Yeah, I’ve already been using the stylus for taking them. I’ve used Open Camera before, possibly more that I just don’t know what settings to change other than locking white balance and setting focus correctly.
Phone camera systems are versatile and good enough for snapshots and social media or even as a lightweight travel camera (especially the latest models with big sensors, quad bayers and pixel binning). And definitely, they are awesome for catching the moment (the best camera is the one that’s with you).
But phone cameras are limited by physics laws. They can’t gather enough light without big lenses and that’s why most modern phones make highly processed photos which never show what you see but what algorithm thinks you see.
Ofc a skilled photographer definitely can take interesting photos with a phone camera. But despite big algorithm improvements (GCAM) and technical improvements (the latest Sony’s IMX888 is something special) professional photographers, artists, and hobbists will choose SLR/DSLR as their main instrument.
A friend, with his first camera, layed in bed for an hour and just took pictures of his spinning ceiling fan, reviewing the results on the little screen. He would change one setting and snap another picture. I always found this to be a pretty easy way to see how different settings change the picture.
It sounds like there are some good photographers here, do you want a quick primer? Im sure these guys could give a quick summary of shutter speed, iso, white balance, etc.
1 Thank
Camera choice depends on the end result expected. For Web sites even a 4mp camera can produce excellent results. The key is proper framing.
Having a zillion Mp is nice because you can crop the the image like crazy and still have enough detail to work with.
Here is an old thread discussing image size.
The consensus seemed to be that 1600 pixel width was good for most images for the BLF.
Having a macro/micro capable lens is helpful for grabbing shots of flashlight parts.
With a higher Mp sensor cropping in can give a closeup view w/o giving away too much detail.
The early days of digital 6-10mp camera images were showing up in major magazines photos.
Price wise - a used DSLR body for less than $200 and a used kit lens or a used Macro for about the same price is all that’s needed for Web images.
Add a tripod for capturing beam shots.
Fix the white balance, then figure out what aperture, shutter speed, and ISO you need to get the results you like.
I have found that getting good beam shots to be remarkably hard to do.
Then get some cheap lighting for getting shots of flashlight sized thingies.
Lugging the thing around is another matter entirely…
All the Best,
Jeff
Fixed that for you.
Anyway, looking at cameras has made me want to get an ELPH 360 HS, since it’s the last model Canon made before giving up. It’d be a nice upgrade from my 110 HS. I’ve had the old camera in my purse for over a decade and have taken nearly 20,000 pictures with it… so I’d probably get a lot of use from a newer one too.
4 Thanks
I knew this, i am sorry.
That ELPH HS 360 is a solid option for a point and shoot. I prefer the older sensors, like the CCD from the old S95, but noise is a major issue on those older ones.
Interested in why you think it’s the last good model before Canon lost its way. I’m not really much for Canon, but always interested in why people shoot what they do.
It’s not that Canon lost its way… it’s that Canon literally stopped making that entire category of camera. The whole product line has been discontinued for 6 years, and not replaced by anything similar. The 360 HS was the last model, the final successor to the camera I’ve been using.
1 Thank
Ah, well that makes a lot more sense. Yeah, they don’t really do super compact stuff anymore these days, barring the PowerShot G9X series. It’s not bad, but it’s not quite the same thing.
I have a Kodak digicam. I bought a tripod for it and everything but don’t really use it. My iPhone is my camera nowadays.
TK,
Your POST about the 360 had me looking at pocket P&S cameras. The 360 has some impressive specs for a pocket cam. Like the 25-300 zoom, the close focus, and Macro capabilities.
Looks like the phone has killed off the format.
I did see that BHPhoto still lists the canon with a “temporarily out of stock” for inventory.
With one of the flavors expected in 3-5 weeks, at $299.
You might want to put one on back order - just in case Canon has a few more to ship.
They seem to be out of stock - for new ones - most other places.
All the Best,
Jeff
Generally I use Aperture mode for most of my regular pics, unless I’m doing something fancy/need long exposure…
https://azj.dyndns.org/lychee/uploads/big/94916da7a76ee05fa7f3cb04e26793f0.jpg
…so for these other shots I use shutter mode/priority
https://azj.dyndns.org/lychee/uploads/big/64ef2234099508c3d815aa232d750e10.jpg
https://azj.dyndns.org/lychee/uploads/medium/55fdf8af6ed1b8d753538747ddaff6d8.jpg
1 Thank
Astro can be fun, but trying to take into account the rule of 500 and balancing reciprocity failure for film stocks gets tricky.
Definitely interested. I know WB and speed, but slightly unsure as to how ISO and speed interact, and in general I find it hard to get every setting balanced at once.
I will do my best but im a novice on this.
ISO is how sensitive the sensor is. A higher number makes it more sensitive, but it also increases noise. All other settings being the same use a higher iso for darker conditions. That said, always stay as LOW as possible for any given shot, imo only incease this as the last step to fit your other settings.
Shutter speed is how fast the image is taken. A short shutter is good for fast motion (less bluring) but lets in less light. A long shutter lets in more light but is more likely to get blurring or a soft photo due to target or camera motion.
Aperature is how big the opening that lets in light is. Aperature size also affects depth of field (will the background be in focus or blurred). Get it right and you can have a very very narrow region of depth (distance from camera) that is very tightly focused and everything closer or further away is more or less out of focus. Smaller numbers give more light but have a mpre narrow region of focus, bigger numbers let in less light but have a bigger region in focus. Every whole number increase cuts the amount of light in half.
So, want to do sports photography, indoors, in a somewhat poorly lit field and you want everyone in focus? Small shutter speed to prevent blurring, big aperature to get more depth of field, and both of those means very little light so you have to increase iso and suffer the noise in order to get a photo.
On the other hand, outdoors on a bright day taking portraits? Now you have a ton of options and will have to balance aperature and shutter speed to get the right photo, and hopefully your iso can go LOW enough.
Then throw in the oddballs. Want to do a 30 MINUTE exposure of a brightly lit place? Now you might need to get a filter to cut out light so you can get a proper photo.
To add to this.
Aside from the previously mentioed sensor size (bigger being better) the flexibility a “real” camera offers is also a big deal. Photography is about framing, and then balancing light to accomplish that. In a real camera with interchangable lenses you can also tailor the lens to the situation, and not just zoom. Big glass, small glass, different aperatures (a lens determines available aperature), primes, etc all have different uses. You may want to use one lens and crop out megapixels because it has the right dof, but lacks enough zoom. Or maybe a prime lens for the tightest focus you can have. Etc. Things like phones lack these feature, and even “point and shoot” cameras often offer more flexibility.
As an example, although i love my s23 ultra i find the fixed aperature make my efforts in photogrammetry difficult. A “real” camera would let me chose a lens and setting better suited to the deep dof i could use, right now im limited (even if it has a ton of mp, also very important to photogrammetry)
1 Thank
Snoman covered it well.
ISO is, very simplistically, a measure of the gain (or amplification) applied to the data acquired from the sensor.
In the days of film higher ISO or ASA film was more sensitive to light.
Each time the ISO is doubled, the “sensitivity” is increased 1 stop.
IE. A proper exposure at ISO 100 at 1/250s is the same as ISO 200 at 1/500 s.
At ISO 400, a 1/1000s exposure needed.
So if a faster shutter or smaller f/stop is needed for a given lighting condition, increasing the ISO will get you there.
BUT along with the signal, noise is also amplified.
So at some point increasing the ISO will start to degrade the image from excess noise.
The newer DSLRs are quite good at ISOs that a few years ago would be noisy as all get out.
f/Stop controls the size of the aperture on the lens. The larger the number - the smaller the aperture. Backwards logically.
f/2 big opening, f/16 small aperture.
The smaller the aperture, the greater depth of field the lens will have in focus.
Large aperture, say f/2 will blur the foreground and background. Very popular for portrait work where the face is the point of interest.
f/16 will extend the “in focus” zone both closer and beyond the main subject. Like for landscape where you want see the close stuff and the distant horizon.
DPReview – whilst being a shill for Amazon (till they dropped them) is still a huge source of photo info.
All the Best,
Jeff
1 Thank
Despite being a legacy thing from film cameras which is effectively imaginary on digital cameras, ISO remains one of the most useful settings to tweak for better photos. The user can’t put in film of different levels of sensitivity, so instead it just applies different gamma curves in post, to brighten or darken images.
Higher ISO = shorter exposures = less blurry. However, it also means less dynamic range between the brightest pixel and the noise floor, so images have more noise and grain. Like, if ISO 100 gives 10 bits of resolution per channel, then ISO 200 gives 9 bits, ISO 400 gives 8 bits, ISO 800 gives 7 bits, etc. And the bottom ~2 bits are noise, so the usable resolution would be 8, 7, 6, and 5 bits.
Basically, ISO is the knob to tweak when you need to balance blur vs grain. Lower ISO = smoother but more blurry, higher ISO = sharper but more grain / noise.
As with any analog recording system, gain staging has a huge impact on quality. If things are out of whack anywhere in the signal chain, it’ll give bad results.
My D7k goes way up to stoopit-high ISOs (6400 “ceiling” but 25600 “turbo”, in flashlightspeak), but I don’t like the graininess when zoomed in.
I tend to just leave it at 400 unless I need more shutter-speed when wide open. I’d much rather collect more light with more glass than end up with a grainy pic.
Exceptions are night shots when I know I’ll need as much help as possible, and bumping the ISO is pretty much my last resort…
A while ago I bought a used Canon 5D 4 with a 50mm lens.
Turns out it was a 50mm f/1.0 !
A hunk of glass from yesteryear. One of the unicorn lenses.
Wide open the depth of field is measured in inches close up.
Fun to play with, not much fun to carry.
About the same size as an 85mm f/1.4
My fave is my Nikon D7200 with the 40mm macro. Just love that combo.
Wicked sharp.
Also have a 120mm f/2.8 from like 1967 that still holds it’s own on the 7200. Had to file the notch in the aperture ring to get it to meter and auto stop down.
Amazing that Nikon lenses from that long ago can still be used with a select few modern bodies.
All the Best,
Jeff
Noice! If ever I got my grubbly little paws on a Noct, I’d FIND shiite to shoot with it.
And yeh, I got a few “antiques” that are pretty much manual like my f/1.2 that has the separate focus-guides for infrared as well as visible, but they all work.
That was one of the underlying mandates Nikon came up with ages ago, that while new features (eg, built-in autofocus) might come out, they largely still need to be backwards-compatible with older hardware.
So my f/1.2 will focus (screw-drive) with my D7k, but I’d need to manually focus on my D3k (electronic AF only).