Western Railroad Discussion > New Camera

I just got my new digital camera today, and only had time to photograph one westbound heading into the afternoon sun before going to work. The camera is the Olympus C-730, and is quite impressive. It's 3.2 megapixel with a 10X optical zoom (30x digital). It has a LCD viewfinder in addition to the normal lcd view screen on the back. This is HUGE improvement over the linked prism viewfinder most digital cameras use. Not only do you see exactly what the camera sees, but they also display key exposure info in the viewfinder (the C-730 has a high res viewfinder than previous models like the C-720, and the C-700) There was some people saying that the LCD view finder would be hard to work with in low light situations. But in the few night time photos I took tonight, I'm willing to say the opposite is true. I can now see better in low light situations. The C-730 is also much better than previous models in this line, due to the addition of a number of features. The camera features Apeture Priority, Shutter Priority, and fully manual modes. It also has 4 custom settings and a custom button. You can preset settings and call them up in a hurry now. Say you have one for snow scenes, cloudy days, sunset shots, ect. I would say this is one of the best cameras to be found for under $500 ($443 buydig.com). I'll be out next weekend, and get a chance to really play with it. Anyways, I was really amazed at the way it got the color off those signal aspects while staring into harsh glint light (note:the color is much more true on the original than this compressed image).

Ted Curphey
funnelfan@icehouse.net

---

I agree about the low light: it has never been a problem, although high light definitely is a bear and is why (when I bought my coolpix) I insisted on an optical viewfinder too, which was rare then.

and ain't compression a booger? I notice this often as well. It also dulls the pic so I usually have to re-sharpen after compressing to get some back.

nice shot, love the sky. My "coming to work" shots are now time exposures...it's still dark at 6.00 here.

Occassionally I get something like this:

---

All right Ted! I was hoping you'd get that new camera soon. Sounds as if it may be a worthwhile purchase. Looking forward to seeing your pics from this weekend so I can feel more confident when I go out and order mine. Pretty impressed with what I've seen so far.

Brian

All tecno-garble aside, Great Shots!

Gonut

Waz yer old one "in decline"?

Serious question - why 3.2 megapixel vs. a higher number?

Those are nice pictures

I'm looking for a digital in about the same category. However I need one with stong Macro and I think it's called while balance capabilities to take pictures of model railroad rolling stock for a website. Have you tried any indoor closeups yet?

Thanks for any info on these features.

Well, go for more pixels if all things are equal. unfortunately, often things aren't equal. Lenses vary by maker, features and flexibility are less standard across brands than film bodies.

For example, I know that my ancient Coolpix 950 (a mere 2.1MPixel) outdoes many newer 3.3 and up. more resolution is great, but a more resolved fuzzy shot is still a fuzzy shot. I would rather have the ability to control metering, shutter and aperture and all that kind of stuff than have a 5mpixel that couldn't do them.

Just like a 200MM/2.0 chunk of glass, or the top end pro-lne film body won't make better pictures automatically, neither will more pixels.

I have an Olympus C3000 3.2 megapixel. I can print very good 8x10 prints and my printer, an HP932C cannot print any larger. 3.2 MP images fill my 30 megabyte HD fast enough...

July/August Photo Electronic Imaging magazine had Thomas White on his take of "the digital measure of film". His comparison of digital with film stated: "A practical replacement for a 35mm film camera would be a 22-megapixel camera that captures 12-bit color to produce a 72 MB file."

Imagine trying to reduce that image to fit T/O standards!!!

lhj

here's some no flash, manual white balance, macro shots using the nikon coolpix 950. (HO scale)

http://www.railroadforums.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3124

others may do equally or better, this camera is about 3 years old now.

Hi,

The quality pretty much speaks for itself; great pictures! I do have one question however. How is it for shooting action pictures with regard to lag after the shutter release button is depressed? Many older digital cameras have a very annoying time lag so that you have to release the shutter a second or more in anticipation of the scene you want to capture. Have they improved this situation?

Mike

nathanp5 wrote:

>
> time lag so that you have to release the
> shutter a second or more in anticipation
> of the scene you want to capture.

There is a lag to boot the camera of a
couple of seconds. All you need to do
is hold down on the button every so often
(the auso focus mode) to keep the electronics
turned on. My camera, the Minolta Dimage S404,
has bracketing functions and multiple frame
modes. One thing you have to get used to
with a digital camera is that the pictures
are free. Shoot a hundred, and keep twenty.

I have a new set of batteries always cooking
in the charger back in the truck.

Tony Burzio
San Diego, CA

trakmous wrote:

> July/August Photo Electronic Imaging magazine had Thomas
> White on his take of "the digital measure of film". His
> comparison of digital with film stated: "A practical
> replacement for a 35mm film camera would be a 22-megapixel
> camera that captures 12-bit color to produce a 72 MB file."

I haven't seen the article, but I feel many people out there are over-estimating the resolving power of film. I had the chance to see some test enlargements comparing similar images, one shot on Provia 100F and the other captured digitally with the new Canon 1Ds (11 megapixel). The 1Ds image blew away the slide on prints up to 40"x60". At 80"x120" you could start to see some individual pixels if you looked close, but more than five feet away you didn't notice.(You would have to stand back almost 10 feet to take in the entire print!)

Reports that 22-24 megapixels are needed to challenge film have to be considered suspect.

map

>>I haven't seen the article, but I feel many people out there are over-estimating the resolving power of film. I had the chance to see some test enlargements comparing similar images, one shot on Provia 100F and the other captured digitally with the new Canon 1Ds (11 megapixel). The 1Ds image blew away the slide on prints up to 40"x60". At 80"x120" you could start to see some individual pixels if you looked close, but more than five feet away you didn't notice.(You would have to stand back almost 10 feet to take in the entire print!)


I've heard the same thing about that new 11-megapixel Canon. I wish I had around $8K to spend for that baby.

I have tried the Nikon D100, working at 6 megapixels I could not see a difference on pictures of 5x7 or 8x10. Since I place most of my pictures (from film) on CDs I think digital is the way to go.

I like the Nikon as it uses the same optics as my SLR, and I believe that you can't beat good glass.

Espee 99 OS King City.........

Digital zooming is really a waste of time. Get the best optical zoom you can and if that isn't long enough use your photo software to crop out the borders and enlarge the center.

3mp will do just about everything you want to do on the internet and provide you with great 8x10 shots on your home printer and even larger prints from a professional quality printer if you take the files out to a graphics house.

I went for 5mp to get the ability to make large, over 20" prints. It does very well at that. Most users will find 3mp will give them all the quality they ask for. If you need larger prints from the 3mp, try a program that will change your files from rastor (dot) images to vector (line) graphics. Genuine Fractals is the best know of these programs but there are others.

Nice work, Ted. Wish you had ordered the new glass BEFORE the 700 trip?

It ain't the pixel count, it's the photographer's skill. NICE, Ted. Want to sell your old one, huh, huh? I can't see investing (and that's what it takes) in a 6-8 Mpixel, when you can get the results that Ted has posted with his earlier, 2 Mp camera. But then, you'd have to be as good a photographer as he is.

I dunno - I look at some (not all) of Funnelfans photos and they look pixelated. I look at Don Winslow's that he has been doing with his new camera and they don't seem to have any pixelation at all.

Just trying to figure what is the best way to go, or if I should keep waiting for the price drop / feature upgrades.

How do you feel the viewfinder served on the motion shots - that seems to be one of the big adjustment problem areas when going from fil to digital with longer lenses?

Hello funnelfan,
Like Ts1457, I am also interested in Macro
capabilities.
Could you please take a picture of a quarter
or a watch and see how it turns out?
I collect vintage railroad approved wristwatches.
Thank you.
Gary Z

Actually, for such a long lens youwould think you couldn't do much for close-ups. You'd be wrong though. The depth of field when close up is simply amazing! In the photo of the A&W cup (something I did while messing around at work), the camera was 6" from the cup, and the wall was 24" away from the camera. The specs say the camera has Macro and Super Macro modes that allow you to focus on something as close as 4cm from the lens, yes that's right, four flippin' centimeters. Night-time shooting is great too, I didn't put any effort into adjusting the night time shot,it was on the night auto mode. It's a gas fired steam electrical plant for those that want to know.

Ted Curphey
funnelfan@icehouse.net

---