Just got the new camera!!

[bosco0633]

So my camera was purolated to me yesterday.  It was a nice gift after getting the snip.  

My question is for Cola or any other members that are camera smart.  I purchased a scan disk ultra 2, 2 gig memory card.  I got a great deal.  Any ways, I was flipping through the options and I see that I can change the image sizes which allows for more pictures to be stored.  

I have a 7.1mp camera .  Canon SD800IS.  I have the options of the following sizes plus wide screen, post card etc.  The following are specific sizes.  

3072x2304
2592x1944
2048x1536
1600x1200
640x480

Now I understand that the 3072x2304 is great quality, it allows for approx 650 pictures on 2gigs.  Do I really need pictures at this quality for 5x7s at the largest that I will print?

What setting would you all recommend for everyday use?

[neocacher]

No, you dont need to use the highest setting to print 5x7's..  You could use the middle setting.  However , because you can store pictures on your hard drives or make dvd's that can store 1000's of pictures, and because you can delete pictures from the card, you really should consider using the highest setting.

The MAIN reason for using the highest setting is for CROPPING small areas of your raw photos, and then turning them into 4x6 or 5x7 prints.

Then you will appreciate every one of those 7.1 million pixels!  If you crop and use a lower setting, they will look pixelated.  Try some tests and you will see the difference!

Neo in S. Dakota

[galen]

Bosco, for every day use, I would use the lowest setting. If you want to take a portrait then use the higher settings. Cropping just gets rid of unwanted junk around the edges. Pixelation comes from making a small pixel image larger, thus exploding the pixels to cover more area. Resulting in surrogated edges on the lines in the image. Like neo suggested, go out and take lots of pictures on only one setting, then the next time you go out change to the next setting. You will soon find what your comfortable with.

[Vinny]

Bosco,

You probably know where I'm going to go with this ...


You bought a 7.1 M pixel camera and you should use all 7.1 M pixels!!! The more pixels you use the sharper the image will be. I will assume that every time you tell the camera to have a lower resolution that it turns off some of the receptors in the lens.

As I have said before, I'm an old camera buff and even used slide film back in the day to get the sharpest possible photos. I believe that in order for a photo to be great - everything needs to be great. I have a 4.2 M pixel point and shoot digital but it doesn't take nearly the same quality photos as my 35mm SLR but it's good for point and shoot.

650 photos are a lot of photos and when you think about removing the ones you don't like, you'll have 650 that you want not 620 bad and 30 great. The other thing is getting them downloaded onto the computer or burning them onto a dvd - you start waiting a long time to download when you get to 70 pictures let alone 200.

I vote to keep the 7.1 M pixels and enjoy the camera for what it is!

[Mendocino101]

did know there were some camera buffs here....I just got the new Pentex k10D....anyone know anything about it....

[Vinny]

It's a 10.1 M pixel SLR ... nice!

Depending on what your using it for a couple of lenses are needed. I personally like zoom lenses - a 28 mm to 105 mm - this is great for family gatherings, you can stand in one place and get the whole family or just a few depending on the mm you choose. It's also great for landscape shots too. And a longer range lense like a 205 mm to 400 mm lense great for taking shots of longer distance items. The only problem with a lense at 28 mm is the flash may not cover the entire area that you're trying to take.

I recently took out my SLR and used a 205 mm lense for taking pictures of my son in the High School Marching Unit ... wasn't close enough. I have a 2x multiplier on my lense and got it to 410 mm ... I haven't developed the film yet to see how close it really is.

SLRs are great! I'm hoping that when the time comes for me to graduate to a new camera (may never happen) I can get a SLR with the style of lense mount that I have for my old camera. Of course things have changed since I bought my camera ... everything is automatic and I think the lenses are different.

My advice also would be to buy what you need/want soon, just in case things change and you can't get it in a few years.

Enjoy!

[galen]

Vinny, I found when using my 2x multiplier, it knocks down the light entering the lens. If you compensate for that you will take great pictures. It has little effect on nice bright sunny days.

[Vinny]

Thanks!

My camera & lenses are over 15 years old and I used them back then but never used the 2x multiplier. Just recently I broke out my SLR and started taking pictures with it. My youngest got into taking photos with it a lot and was enjoying snapping away.

If I ever have some extra money I may buy a digital SLR but my main photo taking enjoyment is nature WITHOUT PEOPLE and I stopped using my SLR because everywhere I went it became expected that I take photos, I bought my wife point and shoot cameras for that reason.

[galen]

The very same thing here Vinny. I have a great SLR in the closet. Had it 20 years, still takes great pictures. Some day people will look at that camera and laugh. Maybe now

[neocacher]

Canon and Nikon are the 2 top leaders in digital SLR cameras.  You can purchase them starting at about $700-1000.00 with a basic lens.  I purchased my Canon digital SLR at Best Buy about a year ago.  Sometimes they have coupons or sales for 10-12% off.  Over the last year I have purchased accessory lenses to do my nature photography.

All Canon EOS lenses will fit on the newest Canon digital SLR models.

I think the same goes with Nikon.

I haven't done any hot tub photography with it yet. I need to find some suitable (or UN- suitable , pun intended) models!

Merry Christmas to you and yours!

Neo

[Vinny]

Thanks Neo.

But at $700 + I won't be buying a SLR anytime soon. My camera is a Nikon FE and the only reason I bought it was because my girlfriend (now my wife) is not into taking pictures and that was as point and shoot as I wanted. Now that I wrote this, my camera is over 27 years old as I am married 26 years and I guess the lenses are probably more like 25 years old ... boy how time flies. And then I would have to buy lenses, I don't think my non automatic lenses will fit.

This was way before all the automatic cameras that came into being. Mine is an aperature priority system and I really wanted to buy a Nikon F2AS back then but my wife would have never known how to use it.  I have a camera bag full of goodies but my Vivitar flash broke and now I only take outdoor shots.

Back then was a time when you needed to really know something to take great shots. 8-)

Now everybody can take great shots!

[tuggnet]

Vinny, I found when using my 2x multiplier, it knocks down the light entering the lens. If you compensate for that you will take great pictures. It has little effect on nice bright sunny days.

You are correct.  Using a 2x teleconverter will reduce your exposure by 2 full stops of light.  Depending on your camera and lens, you may lose auto focus.

A 1.4x teleconverter is a MUCH better choice if you must use one.  (you only lose one stop of light)

I have used a 2x on my 70-400mm 2.8L exactly once.  The image degradation quite noticeable.

Oh, and IMO, unless you're a pro and nail the white balance  and exposure every time, you should be shooting RAW.  Skip the JPEG all together.

Just my $0.02

-et

[Vinny]

You are correct.  Using a 2x teleconverter will reduce your exposure by 2 full stops of light.  Depending on your camera and lens, you may lose auto focus.

A 1.4x teleconverter is a MUCH better choice if you must use one.  (you only lose one stop of light)

I have used a 2x on my 70-400mm 2.8L exactly once.  The image degradation quite noticeable.

Oh, and IMO, unless you're a pro and nail the white balance  and exposure every time, you should be shooting RAW.  Skip the JPEG all together.

Just my $0.02

-et

I thought as I was looking through the viewfinder, the light was reduced by 1 shutter speed (125 vs 250), maybe different lense configurations have different losses. Of course until I get the film developed I won't know how they came out and 20 years ago I had 20/20 vision so a bad image now may have been caused by me!

When I purchased the lenses they came with the 2x matched multiplier ... it was advertised as a matched set with no degrading of image ... I was younger then and believed that a company can't lie ... well I've grown up! My lenses are Vivitar which back then were the best bang for the buck, of course if someone would have given me Nikon lenses I wouldn't have refused.

What do you mean with the term "RAW". Never heard of it before - is it a digital photo term? As far as white balance, it's thrown off by various lighting with the most even lighting being an overcast day. One of the aspects that I think digital has over film is the ability to correct for "problems" such as lighting. Of course you can also correct film but not at an one hour photo place ... I used to pay a fortune to get slides developed correctly into pictures.

[anne]

RAW:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/RAW_01.htm

I liked this site for information and reviews when I was camera shopping last year.

[Vinny]

Thanks anne!

I guess it's something in higher end digital cameras, I don't think my point and shoot is affected.

Never had to worry about this in film ... of course we had other things.