Comments on: Better shooting with a cheaper, older camera http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/ Same old blog, brand new place Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:31:04 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Stephen Lewis http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/comment-page-1/#comment-378 Stephen Lewis Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:33:59 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/#comment-378 D. A few thoughts on this. The Canon gives you more margin for control but in turn leaves you more margin for error. Also, your Canon SLR's sensor and software optimized to yield images for input to photoshop for further work; the Coolpix is optimized for good snapshots directly. Also, Nikon seems to go for a more color-saturated look from its software and sensors than Canon does. There is also a cultural factor (Europeans tend to lack low color saturation; Americans, high saturation). Last, don't make the megapixel mistake. Megapixels are about print size only and have nothing to do with quality (to the contrary, on small sensor cameras, the more megapixels, the tiny the pixels and the greater the chance of noise and other aberrations). S. PS. One comment above shows the laziness of many people in the digital world -- as to right place and time vs. figurative "hasselblad," some of us spent years and years learning by experience how to both be in the right place at the right time AND use our complex heavy manual cameras! The more complex the tool the less chance of it working right out of the box! D. A few thoughts on this. The Canon gives you more margin for control but in turn leaves you more margin for error. Also, your Canon SLR’s sensor and software optimized to yield images for input to photoshop for further work; the Coolpix is optimized for good snapshots directly. Also, Nikon seems to go for a more color-saturated look from its software and sensors than Canon does. There is also a cultural factor (Europeans tend to lack low color saturation; Americans, high saturation). Last, don’t make the megapixel mistake. Megapixels are about print size only and have nothing to do with quality (to the contrary, on small sensor cameras, the more megapixels, the tiny the pixels and the greater the chance of noise and other aberrations). S. PS. One comment above shows the laziness of many people in the digital world — as to right place and time vs. figurative “hasselblad,” some of us spent years and years learning by experience how to both be in the right place at the right time AND use our complex heavy manual cameras! The more complex the tool the less chance of it working right out of the box!

]]> By: Leading http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/comment-page-1/#comment-290 Leading Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:27:29 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/#comment-290 Looks wonderful! Reminds me of tropical sunset. Looks wonderful! Reminds me of tropical sunset.

]]> By: Doc Searls http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/comment-page-1/#comment-241 Doc Searls Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:59:56 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/#comment-241 Randy, I'm with ya on the Lumix advantage. The Coolpix wasn't inconspicuous, but it had a flip-out viewer that made it easy to shoot candids, and often from angles that didn't freak the subjects. I miss that with the SLR. Jim, I not only post-process, but also increase saturation on the shooting end. Still, doesn't compare. The Nikon's are richer. That said, before I bought the 30D I moved the same CF card through the backplanes of many cameras, including the Nikon D200, shot lots of stuff, especially human beings. Then I went home and threw away all but the pictures with the best automatic white balance and flesh-tone color on human faces. I was left only with shots from the 30D and the 5D. Both also beat the crap out of everything else at ISO 800 and up. Those aurora shots I got would not have been nearly as good with a Nikon, I'm sure. So, whatever. Perfectionists are never happy. Which causes a lot of good stuff to happen, too. Randy, I’m with ya on the Lumix advantage. The Coolpix wasn’t inconspicuous, but it had a flip-out viewer that made it easy to shoot candids, and often from angles that didn’t freak the subjects. I miss that with the SLR.

Jim, I not only post-process, but also increase saturation on the shooting end. Still, doesn’t compare. The Nikon’s are richer.

That said, before I bought the 30D I moved the same CF card through the backplanes of many cameras, including the Nikon D200, shot lots of stuff, especially human beings. Then I went home and threw away all but the pictures with the best automatic white balance and flesh-tone color on human faces. I was left only with shots from the 30D and the 5D. Both also beat the crap out of everything else at ISO 800 and up. Those aurora shots I got would not have been nearly as good with a Nikon, I’m sure.

So, whatever. Perfectionists are never happy. Which causes a lot of good stuff to happen, too.

]]> By: Jim Thompson http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/comment-page-1/#comment-226 Jim Thompson Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:58:24 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/#comment-226 If you miss the over-saturation of your CoolPix, the answer is to post-process in software. Or, sell me your 30D cheap. I could use something to bang up when the environment is wrong for my 5D. (heh heh) If you miss the over-saturation of your CoolPix, the answer is to post-process in software.

Or, sell me your 30D cheap. I could use something to bang up when the environment is wrong for my 5D. (heh heh)

]]> By: Doc Searls http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/comment-page-1/#comment-225 Doc Searls Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:02:37 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/#comment-225 Jackie, I don't have any experience with Nikon digital gear other than the Coolpix 5700, and the occasional D70 or something like that. So I have nothing to say, really, about the newer Coolpix cameras. What's the model number for your camera? As for blurry photos, that's a common problem when shooting subjects that are outside the focus point. The most typical example is shooting two people facing the camera. The people come out blurry because the camera focuses on something distant between them. The trick there is to focus on the subject, hold the focus (different cameras have different ways of doing this), recompose and shoot. Jackie, I don’t have any experience with Nikon digital gear other than the Coolpix 5700, and the occasional D70 or something like that. So I have nothing to say, really, about the newer Coolpix cameras.

What’s the model number for your camera?

As for blurry photos, that’s a common problem when shooting subjects that are outside the focus point. The most typical example is shooting two people facing the camera. The people come out blurry because the camera focuses on something distant between them. The trick there is to focus on the subject, hold the focus (different cameras have different ways of doing this), recompose and shoot.

]]> By: Sean Reiser http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/comment-page-1/#comment-223 Sean Reiser Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:47:31 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/#comment-223 That is a fantastic shot, Doc! That is a fantastic shot, Doc!

]]> By: fensterm http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/comment-page-1/#comment-220 fensterm Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:47:10 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/#comment-220 I've used a series of point-and-shoot cameras for a few years. I finally caved in to the pressure and bought from among Philip Greenspun's recommendations. <a href="http://philip.greenspun.com/photography/building-a-digital-slr-system" rel="nofollow">An attempt to embed the appropriate link.</a> My Canon Rebel XT with Sigma lenses is 20 times more expensive than my Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ2. Only in special circumstances is it 20 times better.* My Pany fits on my belt, goes with me all the time, and doesn't make people nervous. My XT requires I wear a vest to carry the lenses [I don't own a car or a helicopter] and it puts people on their guard - even with no lens mounted. As Philip points out, being in the right place at the right time with an OK camera is better than being somewhere else with a Hasselblad. randy.f <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/fensterm/" rel="nofollow">the guy by the door</a> *My marginal utility of money is enormous compared to Philip's. Grrrr.... I’ve used a series of point-and-shoot cameras for a few years. I finally caved in to the pressure and bought from among Philip Greenspun’s recommendations.

An attempt to embed the appropriate link.

My Canon Rebel XT with Sigma lenses is 20 times more expensive than my Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ2. Only in special circumstances is it 20 times better.* My Pany fits on my belt, goes with me all the time, and doesn’t make people nervous. My XT requires I wear a vest to carry the lenses [I don't own a car or a helicopter] and it puts people on their guard – even with no lens mounted. As Philip points out, being in the right place at the right time with an OK camera is better than being somewhere else with a Hasselblad.

randy.f
the guy by the door

*My marginal utility of money is enormous compared to Philip’s. Grrrr….

]]> By: Jackie Danicki http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/comment-page-1/#comment-207 Jackie Danicki Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:24:45 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/08/14/44/#comment-207 I bought a Nikon Coolpix, after my Panasonic Lumix was stolen by a mugger, because I liked the look of the pictures various people took with theirs. It has been a huge disappointment to me, a camera I have hated since day one. So I'm curious: Does yours take more blurry photos than it does decent ones? Mine (which is one of the newest models) sure seems to. Doesn't seem right at all. I bought a Nikon Coolpix, after my Panasonic Lumix was stolen by a mugger, because I liked the look of the pictures various people took with theirs. It has been a huge disappointment to me, a camera I have hated since day one. So I’m curious: Does yours take more blurry photos than it does decent ones? Mine (which is one of the newest models) sure seems to. Doesn’t seem right at all.

]]>