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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.
Have a look at
the logitech 550. it's superb for video. with the $200 that you'd save when you get the casio you can buy the logitech pocket video 550 which only weighs 85gms http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...039752-2247819 If you keep an eye on ebay it can be had for less. I use it daily to make a video diary and would not part with it. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.
, it'll make my decision making process alot whole lot
easier. Thanks!! Argh decision decisions. They torment. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.<-= Eek! Just found this out!
My heart was leaning towards the W1, when I just found out that it
only offers up to 1/1000 shutter speed, compared to S500's 1/2000. I read that at 1/2000, you can still take decent "still" photos with fast moving objects, but only 1/1000, there's no chance. While I don't plan on taking photos of mostly fast moving objects, with all things being equal, will I see a blurry object, perhaps blurry feet and arms of a sprinter with only 1/1000 but quite a bit clearer image with 1/2000? Darn, darn, darn!! Just when I thought I had it figured out. As always, your input and insight would be much appreciated. P.S. Sabineellen, I looked around town to see if I can find a shop that carried Casio's QVR-51 and none of the big electronics shops had it, unfortunately. Guess it's just too new, but I'm taking off on my holidays in a couple of weeks, so I don't wanna put off my purchas any longer. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.<-= Eek! Just found this out!
Well, if you want a good picture, you have to use a low ISO. With my G5, at
a low ISO, I have never had the oportunity to go over 1/500. Just now though, I tried quickly waving my hand in front of the lens at 1/1000, and there was a tiny amount of blur. While at 1/2000 there wasn't any, the fact that the aperature has to be closed down to f4.0 for the camera to be able to do 1/2000, even at ISO 400 the picture was so dark I could barely see it. I couldn't find any, but an online search might be able to find you comparison photos. Richard "Steve Lee" wrote in message ... My heart was leaning towards the W1, when I just found out that it only offers up to 1/1000 shutter speed, compared to S500's 1/2000. I read that at 1/2000, you can still take decent "still" photos with fast moving objects, but only 1/1000, there's no chance. While I don't plan on taking photos of mostly fast moving objects, with all things being equal, will I see a blurry object, perhaps blurry feet and arms of a sprinter with only 1/1000 but quite a bit clearer image with 1/2000? Darn, darn, darn!! Just when I thought I had it figured out. As always, your input and insight would be much appreciated. P.S. Sabineellen, I looked around town to see if I can find a shop that carried Casio's QVR-51 and none of the big electronics shops had it, unfortunately. Guess it's just too new, but I'm taking off on my holidays in a couple of weeks, so I don't wanna put off my purchas any longer. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.<-= Eek! Just found this out!
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:00:03 GMT, "marlin"
wrote: Well, if you want a good picture, you have to use a low ISO. With my G5, at a low ISO, I have never had the oportunity to go over 1/500. Just now though, I tried quickly waving my hand in front of the lens at 1/1000, and there was a tiny amount of blur. While at 1/2000 there wasn't any, the fact that the aperature has to be closed down to f4.0 for the camera to be able to do 1/2000, even at ISO 400 the picture was so dark I could barely see it. I couldn't find any, but an online search might be able to find you comparison photos. Richard Thanks for going through the trouble of doing a quick experiment for me, Richard! I guess even if you have 1/2000, there are other things to consider. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.<-= Eek! Just found this out!
I
read that at 1/2000, you can still take decent "still" photos with fast moving objects, but only 1/1000, there's no chance. Who said so? What exactly are you planning to shoot? First of all, the camera you're considering is a P&S with limited zoom, keep that in mind. You're going to have difficulty getting exposure and depth of field right in many, if not most, situations in which a p&s is used with a shutter speed of 1/2000. Also, what are you going to shoot? whatever it is it's likely you will have difficulty framing it right if it needs 1/2000 and you're shooting with a p&S. The only realistic consideration for a high shutter speed in a camera like you mention is if you use high iso in very very sunny situation like a desert. I shot this today at 1/500. http://newton-i.usefilm.com/1/9/0/9/...8723-large.jpg. This is an explosive burst of water at quite speed. Actually, most of the "action" shots i did today were with 1/500. Only one of them was with 1/1000 and there was no visible difference. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.<-= Eek! Just found this out!
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:20:05 -0400, Hap Shaughnessy
wrote: old header ... subject: Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn. Steve: ... this was ready to go late last night but never posted ... ---clip--- I'm going through the same process of wading through all the digicams that would be best for me. I have read all replies to this very informative thread and my requirements for a new camera are very close to yours. After untold hours of rooting through the biggy review websites, forums, downloading and viewing scads of images I've narrowed down my choices to: [alphabetical order] a) Canon Powershot S400 [better pics & more bang for the buck than the more noisy S500 ... see imaging-resourcee.com] Yeah, I saw the comparison as well. And over at dcresource.com, the S410 is deemed to have cripser pictures than the S500. Go figure. I thought it was mighty odd that Canon would let their older models of the same line produce better quality pics. Note:The S400 is priced cheaper than the S410 by Cdn$80.00 that was originally recommended by the friendly staff as their fave camera at my local Black's Camera www.blackphotostore.com. The only difference is that the updated 410 adds a Print/Share button to the back of the camera. b) Casio QV-R51 [Thanks Sabineellen for your input - I would have missed it] Upon Sabine strongly recommending this camera, I immediately reseached it, but none of the stores I wish to buy my cameras from carry it. The 2" LCD sounded good too, along with how the camera won the "best in its category" award from Digital Imaging Marketing Association. And some of shooting modes described at steves-digicams.com sounded really neat. But its video is way too limited for me, without audio yet and doesn't have an AF-Illuminator. I can use all the help I can get when taking pics. Those pics taken during the DIMA competition was taken by gurus in photography. And I didn't even know about the optical zoom lense focusing in steps. c) Sony DSC-W1 It's come down to either the DSC-W1 or the Nikon 5200 for me. I'm just waiting for the review of it on dcresource.com, which is supposed to come out in the next couple of days. steves-digicams.com already gave it a good review as well. In the meantime, can you please check out these links over at steves-digicam? These are some photo samples of QVR-51, http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...1_samples.html, these are of Nikon Coolpix 5200 http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...0_samples.html, and these are of Sony DSC-W1, http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...1_samples.html. Now, I don't think these were taken all at the sametime, but is it possible to tell which camera produces particularly crisper and better images under certain conditions than the others? Which camera seems to do better under bright sunlight? Which seems to do better indoors? What do you guys think? ---clop--- [snipped some very insightful reviews] |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Please help me to decide between these two cameras! I'm torn.<-= Eek! Just found this out!
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 08:26:19 -0400, Hap Shaughnessy
wrote: Steve Lee: Here's a couple of 'New to Me' URL's I found the Sony W1... http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/artic...,116717,00.asp http://www.a-digital-eye.com/cgi-bin...t=ST&f=8&t=720 http://www.a-digital-eye.com/cgi-bin...t=ST&f=8&t=744 Hap Cool, thanks! And dcresource.com finally came out with Nikon's Coolpix review, just in case you were interested, http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ni...ew/index.shtml. Not too crazy about the photo quality. Guess there's a reason for it being cheaper than the Sony & the Canon. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Book Review: Collecting and Using Classic Cameras , Ivor Matanle | Paul | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | June 16th 04 09:04 PM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | Photographing People | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |
Help Identifying 2 Vintage Cameras | Greg Lovern | Other Photographic Equipment | 0 | November 4th 03 11:05 AM |