CF: Clickers Corner - Page 8

Delta Whiskey · 09-09-2009, 14:01

I'm using a Ricoh R10 but it's a bit more than you want to pay. The Olympus you linked to is about par for the course although I prefer the Fujifilm FinePix J100 (10MP, 5x Optical)

Blackened · 09-09-2009, 14:41

Thanks DW. When you say you 'prefer' is that after using one or by what you see/read?
I'm almost tempted with this Olympus now after reading a few reviews but I could easily be swayed at this stage.

altis · 09-09-2009, 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackened

...but I'd rather spend a bit more and have less MP...

A little while back I got Mrs A an end-of-line Canon A95. It's a bit fat compared with all the modern compacts but at least it takes AA batteries rather than a proprietary L-ion. And it only has 5 Megapixels on a relatively large sensor - excellent for low light. You could probably find a mint example fairly cheap on Fleabay.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona95/

Delta Whiskey · 09-09-2009, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackened

Thanks DW. When you say you 'prefer' is that after using one or by what you see/read?
I'm almost tempted with this Olympus now after reading a few reviews but I could easily be swayed at this stage.

I have a friend who has one, I've had a quick play with it and it handles OK. I had a Fuji S5700 bridge camera which was excellent quality.

Blackened · 09-09-2009, 15:50

Thanks lads. Altis, I'm particularly after a thin, light model. I've usually enough to carry about so I don't want to add to that. I think the best thing is for me to go and have a touchy-feel in the shops. Thanks again.

Blackened · 09-09-2009, 20:27

The touchy-feel led to a Nikon Coolpix S220.
I've since been onto the lad that sold it to me and have arranged for a refund - I picked it up for £119. Easily the most compact (smaller than my mobile) and the best looking cam I saw from many stores today, but falls very short in image quality. The images look about the same if not noisier than those from my Nokia N95 and that's really not good enough. I could never settle for convenience over quality where my pics are concerned. Back to the drawing board! I thought perhaps I'd just been spoiled with my EOS 400D but no. Getting these images into CS4 makes them look like VGA webcam grabs - very disappointing.

I think I'm going to need to compromise here and go for a bigger unit if I want anything near a nice 'snap' that doesn't require 10 mins of post-pro.

Delta Whiskey · 09-09-2009, 20:36

Trusted Review have good tests, here's a link to their best compacts under £150 with a score of 8/10 or better. http://bit.ly/GcyEi

Blackened · 09-09-2009, 20:49

Thank you again DW. Bizarrely, I was just looking at the EXIF of an utterly superb HQ pic of me & a friend taken by someone I don't really know. He sent me the pic and it's from a Casio EX model. That's the top listed there.

Angua · 10-09-2009, 08:11

Compacts are always a tricky choice as they tend to be used where speed of set up is needed and often they just cannot keep track of the subject well enough.

Blackened · 10-09-2009, 16:03

What does anyone think of this shot from the Nikon Coolpix S220?
This is untouched, save for a street sign blur. Exif data is intact. I think it's terrible quality but would like to hear from anyone who's more familiar with compact shots. The shot was taken at ISO 80.

File size is 4.3MB

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/7508/dscn0060b.jpg

alferret · 10-09-2009, 17:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackened

SNIP!
I think it's terrible quality but would like to hear from anyone who's more familiar with compact shots.

I would agree it is quite bad, not being quite up on photography as I would like I can only make comment on what I see.
No focus (I cant really see where the focal point is)
Fringing around the edges of trees & buildings against the sky (my fuji 5800 suffers from this and post processing can get rid of the majority of fringing)
It just looks overall noisy and some of the colours seem over saturated (might be my screen tho)

You should try comparisons of ISO's they might give a better "look" to the picture. 200 would be a safe middle of the road bet.

Should be ok for small prints.

Delta Whiskey · 10-09-2009, 18:09

Here's a link to a similar (full size original) type shot with my old Ricoh RR30 a 3.2 Megapixel camera, it looks similar to me, not as much fringing though.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/deltawh...10073/sizes/o/

Blackened · 10-09-2009, 18:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by alferret

It just looks overall noisy and some of the colours seem over saturated (might be my screen tho)
You should try comparisons of ISO's they might give a better "look" to the picture. 200 would be a safe middle of the road bet.

No, it's not just your screen mate. Not sure a higher ISO would improve things. It'd be worse if anything. I've been testing on all settings in any case and they're all pretty much the same, sadly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta Whiskey

Here's a link to a similar (full size original) type shot with my old Ricoh RR30 a 3.2 Megapixel camera, it looks similar to me.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/deltawh...10073/sizes/o/

Well. That IS very similar.
I think I can safely say this camera lovely though it is, just doesn't perform.
Thanks guys.

altis · 10-09-2009, 18:53

I inclined to agree that that shot shows very poor image quality, Blackened.

For comparison, here's some test shots with my Fujifilm S9500 (far from compact I know):
http://warringtonbears.org.uk/S9500/

Unfortunately, due to some misleading information on DPreview, I ended up taking them at F8 and using contrast set to hard and saturation set to high. Not the best settings in the circumstances.

Delta Whiskey · 10-09-2009, 20:15

Here's one from my new Ricoh R10 compact, 10 Megapixel 10x optical (Original Image Size).
200 ISO, 1/104 sec, f5.1, 24mm:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/deltawh...98138/sizes/o/