|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Derrek
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Demo, what are your feelings about the sliding-door on your new camera? Your S30 had it too (One of my cameras is an S30).
About 3 months after I bought the S30 camera, I took it somewhere without the case and kept it in the pocket of an old coat. There was a lot of dust in my pocket from old kleenex tissues, I presume. Anyway, dust got INSIDE the lenses, and must be professionally cleaned. I notice it on night photos and flash photos in the evening. I'm upset, but I noticed that there is a very small gap between the protective outside glass of the lens and the rest of the inside lens. They seemed to have fixed this issue on the newer Canons like your new one.
Really ticked me off, though. You can see the dust inside between the lenses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Absolutely! This is certainly the downfall of the camera, and it was of the S30. I have learned never to keep it in a pocket, but only in it's little case that I bought.
Definately a pain when moving around and you want to grab that quick shot. The S70 is smaller than the S30, and much easier to carry in your hand, so it's either here or the case.
For all they do right, there is always an Achilles heel.
All in all, I have to say that it's a great camera. If it's overkill on the megapixels, well, I'm not going to say that, because they certainly don't hurt anything. Fringing is still minimal, and I tell ya, the detail is stunning. Yes, sir, the lens has some part here, but I mean the captured detail as well as the fineness (?) of the photo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
inthewild
Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the heads up for the S30, Demo.
I have one, and I'll support the Canon brand, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Lemon
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zed wrote: |
KoreaNewfie recommended the one that he used in the photo contest to me. It was an L-shaped series Sony. It looks a little bigger than what I want to carry. DSC-F717
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf717/ |
The "is it too big to carry" question is a good one, but it's offset by the "what's the point in spending all that money for a very small camera with a crap lens, and all my pictures look like snapshots from a Kodak 110?" question. The F717 is an awesome camera with a killer lens, as is the updated F828. I don't have one but wish I did. Not to take away from KN's photographic ability, but that camera he's got helped him take some of the best pictures of the contest.
I'm a big believer in super-zoom (8x or more) cameras. My first two digicams were fixed focus, and the third was a supersmall Kyocera with a 3x optical zoom about the size of the Canon Elph. It was nice to be able to carry the camera around in my pocket, but I'll never go back. It's not just an issue of zooming. If you want good pictures with nice depth of focus, you need a lens with some long glass. It's a dramatic difference.
Furthermore, a larger lens (diameter, as well as length) lets in more light, allowing you to use faster shutter speeds in lower light than the lenses on little digicams without needing a flash. Ambient light usually looks better than a digicam flash. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derrek
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="The Lemon"]
| Zed wrote: |
Furthermore, a larger lens (diameter, as well as length) lets in more light, allowing you to use faster shutter speeds in lower light than the lenses on little digicams without needing a flash. Ambient light usually looks better than a digicam flash. |
A larger DIAMETER is the key here.
One might also find it worthy to note that the big, long lenses contain a lot more glass and need more light.
The lowest-priced fixed-lens cameras actually achieve fantastic results in low-light situations without all of the expensive processing. It's the middle-of-the-road long-zoom with smaller diameter openings that don't perform as well in low light.
Also, I'd venture to be that. in most cases, someone who spends $800 or more on that bulky Sony "lens with camera attached" is going to take more time looking for good pictures, and taking pictures with a purpose. It all comes down to personal preference. Sure, it takes nice pics, but gawd, the women have to think you're suffering from "small *beep*" issues... look:
Definately gonna produce better that someone with a point-and-shoot Kodak 2 megapixel camera. It's a no-brainer. Nice pics with nice depth come hither, but.......
Credit goes with the photographer, mostly.
And hey, do you get a free SONY condom as a lens protector for that? 
Just joshin' ya... it's a nice unit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Lemon
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Derrek wrote: |
| The lowest-priced fixed-lens cameras actually achieve fantastic results in low-light situations without all of the expensive processing. It's the middle-of-the-road long-zoom with smaller diameter openings that don't perform as well in low light. |
Can't agree - my long-zoom isn't even "middle of the road" - it's "in the ditch", cheapest of the genre at 400,000w for 4mp, 8x optical zoom (HP850, now discontinued). But it's fantastic in low light. It's also nowhere near as bulky as the Sonys. It won't fit in a pocket, but it's smaller than your average SLR. 3mp long-lens Olympuses are even cheaper, and are at least as good and are about the same size.
Here's a picture of our daughter that I took this afternoon in the shade from the other side of the pool:
(sorry for the gratuitous baby picture)
This is straight out of the camera, only shrunk in Photoshop to fit this board. No other adjustments, etc. Note that in order to take this shot with a fixed-focus or 3x zoom camera, you'd need to be standing in 5 feet of water.
Long zooms rock. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derrek
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Lemon wrote: |
| Derrek wrote: |
| The lowest-priced fixed-lens cameras actually achieve fantastic results in low-light situations without all of the expensive processing. It's the middle-of-the-road long-zoom with smaller diameter openings that don't perform as well in low light. |
Can't agree - my long-zoom isn't even "middle of the road" - it's "in the ditch", cheapest of the genre at 400,000w for 4mp, 8x optical zoom (HP850, now discontinued). But it's fantastic in low light. It's also nowhere near as bulky as the Sonys. It won't fit in a pocket, but it's smaller than your average SLR. 3mp long-lens Olympuses are even cheaper, and are at least as good and are about the same size.
Here's a picture of our daughter that I took this afternoon in the shade from the other side of the pool:
(sorry for the gratuitous baby picture)
This is straight out of the camera, only shrunk in Photoshop to fit this board. No other adjustments, etc. Note that in order to take this shot with a fixed-focus or 3x zoom camera, you'd need to be standing in 5 feet of water.
Long zooms rock. |
Outside in the shade?
I'm talking about indoors with very low lighting.
And you're a panzy for not getting into the pool... c'mon dad!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Lemon
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Outside in the shade?
I'm talking about indoors with very low lighting. |
Me too. The above photo and the discussion of low lighting are not related. Low light indoors is not a problem:
1/45 sec, no flash, no tripod, low light, fidgety kid.
| Quote: |
| And you're a panzy for not getting into the pool... c'mon dad! |
Bad enough that I was dripping all over the camera as it was! Though it takes good pictures with its Fuji lens, it is *not* a quality unit in terms of build or electronics and I don't think it'd take much water to kill it.
...On the other hand, if I fried this one I'd have a good excuse to shop for a new one! Will remember that next time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derrek
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Zoom lenses also require focus time -- a luxury you don't always get with kids. Wait until your kids grows up and starts running around more. Then you'll wish you weren't fumbling around with the zoom and pushing the button half-way waiting for the camera to focus. For every nice shot you might capture, you're going to miss 5 good ones you could have caught if all you had to do was push the button and not wait for the thing to zoom, then focus.
Lemon, if you plan to take artsy shots of birds, trees, kids, or whatever, then by all means get a zoom camera.
But if you're just planning to take nice snapshots indoors or of the occasionaly scenery on vacation, etc., and don't want an albatross around your neck, then you don't need to spend $800 on a Sony Phallic symbol.
You're someone who likes to look for good shots and have your camera ready at oportune moments. Me too.
Most people, however, just want to be able to snap off some photos from time to time, and probably aren't going to dig their camera out of the drawer every day. The last thing they want is to be choked by the strap of an overly-large, off-balance zoom camera that costs twice what they needed to pay. If a non-enthusist (?) buys a hulk of a camera, how many times do you think that camera gets left at home or in the hotel room just so the person didn't have to carry it around all day?
Sorry I never got around to entering your contest. Here are a few random photos I took with a camera that fits easily in a purse:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Derrek...I think your definition of "good shots" is way too loose. It's in the eye of the beholder....if you think those tiny shaps you provided are "good", then....well....
What's with the continuous references to the male genetalia?
"Sony Pahallic symbol"
"...suffering from "small *beep*" issues"
"do you get a free SONY condom as a lens protector for that"
Hmm....we are talking about cameras, right?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Lemon
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Derrek wrote: |
| Zoom lenses also require focus time -- a luxury you don't always get with kids. Wait until your kids grows up and starts running around more. |
Actually, that's why I chose two photos of the baby (at the risk of coming off like one of those "look at my kid!" dads, which I don't want to be), both while she's in running around active mode - I wanted to provide an argument against the "long zooms are bad with children" assertion you made.
The shutter lag/focus issues were a deliberate trade-off I made for what I consider to be better pictures from this camera. This is my fourth digicam and I was very aware of those pros and cons. My "good picture" hit-miss ratio is much better with this camera than with the other three, more conventional digicams I had, like yours.
| Demophobe wrote: |
Derrek...I think your definition of "good shots" is way too loose. It's in the eye of the beholder....if you think those tiny shaps you provided are "good", then....well....
What's with the continuous references to the male genetalia?
"Sony Pahallic symbol"
"...suffering from "small *beep*" issues"
"do you get a free SONY condom as a lens protector for that"
Hmm....we are talking about cameras, right? |
Not to mention this bit of spin:
| Derrek wrote: |
| A larger DIAMETER is the key here. |
Looks like someone here's trying to feel good about his short zoom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Derrek, did you buy your camera at Technomart? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derrek
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nandemun area. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One thing about buying a Canon....
You will be given the choice to buy an LG Canon or a Canon. I'm not sure exactly what the differences are, but as far as I can tell, the LG Canon will give you Korean support in terms of manuals and in-camera menus.
It will cost a fair bit more as well for the LG Canon. My camera was 560,000 for Canon and 630,000 for LG Canon.
Also, English is standard in the regular Canon, so unless you are Korean, LG Canon is useless and more expensive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hari seldon
Joined: 05 Dec 2004
Location: Incheon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
