Important considerations besides megapixels?

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:35:38 -0500, tony cooper wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:03:12 -0800 (PST), Doc <docsavage20 RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I'm looking for a first digital still camera.
>
>>Features I *think* I want are manual focus ability
>
> I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about a digital P&S that has
> manual focus as an option. That feature is - as far as I know - found
> only on digital SLRs.

My Kodak P850 has full manual settings. Also has ability to save jpeg,
tiff and raw. As far as I can tell it has nearly all the features of a
DSLR except the ability to swap lenses. Not claiming it is of the same
overall quality as a top of the line DSLR - just that it has the
features. It is an EVF P&S with 12x zoom lens.

>
> A digital SLR is much above your stated price range.
>
> What would rule out using a 35mm film SLR? You can have film developed
> direct to CD in .jpg format and convert the .jpgs to .psd or .tiff
> before making any editing changes.
>
> A used 35mm SLR (film) is well within your price range.
>
> However, you've not given any reason that manual focus should be a
> requirement. I don't think that a basic digital P&S, used with a tripod
> or copy stand, would cause a problem because of lack of focus ability.
> The key is to shoot straight at the page - vertically or horizontally -
> from the same distance for each page. The tripod or copy stand would
> allow this.
>
> Megapixels should not be a consideration. Just about any new P&S would
> be sufficient unless you're going to make billboard-sized enlargements.
> Megapixels factor in to how many pictures you can take on an SD card,
> but in the job you've described that's not a problem. You just upload as
> frequently as needed.
>
> When asking for this type of advice, you need to state what you will be
> doing, what features you think you want, and *why* you think those
> features will be important to you. A more detailed description of the
> project is really necessary to know to give good advice.
>
>> and ability to
>>do .bmp or .tiff, not just jpeg unless someone convinces me it's not
>>important. I've got software to convert to .jpg if needed. I don't have
>>any need for video capabilities.
>>
>>Like everyone else, I'm looking to get some decent bang for as little
>>buck as possible. I'm not too proud to go the used on eBay route. I
>>don't have any plans to do it professionally. It would be great if I
>>could stay under $150 - $200. I'd be ecstatic if I could stay under
>>$100.
>>
>>All input including specific brand/model suggestions are appreciated,
>>including any "surprisingly good for a cheapo camera" models.
>>
>>Thanks
 >> Stay informed about: Important considerations besides megapixels? 

On 15 Feb 2008 03:48:11 GMT, ray <ray.DeleteThis@zianet.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:35:38 -0500, tony cooper wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:03:12 -0800 (PST), Doc <docsavage20.DeleteThis@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm looking for a first digital still camera.
>>
>>>Features I *think* I want are manual focus ability
>>
>> I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about a digital P&S that has
>> manual focus as an option. That feature is - as far as I know - found
>> only on digital SLRs.
>
>My Kodak P850 has full manual settings. Also has ability to save jpeg,
>tiff and raw. As far as I can tell it has nearly all the features of a
>DSLR except the ability to swap lenses. Not claiming it is of the same
>overall quality as a top of the line DSLR - just that it has the
>features. It is an EVF P&S with 12x zoom lens.

This page:
http://www.pacificgeek.com/product.asp?c=222&s=965&ID=43194&P=F
says it's a hybrid AF with 25 selectable points of focus, not "full
manual". I'm not sure that this would be any better for
photographing "large print" than any automatic setting. For that
matter, I don't see how "full manual" would be any better.

Basically, as I understand the OP's project, he's photographing a book
or a sheet of paper. Flat surface.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 >> Stay informed about: Important considerations besides megapixels? 

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:07:14 -0800, Frank ess <frank.DeleteThis@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
>
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <nit9r35agvh638it8ef7c2tmdmc6ip6c1e.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>> <tony_cooper213.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about a digital P&S that has
>>> manual focus as an option. That feature is - as far as I know -
>>> found only on digital SLRs.
>>
>> quite a few p/s cameras have manual focus.
>
> ... in the sense that there is a button or series of moves that allow
> the user to pick a focus range or point rather than leaving it to a
> distance sensor and servo.
>
> In the sense that dSLR users can grip some part of a lens and crank to
> focus, not so often.

There are a few. The Panasonic FZ30/50 comes to mind, and I think Fuji
has some models with focus rings. There are probably others that I'm not
thinking of.

Not the most common feature in the world, but it does exist.

-dms
 >> Stay informed about: Important considerations besides megapixels? 

On Feb 14, 6:03 pm, Doc <docsavag... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm looking for a first digital still camera. My experience with
> digital so far is a Sony Digital8 Handycam and a lower end Canon Pro
> mini-dv cam but no experience with digital still cams. My immediate
> intended purpose is to take pics of some large print items that are
> too large to fit on a scanner and want some decent quality for
> archiving. My digital camcorder takes stills after a fashion but the
> quality is marginal at best.
>
> I get that megapixels is supposed to be an indicator of quality, but
> what else is there to consider? Is an older but higher quality for
> it's day cam with a lower megapixel spec better than a newer, but low-
> end cam with a higher mp spec?
>
> Features I *think* I want are manual focus ability and ability to
> do .bmp or .tiff, not just jpeg unless someone convinces me it's not
> important. I've got software to convert to .jpg if needed. I don't
> have any need for video capabilities.
>
> Like everyone else, I'm looking to get some decent bang for as little
> buck as possible. I'm not too proud to go the used on eBay route. I
> don't have any plans to do it professionally. It would be great if I
> could stay under $150 - $200. I'd be ecstatic if I could stay under
> $100.
>
> All input including specific brand/model suggestions are appreciated,
> including any "surprisingly good for a cheapo camera" models.
>
> Thanks

Many cameras, including reasonably priced P&S, while saving in jpeg,
do allow you to select the amount of compression used in the
compression. If you use the highest or finest compression setting,
there is very little degradation. About the only other option these
days is to look for a camera that allows saving in RAW, which most
lower priced P&S do not do.

Other important quality factors in addition to resolution are dynamic
range or signal/noise, which ultimately reduce to the same thing, and
lens optical quality. High resolution is wasted by a bad lens.
 >> Stay informed about: Important considerations besides megapixels? 

Doc wrote:
> I'm looking for a first digital still camera. My experience with
> digital so far is a Sony Digital8 Handycam and a lower end Canon Pro
> mini-dv cam but no experience with digital still cams. My immediate
> intended purpose is to take pics of some large print items that are
> too large to fit on a scanner and want some decent quality for
> archiving. My digital camcorder takes stills after a fashion but the
> quality is marginal at best.
[]
> Like everyone else, I'm looking to get some decent bang for as little
> buck as possible. I'm not too proud to go the used on eBay route. I
> don't have any plans to do it professionally. It would be great if I
> could stay under $150 - $200. I'd be ecstatic if I could stay under
> $100.
>
> All input including specific brand/model suggestions are appreciated,
> including any "surprisingly good for a cheapo camera" models.
>
> Thanks

Doc,

I would look at lens quality if you are taking for archiving. Depending
on the resolution which is acceptable to you, I would look for a 5-6-7MP
small-sensor camera (not more pixels), with a limited zoom range - 3:1
maximum (as more zoom range usually means more lens distortion). Check
the models here:

http://www.dpreview.com

As Charles mentioned, you could combine multiple images from your scanner.
This would most likely give far better quality that a small-sensor (i.e.
non-DSLR) camera.

For a best quality job, you probably need a DSLR and macro lens, but
that's possibly nearer $1000 than $100. Another alternative, with good
lens performance, might be the Sony DSC-R1:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyDSCR1/page18.asp

which has a large sensor but without the interchangeable lenses of the
DSLR.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Important considerations besides megapixels? 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:30:44 -0800 (PST), Doc <docsavage20 DeleteThis @yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 14, 11:46 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper... DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> You mention hook up directly to the computer.  You either insert an SD
>> card or USB cable into the computer with digital, or insert a CD or
>> DVD with film.  
>
>Where I can hook up the camera directly to the computer, instead of
>waiting for a photo lab to process the prints and transfer to optical
>media, which I can do myself and have immediate.

OK. That's one of the biggest pluses for digital as far as I'm
concerned. I can take a picture and immediately know if I'm satisfied
with it or need to take another.
>
>> I don't know what you mean by "archiving".  Are you concerned that the
>> data will deteriorate over time?  Or are you concerned that detail in
>> the image will not be captured?  "Large print" is not something where
>> large files are of much use.
>
>Archiving - storing on optical media.

Yes, I know what "archiving" means. What I was asking is what
"archiving" means to you and what you think would affect archival
quality. For example, there is no difference between a .jpg and a
..tiff in the archival sense of deterioration if the image is never
edited in any way.
>
>> Look...if you don't want to describe the project in detail, that's
>> your business.  You'll get better information if you do, though.
>
>Things like photographic collages, drawings, etc. that are too large
>to do on a scanner.

That's completely different from your original post. The term "large
print" led me to believe that you are photographing pages of type in a
large font. "Large prints" - note how the "s" changes the word -
means something completely different. I have some studio family
portraits that are "large prints" and cannot be scanned completely.

I'd replicate those by photographing them. I *can* scan in pieces and
merge with Adobe's Photoshop, but I don't have the impression that you
have this program.

> I've tried doing them in sections on the scanner
>but getting the pieces to match up never seems to work well. So, I'd
>like to get "closer" to scanned quality than I can get with the stills
>my video camcorder does. "Closer" being a subjective term that will
>be determined by whatever quality/price ratio I can achieve. I assume
>any older 2-3mp P&S will do a better job than my Digital8 camcorder.
>Now, I'm wondering if I can get a substantial jump in quality beyond
>that without spending a lot more money by doing some investigation/
>self education (posting on here being part of the process) and
>shopping around.

The camera make and model will be almost incidental to the process.
The key to photographing large prints is in lighting and positioning
of the camera. You'll need good lighting and a camera setting
balanced to the color temperature of the light, so the one feature
you'll be looking for in a camera is one with white balance settings.

You'll need diffused lighting or a bounced lighting set-up so the
print - especially a glossy print - does not show high spots or
reflections from the light source. Uniform lighting will be
important. Never use the camera's flash.

You'll need a tripod that positions your camera exactly perpendicular
to the subject and positioned in the center of the subject to avoid
distortion. You can shoot hand-held, but the results are not usually
consistent. The best way is to pin the subject to a wall and shoot
horizontally. Placing the subject on the floor and shooting down is
the worst way unless you have a horizontal extender on the tripod.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 >> Stay informed about: Important considerations besides megapixels? 

Doc wrote:
> I'm looking for a first digital still camera. My experience with
> digital so far is a Sony Digital8 Handycam and a lower end Canon Pro
> mini-dv cam but no experience with digital still cams. My immediate
> intended purpose is to take pics of some large print items that are
> too large to fit on a scanner and want some decent quality for
> archiving. My digital camcorder takes stills after a fashion but the
> quality is marginal at best.
>
> I get that megapixels is supposed to be an indicator of quality

Not really, not anymore.

Anything over 6 Mp will serve most non-specialised purposes,
and there's hardly a camera on the market that
doesn't have 6 or more Mp.

Even cameraphones have up to 5 Mp these days.

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: Important considerations besides megapixels? 

Charles wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:03:12 -0800 (PST), Doc <docsavage20 DeleteThis @yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for a first digital still camera. My experience with
>> digital so far is a Sony Digital8 Handycam and a lower end Canon Pro
>> mini-dv cam but no experience with digital still cams. My immediate
>> intended purpose is to take pics of some large print items that are
>> too large to fit on a scanner and want some decent quality for
>> archiving. >> Thanks
>
>
> How about scanning it in chunks then using pano software to join the
> parts.

Yep; that works. I did it as a trial. Some testing and set up of
a convenient workflow would be required.

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: Important considerations besides megapixels? 

Doc wrote:
> On Feb 15, 1:33 am, Charles <ckr....RemoveThis@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
>
>> How about scanning it in chunks then using pano software to join the
>> parts.
>
>
> Never seems to work out well. There seem to be issus with parallax -
> the elements in the image not quite matching up, and matching up
> contrast and brightness.

Try AutoStitch:

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html

You may want the planar (rectilinear) projection available in paid-for
versions like AutoPano Pro.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Important considerations besides megapixels? 

Doc wrote:
[]
> I was under the impression that .tiff is the same thing as raw.
> Someone at a photo shop that's supposed to have a good reputation told
> me it and then .bmp were the highest possible data formats. No?

No. Raw data is straight from the sensor, and requires further processing
to produce an image. Of the direct image formats, the JPEG typically used
is slightly lossy, but on most cameras you can set the compression level
to "high-quality" where the files are larger, the compression less, and
the quality may be quite adequate for your needs.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Important considerations besides megapixels? 

In message
<f0d0ee6c-22f9-4ff2-9f39-4efe36123848.TakeThisOut@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Doc
<docsavage20.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Things like photographic collages, drawings, etc. that are too large
>to do on a scanner.

There are large flatbed scanners available on the market; consumer
units limit out at about A3 (12" x 18") though. Typical models include
the Mustek Paragon 3600 and the Plustek OpticPro A3I.

You might also want to have a look at professional scanning services
that could do your scanning for you, if it's a one-off job or small run.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
 >> Stay informed about: Important considerations besides megapixels? 

David J Taylor wrote:
> Doc wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 1:33 am, Charles <ckr....DeleteThis@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
>>
>>> How about scanning it in chunks then using pano software to join the
>>> parts.
>>
>> Never seems to work out well. There seem to be issus with parallax -
>> the elements in the image not quite matching up, and matching up
>> contrast and brightness.
>
> Try AutoStitch:
>
> http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html
>
> You may want the planar (rectilinear) projection available in paid-for
> versions like AutoPano Pro.

Hugin can do this, and is free. It has a "learning curve" though.

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: Important considerations besides megapixels? 

bugbear wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> Try AutoStitch:
>>
>> http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html
>>
>> You may want the planar (rectilinear) projection available in
>> paid-for versions like AutoPano Pro.
>
> Hugin can do this, and is free. It has a "learning curve" though.
>
> BugBear

BugBear,

I've been through a variety of tools over the years - Panorama Tools,
PTgui and so forth, some with the pain of setting control points and so
forth. I can safely say that I have never been more productive, though,
than with the present generation of automated programs such as the
AutoStitch and AutoPano Pro programs I now use.

For my purposes, they are the best. Zero learning curve. In a way this
surprises me, because I am a fairly technical person who is not put off by
the presence of lists of control points, but somehow the ability just to
drag a few files, choose the projection, and press Make Pano is much more
appealing. I'm probably not prepared to devote a lot of time to
processing a picture these days.

Good to hear about the free alternatives, though.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Important considerations besides megapixels?