Compact Digital Optics

<p>A current discussion about the relevancy of eyefinders in compact cameras brought me back to my first digital compact I have aside and thought to sell (no more): the Canon A590 IS. In the compact range I have an expensive and excellent camera, the Canon S90 without eyefinder.</p>

<p>Therefore, once again, with my S90, yesterday I went nuts trying to make a picture under bright sun.</p>

<p>What is the Canon A590 IS ? it is an extremely cheapo camera of relatively high developed features, for which you cannot explain its low price unless you suspect Canon introduced it for promotional purposes.</p>

<p>Accordingly I am thinking to use carry it in my pocket as the all weather camera, besides my S90, two cameras two pockets, since with the developed quality one there is compactness but no eyefinder. Fine, let's no enter in this issue, being currently dealt at another actual thread.</p>

<p>Then, of course, the main question I had yesterday was the "optical quality", although you may point to the sensor quality. The astonishing fact is that this cheapo increases its image quality from infinite all the way to macro. The closest you are to the subject, the better the image quality. Or vice versa, quality dramatically goes low the farther the subject is.</p>

<p>Can you explain me this phenomena ?</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Ruben</p>

<p> </p>

<p>edit: mis-read the post. (it's late, sorry).</p>

<p>You've tested both these cameras side by side with the same subject matter and the same conditions and same settings? You've eliminated variables like camera shake? You've turned off digital zoom? </p>

<p>Sorry my thread appeared here by mistake, I wanted to appear at the general digital forum. I am goint to try transfering it.<br>

Thank you<br>

Ruben</p>

<p>The transer didn't happened, so we remain at the Canon winter.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Ruben</p>

<p>Figuring out why quality drops the further away the subject is is fairly straight forward. Up close, everything is bigger and it is easier to capture better detail. The further away you and the subject are from each other, the optics have to be better than what you have on a digicam to resolve detail that gets smaller and smaller the further away you get. The sensor size also affect this. The bigger the sensor, the better the lens can resolve smaller and smaller detail as the subject and camera move further apart. I also imagine a lot of people who use digicams have less than ideal handholding skills and further degrade image quality by jabbing at the shutter release instead of pressing it smoothly.</p>

<p>I bought my mom and Dad an A590 several years ago. Being the type "photographers" they are, it is still the camera they use. Last year when my daughter graduated from college they were there and had me take a picture of them with her in front of a building on the campus. I framed the image via the optical finder. It had been a while since I used a camera like this with the old-type optical finders and was shocked back into the reality of how poor that type finder really was. The image I saw through the finder was probably only 75-80% of what the camera captured. Lots of crud I never would have wanted and I wound up zooming in further and better guestimating what the camera would actually capture.</p>

<p>I will take a newer digicam with a 100% what-you-see-is-what-you-get electronic finder over one of these old models any day or the week.</p>

<p>As your post is about 2 Canon point and shoot cameras, I don't see why it would need to be moved. </p>

 

<p>if you care having a small addition to the camera there are some LCD viewfinders, basically a simple optic that covers the LCD, you use it like you would a viewfinder but what you see its the image in the LCD, which is what the effective picture is. Some of them are simple DIY</p>

<p>Ruben,</p>

<p>Can you upload an example of the behavior you are seeing? </p>

<p>Hi Greg,<br>

a) Yes, indeed, your explanation is quite convincing. In fact, the same happens with film cameras. It is just that I was not used to the specific digital look of this comon (film and digital) optical universal problem. Thank you for the explanation.<br>

b) Despite its limitations I am thankful such a cheapo has a zooming eyefinder, while much more expensive compacts, like my s90 have none.<br>

c) I do agree too about the pressing of the shutter button. But it is much harder to press a light miniature camera without mooving it, that a bigger wheighty camera.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Ruben</p>

<p>Hi Rob,<br>

I will, asap.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Ruben</p>

<p>Hi Ali Baba,</p>

<p>I do own two samples of these plastic hoods. For touristic picture taking they are very useful, although attention attracting.</p>

<p>cheers,<br>

Ruben</p>

<p>Hi Rob,<br>

After looking for the two images I wanted to compare and didn't find, I had to choose other two images of the same camera, and this way I understood my mistake, non-standing Greg's point.<br>

My problem is called Photoshop, which I use for every image I post. Now without Photoshop, the close ups don't look so pretty, and the far sighted images don't look so bad. So hereby I will post (my first image posting at photo.net) the images without any Photoshop</p>

<p>Hi Rob,<br>

After looking for the two images I wanted to compare and didn't find, I had to choose other two images of the same camera, and this way I understood my mistake, non-standing Greg's point.<br>

My problem is called Photoshop, which I use for every image I post. Now without Photoshop, the close ups don't look so pretty, and the far sighted images don't look so bad. So hereby I will post the links to an according Set at Flicker, which allows full original size and exif data.</p>

<p>Hi Rob,<br>

After looking for the two images I wanted to compare and didn't find, I had to choose other two images of the same camera, and this way I understood my mistake, non-standing Greg's point.</p>

<p>I have found another point, but I will add it afterwards<br>

My problem is called Photoshop, which I use for every image I post. Now without Photoshop, the close ups don't look so pretty, and the far sighted images don't look so bad. So hereby I will post the links to an according Set at Flicker, which allows full original size and exif data.<br>

Nope, I will have to equally reduce picture size if we want to discuss the issue this year.</p>

<p>hereby is the link:</p>

<p><a href="

<p>Now, I think another point is to be added. When we look at a farsighted image, and the submitted one is a good example, some of us start looking for the small detail. A sort of navigation along the image to help ourselves with the subject, or just out of couriosity.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Ruben</p>

<p>The camera is designed for the point and shoot market :-) A humorous suggestion but surely everybody has "pointed and shot" on occasions ... I know I have when after a high angle shot.<br>

I was looking at an old catalogue for an English firm who specialise in filters and making odd things for photographers and I saw a range of hoods for people in the early days of digital who wanted better than the crude optical finder but sunlight spoiled the LCD ... with and without magnifying elements included [ though I found viewing 3Mp I was looking at the pixels rather than the picture and deliberately blurred the image slightly with my home made version]<br>

The firm is now called SRB-Griturn, they have a website still. Used to be SRB Film<br>

A day or two ago I was out with my DSLR and Bridge camera with its EVF using multiple ND filters to produce long exposures, ten seconds and more, and was annoyed at the hassle of framing the DSLR without the filter pack [ Cokin style set up] and then adding same for the exposure ... whereas the the EVF simply compensated for the loss of light from three x4NDs filters and gave me a clear picture :-) <br>

As another bridge camera does when fitted with a Wratten 87 cutting all visible light but gives me the IR image on the EVF. Same hassle when I used the filter on the DSLR.</p>