focus isn't much

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Husky, Oct 18, 2005.

  1. Husky

    Husky Guest

    I'm still wading into digital. But after 2 cheapie digitals. A radio shack
    Camex spy pen digital w/2meg memory huge amount of pix, but not one worth
    keeping.

    And just took the 5 mega pixel reward camera from BellSouth for going wide
    band. Mercury cyberpix s-550-v.

    I thought the 5 megapixels meant something.

    But my biggest gripe is, [as I'm looking for a reason to buy a GOOD digital],
    I've used SLR's for years. All lengths of lenses up to 1000x.

    I've found that a lense makes or breaks the image the camera develops. So far
    neither of these with their 1/4 inch aperture has impressed me with the images
    they've taken.
    Blur is about the only word you can use to describe the pix.

    All the cameras I've seen seem to have 1 lens and none are much larger than
    these 1/4 inch built in lenses on the cheapies.

    The 2nd one above has what I'd call a zoom, but all that does is crop the
    distant image into a smaller area, make it larger when developed, and still
    blurry. ie: a sign about a block away 50 yards or less has some 1ft high
    lettering on it. I can read it, but all the camera sees is white blurry lines
    on a dark blue background. Whether zoomed or not. Blur remains the same.

    7am, Moon this morning. Couldn't even find it in one of the shots. It was as
    gray as the gray sky around it. Or very very blurry.

    Am I expecting too much from a digital to be able to take pictures that aren't
    blurry ?

    Do they have digital SLR's for less than $9000.00 that can use more than one
    lens ?

    The images look pretty good in the preview on the camera, but when downloaded..
    crapola..
     
    Husky, Oct 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. smells like a troll
     
    Charles Schuler, Oct 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Husky

    Skip M Guest

    Good lord, you've used SLRs, and you expect equivalent images with a free
    camera? A spy pen digital probably doesn't have a lens capable of enhancing
    even its limited amount of resolution.
    There are several 6-8megapixel cameras available for under $1000 that are
    DSLRs, with a full range of lenses available for them. Canon, Minolta,
    Nikon, Olympus and Pentax all make at least one.
     
    Skip M, Oct 18, 2005
    #3
  4. Husky

    Gormless Guest

    I'm surprised you're not happy when you have obviously invested so much of
    your hard-earned money in some really great cameras.
    None of that old Canon or Nikon crap for you eh?! You go for the best my
    friend!
     
    Gormless, Oct 18, 2005
    #4
  5. Husky

    Husky Guest

    Well this is my ONLY venture into using digital. I'm trying to get some feel
    for them. All the reviews I've read, and I've spent months at it, are totally
    negative. ie: Eats batteries.. lousy pictures, shutters jam with error ???,
    can't get a good shot because of shutter speed. requires a tripod. I've used
    the small hand tripod with remote releases. So I'm willing to take some time
    and learn what's with these digitals. out of 19 shots on tripod today, maybe 4
    were in good focus. The subject was well lit with standard room lighting and
    approximately 2 feet from the lens. I'm wondering if those 4 were done with the
    macro. Need to keep a record of the EXIF to see what's up. I saw ISO from
    90-109 today. Flash fixed F: varied but was normally 2.8.

    I'm pretty sure the only way I'm going to see what the free digital can do is
    keep it on a tripod. But I'd prefer not having to rely on a tripod for a good
    shot if/when I find a GOOD digital SLR.

    I'm not really into pigs in a poke much. I've checked out the pentax DSLR. But
    it needs more than the name pentax for me to put out that kind of green. All 3
    of my SLR's have been pentax cept the 1st one. My favorite camera was a Yashica
    automatic everything.
    Actually I started with a carnival camera [pig in a poke], who knew Japanese
    SLR'S were being manufactured that sold for $3.00. I was suckered into $20.00
    by the pitch. But it turned out to be a very good camera. Good enough to train
    on, and decide a GOOD Pentax SLR was called for.
    I'm just trying to repeat the process above. And neither cheapie has shown much
    promise.
    I did use the freebie today with the tripod, and got some in focus shots. And a
    few stranger results.
    ie: same shot exposed just the right side of the shot a bit brighter where the
    previous shot was in shadow.
     
    Husky, Oct 19, 2005
    #5
  6. Husky

    Husky Guest

    I suppose you have $500.00 + to throw away ? I don't.

    If the other digitals are anything like these and the reviews I've read claim
    almost every digital SLR out there is full of bugs.
    Eats batteries. doesn't have hot shoe, requires a tripod. slow shutter speeds.
    jams at the worst moments.
    All but one $9000.00 camera, and I'll open a box of crayons b4 putting out that
    much on a camera.

    If you've got enough money to throw away on a Pentax *ist D 6.1 mega pixel SLR,
    throw it my way. I'll stop my research on my next camera now and get this one.
    Bugs and all. Actually this particular model is about $1700.00.

    The difference in cost between what I've bought and tried, and a GOOD SLR is
    way more than I care to waste. Even the $100.00 ones all come up craps with the
    reviews. Meaning $400+ will be my next digital camera.
     
    Husky, Oct 19, 2005
    #6
  7. Husky

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Yes; all of them.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Oct 19, 2005
    #7
  8. Husky

    imodan Guest

    I don't mean to be rude mate...but are you drunk/on prescription
    medication?


    What kind of research have you been doing for the last 3 months that
    would make you think that $9000 is bottom rung? Then you go on to say
    that even the $100 come up craps..

    Just bizzare....I'd I didn't know better I'd say it was a drunk George
    Preddy....
     
    imodan, Oct 19, 2005
    #8
  9. Husky

    M Guest

    I agree - is this guy for real or what? Most of the reviews on the net are
    if anything a little too positive not the other way around. My Canon 350D
    (like similar Nikon camera's) cost about $1200 from a Hong Kong ebay seller
    and takes great photo's - what more does the guy want/ Does he even know
    that they come with battery chargers, are compatible with std SLR lenses,
    and killer autofocus? Where has he been doing his reasearch?
     
    M, Oct 19, 2005
    #9
  10. Husky

    piperut Guest


    Husky,

    Check out the photos at http://www.seacruisechat.com/reviews48.htm
    The photo at the top of the page is not mine. I am not sure where the
    webmaster dug that photo up from. It is just a photo of that ship.
    After the review of the cruise that is written in prose there are a
    number of photos I shot with a Canon Digital Rebel. All of the shots
    were taken hand held. Some of them are taken with the kit lens, some
    with a Tamron 28-70 lens, some with a Peleng 8mm fish-eye lens, some
    with a Canon 70-300mm lens. The webmaster is not into photos, so he
    didn't put which photos were shot with which lens on the website.

    Now the photos on the website are cut down from the size of the photos
    on my computer. (The jpeg files are around 4 meg give or take depending
    on the ISO settings, and if a flash is used, and the shutter speed, and
    which mode I shoot in, etc.)

    If I shoot in RAW mode, the file is up over 6 meg. Anyway, take a look
    at those photos. That might give you an idea.

    Also, the Canon 350 has a few more funtions then the Digital Rebel, and
    has a larger file size. Some men complain about the size of the 350's
    body as they are unable to get their hands on it. The women seem to
    like the size of the body.

    Both the Digital Rebel and the 350 are under $1000 U.S. for the kit.
    The body only is less.

    roland
     
    piperut, Oct 19, 2005
    #10
  11. Husky

    Husky Guest

    Don't take the comments wrong. I did check out all the images. Subject and
    cropping are excellent. Maybe I'm just asking too much from a digital camera.
    I've never used a fisheye. So I'll avoid commenting on them since I have no
    idea what a good FI shot should look like. I think they're funny and novelties.
    But hardly of any use to me.

    I saw several actually in focus with good depth of field. the Florida Panther
    in particular was a good shot.
    But the majority were pretty much what I'm getting with this new 5 meg freebie
    digital. There's no sharpness or depth of field to speak of.
    that blue plaque [I assume in Salem], The contrast between the lettering and
    the background of the plaque is nearly non-existent. Maybe that's the way the
    plaque appears in person.

    Who are the Vikings img_1562. Maybe it's what happened posting it to the web
    maybe not. Totally out of focus on the smaller words. Depth of field could have
    sharpened that lettering with a film slr. IIRC I seldom used any ISO lower than
    100. Normally 400-1000 and let the lens and camera do the work.

    I found one web site similar with images, but problem was those images were
    posted by professionals that were selling the cameras. Not a bad or even poor
    shot in the lot.

    A few bad ones of yours would have been a good selling point for the rebel. Are
    you new at digital also and still feeling it out ?

    I shot 19 of the same shot yesterday on a tripod where the only thing that
    changed was the different settings. I think I got one keeper. And that was on a
    tripod.

    I'm trying to find out if all digitals are trash.. I almost got a rebel. But
    figured I really need to see more of what it can do before putting out that
    sort of cash.

    IMG_1859 girl in red and white robe. It's all blurred. Trees are a blur of
    leaves, even the girl isn't as sharp as she should be. I'm not saying you need
    to be able to count the hairs on her arm sharpness. But a little more
    definition to her hands and features would be nice.

    Example: One of my best shots [think it was ISO 32 infra red film] Rear shot of
    a Wood church in South Dakota shipped from England. Woods to the right of it.
    You could see the leaves and grain of the wood from a distance of about 100
    feet. The church itself filled the viewfinder with just a hint of sky and trees
    to the side.

    That's something I hadn't even thought of. Can digitals do infra red ?

    Here's a suggestion you might try, if this is normal for how your shots come
    out.. Go to a photo shop and get a small hand tripod. And a short shutter
    release cable. You can get mechanical, or air release. I used 14 inch
    mechanicals and 20 ft air releases.Those two go a real long way to removing
    hand jiggle. And you don't have to kill yourself jumping the sofa to get into
    the shot b4 the timer misfires at the wrong moment.

    That's assuming the rebel is capable of using a shutter release and hand
    tripod. Actually if the camera can't use a tripod [see my RS spy pen camex],
    it's not worth much and you'll never see good shots. Oh yeah add a small bean
    bag to your toolkit to mount the hand tripod on uneven surfaces.

    Oh the shots on the site are 320x480. You might consider increasing the
    resolution. I'm guessing that's how I got the in focus shot the other day. I
    was using the small size and normal setting, but switched to fine and a larger
    image. 200 blurries aren't what I want if I can get 24 sharp ones.

    If they were resized to 320x480 for the site, that would account for a lot of
    the blur.
    Except for the panther. Possibly the sharpest shot. And nothing changed when I
    resized it to 200x.

    Thanks for the pictures, but if that's normal, I'm real sure I don't want a
    rebel.
     
    Husky, Oct 19, 2005
    #11
  12. Husky

    piperut Guest

    Husky - you are an idiot. Someone posted when you started this thread
    that you are a troll. I think that is correct. You just want to
    inflame people!

    You don't seem to understand much about photography in general, let
    alone digital.
    None of those was cropped, or color corrected. Those are pretty much
    the photos as they come out of the camera. I just downloaded them on
    the road and emailed them to the webmaster so he could post them. If I
    had taken the time to crop them, or color balance them, the might look
    a little better.

    First off, read what I wrote. It is not my site. It is not a photo
    website. It is a website about cruising. The photos are not for photo
    people, they are photos for people to see about cruises.

    Next, you have to realize that the images are cut down. Plaques that
    are out in the weather are going to be weather beaten.

    You really need to do some research on what a camera is capable of.
    Also, you seem to want to inflame people.

    You really don't have an idea what on earth you are talking about.

    Digital has its place. 35mm has its place. Medium format has its
    place. Large format has its place.

    You are not going to shoot infared with digital.

    However, you can throw an cheap digital camera in your pocket and take
    it with you on a hiking trip.

    roland
     
    piperut, Oct 19, 2005
    #12
  13. Husky

    piperut Guest

    is in league with the above person. George Preddy, or one of the other
    Sigma Supporters.

    One of the trolls on the group.

    If they really wanted good photos, I could have pointed them to some
    award winning photos that I shot with the Canon Digital Rebel.
    However, I only pointed them at my recent photos that someone put up on
    a webpage. The result from that was a bit of Canon Bashing.

    So I am in argeement, it is one of the trolls of the group.

    roland
     
    piperut, Oct 19, 2005
    #13
  14. Husky

    Husky Guest

    Sorry you can't take criticism aimed at the camera. I'm trying to find out if
    digital cameras are worth anything. So far they're batting zero.
    If you're going to take credit for those blurry shots that's your problem. I
    assumed it was the slow shutter response attributed to digital cameras or
    possibly shaky hands.

    I'm beginning to think this entire NG is populated with trolls making
    accusations based on single questions.

    I viewed all your images, and appreciated the view. It told me more about the
    rebel than any message threads.

    If you can explain the blur as attributed to you, I'll need more research on
    the Rebel camera.
     
    Husky, Oct 19, 2005
    #14
  15. Husky

    piperut Guest

    I think you need your eyes check, or your monitor adjusted.
    Other then the size of the photos being posted, I have no control over
    that.

    However, I think you are an idiot.
    I also think you are a troll, you just wanted to trash on digital
    cameras.

    roland
     
    piperut, Oct 19, 2005
    #15
  16. Husky

    Gormless Guest

     
    Gormless, Oct 19, 2005
    #16
  17. Husky

    piperut Guest

     
    piperut, Oct 19, 2005
    #17
  18. Husky

    Husky Guest

    Get a grip.. Your post had plenty of value. You threw that out by taking the
    criticism as a personal attack on you.

    Don't bother replying anymore. This thread started out as a waste with the 1st
    reply accusing me of trolling.
     
    Husky, Oct 20, 2005
    #18
  19. Husky

    Husky Guest

    Maybe you should have pointed me to your GOOD pix if you're pimping Canon
    rebel.
     
    Husky, Oct 20, 2005
    #19
  20. Husky

    A. Longor Guest

    Congratulations, you got exactly what you paid for.
     
    A. Longor, Oct 20, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.