File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hai /p/.

I'm looking for a fancy compact camera. Don't have $$$, knowledge or eyes to play with DSLR and their lenses, but I want to play with some long exposure shots (i.e. night skylines) and the good old cliché macro.

What about Nikon Coolpix P80?
>> Anonymous
Nikon D700
>> Anonymous
>>244116

Too expensive for me.
>> Anonymous
>>244119

Nikon D3
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
Holga 120
>> Anonymous
get the Leica
>> Anonymous
>>244121


What part of "Don't want a DSLR" didn't you get?
>> Anonymous
>>244127

i think someone just got T-T-T-Trolled
>> Anonymous
>>244121
I concur. It's got a great zoom range, amazing ISO performance in a small package and at a good price point for beginners!
>> Anonymous
P80 is awesome. It's light, easy to use, has an amazing zoom, and still gives you the freedom to use manual if you got real into it.

I'd say that or the Sony H50
>> Anonymous
All compact camera's are virtually the same. I would stick with something that can fit in your pocket, and has decent manual setting. A G9 is good, lots of manual controls, decent ISO performance, and you can shoot in raw if you really want to edit the images.
>> Anonymous
>>244134
Seconded.
>> Anonymous
>>244134

Canon Powershot G9? I Took a look at the specs, seems really fine!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244201
PowerShot A650 gives you the same sensor and lens, plus a swivel screen, minus the RAW and the hot shoe, for about $200 less. Might want to look into that one too.

(The G9 costs as much as a low-end SLR, which you said you don't have the money for)
>> Anonymous
>>244204
>minus the raw

And then there's CHDK, which puts it back in.

Further downsides are shutter lag, etc. You basically get the same image quality and control in a lesser camera. For long night landscapes, that doesn't matter.
>> SnowRaptor !41haujwotA
After I read about lots of noise in P80 pictures, I'm divided between G9 and A650. The R$400 price difference is striking. I'll read some reviews about this one. I'd like to read more suggestions too.

Thanks for the cooperation, pals!
>> Anonymous
considered a film SLR?
cheap as chips, great to learn 'proper' photography and especially on those loooooong star trail exposures, no noise.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244217
Not a *terrible* idea, but keep in mind:

1. The fact that there's a minimum of one hour between taking the shot and seeing the shot you took, which isn't as fun for newbies. Yes, I know, people did it like that for over a hundred years. Still doesn't mean it's fun
2. The cheap cost of the camera is more than made up for over time by the cost of film and developing, especially if you take a lot of pictures, which you should if you're just starting out.

>>244211
Yeah, most of those "bridge cameras" will have pretty shitty image quality. With a few exceptions, they tend to sacrifice sensor size for zoom range--smaller sensor means less glass needed to cover it which means easier to make a long zoom.

Additionally, they're so big that, for all intents and purposes, you might as well be carrying around an SLR. If you ever do move up to an SLR, something like an A650 or G9 will still be useful as a go-anywhere camera you can bring with you when you don't want to lug the big one, whereas something like the P80 will be basically useless except as a crappy video camera.
>> Anonymous
>>244220
regarding small sensor size, is it primarily noise and lowlight photos that turn bad or what else?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244222
Yeah, low light. When you turn up the sensitivity of a sensor, you also turn up the noise (because basically it looks at bit of electricity coming out of the chip and goes "Is this an actual photon or is this just electrical noise?" and when you turn up the gain it gives lighter hits more benefit of the doubt). A larger sensor means larger photosites, which means more actual photons hit them, which means that the sensor doesn't have to work as hard to get a clear picture.

Most digital cameras out there have a 1/2.5" sensor. The G9 and A650 have a larger 1/1.8" sensor. Of course, even FourThirds SLRs like the Olympus and Panasonic models (which have the smallest sensors in the digital SLR world) still have something like six times the surface area of a 1/1.8" sensor, which is why digital SLRs tend to have an ISO400 that looks like ISO50 on a point & shoot...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>244217
>no noise.
wat
>> Anonymous
>>244222
Depth of field control is also an issue on a small sensor. Assuming equivalent focal ranges, a G9 at it's biggest aperture (2.8) has a depth of field equivalent to that given by an aperture of 8.4 on, say, canon rebel.

So basically, if you want to use a shallow depth of field for an artistic effect, it won't be easy on a compact camera.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244235
The point he's trying to make though is that a digital sensor gets noisier the longer it runs (due to heat and just accumulation of electrical noise), which means that even lowest-ISO long exposure shots are going to be noisier than normal exposures. Film, on the other hand, doesn't get grainier with longer exposures.

(Of course, the way you took it is still technically true since film has *grain* rather than *noise*, but that's needlessly pedantic)
>> Anonymous
>>244249
...which is why you want to stack lots of short exposure shots instead of taking one long exposure.
>> sage sage
sage for gear thread
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
1. Open this image.
2. Save it as lol.hta
3. Open the file you saved.
4. Shit bricks.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
1. Open this image.
2. Save it as lol.hta
3. Open the file you saved.
4. Shit bricks.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
1. Open this image.
2. Save it as lol.hta
3. Open the file you saved.
4. Shit bricks.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
1. Open this image.
2. Save it as lol.hta
3. Open the file you saved.
4. Shit bricks.
>> Anonymous
>>244249
unlike grain noise tends to introduce it's own colours which have nothing to do with the image.
I would liken grain to resolution, limiting how much you can blow up an image.
While we're on the subject I think films can take on slight colour casts over longer exposures (most common green) as the layers arn't matched for such long exposures or am I remembering wrong??
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
1. Open this image.
2. Save it as lol.hta
3. Open the file you saved.
4. Shit bricks.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244302
>While we're on the subject I think films can take on slight colour casts over longer exposures (most common green) as the layers arn't matched for such long exposures or am I remembering wrong??
I wouldn't doubt it. Reciprocity failure and all that. No reason the reciprocity would fail at exactly the same point for each color layer.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>244291
>>244294
>>244298
>>244301
>>244310
Seriously, it's in red and flashing and everything.

Man, I hope these were all trolls getting their comeuppance.
>> Anonymous
>>244321
Hanlon's razor in mind, never assume malice when stupidity will suffice. I'm sure they're just morons.
>> SnowRaptor !41haujwotA
I really not interested in a film camera, since I'm an amateur and will have more use for the photos if they're digital.

The discussion is really interesting, though. And yes, I let go off P80. I'm inclined into A650 for now.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
s100

i win