Vanity-PHOTOGRAPHY BUFFS - Freeper needs advice

Me | 8/7/2005 | 6ppc

[raybbr]

At the very least one should run ones photos through a basic sharpening with unsharp mask.

Thanks for the tips. I have Paint Shop Pro 9 and tried that. It seems a bit complicated for now. The problem is that I had a Fuji Finepix 2650 @ 2mp. Most of my pics are for a personal web site or e-mail to family and friends. I got better sharper pictures out of the 2650 than the E510. When I look at a picture at 100% from the E510 the picture is soft. Also, there doesn't seem to be any real depth of field even in sunlight. I have tried everything I know to get the camera to take sharp clear pictures. It doesn't seem to be able to do it.

I have done some checking on sites dedicated to digital photography and have discovered that others have had an auto-focus problem with these cameras. I think I am going to try to return it to Newegg and get something else. I am very disappointed in this camera.

BTW I got an E510 and sent it back because of this same problem. This is the second camera that has the same results.

[mercy]

Check this out:

Casio

Anti shake. Can really impprove sharpness of shots.

[Vermont Lt]

I do this stuff for a living.

If he really wants to "learn" how the camera works, go with something like a K1000 or a Nikon FM. They are truly great manual operation cameras. He will learn the relationship between shutters and aperatures.

However, you can get the same functionality on some of the mid level digital cameras. The immediate feedback and ability to shoot literally thousands of pictures without having to go into the darkroom is a great thing.

Digital imaging has changed the photography world. I can easily say that my film cameras havent come out of the cabinet for almost a year. Everything I do is digital. However, going digital means using a PC or MAC a lot. The overall start up cost can be significant.

Private email me if you need more info or want to bounce ideas.

[raybbr]

Sharpening is not available in the auto mode. I haven't really tried it in the manual modes. The reason I am disappointed is shown in this photo taken at 2mp and it has been reduced by 50% and compressed by a factor of 12. Nothing I have taken with the 5mp camera has ever come close to this:

[mercy]

Yes that is pretty sharp. I took it into Photoshop and blew it up to 600% and could see only very little sharpening. I's say there is definitely something wrong with the other camera. These things are supposed to produce sharp photos for the casual shooter.

You might try going into the photo shop with your own memory card and shoot a bunch of stuff with differnt cameras then take your card home and load the shots into your computer for comparison.

[OB1kNOb]

So what price will an old K1000 go for now on today's market? Like you, I've got one I've had for 25+ years and it still works like a charm, but I've converted to digital and I hate to see it sit idly by.

[raybbr]

Mod: I just want mercy to see this then I will delet it from my server.

Mercy: Here is a picture taken in the same lighting and about the same physical dimensions with the 5mp camera set at 5mp normal. Notice the plywood on the right; it's all blurry. Notice the grill and the other stuff under the deck. I also resized to 50% and compressed @12.

[mercy]

OK you can delete it now. I have it in photoshop.

What I see is a depth of field issue. The exposed boards in the middle of the field which is what your camera probably focused on are fairly sharp. DOF is simply ACCEPTABLE field of focus. There is always an exact plane of focus. Since you are shooting on auto your camera may be shooting at f/2 or so. Put it on manual and shoot at f/8 or whatever your cams highest f number is. The higher the f number the greater the DOF.

You may need lots of light or a tripod to get a steady shot. Anything under 1/125 handheld will give camera shake (we ain't as steady as we think we are) unless you have anti-shake or image stabilization lenses. If you are using any tele than the number goes up. Ususally the reciprocal of the telephoto will give the lowest hand holdability. ie don't shoot a 250mm telephoto under 1/250th handheld.

I can also see that your camera does not like diagonal lines very much. This is a sign of an inferior processor chip. Canon with their digic II seem to do the best at processor chips these days.

[raybbr]

Thanks for the tips. I know that it is a DOF issue. I have tried F8 and still get fuzzy pics. I have tried ISO 100, 200 and 400. They all come out about the same. But it seems that for a camera that is supposed to be pretty good quality that wouldn't be the case. The other pic with the elephant was done in auto as well.

Now I am at a loss. I wanted to be able to pring larger pictures of my two sons. Now I have to start all over again in my search. I will look into to the Canons. Canon PowerShot A95 Silver 5.0MP. This one catches my eye. What do you think? Of course the XD cards I have will be obsolete.

Thanks again for your help.

[mercy]

Well the A95 has been out a year. That means you can find it in the shops and handle it. dpreview liked it.

A95

You might go to the forum section of dpreview and talk to other A95 owners. I always do this when buying a camera. Check out the reviews for other cams as well. These reviews are pretty good. Also look at steves digicams.com. Good luck.

[tet68]

No, just getting used to it, bought a 256 meg Xd card
for it and have read the book about a zillion times.

How do you like it?

[MarkL]

Other than taking snapshots for family and friends (and a few portraits of their children and families), I rarely shot color, and never shot slides. I always just sent my color film to commercial labs. For B&W, I used Kodak Tri-X Pan and eventually T-Max 400 speed film almost exclusively. I used mostly Kodak chemistries and photo paper, although I did try some Ilford and Agfa papers as well. I don't know if they're still in business, but the best chemistry I ever found for really pushing Tri-X was from a company called Perfection Photographic Products. I could underexpose by 3 or even 4 stops, and still get acceptable levels of contrast and grain. It was amazing, although extremely temperature sensative.

Mark

[reg45]

I learned photography with an old Nikon S2 rangefinder. This was built in the mid '50's, solid steel, built like a tank. No built-in flash, no autofocus, no zoom lens, no autoexposure. If you can find an old "classic" like that, you will really learn photography. Even better if you can find an old Leica.

[gorush]

It was a great camera, but digital is just so easy...

[Gunrunner2]

Hmmm. . .I'm afraid the only cameras I have personal access to are a bit pricey, small and a little awkward if you try and mount them on a tri-pod.

;-)