Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if you shoot jpeg some cameras use better noise reduction than others too so that can make one camera appear better than the other when in reality it is not .
I'm sure you are aware of this but one thing to point out is JPEG has variable compression, editors might have slider for "quality" and the cameras usually uses terminology like "fine" This setting will allow for higher file compression producing smaller file sizes but at the expense of quality.
Note these were all saved from same source image and not recompressed.
100%, file size is 128KB.
90%, 54KB, more than halved the file size and there is almost no difference
75%, 33KB. Atifacts start to creep in. This would be suitable for web images where you want to keep file sizes small.
50%....
30%
Looking at the photo section of last image it may not look that bad considering the rest of the image however here is side by side of 100% and 75% zoomed in.
yes , compression will effect quality and noise . i use as little compression as i can in both cameras and always shoot raw . except for macro and times i need the big telephoto like wildlife , the fuji is my go to camera , not the d800 much anymore . the 36mp files are to big to work with quickly and the gear just to big and heavy .
How many pieces of pizza do you want for dinner? Three, or 30? That depends... and did I tell you, it's a 10-inch pizza.
All things being the same, bigger pixels give better photos. Being physically larger, they can gather more light rays before they fill up and lose data to overexposure. This helps realistic rendering of light and shadow areas, which can be more or less important depending on your climate and subject matter. To get bigger pixels usually requires moving up to a bigger sensor size (4:3 > APS-C > Full Frame 35mm > medium formats). Why? Because having sold us on the importance of "megapixels," no maker would dare market a 6-8 MPX model today, even if it worked brilliantly. So we get these bite-sized slices. Ergo, Rule No. 1 is, Bigger Cameras are Better!
However, camera makers have been grappling with this limitation for decades now, and continue to improve sensor performance and image processing, so here's Rule No. 2: Newer Cameras are Better!
However, all the attention and money you devote to camera-shopping will never help you take an interesting photo. Take a hint from the pros I know, who hang on to their workhorse cameras more faithfully than the amateurs who churn through gear. They think you don't replace working gear until you need something that dies a specific job better. Therefore, Rule #3: The Best Camera is the One you Have and Know How to Use!
Not sure what your reference a film camera means...
I've had the Canon PowerShot A1400 since it came out. A handy pocket camera which is no longer in production... Shots I probably would have not gotten if I did not have the A1400 in my pocket:
Not sure what your reference a film camera means...
I've had the Canon PowerShot A1400 since it came out. A handy pocket camera which is no longer in production... Shots I probably would have not gotten if I did not have the A1400 in my pocket:
I love that A1400. I want to pick up another one as a spare. I got a extra nonworking one on eBay and tried to fix it but the lens is shot. Not sure I can put it back together.
I'm thinking, next trip somewhere, take one film SLR with whatever lens gives the widest view. I have several old film cameras including a couple old Sears SLRs that were made by Ricoh, KSX Super and KS Super II, with several lenses. I'm still thinking film might give me a higher quality picture than the digital cameras I have. I would still mostly use the digital cameras and take just a few duplicate special shots on film.
I'm thinking, next trip somewhere, take one film SLR with whatever lens gives the widest view. I have several old film cameras including a couple old Sears SLRs that were made by Ricoh, KSX Super and KS Super II, with several lenses. I'm still thinking film might give me a higher quality picture than the digital cameras I have. I would still mostly use the digital cameras and take just a few duplicate special shots on film.
I worked in a film darkroom in the 60's. Had equipment for two B&W personal darkrooms. Gave away two enlargers and other misc equipment in 1998.
Good luck to you on your film quest. That's all I plan to discuss regarding film...
I'm thinking, next trip somewhere, take one film SLR with whatever lens gives the widest view. I have several old film cameras including a couple old Sears SLRs that were made by Ricoh, KSX Super and KS Super II, with several lenses. I'm still thinking film might give me a higher quality picture than the digital cameras I have. I would still mostly use the digital cameras and take just a few duplicate special shots on film.
As long as carrying the extra gear isn't a problem, go for it! What do you have to lose?
Where your e410 lags today is fast focusing for action shots and low noise on low light shots. But for most things it's still a fine camera. As long as you're satisfied with its output, that's all that really matters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
