"Jitz" writes:
I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
It's *very* unlikely that the blur/fuzz problem you're seeing is a
result of low resolution. How are you viewing the pictures when you
see the problem? On a computer monitor, or after printing on paper?
And what size? It's probably a question of camera shake, slow shutter
speeds, and subject motion, and can only really be solved by better
technique on your part (including not trusting the camera
automation).
I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
it's a fai trade-off.
I can't obviously give a meaningful answer about what you'd be happy
enough with. I can make some guesses in that direction, though.
My guess is that you're not dedicated enough to photography to take
the effort to lug around the big DSLR plus lenses, or to work them
hard enough that you get much benefit from them compared to the better
P&S cameras. Please don't take this as criticism; there are many days
when I'm not dedicated enough to lug around my big cameras either, and
either shoot nothing, or some kind of P&S. Fancy equipment that ends
up being more trouble than you're willing to spend doesn't contribute
to better pictures for real people! You have to decide how hard
you're willing to work vs. what quality of photo you'll be happy
with. None of the choices there are "wrong"; you're taking pictures
for yourself and your family, not for me.
Before spending money on a new camera, I'd make some serious attempts
to figure out what's really causing your problems with the results
from your current camera. If you can identify the specific ways it's
failing you, that'll make it much easier to select your next camera,
because you'll know in more detail what you need it to do better.
(And you might learn that you can make your current camera produce
results you like, which would save you money.)
Two things to check -- on a bunch of unsharp pictures, check the 35mm
equivalent focal length and the shutter speed in the EXIF
information. The rule of thumb is that the shutter speed should be
1/focal length or shorter (but with sloppy hand-holding technique you
can do worse than that, and with good technique you can do much
better).
Also, try taking some pictures of detailed subjects holding still with
your camera on some kind of support (a tripod is traditional, but just
setting it on a table works for this). The intention is to eliminate
any question about your technique holding the camera steady. If
*these* pictures are unsharp, blaming it on the camera in some way
looks more reasonable.
Or is it possibly as simple as you're letting the focus spot fall
between subjects, so you're focusing at the wrong distance? Make sure
you know how your autofocus system works, and how to lock focus.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/
|