twedten
-
Posts
22 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by twedten
-
-
<p>These resolution pages on dpreview are very telltale, IMO:<br>
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonG12/8<br>
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons100/9</p>
<p>Definitely leaning G12. I'd like the 1080p, but the video quality on the S100 isn't really worth the extra space (1080p video is such a hog). Wish I could afford the G1X or X10, but for my use, I don't think it's necessary.</p>
-
<p>I know, the tool is not an end all. All of those cameras look good to me, and they're not worth comparing, really. There are too many factors. I'm not looking at "sharpness". One camera could just be out of focus a little. I'm looking at smoothness of colors, chunkiness, black quality, fine detail rendering, lots of stuff.<br>
<br />The S100 looks horrible on the tool because it looks like there is a film over the whole image. The whites glow. Even though the image is larger, the G12 image looks better, smoother, sharper overall, better colors.</p>
-
<p>This is tough... I wish i could use them all for a week and then decide. I was leaning toward the G12 last night, now unsure again. I'm not getting a micro 4/3 camera because of what Ariel outlined above. I have SLRs a plenty available to me. I have an older Canon SD1000 that we used for several years because of its pocketability, but now I'm tired of the terrible low light performance or it, and I'd really like something with more manual control, since there are many options available now. The SD1000 also takes pretty low quality videos, so I'd like at least 720p.</p>
<p>I don't want to spend more than $500 incl shipping and an SD card.</p>
<p>Pro S100<br>
- small, will get taken with out of the house<br>
- good reviews<br>
- 1080p, 12MP (but I doubt the S100 is really worth this res)</p>
<p>Con S100<br>
- my friend sent it back the same day he got it, would not focus<br>
- the dpreview comparison makes the S100 look HORRIBLE</p>
<p>Other options<br>
- Nikon P7100, I don't see much reason to get this over the G12<br>
- Panasonic LX5, nice, good reviews, G12 looks better to me<br>
- Olympus XZ-1, expensive, similar to G12<br>
- Fuji X10, super cool, a friend loves his, studio shot isn't great though</p>
<p>So, maybe this should be between the G12 and X10, but of course the X10 is $600, and I just want to take pictures of my kids.</p>
-
<p>True, RAW would not be as important for this type of camera, but I like to run everything through Lightroom.</p>
<p>This tool is so powerful! http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare<br>
G12 beats a lot of stuff in its class. S100 looks horrible on this thing.</p>
-
<p>Yeah, lens is an issue. I checked Flickr for S100 images and there aren't very many that look sharp. Completely nixes the point of having more pixels.</p>
-
<p>I'm just about to buy an S100, but are there other alternatives? G12 better? 2MP won't make or break the deal for me.<br>
For me, 1080p is a plus, but 720 would be fine. Love the RAW, manual control, and sensitivity.<br>
I am a semi-pro/pro user that wants a compact for @ home.</p>
-
<p>I meant "5 star".</p>
-
<p>Has anyone heard of any web software available that has a photo gallery with a 5 start bridge-like rating system and sorting? Client wants to be able to rate picks and view them from multiple locations. Thanks for the ideas.</p>
-
<p>I know what it's supposed to mean. What I meant was that people use the word "bokeh" when they really mean high depth-of-field, having no intention of describing how the defocus of one lens compares to another, etc. Regardless, the word sounds silly. It rubs me the wrong way, like many people feel about the word "moist".</p>
<p>I am not trying to show off. I just don't like the word or how its used. My original post was harsh and was over-reactive, sorry about that. Good day...</p>
-
<blockquote>
<p>"Bokeh" is just a relatively new word for a phenomenon of which photographers have always been aware and have exploited. I had been using cameras for over forty years when I came across it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Right. I just asked my client, who has been in business as long as I have been alive if he had heard of the word. No, but he certainly knows what it is when I describe it.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You want a complaint about over-used, in-sufficiently nuanced photography terms?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You're right. I really just don't like the word, how it is used, and the type of questions people ask about it.</p>
<p>Sorry for my insensitivity. For some reason this really irks me. I'd change it now if I could.</p>
-
<p>All I'm saying is that pros don't use the work "bokeh". I understand that different lenses have different out-of-focus qualities. It's a word that Flickr made up, it seems. Usually it is used in the form of a question, "How do I get awesome bokeh?"</p>
<p>Thank you Stephen for the great explanation.</p>
-
<p>I agree with you guys. The 5D mk3 better step it up, of Nikon WILL overtake Canon in the commercial photo world, and elsewhere. Here in Minneapolis, I'd say a large share of shooters are still Canon because of the 1Ds mk2. Shooters I work for are still using them. I've already talked to a few people that say they will consider switching if Canon doesn't match.</p>
<p>The D800 is a major game changer.</p>
-
<p>I needed to vent this somewhere that maybe someone else will understand. What the heck is "bokeh"? The word looks retarded and sounds dumb. In 10 years of photography I had never heard this word. If you use this word, I immediately know you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I think you mean "DEPTH OF FIELD".</p>
<p>I know what people mean when they say it, I just think it's effin' stupid.</p>
-
Wait, they're IS? Who the heck needs
IS on a wide angle? Looks plasticky
too. Lame. I'd prefer the 24mm L too.
-
Very cool. Where's Canon's counter to
the Nikon D800? That's what I want to
know. If there isn't one, maybe I'll be
switching.
-
<p>The 24mm L is interesting. I'll keep an eye out for an older one. I'm a big fan of old stuff in perfect working order for a great deal.</p>
-
<p>I don't really care about "zoom". I prefer primes. The 17-40 is an option because it is priced well and is considered to be very sharp. It's also the 1 of the 3 listed I have use before. #1 reason I shy away from this one is that it is so big. I am a little nervous about not having AF with the Voigtlander, but I lean towards this one. I like the solid build quality, and the fact that it is so small.<br>
<br /> All I own right now is the Canon 50 1.4, and I love it, but it is way too long for my APS-C chip. I use it for portraits... beyond that I have to borrow. I have used the 24-70 L as well. I just don't care for the full-range zooms at all, and I will not consider floating aperture lenses or crop sensor only lenses.<br>
<br /> I also might trade in my 30D for an original 5D at some point if I can find one for a fair price. That would solve some of my problems. If I did that, I'd have to consider the Canon 28mm USM. I don't necessarily need an ultra-wide, just a wide. My thinking with the 20 is that it's at least useful for either format.<br>
<br /> I am a digital guy in the ad industry. I don't shoot for a living, and I've lost touch why I originally got into this. I'm trying to enable myself to take more pictures!</p>
-
<p>Basically, the choices are:<br>
Canon 20mm f2.8 - $450, old, cheap, medium sized, fast<br>
Canon 17-40mm f4 - $700, new, L lens, sorta big, slow, zoom<br>
Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 - $600, new, metal body, manual focus, small<br>
- - - <br>
They all get good reviews for different reasons. I mostly shoot people. I work in a studio, but I don't shoot there. I will be mostly using a 30D, but occasionally have access to a 5Dmk2.</p>
-
Canon S100 or, alternative?
in Mirrorless Digital Cameras
Posted