File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hi /p/,
today I come to you for advice. 1 hour ago my grandpa came to me and said, he wants to present me a camera, but because he didn't want to get a bad one, he told me I could choose one myselfe, arround a certain prize volume.
I wanted a camera for a long time, but because I couldn't afford one for a while, I didn't bother to look up, whats going on atm. Now I found 2 which I would consider good. But I thought I ask you guys before I make a decision.

The one I favorit is the OP, a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ2. The other one I think that would be ok is the Canon Powershot A720.

Well for what I would use it. I work on CG projects, mainly for buildings atm at my university. So what I need would be good optical zoom (the panasonic got 10, the canon 6). Also because I take shots of buildings alot, I would need a lense that is rectified, or a camera that can fix that, so walls arent bent. I don't know if any of those cameras are good at that, if another camera would be better, or if only cameras that cost much much more are good at that.

And I got one more question. On the old camera my father got, dark parts of the picture arent't pure black if you look closer, but are an ugly mix of violet, red and stuff. Did they fix that meanwhile or can it be fixed with automatic exposure control turned off?

Sorry if I asked noobish questions, that maybe you had that topic 1000 times already, its my first time on /p/ since I didn't care much till now. If, I'm sorry, but I don't want to regret my decision later. So it would be nice if some could reply.

Thx alot.
>> Anonymous
A Leica M8
>> Anonymous
>>80611
Are yo crazy??? This thing cost €4.198,99 ...
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>80612

Yeah he is crazy, ignore him.

He meant to suggest a Hasselblad H3D
>> Anonymous
Seriously, the A series of Canon's Powershot line.
>> Anonymous
39 Megapixel not bad, but honestly, stop kidding, can anon be serious at least one time? sigh
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>80616

Okay seriously, i'll vote the Lumix. The Leica lens get me everytime. But they are indeed both great cameras.
>> Anonymous
>Also because I take shots of buildings alot, I would need a lense that is rectified, or a camera that can fix that, so walls arent bent
To the best of my knowledge, there are no cameras that'll let you do this less expensive than a large-format view camera.
(And before someone brings up tilt/shift lenses on a 35mm-format SLR, go price 'em)
>> Anonymous
I would go for the Powershot, personally. Even with the Leica lens my last Lumix had horrible quality.
>> Applicant For Copywriter Of This
>>80626
I'm pretty sure you're right.

OP, you can correct that in Photoshop anyway. Google "Luminous Landscape;" they've got something about it on there.

The Canon has the advantage of manual controls, if you want those. The Panasonic doesn't, but otherwise is the better camera.

Another option, if the cost difference isn't too much and you don't mind a little extra bulk, would be the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8. It has manual controls and a larger zoom range than either of them. OTOH, the TZ-3's lens goes wider, which you might need. The DMC-FZ8 and the Canon both go to about 35mm equivalent, whereas the TZ-3 goes to 28mm.
>> Anonymous
>>80662
Wow thank you! That one is sweet. One question is there a difference between the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 EG-K and the one without the EG-K?
>> Anonymous
Oh, and also:

>On the old camera my father got, dark parts of the picture arent't pure black if you look closer, but are an ugly mix of violet, red and stuff. Did they fix that meanwhile or can it be fixed with automatic exposure control turned off?

That's called noise; all digital cameras have it. Some have it much worse than others. Noise is the worst across the whole picture in low-light situations, and shows up in every picture in the dark areas. The larger the sensor of a camera, the less noise.

There are ways to deal with it, but they decrease other aspects of the quality of the picture. Professional cameras and some amateur cameras let you shoot in what's called RAW mode, so you can control the balance of that and everything else yourself on the computer. When companies are designing cameras that shoot only JPEGs, they have to figure out what balance will work the best in most situations.

Out of all of these cameras, only the FZ-8 does RAW. You probably won't want to mess with it, though, because it requires a few minutes Photoshop or a similar program to "develop" each photograph you want to use. On the other hand, the FZ-8 makes you shoot a JPEG along with the RAW, so then the only disadvantage is storage space: having to store both the JPEG and the huge RAW file.
>> Anonymous
>>80684
And one last clarification: You don't have to shoot RAW with any camera. The FZ-8 lets you choose to shoot RAW if you want.
>> Anonymous
I'm from Germany. I can post you a website if you want:

the EG: http://www.redcoon.de/index.php/refId/zanoxde/cmd/shop/a/ProductDetail/pid/B125862/cid/10002/refId/z
anoxde/?zanpid=1025485517589849089

the normal one also available: http://www.guenstiger.de/gt/main.asp?produkt=422409

but surprisingly the both lower then the TZ2 which goes from 269 till 300+
>> Anonymous
>>80684
Now thats interesting, can remember a friend, who does CG professional already, showed me that in photoshop. Theres a whole big menu to open the picture, with histograms, color temperature and all stuff you can ajust before you actually open the pic. But on the other side you also can change that afterwards with the filters and adjustment options even on JPEG can't you?
>> Anonymous
>>80689
Not as well, for three reasons:

1. Stuff already has been done to it to get the JPEG; the camera chooses everything you do on that menu before it even saves it. If you stick an ingredient into a recipe, sure, you can stick something else in to balance the taste, but it won't be the same.

Also, a lot of things, the noise reduction for instance, damages the file. It gets rid of some of the noise by getting rid of some of the detail. With RAW, you choose how much, if any.

2. The RAW file saves every bit of information the camera picks up; the JPEG only saves a small portion of it. If your picture is too dark or too bright, too bad with JPEG, but with RAW, there's some detail hidden in the dark and light areas you can bring out. There's other similar things, but basically, shooting with JPEG and then editing is like just grabbing some random bills and going for dinner: you might have enough information in the file, you might not. Shooting with RAW is bringing every last cent you own with you: you have to haul a larger file size or a larger wallet, but you're going to be able to pay for your dinner, unless it's something so freakishly extravagent your bill runs into the thousands. Similarly, grabbing a few bills will get you a meal at somewhere easy to pay for (a fast food place), but taking it all will make sure you can afford a harder-to-pay-for meal at an expensive restaurant. JPEG will work fine for normal shooting situations, but the harder the situation is for the camera to handle (high contrast situations, for instance) the more useful RAW becomes.

3. JPEG files have lossy compression- those little JPEG artifacts you see. They come in at every stage of processing. RAW has no artifacts, and so will have higher quality.
>> Anonymous
OK, thank you all very much. This was very helpful. I would have picked the FZ8 without you. Also thx alot about the nice explaination on RAWs vs. JPEGs and the dark noise thingy. Guess I just have to correct the bent walls afterwards as I'm used to, don't have 25000 euros for a Hasselblad ;)
I'm going to reward you with some pictures I took soon, hope I can meet the high expactations of this board.
>> Anonymous
IT'S A P+S CAMERA, RAW IS USELESS.
>> Anonymous
>>80753
Exact opposite. RAW is more useful on a point and shoot because:

- Their JPEG processing is usually horrible, either with too much noise reduction, too bright colors (and not in a nice Velvia way), or both, and with other problems, too.
- Their small sensors have less dynamic range. Anything you can do to boost it up- like shooting RAW- is good.
>> Anonymous
>>80685
On a pedantic note...

The Sigma SD9 and SD10 only output RAW. I think some of the really early Canon/Nikon digital SLRs were like that too, but I'm too lazy to actually check.
>> Anonymous
After looking a bit bit more I made a great discovery!
First, this company got a shop near where I live.

http://www.eg-electronics.de/digitalkamera/?kat=*DMC-FZ8

But what I saw there, amog other attachments they got additional lenses for this camera. So I could get a wide-angle lens (24,5mm) and/or a tele lens (714 mm) later, when I got the money. So I definitively gonna get this one. Thx alot agin for the hint!
>> Anonymous
>>80845
You can get that sort of thing for the Canon, too.

I would recommend against it. Optically crappy, annoying to use, not worth the money.
>> Anonymous
>>80852
You wouldn't recommend what? lol the canon, the FZ8 or buying additional lenses later?
>> Anonymous
>>80855
The screw-on adapter's what he means.

It's something to consider, but you should know (like he said) they're not as sharp as the camera's lens without it.
>> Anonymous
ic, thx for the info, well for now 12x zoom is more than enough for me I think, ordered it today. Probably will post first tries till the end of this week.
>> Anonymous
>>80891

Absolutely. It's so minimalist, it doesn't even have some features you DO need.