Official Digi Cam Pic Thread!

[Crawdaddy79]

Just got a Canon G5.

http://www.crawspace.com/web/canondetail.jpg

Check out the fuzzies on the shoe strings.

[Crawdaddy79]

Nobody cares, eh?

Here's some more I took over the last week anyway..






And some more.. bigger ones..

http://www.crawspace.com/web/canon01.jpg

http://www.crawspace.com/web/canon04.jpg

http://www.crawspace.com/web/canon06.jpg

[Vanadium]

Nice photo's !!!

[Xander]

Originally posted by Crawdaddy79
Nobody cares, eh?

Here's some more I took over the last week anyway..

Question is....


How does it perform in low-light scenarios?

That's the biggest problem I've had with my digital camera - when it starts getting dark, picture quality goes to CRAP.

Anyway, some pics from our yard and pond back in Ohio:

[Crawdaddy79]

Originally posted by Xander
Question is....


How does it perform in low-light scenarios?

I think a shutter speed of 15 seconds ought to overcome any darkness problems you can have.

The pic http://www.crawspace.com/web/canon04.jpg I posted up there was shot at 8:00 at night in an area not very well lit at all, with the shutter at 5 seconds... No flash was used.

EDIT: Oh.. if you mean it becomes blurry.. that's to be expected... In that event you can only do one of two things: use flash or get a tripod. If you are holding the camera, it's advisable to not zoom in at all, as it will come out super blurry if your hand shakes the tiniest bit..

[gmontem]

Originally posted by Xander
[b]Question is....


How does it perform in low-light scenarios?

That's the biggest problem I've had with my digital camera - when it starts getting dark, picture quality goes to CRAP.

The G5's ISO speed can only go as fast as ISO 400 so don't expect much when shooting a non-static subject under low-lit conditions and you want to capture the ambient lighting (no flash). This is to be expected with small digital cameras because of their tiny sensors. You'll have to use a (D)SLR if you want to shoot at ISO 800 speeds and greater. You'll also have access to lenses with larger apertures, too.

[Xander]

Originally posted by Crawdaddy79
I think a shutter speed of 15 seconds ought to overcome any darkness problems you can have.

The pic http://www.crawspace.com/web/canon04.jpg I posted up there was shot at 8:00 at night in an area not very well lit at all, with the shutter at 5 seconds... No flash was used.

Nice picture!

Originally posted by gmontem
The G5's ISO speed can only go as fast as ISO 400 so don't expect much when shooting a non-static subject under low-lit conditions and you want to capture the ambient lighting (no flash). This is to be expected with small digital cameras because of their tiny sensors. You'll have to use a (D)SLR if you want to shoot at ISO 800 speeds and greater. You'll also have access to lenses with larger apertures, too.

Ah-hah! Information I was looking for.

I'm still a digicam n00b. Just don't use it that much, and, for the most part, when I'm using it it's in good enough conditions to not worry too much.

Hmmm...but, when I set the ISO value higher (my camera has 50/100/200/400 options) it just makes the image....blotchy. It's like, if you took a picture of a field of solid grey in ISO 50 and ISO 400, on the 50 it is (more or less) uniform grey. On the 400, the color is all distorted, with variations of grey tinted to all different colors of the spectrum.

I mean, really, REALLY grainy. At ISO400, the image is nearly completely unusable for how grainy it is.

What would be the advantage of a camera that could do even HIGHER ISO modes?

Unless, there is something else about those cameras that compensates for the graininess?

(See, n00b here!)

If I *was* in the market for a camera that could do decent low-light shots (not necessarily night time dark...say, just around the house at night with the lights on), what would I be looking for, specifically?

[gmontem]

Originally posted by Xander
Hmmm...but, when I set the ISO value higher (my camera has 50/100/200/400 options) it just makes the image....blotchy. It's like, if you took a picture of a field of solid grey in ISO 50 and ISO 400, on the 50 it is (more or less) uniform grey. On the 400, the color is all distorted, with variations of grey tinted to all different colors of the spectrum.

I mean, really, REALLY grainy. At ISO400, the image is nearly completely unusable for how grainy it is.

Been shooting for 4 years now and I still consider myself a noob as well, but I'll try to explain a few things as best as I can. The ISO value pretty much denotes the sensitivity of the crystals in the film. ISO speed == film speed. Film at an ISO value of 100 will take twice as long to create the same exposure as that with an ISO value of 200. There is a trade off to this though -- the exposure becomes grainier at higher speeds. For digital cameras I believe the signals in the sensor are amplified to make it more sensitive. As you have noticed increasing the digital camera's ISO value makes the exposure become noisier. Dynamic range is also reduced at higher ISO values.

What would be the advantage of a camera that could do even HIGHER ISO modes?

Increasing the ISO value affects your shutter speed. The time needed to make an exposure is halved when you bump it up from 100 to 200. It's halved again when you bumped it up from 200 to 400. You will want to shoot at a faster shutter speed if you want to stop motion or minimize camera shake. Of course there are reasons for a slower shutter speed as well. In that case you would shoot at the lowest ISO value as possible, as well as reducing your aperture and putting in filters to reduce the amount of light coming in as needed.

Unless, there is something else about those cameras that compensates for the graininess?

There's software out there to reduce noise in your images in exchange for reduced details, although some people also use them on clean images to make the bokeh a little bit more pleasant. The other alternative is to shoot with a digital SLR or with a medium format + digital back ($$$$$) . Ever wonder why an image captured with a DSLR look cleaner than those shot by a digicam at the same ISO value? Those DSLRs have better noise reduction algorithms and larger sensors. (Canon G5: 7.18 x 5.32 mm; Canon EOS 1D: 28.7 x 19.1 mm) It's those larger sensors that allow these cameras to go as fast as ISO 3200; ISO 6400 if you underexpose and push it up when you process it.

Some ISO 1600 shots I took, although they're not good examples of noise since they have been resampled: 1 2

Food shots appear to be popular in this thread so here's a nasty-looking Denny's one shot at ISO 800: 1

My camera is 2-3 years old and has been succeeded this year with one that produces cleaner images at the same ISO value. I look forward to that day when I can shoot noise-free images at ISO 6400.

If I *was* in the market for a camera that could do decent low-light shots (not necessarily night time dark...say, just around the house at night with the lights on), what would I be looking for, specifically?

I'm not the best person to answer this question since I'm a little biased towards DSLRs (shoot a Canon 1D myself). Sorry.

Edit: If you are looking for a camera for low-light shots, ambient lighting preserved, and you intend to hand hold the camera, make sure the camera allows you to comfortably shoot through the viewfinder. The camera is more stable when held against your face than up in the air as most people hold them as they look at their digicam's little screen.

[**G.I.BRO**]

Seeing that its cleaning up time for the stickies in OT section, you boys may wanna bookmark this thread if your still interested in it.

[Zero]

Hey congrats on the G5 Crawdaddy! I hope I helped sway you into that purchase in that other digicam thread

About higher ISO values, on most compact digicams, they don't do you any good due to inherent image noise. For night photography, your best friend is a tripod. If a regular sized tripod is inconvenient, a minipod such as this will do just as well. Or failing even that, a monopod can be used (doubling as a walking stick/ mugger-warder-offer). Also a remote control for shutter release can also reduce jarring and produce crisper pics. A G5 + minipod + remote + 20Gig Gmini220 fits nicely in my Lowepro D-RES 200 for snapshooting all day (total weight app 1.5kg).

With decent prosumer compacts like the G5, you never need to go above ISO 100 for the best quality shots. Using a medium or small aperture (medium to high f-stop value), you can select a longer shutter speed for awesome nightime photos.

btw Crawdaddy, if you wanna reduce the purple fringing like in that night shot, you'll need to use a medium to high aperture (f4.0+) and longer shutter speeds. How does it handle so far? Tempted to buy expensive accessories yet?

[Crawdaddy79]

Yes, the suggestions from that other thread are what mainly convinced me to get that camera.

I bought a mini-tripod the day after I attempted some night shots.. just the littlest wiggle or shake will throw the whole image quality to the ground...I was horrified. It's a little one.. stands about 18 inches high, but very sturdy. The camera's remote comes in handy to keep from making the camera go crooked upon touching the button while on the tripod.

All in all, it was a worthy purchase.

And about the blueishness in the water.. I actually like the effect.

No expensive accesories yet.. no clue what I'd need. Everything seems more expensive than what it's worth.. Hell I bought an extra battery for the thing for $60.. A battery!

Maybe when I start getting the itch to get better pics, I'll get special lenses and attachments, etc, etc..

One thing that I'm sort of disappointed in, is that there is no setting between 1600 x 1200 (2MP) and 2592 x 1944 (5MP). 16 x 12 is a little too small, and 25 x 14 is way too big for what it's worth. Yet there's settings for (which I'll never use) 640 x 480, 1024 x 768, and the movie mode is only 320 x 240 max. And I have to wonder why they limited the clips to 3 minutes.. normally a camera does it that way to give it time to write the data to storage, but as soon as a clip cuts off, another one can be started less than a second later.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Crawdaddy79
Yes, the suggestions from that other thread are what mainly convinced me to get that camera.

I bought a mini-tripod the day after I attempted some night shots.. just the littlest wiggle or shake will throw the whole image quality to the ground...I was horrified. It's a little one.. stands about 18 inches high, but very sturdy. The camera's remote comes in handy to keep from making the camera go crooked upon touching the button while on the tripod.

Yeah I can't live wthout my minipod, it's just so useful in so many situations.

And about the blueishness in the water.. I actually like the effect.

Oh I was actually refering to the blue halos around the lightposts in the night shot. WHen you have bright lights in contrast with really dark things like the night sky, it can potentially cause blue/purple halos called chromatic aberration or fringing. But hey if ya like the effect, it's all good

No expensive accesories yet.. no clue what I'd need. Everything seems more expensive than what it's worth.. Hell I bought an extra battery for the thing for $60.. A battery!

If you decide on getting more batteries/chargers, try third-party ones. Sterlingtek.com has a very good battery and a decent charger (no progress LED is my only beef with it) for $10USD and $20USD respectively. The G5 owners on dpreview.com all agree that it's the best way to go. Just don't charge your 3rd party batts IN-camera. Alternatively, you can try eBay for even better prices.

Maybe when I start getting the itch to get better pics, I'll get special lenses and attachments, etc, etc..

If you want to improve the range of your G5, first and foremost you'll need a lens adapter. The best one I found was lensmateonline.com's adapter (in 52/58 mm sizes). They're black aluminium and far sturdier than canon's silver (!) plastic adapter. With this adapter you can also screw filters on such as UV filters, close up lenses and polarizers. I have a cheapo Hoya UV filter on my G5 at all times to protect the lens mechanism from dust, scratches and physical damage. It's a worthwhile $50 investment ($25 adapter + $25 filter) to protect your hundreds of dollars purchase. CHeaper filters can be had but I wanted one with the BEST optics though you can't go wrong with anything that has at least one lens coat. Oh yeah, no more problem with the flimsy lens cap coming off the lens barrel if you pop a REAL lenscap onto the adapter.

Lensmate also sells better 52mm wide angle and telephoto lens than the ones Canon makes (btw the canon wide and tele lens are 58mm diameter). Filters can be bought at 2filter.com for very good prices (hurry for memorial day sale ). My current filters include a 52mm Hoya Super Multicoated UV filter for reducing haze distortion and dust (though digicams aren't THAT succeptible to UV rays), a 52mm Hoya closeup set to enhance the G5's awesome macro abilities even more and a 52mm Hoya Super Multicoated circular polarizer to reduce glare and incident light distortion. I also have a 50mm Nikkor FE2 lens that is a 20+ closeup lens when reverse-mounted on the G5 (someone is gonna flame me for this sacrilege lol). Everything else, like warming filters can be done in photoshop and the G5 has a very handy neutral density filter BUILT-IN!

Other accessories to consider:

-A camera bag, Lowepro D-Res 30 or 200 are great fits for snapshooting. A larger bag for more accessory lugging: I bought a Pod slingpack from www.mec.ca which holds my G5, adaptor, filters, 64" tripod in the water bottle holder, maps, passport and small lunch for longer travel daytripping.
-A microfibre cloth or lens pen is your second best friend on the road, great for getting rid of accidental fingerprints on the lens.
-A wrist strap instead of the short and flimsy Canon neckstrap (lensmate has a good one from optech).
-A portable storage device so you can keep shooting all day long without having to worry about space (my gmini 220 accepts CF, stores on 1.8" 20G laptop HD, plays MP3's, has a monochrome LCD for review and runs for about 10hrs ~$250USD) Other brands to consider: tripper, x-drive pro, flashtrax, image tank though none of these are as small or tough as my gmini

One thing that I'm sort of disappointed in, is that there is no setting between 1600 x 1200 (2MP) and 2592 x 1944 (5MP). 16 x 12 is a little too small, and 25 x 14 is way too big for what it's worth. Yet there's settings for (which I'll never use) 640 x 480, 1024 x 768, and the movie mode is only 320 x 240 max. And I have to wonder why they limited the clips to 3 minutes.. normally a camera does it that way to give it time to write the data to storage, but as soon as a clip cuts off, another one can be started less than a second later.

Yeah, I find the lack of res kinda stupid too, at max res, you're shooting 5Mpixel. At the second res 1600x1200, you're shooting at ~*2* MPixel?!?! As for the movie limit, I think that's the max time before the buffer needs to be flushed. If you start recording right away as it's writing to your CF, you're basically just filling it up at the same rate it's emptying until it's full again (I guess).

Anyhow, if you have any further questions about this delightful little toy, shoot me a pm

[JAKJ]

These are with My Nikon COOLPIX 5700

These are of my Old home, Adelaide, new home, Shanghai and the sweet maglev train speedo (nice blur effect to emphasise speed )

http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/jakjaus

Click on JAKJSTUFF

[Xander]

Originally posted by gmontem
As you have noticed increasing the digital camera's ISO value makes the exposure become noisier. Dynamic range is also reduced at higher ISO values.
....
My camera is 2-3 years old and has been succeeded this year with one that produces cleaner images at the same ISO value. I look forward to that day when I can shoot noise-free images at ISO 6400.

So, the reason it is so noisy at higher ISO values is because of the sensors used?

And DSLRs have improved capability there?

I'm not the best person to answer this question since I'm a little biased towards DSLRs (shoot a Canon 1D myself). Sorry.

What is the different between a DSLR and a digital camera?

(Other than one starting at about $1,000 - *ouch*)

Edit: If you are looking for a camera for low-light shots, ambient lighting preserved, and you intend to hand hold the camera, make sure the camera allows you to comfortably shoot through the viewfinder. The camera is more stable when held against your face than up in the air as most people hold them as they look at their digicam's little screen.

Hmmm...I have a Canon A60. It shoots fine through the viewfinder...the only problem is that you can never tell how a shot will come out that way (lighting/etc).

[T07N]

Canon Powershot S410

[Zero]

Originally posted by Xander
So, the reason it is so noisy at higher ISO values is because of the sensors used?

And DSLRs have improved capability there?

Yes, the higher the sensitivity threshold of the image sensor, the more signal noise is produced when capturing light, resulting in image artifacts or noise. DSLRs have bigger sensors than compacts and therefore larger pixel capturing/area resulting in reduced noise.

That said, for amateur photography, there's no need to go above ISO 400 or even 200 if you know what you're doing. High ISO values are quite good for sports/action photography but inherent shutter lag and autofocus issues render this rather useless on anything but the best DSLRs. Prefocusing or hyperfocusing is a technique used to guesstimate and lock the focus of the subject before it appears on screen to solve this problem.

What is the different between a DSLR and a digital camera?

(Other than one starting at about $1,000 - *ouch*)

DSLRs typically have better resolution, more advanced features (debatable point), better AI to evaluate exposure and focus, intercheangable lenses and more solid design. Again, for everything up to selling your pictures for profit at a gallery, you can get away with a compact (hell I've sold a few prints from my old S30 ).

Hmmm...I have a Canon A60. It shoots fine through the viewfinder...the only problem is that you can never tell how a shot will come out that way (lighting/etc).

For LCD-viewed composition, you have to develop a steady hand or use a tripod especially for low-light/night shots. Actually, a shutter speed slower than 1/60 of a second will display blurring unless you have optical image stabilization or a really good posture. The smallness of most compacts also make it awkward to hold for those of us with larger hands.

Compact digicams are MADE to be used with their LCDs because they generally don't display correct frame coverage through the optical viewfnder. This is due to the fact that unlike film cameras, there's no mirror plate to reflect the image from the *lens* into the OVF. Essentially you end up with parallax, where the image you see through the OVF is slightly higher than the one you're shooting - becoming progressively more noticeable the closer you get to your subject. Plus LCD viewfinders provide so much more important info, why even bother with the OVF? You'd be rather limited in doing handheld nightshots through the OVF.

To answer your original question Xander, night-shot/low-light photography is more dependent on sensor quality than anything. Unfortunately, this means you have to rely more on reviews than physical testing. Some cameras can shoot fantastic pictures during the day but churn out hideous noisy garbage at night. Noise level is a factor you'll have to research for each camera you're interested in buying as well as what is the lens range (lower f-stop numbers = larger aperture = better for absorbing light at nightime) and also the shutter range (longer than 8 seconds is preferable). www.dpreview.com is a good start for reviews with low-light shots in each of them.

[Xander]

Noise level is a factor you'll have to research for each camera you're interested in buying as well as what is the lens range (lower f-stop numbers = larger aperture = better for absorbing light at nightime) and also the shutter range (longer than 8 seconds is preferable).

Well, the camera I'm using (Canon A60) has a shutter time of up to 15 seconds - which is fine if I had a tripod and a fixed scene. As it is, most night or low-light shooting I do is of our pets or other moving things.

As to the f-stop....the A60 has f2.8 - f8.0, which *seems* to be the standard for consumer-level digital cameras (at least, I couldn't find any on Newegg with f-stop lower than 2.8)

The A60 is just annoying, because even at ISO 100 you start getting a very noticeable amount of noise in the image. 200 is basically unusable, and forget about 400! Pretty much limited to shooting at ISO 50, which does NOT do well at night.

Just as a basic step improvement (without going to DSLR)....

Assuming all digital cameras are a min f-stop of 2.8 (seems to be true enough) and ISO 50/100/200/400, as my current one is....what should I be looking for to improve low-light pictures? Higher MP? (Right now, only 2.0mp) Or, is there nothing at all in a camera's statistics that can be relied on to tell how low-light shooting would be, and I must rely on reviews exclusively?

[Zero]

Regarding what I said about f-stops, you should be actually using medium to high fstop values (4.0+) to get the most clarity and detail. The lowest fstop values are only for extreme low light when no other values will permit exposure. Nothing statistical will tell you how a camera performs in low light so yeah, you'll have to rely on reviews.

Also, shooting pets and things that move at night will exceed the A60's focusing AI. You need to use prefocusing by manually setting a depth of field where you think the subject will cross and snapping continuously when you think the subject will enter the frame. Still, capturing a moving object under low light circumstances with *clarity* (eg no motion blurring) would require a very high ISO value but would result in graininess anyhow. For clear, unblurred fast moving night pictures you need to use flash (which I know totally destroys the mood) or failing that, shoot through an IR nightvision scope.

Edit: Am I correct in assuming you want to capture your moving pets without motion blurring under low light conditions? If so, how "low" is low light?

And mods if I'm totally highjacking the thread, please feel free to split off this convo.

[Andrew LB]

Originally posted by hobs0n
I was gonna say something about your teeth but I thought I should be nice for once

LoL. They don't look that bad in person. I think its the light/angle.

Regardless... problem solved. Crest Whitening Strips are taking the coffee stains away as i type this message.

Here we have the mighty B-24 Liberator. Last one still flying today. Sex and violence circa 1942.

Where did you fly out of? I read in the Press telegram they are flying the B17 out of Long Beach, is the B-24 also flying out of there? And how much was it? I'm going to talk to my father about going with me because his dad (my grandfather) was a bombardier in a B-24 during WW2. Unfortunately on their 10th mission, they were shot down near the German/Swiss boarder. My great grandparents were told he was KIA... and a year after the crash he showed up in New York City... alive.

http://www.b24.net/missions/macr2a.htm (first aircraft)

[hobs0n]

Originally posted by Andrew LB
LoL. They don't look that bad in person. I think its the light/angle.

Regardless... problem solved. Crest Whitening Strips are taking the coffee stains away as i type this message.

Kewl, how does that work? I eat so much **** I will prolly need it in a few years myself

Ill make a toast this weekend for your new teeth Andrew

[T07N]

Anyone know how to make the shutter speed lower with the S410?

[Andrew LB]

Originally posted by hobs0n
Kewl, how does that work? I eat so much **** I will prolly need it in a few years myself

Ill make a toast this weekend for your new teeth Andrew

http://www.whitestrips.com/en_US/hom...odBrowser=true

They work wonders. Kinda expensive but worth every dime. (i got mine free from a friend who is a dentist)

http://www.drugstore.com/products/pr...=BUY-GFI-0-MWS


[/threadhijack]

[Zero]

Originally posted by T07N
Anyone know how to make the shutter speed lower with the S410?

Slower than 15 secs??

Edit: Or do you mean, shutter speeds from 1-15secs aren't available? If so, I think you have to enable it in the menu and then select it in the function menu.

[T07N]

No, nevermind. I guess i have to use a tripod.

[chadro]

[gmontem]

Originally posted by Zero
Slower than 15 secs??

Edit: Or do you mean, shutter speeds from 1-15secs aren't available? If so, I think you have to enable it in the menu and then select it in the function menu.

Yeah I checked the S410 PDF manual online and you gotta use their "Long Shutter Mode" accessible somewhere in the menu. Skimming through the manual I would probably get lost using that camera as the darn thing does not even have aperture priority or manual exposure shooting modes.

[T07N]

Manual exposure shooting? You mean the exposure setting? like +2/3 and all that stuff?

[Zero]

Originally posted by T07N
Manual exposure shooting? You mean the exposure setting? like +2/3 and all that stuff?

Err no, that's Exposure Value compensation. You have to select the main menu witht he Menu button, find the Long Shutter Exposure Mode setting and enable it there. Then you have to press Function and select the shutter speed from that menu. That's a complicated little feature lol...

Edit: Err double check the manual on p47 and p79.

[hobs0n]

Originally posted by Andrew LB
http://www.whitestrips.com/en_US/hom...odBrowser=true

They work wonders. Kinda expensive but worth every dime. (i got mine free from a friend who is a dentist)

http://www.drugstore.com/products/pr...=BUY-GFI-0-MWS


[/threadhijack]

Nice, thanx for the links

[Jasef]

Originally posted by Zero
Err no, that's Exposure Value compensation. You have to select the main menu witht he Menu button, find the Long Shutter Exposure Mode setting and enable it there. Then you have to press Function and select the shutter speed from that menu. That's a complicated little feature lol...

Edit: Err double check the manual on p47 and p79.

And people say the menues on Olympus cams are confusing...