Marc
New member
ski_resort_observer said:
Thanks SRO, coming from one who has such a talent with a camera, that's a confidence boost. I'm looking forward to shoot some nice scenery, gnarly mtb and ski action....
and other general debauchery...
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Marc + digital camera = not good
- Thread starter Marc
- Start date
Thanks SRO, coming from one who has such a talent with a camera, that's a confidence boost. I'm looking forward to shoot some nice scenery, gnarly mtb and ski action....
and other general debauchery...
ski_resort_observer
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2004
- Messages
- 3,423
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Waitsfield,Vt
- Website
- www.firstlightphotographics.com
riverc0il said:well... jeez, look where i live!!!
I guess I should be upset since my wife is a Vermont native. Instead I can't help remembering an old Vermont saying that probably confirms your comment....In Vermont, where the men are men and the cows are nervous.:lol:
riverc0il
New member
lmao!!! well, in all honesty, the young ladies up here are in many cases more attractive, as i come from the city mentality of cake the make up and dress to please the men hanging out on "my favorite corner" (no joke, i grew up in a city with a corner that was given this very name!). while it isn't high class up here, it certainly isn't low class. i dig a chick in overalls
awf170
New member
riverc0il said:i dig a chick in overalls
I bet I would lose in a fight to anyone of them.
riverc0il
New member
man, this got hyjacked quick :lol:
Npage148
New member
awf170 said:
I bet I would lose in a fight to anyone of them.
Kinda looks like a monty python sketch.
As for the thread, i have no idea about digi cams. Ill be using my 35 mm cannon rebel SLR for many years to come
BeanoNYC
Active member
Here's a review of your new camera from my favorite Digital Photography site. Congrats on the purchase. The review has Picture Samples as well.
Very nice site...BeanoNYCBeanoNYC said:
And they still have my camera from 01..Boy have prices dropped:blink:ALLSKIING said:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Olympus/oly_c40z.asp
David Metsky
New member
I also like DCResource as a place to read reviews and a fine mesage board.
More MP is no replacement for optical zoom. More MP by itself doesn't make for a better image, just larger one. With the current trend to jam more MP into a small sensor, the noise is increasing dramatically on some models.
Most people will never need to use an image size greater than 5MP. It won't make for a better print (unless you are going poster sized) and on a computer screen it's not needed. It is useful for cropping, but optical zoom will give you a better image in the long run.
-dave-
More MP is no replacement for optical zoom. More MP by itself doesn't make for a better image, just larger one. With the current trend to jam more MP into a small sensor, the noise is increasing dramatically on some models.
Most people will never need to use an image size greater than 5MP. It won't make for a better print (unless you are going poster sized) and on a computer screen it's not needed. It is useful for cropping, but optical zoom will give you a better image in the long run.
-dave-
andyzee
New member
Marc, did you get throught the instructions yet?
hammer
Active member
Instructions? He don't need no stinkin' instructions...;-)andyzee said:
Marc
New member
andyzee said:
That would like... ah... require knowing how to read, right?
I hope there are lots of pictures in these instructions...
kbroderick
Active member
As David pointed out, going bigger than 5MP on a point-and-shoot-sized sensor seems to be more likely to hurt image quality rather than helping it; the smaller the pixels, the greater the challenge noise becomes and the more likely you are to get noticeable noise. Plus, the limiting factor on image quality is probably going to come down to optics and operation; it's possible to get quite large, high-quality prints from fewer MP, but you need the optics to be there as well. This blog post describes printing a 6MP dSLR image at 22' x 33", which is a friggin' large print. Even 13"x19" looks pretty big when its sitting in front of you.
Marc...you referred to your new camera as a "DSLR"; does it actually have an optical viewfinder or did you just mean DSLR-like? Most of the non-DSLR cameras on the market have electronic viewfinders, which I personally find to be quite obnoxious. That and shutter lag tend to be two of the most significant differences between a non-SLR digicam and an SLR, whether old-school (e.g. your AE-1) or newer (e.g. the 30D). OTOH, the combination of digital advantages over the AE-1 and size advantages over prosumer SLRs do make the Panasonic a rather interesting little camera.
Actually, I almost miss the AE-1...I just don't miss trying to develop film, which I was never any good at. Photoshop is just a whole lot easier...this way I don't end up with water spots all over my images.
Marc...you referred to your new camera as a "DSLR"; does it actually have an optical viewfinder or did you just mean DSLR-like? Most of the non-DSLR cameras on the market have electronic viewfinders, which I personally find to be quite obnoxious. That and shutter lag tend to be two of the most significant differences between a non-SLR digicam and an SLR, whether old-school (e.g. your AE-1) or newer (e.g. the 30D). OTOH, the combination of digital advantages over the AE-1 and size advantages over prosumer SLRs do make the Panasonic a rather interesting little camera.
Actually, I almost miss the AE-1...I just don't miss trying to develop film, which I was never any good at. Photoshop is just a whole lot easier...this way I don't end up with water spots all over my images.
Marc
New member
kbroderick, I don't know it has an optical viewfinder, but from the pictures I've seen, it sure looks as though it does, which is why I kept referring to it as an SLR.
I def. will be keeping my AE-1 around. It's a brick in terms of durability and has features that were at one time considered crude but nowadays you pay extra for. I never tried to develop or even enlarge. Me and chemicals have had a poor history.
I def. will be keeping my AE-1 around. It's a brick in terms of durability and has features that were at one time considered crude but nowadays you pay extra for. I never tried to develop or even enlarge. Me and chemicals have had a poor history.
David Metsky
New member
No, it's not an SLR since you're always looking through the sensor. The viewfinder isn't optical, you're actually getting a tiny view off the sensor projected in the viewfinder. dSLRs do not have LCD preview or movie modes because the much larger CCDs cannot be run full time without overheating. You compose through a real optical viewfinder. The only exception is the Olympus E-volt 330 which has a kludgy but effective partial solution to this problem.kbroderick said:
The ultra-zooms are quite nice cameras and can take amazing pictures. For many (most) folks they probably are a better fit than a dSLR. But the dSLR will be faster, more flexible, and when paired with the right lens take higher quality images. Most people will take the smaller size, lower price, and ease of use over the limited additional benefits of a dSLR.
Digital cameras are still improving at a rapid rate, not quite as fast as the previous few years, but steadily. Hopefully the megapixel wars will die off, since most folks have absolutely no use for large images that are currently available. Concentrate on picture quality.
-dave-
Marc
New member
Yeaap, Metsky's right. It came in the mail today. Digital viewfinder.
Not a big deal. No way in hell I was going to pay for a digital SLR, especially not since I already have the AE-1.
I took a picture of the cows. I'll upload tomorrow if I'm feeling ambitious.
Not a big deal. No way in hell I was going to pay for a digital SLR, especially not since I already have the AE-1.
I took a picture of the cows. I'll upload tomorrow if I'm feeling ambitious.
David Metsky
New member
Heck, you can get a Rebel XT body for roughly $500 and use your existing lenses. It's not that expensive an upgrade path, and you'll never go back.
-dave-
-dave-
Marc
New member
David Metsky said:
Except my current lenses are crappy. The cam I just bought has a far better lense.
And for $200 less.
This one is also lighter and far less bulky then a Rebel would be with my AE-1 lenses. I'm pretty happy.
Marc
New member
First pics...
I was just screwin around with my new camera this morning... I haven't read the manual yet, I think these were taken at ISO 100, varing shutter speeds and apetures... The pics of my car needed better light, it was less than optimal shooting conditions, but hell, I'm pretty happy anyway.
Yes, I really do live on a dairy farm:
My car in between coats of wax this morning:
More of my car:
My car in front of my nice little house... errah I mean... bachelor pad. Garage is to the right (der):
These are obviously scaled way down, these were originally taken at 6 MP. Less scaled down versions are on my Zoto site.
I was just screwin around with my new camera this morning... I haven't read the manual yet, I think these were taken at ISO 100, varing shutter speeds and apetures... The pics of my car needed better light, it was less than optimal shooting conditions, but hell, I'm pretty happy anyway.
Yes, I really do live on a dairy farm:
My car in between coats of wax this morning:
More of my car:
My car in front of my nice little house... errah I mean... bachelor pad. Garage is to the right (der):
These are obviously scaled way down, these were originally taken at 6 MP. Less scaled down versions are on my Zoto site.
