donchen Posted August 13, 2006 Author Share Posted August 13, 2006 Eh... i can't seem to get good shots with my cybershot. .. hmn.. wonder why.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deciever Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 (edited) Yeah the S2 does like 15 second shutter. It can't do as high ISO as a dslr and has some trouble with fast moving objects on auto. The zoom is awesome though and you can get some awesome pictures after some practice. It can be had under 300 US now if you can find it. I think the FZ7, the direct Panasonic competitor to the S2 and even S3 canons would be the better route. And is of course that is what I have and it works really well. I spent weeks and weeks researching, printing and comparing noise, among other things and despite the loud mouths out there about the horrid noise, I actually found the S2 noise worse than the FZ7 which is surprising because no one hardly complains about the S2 and S3 noise. But when printed it also shows the FZ7 shows less noise. Also I just like the sharpness and color from test shots I compared better from the FZ7 which is also around $300, ultra zoom 12x camera w/ a shutter speed from 8,000 I believe(not in all modes, usually 1/2000 in all) and it can be as long as 60 seconds vs canons 15 seconds. Check out the reviews at www.dpreview.com and their forum I post there often. If you can spend a but more I'd also highly recommend the FZ30. I'd say if your not prepared to buy multiple expensive SLR glass then get a dslr-like camera instead. Like I tell people I got the closest thing to a dSLR without actually getting one. here is an HDR picture I took with my FZ7 http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8493/downtownweb2bu2.jpg and here are a few more regular shots processed with photoshop from the FZ7 Edited August 13, 2006 by Deciever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randy_tho Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 (edited) I almost bought the panasonic. I really could not tell the difference in pic quality. The panasonic does have somewhat better specs/capabilities. I'm not sure how it performs at the high ISOs though. I know the Canon can get noisy at 400. But I finally went with the canon because it uses normal batteries. Btw, Deciever, how did you manage to get that Humingbird picture? I'm not a photographer, and didn't know aperture from depth of view when I got this thing. My Car Car Again Landscape / Pond Depth of View Shot Way Up In The Air Aperture Bird - Taken through the window. Psycho Cat An Old Red Squirrel Macro Dime That Cat Edited August 13, 2006 by randy_tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deciever Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 yea I am not a photographer either :) and despite me spending weeks learning all I could and finally getting around to properly configuring my dads $100 pentax sense I am his technically savvy son, I still had plenty to learn in the coming days to weeks with my FZ7 and I am probably still picking up on things. Here is a link to what I think is the cream of the crop compact cameras with side by side comparisons. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_po...z7&show=all If you want macro go with Canon a620, for indoor situations which are always what I consider a low light situation the Fuji F30 is king, If you want 12x Ultra zoom go with FZ7, FZ30, S2, or S3 I prefer panasonic but they are still very close match ups, so it practically comes down to taste and the little things. (I will say canons feel better in hand than the FZ series) The Hummingbird has been hanging around my house for weeks due to our hummingbird feeder so he is normally at a tree very close to my back window, but for that particular shot I snuck around the side of the house very quietly and slowly moved to about 4 feet away from him while on my deck, zoom all the way in. Despite me zooming in all the way I would have thought at that distance I would have filled the frame with him, so maybe he was a few feet further away. I know I can get away with cropping it that much for a 4x6 print but for anything bigger I think I'd be stretching it. Also it was heavily process, here is the original on top and after photoshop on bottom. http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7273/hmdx7.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 The D70's sensor is better, and therfore has more MP's. Get a decent lens and the difference is minimal. uhhh no. actually the D50's sensor is newer and has a better processing filter so the images have less noise.... and they are both 6.1MP buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donchen Posted August 14, 2006 Author Share Posted August 14, 2006 Wow.. those cameras u mention are pretty EX. Hmn... I'm closing down to Canon EOS 300D and Nikon D50 and D70... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevieboy84 Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 Wow.. those cameras u mention are pretty EX. Hmn... I'm closing down to Canon EOS 300D and Nikon D50 and D70... In my opinion (and that of many reviews i've read) for the money the D50 is the best value, bought mine the other day and have been trying to get to grips with it. It's so easy to use and take great photos with right from the beginning. Uploaded a few pics on my Deviant Art page if you're interested linky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashy Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 In my opinion (and that of many reviews i've read) for the money the D50 is the best value, bought mine the other day and have been trying to get to grips with it. It's so easy to use and take great photos with right from the beginning. Uploaded a few pics on my Deviant Art page if you're interested linky Quite the opposite for me. D50 I found was annoying to use, but then, I'm used to my 300D :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrganicPanda Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I have a Canon EOS300 35mm cam, Is the 300D the same camera but digital and if so would the end-result picture quality be any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean l Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Since no one has given you the information you really need, I'll help you out a little bit. First off, know your roots. Unless your going for jsut something point and shoot, don't bother buying a digital cam. If you really want to learn photography, pick up a 35mm SLR. You don't need an expensive camera. You need a camera with as many manual features as possible. Learn the anatomy of the camera. The way aperture and shutter speed interact with each other to create your image, and how to control them to create a perfectly exposed shot. Just remember, it does not need to be expensive, it needs as many manual features as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieterich Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I'd agree with everything you said. However, I'd go for digital purely because of one reason, it's digital. I learned and read as much as I could when I got my first 35mm SLR. I snapped picture after picture, only to get back from spending time and money in developing to find out that I had totally futzed rolls of film because I didn't understand fully, what settings were doing what. I learned more in my first week of having a DSLR than I did in probably a year of having my film camera. Digital gives you such feedback and flexibility that film doesn't. Had I saved what I spent on film processing over the past few years with my 35mm, I could have easily bought some more lenses, heck, maybe even a better DSLR... :cool: Just a tightwads opinion..... :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashy Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 I have a Canon EOS300 35mm cam, Is the 300D the same camera but digital and if so would the end-result picture quality be any different? To an extent they are the same. I just can't use film anymore, because I used to get such bad photos once developed, this way I can delete the crap ones. Obviously the qaulity depends on the shooting mode, picture quality (Digital), and the paper, file and developing techniques used. Since no one has given you the information you really need, I'll help you out a little bit.First off, know your roots. Unless your going for jsut something point and shoot, don't bother buying a digital cam. If you really want to learn photography, pick up a 35mm SLR. You don't need an expensive camera. You need a camera with as many manual features as possible. Learn the anatomy of the camera. The way aperture and shutter speed interact with each other to create your image, and how to control them to create a perfectly exposed shot. Just remember, it does not need to be expensive, it needs as many manual features as possible. To me it would make more sence to learn on a dSLR. That way when he shoots a crap photo, it can be deleted. Why waste film on bad photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donchen Posted August 21, 2006 Author Share Posted August 21, 2006 Yeah... DSLR will be better as i need definitely will be shooting crap photos. and i dun wanna only realised it after i waste money developing it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrganicPanda Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 I think I will move to digital soon but I really don't think you can beat the feeling of tearing open your newly developed photos and eagerly looking through to see what worked and what didn't, but it does suck when you're really looking forward to certain pictures and they turn out crud because you shot with the wrong settings or didn't frame the shot right etc etc, I will always keep my 35mm but digital is just so much nicer to learn on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MR_Candyman Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 digital's good in the way that you can see how certain settings on the camera affect the shot right away. Quite often I can't even remember my settings after I get my film developed. They turn out good 98% of the time anyways, but it's from years of practice. If I were to learn from scratch again, I would definitely go digital and still ignore the automatic settings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts