Go Back   Computer Forums > Welcome To Computer Forums .org > Social Lounge | Off Topic
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-15-2009, 12:41 PM   #11
Golden Master
 
ArrizX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,073
Send a message via MSN to ArrizX
Default Re: Digital Camera under a hundred

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kage View Post
Can you open the shutter for more than 1 second? Or was that a mistake on the specs? If you can, and you use a tripod, night shots will look a lot better, but you'll have to make sure to put the ISO on manual, and aim for around 200-400, BUT to have the ISO that low, expect to have the shutter open for 10-30 seconds, and keep it still (why a tripod is needed)

But no, compacts are never good for low light. The sensors just cannot deal with the high ISO ratings, an SLR for example loves. But compacts tend to be just as good in normal light/high light situations, but of course, don't offer as much control.
Hmm, I see. So should I buy 'less' of a camera because they will all do crappy in the low light?


And I have no idea how to do the shutter thing... I guess ill keep looking thru it. But with what I need this camera for I cant cart around a tripod and let the thing stay open for 10 seconds lol. I need a snap a go camera that isnt going to be 400 dollars
__________________

__________________
. ()()()()
./l ,[_\_\ ],
l---L ()lllllll()-
()_) ()_)--o-)_)
ArrizX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2009, 01:48 PM   #12
Golden Master
 
Kage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 13,873
Send a message via MSN to Kage
Default Re: Digital Camera under a hundred

Less of a camera? No; the more expensive the camera (generally) the better the sensor, and preferably, the bigger the camera, the bigger the sensor = less noisy images, because they'll pick up more light in less time, but if you want completly clear night images, expect to use a tripod and a long shutter time.

Definetly don't get dragged into the megapixel law. More megapixels doesn't always mean better images. More pixels yes, but since the sensors don't tend to be any bigger, the results at 100% will be far from amazing, but scaled down? Passable.

I'd mess with the ISO/apature settings until you get a result you are happy with, but definietly don't expect a 100% clear image with no dots/digital mess up noise, but using a flash is a must in low light in a compact if you want to not have to use a tripod.
__________________

__________________
Abit IP35 Pro / Q6600 G0 / Zalman 9700 / 8800GTS 640mb / 4x 2GB Corsair XMS / X-FI Xtreme M / 1x 1TB / Antec 900 / Logitech Z-5500 / Samsung 20inch
Kage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2009, 02:13 PM   #13
Golden Master
 
01001010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,888
Default Re: Digital Camera under a hundred

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kage View Post
I'd mess with the ISO/apature settings until you get a result you are happy with, but definietly don't expect a 100% clear image with no dots/digital mess up noise, but using a flash is a must in low light in a compact if you want to not have to use a tripod.
I really don't suggest flash. It makes everything seem exposed and unnatural. Here's some photos taken by the Sony I mentioned earlier.

http://insideuniversal.net/PhotoAlbu...1/DSC02514.jpg
http://insideuniversal.net/PhotoAlbu...1/DSC04341.jpg

...and some with the Canon.

http://insideuniversal.net/PhotoAlbu...1/IMG_9435.jpg
http://insideuniversal.net/PhotoAlbu...1/IMG_1800.jpg

If you're creative, you can take night shots with a point and shoot. Just be patient.
__________________
Stop the genocide now.
↳ www.savedarfur.org

Send comments, suggestions and criticisms.
↳ 01001010listens@gmail.com
01001010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2009, 02:17 PM   #14
Golden Master
 
Kage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 13,873
Send a message via MSN to Kage
Default Re: Digital Camera under a hundred

Those pictures are pretty good, but there is quite a bit of light in the shots, to take the picture with, so a flash wouldn't be needed.
However, and I agree, it can make images look fake, would be needed unless the shutter could stay open, untouched in an environment of lets say, a street corner at night.
__________________
Abit IP35 Pro / Q6600 G0 / Zalman 9700 / 8800GTS 640mb / 4x 2GB Corsair XMS / X-FI Xtreme M / 1x 1TB / Antec 900 / Logitech Z-5500 / Samsung 20inch
Kage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2009, 02:32 PM   #15
Golden Master
 
01001010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,888
Default Re: Digital Camera under a hundred

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kage View Post
Those pictures are pretty good, but there is quite a bit of light in the shots, to take the picture with, so a flash wouldn't be needed.
http://insideuniversal.net/PhotoAlbu...6000000000.jpg

Dark as I can find.
__________________
Stop the genocide now.
↳ www.savedarfur.org

Send comments, suggestions and criticisms.
↳ 01001010listens@gmail.com
01001010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2009, 03:35 PM   #16
Golden Master
 
Kage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 13,873
Send a message via MSN to Kage
Default Re: Digital Camera under a hundred

ISO = 320.
Pretty low...and it must have been a fast capture too, but I believe that flash was probably used in that shot, with the reflections. Not 100% though
__________________
Abit IP35 Pro / Q6600 G0 / Zalman 9700 / 8800GTS 640mb / 4x 2GB Corsair XMS / X-FI Xtreme M / 1x 1TB / Antec 900 / Logitech Z-5500 / Samsung 20inch
Kage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2009, 03:38 PM   #17
Golden Master
 
01001010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,888
Default Re: Digital Camera under a hundred

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kage View Post
ISO = 320.
Pretty low...and it must have been a fast capture too, but I believe that flash was probably used in that shot, with the reflections. Not 100% though
Flash was not used in that photo. Those are the reflections from the lights above. If flash was used, the whole area would be brighter.

The point I'm trying to make is, you can get a decent shot in low light if you're creative. I'm not saying the results will be similar to those of a SLR, but you can get decent results.
__________________
Stop the genocide now.
↳ www.savedarfur.org

Send comments, suggestions and criticisms.
↳ 01001010listens@gmail.com
01001010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2009, 04:10 PM   #18
Golden Master
 
Tommy Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 8,463
Send a message via Yahoo to Tommy Boy
Default Re: Digital Camera under a hundred

Just my opinion Koby, I would have bought the Canon. It may be ugly, and I agree with that, but Canon is one of the best. I have a Powershot A75 3.2mp, yeah an older camera but it does brilliantly in any light. Seriously, I took pics in the dead of night with just the flash and the pics came out damn good.
__________________
When all else fails...Ham Radio!

I still have the same old HP DV9700T laptop I've had for years...still kickin'
Tommy Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2009, 12:40 AM   #19
Golden Master
 
ArrizX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,073
Send a message via MSN to ArrizX
Default Re: Digital Camera under a hundred

Quote:
Originally Posted by 01001010 View Post
Flash was not used in that photo. Those are the reflections from the lights above. If flash was used, the whole area would be brighter.

The point I'm trying to make is, you can get a decent shot in low light if you're creative. I'm not saying the results will be similar to those of a SLR, but you can get decent results.
Ill have to learn to be creative with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Boy View Post
Just my opinion Koby, I would have bought the Canon. It may be ugly, and I agree with that, but Canon is one of the best. I have a Powershot A75 3.2mp, yeah an older camera but it does brilliantly in any light. Seriously, I took pics in the dead of night with just the flash and the pics came out damn good.
I might be turning to that camera. I bought this one, and the memory stick and stuff but I made sure its all returnable. Ill see if I can be happy with this one, if not I will test out another for sure. Ill see just how creative I can get in dark lights. Hmm.
__________________
. ()()()()
./l ,[_\_\ ],
l---L ()lllllll()-
()_) ()_)--o-)_)
ArrizX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2009, 01:45 AM   #20
Fully Optimized
 
FlightSimBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,114
Send a message via AIM to FlightSimBoy
Default Re: Digital Camera under a hundred

Not to hijack this thread but..

You guys mentioned shutter speed and how slowing it down allows more light to enter the lens.. And I thought I would try it on my camera, because it took the worst night pictures of any camera I have seen.. So I set the speed to 2 seconds, I think it was, and the ISO setting on 64 and I took a near perfect picture in complete darkness (with the flash, of course) .. Needless to say, I've had the camera for over a year and I just now found this setting..
__________________

__________________
My Computer: eMachines T5226 - Intel Pentium D Dual Core @ 3 GHz - Diamond Viper Radeon HD3870 OC Edition with 1 GB GDDR3 VRAM - 4 GB PQi Turbo DDR2-533 RAM - Corsair 650W PSU with 52A on single rail - TSSTcorp DVD-DL+-RW combo drive - Lite-on 52x CD-RW burner - Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi XtremeGamer - Logitech z5300e speakers - WinFast TV Tuner - Vista Ultimate 64-Bit. eBay name: Flightsimboy304
FlightSimBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0