Oly 3040, Canon G1, Nikon 880 please advise.

[nahau]

Bob,

Are you saying that the photos you posted are all from the Casio? If these are indeed Casio photos, then the last photo of the rose is a Casio shot? The reason I ask, is that your post here> > >
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&page=1&message=1254070
says..."The fourth is what the Prince looks like when the color is captured
as it is. It is also untouched. I had a better image of it, but decided
to use the full sunlight auto mode shot as an example."

I am quite confused as to what camera this is from. Please confirm, so I am sure I know what you are trying to say here.

By the way, I never "recommended" the G1 to the original poster, I simply said...

"The G1 is not really a point and shoot camera. There is much more to it than just that. It is however capable of producing very good photos in AUTO mode"

Also, you say you belong to a forum that host 60K photos. Would you care to share that link so I can view your photos taken with your Casio?
nahau

Bob,
I checked your link. I only see one rose photo there...not 4.
Could you check to see what happened? I understand what the
original poster was asking. I was not trying to sway him to the
G1, I was just stating a fact that the camera can take excellent
photos in auto and not botch up as often as you claimed. Now I
don't shoot roses, but 95% of what I have taken out of 5500 photos
turned out fine. Probably less than 25 shots were done in auto
mode.
nahau

 

[Bob Williams]

The only picture on that page from the G-1 is the fireworks
shot. All of the others are from the Casio in Auto mode or
auto/macro. I purchased the Tiffen adaptor and the UV/P
filter package yesterday. I took it out today and shot some
images of the rose called Electron. It is a very deep strong
pink color. I still had to use 4/3rds comp, but the image is pretty
good. It has minimal blown highlights, and it actually is the
correct color for the rose. I deliberately waited until I had
full mid day sun to test the shot using the UV filter. I don't
have a good red to shoot today, but I assume that the UV filter
has solved that problem. I post rose pics on the Gardenweb
Gallery.

http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/rosesgal/

I haven't posted in a while, as I have been fighting this camera for
three weeks now. I don't know if any of my shots from the Casio
are still on the forum or not. If they are, they will be deep in the
higher numbered pages. Electron is a problem rose to get a good
shot of, and I posted the new image there a few minutes ago.
If the UV filter made that much difference in the Electron shot, it
should solve the red rose shots also. Like I said before, I am a rose
nut, and it is important that they look exactly as they should. With
the UV filter, Electron does.

Bob,
I checked your link. I only see one rose photo there...not 4.
Could you check to see what happened? I understand what the
original poster was asking. I was not trying to sway him to the
G1, I was just stating a fact that the camera can take excellent
photos in auto and not botch up as often as you claimed. Now I
don't shoot roses, but 95% of what I have taken out of 5500 photos
turned out fine. Probably less than 25 shots were done in auto
mode.
nahau

 

[nahau]

Bob,

Thanks for clearing that up. At least now I know that the rose photo is indeed casio. While that photo does also exhibit magenta casting blowouts, I have to assume that a similar photo with the G1 would be much more blown out. Thus your understandable aggavation with the G1.

During the time I was waiting for your reply, I took that photo and processed it in PS5.5. Here are the results...
Original:



After PS5.5:



Now while I really don't know what this rose looks like in real life, this is what can be done to help with limiting the blown out portion. (If it is indeed blown out...I don't really know). I also tried to keep the "reds" at the same levels in both the original and edited photos.

In another thread, you mentioned a rose that was edited. I also think the job was poorly accomplished. The rose looked dead on the branch! Here is that rose edited with PS5.5
Original:



After Photoshop:
http://fototime.com/ {1153CECC-5130-47E5-B19E-1CC3424C2D61} picture.JPG

Again, this editing is done under speculation to color, but at least it doesn't look dead! (I had to link that last photo to the larger size...fototime compression really killed the smaller version)

While editing is not the best solution to the G1 blowing out reds, it can be a "viable darkroom" solution for situations that require it. I know it's a hassle to do this for every photo, so don't get me wrong, I am not making excuses. My thread on dlls is a hope that someone more intelligent than I in software can come up with something that will help everyone here with the very same issues you have....at least with reds. The other problems you have stated with the G1 is very common with other digis...just read the sony and nikon forums on noise, focus, etc.

I am glad that the UV filter has helped, but I really don't think it will solve the red problem "completely". Good luck though, I know how important color redition is to you....It is to me also!
nahau

http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/rosesgal/

I haven't posted in a while, as I have been fighting this camera for
three weeks now. I don't know if any of my shots from the Casio
are still on the forum or not. If they are, they will be deep in the
higher numbered pages. Electron is a problem rose to get a good
shot of, and I posted the new image there a few minutes ago.
If the UV filter made that much difference in the Electron shot, it
should solve the red rose shots also. Like I said before, I am a rose
nut, and it is important that they look exactly as they should. With
the UV filter, Electron does.

Bob,
I checked your link. I only see one rose photo there...not 4.
Could you check to see what happened? I understand what the
original poster was asking. I was not trying to sway him to the
G1, I was just stating a fact that the camera can take excellent
photos in auto and not botch up as often as you claimed. Now I
don't shoot roses, but 95% of what I have taken out of 5500 photos
turned out fine. Probably less than 25 shots were done in auto
mode.
nahau

 

[Bob Williams]

Nice editing, but the original was almost perfect. The rose turns
magenta like that as it is exposed to the sun. There was a
little bit of blown highlights in the magenta, but the color is
correct. I have to say this, as I try to be honest. The UV filter
has changed the output of the G-1 so much that I am amazed.
I just processed some indoor flash pictures, some outdoor shots
of the woods, and the rose shots taken with the UV filter. The
skin tones in the flash shots are much more even and natural
looking. The shot with my little dog in it is almost perfect, and he
is a chocolate brown Taco Bell dog that is hard to get a good
shot of, as his color tends to just blur together. The woods shots
show good detail and are realistic at -2/3rds EV. The Electron
shot I posted on Gardenweb is pretty good for any camera if
taken in bright sun like that one was. If the camera had produced
in the beginning the way it does with the UV filter, I suspect I
would have been happy with it mostly. I still am not happy with
not being able to shoot 1000's at f-2, but that was at least in the
reviews, so I knew that going in. P-mode with the UV filter in
place would make this camera usable for a someone buying their
first digicam, as long as they used the EV comp. I am not quite
sure exactly how the UV filter is going to impact resolution and
sharpness yet, as the test shots were shot handheld. The rose
shot was pretty sharp tho, and macros almost always benefit from
a tripod. I have not tried the polarizing filter yet. I am pleased
enough with the change made by the UV filter that I am already
wondering if there is a better UV filter out there that would give
even better results.
: nahau wrote

 

[nahau]

Thanks for the "Nice editing" comment! As I stated I didn't know what the rose was "supposed" to look like...but hey, the reds are nice!!

I am very pleased that you are at least "happier" with your camera. There are many expensive "coated" UV filters on the market that may make life more pleasant. Maybe you should take a rose along with you when you go shopping! ;-).

By the way, the RAW capability of the camera is very good. Other manufactures who do not offer this are really doing an injustice to their customers. Many photos as shot with the G1 in jpeg mode will show a magenta casting due to the processing of in camera algos. Now this may be because of the G1 program itself, but if you were to shoot that same photo using Raw, then convert it to tif, you would not see the casting...colors are more true...and when converted to jpeg, the colors are maintained. I plan to post a thread on the subject in a few days. My findings so far are quite interesting...especially in the night photos.
Good luck!
nahau

Nice editing, but the original was almost perfect. The rose turns
magenta like that as it is exposed to the sun. There was a
little bit of blown highlights in the magenta, but the color is
correct. I have to say this, as I try to be honest. The UV filter
has changed the output of the G-1 so much that I am amazed.
I just processed some indoor flash pictures, some outdoor shots
of the woods, and the rose shots taken with the UV filter. The
skin tones in the flash shots are much more even and natural
looking. The shot with my little dog in it is almost perfect, and he
is a chocolate brown Taco Bell dog that is hard to get a good
shot of, as his color tends to just blur together. The woods shots
show good detail and are realistic at -2/3rds EV. The Electron
shot I posted on Gardenweb is pretty good for any camera if
taken in bright sun like that one was. If the camera had produced
in the beginning the way it does with the UV filter, I suspect I
would have been happy with it mostly. I still am not happy with
not being able to shoot 1000's at f-2, but that was at least in the
reviews, so I knew that going in. P-mode with the UV filter in
place would make this camera usable for a someone buying their
first digicam, as long as they used the EV comp. I am not quite
sure exactly how the UV filter is going to impact resolution and
sharpness yet, as the test shots were shot handheld. The rose
shot was pretty sharp tho, and macros almost always benefit from
a tripod. I have not tried the polarizing filter yet. I am pleased
enough with the change made by the UV filter that I am already
wondering if there is a better UV filter out there that would give
even better results.
: nahau wrote

 

[mikemalachy]

Sam,

I like the quality of your photos. I have been playing with a friend's G1 and I can't duplicate the clarity of your indoor shots.

Questions:

1) Are these taken with the G1? The INFO on these pictures indicate they were taken with a Nikon E880 or an Canon Pro90.
2) If so, were they done in Auto mode?

Mike, take the G-1 off the list. Auto is pretty much useless
except on clear nice days outside. Don't get me wrong, if the

In response to Bob, I agree. The G1 full auto is not great.
However, P mode is almost as easy to use but works much better!

As far as your original question, the camera on your list that
seems odd is the Nikon 880. This camera does not come close to the
manual features that you get with the 3040 and the G1. If these
manual features are important, then you should be considering the
3040, G1 and the 990/995.

I own the G1 and am very impressed with most of the photos I get.
It has quirks like all other cameras in it's class, but it has
worked very well for me.

 

[mikemalachy]

Thank you all for comments and the pictures. It has been very informative.

Nauhau,

I've gotten my hand on a friend's G1. He's more of an advanced photographer than I so he couldn't tell me much about the p&s capabilities of the G1. I'll be playing around with the camera for a few days.

You mentioned that there is no casting problem with the G1 in RAW mode. Do you know if there is software that can batch convert RAW files into JPEGs?

Nice editing, but the original was almost perfect. The rose turns
magenta like that as it is exposed to the sun. There was a
little bit of blown highlights in the magenta, but the color is
correct. I have to say this, as I try to be honest. The UV filter
has changed the output of the G-1 so much that I am amazed.
I just processed some indoor flash pictures, some outdoor shots
of the woods, and the rose shots taken with the UV filter. The
skin tones in the flash shots are much more even and natural
looking. The shot with my little dog in it is almost perfect, and he
is a chocolate brown Taco Bell dog that is hard to get a good
shot of, as his color tends to just blur together. The woods shots
show good detail and are realistic at -2/3rds EV. The Electron
shot I posted on Gardenweb is pretty good for any camera if
taken in bright sun like that one was. If the camera had produced
in the beginning the way it does with the UV filter, I suspect I
would have been happy with it mostly. I still am not happy with
not being able to shoot 1000's at f-2, but that was at least in the
reviews, so I knew that going in. P-mode with the UV filter in
place would make this camera usable for a someone buying their
first digicam, as long as they used the EV comp. I am not quite
sure exactly how the UV filter is going to impact resolution and
sharpness yet, as the test shots were shot handheld. The rose
shot was pretty sharp tho, and macros almost always benefit from
a tripod. I have not tried the polarizing filter yet. I am pleased
enough with the change made by the UV filter that I am already
wondering if there is a better UV filter out there that would give
even better results.
: nahau wrote

 

[nahau]

Hi Mike,

Auto mode on all the different digis will give you different results. It's really the "added" features of each camera that makes one decide to choose one or the other. For me, I have been shooting 35mm film for over 25+ years and when it came to choosing the G1, I didn't much care if it could or could not shoot good photos in auto mode. I was not planning on using it that way.

It is very fortunate for you to be able to practice with you friends camera. You will still need to know a few things about photogaphy in general to be able to take the best photos you are capable of. Or course, that not only pertains to exposure (lighting) issues...but focusing, flash, spot metering etc. Even when some of my friends ask me to recommend the G1, I hesitate, knowing full well that it takes time to learn this camera. It is capable of taking good auto shots, but again, knowlegde and the willingness to learn still come into play in "auto". Don't misunderstand, the G1 for many forum members here was the first camera "ever" for them. Many have elevated to very high levels.

Bob and I had a very interesting "chat" in this thread of yours. His needs are different than mine, but in the end, the important thing is that maybe he can work the issues that concern him. For me, I have very few issues with this camera...besides a 3rd party flash issue which I do wish canon would address.

As far as raw to jpeg conversion... I am not familiar with any program that can readily do this but I do believe something exists that may fit your needs. One of the advantages of Raw (besides color rendition) is that you are able to set some parameters before converting to tif. If you convert straight to jpeg, you bypass this advantage. Of course, it doesn't mean that you "need" to adjust every photo...it's just there if you want it. I have found that these adjustments can be accomplished in Photoshop quite similarly... so straight batch conversions may very well be the way to go if you feel no adjustments are required or if you find as you practice that adjustments are unnecessary. I advise you to do a search in this forum for "batch process", or post a new thread on what you are looking for. Many may not respond to this current thread on that subject.
Good luck practicing, and let us know what you think of the G1.
nahau

Nauhau,

I've gotten my hand on a friend's G1. He's more of an advanced
photographer than I so he couldn't tell me much about the p&s
capabilities of the G1. I'll be playing around with the camera for
a few days.

You mentioned that there is no casting problem with the G1 in RAW
mode. Do you know if there is software that can batch convert RAW
files into JPEGs?

Nice editing, but the original was almost perfect. The rose turns
magenta like that as it is exposed to the sun. There was a
little bit of blown highlights in the magenta, but the color is
correct. I have to say this, as I try to be honest. The UV filter
has changed the output of the G-1 so much that I am amazed.
I just processed some indoor flash pictures, some outdoor shots
of the woods, and the rose shots taken with the UV filter. The
skin tones in the flash shots are much more even and natural
looking. The shot with my little dog in it is almost perfect, and he
is a chocolate brown Taco Bell dog that is hard to get a good
shot of, as his color tends to just blur together. The woods shots
show good detail and are realistic at -2/3rds EV. The Electron
shot I posted on Gardenweb is pretty good for any camera if
taken in bright sun like that one was. If the camera had produced
in the beginning the way it does with the UV filter, I suspect I
would have been happy with it mostly. I still am not happy with
not being able to shoot 1000's at f-2, but that was at least in the
reviews, so I knew that going in. P-mode with the UV filter in
place would make this camera usable for a someone buying their
first digicam, as long as they used the EV comp. I am not quite
sure exactly how the UV filter is going to impact resolution and
sharpness yet, as the test shots were shot handheld. The rose
shot was pretty sharp tho, and macros almost always benefit from
a tripod. I have not tried the polarizing filter yet. I am pleased
enough with the change made by the UV filter that I am already
wondering if there is a better UV filter out there that would give
even better results.
: nahau wrote

 

[Bob Williams]

Mike, you are still going to have to learn this camera. The new
filter on mine seems to have made a great improvement. That
does not mean that you are not going to have to learn the LCD,
and what a good shot looks like in it. You are still going to have
to compensate on the exposure in a lot of situations. That is
totally acceptable tho in a digicam as long as you have enough
storage. Having the ability to capture the high resolution/quality
shots with this camera is great, but it doesn't change the learning
curve. It just makes it a lot more pleasant when you are getting
good shots while you learn. I have over 10000 shots with a digicam,
and I will have several thousand more before I really know this
camera. With the UV filter, I think my wife could turn this one on
and take acceptable pictures right now, and she is definately point
and shoot. Now, if I just knew why a UV filter made that much
difference in this camera............

I like the quality of your photos. I have been playing with a
friend's G1 and I can't duplicate the clarity of your indoor shots.

Questions:
1) Are these taken with the G1? The INFO on these pictures
indicate they were taken with a Nikon E880 or an Canon Pro90.
2) If so, were they done in Auto mode?

Mike, take the G-1 off the list. Auto is pretty much useless
except on clear nice days outside. Don't get me wrong, if the

In response to Bob, I agree. The G1 full auto is not great.
However, P mode is almost as easy to use but works much better!

As far as your original question, the camera on your list that
seems odd is the Nikon 880. This camera does not come close to the
manual features that you get with the 3040 and the G1. If these
manual features are important, then you should be considering the
3040, G1 and the 990/995.

I own the G1 and am very impressed with most of the photos I get.
It has quirks like all other cameras in it's class, but it has
worked very well for me.

 

[Dennis Unverferth]

First of all guys thanks for all the hints. It is nice to learn from the experimentation of others. One thing that sticks out for me is that a digital camera is not really that much different from a film camera. You still have to have good photographic technique. As for as colors go it is the same with a film camera. You choose film based upon what you want the outcome to be. Dewit Jones once made the comment "we tell our kids to stay away from drugs and then we use Fuji Velvea!" the colors of this film in certain situations can be "unreal". Ansel Adam said that the photo only began with the click of the shutter. What I am trying to say is why should we expect a photo to be perfect in Automatic mode just because the camera is "pro-quality". I do not think this is being realistic, any more than someone picking up a paint brush would paint a perfect painting just because the brush is expensive. Anyway thanks for the work you are doing to help all of us understand how to use this wonderful little tool.

 

[Bob Williams]

After three weeks without a single image I would post of a
rose, I installed the UV filter. I posted one image of a difficult
to capture rose. The last comment was that I had enabled
someone into buying a new camera, as the color was so perfect,
and their camera could not use filters. My camera is a completely
different beast with the UV filter in place. Why? Why would
a cheap simple UV/cut filter make such a difference?

Hi,

I am looking for a digital camera. I would appreciate any advice,
especially if anyone has had experience with all the above cameras.
80% of my shots will be quick and simple indoor snapshots of
people. I will want manual control over the other 20% of my shots.

Aside from cropping, I do NOT want to spend time editing the photos
in software. Because, most of my shots will be "point and shoot",
I would like the camera that will give me the best quality shots in
Auto mode.

Any insight will be appreciated. Thanks.

MM.