Automotive Air Conditioning Information Forum (Archives)

Provided by www.ACkits.com

We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum

Archive Home

Search Auto AC Forum Archives

Understanding Digital Cameras Pages: 12

NickD on Tue December 07, 2004 4:08 PM User is offline

Does anyone really understand these things? Was interested in buying a small pocket size camera, have a large Sony, but that won't fit in any of my pockets, so after reading lots of reviews on the net, I picked the Canon A75, but was a close choice between that and the Nikon Coolpix 3200. My choice ended up as I had an OfficeMax coupon and the A75 was on sale, so I got the camera for $139.95 with no 30 buck shipping and handling charges, the guys selling these things on ebay and the people that are bidding on them are nuts.

Maybe I am old fashion, but feel if you wants prints use a film camera and want to send images over the net, get a digital, judging photo quality on my 19" high res monitor, the difference between sending an 8 MB high res photo and one that was compressed to a more reasonable 40 KB is nil. Most photos of people look better if the photo is softened a bit, high res only shows and even magnifies every little blemish each has on their skin. I use a soft filter when taking portrait shots with my 35 mm, more pleasing.

Loading a high res photo in Corel yields a picture size 36 by 24 inches with 72 dpi resolution from one digital camera, how is a guy suppose to print that out? And if I double the resolution to 144 dpi and half the size to 18 by 12 inches, the screen size is the same. But how can any program increase the resolution, does it create pixels that aren't there? I feel it does, because when buying a digital camera or a printer today, the use the term effective pixels or effective dpi, in reading reviews written by people that don't know what they are talking about, all they can talk about is the number of pixels they think their camera or printer has. But I have yet to see any digital printout picture that rivals using ISO 25 film in a 35 mm camera. Or even shopping for a camera, some teenage salesperson is telling me I need at least 5 M pixels or preferably ten.

One thing all cameras lack is a decent flash as lighting is the key factor in taking a good photo, in the 35 mm world, you can pay a small fortune to by a 1.2 as opposed to a 1.7 lens but only gain a single F stop while losing all dept of field. Even a four buck throwaway camera can to an excellent job if the lighting is correct. Wonder about these things, cost 3 bucks for a roll of film and for a buck extra you get the camera with an electronic flash. I have taken these things apart to find a two buck high voltage capacitor and a one buck AA battery let alone the rest of the parts in there that are tossed. The flash in most digital cameras is just about the same quality, even the ones in the four hundred buck range. I see external flashes are available like the Vititar DF200 that has some kind of computer built in with a digital flash sensor, most digital cameras do not come with a hot shoe or flash connector.

Also wonder about what they are doing with the selectable ISO ranges, normally from 25 to 400, not like buying a roll of film with different sensitivity dyes, the same CCD sensor is used and I don't feel they are changing that.

I like a digital camera, use it quite a bit out in the field to take pictures that I can send to my clients, a picture still shows a thousand words, but a bit tired of reading reviews about cameras, but what the hell, as long as you got a zillion pixel camera, it's got to be good, nothing about contrast ratio, light sensitivity, or the poor flash that came with it. And the cheaper the better, whatever you buy will be worthless in less than a year.

JJM on Wed December 08, 2004 1:27 AM User is offline

Nick,

I hear ya on digital camera's. I have an Olympus D-450 Zoom I bought several years ago for $495 and I still don't know how to use it. It always got screwed up after downloading with the serial cable, so I had to buy the USB reader. Now the flash doesn't work (BTW, the capacitors in these things pack a REALLY strong punch). The menus are almost always icons; whatever happened to words, are we assumed so stupid now we can only relate to pictures? It's kind of like what McDonald's did on their POS registers, replacing words on the keyboard with icons, like put a hamburger icon instead of the word "hamburger" on the hamburger key so it's employees would know what keys to press.

I see this in cars too, instead of the word "lights" near the light switch, there's pictures of a light bulb. The "check engine" light ("check engine" is not a difficult word) is replaced with a motor icon. On this Chrysler minivan I was renting, this yellow icon that looked like a tire kept flashing at me, figured out that it was low tire pressure indicator. Why can't it just flash a light that says, "LOW TIRE PRESSURE!" Is that really so difficult. Bad enough we have so many idiot lights to begin with, now we have idiot ICONS!

Are there any digital cameras out there that can tell me in PLAIN ENGLISH, and not icons, how to operate them? I might have better luck if they just kept the menus in their native Japanese.

Joe

NickD on Wed December 08, 2004 7:40 AM User is offline

I hear you on the icons, my Sony DSC-D770 appears intimidating at first, but does show all English on the screen when you start turning buttons. It's based on a 35 mm camera design with through the lens focusing even with a twist on the lens to focus and another twist for the zoom. It has the LCD screen on the rear like most cameras, but as you note, if you have the bright sun behind you, you can't see it. The Canon A75 is practically all icons, but came with a 143 page manual to explain it, not too bad if you use the camera everyday, but not sure if I can remember everything two weeks from now.

Tried both cameras for taking night pictures of our Christmas decorated house last night that makes me wonder what kind of cameras Hollywood uses, my wife never seen Oceans Eleven and the night Vegas shots in that movie are fantastic. I tired both cameras without a flash and just saw a stream of lights, no house. The cameras with the built in flash had hardly any effect at all, I was 75 feet in front of the house. I put on my Vivitar 285HV flash on the Sony, and the house lit up like daylight with a black sky, the flash is powerful, but not that powerful. I could have tried reducing the flash, but was standing in the middle of a black road and couldn't see the many dials to turn, ha should have brought a flashlight out with me. One bright light anywhere in the shot wipes out that portion of the picture, the consumer grade cameras have a long way to go to match the human eye.

I had to learn icon to drive the Cavalier but still have to refer to the owners manual now and then, think the guys that come up with these things are more abstract and artistic than logical. Many years ago I was embarrassed when I walked into a womens washroom using icons after staring at both for several minutes.

TRB on Wed December 08, 2004 3:19 PM User is offlineView users profile

I won't even open Corel anymore and I used to love it. Photoshop is the only way to go but its costly for the average user. I always set my camera at 300 DPI and resize the image to the size I want. Much cleaner bringing an image down in size then trying to explode an image. Photoshop does do a fair job of exploding images but really no reason for it in my opinion. My Olympus C4040 has a great flash setup on it. I agree the lower end stuff has poor flash capabilities. That is one reason I will never buy a built in flash again when purchasing a digital camera.

-------------------------

When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com

NickD on Thu December 09, 2004 8:44 AM User is offline

Are you using an external flash with your Olympus C4040? I looked it up and it doesn't seem to have a very large built in flash nor do I see a hot shoe.



I own Photoshop ver 5.0 only to learn that I have a real talent for really messing up a photo, I did download the Nikon Coolpix 3200 software and it has one of the best red eye removal programs I have ever seen. With my Sony DSC-D770 I have a bounce flash card with the 285HV flash that does a beautiful job of getting the picture correct the first time without need for correction, but when visiting anything worth taking pictures of, it's a load of stuff to carry. And I always carry a large zip lock bag because these cameras can die quick if you get caught in the rain.

I needed some passport photos, got on the USCIS site and downloaded a ten page document on how to take these pictures, LOL, way too much fooling around, so I called around, $6.95 was the price and the studio was all set up for it, they had a jig for precisely cutting the photos and put them in a special folder, was in and out of there in five minutes.

I still price photo supplies to print out digital photos, it's crazy, film is so much cheaper. I wonder what happened to slides, appears to be ancient history today, but no wonder, a five buck projector bulb is now 80 bucks. Burning images to a CD in a slide show format and viewing on a 19" monitor is so much simpler than trying to set all that up. But I dig out the projector once in awhile to view 12' diagonal shots on the wall.

TRB on Thu December 09, 2004 9:19 AM User is offlineView users profile

The Olympus I have only has the internal flash. Its the best internal flash I have ever used but as stated I will not buy another camera with an internal flash. I only bought that camera as I had to get working on images for the site and the Nikon Coolpix 8500 I had been waiting for for months keep getting pushed back for release.

-------------------------

When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com

NickD on Thu December 09, 2004 9:41 AM User is offline

This is the monster I have,



Unfortunately the first week I had it, that top knob on the far left caught the edge of the counter top when I leaned over with the camera on the neck strap and broke off. I wrote to Sony to get the camera repaired being a bit critical of how weak that know was, but they gave me the runaround and wouldn't even sell me a new knob. I carefully took the camera apart to find a very tiny screw stripped out holding that knob in. Having tiny metric dies and screws, I drilled and tapped the knob for a larger screw and don't use the neck strap anymore.

Because of this incident and other problems I have had with Sony, I kind of stay away from their products I had a two year battle with them on a laser disk player that had a firmware fault, but they finally fixed it after lots of argument, don't need that.

Dougflas on Thu December 09, 2004 4:09 PM User is offline

Ok, I'll try to give some explaination. I use the new Kodak slr/n is which a whole different ballgame. (14 meg apixel). regarding pixels in a digital camera, it all depends upon what size print you want. If you want 30 x 40 prints, you need more pixels than if you want 4 x 6 prints. Using photshop, you can resize images by adding 10% at a time. I have done this and it works. You can spend 150 buckaroos and by a program called Genuine factuals and it'll do it for you in one step. On a monitor, an image sized at 72 dpi will appear the same as one sized 200 dpi. If all you're doing is web based stuff, a low pixel model will work fine. Flash on camera is a no no. The flash needs to be mounted approx 8 to 10 inches above the lens to eliminate red eye. The new digitals will give you better prints than a 35mm using ISO 25 film. Early digitals could not do this but we are there now. Of course my camera cost a lot more than Nick's $140.00 camera but I have the need for it. Dpi is not the same as ppi. Dpi is basically what is on the monitor while ppi is what the printer will do. Most injet printers will handle 150 to 180. After that, the printer is confused and doesn't know where to squirt the ink. When I send a file in for printing (professional) I send TIFFS at 300.

Nick, there is nothing wrong with your 285 flash...they "last long time and work long time"


www.dougkahane.com

NickD on Thu December 09, 2004 6:56 PM User is offline

Not sure if this camera would fit in my shirt pocket either, LOL.



I see it comes with a pop up flash. But does have a hot shoe.

, but not as large as the one on my Sony that is good up to about 30 feet.

I feel like Corel has a limit as to the number of pixels it can handle although I cannot find any specifications of it, just tried shots using the very lowest resolution of my camera to the highest generating an 8 MB file. I do not see any difference on my screen, will try reloading Photoshop, but man, can I destroy a photo. LOL.

I purchased my first 285 I think back in 1975, it still works fine but the shoe broke off, lots of weight on that tiny plastic foot, I found a metal one on ebay, but it doesn't let the PC cord work anymore, so I did break down and buy a new one.

How does that Kodak work on taking night pictures of a Christmas decorated house?

Dougflas on Thu December 09, 2004 7:11 PM User is offline

The Kodak works fantastically well. One can use it on manual mode as well as program, aperature priority, shutter priority,and flexible program. It has a hot shoe and a pc connection. The built in flash is good for firing other flashes but I use radio slaves connected to the pc.

There are suppliers of a metal foot for your 285 but this is the first time I have heard that the metal foot disables the pc connector.
I just ordered the Nikon SB800 flash which will be here tomorrow. $319.00 and it has a $50. rebate. I wanted digital TTL but will still use my radio slaves to fire off camera flashes as I illuminate the reception halls for depth. My Sb 25 and Sb26 flashes don't afford me some options on this new camera.

After you load Photoshop, let me know if you get hung up. I know a little of it...enough to be dangerous!!

best regards

dk

Edited: Thu December 09, 2004 at 7:53 PM by Dougflas

TRB on Thu December 09, 2004 7:48 PM User is offlineView users profile

Looks like she was the first one across the finish line!


Hey where did the image go????????????

-------------------------

When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com


Edited: Thu December 09, 2004 at 7:49 PM by TRB

Dougflas on Thu December 09, 2004 7:50 PM User is offline

I'm trying to resize it!!

NickD on Thu December 09, 2004 9:41 PM User is offline



Is a shot taken with the Canon A75, while the shades of the house and lights look good, it's very grainy.



This shot was taken with the Sony DSC-D770 with the Vivitar 285HV flash, it completely washed out the lights. I could try a lower flash setting, but not now, it's raining outside.

Thanks for the tip on the hotshoe, I did buy a new 285HV and see they made the shoe a bit more robust. Thinking about the Vivitar DF200 for the Canon, but why I ask myself, will just take the Sony for those large room indoor shot with the 285, and carry the A75 in my pocket.

LOL, I go around in circles with this stuff, I still have my Minolta ST 101, still works great after 37 years and have a pile of lenses to go with it, but need a large suitcase to haul all that stuff around.

TRB on Thu December 09, 2004 9:46 PM User is offlineView users profile

Play around with it Nick as you should get a much better picture than that, even with built in flash. I sat at my desk one day and just shoot the same picture over and over checking what each setting really did with my camera. Want to have some real fun try taking a image of a part without getting a shadow. Now remember I did not have back lighting and other fancy options.

PS: What that white stuff on the ground??????????

-------------------------

When considering your next auto A/C purchase, please consider the site that supports you: ACkits.com
Contact: ACKits.com

NickD on Thu December 09, 2004 10:32 PM User is offline

LOL, not much of that snow left tonight, that shot was two nights ago, and that is the wife getting more ideas about adding more lights to the front of the house. We got a 48" deer last night for under the pines, an electric motor turning heat, 200 bulbs, 1/4" steel bar frame all welded and tightly wrapped with a clear plastic tubing that really lights up. Not bad for 19 bucks, Christmas stuff is 60% off already, 50 bulb light sets for 99 cents and the like. Decorating the front of the house is new to her and she is enjoying it. Now what to do with the second floor, LOL.

Dougflas on Fri December 10, 2004 4:16 AM User is offline

Nick, You need to use a longer exposure in order to get the lights to show up better. This way, the flash will light up the house and the ambient lights will get balanced better. We call this "dragging the shutter".

Just get larger shirts with larger pockets!!!

NickD on Fri December 10, 2004 6:41 AM User is offline

I gather it takes a bit more than setting the camera to auto and clicking the shutter, but even that is too complicated for some people. When I ask a passerby to shoot us and show them to press the shutter half way down until they hear the beep, then push it the rest of the rest, they can't do that so we end up with a way out of focus dark picture.

This picture was taken professionally in a well lit studio with all kinds of lights, plus there was three experienced dog trainers in the background, one for each pup, even at that, it took many shots and tries to get this picture and I was asked to leave as the puppies
wanted to run up to me.




I did dig out my tripod for this shot, actually four pictures merged together with the Canon A75 and just used the auto mode, did shrink and highly compress it before uploading. Just an 8KB file, but a neat feature of the A75, it blended the four pictures automatically.



Dougflas on Fri December 10, 2004 3:24 PM User is offline

those doggies are priceless!!! Great job.

NickD on Tue December 14, 2004 9:09 AM User is offline

My daugther purchased a Kodak 5 MP camera and couldn't load the software, I gave it a shot yesterday, the opening statement was you need IE5.0 or above to use this program. I ignored that and loaded it anyway, she is not on the net. Works okay, but it takes her computer about five minutes to shut down whenever EasyShare is used, I removed the automatic startup feature, I hate when you load any program and it starts up when you boot Windows, loads the memory down with trash. I assume Windows is spending that time trying to figure out how to disconnect EasyShare from the net.

I don't like what Kodak is doing with their software, trying to get their users to grab their credit cards for online processing, suggested she get an SD card reader and use Corel or Photoshop.

Dougflas on Tue December 14, 2004 6:36 PM User is offline

Nick,
email me directly at dktv@aol.com.

have an easy fix for you.

regards

Doug

NickD on Tue December 28, 2004 7:33 AM User is offline

Neat, I found a video cable in the Canon A75 camera box, plugged that into my video projector with pictures stored in the compact flash, just like having a slide projector. 800 by 600 resolution photos look fine on a ten foot diagonal screen compressed to 60K. With a 128 MByte card, can load in a couple of thousand photos that is guaranteed to bore anyone to death.

I was lucky with my Panasonic three tube projector, just happened to be in the right place at the right time, it was dropped like over ten years ago, was brand new and just sat there, took if off the guy for five bucks, got a 30 buck manual and rebuilt the case using my auto body skills plus repaired a broken PC board. It's a powerful projector, get a bright screen in daylight.

Back to Off Topic Chat

We've updated our forums!
Click here to visit the new forum

Archive Home

Copyright © 2016 Arizona Mobile Air Inc.