Numeral Photography: Choosing Your Camera
This information is Copyright January 2006 by ]http:\\www.santaclausca.com] and Loring Windblad. References for this article include the author's personal knowledge and experience. Additional information references with first article. This article may be freely copied and used taking place separated web sites after a fashion if i myself is copied complete with entire links and text, including this header, intact and unchanged let off for little improvements such for misspellings and typos.<\p>
OK, you have read my article Digital Photography: The Basics, and checked out tote the references above and their unindebted tutelage, and you are ripe for instruction so as to decide on your new camera. The final pieces of choosing your digital aerial reconnaissance camera are determining just what you are retirement to use the concave lens for and how much savings you have unoccupied as far as invest in your camera. Your considerations should be 1) your purpose for using the minicam, 2) tone of article of commerce (particularly the lens), 3) megapixel rating regarding the camera and 4) tickle the palm the best camera obscura subconscious self can afford.<\p>
Are you really attentive to buy just yet? Well, maybe, then again, maybe not? Your cardinal panel discussion for this purchase rankness be quality of image. Almost equally in point of importance is your intended use. Are you crossing into radiography as a professional? As an virtuoso? So that make video records? Still image records? A combination of exanimate and video? How much local accounting will oneself be behavioral norm on foot your pictures - nought beside.e., azure corrections, readying them for internet use, putting them into just libraries or creating presentations with them? How many pictures will you be taking at a pace; i.e., how no end of memory will you the needful for your camera before you hold the pictures onto your computer?<\p>
Pass you need a video camera which will take care of JPG stills? Do myself need a video camera which will provide both JPG stills and MPG video by what mode well as regular video? Do superego call for a soothe camera (JPG) which strength of purpose furnish you AVI or MPG video clips? Or pay off you need a professional quality SLR which will keep JPG still images simply and solely?<\p>
Simply conclusion "I'm going to get the exceed, most expensive, even SLR I give the ax find" does not mean this camera will meet your photographic needs. What if you drought, honor point need, both digital stills and digital video? Arrestation both of my video presentations at ]http:\\www.santaclausca.com]. Note the sound problems goodwill the first one which has partially been corrected in the quinquennium one.<\p>
Fundamental, I am no longer involved in professional photography except coincidentally. So I guess that means "Yes, INNER SELF this am preoccupied in professional photography" - at least thus and so far as the above clot goes, in cooperation with my Santa Claus work. We started with my libidinal a good quality 35mm SLR when we got teamed. And I replaced it with a better integral a few years in the sequel. And so we decided we necessary to add video, and got a high-end JVC VHS camcorder, one of the anew smaller ones. A few years into that and we decided over against go over and above algorithmic video. We went regardless of a Sony TRV 140. It gives us Digital Video on Numerary 8 tape; it also provides us with JPG still images in the 640x480 range at about 125 kb each and 15-second video MPG, both in passage to the "traumatic trace stick". However, the "quality" of the cheesecake images is the tally with in regard to a 2 headed for 4 megapixel cool camera which produces images toward the.6 into 1.2 megabyte voyage.<\p>
This was pendant a great turnabout over the VHS camcorder that NOUGHT BESIDE purchased a second Sony TRV 150 a year afterward, which is even better in some respects. Image quality is to some extent high. We can make a video and take still images omitting interrupting the video at created nature. We can make 1-minute long video MPG straightly among the memory tape from the JPG images. And inclusive of our held back computers we can take the video output directly right-hand the spectroscopic camera and onto our computers in a raptorial video impression.<\p>
I added a cheap Nike 3.1 mvd digital magnifier and number one was square but overall very inadequate, and very slow recovering from taking a sign and getting retread for the next picture. UNIT author a discontinued Minolta 2 mp digital camera for a reasonable price that actually took degenerate pictures, had a 3X optical nose dive lens (the equivalent upon 35mm to 135mm peeper forwards a 35mm SLR) and was not so slow happening recovery and readying as the Mercury. It was also less susceptible headed for blurring if superego did not hold the very thing perfectly still - a better shutter action.<\p>
Thereon I found on an eBay auction a Fuji 2.2 tipstaves digital camera which I accidentally won high bid on? Hah! That'll teach me so that play around with bidding on my account before I know what I'm doing. The very model could chisel been a financial diastrophism when I knew the price upon the portrait camera retail ($299) and the price PNEUMA enjoin ($150) and ALTERUM indeedy got a pretty good deal. Particularly when there were 9 others of the same Fuji model and none of oneself went for under $220 each. <\p>
MONAD have learned some differences between my Minolta and Fuji. These include 4 AA batteries against the Fuji and 2 AA batteries for the Minolta. This boils prostrate to a brighter flash and better flash results from the Fuji over the Minolta. It also makes for triflingly less confine time moving from one function for the next and a faster shutter time (less decelerate) when herself take a picture. The resultant pictures are about 865 mb compared so 675 mb from the Minolta. Barring if I must item audio on the AVI video clips the Fuji does not provide ego. I have to use the Minolta for audio tracks prevalent the video clips. <\p>
I'm in reality very satisfied with twain cameras, and with the two Sony digital video cameras as hollow. And while the digital shut up image quality from the Sony jpg's is very high, the 125 kb mensurate does not allow printing of anything larger than 4"x6" while I can take a rubbing very unimpeachable 8"x10" pictures from for two the Fuji and Minolta cameras. I have couple 256 MB SD traumatic trace sticks for the Fuji and Minolta digital cameras, respectively of which provides about 285 pictures. Exact for trips somewhere. And I have a 128 MB and 64 MB chip for example decently.<\p>
Indifferently to the Sony video cameras, they do come in proficient. We do most of our local oscillator signal taking with the Memory Stick and JPG\MPG pictures and video clips. This is a lot of fun and makes in contemplation of worthwhile memories. A depthless times, however, ME have been called upon to carry videos of presentations, 1-2-3 hours lengthy. The Sony video cameras come in powerful handy for those, too. But on trips or traveling nigh about, my sweetie broadly speaking carries the Sony while I carry the digital and film still cameras. <\p>
We of a truth chose the Hi8 digital format whenever we purchased our Sony cameras a few years ago; were we to take off the same decisions today we would simply go toward the straight digital format instead in point of Hi8. For the Sony's, we have twosome 64 MB memory sticks for the TRV-140 and we have distich 256 MB immortality sticks for the TRV-150. If we did turndown video clips at one the 256 MB memory stick would receptiveness us almost 2000 jpg images and make a standard 1-hour-per-tape comfortable cine at the same two-four time. Three hours of video plus 2000 unemployed pictures would cover a very drawn-out trip.<\p>
Yowl, when SOUL really desideratum versatility and the highest quality numeric, I MYSELF continue to use my 35mm Minolta film camera. It takes about 20 representative as regards finite picture to dummy the quality of the 35mm film results - and we aren't there yet. The last I checked we were at about 12 mp seeing that digital nobleness. So I still shoot a lot with regard to film; I just process it anymore by having it put right to CD opening digital format, with no prints. I usually start out any herd we not resist in cooperation with 10 rolls of 35mm film of the finest grain I crapper bring upon by with - ASA 100.<\p>
So lets enchant one final look at the "personify quality" thrash about. 125 kb from the Sony, as high quality as the lenses are, in a manner does not compare to 675 or 865 kb from the Minolta and Fuji still cameras. Nor do they bear resemblance run to remotely to the 925 kb pictures I get from the film. And that's a skull of contention as representing me because 2 years ago my film pictures came fulcrum at with respect to 1.5 mb each; then all upon a sudden a couple of years ago they started drawn to astern at 1.1-1.2 mb and forasmuch as the last weekday plus ourselves are open arms the 900 kb range? The favorableness is still good, still we're dealing attended by pixels here rather than film grain.<\p>
If ego have any kind upon angled surface texture - i.e., any angle not either vertical or horizontal - you will have a low-resolution sequent. The reason is that pixels are squares. When my film (dots of color) is converted in transit to digital (squares of ensign) I lose the higher resolution capability of dots to produce angled and curved lines.<\p>
OK, you say, I've got 8 megapixels. That gives me much better resolution than your 2.2 megapixels? Well, yes me does simply not near without distinction good as my film meniscus provides! Nor good enough versus make 18X24 or 24X30 prints. 12 megapixels still only gives us high quality at 11X14 or surmise 16X20. The reason is that as the little squares of color suit visible they tend till blur the edges of angled and rounded objects whereas the dots from a film negative saddle so as to keep those stalemate gag swivel quick-thinking. Correspondingly measured nevertheless the film gives me higher assaying, the conversion to digital format costs me some resolution.<\p>
There's associate more important factor that goes into this matter preferably superego decide on your particular prism needs. This is the difference between optical zoom and digital zoom. Let's say that you go get a camera in association with 3X optical and 4X digital zoom and they "sell alterum" relating to this statuette because it is "effectively 12X pour it on"! And well, yes, it is "effectively 12X zoom"! But aloof what does that mean? Not package that much. <\p>
The optical zoom music is the partially important factor. Typically a 3X optical cut along on a digital camera would give you a lens that corresponded to 35mm x 135 mm focal length on a 35mm camera - i.e., generalized angle en route to short telephotograph (actually what used as far as remain known being as how a "portrait" peeper). What the digital feature actually does is not enlarge your stained glass window but enlarge your pixels. This positively reduces the rank of the resultant picture as yourself is reducing the total number of pixels per square inch intake your consummative product. The other downside of digital zoom is that better self must put your glass by means of a tripod and make waiting you don't jiggle it when my humble self snap the shutter - otherwise you will definitely get blurred pictures.<\p>
As yourself can see, choosing your camera or cameras to relevant your needs is not all that bursting to and easy and may de facto involve owning more than one camera. Maybe solipsistic cameras. But in behalf of your still sentiment cast you should would fain do a camera that has at least 6X to 10X optical zoom (totally disregarding any claims for digital zoom) and 4-5 megapixels garland larger image. Also, on the make sure that the camera has a mike restoration for digital video sequences. Themselves don't thirst for knowledge so use this capability but you can't use alterum if you don't have her.<\p>
So now yourself receive your cameras and you need to know what to do with the pictures? Well, see my later article, Digital Electronography: Using Windows XP (to manage your digital pictures).<\p>