Bad work? Could be the camera...
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Bad work? Could be the camera...

  1. #1

    Default Bad work? Could be the camera...

    Hello friends,

    Today a bought a new camera and the difference in the quality of pictures is screaming.

    Its the differences between a $150 and a $750 camera.

    My old camera is a Sony Cybershot DSC-W35, and the new one is a Canon EOS Rebel T1i EF-S.

    The pics are with a +10 lens.

    The new pics are the left ones:

















    Last edited by clevischi; 04-02-2011 at 09:25 PM.

  2. #2

    Default

    Pretty big difference, especially with the greens. My camera murders my Orks, but I don't have that kind of money for a camera unfortunately!

  3. #3
    Superfreak!!! Dragonsreach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Bolton, Lancs, UK (A Geordie in Exile)
    Posts
    17,304
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clevischi View Post
    Hello friends,

    Today a bought a new camera and the difference in the quality of pictures is screaming.

    Its the differences between a $150 and a $750 camera.
    My old camera is a Sony Cybershot DSC-W35, and the new one is a Canon EOS Rebel T1i EF-S.
    The pics are with a +10 lens.
    The new pics are the left ones:
    I'd suggest that it's not so much the camera but the camera settings.
    The obvious difference between the photo's above is that the Depth of Field of Focus is larger, thereby showing more of the mini in relative focus and that the metering id concentrated more on the mini than the averaged version.

    However if you are happy with the results you are getting I'd strongly suggest that you Take a record of the settings so that you can replicate them at anytime.
    (And not have to faff around like I do trying to get them right again!)
    I believe in Karma, what you give, is what you get returned. Affirmation; Savage Garden
    Oh look my IQ results came in:-
    , and proud of it.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonsreach View Post
    I'd suggest that it's not so much the camera but the camera settings.
    The obvious difference between the photo's above is that the Depth of Field of Focus is larger, thereby showing more of the mini in relative focus and that the metering id concentrated more on the mini than the averaged version.
    Question, Dragonsreach. I haven't bought a camera yet and haven't made my mind up about which one to buy, but does a camera like the Cybershot, which I assume is pretty representative of the $150 range, offer the ability to adjust settings to the degree to achieve results similar to the pictures taken by the Rebel in the examples above? In other words, how much can you adjust with a camera like a Cybershot? Thanks.
    Last edited by GTherk; 04-03-2011 at 11:53 PM.

  5. #5

    Default

    New pics are on the left, the ones with a shallower depth of field?!

    Other than that, clarity and colour looks great. But a lot could be done with those Cybershot photos in post-processing.


    @ GTherk - some cheaper cameras won't have anything that'll adjust a global colour setting - like Natural Colour, Vivid Colour - but you'd have to check the specifics of the model(s) you're looking at. And different camera makes and models capture colour in their own ways because the manufacturers choose the look they like; some models are noted for having natural-looking colours, others are set to give more vivid or 'punchy' results.

    Other than that, depth of field is related to aperture size and you can't directly control this in many cheaper cameras either (i.e. no Aperture Priority mode) although this can be influenced by lighting, and more light (diffused) is advisable anyway.

    Need links for where to look up camera reviews?

    Einion

  6. #6

    Default

    Hey Einion,

    Thank you for the explanations. Some links to camera reviews would be greatly appreciated.

    Gary

  7. #7
    Superfreak!!! Dragonsreach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Bolton, Lancs, UK (A Geordie in Exile)
    Posts
    17,304
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Einion View Post
    New pics are on the left, the ones with a shallower depth of field?!

    Einion
    Oh For F***s sake! New ones on the LEFT. >Big Hairy Handed Facepalm<
    MAN did I have a brain fart with this one!

    Sorry GTHerk, but I have to say that I completely got this ass about face.
    MY preference is for the ones on the right, which I think are showing a better representation of your figures.
    I believe in Karma, what you give, is what you get returned. Affirmation; Savage Garden
    Oh look my IQ results came in:-
    , and proud of it.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonsreach View Post
    Oh For F***s sake! New ones on the LEFT. >Big Hairy Handed Facepalm<
    MAN did I have a brain fart with this one!

    Sorry GTHerk, but I have to say that I completely got this ass about face.
    MY preference is for the ones on the right, which I think are showing a better representation of your figures.
    Hahahahahahahaha, that's okay. I'm leaning toward spending less money anyway.

  9. #9

    Default

    @ DR,

    @ Gary, my favourite place for camera reviews is Imaging Resource, where you can look by make, price and megapixel count. Under price, the $0-150 and $150-199 categories both have some very decent cameras from Sony, Nikon, Canon, Samsung and Panasonic.

    More feature-packed goodness at:
    http://www.dpreview.com/
    http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/

    Einion

  10. #10

    Default

    That's wonderful, Einion. Thank you. Now to dive into some reviews!

  11. #11

    Default

    Re: depth of field, one way of fixing this problem is to simply take the macro shots from farther away. At 10 MP or whatever, you should still have a big enough image of the mini to post online, and the protruding bits won't be (as much) out of focus.

    I don't really know much about photography. Am I full of **** on this?

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by No Such Agency View Post
    Re: depth of field, one way of fixing this problem is to simply take the macro shots from farther away. At 10 MP or whatever, you should still have a big enough image of the mini to post online, and the protruding bits won't be (as much) out of focus.

    I don't really know much about photography. Am I full of **** on this?
    Your not full of... It's an option but the resolution of the miniature will drop as well regardless of MP count. Just think that the miniature will occupy a much smaller part of the sensor and thus less details will be seen. The best option is to have manual settings on the camera, set the camera to a usable aperture setting and then if needed move back.

    As Einion points out though the depth of field can with automatic settings be controlled with the light. If you give the mini enough light the camera will eventually be forced to use a narrower aperture to get the right exposure and thus increase the depth of field. But I suppose it takes a fair share of experimenting to get it right.

  13. #13

    Default

    The clarity is amazing. But I wouldn't expect anything different from a 600 dollar upgrade! The color quality is up in the air for me, because obviously I cannot see the originals with my own eyes to note the true colors. Are you a professional photographer?Angie's List have reviews for photographers. Why the super-expensive camera?
    Last edited by MiniStalker83; 06-12-2012 at 01:19 AM.
    I can't find any better facebook statuses

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion


Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.

-->