Canon S3 IS or Panasonic Lumix FZ8

[TransformX]

Thanks for the pointers, interesting read.
Just one question, at least on film, I was always told that the higher the ISO, the less color I get.

[az]

And on digital, you get noise (which also means less contrast and less color). I don't know about film, only that you get coarser grain (looks like noise).

[Wulfman]

Thanks for the pointers, interesting read.
Just one question, at least on film, I was always told that the higher the ISO, the less color I get.

its as az said (nearly misstyped that one): the film gets grainier, so if you make a larger print you will notice the difference. it is possible that reproduction of color (or the dynamic range) changes as well, but I haven't seen it yet, just heard some rumours.

mfg
wulfman

[ND66]

Thanks for the pointers, interesting read.
Just one question, at least on film, I was always told that the higher the ISO, the less color I get.

Don’t matter if you shoot film or digital, the higher the ISO, the more grain you’ll get. However, film ISO 400 is way better then Digital Camera CCD when it comes to it.

And yes, in my opinion (but I’m not a PRO shooter, maybe I don’t know everything) there is a major difference shooting ISO 100~200 vs. ISO 400 in a “BRIGHT LIGHT” situation. From my experience, when taking pictures during my first Air & Water Show (sunny day, almost no clouds at all), I used ISO 200 & ISO 400 film to see what the difference would be.
While ISO 200 showed the F-14 to fly under nice & blue skies, the ISO 400 showed the same F-14 from almost the same angle flying under GREY skies.

Also, shooting higher ISO, the shade areas gets darker, more contrast in between lighted and shaded areas under bright sun.

.

[Wulfman]

film ISO 400 is way better then Digital Camera CCD when it comes to it..

might be true for compact digital cameras, but I don't see that in my d70-pictures and I especially don't think that's true for more recent, improved digital SLR sensors.

mfg
wulfman

[ND66]

might be true for compact digital cameras, but I don't see that in my d70-pictures and I especially don't think that's true for more recent, improved digital SLR sensors.

mfg
wulfman

You might be right on that one. I never owned a Digital SLR & chances are I never will own one.

I have no need to join the MegaPixel race, the more MEGA the bigger BRAG factor would be.

If the camera produces plenty of details, 6 MP it’s enough for me. My 2 years old compact Fuji E550 digital camera is 6MP, saves the jpeg in 12MP format file size (the files are not compressed as much) creates sharper and more detailed picture then most 8MP cameras did 2 years ago. I can do a very nice, cropped a little 8X10 IN enlargement from this camera that just pisses of all my bodies that purchased Digital Rebel XT camera.

That’s why, the Fuji S6000FD is on my top of the list right now. And for $303 shipped FREE..... get the point?

A have 3 kids growing, that’s where my lion share of money will go into.
The first choice in digital world will be a HD Camcorder along with a new PC capable of editing it, when the format wars will stabilize a bit… .

.

[Wulfman]

I have no need to join the MegaPixel race (..)

If the camera produces plenty of details, 6 MP it’s enough for me.
.

you know, my d70 has also "only" 6mpixel, was bought exactly three years ago, still serves me nicely and will hopefully still serve me nicely for another few years. has nothing to do with a megapixel race or bragging whatsoever.

mfg
wulfman

[ND66]

you know, my d70 has also "only" 6mpixel, was bought exactly three years ago, still serves me nicely and will hopefully still serve me nicely for another few years. has nothing to do with a megapixel race or bragging whatsoever.

mfg
wulfman

C'man, you know better than that.

I'd never accuse you of doing that. I’ve seen your pictures, I know what you’re capable of.

I was referring to some people I know (like the one with those Digital XT), or even a guy that asked me for digital camera recommendation couple of weeks ago. He wanted Panasonic FZ50 (?), 10 MP camera. I just knew he’s buying it for the “looks” and the name “Leica” on the lens and of course, 10MP format! When I asked him how and where he’ll back-up those large JPEG files, he told me he’ll shoot “only in 6MP mode to save the space”.


.

[ND66]

Sorry, I see why you woud get upset. I didn't express myself the way I inteded to.

I should have beem more clear on that.

might be true for compact digital cameras, but I don't see that in my d70-pictures and I especially don't think that's true for more recent, improved digital SLR sensors.

mfg
wulfman

my respond....

You might be right on that one. I never owned a Digital SLR & chances are I never will own one.

I have no need to join the MegaPixel race, the more MEGA the bigger BRAG factor would be.

.

[Wulfman]

don't worry, I'm ok - no offence meant (or taken, for that matter).

mfg
wulfman

[VJ]

IMO, the only reason to go beyond 6 MP is to allow for extensive crops while still keeping the image quality. My D100 has 6MP, and even this resolution has allowed crops in good quality (remember, most labs print at 300dpi or some at 400dpi; so for a 4"x6" photo, even 6MP is too much).

As for backup: I exclusively use the Nikon RAW format (.NEF), mostly uncompressed (compressed takes 40s to write on the D100 ). The main reason is that the D100 doesn't give a nice output for JPG files (it was the first affordable DSLR made by Nikon, so it has some shortcomings ). The (uncompressed) NEF files are about 12 MB in size though. To store the files, I put them on DVDs (twice - two different DVDs) and keep them on a large harddisk.


Jörg

[ND66]

don't worry, I'm ok - no offence meant (or taken, for that matter).

mfg
wulfman

.

[ND66]

......remember, most labs print at 300dpi or some at 400dpi

I know one thing, 300 Dpi is what most PRO places do around here and it’s more then enough. The quality very from place to place and the difference is HUGE!
But not because of Dpi.

I’m in Chicago and use WHCC in Minnesota to develop prints, highly recommend them. If there is something I need developed right now, there is only one place that I know of (within 10 square miles around my house) that does great job. And that’s only for 4x6 prints.

.

[Jon P. Inghram]

IMO, the only reason to go beyond 6 MP is to allow for extensive crops while still keeping the image quality. My D100 has 6MP, and even this resolution has allowed crops in good quality (remember, most labs print at 300dpi or some at 400dpi; so for a 4"x6" photo, even 6MP is too much).
Jörg

Cropping is why I laugh at the people who say "pixel peeping" (I.E. looking at a picture at 100% zoom or greater) is pointless and that the picture quality of a camera should only be judged on a 4x6 print or other such nonsense. I almost always crop photos at least a tad bit.

[VJ]

Cropping is why I laugh at the people who say "pixel peeping" (I.E. looking at a picture at 100% zoom or greater) is pointless and that the picture quality of a camera should only be judged on a 4x6 print or other such nonsense. I almost always crop photos at least a tad bit.

Yes...
I meant cropping to keep a smaller portion as a new photo, not for pixel peeping (I for instance had a nice photograph of my grandfather, which was cropped out of a much larger photograph). My 6MP was just sufficiant (on printout, the crop still looked nice), but the resolution of the photo was lower than what it printed (so it could have been better).


Jörg