ellz Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 And another. No cropping, just reduced by 50% JPG PNG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 It looks to me, average P&S quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellz Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 They're talking about shutter lag and all P&S cameras will have that. The Olympus is negligible, depending upon your settings. Certainly a MAJOR difference from my Sony Cyber-Shot. I found it worse on my Olympus than my Lumix. Shutter lag is apparently one of the things they addressed in the SP600-UZ. It was only released in Feb this year, I got mine in June and I've found it very good so far. It has a burst setting which is very effective unlike many of the other P & S cameras. As I said, I'm going to be watching Trafford with interest when he has a play with it on Thursday....he was very keen on it after reading the specs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellz Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 (edited) It looks to me, average P&S quality. Blame the lousy photographer for that. I'm not saying they're good photos or good QUALITY photos....just showing the difference between saving as a PNG and saving as JPG. And as I said originally, I only posted so that the OP could see a range of different things that they could probably do a lot better than me with the same camera. I don't portray myself as a photographer, I don't aspire to such things and I CERTAINLY wouldn't want to even attempt to compete with any of you absolutely amazing photographers now would I? And editing to add: yet another part of the forum to stay out of. DOL is losing its appeal more and more every day. Edited October 18, 2010 by ellz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Relax Ellz - I'm talking about the quality of the file, it just looks like a normal P&S to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dju Posted October 18, 2010 Author Share Posted October 18, 2010 Okay I'll be honest with you and say that I couldn't notice the difference that much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 I hadn't even considered saving as anything other than jpg . Hmmm.... Mine seem to print out at A4 ok as jpg. Must try themat something else..TIFF,as lightroom won't accept PNG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dju Posted October 18, 2010 Author Share Posted October 18, 2010 I hadn't even considered saving as anything other than jpg .Hmmm.... Mine seem to print out at A4 ok as jpg. Must try themat something else..TIFF,as lightroom won't accept PNG. Lightroom won't accept PNG? NO MY DREAMS SHATTERED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 And editing to add: yet another part of the forum to stay out of. DOL is losing its appeal more and more every day. What are you talking about? Seriously...you posted photos to show the quality of the camera, I said it seemed pretty average (ie normal, the norm) for a point and shoot camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepetographer Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Heres a Link to at least 9 compact cameras that shoot RAW http://www.photoradar.com/reviews/buying-g...compact-cameras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dju Posted October 18, 2010 Author Share Posted October 18, 2010 Heres a Link to at least 9 compact cameras that shoot RAW http://www.photoradar.com/reviews/buying-g...compact-cameras Oh cool, that's very helpful, thanks! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepetographer Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 1 more http://www.teddillard.com/2008/03/compact-...-shoot-raw.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dju Posted October 18, 2010 Author Share Posted October 18, 2010 So many choices.. how am I ever gonna make a decision! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~*Shell*~ Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 When I looked, point and shoot cameras that shot raw were all over $300. That was a few years ago now though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 (edited) If you're really fussing over "quality" then you need a compact that will shoot RAW. That is the only way to get the most of a file as if you're not shooting RAW, your camera has already ditched a whole lot of info. I personally import all of my RAWs as dngs, another lossless format. I can't say I know any photographers who default for photo work to png - other visual art work, yes. Photos, not really. But if you aren't going to control what your camera captures you're missing a big piece of the puzzle for "quality", frankly. jpg is an output format - it's what you share on the web and often what you send in for print. It is also the capture format for a huge number of cameras - including the highest end dslrs. yes, jpg has some downsides, but edit on a copy (most create a psd coz that's what layers like) and save as a new file - the loss of quality is so minute that you will not be able to discern the difference. And there are about a zillion articles from respected sites/photographers who have exhaustively tested the jpg save and resave thing and doing it once isn't going to destroy the file Your budget may not be realistic for what you are looking for - everything in photography is a compromise so you may need to make a list of your priorities then see what matches up most closely. good luck. Oh & btw - editing in Lightroom on any format? Non-destructive Edited October 18, 2010 by kja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dju Posted October 18, 2010 Author Share Posted October 18, 2010 Oh well I do LIKE a HQ camera, but that Olympus shot of the flower on the first page looks really impressive to me so it's not like I'm completely anal about it. Priority is: Quality Battery type Compactness And all under $300 It shouldn't be unattainable, really! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Not to dis on any particular shot but you really can't tell diddly squat about quality on web sized posted images - you need to see the originals/high res files to truly tell. I could post an image from a low end point & shoot, a mid range point & shoot, an entry level dslr, a mid range dslr and a high end dslr on the web and you wouldn't reliably be able to tell them apart at web size if I shot properly in the first place. It's the magic of posting to the web - you can often post an image that wouldn't be quite as fab in print LOL kinda like shooting video underwater - it always looks better than it really did on the dive itself Once you narrow cameras down, I'm sure those that have them could send you or link you to originals/high res and there are some review sites out there that have the high res versions to help - I think dpreview.com does? Really depends on how much effort you want to put in for finding that quality gem! Me? Ultra-compactness and image quality were my two biggies and that's why I chose the baby Canon. I was happy to trade off RAW, manual controls, control over my flash and a whole host of other things to keep the size & weight down. I love Bubba and it's never let me down! (oh, and it came in a really cool green colour ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dju Posted October 18, 2010 Author Share Posted October 18, 2010 I dunno, the photo looked sort of professional to me when most of them look really amateur. If it's true you can't really tell, then I'm pretty much screwed I like quality and battery type--hate AA batteries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepetographer Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 A friend of mine has the Canon G10 and showed me a 16x20 print-----awesome read this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 (edited) Sorry, it's true. A mediocre/bad image from any camera can look great (I know, I've been known to post crap that looks great on the web LOL) while an image from a high end camera that hasn't been shot or prepared properly will look crappy. The high res or original file is the only way to truly tell. The Canon G10 is a great camera btw Edited October 18, 2010 by kja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now