are digicams capable of really high-quality images?

[yippee2000]

I'm really new to photography. I've been checking out the galleries here, and when I see some of them, I'm like "shit, the quality of my photoes (particularly when it comes to detail/sharpness) doesn't begin to compare". I know many galleries indicate below the images the type of camera used, but I'm not knowledgeable to know what's a film cam and what's a digicam. But is it fair to assume that most of those really great galleries I'm drooling over are not from digicams?

Like for e.g., I have a Canon Powershot S500. What does zoom 3x actually mean? Does that mean that if something is 30 feet away from me, the camera can make it seem as if it's only 10 feet away from me? I guess that's why my distance photoes don't come out very sharp... because I only have 3x zoom? And what about closeups? I tried to do a closeup of my fingers, just for the heck of it, thinking it might look like what you might see in a nail polish ad or something... you know, really sharp and closeup, etc. But it was a big blur.

Are digicams mainly seen as being for convenience, or for not so serious picture taking, while film cams are for the more serious photogs?

TX!

[yippee2000]

I just remembered you could do a search for galleries by camera used, and so I found the galleries for my particular digicam, and I gotta say, they're just OK. Conversely, I then checked-out the Canon EOS 1DS galleries, and they were much better.

So I guess this brings up the question again as to whether it's really the camera, or if for some reason the better photogs. picked the Canon EOS 1DS. But I did see the EOS 1DS had something like 8.5 megapixels (or was it 11)? Megapixels means you get more detail, right?

Shoot. Now I'm thinking I should have bought that one instead....

[alangrant]

Well, I'm no expert, but I will try to answer a few specific points.

- In general, more megapixels allows you to capture more detail. BUT that is very unlikely to explain differences in sharpness between photos on this site. The pictures have to be drastically downsized for display on the web anyway. 11MP might show more detail than 5MP if printed (and even then possibly only at large print sizes). But your 5MP Digicam has more than enough resolution for web display.

- There are many advantages of digital over film, and also of film over digital. The choice between them comes down to each photographer's view of what is important to them. But I think digital has developed to the point where a "serious" photographer could come down on either side. See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ for a serious photographer working with digital.

- Taking a closeup of your finger isn't as easy as it sounds! Are you sure the camera focused correctly on your finger? Might the distance between camera and subject have been below the minimum the lens can handle (see your manual)? Did you use "Macro" mode?

- Do you know how expensive the EOS 1DS is??? Not really in the same league as any consumer digicam! Frankly, it would be worrying if someone spending that much on photography couldn't come up with some decent images.

- I have been trying to come up with an answer to your question "what does 3x zoom mean". Although I feel I know this instinctively, I am struggling to put it into words. But I can say that a camera with a 7x zoom isn't automatically sharper than a 3x zoom.

I hope this has been of some help. If you like you can ignore my ramblings above and focus on the key point: you shouldn't worry that you have chosen the wrong camera. I'd suggesting concentrating on learning as much as you can with the camera you already have. The great advantages of digicams are instant feedback and essentially "free" photos, so take plenty and try to see why they sometimes work and sometimes don't.

[yippee2000]

No, I've no idea how much that other Canon EOS costs, but it looks pretty cool! :--) I clicked on the link to that digi photog. you mentioned, and below the opening photo I see it mentions a Canon camera and then it mentions a type of lens. Would that imply he uses a lens other than what comes with the camera? I just assumed that all digicams (like men) do not give the option for changing the lens, unlike film cams.... Or did I misunderstand?

[framewerkz]

Digital cameras (like men) aren't all the same.

The high end ones can change (not unlike men, come to think of it).

With any digital SLR, lenses can be changed just like a regular film SLR.

[alangrant]

As framewerkz says, any SLR camera can take a range of lenses, whether it is digital or film. But digital SLRs are still rather expensive, roughly $1000 and upwards. Below that level digicams have fixed lenses.

The EOS 1DS sells for roughly $7,000 (yes, seven thousand) - that probably doesn't include any lens. So you might want to practice a bit with your current camera before taking the plunge!

[gillettecraig]

One thing you shouldn't do is jump to a conclusion about any given camera from web pictures. Depending on the site or the user, you can't be sure of how much compression was used to get to where you are with a web pic. Since web sites can have size limits (or users control their own space usage) and monitors are inherently low resolution, you can't really tell how good the original picture was.

Also "good" pictures may be heavily compressed to keep resolution and quality down to preclude the picture being copied and used w/o permission. I sometimes load to a hobby site and they don't want any dimension over 500 pixels and no more than 200k in size. It opens well in the forum and preserves bandwidth but doesn't give the best viewing results.

What can you do to maximise quality from a given camera? Seek out the lens sweet spot - most lenses perform best when they aren't fully open or stopped down to their smallest apertures. Even a fully automatic cmaera can be manipulated by choosing the right lighting. Watch your lighting. Some times of day, like "mid-day," are subject to high and bright overhead light, this can give both very light areas and very dark shadows. The contrast and shadows can be difficult to deal with, hard to get exposures correct for the full range of light. Use fill flash to even out lighting. Watch camera and/or subject motion, use a tripod and cable or timed release when slower shutter speeds are needed.

Technique and an eye for the subject are usually far more important than the actual equipment used, within reason of course.

[sheila]

My experience with non-SLR digital cameras is that the x3 zoom is more or less useless. Before I bought my D60 two years ago, I had a Canon G2 with a digital zoom. This is a great little point and shoot and the closest you will get to a dSLR with its functions. But its zoom was terrible.

May I suggest that you buy a lot of digital camera magazines and absorb as much information from them as you can. I get the feeling that with your camera, you are trying to run before you can walk

Cheers
Sheila

[curtisls]

it would be great if we had a little more truth in advertising around the magnification of zooms. To illustrate, I'll explain theory, then practice.

the X factor does stand for the number of times something will be magnified at full telephoto, verses having it zoomed all the way out (full wide angle). So if a person were to take two pictures of the same object with a 3x zoom, one at full telephoto, and the other full wide angle, the object should be approximately 3 times bigger in the telephoto shot than it is in the wide angle shot (note that I did not say 3 times larger than what you see).

In practice, there are some limitations to this. In a 35mm camera (this is used because almost all digital cameras will give you an equivalency for this in their instruction booklet), a focal length of 50mm is considered to be about 1 to 1 between what you see and what shows up on a picture. That means for something to be 3 times larger that you would "see" it, you would need a 150mm lens. However, most digicams don't start their zoom range at a 50 mm equivalent . The reason for this is because they know that most people who are snap shooters will be closer in and want a wider angle of view. This means that they will start at some wider angle equivalent, like 38mm or 28mm or something. When a picture is taken at that wide angle setting, the picture is actually "demagnified" in comparison to what you "see," but it allows you to get that extra person at the table into the picture.

In your case, the S500 has an equivalent focal length zoom of 36mm to 108mm. While the lens does have 3 times magnification (divide 108 by 36), it is 3 times from a slightly wide angle view, not from a normal view. If you look at the full telephoto setting of 108, it is really only 2 times magnification over the 50mm focal length that is related to how our eyes see distance. In shorter terms, it means that at full telephoto, it will only make something look twice as close, not three times as close as your eyes perceive it to be.

All that being said, the Canon S500 should be able to produce fairly high quality pictures up to certain print sizes (8x10, or so). There are some other considerations, like CCD size, that affect image quality, but that should not be a major factor for things you see here.

BTW, there are a number of zooms out there that will really reach out for you (like 380 to 400mm, or almost 8X magnification from what your eyes natively see - roughly equivalent to using a pair of binoculars.), but they do require either a tripod or a steady hand to get the most out of them.

Hope that helps!

[wilfredmrand]

the 3x factor

I've noticed that the very best zooms tend to be 3x lenses (Canon's vaunted 70-200 L's and 24-70L, Sigma 70-200 APO, Tamron 28-75 XR Di). So the 3x factor may be a sign of quality (or minimal compromises), though you didn't publish the make of your camera. Consumer zooms reach for 7x and 10x type magnifications, but there are serious trade-offs....and no Canon L's in this range because no 'pro' would tolerate the required compromises (or f/5.6 or f/6.3 wide aperture settings!).

In approximate terms, a 3x lens on a so-called point and shoot camera would probably be the 35mm fullframe equivalent of 35-105, slightly wide angle to portrait telephoto.

[wilfredmrand]

did I mention quality? How about 20in x 30in

That's what I get from a tightly framed image shot in RAW on my 300D.

Don't be misled be megapixel counts - that's merely the calculation of the pixel array (x * y = megapixels). It doesn't take into account how large the array is, antialiasing and antireflection microlenses and other factors. Sony's 8mp on the 828 doesn't touch the Nikon D70's 6mp though these are reportedly variants of the exact same Sony sensor architecture! Or the Sigma SD-10's Foveon array, which calculates to 10mp but gives you an image equivalent to a good DSLR's 6mp.

[marcqing]

Hi,
I used Nikon F's for many years, and shot a lot of Kodachrome 25. My Oly 8080 does an incredible job of delivering "pin sharp" images. I am not a pro, but I know sharp and detailed when I see it.

Marc

[marcqing]

Hi,
I used Nikon F's for many years, and shot a lot of Kodachrome 25. My Oly 8080 does an incredible job of delivering "pin sharp" images. I am not a pro, but I know sharp and detailed when I see it.

Marc