Marc + digital camera = not good

[andyzee]

Where's the ski pics from this weekend?

Edit: Never mind, just saw them. Damn, Superstar and Cascade are still looking good!

 

[Greg]

I'm really eyeing that Canon Powershot A700. I saw some samples of the video mode online and man, pretty impressive quality. Just wait until the photos and video clips next season!

 

[awf170]

Bump... I looking at getting the canon a610. Opinions? It is only $170 so I think it seems like the way to go.

Also heres an interest thing I read over at TGR about all the canon A series cameras: <br>

You can turn down the resolution. However, your camera is
still taking a 7.1MP image which still must pass through the output
channels on the chip (the lmiiting factor for rate). The camera then
processes the image and runs a resolution reduction algorithm (just
like your photo editing software does). This can increase the number of
images in a sequence on some cameras with fast processors and small
buffers, but both the 610 and 620 (and 700 etc) all pipe things fast
enough that there is no limit to the number in a sequence to begin with
(with a fast enough card, the Ultra II is more than fast enough (I use
a 2GB Sandisk Extreme III). Reducing the resolution simply lets you fit
more images on the card (and may actually slow your speed by 5%).
Once again, reducing size will not speed up your cameras sequence.
------------------------------

Here are the max speeds for the 5xx/6xx/7xx series:
A510 - 2.3fps*
A520 - 1.9fps*
A530 - 2.1fps
A540 - 2.3fps
A610 - 2.4-2.5fps
A620 - 2.0fps
A700 - 2.0fps
* = not unlimited
---------------------

530 vs 540 vs 610 vs 620 vs 700
Critical differences between the A5x0 and the A6x0 is that the 5s all
have a smaller CCD sensor chip meaning that they are more prone to
image noise and have less dynamic range, especially at higher ISO (and
if you don't know what that means, the camera will choose it depending
on the available light, less light=more noise). To add to that, the
530/540 have a slower lens (it lets in less light than the 610/620/700.
The 530/540 lack the flip and twist LCD which really helps you see in
low light AND the 530/540 LCDs are much lower resolution than the
610/620/700. 530/540 are smaller and lighter because they use 2AAs
instead of 4AAs, but consequently have a shorter battery life. Now
these cameras have phenomenol life, but in cold weather you'd sure
notice. OTOH carry the spares. There are some other things that make
the 530/540 lesser cameras like smaller flashes and lower fps movie
modes etc.
The 700 also has a smaller sensor and two batteries and only 2fps, but
it has a huge screen (although the keep increasing the size, not the
resolution) a huge fast zoom lens. The usefullness of a 35-210 zoom is
unknown because though it is a fast lens (for a p&s), @ f/4.8 on
the long end you still need a high shutter speed, so the use of the
lens at high zoom is limited to bright light or no action (or you have
to turn up the ISO and increase noise). I don't know why Canon didn't
put in image stabilization like everyone else is doing. The 700's
limitations makes it just not as good of a ski action camera as the
610. Between the 620 and 700 its a hard tossup.
The 530/540 are definately inferior to the 610 (although, like with the
A95, it is not a significant difference that would call for an
upgrade). If you are buying a new camera, there is no reason to get the
530/540 with the 610 on discount.

<br>


I would be jumping on this camera in a second, but it just seems a little to big to carry in your pocket. Marc how are you going to carry you camera when skiing?

 

[Marc]

Hey Austin, don't have time right now to look at the camera spec's, although of course Cannon has a good reputation and I still use my twenty something year old AE-1 with great results.


The zoom lense makes my new camera a bit bulky, but I am still surprised at its size. If I'm not wearing a pack at and I'm carrying the camera, it will go in a pocket or I will hang it around my neck and zip it up under my coat. Smaller certainly is easier, however, retaining high quality and small size makes for higher expense and I still prefer the bulk and high zoom capability as a personal preference.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

For a few bucks more you might consider this upgrade

http://www.epinions.com/Canon_PowerShot_A620_Digital_Camera/display_~reviews

Either one looks like a great camera!
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/a610.html

 

[awf170]

For a few bucks more you might consider this upgrade

http://www.epinions.com/Canon_PowerShot_A620_Digital_Camera/display_~reviews

Yeah, I was looking at that but upgrade in megapixles means it is slower. Do you really need more than 5 mp anyway? To me it looks like it is 5mp vs. 7mp and 2fps vs. 2.4fps. Plus the a610 is a little cheaper.

The 700's limitations makes it just not as good of a ski action camera as the 610. Between the 620 and 700 its a hard tossup.

 

[Marc]

Yeah, I was looking at that but upgrade in megapixles means it is slower. Do you really need more than 5 mp anyway? To me it looks like it is 5mp vs. 7mp and 2fps vs. 2.4fps. Plus the a610 is a little cheaper.

Unless you're into serious digital photography and enlarging... 7 will not give you a huge difference over 5 mp. 7 mp yields a standard resolution of 3072 x 2304 at 4:3 aspect ratio.

I know a lot of people with 19" monitors that keep their resolution at 1280 x 1024 for comparison.

A 5 mp shot yields a resolution of 2580 X 2048. Still almost twice as large as a screen set for 1280 x 1024. I have never needed more than 5 mp even though mine can do 6. Most of the time I leave mine at 2 or 3.

 

[awf170]

Unless you're into serious digital photography and enlarging... 7 will not give you a huge difference over 5 mp. 7 mp yields a standard resolution of 3072 x 2304 at 4:3 aspect ratio.

I know a lot of people with 19" monitors that keep their resolution at 1280 x 1024 for comparison.

A 5 mp shot yields a resolution of 2580 X 2048. Still almost twice as large as a screen set for 1280 x 1024. I have never needed more than 5 mp even though mine can do 6. Most of the time I leave mine at 2 or 3.

Yeah, that the kind of impression I have been getting. People seem way to focused on the mp of a camera when there are actually way more important things.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

Yeah, I was looking at that but upgrade in megapixles means it is slower. Do you really need more than 5 mp anyway? To me it looks like it is 5mp vs. 7mp and 2fps vs. 2.4fps. Plus the a610 is a little cheaper.

That depends. It's not all about megapixels. Like film camera's optics play a huge role on sharpness. I bought a Kodak Z760 based mainly on the quality of the lens. It came with a genuine Schneider-Kreuznach lens for just $230.

Shooting fast action with these kind of camera's is a challenge. You will have to go to the manual settings and increase the shutter speed and decrease the f-stop(depth of field) to compensate. Would not be surprised if some camera's have a "fast action mode" which does this automatically.

Looks like the 610 would be better for fast action but keep in mind that going from frame to frame has nothing to do with stopping the action for a sharp image.

My wife jokes that I bought the camera for me to use..and she's right! These digital camera's are a blast to use.

Here is a semi-fast action shot I shot of my neighbor the other day.