New Camera

[WonderBread]

Dont have time to make a review, nor do I really have the patience to. But I will put some pics up to show how well it takes them when I get around to it.

Its the Olympus FE-230 7.1mp 3x Optical zoom and all that schnaz. specs

[WonderBread]

ok...thx for the quick responses!

to the point...Here are some pics after a day of messing with it. Does alot for $200 +warranty and accessories!

the picture with the balls on the ground was taken with the camera at full optical and digital zoom, I was surprised at how well it looked.

[skool h8r]

Whoa! Those pictures are incredibly clear. Do you think you could try a photo of something close up, like a macro shot? Something like a coin up close or an ant or something.

I'm always looking for a new camera for when i have some money.

[danrok]

There's quite a lot of noise and fuzziness, in the first one especially.

Look at the Exif info for that one:

ISO-50
f3.1
1/640 sec.

ISO-50 is a bit optimistic, the camera is using a wide aperture to compensate for the slow ISO speed and fast shutter speed.

I don't think any camera would take a good pic using those settings, in that situation.

Use an ISO of 100 or 200 in good sunlight, 400 on a not so bright day.

Using a narrow aperture (bigger f number), will put more of the scene in focus. A wide aperture is only good for close-ups when you want the background to be out of focus, or in very low light when you don't have many options open to you.

[WonderBread]

hmm...There is nothing in the manual that tells me how to change the "f" number. But it does say it goes from f3.1 to f5.4 or 5.6.

[danrok]

Can you manually change the ISO? Setting that higher is likely to cause it to automatically use a longer focal distance.

[keithwalton]

you can rarely change the f-stop number on its own as danrok suggests it will be linked to the iso setting.

iso-50 is really lazy!
my ixus does 80,100,200,400,800 and 1600 iso in normal mode and 3200 is 2mp mode. which caters for most! It also has two auto settings, one which goes for 80-200 range, and another thats more 100-800 range.

[WonderBread]

Originally Posted by skool h8r

Whoa! Those pictures are incredibly clear. Do you think you could try a photo of something close up, like a macro shot? Something like a coin up close or an ant or something.

I'm always looking for a new camera for when i have some money.

is this kind of what you were looking for?

[aghastpumpkin]

I hate to say this, because I think you clearly have great photography skills, but somethings not quite right. There's too much noise on the pictures and the focus isn't quite right in any of them.
I would suggest Googling your Cameras Model and the word Forum to see if theres any forum topics about your camera that may help you find out how to change the settings, especially the ISO.
It's probably just a wrong setting tbh, but they do lack clarity.

[aghastpumpkin]

Now, my camera may be 8mp but it was only £120 ($240). I'm assuming yours cost more but hopefully....if you look at my picture and compare the leaves in mine to the leaves in yours, you'll see what we mean.

[danrok]

Originally Posted by aghastpumpkin

Now, my camera may be 8mp but it was only £120 ($240). I'm assuming yours cost more but hopefully....if you look at my picture and compare the leaves in mine to the leaves in yours, you'll see what we mean.

The number of pixels is neither here nor there. The quality of the sensor is the important factor. Loads of pixels are only useful to professionals who need to reproduce photos at a large poster size, in high quality.

And the photo you've posted is also noisey, and the focus is not sharp where it needs to be. The far side of the bird bath is out of focus.

A bit of noise is not a major problem. I fix that using Paint Shop Pro.

What is a problem, is the white, red and blue halo effect you can see in your picture. It's present on the shiny part of the leaves. Editing that out is far from easy. This is what I mean by sensor quality being more important, as is the lens quality.

Shiny leaves can be avoided using a polarising filter.

If the photo is to be viewed on a display, size it down to a sensible size, less that 1000 px wide. If you view an 8mp photo at full-size, then you are going to notice flaws, more than you will after reducing the size.

[aghastpumpkin]

I was actually highlighting the unimportance of megapixels....


Also, my picture was just to demonstrate an issue, I never proclaimed it to be good in itself.

[aghastpumpkin]

Oh - and the leaves really are that shiny!

[danrok]

Originally Posted by aghastpumpkin

Oh - and the leaves really are that shiny!

Shiny is often a bad thing, especially in nature and when using a digital camera. You end up with completely white patches, which lack detail and look artificial.

A polariser helps you to balance the shiny bits.

[aghastpumpkin]

Oh right - I see what you mean now. Well...my camera probably cant have a filter. But the point I was trying to make is that I don't think a picture should be THAT fuzzy.

[danrok]

The photos look far less fuzzy after a quick edit. Re-sized, sharpened, etc.

See attached.