Prev: Photogs rights "Slim" threat, as in, "thin edge of the wedge??"
Next: P&S's clearly not aimed at photographers
From: Bubba on 9 Apr 2010 16:16
On Apr 9, 4:03 pm, DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> A zoom range of 20x (28-560mm equiv) is a Jack of all trades and
> master of none.
> I own a Canon SX 100 with 10x zoom range and I can see some chromatic
> aberration.
>
> Take a Sd card to a shop and ask the to let you take pictures with a
> demo SX20 camera.
> Use the full zoom range and try to find something with little objects
> with high contrast look at them in the house.
>
> If you are happy with it buy it.

This is what I was after. So then it's a too-good-to-be-true scenario
(and I'm speaking relatively, having only a PowerShot 7.1 at the
present time, next to which the SX 20 would be genius). The DP Review
said that...*someone*...said that the G11 is the best point-and-shoot
ever.

And as for that red flare issue... If I get a new point-and-shoot and
get blotchy reds, I'll go crazy. I just don't want to haul around a
DSLR, and I really don't need RAW capability.
From: DanP on 9 Apr 2010 19:37
On 9 Apr, 21:16, Bubba <digitalr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 4:03 pm, DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > A zoom range of 20x (28-560mm equiv) is a Jack of all trades and
> > master of none.
> > I own a Canon SX 100 with 10x zoom range and I can see some chromatic
> > aberration.
>
> > Take a Sd card to a shop and ask the to let you take pictures with a
> > demo SX20 camera.
> > Use the full zoom range and try to find something with little objects
> > with high contrast look at them in the house.
>
> > If you are happy with it buy it.
>
> This is what I was after. So then it's a too-good-to-be-true scenario
> (and I'm speaking relatively, having only a PowerShot 7.1 at the
> present time, next to which the SX 20 would be genius). The DP Review
> said that...*someone*...said that the G11 is the best point-and-shoot
> ever.

There is no best ever. There is the best for someone.
See some shots taken with SX20s here:
http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=a&s=int&cm=canon/powershot_sx20_is


DanP
From: Chris Malcolm on 9 Apr 2010 19:38
Bubba <digitalrube(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 4:03?pm, DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A zoom range of 20x (28-560mm equiv) is a Jack of all trades and
>> master of none.
>> I own a Canon SX 100 with 10x zoom range and I can see some chromatic
>> aberration.
>>
>> Take a Sd card to a shop and ask the to let you take pictures with a
>> demo SX20 camera.
>> Use the full zoom range and try to find something with little objects
>> with high contrast look at them in the house.
>>
>> If you are happy with it buy it.

> This is what I was after. So then it's a too-good-to-be-true scenario
> (and I'm speaking relatively, having only a PowerShot 7.1 at the
> present time, next to which the SX 20 would be genius). The DP Review
> said that...*someone*...said that the G11 is the best point-and-shoot
> ever.

> And as for that red flare issue... If I get a new point-and-shoot and
> get blotchy reds, I'll go crazy. I just don't want to haul around a
> DSLR, and I really don't need RAW capability.

In cameras which otherwise had good exposure and colour I noticed the
occasional oddly over saturated blotchy red. Then I took a lot of
photographs of large groups of women, and noticed it a lot. It was
always the same garments. Investigation revealed the problem to be the
use of very bright reds some of which are actually partly fluorescent,
i.e. come up even brighter than they should according to the lighting
of the scene. The same thing can happen specifically to reds under
indoor tungsten lighting because it emphasises red.

Solution is simple -- underexpose or use a mild green filter which is
corrected by camera white balance. You can see the problem on the spot
if your camera will display the RGB histogram of a scene or of a
photograph.

The same problem occurs with some intensely coloured flowers, not just
red ones.

--
Chris Malcolm
From: Bubba on 9 Apr 2010 20:27
On Apr 9, 7:38 pm, Chris Malcolm <c...(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Solution is simple -- underexpose or use a mild green filter which is
> corrected by camera white balance. You can see the problem on the spot
> if your camera will display the RGB histogram of a scene or of a
> photograph.

I have never used filters--and the use of a green, even "mild,"
suggests that while the red flare may be corrected, the color will be
unnatural. In any event, I don't understand what you mean by
correcting the white balance as a corrective measure for red flare.

> The same problem occurs with some intensely coloured flowers, not just
> red ones.

Absolutely! I notice it much less in pinks--as in our current "cherry
blossoms" here in the U.S. But as soon as it comes time to capture,
say, red tulips--thar she blows again. If this means I HAVE to get a
DSLR, then I'll have to get a DSLR.
From: Chris Malcolm on 10 Apr 2010 06:11
Bubba <digitalrube(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 7:38?pm, Chris Malcolm <c...(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>> Solution is simple -- underexpose or use a mild green filter which is
>> corrected by camera white balance. You can see the problem on the spot
>> if your camera will display the RGB histogram of a scene or of a
>> photograph.

> I have never used filters--and the use of a green, even "mild,"
> suggests that while the red flare may be corrected, the color will be
> unnatural. In any event, I don't understand what you mean by
> correcting the white balance as a corrective measure for red flare.

your camera probably corrects the white balance all the time
automatically. I think all P&S do that, and all DSLRs do it although
you can also adjust it manually if you want. The problem is that light
varies a lot in colour. Late afternoon sun is redder than midday sun
which is yellower than a white clouded sky. Indoor scenes lit by
tungsten light bulbs are much more orange.

Your eyes naturally correct for the colour of the lighting so that
colours look normal. Modern cameras do the same thing. So if you put a
green filter on the camera it will simply adjust the green tint
out. But the very bright red colours will no longer be over exposed.

>> The same problem occurs with some intensely coloured flowers, not just
>> red ones.

> Absolutely! I notice it much less in pinks--as in our current "cherry
> blossoms" here in the U.S. But as soon as it comes time to capture,
> say, red tulips--thar she blows again. If this means I HAVE to get a
> DSLR, then I'll have to get a DSLR.

All you need is a camera which will let you adjust exposure. Some
which don't let you adjust it specifically will have a mode for taking
backlit photographs which will do the same thing. But it's easier and
better with a P&S which allows you full manual control of exposure and
white balance, which most of the top end models do.

--
Chris Malcolm
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Photogs rights "Slim" threat, as in, "thin edge of the wedge??"
Next: P&S's clearly not aimed at photographers