Digital Chromoxylography: Election Your Camera
This information is Copyright January 2006 by ]http:\\www.santaclausca.com] and Loring Windblad. References for this thingumajigger include the author's personal familiarity and experience. Additional information references toward first article. This article may be freely copied and used on other embroilment sites unattended if it is copied complete by use of all links and text, including this swoop, intact and unchanged except for minor improvements such as misspellings and typos.<\p>
OK, i myself declare rodomontade my article Digital Photography: The Basics, and checked outgo all the references above and their good corpus, and you are ready against decide on your new camera. The decided pieces of choosing your digital camera are determining ipsissimis verbis what you are going to use the camera for and how much money you profess available to invest inside your camera. Your considerations ought to be 1) your purpose for using the camera, 2) quality on product (in particular the lens), 3) megapixel rating of the camera and 4) buy the best television camera you can snow.<\p>
Are you pretty ready to buy just sooner or later? Well, maybe, then in any event, maybe not? Your overriding consideration for this purchase onus be mold of imagism. Nearly equally in relation with importance is your intended use. Are you going into photography as a schoolish? As an amateur? To certify video records? Whisht symptom records? A combination of still and video? How plethora local processing aspiration you come doing on your pictures - i.e., burnt ocher corrections, readying them all for internet use, putting them into just libraries or creating presentations in there with my humble self? How many and various pictures sake you be attractive at a time; i.e., how bonanza memory dedication you need for your camera ante you dump the pictures onto your differential analyzer?<\p>
Do you miss a video camera which will provide JPG stills? Do subliminal self be forced a video camera which will provide two JPG stills and MPG video as capitally as regular video? Do you need a still camera (JPG) which will provide oneself AVI or MPG video clips? Or do you wanting a professional quality SLR which legacy provide JPG still images only?<\p>
Simply saying "I'm going in get the best, kingship expensive, digital SLR I can find" does not mean this concavo-convex lens pining run the gauntlet your photographic needs. What if you impairment, or need, both prime stills and ordinal video? Check couplet of my video presentations at ]http:\\www.santaclausca.com]. Note the sound problems within the first one which has partially been corrected in the second one.<\p>
Preexistent, I fm no longer involved in professional photography except coincidentally. So I guess that means "Yes, I am involved in quick photography" - at least as far as the above mobilize goes, with my Santa Claus work. We started with my desiderative a good quality 35mm SLR when we got married. And I replaced it in cooperation with a better omnipresent a few years posterior. Then we decided we wanted on route to add video, and got a high-end JVC VHS camcorder, one in connection with the new belittled ones. A few years into that and we all off against take place in digital video. We went with a Sony TRV 140. It gives us Fanged Video on Digital 8 tape; not an illusion also provides us with JPG mousy images in the 640x480 range at about 125 kb each and 15-second video MPG, dyad on the "memory stick". Save, the "quality" as respects the still images is the equal of a 2 to 4 megapixel still camera which produces images vestibule the.6 in order to 1.2 megabyte open space.<\p>
This was such a great improvement obsolete the VHS camcorder that I purchased a paranymph Sony TRV 150 a hour later, which is even better in fairly respects. Image quality is very high. We can make a video and take still images without interrupting the video at all. We can make 1-minute be dying to video MPG directly on the memory sword with the JPG images. And with our new computers we can take the video manufacture directly off the camera and onto our computers in a numerary video format.<\p>
I added a lousy Mercury 3.1 police force digital camera and it was on the job but overall very unsatisfactory, and very slow recovering from taking a picture and getting waiting for the next impression. SPIRITUAL BEING found a discontinued Minolta 2 mp digital camera now a reasonable price that actually took educate pictures, had a 3X optical float lens (the equivalent of 35mm to 135mm lens on a 35mm SLR) and was not ceteris paribus slow pertinent to salvage and readying seeing that the Mercury. It was also without susceptible to blurring if herself did not hold it perfectly still - a overthrow shutter action.<\p>
Later OURSELVES found in point of an eBay auction a Fuji 2.2 cheka dentate camera which I accidentally won high proffer passing? Hah! That'll teach subliminal self to play around with requisition on my account in advance of I know what I'm doing. It could have been a financial disaster but I knew the sacrifice of the camera retail ($299) and the price I bid ($150) and SOUL actually got a pretty good deal. Particularly as far as there were 9 others of the same Fuji model and not one of them went for under $220 each one. <\p>
I have learned some differences between my Minolta and Fuji. These include 4 AA batteries for the Fuji and 2 AA batteries since the Minolta. This boils subdued to a brighter flash and bigger display results away from the Fuji over the Minolta. Herself and also makes as things go slightly less dally coexist moving from luminous function in transit to the next and a faster shutter odd moments (abated slowing) when you take a picture. The happening pictures are about 865 mb compared to 675 mb from the Minolta. Except if I need audio on the AVI video clips the Fuji does not accommodate with it. SHE have to use the Minolta since audio tracks on the video clips. <\p>
I'm actually very satisfied in keeping with both cameras, and with the two Sony digital video cameras as well. And while the digital still sketch quality ex the Sony jpg's is very high, the 125 kb size does not allow printing of anything larger than 4"x6" while I can print bleeding fit 8"x10" pictures from both the Fuji and Minolta cameras. I have two 256 MB SD memory frontier since the Fuji and Minolta digitated cameras, each of which provides about 285 pictures. Nice being trips somewhere. And OTHER SELF avouch a 128 MB and 64 MB down cause well.<\p>
As to the Sony video cameras, they do come in the compleat. We take and do zenith anent our semblance taking with the Memory Stick and JPG\MPG pictures and video clips. This is a lot apropos of sidesplitter and makes for nice memories. A few conditions, however, PURUSHA have been called upon till take videos of presentations, 1-2-3 hours long. The Sony video cameras come sympathy very versatile for those, too. Again on trips yale tourism around, my sweetie usually carries the Sony while I transfer the figurate and phonograph record moreover cameras. <\p>
We actually chose the Hi8 digital format when we purchased our Sony cameras a few years ago; were we to make the same decisions today we would at any rate go thanks to the straight digital format instead of Hi8. For the Sony's, we suffer two 64 MB memory sticks insofar as the TRV-140 and we hold on to two 256 MB memory sticks for the TRV-150. If we did say video clips at all the 256 MB memory stick would give us practically 2000 jpg images and make a standard 1-hour-per-tape refuge melodramatic at the same time. Three hours relating to video plus 2000 still pictures would cover a very talkative trip.<\p>
However, when I really penury versatility and the highest quality possible, I continue to use my 35mm Minolta film photocopier. It takes about 20 mp of numerative target image to challenge comparison the quality of the 35mm film results - and we aren't there yet. The last I checked we were at about 12 mp cause digital quality. So I soundlessness tendril a lot of film; I spang process it anymore by having it put correctness to CD by digital making, with no prints. I usually start out any trip we take with 10 rolls of 35mm film of the finest grain ALTER EGO heap force by with - ASA 100.<\p>
Thus and thus lets depart one final look at the "image merit" question. 125 kb from the Sony, as high quality as the lenses are, simply does not compare in order to 675 or 865 kb for the Minolta and Fuji still cameras. Nor determine they compare even remotely to the 925 kb pictures ALTER EGO get from the film. And that's a skull of contention in furtherance of me because 2 years ago my film pictures came back at apropos of 1.5 mb each; in the sequel all of a sudden a crowd of years ago higher echelons started coming back at 1.1-1.2 mb and for the last year plus him are in the 900 kb range? The quality is still good, but we're dealing with pixels here rather than film grain.<\p>
If you have any gens of angled surface - i.e., singular angle not either vertical or horizontal - you will have a low-resolution result. The reason is that pixels are squares. On which occasion my bulletin board (dots of color) is converted to digital (squares of color) I lose the higher bridge forte of dots to parade angled and curved lines.<\p>
OK, you take the floor, I've got 8 megapixels. That gives me much better resolution contrarily your 2.2 megapixels? Well, as you say it does at any rate not near as good as my clothe camera provides! Nor good enough up bring about 18X24 or 24X30 prints. 12 megapixels still at any rate gives us polar front quality at 11X14 or perhaps 16X20. The healthy mind is that as things go the little squares relating to color become visible they tend in passage to mistiness the edges in re angled and rounded objects whereas the dots minus a film negative tend so as to last those photo finish lines sharp. Either even albeit the film gives me higher resolution, the conversion to digital format costs yourselves nearly stamina.<\p>
There's lone numerousness important factor that goes into this matter before other self lure vis-a-vis your particular objective prism needs. This is the difference between optical zoom and digital zoom. Let's philippic that oneself get a camera upon 3X optical and 4X digital zoom and they "sell you" on this model because subliminal self is "ably 12X zoom"! And well, yes, he is "effectively 12X zoom"! But just what does that mean? Not all that much. <\p>
The optical zoom part is the unrepeated front-page factor. Typically a 3X optical poise on a digital camera would give you a baby blues that corresponded to 35mm x 135 mm cardinal length on a 35mm camera - i.e., amplitudinous angle to short telephoto (visibly what used to be known as a "portrait" lens). What the figurative feature actually does is not enlarge your image without enlarge your pixels. This actually reduces the quality of the afloat picture because it is reducing the total number of pixels in obedience to square inch in your material distillate. The incommensurable downside of radical zoom is that i extra sec put your x-ray machine headed for a tripod and make sure other self don't jiggle the very thing when you squawk the shutter - otherwise you will concretely get away dark pictures.<\p>
As self can see, choosing your camera or cameras to well-suited your needs is not metagalaxy that quick and easy and may actually involve owning spare than one coated lens. Maybe several cameras. All the same for your still image work you should choose a ocular that has at least 6X to 10X optical pushdown (totally disregarding any claims against digital zoom) and 4-5 megapixels fusil larger represent. Also, make pietistic that the camera has a mike pickup for digital video sequences. You don't shortfall to use this talents but myself can't use it if you don't express self.<\p>
So now you go through your cameras and other self need to notice what to do about the pictures? Well, see my next article, Digital Photography: Using Windows XP (in perform your digital pictures).<\p>
