Cameras and Software

Gallery, Projects and General > How do I??

<< < (2/6) > >>

garym:
Spot on vtsteam.

While I use a compact for pics in the workshop I only have to compare with my DSLR to know which is best for dynamic range and low light.

I resize to about 800 x 600 or similar for the web and upload video to YouTube then link with the YouTube button.

Having said all that I've not made much to take pics of so far :Doh:

Gary

JD:
Gentlemen thanks for your input, my photography up until about 3 years ago was still 35mm roll film I found I had more control but now having joined several forums I have to drag myself into the 21 century.

Andrew, I have tried using my Samsung Galaxy mobile but the results are disappointing (probably me) so I will put that on the back burner for now, but I will go with the idea of attaching to a post in these forums and by-passing third party sites.

Tom, thanks for your input I will give your suggestions some consideration, the Cyberlink Power Director package looks a good deal.

Don, Andrews posts as you say are excellent in the way they are laid out, easy to understand and tell a story that is easy to follow.

vtsteam, I am not a point and shoot man (old habits die hard after 40 years of 35mm) I would like some control, as you say the battle of the numbers in digital photography is mind boggling.
My first digital camera was a second hand Fuji Finepix but sadly I cant get cards for it any more but may stay with the brand. In the mid 80s when digital cameras were becoming a reality I read an artical in a PC mag that in their professional opinion we would not need more then 3 megapixels, and for some people that comment still holds water ? it seems the consensus that 640x480 is the way to go.

Gary, DSLR is an option, you hit two birds with stone.

Thanks for your thoughts John W

vtsteam:

--- Quote from: JD on November 11, 2013, 05:25:13 PM ---vtsteam, I am not a point and shoot man (old habits die hard after 40 years of 35mm) I would like some control, as you say the battle of the numbers in digital photography is mind boggling.
My first digital camera was a second hand Fuji Finepix but sadly I cant get cards for it any more but may stay with the brand. In the mid 80s when digital cameras were becoming a reality I read an artical in a PC mag that in their professional opinion we would not need more then 3 megapixels, and for some people that comment still holds water ? it seems the consensus that 640x480 is the way to go.

--- End quote ---

Well for posting on a forum, yes 640 x 480 or even 800 x 600. But any camera even an older one will easily exceed that.

For printing you'll want at least 2 megapixels -- but numbers like 8 megapixels seems a waste to me -- and often it's just a multiplication internally of some lower actual optical resolution -- something your printer can do, or your software, and not necessary in a camera.

Every "point and shoot" camera I've seen has manual controls too, so you can revert to your old ways!

I used to tote around a Canon F-1 back in the mid 70's when I worked as a reporter, we'd push Tri-X up to 1600 to get some shots into the paper and feel like we were at the limits of what was doable.

Fuji has always been ahead of the digital pack in available light capabilities. My 3 year old F31fd is amazing to me, even now. Think 3200 ASA Kodachrome. That's what it's like in both quality and low light capability. I turned my flash off -- I've never once used it in 3 years.

JD:
vtsteam,
I have had a rummage through the internet and think I will stick with Fuji, garym has mentioned DSLR, these cameras take both Still/Video with very good results so this is the direction I am leaning towards.
I spent 25 years in the Royal Navy so a camera was a must, after a few years I bought an Olympus om10 and built on that platform superb (I still have the camera) AGFA slide film was my medium (later went on to develop my own) as family and my local photographic club showed great interested this was the best way for me to show the extent of my travels.
Once again thanks for your advice.

John W

S. Heslop:
I used to do photography as a hobby till I had one of those existential crises when I realised nobody except myself cared about my boring photos of trees and lakes.

I've still got a dslr but I rarely use it. I recently bought a Nikon s8200 for the HD video but found the point and shoot convenient for workshop photos in general. I can take the jpegs right off the camera unedited but the jpegs the dslr took almost always had too much contrast and terrible colour correction. I suppose it's expected for you to be editing the .raws manually in post, but I hear this is a problem with most dslrs. Older ones at least, I haven't read about them since the Canon 50d was new.

Not that i'm saying a point and shoot takes better photos, but in my experience it's alot more convenient. Cheaper too, so you don't have to worry as much about using your oily hands to operate it.

Edit: I'm not sure if I worded that very well. I feel camera selection all depends on why you're taking photos. I never felt comfortable taking photos for their own sake, and all the photos I take now are more about the subject matter i'm trying to show to other people than the photo itself. So to me photo quality is less important than convenience, and you can't beat the convenience of a durable point and shoot that fits in your pocket.

Navigation

 Message Index

Go to full version