Digital Camera Recommendation

[Bill-V8V]

It didn't fire. Look at the reflection on that glossy cover in the first photo. the second doesn't have that either.

 

 

That is why the with and without from that camera are identical.

[11chevz71]

How did I know I would get this?

Here's a pic of the old and the new taken with my phone. As you can see, quite the size difference. The old one is quite heavy and clunky compared to the new one. Then a pic of the old taken with the new. Once we get all this snow out of here, I'm going to detail my car with my new Adam's products, and I'll post up some pics using the new camera.

NIce

[Sooners]

well for starters I don't think the flash fired on that first one.

 

Yep, I think you guys are correct in that it didn't flash even though the flash showed to be on. My bad. I was using the Auto setting, and I guess it decides when the flash is needed. It must be the sheen of the book cover. If I get up close, it doesn't flash, but when I would back away from it, the flash would go off. This made the image appear brighter, but the colors were still different.

 

I was using the Auto feature on the old one, but it sounds like the saturation is a bit higher and produced a darker colors. However, after playing around with the new camera, some of the pictures didn't look like the old, but the color was more true and accurate. I guess I'm just used to seeing the bright, vivid images of the old camera and never really noticed that the color may have been overstated.

 

I'm going to give Bill's setting recommendation a try and see what I come up with. Thanks for the help.

[rha600]

the reason it didn't use the flash (probably) is that the new one has the ability to use a much higher ISO so rather than use the flash it increased the ISO. why it did that I'm not sure as I'd rather have the flash than a noisey high ISO but that's my guess.

 

the colors can still be different. Like I said, it can be in need of a few setting changes like the saturation and such. MY GF has this camera so I can look at hers and see what I find when I get home. Also, and I don't think this is thre case, but it could also be using a different color space as well. AdobeRGB vs sRGB...

[rha600]

here is the photo from the 1200 with just a slight bump in saturation and exposure that I did in photoshop. the resolution I left iwth what you had.

[Sooners]

Here's a couple of pictures that look better. I took it off Auto and set it to P. The first one is with the flash with the rest of the default settings. The second is with the flash, and I used the Vivid color option.

[rha600]

looks a lot more "correct" doesn't it. plus you have the added benefit now of a much higher resolution camera, higher ISO ability (which means better flash coverage as well) and cleaner images at lower ISOs.

[Sooners]

I think I'm starting to get a little more familiar with the new camera. I don't know much about digital cameras. I bought my old one 7 years ago, took it out the box, and just started taking pictures. Never messed with the settings. It doesn't have near the functionality of the new one, so I suppose there was less room for error.

 

I found out some of my problems had to do with using the SD1200 inside. When I had it on Auto, due to the available higher ISO settings, the Auto mode would crank the ISO up to around 650-800 and not use the flash. My A40 only goes up 400 max. When I used an ISO around 80-200, the images looked much better. However, outside in the natural light, the Auto mode kept the ISO around 80-150, so the shots I took were similar to the manual settings. I am also able to get closer to the color of the A40 by using the Vivid mode on the SD1200. The A40 seems to heavily saturate the colors on Auto.

 

I think the best thing I found was the photo editing software that came with the camera. I've never messed with this stuff before, but I installed it, opened up some pictures and found out I can do all sorts of stuff to adjust the image. One of those being I can adjust the saturation. This is probably old news to many of you, but I'm pretty excited about it. I've never been big on photography, so I've always kept it as simple as possible, but I think if I understand it a bit better, I'll enjoy it more.

[Bill-V8V]

Hit "Function Set" and start scrolling to the right on the different modes at the bottom of the screen, when it gets to the end "Kids&Pets" hit the Menu button and it will give you more options, one of them is "Indoors". Select that and try again

[Sooners]

Hit "Function Set" and start scrolling to the right on the different modes at the bottom of the screen, when it gets to the end "Kids&Pets" hit the Menu button and it will give you more options, one of them is "Indoors". Select that and try again

 

Yeah, I had found the Indoor setting, and it was very close to what I got with the P and Vivid setting. Thanks for all the help.

[Nordgrey]

For a camera, it really depends on what you want to do with it. The choices these days are so varied that there is definetly something out there that will fit you to a tee.

 

From something you can slip in a shirt pocket, to a more mid line camera to a full on DSLR with all the bells and whistles.

 

I needed something to take really nice highspeed shots, for my paintball addiction. I found the perfect camera for it from Casio. Not only does it have the ability to take 40 7 megapixel pictures in one second, it also does HD video and highspeed video. And that just really touches the surface of what it can do. All at a price where if it does get destroyed on the field, then I don't feel like putting my fist through something.....LOL

 

http://www.casio.com/products/Cameras/EXILIM_High-Speed/EX-FH20/http://www.casio.com/products/Cameras/EXILIM_High-Speed/EX-FH20/

[Chris@Adams]

Maybe Rich (Marylandvette) will chime in on the camera!

[XQIZT]

I agree with Nordgrey...there are a million camera choices...depends on what you are going to do with it...

 

Small point and shoots are nice and easy to use, relatively inexpensive, but the draw back is some have a delay between when you push the shutter button and what image you get (not a problem for stationary objects)...plus you only get one lens. There are many pros and cons.

 

DSLRs are serious cameras...and a little more expensive. They are bigger which I find leads to me leaving it behind at home sometimes. But you can get (or rent) a variety of lenses, the batteries last MUCH longer and you can set it on "auto" or go through a variety of manual settings to get just the picture you want with whatever creative flair you want. The newer ones also shoot video. There are many pros and cons.

 

Honestly, I love my Nikon D80...but sometimes my fiance's smaller point and shoot is perfect.

[Team Adam's]

Nikon for me!! I have a very well taken care of D70 with lots of extra goodies if you're interested.

[mc2hill]

I am sorry I do not have pics. I need to invest in a new digital camera. Any suggestions?

We have a Canon SX100 P&S (new version is SX120) that takes very good pictures. Small enough to fit in your pocket, but with 10 megapixel & 10x optical zoom (but would love an SLR and the time to learn how to use it!).

[The Ryan]

I've always like nikon camera's but a DSLR wasn't a necessity and I got a killer deal on my Sony DSC-W290 12.1mp Cybershot. DSLR would be nice to have, but they are bulky when carrying around a baby, diaper bag, stroller, ect.

[LimitedDodge]

I have a sony cybershot dsc-t9 that I have had for probably 4-5 years. Bought a metal case the fits it perfectly off ebay and easily slips into my pocket. Not much thicker than my wallet. I bought it because it was easy to keep in pocket on jobsite (I am general contractor superintendent so I always need evidence). Also great for going somewhere and don't want to carry the bigger camera.

 

When I want to take good pictures or far away pics (like in a stadium) I use a Canon Rebel XSi. Have multiple lenses and tons of different filters (most of which I don't know how to use because it's more of the wifes camera).

[Chewy]

I bought a Sony when in St. Thomas on me honeymoon. It was great because it was tax free so it was a pretty good deal.

 

Gotta say it's a pretty good camera and take good vids too.

 

It's takes 720P video and has stereo mics and outputs still pics in 1080P.

 

It's been a good camera. I'd love a DSLR but it would never get used. It's just too big and bulky. 99% of the time I'd be grabbing this one.

 

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=Sony+DSC-T900&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=8180763356392788262&ei=iLrFS6uXBo6I8wTTm-iYDg&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ8wIwAA#ps-sellers

[mikegeaney]

...I'd love a DSLR but it would never get used. It's just too big and bulky. 99% of the time I'd be grabbing this one.

 

There is nothing to say that you can't have both. I have been using a Canon DSLR for the past year and have loved it. Sure the camera, 3 lenses I now have, and external flash is big/bulky but the pictures, and creative flexability allowed, are worth it to me. I will normally use that camera for planned events.....things at my house, daughter's dance recital(s), etc. The worst thing about it is that it takes time to learn and isn't as convenient.....but that's what I have the small digi cam for. Remember, the worst photo is the one you never got a chance to take.

[Superdutytd]

I've always had good luck with Sony's stuff, including their SLR's and Video Cameras. Sony has been getting better and better with the SLR's but one of the Nikon's my buddy has also takes HD video, which is pretty sick. I think someone up top mentioned it.