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

50x and 60x zoom cameras



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 12th 14, 08:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default 50x and 60x zoom cameras

In article , David Taylor says...

On 11/01/2014 21:00, John Keiser wrote:
I'd be pleased with the shots. Which, if any, were any taken at the longer
focal lengths?


I don't think any of those were, John. I have put up some originals
(likely out of the camera) shots at or very near 810 mm focal length he

http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2012/09...0mm-shots.html

Be warned of the JPEG artefacts on the images, not visible in normal
viewing, only if pixel peeping. This is an 18 MB camera (4896 a 3672
pixels). I would have preferred fewer pixels, to be honest!


The sharpness actually is quite good, at least in the train picture and the
anno 1671 one.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #12  
Old January 12th 14, 10:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
M-M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 682
Default 50x and 60x zoom cameras

In article , David Taylor
wrote:

Be warned of the JPEG artefacts on the images, not visible in normal
viewing, only if pixel peeping. This is an 18 MB camera (4896 a 3672
pixels). I would have preferred fewer pixels, to be honest!


So why not lower the file size by reducing the resolution rather than
increasing the jpg compression? i.e., make them 2448 x 1836 (50%)

--
m-m
photo gallery:
http://mhmyers.com
  #13  
Old January 13th 14, 04:09 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mort[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 396
Default 50x and 60x zoom cameras

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Mort says...
I said trouwen (to marry)
instead of vertrouwen (to trust), to a lady fiend, and it was
uncomfortable when I realized my error and quickly explained.


There is a similar word in German ("trauen"), spelled differently but
pronounced in the same way. The meaning can be both trust and marry.


Thank you, and now I must be doubly careful, for I am dating a
German-born lady.

Mort Linder
  #14  
Old January 13th 14, 09:42 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
David Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,146
Default 50x and 60x zoom cameras

On 12/01/2014 21:43, M-M wrote:
In article , David Taylor
wrote:

Be warned of the JPEG artefacts on the images, not visible in normal
viewing, only if pixel peeping. This is an 18 MB camera (4896 a 3672
pixels). I would have preferred fewer pixels, to be honest!


So why not lower the file size by reducing the resolution rather than
increasing the jpg compression? i.e., make them 2448 x 1836 (50%)


Partially, because there is no choice of JPEG quality on this camera (or
if there is, I didn't find it on a quick look through the menus), and in
the past I have found that reducing resolution /after/ JPEG compression
will mean that at least some of the JPEG artefacts will be reduced by
the resolution reduction (i.e. interpolation) and hence you get a better
quality final image. Keeping more information appears to benefit the
end result.

In this particular case, I wanted to show the image just as it came out
of the camera, defects and all, as the OP was interested in the longer
lens, its quality or otherwise, and what could be achieved.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
  #15  
Old January 13th 14, 04:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
M-M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 682
Default 50x and 60x zoom cameras

In article , David Taylor
wrote:

In this particular case, I wanted to show the image just as it came out
of the camera, defects and all, as the OP was interested in the longer
lens, its quality or otherwise, and what could be achieved.
--


Oh, I see. I thought the artifacts came in post-processing.

Did you hand-hold those long shots?

--
m-m
photo gallery:
http://mhmyers.com
  #16  
Old January 13th 14, 04:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,146
Default 50x and 60x zoom cameras

On 13/01/2014 15:17, M-M wrote:
In article , David Taylor
wrote:

In this particular case, I wanted to show the image just as it came out
of the camera, defects and all, as the OP was interested in the longer
lens, its quality or otherwise, and what could be achieved.
--


Oh, I see. I thought the artifacts came in post-processing.

Did you hand-hold those long shots?


No post-processing. I strongly believe in trying to get it right "in
the camera", which comes from a background of slide photography. You
can't always, of course.

No tripods, all hand-held or braced against the nearest convenient object.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
  #17  
Old January 14th 14, 08:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default 50x and 60x zoom cameras

On 1/13/2014 10:27 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 13/01/2014 15:17, M-M wrote:
In article , David Taylor
wrote:

In this particular case, I wanted to show the image just as it came out
of the camera, defects and all, as the OP was interested in the longer
lens, its quality or otherwise, and what could be achieved.
--


Oh, I see. I thought the artifacts came in post-processing.

Did you hand-hold those long shots?


No post-processing. I strongly believe in trying to get it right "in
the camera", which comes from a background of slide photography. You
can't always, of course.


I too try, but once PS came along I reacted like a kid in a candy store.



No tripods, all hand-held or braced against the nearest convenient object.



--
PeterN
  #18  
Old January 14th 14, 10:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 50x and 60x zoom cameras

On 2014-01-14 19:40:07 +0000, PeterN said:

On 1/13/2014 10:27 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 13/01/2014 15:17, M-M wrote:
In article , David Taylor
wrote:

In this particular case, I wanted to show the image just as it came out
of the camera, defects and all, as the OP was interested in the longer
lens, its quality or otherwise, and what could be achieved.
--

Oh, I see. I thought the artifacts came in post-processing.

Did you hand-hold those long shots?


No post-processing. I strongly believe in trying to get it right "in
the camera", which comes from a background of slide photography. You
can't always, of course.


I too try, but once PS came along I reacted like a kid in a candy store.


Aah! The digital darkroom, a wonderful thing. Just note David is
telling us he used to shoot slides. With that there was little to no,
user processing, only getting it right in the camera. He didn't even
have the fun of a wet darkroom to consider, just whatever the lab
returned to him.

When photographers say: "I try to get everything right in-camera." They
actually mean; "I try to get everything right in-camera, but mostly I
have to fix things in Photoshop."
When photographers say; "I only carry out minimal post-processing."
They actually mean: "Photoshop confuses the heck out of me. I can move
those sliders around a bit, but I really have no idea of what I am
doing."

As much as some of the "getting it right in the camera" school try to
hold to film shooting convention, there isn't a direct extrapolation
from film to digital. Once basic exposure settings are dealt with, if
the shooter is shooting JPEG he is going to have to contend with WB,
saturation, sharpening, and a few other things which can be done in the
camera. However, if he is shooting RAW, there will be a computer in
workflow.



No tripods, all hand-held or braced against the nearest convenient object.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #19  
Old January 15th 14, 03:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mort[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 396
Default 50x and 60x zoom cameras

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Mort says...
I said trouwen (to marry)
instead of vertrouwen (to trust), to a lady fiend, and it was
uncomfortable when I realized my error and quickly explained.


There is a similar word in German ("trauen"), spelled differently but
pronounced in the same way. The meaning can be both trust and marry.


To make it more complicated, there is a German word "heiraten" which
means to marry.

At my late stage in life, I'll remain a single widower.

Regards,

Mort Linder
  #20  
Old January 15th 14, 03:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default 50x and 60x zoom cameras

On 1/14/2014 4:16 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-01-14 19:40:07 +0000, PeterN said:

On 1/13/2014 10:27 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 13/01/2014 15:17, M-M wrote:
In article , David Taylor
wrote:

In this particular case, I wanted to show the image just as it came
out
of the camera, defects and all, as the OP was interested in the longer
lens, its quality or otherwise, and what could be achieved.
--

Oh, I see. I thought the artifacts came in post-processing.

Did you hand-hold those long shots?

No post-processing. I strongly believe in trying to get it right "in
the camera", which comes from a background of slide photography. You
can't always, of course.


I too try, but once PS came along I reacted like a kid in a candy store.


Aah! The digital darkroom, a wonderful thing. Just note David is telling
us he used to shoot slides. With that there was little to no, user
processing, only getting it right in the camera. He didn't even have the
fun of a wet darkroom to consider, just whatever the lab returned to him.

He did, to a limited extent, if he made Cibachrome prints.


When photographers say: "I try to get everything right in-camera." They
actually mean; "I try to get everything right in-camera, but mostly I
have to fix things in Photoshop."


Hard to agree. Even members of the f64 school recognize that most images
need post, to one degree or another. the best practice is to try to get
it as close to "right" as possible. And not be sloppy about such things
as exposure, light direction, contrast, light color, etc. There are
times in the field that one has little choice but top take what he can
get, and then fix. However the better the in-camera image, the less work
in post.

When photographers say; "I only carry out minimal post-processing." They
actually mean: "Photoshop confuses the heck out of me. I can move those
sliders around a bit, but I really have no idea of what I am doing."


G


As much as some of the "getting it right in the camera" school try to
hold to film shooting convention, there isn't a direct extrapolation
from film to digital. Once basic exposure settings are dealt with, if
the shooter is shooting JPEG he is going to have to contend with WB,
saturation, sharpening, and a few other things which can be done in the
camera. However, if he is shooting RAW, there will be a computer in
workflow.



snip


--
PeterN
 




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
P&S digital cameras with mechanical zoom Siddhartha Jain Digital Photography 7 April 2nd 05 10:03 AM
P&S digital cameras with mechanical zoom Siddhartha Jain Digital Photography 0 April 1st 05 04:29 PM
Olympus D-490 Zoom: These are great little cameras news.optonline.net Digital Photography 0 March 15th 05 06:23 AM
3 to 5MP, 7 to 12x zoom digital cameras - any recommendations ? dylan Digital Photography 14 February 25th 05 08:09 PM
High zoom cameras Alfred Molon Digital Photography 34 July 22nd 04 09:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:47 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.