

Your Kodak starts out at 30mm. The Canon models you're looking at start out at 35mm. Lower numbers for this focal length have a wider angle of view (you won't have to back up as much, and can get more of a room in the photo).

So, your Kodak has a wider setting (lower 30mm starting position for it's zoom lens). This can come in handy for interiors.

Quote:
my old Kodak says 30 mm - 60 mm (as you had said)

The Canon A620 says 35 mm- 140 mm equiv.

So maybe I am not using the correct wording or term, but the A620 is lower range than I had in the older Kodak??
The Canon has more range (difference between it's widest setting and it's longest setting when you go from one extreme to the other with the zoom controls). But, the Kodak starts out at a wider setting.

You probably need both (something as wide as your Kodak on the wide end of the zoom range, yet something longer than the Kodak's longest zoom setting).

That way, you can still get as much of a room in the photo as you could with your Kodak (since you can only back up so far when you're inside of a home), yet have more ability to bring in distant subjects closer when desired by using more zoom.

This may help to explain it. Click on a focal length (bottom of the graphics) and see what impact different focal lengths have on the image on screen.

You want to make sure you've got a lens that is wide enough (shorter focal length) so that you can get enough of the room or scene in the image, since you can only back up so far), as well as one that gives you a long enough focal length when you zoom in all the way (to bring in distance subjects closer without cropping).

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/ht...al_length.html


Quote:
Canon does offer an add-on lens that can get you wider, though.
Quote:
Do you mean add-on lens for the A620, and is the A620 then stepping down from what I had?
It allows you to have a wider view than the lens would give you without the add-on lens.

Quote:
Soooo, now not sure at all what to do????:angry: So what do you recommend??
What is your budget?


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 5, 2006, 9:32 PM   #26
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 32
Default

JimC,

First of all, Thank you for hanging in there with me! I really appreciate your help!

The link to Canon to view the focal lengths was great! Really helped to put it into perspective.

I will use which ever camera I finally purchase for our Real Estate business, but it is not the primary use andwill be used for much more than that as well! This is why I want something no less than the Kodak, but more advanced, and something I can grow into, that will give me all around great shots!!

I am not sure that I want something I will have to start changing lenses on either.

ON A Side Note........I read again tonight a new review that sayshigher megapixels can actually make your photos worse quality!

below is the last paragraph (very long posting) of what he wrote in the canon forum at dpreview.com

Entitled Why *less* MP is better

Quote:

I hope I've been able to show that MP aren't the only indicator of image quality (far from it, in fact). As a matter of fact, in many cases, more MP means *lower image quality*, not higher, as a result of the loss of dynamic range even at low-ISO. Noise is a little bit different and there are some mitigating factors I didn't want to go into so I did the above analysis at the pixel level.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
My Budget; I don't really have a fixed amount. I was going to be around $500 for the A620 and including a larger SD card.

I guess it depends on the camera. Which ones are you thinking you would recommend to me?
Want It is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 5, 2006, 10:48 PM   #27
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Want It wrote:
Quote:
The link to Canon to view the focal lengths was great! Really helped to put it into perspective.

I will use which ever camera I finally purchase for our Real Estate business, but it is not the primary use andwill be used for much more than that as well! This is why I want something no less than the Kodak, but more advanced, and something I can grow into, that will give me all around great shots!!
I've spent some time trying to take photos of a home I was selling a while back, and I wouldn't want to try and get by without a camera that went at least as wide as your Kodak (and preferrably, even wider)

Otherwise, you just can't make a room look as nice (you can only back up so far taking photos of some rooms, and you want it to look as spacious as possible, getting as much of the room in a photo as possible).

You can run into problems in all sorts of scenarios where you'll want to have a wider lens. For example, trying to get everyone in a group photo with limited space, or trying to take a photo of a larger building where you don't have room to back up far enough.

So, I wanted to make sure you looked at both ends of the zoom range when camera shopping (not just how long a lens is for bringing in distant subjects closer). The wide end is just as important (or more important if you're photographing homes to try and sell them).

Appropriate use of focal length and subject distance can also give you different perspectives (making things look more or less spread out) to improve images. So, a model with a good focal range from wide to long can help there, too.

Quote:
ON A Side Note........I read again tonight a new review that sayshigher megapixels can actually make your photos worse quality!
That's true (with some qualifications)...

The sensor used in a digital camera is composed of photosites (millions of them in modern cameras).

When light strikes the photosites on the sensor, they produce a signal. The strength of that signal is influenced by the photosites' surface area (more photons strike a larger area allowing a stronger signal to be generated).

So, if you have more photosites (as in more pixels) in the same size sensor, they're smaller (they have to be smaller to fit more of them into the same area). As a result, the signal generated isn't as strong. So, it requires more amplification for equivalent sensitivity to light.

This amplification can add noise, just like turning up the volume on a weak radio station; only instead of hum, static and hiss, you get image noise.

That's one of the reasons DSLR models are becoming so popular now. They have much larger sensors and can shoot at higher ISO speeds with lower noise levels compared to smaller cameras.

Unfortunately, consumers typically think that more megapixels = higher quality, and manufacturers go along with it (it sells cameras). LOL But, most consumers don't reallly need the high megapixel models you see coming out now for the print/viewing sizes they use. As a result, it's not uncommon for users to complain about degraded image quality when they "upgrade" their camera.

I wouldn't touch some of the new 8 Megapixel Subcompact models coming out now with a 10 foot pole. Some are pretty bad. Look at the sample photos in the reviews. Note how some newer subcompact models don't have much dynamic range (ability to capture both light and dark in the same scene). You'll see blown out highlights, washed out skies and colors, muddy shadows, etc. from some newer models coming out.

Of course, then there is the noise issue (similar to film grain, only worse). Many subcompact models can have objectionable noise at anything above their lowest ISO speed settings unless viewing/print sizes are kept small (or the camera's noise reduction is suppressing detail to help smooth it out).

Your Kodak was actually pretty good. I can remember when it won a "blind" shootout that PC Magazine held when it was first introduced. Users looked at a variety of images (without knowing what camera took them) and decided which photos looked best. It ended up getting the "Editors Choice" at the time when they took everything into consideratoin.

It's sensor only has 2 Megapixels in a 1/1.8" style CCD. Newer models are stuffing 7 Megapixels in to the same size CCD; and some newer models are stuffing 7 or 8 Megapixels into even smaller sensors. Consumers seem to demand smaller and smaller cameras (or they want compact ultra-zoom models).

In order to give them compact models with 300 or 400mm lenses (equivalent focal range when compared to a 35mm camera), the sensors have to be even smaller. That's another complex issue (the actual focal lengths of the lenses are much shorter to give you a given 35mm equivalent focal length; and the smaller the sensor, the shorter the actual focal length can be. That allows more compact cameras.

But, there are always tradeoffs. ;-)

Now, the reason I mentioned "with qualifications" is that technlogy is continuing to advance. So, you really need to take each sensor on a case by case basis. Advances have been made (lower dark current noise levels, more advanced microlens design to amplify the light hitting each photosite, etc.). This does help to offset the "megapixel war" we've been seeing over the past few years.

But, overall, I'd say image quality has degraded as far as noise levels and dynamic range are concerned (in non-DSLR cameras) as this crazy race has escalated.

Image processing has improved (and that has helped make up for some of the sensor differences). Also, the noise issues are beginning to reverse now with some of the newer sensors (despite more megapixels in smaller sensors, we're starting to see some improvements in noise with some newer models).

Quote:
My Budget; I don't really have a fixed amount. I was going to be around $500 for the A620 and including a larger SD card.

I guess it depends on the camera. Which ones are you thinking you would recommend to me?
Personally, I'd suggest something starting out at around 28mm on the wide end. Most starting out there are going to have around twice as much optical zoom on the long end as your Kodak does anyway. I'd also strongly suggest a model with the ability to use an external flash for taking photos of home interiors.

Of course, an external falsh will add cost (as will a model that has a wider angle of view than most, since most start out at around 35mm on their wide end).

Let me give it a bit of thought, and check through some newer reviews to see what looks to be some candidates for a good fit in your general budget area.

I hadn't intended to get this involved in the thread.. I was only pointing how cropping impacts your remaining resolution originally. :-) But, I don't mind offering my "two cents worth" if it helps out.

Of course, keep in mind that any opinon you see here is likely to biased, including mine. So, you'll need to make sure you make a decision that you're comfortable with. I'd also make sure to "test drive" any camera you consider in a store. You want to make sure you're happy with it (ergonomics, control layout, LCD, viewfinder, Autofocus speed, etc.).

Each user is going to have different preferences in a camera (and there are a lot of choices).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2006, 3:42 PM   #28
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 32
Default

JimC,

Your patience has really enabled me to learn a great deal over the past few days!! So much of what you are saying is making more and more sense to me. Just like the cameras, I am trying to process all this new information and make sense of it!

I have been looking at some other cameras as well. When I think I may have found one that will incorporate things I am looking for and also things you have said, it is missing one thing or the other! just as you had said! Urgh!

I may have increased my budget as well!

Wow, this is a stretch for me (mentally, not money) but I was looking at the Canon Rebel XT, comes with 2 lenses (as you suggested) 18-55mm and75-300mm, and a Canon photo printer (which I don't need, or pay extra $$ for) priced at $1,184.99

Here's the but.....comes with a 22.2 x 14.8 mm CMOS sensor. I have read that the CCD sensors are better. This isthe only camera of this type I have looked at so far. Someone I know said to look at this one. Hmmm, not sure this is up my alley.

I would love to see the choices you come up with!

Thanks so much for all your help!

Want It

Want It 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 9:45 AM.