File :-(, x, )
GI_Drewsifer
Dear /p/

Currently I have a Cannon SD1000 (pictured). I think it's a great point and click little camera. How ever one downside is when I try to take high quality pictures it doesn't seem up to the challenge. I'm not a huge photonerd, but I'd like to pick up something a little nicer. Still fairly point and click, but able to take decent pictures. Any suggestions?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
G10

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 (20060914.r.77) WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:17 20:24:04Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width475Image Height337
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
if you forced me to not use my dslr, i would have to get this

i won't get the zomg pro look anymore but it works pretty well
>> Liamness !R3jx5T6JdM
>>289136

I have heard excellent things about this camera, particularly concerning the lens quality and low-light performance. It doesn't zoom very far, but if you're looks for a more landscapey P&S, this should be your bag.
>> GI_Drewsifer
>>289142

I would like something with some zoom. I like to photography races, autox's and track days.
>> Anonymous
>>289144

fuck zoom, get yourself a prime and work for your picture instead of relying on zooming

zoom with your feet, i once heard someone on /p/ say if you can't take good photos, you're not close enough, so get yourself a wide prime and get close on the track
>> GI_Drewsifer
>>289145

You're right, let me tell Tony George to stick his rules about how close I can get to the track! Gimme a break. I'm at best a mediocre enthusiasts, and worst I'm an idiot who needs a little digital help to take good pictures. I'm not trying to become a pro here, just need something a little better than what I have.
>> rubber shoes in motion !FwDS1IFr..
>>289269

you're a long way from /o/, boy.. (not really)

get something in the canon powershot A series.. and have fun in japan.
>> Anonymous
Typical /p/ faggotry.

They can't afford quality zooms, so they'll preach about primes all day under the excuse that it makes you a better photographer.
>> else !L6xabslN96
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>289445
this man has the right idea.
>> Anonymous
>>289440
I've shot with (though I don't own) top-quality Canon L zooms. They give technical results that are more than good enough for anyone who isn't masturbating to test charts.

But honestly? I'd rather shoot with an old uncoated piece of shit with visible aberrations and distortions than a 24-70. Zooms just feel weird to shoot with for me. Stepped zooms (the Tri-Elmars, zooms on most digicams, etc.) are fine because there's those clearly defined spots. They're no different than a set of primes. But continuous zooms feel weird, and they're only really useful if it's some tele zoom and it's far away and the only way to change your composition is by changing focal length.

Other circumstances? I'll take lenses that give me the fields of view I'm used to, that I can frame with my eye before the camera's even up to it, whose perspectives I know and like.
>> Anonymous
>>289456

Typical /p/ faggotry.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>289457
thats dpr faggotry, /p/ faggotry is shit like lensflare and that guy
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
>>289456
>I'll take lenses that give me the fields of view I'm used to
That reminds me, why is it that 50-ish is considered normal (on FF) when human eyesight is much wider than that like 24.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>289464
>Technically, a normal lens is defined as one whose focal length closely approximates the diagonal dimension of the picture frame. A 50mm lens' focal length is closest to the 43.2 mm diagonal of the 35 mm camera's 24 x 36 mm frame. Another is that its field of coverage (40° horizontally, 46° diagonally) is roughly equal to what one human eye can view with relative clarity. Even though their focal length are somewhat longer than the 43mm diagonal of the 24 x 36mm format, simply, the 50 mm standard lens gives an "honest" image because of its perspective yields, which is extremely close to what the 'unaided eye sees.

From
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/maxxum7k/index7.htm
I just bought a 7k :3
>> Anonymous
>>289464
To put the Mir text more plainly, the perspective of a normal lens is the perspective of the human eye, and (at least subjectively, for me) especially on 3:2 is pretty close to what we really notice in the central core of our vision.

Get some crazy panoramic camera with a lens the length of its diagonal for it if you want to be absolutely exact.
>> Anonymous
your vision's field of view is much wider than 50mm or even 43mm

but that's like, relaxed or looking at a distance, when you're actually focused on anything, your field of view gets much tighter
>> Anonymous
>>289477

not to mention that you´ve got the most nerves in the center of the eye and only a fraction of that on the outer boarder of your field of view
>> GI_Drewsifer
     File :-(, x)
What about Fuji? I have a friend who's a little more into photography than me says it's not a bad camera for the price (This one is $250).
>> rubber shoes in motion !FwDS1IFr..
>>289502

get it for that awesome key accessory
>> Anonymous
LEARN TO USE GOOGLE GODDAMN