Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Which compact?

Reply
Thread Tools

Which compact?

 
 
chris
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-22-2010
Hi,

I am looking for suggestions for my next digital compact.

My IXUS 700 has just died, and I am looking for a replacement. The
only issue I had with it was the lack of manual override for shutter
speed, and aperture. So, I am looking for suggestions for a digital
compact that has:

1. Shutter and aperture manual override. (Preferably including
exposure times <0.5s)
2. Good quality lens (f2.8 or faster)
3. Good quality CCD (and no less than 1/1.8inches).
4. The ability to select center point focus easily.
5. Minimum of 12MP resolution.
6. Fast start up time. The IXUS was around a second, I would not want
longer than this.
7. 150+ shots out of a charged battery.

It would be nice to go for another IXUS in the hope that I can use the
old spare batteries & chargers from the old IXUS 700.

Beyond the above, I will be going for the smallest, most robust and
cheapest.

Any suggestions would be welcome, as the manufacturers sites are more
keen to plug their latest made up jargon for 'another-automatic-
feature' than tell me what the camera is really capable of!


Thanks,

Chris.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave Cohen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-22-2010
On 3/22/2010 8:24 AM, chris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for suggestions for my next digital compact.
>
> My IXUS 700 has just died, and I am looking for a replacement. The
> only issue I had with it was the lack of manual override for shutter
> speed, and aperture. So, I am looking for suggestions for a digital
> compact that has:
>
> 1. Shutter and aperture manual override. (Preferably including
> exposure times<0.5s)
> 2. Good quality lens (f2.8 or faster)
> 3. Good quality CCD (and no less than 1/1.8inches).
> 4. The ability to select center point focus easily.
> 5. Minimum of 12MP resolution.
> 6. Fast start up time. The IXUS was around a second, I would not want
> longer than this.
> 7. 150+ shots out of a charged battery.
>
> It would be nice to go for another IXUS in the hope that I can use the
> old spare batteries& chargers from the old IXUS 700.
>
> Beyond the above, I will be going for the smallest, most robust and
> cheapest.
>
> Any suggestions would be welcome, as the manufacturers sites are more
> keen to plug their latest made up jargon for 'another-automatic-
> feature' than tell me what the camera is really capable of!
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris.

My good old Canon A95 has just died. It had all of the above except for
the resolution.
Later models in this series should meet most of your requirements.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-22-2010
On 22/03/10 5:24 AM, chris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for suggestions for my next digital compact.
>
> My IXUS 700 has just died, and I am looking for a replacement. The
> only issue I had with it was the lack of manual override for shutter
> speed, and aperture.


Sure it had those. You just had to load CHDK to get them! All of our
small cameras are Canon models that can use CHDK (except the G2 predates
CHDK).

Get the SD1200 IS (but CHDK not yet available).

I don't know why you're insistent on 12 MP for such a small sensor,
which just means too much noise. The SD1200 IS is 10 MP, and it has an
f2.8 lens (at the wide end). The battery is not the same as the SD700.

The SD780 is 12 MP, but the lens is slower. CHDK is already available.

Too bad about your SD700, since it was one of the better compact
cameras, and Canon has been doing a lot of decontenting in this product
line. Really hard to find anything good that has an optical viewfinder
like the SD700, and that's one feature that you should never compromise on.
 
Reply With Quote
 
NameHere
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-22-2010
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:35:26 -0700, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 22/03/10 5:24 AM, chris wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am looking for suggestions for my next digital compact.
>>
>> My IXUS 700 has just died, and I am looking for a replacement. The
>> only issue I had with it was the lack of manual override for shutter
>> speed, and aperture.

>
>Sure it had those. You just had to load CHDK to get them! All of our
>small cameras are Canon models that can use CHDK (except the G2 predates
>CHDK).
>
>Get the SD1200 IS (but CHDK not yet available).
>
>I don't know why you're insistent on 12 MP for such a small sensor,
>which just means too much noise. The SD1200 IS is 10 MP, and it has an
>f2.8 lens (at the wide end). The battery is not the same as the SD700.
>
>The SD780 is 12 MP, but the lens is slower. CHDK is already available.
>
>Too bad about your SD700, since it was one of the better compact
>cameras, and Canon has been doing a lot of decontenting in this product
>line. Really hard to find anything good that has an optical viewfinder
>like the SD700, and that's one feature that you should never compromise on.


So speaks the pretend-photographer troll that has never used a camera in
its lifetime. SMS comes in handy though if you want it to go look up
something for you on the net or download and read a manual for you. That's
all that the SMS Troll will ever be good for.

 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-22-2010
On 22/03/10 8:28 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:

<snip>

> Just curious: WHY "Minimum of 12MP resolution"?


Yes, that jumped out at me too!

> This silly megapixel race in compact cameras really annoys me. I have small
> cameras with 8, 10, 12 and 14.5 MP. I routinely set them all to 5 MP. I'd
> prefer them to be 5 MP natively rather than cramming all those too-tiny
> photosites into such small CCDs, but you can't even buy a new 5MP camera
> now.


Setting them to a lower resolution isn't buying you anything other than
a smaller file size. I don't think it's helping you with the noise.

These high pixel densities on the tiny sensors on compact cameras is
more than annoying, it actually decreases the image quality especially
if you're shooting at anything higher than ISO 100.

> Every manufacturer evidently believes he has to do this to keep up with
> the competition, and the sad part is he's probably right: people will pay
> more for cameras with higher megapixel counts in the fond belief that
> "sharper pictures" will be the result.


It was amazing to see Canon _not_ doing this on the G11. They actually
went the other way, to a lower MP sensor than the G10. But the G11 is
targeted at a different buyer than the smaller pocket cameras where LCD
size and number of megapixels are the only things that the manufacturers
are able to market.

> In most cases all they'll really get
> are (a) fewer pictures on a memory card, (b) longer in-camera processing
> times, (c) longer transfer times to the computer, (d) more hard disk space
> used up, and probably (e) more noise when high ISOs are used.


Yeah, but most people don't know that!

Two years ago Canon had some excellent cameras with a 7.1 MP sensor,
image-stabilization, and an optical viewfinder. One was the A570 IS, one
was the SD800 IS. The latter was unusual because it also had a lens with
28mm at the wide end, which is non-existent anymore in a pocket camera
with an optical viewfinder. It became the Olympus XA of the decade and
was snapped up by cyclists and backpackers. I wanted to buy a spare, and
was astounded to see the street price on it going up, not down (when did
you ever see a digital camera going up in price over time?). Now they're
selling for ridiculous prices on the used market. My kids each have an
A570 IS which lacks the wide angle lens but still has the optical
viewfinder).

I installed CHDK for more manual control and some of the other features,
but except in the winter (where sunlight and snow combine to make the
manual features more necessary) I use one of the automatic modes. CHDK
will give the original poster the manual control he desires. I don't
think such a thing is available for any other manufacturer's compact
cameras. It's an amazing piece of work. I did some of the documentation
for it, which was a bit lacking.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Outing Trolls is FUN!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-22-2010
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:17:15 -0700, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>Setting them to a lower resolution isn't buying you anything other than
>a smaller file size. I don't think it's helping you with the noise.


Yes it does you ****ing cameraless pretend-photographer know-nothing piece
of **** troll. Downsampling in-camera averages out neighboring pixels.

Since you don't even know this much the rest of your spewage is merely
snipped and left unread.

 
Reply With Quote
 
RichB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-22-2010
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:17:15 -0700, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>I installed CHDK for more manual control and some of the other features,
>but except in the winter (where sunlight and snow combine to make the
>manual features more necessary) I use one of the automatic modes. CHDK
>will give the original poster the manual control he desires. I don't
>think such a thing is available for any other manufacturer's compact
>cameras. It's an amazing piece of work. I did some of the documentation
>for it, which was a bit lacking.


LIAR!

Point out just ONE page, just ONE word where you edited the documentation
for CHDK. The edit history will clearly show if it was done by you.

But you CAN'T. You don't even know how CHDK works, you ****ing
pretend-photographer troll jack-off.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Spanjaard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-22-2010
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:56:25 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:

>>Setting them to a lower resolution isn't buying you anything other than
>>a smaller file size. I don't think it's helping you with the noise.

>
> Yes it does you ****ing cameraless pretend-photographer know-nothing
> piece of **** troll. Downsampling in-camera averages out neighboring
> pixels.
>
> Since you don't even know this much the rest of your spewage is merely
> snipped and left unread.


And then you went on to reply to a snipped and unread part two minutes
later...

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-22-2010
On 22/03/10 3:08 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:56:25 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
>
>>> Setting them to a lower resolution isn't buying you anything other than
>>> a smaller file size. I don't think it's helping you with the noise.

>>
>> Yes it does you ****ing cameraless pretend-photographer know-nothing
>> piece of **** troll. Downsampling in-camera averages out neighboring
>> pixels.
>>
>> Since you don't even know this much the rest of your spewage is merely
>> snipped and left unread.

>
> And then you went on to reply to a snipped and unread part two minutes
> later...


Thank goodness for the nice filters in Thunderbird 3.03. There's no need
to be bothered with our favorite troll's rantings, just filter him.
e-mail me and I'll tell you how to do it. There's something in one of
his headers to filter on.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ken Walls
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2010
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:10:20 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>For the most part I agree with you, which is why I'd rather the sensors were
>5 MP natively. There must be some sort of borders between the photosites,
>which is just one reason that, say, a single photosite must be more
>efficient that four 1/4-size sites in the same space. I suspect that as a
>photon-collecting "well" the larger photosite must be "deeper" too.
>
>But I think there is probably some noise advantage, however small, to
>switching to a lower resolution. Here's why I think so: Some recent Nikon
>Coolpixes with very high ISOs restrict those settings to much lower
>resolutions. For example, my Coolpix S710 has a maximum of 14.5 MP, but when
>ISO is set to 6400 or 12800 it automatically switches down to 3 MP. I assume
>that it does this for noise considerations, so it seems likely to me that
>even dropping to 5 MP should give some reduction in noise -- though I have
>never actually tested this idea.


Wow. I can't believe you're this ****ing stupid. It's called pixel-binning
and has been used for astrophotography and cameras for well over a decade
now.

But if the camera is not designed with pixel-binning in the first place,
then downsizing in camera to a 5mpx image will only use the bicubic
resampling algorithm to smooth out the noise.

I can't believe the stupidity that both of you keep displaying. But then,
that's to be expected from pretend-photographer trolls that have never had
to research a camera with the intent of actually buying one.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Microcontrollers: which one ? which language ? which compiler ? The Jesus of Suburbia NZ Computing 2 02-11-2006 06:53 PM
Web Stats? Which to use? Which is best? Familyman HTML 3 02-09-2006 11:05 PM
ADSL WIC support - which NM's, and which IOS versions? Kralizec Craig Cisco 5 12-08-2005 02:20 AM
which XMI version compatible to which UML version? Kenny XML 0 06-02-2004 10:20 PM
Keeping track of which user controls need to be loaded and which not John ASP .Net 0 07-08-2003 09:26 AM



Advertisments