A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Picture quality...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 30th 14, 09:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Martin Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 821
Default Picture quality...

On 29/04/2014 23:00, A Moose in Love wrote:

I'd like to purchase a new digital camera. My Mum likes my old one, so I'm giving it to her. My main criteria for a camera is picture quality. I don't need a lot of gadgets. I was thinking of something Panasonic between $250 and $500. I like that they have Leica lenses. However, I've got no problem purchasing a camera with a fixed lens. Most Digitals have zoom lenses, and I wonder about the picture quality. Has technology improved enough that zoom lenses provide exceptional picture quality?
btw...My Dad purchased a Leica in Germany in the '50's. When he came to Canada, he sold it. When I heard that I got ****ed off.


You don't say what your existing digital camera is so it is impossible
to judge what you consider to be "high" picture quality at present.

Zooms up to 3-4x these days are extremely well controlled and in a
digital camera that corrects in software for any lateral chromatic
aberration can be pushed to even longer 10-12x zoom ratios. The price is
typically some pincushion distortion at the ends of the range.

(this can be corrected in post processing software)

There are some pretty good 10x zoom range lenses on cross over cameras
now. Basically you need to decide if you want a camera small enough to
always have with you (like a Canon Ixus), a full DSLR or in between.

The main difference these days is time to focus and manual overrides.
The manual for my DSLR is about an inch thick and some dark recesses of
its intricate config menu system still remain unexplored.

A fast lens, macro and image stabilisation is worth having as is the
ability to do short snatches of HD video (which usually comes for free).

Most of the makers and review sites have full resolution sample images
online to let you see what they can do in expert hands.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #2  
Old April 30th 14, 09:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Picture quality...

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

On 29/04/2014 23:00, A Moose in Love wrote:

I'd like to purchase a new digital camera. My Mum likes my old one, so I'm
giving it to her.


Ahh... The Good son! ;-)

My main criteria for a camera is picture quality. I
don't need a lot of gadgets. I was thinking of something Panasonic between
$250 and $500. I like that they have Leica lenses. However, I've got no
problem purchasing a camera with a fixed lens. Most Digitals have zoom
lenses, and I wonder about the picture quality. Has technology improved
enough that zoom lenses provide exceptional picture quality?
btw...My Dad purchased a Leica in Germany in the '50's. When he came to
Canada, he sold it. When I heard that I got ****ed off.


Hey! He had to make economical provisions for you. Did he make the Right
Choice? ;-p

Fixed lenses are almost always better bang for the buck if image quality
is your sole concern. If that's the case then I would consider an used
Richo GR* or Sigma DP* if I were you. YMMV... I have an Ixus as ultra
compact the small sensor gives it a low keeper rate.
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography
  #3  
Old April 30th 14, 09:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Picture quality...

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

On 29/04/2014 23:00, A Moose in Love wrote:

I'd like to purchase a new digital camera. My Mum likes my old one, so I'm
giving it to her.


Ahh... The Good son! ;-)

My main criteria for a camera is picture quality. I
don't need a lot of gadgets. I was thinking of something Panasonic between
$250 and $500. I like that they have Leica lenses. However, I've got no
problem purchasing a camera with a fixed lens. Most Digitals have zoom
lenses, and I wonder about the picture quality. Has technology improved
enough that zoom lenses provide exceptional picture quality?
btw...My Dad purchased a Leica in Germany in the '50's. When he came to
Canada, he sold it. When I heard that I got ****ed off.


Hey! He had to make economical provisions for you. Did he make the Right
Choice? ;-p

Fixed lenses are almost always better bang for the buck if image quality
is your sole concern. If that's the case then I would consider an used
Richo GR* or Sigma DP* if I were you. YMMV... I have an Ixus 70 as ultra
compact the small sensor gives it a low keeper rate.
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography
  #4  
Old April 30th 14, 09:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Picture quality...

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

On 29/04/2014 23:00, A Moose in Love wrote:

I'd like to purchase a new digital camera. My Mum likes my old one, so I'm
giving it to her.


Ahh... The Good son! ;-)

My main criteria for a camera is picture quality. I
don't need a lot of gadgets. I was thinking of something Panasonic between
$250 and $500. I like that they have Leica lenses. However, I've got no
problem purchasing a camera with a fixed lens. Most Digitals have zoom
lenses, and I wonder about the picture quality. Has technology improved
enough that zoom lenses provide exceptional picture quality?
btw...My Dad purchased a Leica in Germany in the '50's. When he came to
Canada, he sold it. When I heard that I got ****ed off.


Hey! He had to make economical provisions for you. Did he make the Right
Choice? ;-p

Fixed lenses are almost always better bang for the buck if image quality
is your sole concern. If that's the case then I would consider an used
Richo GR* or Sigma DP* if I were you. YMMV... I have an Ixus 70 as ultra
compact the small sensor gives it a low keeper rate. I only use it at
the wide end and shoot raw with the CHDK firmware addon.
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography
  #5  
Old April 30th 14, 02:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Picture quality...

In article , android
wrote:

Fixed lenses are almost always better bang for the buck if image quality
is your sole concern. If that's the case then I would consider an used
Richo GR* or Sigma DP* if I were you. YMMV... I have an Ixus 70 as ultra
compact the small sensor gives it a low keeper rate. I only use it at
the wide end and shoot raw with the CHDK firmware addon.


don't even consider sigma cameras. they're junk.
  #6  
Old April 30th 14, 03:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Picture quality...

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

Fixed lenses are almost always better bang for the buck if image quality
is your sole concern. If that's the case then I would consider an used
Richo GR* or Sigma DP* if I were you. YMMV... I have an Ixus 70 as ultra
compact the small sensor gives it a low keeper rate. I only use it at
the wide end and shoot raw with the CHDK firmware addon.


don't even consider sigma cameras. they're junk.


Their sensors are half frame and the technology is interesting. We're
talking the compacts here. Are you sure? They seem by look and
measurement to be built on the chassis as some other brand compacts like
Pana LX * Richo GR* models but i can be wrong. I haven't investigated
that for a few years.
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography
  #7  
Old April 30th 14, 04:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Picture quality...

In article , android
wrote:

Fixed lenses are almost always better bang for the buck if image quality
is your sole concern. If that's the case then I would consider an used
Richo GR* or Sigma DP* if I were you. YMMV... I have an Ixus 70 as ultra
compact the small sensor gives it a low keeper rate. I only use it at
the wide end and shoot raw with the CHDK firmware addon.


don't even consider sigma cameras. they're junk.


Their sensors are half frame and the technology is interesting.


interesting yes, but that's about it.

the problem is that the technology doesn't actually work particularly
well (nor will it ever due to physics) and that sigma lies about it.

We're
talking the compacts here. Are you sure?


very sure, and their slr has the same sensor as the compacts, with the
same problems (plus the ones brought on by a not particularly well
designed slr body).

They seem by look and
measurement to be built on the chassis as some other brand compacts like
Pana LX * Richo GR* models but i can be wrong. I haven't investigated
that for a few years.


the camera body is sigma's own design, but that isn't what matters.

the sensor is downright awful, with all sorts of artifacts and weird
colour casts and the cameras themselves are slow with pitiful battery
life, typically 70 photos per charge.

the raw format is proprietary which means you're stuck with sigma's
(very) slow and crappy software. there are one or two other raw
converters that reverse engineered the format but didn't do a complete
job so the results aren't as good.
  #8  
Old April 30th 14, 04:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Picture quality...

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

Fixed lenses are almost always better bang for the buck if image
quality
is your sole concern. If that's the case then I would consider an used
Richo GR* or Sigma DP* if I were you. YMMV... I have an Ixus 70 as
ultra
compact the small sensor gives it a low keeper rate. I only use it at
the wide end and shoot raw with the CHDK firmware addon.

don't even consider sigma cameras. they're junk.


Their sensors are half frame and the technology is interesting.


interesting yes, but that's about it.

the problem is that the technology doesn't actually work particularly
well (nor will it ever due to physics) and that sigma lies about it.

We're
talking the compacts here. Are you sure?


very sure, and their slr has the same sensor as the compacts, with the
same problems (plus the ones brought on by a not particularly well
designed slr body).

They seem by look and
measurement to be built on the chassis as some other brand compacts like
Pana LX * Richo GR* models but i can be wrong. I haven't investigated
that for a few years.


the camera body is sigma's own design, but that isn't what matters.

Oki...

the sensor is downright awful, with all sorts of artifacts and weird
colour casts and the cameras themselves are slow with pitiful battery
life, typically 70 photos per charge.


I haven't done any extensive testing with available files...

the raw format is proprietary which means you're stuck with sigma's
(very) slow and crappy software. there are one or two other raw
converters that reverse engineered the format but didn't do a complete
job so the results aren't as good.


You can ding some of the DPs files and use a multitude of converters.
https://www.adobe.com/products/photo...#dngcompatible
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography
  #9  
Old April 30th 14, 04:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Picture quality...

In article , android
wrote:

the raw format is proprietary which means you're stuck with sigma's
(very) slow and crappy software. there are one or two other raw
converters that reverse engineered the format but didn't do a complete
job so the results aren't as good.


You can ding some of the DPs files and use a multitude of converters.
https://www.adobe.com/products/photo...#dngcompatible


those are the old dp series cameras with the 4.6mp sensor, and not even
all of them since the sd15 isn't even included.

none of the recent 15mp 'merrill' sensors are included.

sigma started encrypting the data and doesn't offer support to anyone.
  #10  
Old April 30th 14, 05:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Picture quality...

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

the raw format is proprietary which means you're stuck with sigma's
(very) slow and crappy software. there are one or two other raw
converters that reverse engineered the format but didn't do a complete
job so the results aren't as good.


You can ding some of the DPs files and use a multitude of converters.
https://www.adobe.com/products/photo...#dngcompatible


those are the old dp series cameras with the 4.6mp sensor, and not even
all of them since the sd15 isn't even included.

none of the recent 15mp 'merrill' sensors are included.

The Merrils ain't that interesting since they do not have true three
color pixels.

sigma started encrypting the data and doesn't offer support to anyone.


Too bad...
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Picture quality D & J Digital Photography 4 January 7th 07 08:47 PM
Picture Quality with DSC W5 !!! URPradhan Digital Photography 4 December 30th 05 05:10 PM
Picture Quality with DSC W5 !!! URPradhan Digital Photography 1 December 28th 05 12:02 PM
Picture Quality s6 Digital Photography 52 March 25th 05 06:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.