Comparable pocket sized camera to Sony Cybershot DSC-H5
I have had this camera; http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/H5/H5A.HTM
& it has been very good so far, but one big drawback for me is it is heavy to carry around in my purse for any length of time. In addition to it's good image quality, it had a good movie mode, VGA .mpg format, & it seems newer cameras now no longer use this format. I liked it because I could just burn the movie files after I downloaded them straight to a blank DVD disc to play on a DVD player without having to go through an elaborate video editing process. This worked well, because my family shoots alot of video & they are eager to see the footage right away, with an involved video editor, it would literally take me hours to make DVD's & on my computer system, it was not very reliable, there would be video & audio sync problems. I have an older PC with a single pentium 4 processor, & 1 GB of RAM. It is a 7 year old dell with windows XP home edition service pack 2 so what ever I use, I need it to be light on resources. |
For photo quality, I would suggest any of the current model Sony Cybershot cameras: http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=...9ae25247b905dc
As far as size goes, there are several options available. Pick the size that best fits your need. I would specifically look at the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W290: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...SIN=B001SEQPGK It's one of the best cameras you can get before jumping into a larger size body. However, I don't know much about the video portion of the camera. Given that it's 720p, it's probably an MPEG-4 format that you're wanting to get away from. You may have to look at slightly older cameras to get what you want. Cameras from previous eras were still using MPEG and MJPEG, to shoot standard definition (SD) quality video. You may like this pink camera from Sony: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...SIN=B0011EA9FA It's the same one I have (mine is the metallic black version), and shoots MPEG-1 640x480 30fps, and quality is decent. It has an image stabilizer mode that works in video mode. And if I'm not misremembering, it can zoom while shooting video, too. It's a good camera, for what it is. It was better than what Canon had at the time. You have to understand I'm really picky, as my normal camera is a professional Nikon DSLR (or Canon DSLR), and DV cameras. However, I found the Sony W120 to be "good enough" when all I could take is something that fits in my pocket. |
since you seem to be very knowledgeable and a photographer your self,
what do you think of this camera? http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-.../dp/B00395WIXA this is the one I am experimenting with now, I like that it has a 12 optical zoom in such a small body, I like a camera with a bit of zoom, most only go to about 3x or 4x which is not much for my use. Do you think it is as good as the sony W120? should I stick with this Panasonic or should I look for another camera? can you recommend other super zoom cameras in small bodies? like a 8x or more optical zoom? |
In terms of pure still photographic quality, I'd say the Panasonic is probably slightly better than the Sony in several areas, including high ISO, the ability to do HDR, and resolution.
However, that doesn't necessarily translate into anything that matters.
The Panasonic flash is also overpowering, like so many other point-and-shoot cameras. I'm tired of people having ghost-white faces in photos -- manufacturers need to #$%@ing fix that already. That's the main reason I did not like the small Canon cameras. The Sony does not over-power the flash, so I don't have ghosts for friends and family. Color clarity seems to be better on the Panasonic. My judgments are made by viewing Panasonic sample photos, plus the test photos at http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/d...ewsID=4306&p=2 That review site is like too many others. It's all sugar and lollipops when it comes to reviews. Products range from good to wonderful, nothing is every slapped around like I think it needs to be. While many people may find certain features "good enough" or "fine", such reviews are wholly worthless for folks like you and me that are seeking a certain degree of quality. They're more interested in fluffy reviews so people will click their affiliate links, rather than reserving praise for selected quality models. Panasonic shutter lag may actually be worse than the Sony, but neither are very good anyway. When I press my shutter on my DSLR, I get at least 1 image INSTANTLY. On these little P&S cameras, I have to wait a portion of a second AND make sure I don't accidentally move in that time -- or that nothing in the photo moves. In other words, both of these cameras suck for photographing bugs, animal and active kids -- all of which move too fast. The thing that bothers me about the Sony is the high ISO settings. The quality is fine (excellent, actually, since the sensor is comparable to current-gen Nikon SLR quality), but the so-called "manual" modes are still limiting. For example, I can't set aperture and ISO. I can't set ISO and use the flash. The only thing you can set, when choosing ISO 3200, is the ISO. To me, that's bunk. But at the time, that was the best you could get in that sized camera. The Panasonic may have better manual controls: http://www.panasonic.net/avc/lumix/c....html#asm_mode Of course, the Sony write-up was just as good. To me, it feels like a lie by omission by Sony, because it never mentions the limitations. So I have to wonder if the Panasonic is truly manual, like a DSLR, or if it's just somewhat manual, where some things can be picked in conjunction, and others cannot. If the Panasonic really does give good manual controls, then my vote would be for that one. At least then you could fight some of the more common problems with P&S cameras, such as bad auto ISO settings or having a shutter too slow to truly stop the action. I wouldn't want you to trade down to a lesser camera. Then again, if you really want that older Sony MPG-1 recording, that may be your only real choice. |
I read reviews about this Panasonic model, and tried the settings this person advised, in the update section I highlighted in blue. what do you think to their advice for settings adjustments?
when I am using more manual controls, like shutter priority, or manual, is there a minimum number shutter speed I should use? for most conditions? what value would I want to go no lower than to avoid excessive blurriness? what would be the best ISO to use? for most situations? I realize no P&S camera will be able to do what a DSLR would do, but carrying a DSLR on me all the time is too heavy, I would use it for special situations, like events that only happen once in a lifetime, or only once in a great while. I am also an artist, and currently doing a degree for graphic design. So I would also use a DSLR for shooting my art work as well. the P&S would be for every day use, as I use my photos for art reference. But I would like them to be good in their own right. what DSLRs would you suggest for me? I know some of those can now take movies too. here is an amazon review of the Panasonic; Quote:
|
You can hit REPLY instead of QUOTE. There's no need to quote my posts each time. :)
Quote:
Most of the review is that way. Yeah, it's nice and detailed, but some of the details are overkill, over-analyzed, overdone. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Glass tends to be more important than the body. Most of my money is in lenses, not the body. My 80-200 costs just as much as my D200 body. Quote:
Quote:
You're asking great questions. :) |
My camera has quite a few settings on it, there is intelligent resolution & intelligent exposure, should I have these set to on?
for picture size, there is a choice of; 4:3, 3:2, & 16:9 aspect ratios, which one should I use? there is also picture quality, I have it set to best quality, but you can choose different mega pixels; I have it set to the highest it goes, 12mp, but the Panasonic camera also offers; 8mp, 5mp, 3mp, & 0.3mp, In one of your replies to me you said that at anything over 10mp, will start to show lens imperfections, should I set the mp setting to 8? there are also other settings; sharpness, contrast, noise reduction, & saturation, the default for these is 0, with a scale where one can go +1 all the way to +2 & -1 to -2 at the other end of the scale. What settings should I set these to? or should I leave everything at the default 0? what about exposure compensation, that has a -1 to -2, 0 & +1 to +2, should I just leave this at 0? or should I bump it to the + side in low light? and what about ISO? what would be a good general ISO to keep it at? do lower ISOs make brighter saturated sharper photos? could I set the camera to program priority, where I set ISO to 80 & it decides aperture & shutter speed. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You can roughly calibrate a monitor by photographing a common item. I like to use the 16oz Dr. Pepper bottles, the plain ones (not the promo ones, like the recent Iron man movie bottles from this past summer). Shoot the bottle with the saturation at 0, in outside daylight, and then put the image on the LCD. Put the bottle by the LCD. Does it match? If so, then you can rely on the test for +/- exposure. If not, then adjust the monitor -- change the LCD settings until it matches the bottle pretty well. Quote:
Start from there, adjust as needed. Leave it there as normal settings. Nothing sucks more than shooting 1600+ in daylight by accident. So always put it back to 400 after using higher ISOs. Quote:
You shoot higher ISO because there is less light. Less light means less colors reflected. The image taken in the low-light condition therefore has less color. A low ISO could not capture the image in that condition. When there is more light, more color is reflected. When there is more light, you use low ISO. Therefore the lower ISO image probably has more color. Higher ISO does have some inherent loss of color, but that's purely due to processing. It's more complicated than that, but that's probably a good enough explanation to tell you what you need to know. If you're shooting landscapes, use a tripod and use as low an ISO as you can. Use a high/small aperture (f/8+). Use a slow to moderate shutter speed (1s to 1/30). Quote:
Use the semi-automatic modes. Set an ISO, then set either a shutter or aperture -- then let the unpicked value fall into line automatically. It's easy to decide that you need low aperture for low light, or high shutter for action. Then let the meter find the other settings. Just be aware that you have to monitor the other settings. If you pick 1/2000 shutter, and the ISO is 400, and there is low light, it may need a aperture value lower than what the camera has. If you shoot without watching this, you may not have a photo. Always be mindful of all three settings at all times! "P" mode generally gets one setting wrong, it just guesses badly, and it also results in a missed photo. Usually an issue of blurring, because it always sets terrible shutters -- even in those so-called "sports" modes. Also be aware of lighting conditions that may give you a silhouette or bright spot, instead of the image you're wanting. This is where watching the LCD is important. In the film days, you just bracketed and used a light meter. These days, you can be a bit more lazy about it. (Although I do still use and carry a high-end light meter, especially when working with models.) I think that got all your questions. :) |
so in the case of the picture size, you say pick the biggest one offered; I had; 4:3, 3:2, & widescreen 16:9, so would I be best leaving it to 3:2, to capture all the original image?
I talked to a camera guy in my local camera shop, & asked about what minimum shutter speed to use, & he told me in general, dont go lower than 125. So I will avoid program set, & use either manual, aperture priority, or shutter priority. |
3:2 should be the full sensor of data. The full frame. The 4:3 and 16:9 (especially the 16:9) are likely the cropped versions. Again, you can do this later yourself. No need to crop in the camera. You might change your mind later, but you can't un-crop it in the software later on.
The minimum for handheld shutter is 1/60. It's always been 1/60. I'm good -- I've been doing this a long time -- and I can sometimes calm my body down enough to shoot as low as 1/8, with multiple fps for a safety net. Generally I'm always fine at 1/30, it's the 1/15 and 1/8 where it gets tricky. If you're a nervous, twitchy, shaky sort of person, then 1/125 is probably a better idea. Yeah, I think you'll be fine avoiding program mode. You seem to have a little more knowledge than the average user, so use it! Be sure to post some good shots here in the forum. :) |
how do I post my photos here?
|
Quote:
Direct link - http://www.digitalFAQ.com/forum/show...ages-1529.html If you want critiques, you'll get them. Just say "critique this" of something to that affect. If you just want to show off, then just make a post, don't ask for critique. If it's a great shot, you may get some compliments. If it's not so good, you may get less response. This site has historically be heavy on digital video information, so the photo forums are still somewhat new. There's not been a lot of this type of activity to date, but we're hoping it takes off here soon. You'd be a great person to start off with. That's it. :) |
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.