Ron
Moderator Emeritus
Pat said:
I still have my Coolpix 990 and really like it. Not the latest but works well.
Digital photography questions
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I still have my Coolpix 990 and really like it. Not the latest but works well.
Jim Dick
Moderator Emeritus
Pat said:
Pat,
I have a 990. Took it to Europe for six weeks and wore out the on/off switch. Took over 1940 pictures! I sure wish I had my Canon Digital Rebel then. Could have gotten even better shots! I sometimes take the 990 on bike rides. I have a backpack with 100oz of water and extra storage. Great place to carry the camera.
I had a Nikon Coolpix 900s and a 950s. Gave both away. My Canon Elph is a great size and weight for biking.
I lucked into a business trip to Poland about 2 years after the fall of Communism there, when people were probably still camera shy,and that Coolpix twisting lense was great for pointing at one thing and taking a picture of something else.
Also, I was in Mexico City once, looking through the viewfinder at a military installation on the boulevard to the President's house, and I noticed a soldier way on the other side of the below-grade highway waving upright arms at me in what I interpreted as a "no pictures" message. I put the thing away. In that case I didn't even pretend to be pointing a different direction, especially since there was more army stuff behind me. Didn't want my Coolpix confiscated. I still have the Poland pics, but I lost the Mexico ones in a computer upgrade somewhere along the way. Now I photograph and GPS bike trails.
--pat
I lucked into a business trip to Poland about 2 years after the fall of Communism there, when people were probably still camera shy,and that Coolpix twisting lense was great for pointing at one thing and taking a picture of something else.
Also, I was in Mexico City once, looking through the viewfinder at a military installation on the boulevard to the President's house, and I noticed a soldier way on the other side of the below-grade highway waving upright arms at me in what I interpreted as a "no pictures" message. I put the thing away. In that case I didn't even pretend to be pointing a different direction, especially since there was more army stuff behind me. Didn't want my Coolpix confiscated. I still have the Poland pics, but I lost the Mexico ones in a computer upgrade somewhere along the way. Now I photograph and GPS bike trails.
--pat
Jim Dick
Moderator Emeritus
Hi Pat,
Good move on not taking the picture of the President's house. You might not have been here to tell us about it!
Good move on not taking the picture of the President's house. You might not have been here to tell us about it!
Jim: Mexico City has a guardhouse posted at the beginning of a road to the President's house. I wasn't allowed even past that, and the house is nowhere in sight. I was being warned not to take pictures of the army installation along the boulevard perpendicular to the President's entrance road.
In Warsaw the President's house is right on a main street. I was taking pictures of it and of the army tanks out front in the man's driveway when a fellow in a trenchcoat came almost running out of a side door at the end of one wing. He came diagonally across the street right at me. One of my pictures picked him up. I thought my camera was history. However, he veered off a few yards away and walked past me. Whew.
--pat
In Warsaw the President's house is right on a main street. I was taking pictures of it and of the army tanks out front in the man's driveway when a fellow in a trenchcoat came almost running out of a side door at the end of one wing. He came diagonally across the street right at me. One of my pictures picked him up. I thought my camera was history. However, he veered off a few yards away and walked past me. Whew.
--pat
Jim Dick
Moderator Emeritus
Pat,
Remind me not to go photographing with you!!! ;D ;D
Remind me not to go photographing with you!!! ;D ;D
JerArdra
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Posts
- 1,814
Tom and others,
Both RAW and TIFF have been discussed in this thread and so I thought I would mention that with my NEW (about 7 days old) Panasonic FZ20 when you shoot and record a picture using TIFF format the camera also records a JPEG of the same photo in the lowest compression highest resolution possible (you get two photos). BTW, the file size of the TIFF is usually about 14,500,000 bytes (5 megapixels). I bought the camera mainly for its lens. The lens is a Leica 12X optical (36mm to 432mm) and F2.8 all the way. Also, by clicking a switch on the side of the lens barrel I can manualy focus by turning a lens ring just like I used to with my OLD Canon AE-1 35mm SLR (I just sold it on eBay). I'll have it at Moab. I will also have my Olympus C-2100 10X telephoto with me in Moab. The FZ20, as I have found, has many other fantastic features. It's a keeper. The FZ20 is just like a digital SLR except it has a fixed lens with a 36 to 432 optical telephoto which is not available on todays SLRs without carrying several lenses. I carried four lenses with my old Canon SLR and I did NOT like to carry all that "lens stuff" around with me.
To see extensive photos of the FZ20 and a detailed review of go to either or both of these URLs.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/fz20.html
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/panasonic_dmcfz20.asp
JerryF
Both RAW and TIFF have been discussed in this thread and so I thought I would mention that with my NEW (about 7 days old) Panasonic FZ20 when you shoot and record a picture using TIFF format the camera also records a JPEG of the same photo in the lowest compression highest resolution possible (you get two photos). BTW, the file size of the TIFF is usually about 14,500,000 bytes (5 megapixels). I bought the camera mainly for its lens. The lens is a Leica 12X optical (36mm to 432mm) and F2.8 all the way. Also, by clicking a switch on the side of the lens barrel I can manualy focus by turning a lens ring just like I used to with my OLD Canon AE-1 35mm SLR (I just sold it on eBay). I'll have it at Moab. I will also have my Olympus C-2100 10X telephoto with me in Moab. The FZ20, as I have found, has many other fantastic features. It's a keeper. The FZ20 is just like a digital SLR except it has a fixed lens with a 36 to 432 optical telephoto which is not available on todays SLRs without carrying several lenses. I carried four lenses with my old Canon SLR and I did NOT like to carry all that "lens stuff" around with me.
To see extensive photos of the FZ20 and a detailed review of go to either or both of these URLs.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/fz20.html
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/panasonic_dmcfz20.asp
JerryF
caltex
Well-known member
Now that looks like a useful camera!
Ron
Moderator Emeritus
caltex said:
Having seen Jerry's camera I am very impressed. It is a very useful camera.
OP
OP
Tom
Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Posts
- 51,924
Congrats on thye new camera Jerry. Looks a beauty. I look forward to seeing it at Moab.
Ron
Moderator Emeritus
Tom said:
See I told you there would be a demostration of the latest in digital cameras. This is a real cool camera.
Karl
Moderator Emeritus
Jerry,
Seems almost unbelievable that you can get a 12x optical with f2.8 at full zoom. WOW! And the price isn't bad either. ;D Also, interesting bit of user-friendliness with the automatic JPEG image. As I'm sure everyone knows, the raw image has to be pre-processed by the camera anyway for display on the LCD, so why not just save it, and save people the extra step of converting it on their computer? For most people the 480x640 is the ideal size anyway. Great idea.
Question: Will the lens take things like a circular polarizer?
Seems almost unbelievable that you can get a 12x optical with f2.8 at full zoom. WOW! And the price isn't bad either. ;D Also, interesting bit of user-friendliness with the automatic JPEG image. As I'm sure everyone knows, the raw image has to be pre-processed by the camera anyway for display on the LCD, so why not just save it, and save people the extra step of converting it on their computer? For most people the 480x640 is the ideal size anyway. Great idea.
Question: Will the lens take things like a circular polarizer?
The new camera sounds like a nice piece of kit, Jerry.
My Nikon CoolPix 8800 is not much older than your FZ20. It has a 10X optical, stabilised lens, but unlike yours the stop opening ranges from 2.8 at wide angle to 5.2 at full zoom; it is an 8 Megapixel camera.
Before that I had (well, I still have it) an Olympus 2100 UZ--just like yours save that it's lens is optically stabilised. I like the Olympus, but I moved UP to the Nikon for the 8MP and the ability to shoot in RAW. The 480x640 size is not ideal for me as my images that are worth doing something with (and that, unfortunately, is very few) end up as prints.
The lens on the 8800 does take a circular polarizer (which I have).
Anyway, congrats on your new camera. From what I hear of Moab and the photo ops, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.
Ciao,
Doug
My Nikon CoolPix 8800 is not much older than your FZ20. It has a 10X optical, stabilised lens, but unlike yours the stop opening ranges from 2.8 at wide angle to 5.2 at full zoom; it is an 8 Megapixel camera.
Before that I had (well, I still have it) an Olympus 2100 UZ--just like yours save that it's lens is optically stabilised. I like the Olympus, but I moved UP to the Nikon for the 8MP and the ability to shoot in RAW. The 480x640 size is not ideal for me as my images that are worth doing something with (and that, unfortunately, is very few) end up as prints.
The lens on the 8800 does take a circular polarizer (which I have).
Anyway, congrats on your new camera. From what I hear of Moab and the photo ops, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.
Ciao,
Doug
Karl
Moderator Emeritus
Doug,
Don't misunderstand me. By ideal size, I meant for general posting and sending via email to friends, etc. For quality, large format prints, the highest resolution available is best - limited only by your printers maximum dpi.
Don't misunderstand me. By ideal size, I meant for general posting and sending via email to friends, etc. For quality, large format prints, the highest resolution available is best - limited only by your printers maximum dpi.
JerArdra
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Posts
- 1,814
Question: Will the lens take things like a circular polarizer?
Only with difficulty because first you need to screw on an extender because the camera's lens telescopes out about 20mm when you turn it on and there are no threads on the lens.
JerryF
Only with difficulty because first you need to screw on an extender because the camera's lens telescopes out about 20mm when you turn it on and there are no threads on the lens.
JerryF
JerArdra
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Posts
- 1,814
DougJ said:
JerArdra
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Posts
- 1,814
For quality, large format prints, the highest resolution available is best - limited only by your printers maximum dpi.
Oooh, that's opening a can of worms, Karl.
What printer are you using and what is the resolution of the image that you usually send to it?
I'm using an HP3650 and I usually send images at 240 ppi (adjusting if need be); mind you, if the res ends up at 300 ppi, I'll send that and if it's less than 240 I'll res-up (using PhotoZoom).
Ciao,
Doug
Oooh, that's opening a can of worms, Karl.
What printer are you using and what is the resolution of the image that you usually send to it?
I'm using an HP3650 and I usually send images at 240 ppi (adjusting if need be); mind you, if the res ends up at 300 ppi, I'll send that and if it's less than 240 I'll res-up (using PhotoZoom).
Ciao,
Doug
All: I've been taking digital photos for several years now, and I find that zoom pics tend to be less than crisp. This is true whether I'm doing a closeup of a very small object, such as a bug, trying to photograph the cat from across the room, or showing a family of ducks on a pond or an interesting rock formation a quarter mile across the desert. The pictures turn out sort of hazy looking. Is there a digital camera available with a powerful zoom lens built in, that will provide a close, crisp picture? I looked at the building shots in the above email, and the building had the same sort of hazy look. While I understand there is a lot in the air between the photographer and a structure a mile away, there shouldn't be as much haziness to a bird 5 yards up in a tree.
Small is important.
--pat
Small is important.
--pat
Karl
Moderator Emeritus
Doug,
I use a Xerox/Tektronix Phaser 860 solid ink printer and usually print at 1200 dpi but can go up to 2400 dpi.
I use a Xerox/Tektronix Phaser 860 solid ink printer and usually print at 1200 dpi but can go up to 2400 dpi.
