Cameras - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Longhair
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2011, 04:08:42 pm
content: I am not big on photography but I do find the need to be able to take a good picture every now and again.This week I picked up the Panasonic Lumix TZ10 point and shoot camera because it was able to take very good macro/close up pictures.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2011, 04:10:27 pm
content: It probably also does videos too, very useful for dynamic items like varying voltages and scope traces.

author: Longhair
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2011, 04:25:37 pm
content: I haven't had a chance to read the manual yet but there is a stereo mic on the top of it.To be honest, I was only looking at the big name camera makers (Canon, Nikon, Sony) for a small point & shoot camera. The sales person seen the frustration on my face when I was trying to get a good picture of the object above (I brought it in for a "real world" test), walked away and came back with the Panasonic. As an added bonus, it was less than I was about 50- less than what I was planning to spend.

author: RayJones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2011, 09:23:46 pm
content: Yeah I just bought a Canon 550D DSLR simply because I've always wanted a decent camera for ages.I always was very disappointed with the results I was getting with my point and shoot device, but was always impressed by my ancient EOS1000FN 35mm film camera.Looking at the above images, they are crying out for a polarising filter on the lens. Not so easy to do with a compact though :-(Other than that, yeah great macro shot for a compact.

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2011, 09:40:53 pm
content: Auto focus on closeup/macro work was my biggest complaint with the point and shoot camera I had , a fairly old Olympus C740.I have a Canon EOS that does a great job but I miss having something I can just pick up and take a picture with. This is especially true if I'm taking pictures in the workshop (metalworking) where I don't want to risk my expensive camera in that environment.Oily fingers, metal shavings and cameras do not play well together

author: Longhair
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2011, 10:46:28 pm
content: My other camera is a Sony Cybershot DSC-W7 (2005) and was one of the first Cybershots that came out. They sold attachment lenses and filters for the camera but it ended shortly afterwards. Great camera but I wanted something that would take better macro shots.The biggest problem I found out with the reviews (at least from what I seen) is that the person doing the review cannot break away from using a high end DSLR as their personal base line. I actually seen a person comparing the Canon Powershot S95 and the Canon EOS 7D with EF Lenses side by side. "The boken doesn't look good with the aperture at F/2.0 on the S95 compared to boken with the aperture at F/7.0 using the EF 17-40mm L Lens."

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2011, 11:15:15 pm
content: thanx to the OP for reminding me my +4 closeup filter that has been tucked in the bag for years. there is even +10 lens filter cheapy in the market to make your camera even closer. mod your lens!

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2011, 11:17:29 pm
content: i believe its bokeh longhair, not boken.

author: Kiriakos-GR
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2011, 01:23:57 am
content: Well I will say that the image quality and the colors , are not at the level that would be called as perfect for my taste.But if is good for you , this all that matters.All that I can tell , are that its hard to find true quality at anything that is priced below the 500$ mark.What you always pay for, are the quality of the lens , and the electronics comes second.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2011, 06:16:15 am
content: Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 08, 2011, 01:23:57 amit will depend on your profession imo... hobbiest, just to show the circuit and parts clearly for open source, blog etc, a company showing to their client, or professinal photographer hired to create a product display or promotion. as i have suggested earlier to mod your lens if the target is for simply a non pro users. of course you can have dedicated thousands of dollars worth of macro lens. you get what you pay, and... you will lose what you pay, if... you are not pro enough.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2011, 10:13:15 am
content: I've found a scanner is good for some flat items but it depends on the quality of the scanner, a cheap one will only work with truly 2D items such as unpopulated PCBs, a better one will be able to handle populated PCBs as long as the components aren't too large.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2011, 10:37:36 am
content: yes I've used a scanner before. Having an interest in photography I got a Pentax K10D, this is a very nice semipro DSLR for the money although now about 2 years out of production. for some reason pentax is always overlooked and they make the very best bang for buck in the semipro range. they have proper image stabilization in the camera so it works even on old manual lenses that are still compatible.the only true way of getting nice macro is an extension tube, I've tried the clip on the front "filters" but that causes a lot of cromatic aberation, extension tubes give you great effective magnification (in reality you are just focusing and getting closer) and produce nice shots as your using your original nice lens without any cheap crap messing it up.Yes what you pay for in a camera is the lens and the image sensor, the rest is just cheap electronics. My 55-300mm lens cost more than my camera is currently worth

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2011, 11:17:13 am
content: Quote from: Simon on January 08, 2011, 10:37:36 amTell me about it! My Canon 70-200 lense cost more than the rest of the kit combined. That includes camera (40D), kit lense, batteries, filters, CF cards, etc, etc..I've had it 3 years and I'm still learning to use it.

author: Longhair
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2011, 11:29:09 am
content: I don't own a scanner

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2011, 11:39:33 am
content: Quote from: GeoffS on January 08, 2011, 11:17:13 amthat's why i buy pentax, i can use 30 year old lenses if i want and the new lenses are nicely priced and are nice quality

author: Longhair
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2011, 11:40:40 am
content: Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 08, 2011, 01:23:57 amI can guarantee you that if I was in a studio of a professional photographer and we were told to take pictures of the same object using the other person's equipment, they get my point & shoot and I use their professional gear, the pictures that the professional takes would be 1000% than what I would be able to shoot.True quality comes from the end user's knowledge to work with what they have in front of them without the need of Adobe Photoshop later.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2011, 12:13:38 pm
content: true in a way but if the camera is crap it is crap, most point and shoots are very hard to use in manual because the settings are hiden, At work i used mt SLR I can't be bothered with their P&S

author: Zagroseckt
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 08, 2011, 01:23:29 pm
content: ok let me show what i got.These are "quick" shots taken with a Kodac Z700.I'll add shots taken with my new camera soon as the battery is charged up someI've had this Kodac for yearsThese shots were taken from about 3ft away zoomed in on macro mode.it's a 4mp camera glass sense.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2011, 02:10:44 pm
content: sometime high end camera discussion too delusive that everybody forgot what pictures are really made of.... light! if you have enough of it, you can lower your cheapo iso and make cleaner image. you can reposition/diffuse the light/object to avoid harsh reflection and get rid of the most poisonous chromatic abberation that make you cry at the more expensive optic, even if the cost is not justificable/recoverable.ps: my 2k 70-200 cannot get a good macro, so what should i expect for a good macro? sure i'll get one if there is a "niche market" for it

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2011, 04:13:59 pm
content: P&S vs SLR is like Wordpad versus Word, just how much do you need to do determines the complexity.I prefer P&S, because chosen correctly they are faster to use, easier to handle and take good photos, but nothing like an SLR!Often, cameras show weakness in their lenses. But among SLRs, given you can interchange lenses the electronics moots mostly one models advantages over another, except for the auto features and reliability ratings.But in P&S, the lenses make a big difference, and paying for electronics is not worth it; today image stabilization and facial recognition are selling points in new P&S, but one can work without that easily by technique.For me, a P&S must be able to fire quickly, and be in focus. That means turn on time, flash recycle time, setup time, focus are as fast as I can point and shoot. The reason for this is to minimize the time I spent fussing with the camera and having people pose, also you can snap before anyone reacts to the camera being there, and makes for best spontaneous photos.In news photos, you never know what happens, so being able to rapidly deploy and snap is key and seize the moment before something happens!

author: FreeThinker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2011, 04:15:27 pm
content: Wasn't Pentax taken over recently?

author: TopherTheME
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2011, 04:28:59 pm
content: I picked up a Pansonic Lumix FZ40 a couple months ago and absolutely love it. It has no problem picking up the dust off a PCB. I can literally place the lens right on top of an object and get a perfect focus. Pretty dam good for a <$300 camera.These are the 0805 LEDs off the sparkfun FTDI breakout boardI've posted this one in another thread but I'll post it again....

author: DJPhil
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2011, 05:25:05 pm
content: Quote from: saturation on January 08, 2011, 04:13:59 pmHoly crap! I'm glad that fellow remembered his safety goggles.Looks like he was in the water at least once already by the color of his shirt.I'm really out of my league in a discussion about cameras, but I wanted to mention a neat project that might be a help to some of you. For a while now there's been a community working on overhauling the firmware of Canon point and shoot cameras.The project is called CHDK, and they've got a huge wiki of info over at their site. If you own one of these cameras, or have a project that might require cannibalizing one, you might want to check it out. Their custom firmware can be temporarily loaded from a memory card and provides just about all the features you could ever think of.Hope that helps, I'm off to take more pictures of my cat.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2011, 05:50:00 pm
content: Quote from: FreeThinker on January 08, 2011, 04:15:27 pmyes Hoya took them over a couple of years ago. I personally prefer a DSLR over a P&S, firstly it is better quality and gives me more to play with, secondly I make the choices that determine the operation, sure you have scene modes and all that rubbish but as long as you understand the basics of photography and what light does you can be as fast if not faster than a P&S.At work if I'm taking a picture of a black radiator I know that I need to under expose as the exposure system assumes an average grey scene, I don't need a P&S to do this for me and possibly mess it up. Taking pictures of shiny metal fitting is hard with a P&S as it totally screws up the exposure.But for the bulkiness of a DSLR it is a far better solution

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2011, 04:51:00 pm
content: Here's a photo I took deep underwater somewhere in the Pacific. I take about 300-400 photos per session underwater using one hand, so most time is spent finding subjects and dealing with the surroundings over fussing with the camera.None of my SLR friends could take it at the time, because the nature of the rushing currents made them worry about smashing their cameras or drowning.it's an $80 Canon in a $130 housing.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2011, 05:40:57 pm
content: Quote from: saturation on January 09, 2011, 04:51:00 pmthis is the ridiculous i usually encounter. a plain plastic is more expensive than electronics.Quote from: Simon on January 08, 2011, 05:50:00 pmQuote from: saturation on January 09, 2011, 04:51:00 pma dilemma. i should meditate on this. whats good a better solution dslr if it cannot take what it should be able to take better.Quote from: TopherTheME on January 08, 2011, 04:28:59 pmvery good macro for the price.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2011, 07:15:58 pm
content: The housings are so expensive because they are custom made to each camera model and not very many people will want them. Like I said but for the bulkiness of the DSLR it wins every time. Sure if the light camera is the only solution then go for a P&S, there have been a few occasions that I'd have been better having a compact camera as the DSLR was far too bulky to even bother with but then I only have the money for one camera

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2011, 01:11:06 pm
content: Its made of thick polycarbonate. Its made to be taken to 200'+. After 200' most cases are made of aluminum. If you think that's ridiculous the SLR housings for deep diving are between $3000-5000 for a $1000 camera; that doesn't include the rigging for the flashes [called strobes for underwater use], a typical setup with camera is $6000. Since there is always a risk of flood or humidity induced malfunctions, most photographers bring at least 2 cameras, so the P&S are well suited for redundancy, the SLR can be very bulky, and costly.Many professional photographers carry the smallest P&S then can bring with them daily; you never known where a good photo is and a cellphone just isn't good enough; plus they take videos too. Today however, most folks have that in their cellphones, and many startling videos and photos have been taken precisely because folks can carry a tiny P&S everywhere and be ready when a moment strikes.Thus, in the end, for sheer versatility from macro, to micro, and most like to capture rare moments, a P&S has general virtues as a single camera to own. The trade off is only the SLR type isthecamera that takes the best possible photo imaginable.Quote from: shafri on January 09, 2011, 05:40:57 pm

author: Longhair
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2011, 01:56:35 pm
content: Quote from: saturation on January 10, 2011, 01:11:06 pmI really have to wonder about a person's priorities to be using their cell phone to take video of a violent crime instead of calling for help. Way off topic though...

author: Kiriakos-GR
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2011, 03:25:38 pm
content: We had talk again in detail , about photographing PCB in another thread.The clear and in focus picture : Is our mark , this called performance.The sample posted here in the first place by@Longhair, it does look as an picture taken by a cell phone,in comparison with what one very good camera does ( Like my ancient Olympus C2100 ( model of 2000) at 1000$ price range) .And I have admitted , that those monster size Canon cameras , they do what my camera does, but even with less effort, as they have the ultimate construction quality , and more pixel count than my 2.1MP.And the conclusion are, that out there, there is all ready digital cameras that they have show their power,and the results called as " competition " ..And by the current " competition " , the posted sample are average to low.The " average to low " called as " Non professional " camera.Because no one would everpayfor buying an such low quality picture !!And so as professional camera , called everything that works as expected ..It was not my intention , to get in to such details, but@Shafrigot at the top of my words,in order to point out " That to own an average to low gadget its not a big deal ".And then@Longhaircame back posting this ...QuoteWell my friend , theTrue Qualityis just an picture that represents at 100% what you have in front of your lens ..Its that simple to describe it .And no matter if you are a true Longhair or bald , with out theGoodcamera at hand , you can not do much.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 10, 2011, 03:56:06 pm
content: Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 10, 2011, 03:25:38 pmI'm sure that was a pretty good camera, in 2000. Technology has moved on, not just in pixel count.Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 10, 2011, 03:25:38 pmNonsense, a picture that's just a sharp reproduction is a picture which is perfectly boring, the type some beginners (or photocopiers) take. If a picture makes me go 'wow', that's not usually because it was all in focus, but something like lighting or composition. Looking at pictures is different from looking at real things. Lighting, color and perspective are much more critical, for example. It's the photographers job to take care of this. A picture taken with professional lighting (!= professional lights) will look much better than with the built-in flash, regardless of the camera.Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 10, 2011, 03:25:38 pmA good craftsman never blames his tools. Yes, the picture may have less detail, less accurate colors or more noise than with an expensive dSLR, but that doesn't prevent a good photographer from taking a great picture. It's just harder, slower and more frustrating, which is why a professional usually won't do it.

author: Longhair
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2011, 04:20:33 pm
content: Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 10, 2011, 03:25:38 pmThe sample picture I took was just something that I grabbed, placed on a 2.5" x 2.5" piece of paper that sat flat on the table and the lighting was from the lamp that provides light for the whole room. Under those conditions, one would get the same results (picture taken by a cell phone look) using a $1000+ camera.The intent of the sample picture was to show the macro ability on the Panasonic Lumix TZ-10 which was much better than the more expensive Canon Powershot S95 so it would be able to help someone who was looking for a camera to takes these kind of shots without investing a small fortune.If the quality of a sub $1000 camera bothers you so much, then by all means send me better equipment using your own money. Just don't complain when the quality of the pictures don't change because it doesn't make this end user a better photographer.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 10, 2011, 05:59:03 pm
content: my main issue with compact camera's is the very short lenses that distort perspective. the "standard" lens is 50mm long and will give you the same perspective as the human eye. On a 35mm full frame camera this will also give you the same angle of view (zoom) as the human eye. But when you reduce the sensor size you have to reduce the lens length to maintain the same angle of view but this will mean a new perspective because no matter the angle of view or sensor size the perspective of the lens is the same and dependant only on the lenses real length. My first camera advertised as 28-300mm was actually 6.2 to 66mm, this mean't that it took almost full zoom to achieve a natural look. I now use a pentax K10D with a 1.5 crop factor so my 300mm lens appears to be a 450, but then thats not so bad on perspective as a compact camera with a crappy quality pin head sized sensor which also "sees" less glass so picks up every little defect.in short. the bigger the better, less compact sensors = less noise, more natural perspective and the lens glass is less crucial as the defects are spread out

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2011, 06:53:55 pm
content: you lucky people i'm not in the mood and condition of taking a photo, or else...

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 10, 2011, 07:47:36 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on January 10, 2011, 05:59:03 pmA standard isa lens with a focal length equal to the diagonal of the film (sensor), or about 43mm on 35mm film. The angle of view of the human eyedepends on various factorslike one or two eyes, if you count peripheral vision, horizontal/vertical (your field of vision is not 3:2 or even square). Depending on your criteria, the field of view may be close to the standard lens.Quote from: Simon on January 10, 2011, 05:59:03 pmWrong.Perspective isonlydetermined by the distance between the subject(s) and the camera (film/sensor plane).The focal length only changes the framing, just like cropping. If you'd compare a picture taken with a 50mm lens to a picture taken with a 25mm lens and cropped to get the same framing, they will be identical as far as perspective is concerned. Resolution and depth of field will be different, though.Quote from: Simon on January 10, 2011, 05:59:03 pmThe only fundamental difference that a smaller sensor makes is larger depth of field (=less control over depth of field). A practical difference is indeed that the resolution of the lens needs to be higher, although making lenses for larger sensors also presents some problems (it took a while for good wide angle lenses for 35mm dSLR's to appear, like the Nikon 14-24/2.8).Quote from: Simon on January 10, 2011, 05:59:03 pmCorrect, except for the perspective part. In theory a bigger sensor is better (less noise, better dynamic range, less resolution needed from the lens), although in practice we tend to have constraints like money, size and power. If you go really big, depth of field will become an issue, which is why large format (4x5") photographers often use apertures like f/45.There's nothing magical about the 35mm format, people have used larger formats for decades before the introduction of 35mm film, and medium format and large format continued to be used for most serious photography (except sports/newspaper) for a long time after it was introduced. Smaller formats have also been used, although not as successful. The introduction of digital shifted most people down one size: sports went to APS-C format sensors, many medium format users went to 35mm format sensors, and some large format photographers went to medium format digital.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2011, 08:21:50 pm
content: here we go again.Quote from: alm on January 10, 2011, 07:47:36 pmyou are right with "most people", but not "every people", crazy people do crazy stuffs...http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htmyou can click the main page for abstract.technically, every cameras on earth are worst than a cellphone compared to gigapixel project.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 10, 2011, 09:15:08 pm
content: Quote from: shafri on January 10, 2011, 08:21:50 pmSure, the sky is the limit, there are still people using large format (and even larger). But the print size needed to show the difference between a 1Gpixel picture and a picture from a modern dSLR is much larger than that to show the difference between a cell phone camera and a dSLR. Most prints are much smaller than 5x10 feet, and so are most displays. Large prints are also usually judged from a larger distance (otherwise you'd need a ladder).

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 10, 2011, 09:43:22 pm
content: I'm probably partly mixing perspective up with dof but really look at two identical pictures taken with two different lens length (possibly on a compact and SLR) there will be a difference, sure you will have framed the same amount of subject matter and the P&S (shorter lens) will have more depth of focus but check out the relationships between closer and further objects in the image, you will notice a difference.The length of the lens gives it fixed properties no matter what sensor you put behind it, it is optics something people dismiss too easily when running off with a P&S. I could never figure out what it was that I didn't like about my P&S pictures until I got an SLR and used a real 300 mm lens, it's possibly a suttle difference we don't notice these days where they are so many P&S shoot images floating around you get used to the stretched perspective and stop noticing it.oh and our vision angles are generally accepted as 4:3 (150x120 deg.), yes precisely the ratio of the original television set screens, Personally I'm fine with 15:10 or 16:9 but 2.85:1 of modern films takes it far too far

author: Kiriakos-GR
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2011, 12:56:18 am
content: Quote from: alm on January 10, 2011, 03:56:06 pmDo you say that the modern plastic lens are better than the true 10X tubeoriginal glass( made by Canon ) that is stacked in front of my Olympus camera ??Its only the pixel count that got ahead ... you can accept it or not , but that's the truth.My camera has on it , made by Canon lens - made by Sony CCD , and the rest is Olympus.And so I have it all ..

author: Kiriakos-GR
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2011, 01:08:48 am
content: Quote from: Longhair on January 10, 2011, 04:20:33 pmI will tell you what makes sense as story .1) You are getting one true high quality camera ( SUB 500 - 1000$ )2) You are wasting long of time to read the manual , and you shoot about 2000 pictures as tests.Then you get in the forums , and you have an valuable opinion to offer about your camera.Because you had become as semi experienced with it .This story makes sense ...In the 2010 I had break my 10.000 count of pictures.There no price in order to pay and become experienced in seconds !!Yes I have the ability to take better pictures than you .But the camera its the horse and you are the rider.If instead of a horse you ride an donkey , you are still an rider but of a donkey !!

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2011, 06:18:21 am
content: Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 11, 2011, 01:08:48 ami will fall if i ride a horse, for donkey, i can still place my foot on the ground if anything unwanted to happen.there is no good a horse rider if he always sleep haha.an analogy, just to give you the picture of the idea.but dont get offended and serious about this photog kiri, its true a better gear can give a better image, but only if the better user.thats the fact. if you can ride a honda ride, do you think you will gut enough to win in a F1 car? or do you gut enough to handle your beloved honda ride to a crazy F1 driver?no offend, i love you all haha! i got this semi pro gears, but i always still got complaint from photography forum about my pictures. thats my style, and always is.and no science will be able to describe art... that some people undertstand it as some technicality jargon. whats more relieving? enjoying the panoramic view, or try to explain it in every bits of mathematical formulation? i choose the earlier. but i'm not saying science is unecessarry, knowing it will somehow helps in producing better imagery, but only its the second thing (and cost money), enjoy first. whats the point of enjoyment if you keep worrying screwing your gears up. you'll ended up screwing your paradise trip

author: Longhair
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2011, 09:32:36 am
content: Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 11, 2011, 01:08:48 amSo what you are saying is this: The camera that I am using does not meet the minimum price tag that you have set for it. No matter how much time I have spent reading the manual or how many pictures I have taken with it with the end result of my personal picture quality improving where I am happy with the result, the camera is still garbage?Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 11, 2011, 01:08:48 amWait a minute... That goes against everything you have been saying this whole time.Does this mean that you will not be sending me new $1000+ camera equipment that you have paid for because you contradicted yourself when it comes to price vs. experience?

author: Kiriakos-GR
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2011, 11:24:21 am
content: Quote from: shafri on January 11, 2011, 06:18:21 amThat's not 100% true , my camera become famous , because with the amazing accurate auto-focus,plus the true image stabilization , are capable to get great pictures at P Mode ( The mode that all the inexperienced loves ) .And so many people made their opinion about this box( that takes by it self good pictures)that it isan worthy to get !!

author: Kiriakos-GR
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2011, 11:30:24 am
content: Quote from: Longhair on January 11, 2011, 09:32:36 amAll that I am saying are that you are totally inexperienced , at using an camera or offering advices about it.The good part of being experienced , are that if the pictures does not come out as expected ,then its 100% fault of the camera it self=Not capable or damaged .

author: Longhair
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2011, 11:58:34 am
content: Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 11, 2011, 11:24:21 amIf that was true - the camera takes good pictures without the person behind the lens - then put your money where your mouth is and send me some new expensive gear.You've already stated that I am not experienced enough to be giving advice, however according to your own words it is all about the camera and not the person taking the picture. So that means that I am perfectly qualified to prove whether or not a camera is the sole cause for good pictures.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2011, 12:13:31 pm
content: Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 11, 2011, 11:24:21 amjust maybe, your camera become famous, because its amazing auto-focus and stabilized P mode... compared toother brandcamera... of thesame class. thats how marketing business crap works... (what stabilization got to do with P mode anyway?)Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 11, 2011, 11:24:21 ambeing inexperienced in photography, that makes them think, their photo is good enough, and the camera is responsible for that, and by coincidence, they are using... olympus camera!if you dig deep enough into the art of photography, there is no such thing as "camera made the picture"

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2011, 12:21:36 pm
content: Longhair, your photos look great, just like all the other PCB one's on this thread; so long as I can indentify the parts, check the traces, look at their physical attributes, and read the labels, that camera and cameraman are fine in my book.In that video, the student already called the police, and many folks video the issue to help identify the criminal should they escape; recall most any phone can transmit multimedia remotely, so the criminal won't have a chance of escaping without being photographed in some way.Quote from: Longhair on January 10, 2011, 01:56:35 pm

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2011, 01:01:17 pm
content: Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 10, 2011, 03:25:38 pmQuote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 11, 2011, 11:30:24 amthese statements dont match up imo.i'm assuming you mean by in focus picture (performance) is the "camera performance"and later you are saying the op is not eligible to give advice due to his inexperienced.so. the op's picture showing whats the camera has captured, thats all that matter isnt it? why should question his ability to capture or use the camera? the camera (tool) is all that you take care about isnt it? from your point of view.why dont you show some of your very good macro stuff with your famous olympus taken by any other inexperience user, if you claim that the camera is by itself takes a worthy pictures. my current condition is not allowing me to do the setup, my intention was to snap the same photo setup with p&s and dslr and show you both which has been taken by pns and which by dslr. i bet you wont be able to make, but so far i cannot prove it to you (due to my current messy condition), so, so far i cannot have a big mouth on it.Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 11, 2011, 11:24:21 am

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2011, 01:16:44 pm
content: this is the spec review from dpreview: comparison of olympus C2100 and Lumix FZ40.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusc2100uz/page2.asphttp://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/panasonic_dmcfz40.aspolympus pros and cons (no review for lumix sadly)http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusc2100uz/page15.aspbut all that technical, i will more grateful if someone can review it in real application just as op, tophertheme and zag did. thats all matter. thats how i choose canon over nikon, by simply looking at the sample images.http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/canon-eos-40d-review-samples/slideshow

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 11, 2011, 07:22:34 pm
content: to get a good photo without introducing the element of luck you need a reasonable to good (if not excellent) camera and a competent person. the best of only one will need the luck element to make it work

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2011, 09:19:30 pm
content: I have a cheap scanner and a cheap camera.Here's a picture of a simple PCB I made awhile ago. The unpopulated PCB was scanned and the populated PCB photographed. I found it difficult to take a picture as good as this (yes I know it's not great). I had to put the PCB in the conservatory where it received indirect sunlight.

author: Kiriakos-GR
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2011, 04:36:31 am
content: Quote from: shafri on January 11, 2011, 01:01:17 pmI never share my camera with inexperienced hands..The modern digital cameras are like mini robots , the successful ones , does not even need an user .Or else how you will explain the use of the Remote control !!( that you just trigger the camera so to operate by it self )Its not my intention to crash the ego of Longhair , I am an man of the old school ,and my wish are to " push him " to explore and learn , of how to help the camera that he got,so to work at it best .Today I own six digital cameras , and my latest gadget are the Sanyo HD1010 as video HD camera.The luck of it , of having an optical image stabilization , its an truly negative factor.The major problem of all people, are the shaken hands.An camera with out an optical image stabilization its like an " half of joy " , because you need an tripod with you, most of the times.

author: DJPhil
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2011, 04:47:43 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on January 11, 2011, 09:19:30 pmAwesome pictures! It really drives home that I could be doing so much better with my point and shoot than I have been. I should really read up a bit.Also, conservatories are awesome, and I'm jealous.

author: Longhair
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2011, 12:53:37 pm
content: Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 12, 2011, 04:36:31 amShare the name & exact set up of your magical camera so others may see if in fact it is the camera or not...Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 12, 2011, 04:36:31 amYou mean the camera knows exactly what to take and how to take it without human interference?Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 12, 2011, 04:36:31 amA remote control is just a device that means a person does not have to be physically at the item they want to control.A perfect example of this would be a TV remote control. Still needs human interference to make the TV to work, but now the human does not have to be at the TV - or even in the same room.Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 12, 2011, 04:36:31 amNow that is funny because you have shit on the picture I took with your very first reply, shit on the camera I used because it does not meet your $1000 minimum price tag for a camera to even be considered good, you shit on my skills as a photographer even after you keep saying the camera was the reason, not the person holding it, and the only thing you want to do is push your elitist bullshit down every body's throat to make yourself feel better that a sub $500 camera today is capable of taking good pictures without the $1000+ price tag that you paid for your cameras.Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 12, 2011, 04:36:31 amIf your $1000+ camera is so good, then why do you need to replace it all the time?Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 12, 2011, 04:36:31 amYou do realize that today's point & shoot cameras come with image stabilization. Hell, even my shitty sub $500 camera comes with an Optical Image Stabilizer. I still get blurry pictures if I shake too much, but then again every camera will do that - even your magical one.

author: Zad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2011, 01:49:37 pm
content: Image stabilisation only gives you a stop and a half of extra exposure at best, even on pro gear. They sound like the ultimate fix, but simply aren't.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2011, 03:09:09 pm
content: hmm. i hope the recent site transfer will fix the picture problem. i cannot see hero's photos. camera is just the tool, without the excellent "driver", its nothing. the development of "automated robot camera" is far from reality today, AI is still far away to go. and art, is nowhere to be reached, technically and technologically, its far too subjective.

author: Kiriakos-GR
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2011, 02:56:49 am
content: Quote from: shafri on January 12, 2011, 03:09:09 pmWell everything is subjective , until to try it, and find out by your self the truth.And so if you had not try this camera , everything you say are "too subjective" .My words are an fact , because by getting this camera, I lost my interest to what ever the market had bring so far.Yes it is that perfect.About longhairhe had fall apart , he is in complete denial for seeing the larger picture about digital cameras , I have seen many people to act alike , by stupidly insisting that what they got,it is an remarkable item.Well it cost me nothing to let you believing this , but its an fairy tale that you live in it.If you ever invest in additional lens ( many expensive ones ) and digital flash unit and other extra accessories , having two or three cameras as spare , is an must do , otherwise if you have an single camera and gets wasted by an accident , all the extras usually goes to the trash can .I never throw my cash on the trash can..Having other than the big balky cameras , an pocket size one , its good and practical to have.By having also one big one that does 15 frames per second , you have the joy to shoot action.I can continue talking for hours about my cameras , but if some one is on denial ,my time will be an waste ..

author: Kiriakos-GR
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2011, 03:04:12 am
content: Quote from: Zad on January 12, 2011, 01:49:37 pmIt depends , the digital Image stabilization , its just an toy ..The optical Image stabilization , its another story , it will save your picture , in most conditions.Lens with 10X zoom and optical Image stabilization , they cost 500$ with out the camera.The photographic gear its the most expensive hobby ..But if you can repair or restore such gear by your self , than you can do miracles with less cash.

author: Zad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2011, 04:28:59 pm
content: Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 13, 2011, 03:04:12 amNot quite sure what you posted there. If you want to E-peen then trust me, you aren't going to win on here. Mine is Canon SLR gear with optical stabilisation, and 1.5 stops is about the stabilisation limit. Beyond that, it is down to the person driving the camera, and knowing how to trade off ISO noise, and stopping down in order to pull back the detail in Photoshop later. It is far from being a get out of jail free card.You will never find pro SLR gear with a 10x zoom. "Superzooms" that length (usually 28-300mm) just compromise image quality, especially at the wide / telephoto extremes, where they go soft and chromatic aberration becomes very noticeable. Superzooms will also have a relatively high F stop and are so quite "dark" lenses. They are great for walk-around lenses where you are taking snaps of this or that, but a decent quality zoom will be 4:1 at most, and more probably around 3:1, even on Canon L glass. Prime lenses (non zoom) will always be favoured for their optimal performance over a zoom.

author: Kiriakos-GR
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2011, 05:23:38 pm
content: Zad in general your above description are correct.I could disagree on very few of them , like the " dark lens " description.For example when you compare such lens , the one that does F2.8 its not called as the dark one among the others of the same type.And you are also correct , that its one fixed lens , has strong points and weak points.That's why I own other than quantity , and different in characteristics, cameras .Unfortunately , the design of the digital camera body with the total interchangeable lens,its very expensive area , even for me .About pro SLR gear "Superzooms" , CANON & NIKON does have many options , but the weight in kilos,its not for hand-held use .

author: tyblu
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2011, 06:41:52 pm
content: TopherTheME, those photos are fantastic. Yours are great too, Longhair. The rest of this thread has too many damn words. Turn down the suck and post more PCB pics, dammit.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2011, 01:43:22 am
content: Kiri: you got nice pictures there, except sadly its not macro pcb. however, your pictures are good example for:1) chromatic abberation2) blooming3) de-mosaic artifact4) over exposure5) composition errorthat imply "subjectivity of art", which i think for you, your picture is good enough, artistry 'wise' and technical wise. my opinion is, you should be more involved in photography school/forum where people pushing hard on skill beyond the camera limit, not the one who embrace 'tool'choholic or 'brand'choholic photography forum, for the sake of your own good.the gigapixel landscape site i link previously, no camera can get such imagery, even the gigapixel camera itself, without the proper knowledge/experience in photography art and technical. even i are struggling for that.

author: Kiriakos-GR
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2011, 04:45:34 am
content: Shafri your taste on cameras , never was compatible with my ..If you admit that an Olympus , does an good work , the CCD of your own camera will crack and die ..Now set your screen to 1600x1200 so to see my pictures at their original resolution .

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2011, 10:28:38 am
content: Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 14, 2011, 04:45:34 amno thanx, my screen near 2K hor. already. it will enlarge the 5 things i mentioned.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2011, 11:02:47 am
content: this link touch some on macro photograhy of electronics, but sadly no real close-up pcb, but the techniques should apply:http://www.bmpt1.com/#bamshttp://www.bmpt1.com/tutorialimages/electronicequipment/electronicequipment01.htmland some stock photo example for sale, can be as high as $400(ridicul***):http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/printed-circuit-board.html

author: Kiriakos-GR
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2011, 02:36:57 am
content: Quote from: shafri on January 14, 2011, 11:02:47 amThis subject its a bit confusing .You have to set on the table your needs first.1) You need uniform focus from side to side ?2) You need to spot on something ?Answers .1) Get true Macro lens , this is what they do. ( But forget the wild zoom in )2) Convert your digital camera in to a microscope . ( But forget the uniform focus )

author: Longhair
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2011, 04:42:15 pm
content: Quote from: Kiriakos-GR on January 15, 2011, 02:36:57 amIf macro photography is confusing to you, then why are you trying to be an expert on the subject?

author: Kiriakos-GR
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2011, 06:03:12 pm
content: In the forums , when you reply to some one , you do it so to help him and educate him.And the one who receives the help , should had only one word stacked in his mouth ..The wordTHANKS... thank you stranger , because you use your time , so to help an complete stranger.Well stranger , you are not in position to ask such questions, to no one .But because I am also responsible for my acts , I will use my right, to stay silent .I have nothing to lose by doing that !! Its simple .

author: TopherTheME
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2011, 03:02:09 am
content: Quote from: tyblu on January 13, 2011, 06:41:52 pmThanks and I agree. There is wayyyy to much dam talking in this thread. Stop blabbing about how "sooper dooper" your overrated camera is and post some pics!Here's a pic of my current project. It was suppose to be a pic of guard traces but the fab house ended up putting them on the copper top layer.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2011, 03:13:18 am
content: TopherTheME: i have to say it the second time. your macro is indeed very good. worth to get that lumix fz40. i'm not sure if you have to put extra skill to get that beautiful (less noise and sharp) macro.

author: TopherTheME
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2011, 09:44:03 pm
content: I was playing around with my camera and managed to find the macro-zoom function. Below is a pic of an LED off the Arduino Pro Mini that sparkfun used to make. FYI, I believe thats0402LED that they use.I'm sure I could get the image sharper and less grainy with some effort but this was sort of a "point & shoot" photo.