Re: Picture quality on low end cameras



Marvin wrote:
> salgud wrote:
> > Still researching low priced digital cameras (<$200). My 2 biggest
> > concerns are picture quality, especially color quality) and
> > reliability. Can anyone suggest which manufacturers have the best
> > picture quality? I understand that in this price range, most cameras
> > will be designed to "exaggerate" certain colors. Particularly push
> > blues, for nice blue skies, and maybe reds or yellows. Which
> > makes/models in general do less of this? I'm not a fanatic or an
> > expert, but I would like something as faithful as I can get in this
> > range.
> > Thanks for the help!
> >
>
> Keep in mind that the camera is only part of the equation. How prints are made is
> another. How a computer monitor or a TV shows the pictures is another. The good news is
> that you can control the color, starting with the camera. (How you set white balance, for
> example.) You can also control your monitor (but not themonitors of thise whi get an
> e-mail picture from you), and the prints as well if you do your own printing or work with
> a cooperative service. Think of the file that comes from the camera as if it is a
> negative, not the final product.
>
> Of course, you don't have to fuss over every photo. If you are like many of us on this
> NG, you only print some of the photos you take, and color isn't that critical even on all
> of those. You may even want to accentuate it in some cases, like a dramatic sunset.
>
> As to a camera at $200 or less, consider the low-end cameras of companies that deliver
> good color in their more expensive cameras. A good place to check them out is at
> www.dpreview.com.

Thanks. That's where I've been looking, among others.

>
> When I used film, I didn't like the way Kodak's films overdid some colors, like the blue
> skies. I thought Fuji did a little better. I have more control of the end result now
> than I ever had.

As I remember, Kodachromes punched up the reds and yellows a bit,
Ektachromes punched up the blues. I used to try to have both on hand,
depending on what I was taking at the time. By the time I lost
interest, I was carrying 4 rolls of film, miniumum, most of the time.
Kodachrome, Ektachrome, a roll of fast b&W (asa400, often pushed to
800) and a roll of slow b&w (asa25). All of them got rolled back up
into the canister, then rolled back out when I used them again. Was
saving up for a extra back to minimize some of this. Maybe that's why i
got tired of it!

Thanks for all the suggesions!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Canon XL2 vs any other Camera DV Please Help
    ... the much rumoured shoulder mount HDV. ... I like all three for their superior high definition picture and ability ... picture quality and location, clean sound quality in both PCM and MPEG 2 ... Small lens limits creative camera work though considering the give away ...
    (rec.video.production)
  • Re: Nikon vs Canon Rebel XT
    ... Wear, body construction, picture quality etc. ... The body construction is probably a little better on the D70, ... There is also something we all tend to pass by: the camera is but a tool. ... I also had a Canon flash. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Nikon D40 for first time dSLR?
    ... Your pictures will not necessarily improve regardless of what camera you use. ... The biggest improvement in picture quality comes with some understanding of exposure, the light range the sensor can capture, composition and realizing that nearly all of the images you see in magazines have had some form of post camera processing, i.e. Photoshop, to optimize the image. ... While I am a lifelong Nikon user I believe someone in your position would be better served by the Pentax dSLRs or the Sony dSLR. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Whats the Olympus C-725 like ?
    ... attention was that this camera with 8x zoom is being offered ... Short battery life ... experienced photographer says that picture quality is "awful" ... I really would advise against buying this camera even at a bargain ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
Loading