Reading mode: Light Dark

Is there a perfect PS digital camera?

Go to last post
M

Marvin Doering

Senior Member
Messages
1,599
Reaction score
34
Location
MO, US
I have been playing the game buying new digital cameras only to learn too late all the things wrong with them. I bought a Sony F828 only to learn about purple fringing and chromatic aberration. I bought a Nikon D100 which has never lived up to its promise and has already been displaced by the D70. I bought a Minota Dimage A2 and traded in the F828 only to learn that the pictures are soft, the viewfinder washes out in high contrast situations, and the autofocus doesn't about 20% of the time and underexposes flash pictures regularly.

So my question is, has anyone found an entirely satisfactory camera that is always sharp, focuses properly, and yields brilliant color photos but is not an SLR. I've had it with hauling all the extra equipment. I would like the option of making tack sharp 13x19's with my Canon i9100 printer so camera resolution is important. How about it? Anyone? I never had this problem with film cameras from my Nikkormat El to my Canon A1 to my Nikon N90. They were always sharp and mechanically sound.
--
MRD
 
Look at Michael Reichmann's article again- he shoots raw and a lot of postprocessing is involved.
A perfect camera with perfect pictures right out of the camera- no way.

How should the camera decide, if you want wallet sized prints, downsized ones to share over the internet or poster prints?
At least sharpening has to be totally different.

If you are not a control freak willing to adjust each and every setting manualy- there are some fine automated programs out there, for little $, that do a fine job, and a combination might suite you much beter then Photoshop.

A simple to use contrast adjustment and color temerature adjustment- like in PSE, I prefer Fixfoto.
Noise reduction- neat image or Noise Ninja( I hardly ever use one).
Finaly a little sharpening( PSE or Fixfoto again).

For printing Qimage does a great job- resizing automatically to your printer's need and automatic further sharpening according to the size of print.

It sounds like a lot, but once you understand, what you are doing, it only takes less then a minute per shot- most could even be done in batches, if you presort your shots accordingly into different batches.

As there is no camera with built in legs, that goes out and takes shots by itself, there is no camera that can predict, what you need the shots you take for.

Maybe in some years from now you will be able to give a hint, and the fuzzy logic of a camera can do the adjsutments- but there will be so many settings, that you will come back to switch the in camera processing off again, because it would take longer to find the right setting, then doing it in post yourself.
 
We have pictures from our old Kodak DC290, 2 megapixel camera, that we have printed out on our Canon 13x19" printer, and they are fantastic. My son has pictures from his Kodak DC240, only 1 megapixel camera, and he got great 4x6" prints. I took it to an event in SF, dropped it on the cement, and it kept on. To some extent, those Kodaks were easy to use and delivered great quality--but with only 1 & 2 megapixels, we wanted bigger prints and possibly more zoom and control.

We have gone on to the Sony DSC V1 and Canon S50 for compact point-and-shoot, and we have been pleased. It was annoying to have to give in and get Sony's memory sticks, but the camera has been good.

This weekend I'm going away travelling light and taking the Canon point-and-shoot and leaving my lovely Minolta D7Hi with wireless flash, good tripod, polarizing filter, & additional battery pack. I'm sure I will miss some of the capability of the bigger camera & lens but the little one will keep me taking pictures and learning and capturing the moment.

Good luck. - Jean Ricket
Doehns said:
Look at Michael Reichmann's article again- he shoots raw and a lot
of postprocessing is involved.
A perfect camera with perfect pictures right out of the camera- no
way.
How should the camera decide, if you want wallet sized prints,
downsized ones to share over the internet or poster prints?
At least sharpening has to be totally different.
If you are not a control freak willing to adjust each and every
setting manualy- there are some fine automated programs out there,
for little $, that do a fine job, and a combination might suite you
much beter then Photoshop.
A simple to use contrast adjustment and color temerature
adjustment- like in PSE, I prefer Fixfoto.
Noise reduction- neat image or Noise Ninja( I hardly ever use one).
Finaly a little sharpening( PSE or Fixfoto again).
For printing Qimage does a great job- resizing automatically to
your printer's need and automatic further sharpening according to
the size of print.
It sounds like a lot, but once you understand, what you are doing,
it only takes less then a minute per shot- most could even be done
in batches, if you presort your shots accordingly into different
batches.
As there is no camera with built in legs, that goes out and takes
shots by itself, there is no camera that can predict, what you need
the shots you take for.
Maybe in some years from now you will be able to give a hint, and
the fuzzy logic of a camera can do the adjsutments- but there will
be so many settings, that you will come back to switch the in
camera processing off again, because it would take longer to find
the right setting, then doing it in post yourself.
Click to expand...
 
you can live with the lack of speed.
Marvin Doering said:
I have been playing the game buying new digital cameras only to
learn too late all the things wrong with them. I bought a Sony
F828 only to learn about purple fringing and chromatic aberration.
I bought a Nikon D100 which has never lived up to its promise and
has already been displaced by the D70. I bought a Minota Dimage A2
and traded in the F828 only to learn that the pictures are soft,
the viewfinder washes out in high contrast situations, and the
autofocus doesn't about 20% of the time and underexposes flash
pictures regularly.

So my question is, has anyone found an entirely satisfactory camera
that is always sharp, focuses properly, and yields brilliant color
photos but is not an SLR. I've had it with hauling all the extra
equipment. I would like the option of making tack sharp 13x19's
with my Canon i9100 printer so camera resolution is important. How
Click to expand...
Marvin Doering said:
about it? Anyone? I never had this problem with film cameras from
my Nikkormat El to my Canon A1 to my Nikon N90. They were always
sharp and mechanically sound.
--
MRD
Click to expand...
 
Get a D70 or 300D and use the Sigma 18-125 mm DC lens as a walkaround lens.

The ISO flexibility makes it more capable than any P&S even though it starts at 3.5.

It's not like you HAVE to change lenses if you have a DSLR, the temptation is just so great because you have that ability. But you can definitely use a DSLR as a point and shoot, and still enjoy all the benefits of a DSLR without the faults of the P&S cameras.
Marvin Doering said:
I have been playing the game buying new digital cameras only to
learn too late all the things wrong with them. I bought a Sony
F828 only to learn about purple fringing and chromatic aberration.
I bought a Nikon D100 which has never lived up to its promise and
has already been displaced by the D70. I bought a Minota Dimage A2
and traded in the F828 only to learn that the pictures are soft,
the viewfinder washes out in high contrast situations, and the
autofocus doesn't about 20% of the time and underexposes flash
pictures regularly.

So my question is, has anyone found an entirely satisfactory camera
that is always sharp, focuses properly, and yields brilliant color
photos but is not an SLR. I've had it with hauling all the extra
equipment. I would like the option of making tack sharp 13x19's
with my Canon i9100 printer so camera resolution is important. How
about it? Anyone? I never had this problem with film cameras from
my Nikkormat El to my Canon A1 to my Nikon N90. They were always
sharp and mechanically sound.
--
MRD
Click to expand...
 
Agent said:
Marvin Doering said:
I have been playing the game buying new digital cameras only to
learn too late all the things wrong with them. I bought a Sony
F828 only to learn about purple fringing and chromatic aberration.
I bought a Nikon D100 which has never lived up to its promise and
has already been displaced by the D70. I bought a Minota Dimage A2
and traded in the F828 only to learn that the pictures are soft,
the viewfinder washes out in high contrast situations, and the
autofocus doesn't about 20% of the time and underexposes flash
pictures regularly.

So my question is, has anyone found an entirely satisfactory camera
that is always sharp, focuses properly, and yields brilliant color
photos but is not an SLR. I've had it with hauling all the extra
equipment. I would like the option of making tack sharp 13x19's
with my Canon i9100 printer so camera resolution is important. How
Click to expand...
Agent said:
about it? Anyone? I never had this problem with film cameras from
my Nikkormat El to my Canon A1 to my Nikon N90. They were always
sharp and mechanically sound.
--
MRD
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--With regards to the Canon Pro1 and speed, are you referring to lens speed, write-speed, shutter-speed? I very rarely need to shoot rapid multiple shots. Virtually never so speed is not an issue. Does the Pro1 give consistantly sharp and focused pictures? Is it mechanically sound? Looking at the forum for Canon I see similar complaints about the Pro1. I'm beginning to think that digital photocgraphy is very much in its infancy, even though it has been around for a number of years.
MRD
 
focus and shot to shot speed.

If you used a film camera what would you get?
Marvin Doering said:
Agent said:
Marvin Doering said:
I have been playing the game buying new digital cameras only to
learn too late all the things wrong with them. I bought a Sony
F828 only to learn about purple fringing and chromatic aberration.
I bought a Nikon D100 which has never lived up to its promise and
has already been displaced by the D70. I bought a Minota Dimage A2
and traded in the F828 only to learn that the pictures are soft,
the viewfinder washes out in high contrast situations, and the
autofocus doesn't about 20% of the time and underexposes flash
pictures regularly.

So my question is, has anyone found an entirely satisfactory camera
that is always sharp, focuses properly, and yields brilliant color
photos but is not an SLR. I've had it with hauling all the extra
equipment. I would like the option of making tack sharp 13x19's
with my Canon i9100 printer so camera resolution is important. How
Click to expand...
Marvin Doering said:
about it? Anyone? I never had this problem with film cameras from
my Nikkormat El to my Canon A1 to my Nikon N90. They were always
sharp and mechanically sound.
--
MRD
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--With regards to the Canon Pro1 and speed, are you referring to
lens speed, write-speed, shutter-speed? I very rarely need to
shoot rapid multiple shots. Virtually never so speed is not an
issue. Does the Pro1 give consistantly sharp and focused pictures?
Is it mechanically sound? Looking at the forum for Canon I see
similar complaints about the Pro1. I'm beginning to think that
digital photocgraphy is very much in its infancy, even though it
has been around for a number of years.
MRD
Click to expand...
 
Marvin, with all due respect,

I own the D100 as well as canon S45, G2,G3,,,,,the D100 is a very capable camera.
Are you looking for a point and shoot?
If so, then the answer to your question is no, there is no perfect camera.

You have to take the good with the bad. The D100 is a great camera and BTW, it has NOT be displaced as you say by the D70. I just had to stick up for the D100..... but, you have the same disease we all have, we all want the purrfect camera. Ain't no such animal my friend. You have to learn that the one you have in your hand is the best one and learn to take good pictres with it.
Marvin Doering said:
I have been playing the game buying new digital cameras only to
learn too late all the things wrong with them. I bought a Sony
F828 only to learn about purple fringing and chromatic aberration.
I bought a Nikon D100 which has never lived up to its promise and
has already been displaced by the D70. I bought a Minota Dimage A2
and traded in the F828 only to learn that the pictures are soft,
the viewfinder washes out in high contrast situations, and the
autofocus doesn't about 20% of the time and underexposes flash
pictures regularly.

So my question is, has anyone found an entirely satisfactory camera
that is always sharp, focuses properly, and yields brilliant color
photos but is not an SLR. I've had it with hauling all the extra
equipment. I would like the option of making tack sharp 13x19's
with my Canon i9100 printer so camera resolution is important. How
about it? Anyone? I never had this problem with film cameras from
my Nikkormat El to my Canon A1 to my Nikon N90. They were always
sharp and mechanically sound.
--
MRD
Click to expand...
 
I've gotten excellent photos with both of the Olys I've had, a C-50 and a 5060. Excellent color, no fringing. The only editing I have really had to do is cropping and red-eye but now that I am using an external flash I don't even have the red-eye problem.

Here's one of my newer pics, a difficult shot to keep the dark reds from being overexposed:



Come and visit the Oly forum, you find lots of great cameras and photo samples.
--
Theresa
The Digital Junkie! (w/an Oly C-5060 & FL-40)

 
All cameras have limitations. It doesn't matter whether you buy a $4,000 DSLR, a $30,000 DMF camera or a $200 PS.

A good chunk of photography is knowing about and working within the limits of your tools. If you are unable or unwilling to work with the limits of your camera, look for a different one, but don't go expecting the moon. These cameras seem to get better and better, but all you can do is buy the best available now.

Lots of people are very happy to have the cameras you dislike. I wouldn't mind accepting the burden of taking that obsolete D100 off your hands :)
Marvin Doering said:
I have been playing the game buying new digital cameras only to
learn too late all the things wrong with them. I bought a Sony
F828 only to learn about purple fringing and chromatic aberration.
I bought a Nikon D100 which has never lived up to its promise and
has already been displaced by the D70. I bought a Minota Dimage A2
and traded in the F828 only to learn that the pictures are soft,
the viewfinder washes out in high contrast situations, and the
autofocus doesn't about 20% of the time and underexposes flash
pictures regularly.

So my question is, has anyone found an entirely satisfactory camera
that is always sharp, focuses properly, and yields brilliant color
photos but is not an SLR. I've had it with hauling all the extra
equipment. I would like the option of making tack sharp 13x19's
with my Canon i9100 printer so camera resolution is important. How
about it? Anyone? I never had this problem with film cameras from
my Nikkormat El to my Canon A1 to my Nikon N90. They were always
sharp and mechanically sound.
--
MRD
Click to expand...
 
Theresa K said:
I've gotten excellent photos with both of the Olys I've had, a C-50
and a 5060. Excellent color, no fringing. The only editing I have
really had to do is cropping and red-eye but now that I am using an
external flash I don't even have the red-eye problem.

Here's one of my newer pics, a difficult shot to keep the dark reds
from being overexposed:



Come and visit the Oly forum, you find lots of great cameras and
photo samples.
--
Theresa
The Digital Junkie! (w/an Oly C-5060 & FL-40)

Click to expand...
--Your picture of the rose is beautiful. I would be proud to say I took it. I was just reading a review in an English photo magazine, "What Digital Camera," in which the reviewer made a remark to the effect that the Canon A2 was probably about as good as it can be considering the stage of development of digital photography but that film users would find the flaws objectionable. Apparently, he feels that the state of the art is still in the embryonic stage, and you just won't get a perfect digital camera. Apparently, you need to spend $8000 on a digital camera to match the picture taking ability of a $200 point and shoot film camera. I guess my question has been answered. The new question should be why do they charge so much for cameras that aren't really ready for prime time?
MRD
 
Marvin Doering said:
--Your picture of the rose is beautiful. I would be proud to say I
took it.
Click to expand...
Thank you!
Marvin Doering said:
I was just reading a review in an English photo magazine,
"What Digital Camera," in which the reviewer made a remark to the
effect that the Canon A2 was probably about as good as it can be
considering the stage of development of digital photography but
that film users would find the flaws objectionable. Apparently, he
feels that the state of the art is still in the embryonic stage,
and you just won't get a perfect digital camera.
Click to expand...
I think it really depends on the user. I get much better photos with my digital than I ever got with film but my digital has been an excellent teaching tool. I get immediate feedback on my mistakes and reshoot until I have achieved what I wanted.

I think you will find that there are certain film photographers who will never acknowledge the successes of digital photographers. To me they are just film snobs, look around you and see the fabulous shots posted here in every forum at dpreview. I think you would be hard pressed to say that the average film photographer could do any better than these average digital photographers.
Marvin Doering said:
Apparently, you
need to spend $8000 on a digital camera to match the picture taking
ability of a $200 point and shoot film camera.
Click to expand...
I didn't spend even $800 on my camera and can take pics that you yourself said you would be proud of.
Marvin Doering said:
I guess my question
has been answered. The new question should be why do they charge
so much for cameras that aren't really ready for prime time?
Click to expand...
I believe they ARE ready for prime time, they just take time to learn. They are tools. I have seen works of art created by guys using chainsaws, and then I have seen nothing but a pile of rubbish created when I use one. It all depends on the effort you are willing to put in to mastering the skill.

--
Theresa
The Digital Junkie! (w/an Oly C-5060 & FL-40)

 
The new question should be why do they charge
Marvin Doering said:
so much for cameras that aren't really ready for prime time?
MRD
Click to expand...
I assume it's because we willingly pay so much. Actually I you have to take into account the engineering, testing and manufacturing costs involved. Oh yes I can't forget profit else why do all the previous. On a more personal basis I'm taking more pictures than I had in years and it doesn't cost me anything unless I print. Purely an amateur, still learning, and probably will still be learning years from now.
 
Took the words from my mouth!

Most cameras are OK 90% of the time but you have to know when the wrong time is coming up and jump in and tell them what to do. As for their cost, my last one cost £149 (and dropped to £139 a couple of weeks later) and has turned in a lot of good shots and more than a few duds but I am getting to grips with it. I'd say the same about my serious camera exceptthat there are fewer duds and mostly my fault.

Just my 2d worth, David
dustin_c1 said:
All cameras have limitations. It doesn't matter whether you buy a
$4,000 DSLR, a $30,000 DMF camera or a $200 PS.

A good chunk of photography is knowing about and working within the
limits of your tools. If you are unable or unwilling to work with
the limits of your camera, look for a different one, but don't go
expecting the moon. These cameras seem to get better and better,
but all you can do is buy the best available now.

Lots of people are very happy to have the cameras you dislike. I
wouldn't mind accepting the burden of taking that obsolete D100 off
your hands :)
Click to expand...
 
It will come out in June, 2022. It will be based on a holographic storage system using a gravity lens. Once it arrives, all other camera production will stop. Since the new camera does everything perfectly, there will be no need for any other cameras : )

Sorry, couldn't resist. Todays camera's are perfect compared to cameras 1, 2, 5, and even 20 years ago - and tomorrow's cameras will be even better.

Tell me. Did any of the defects that you just mentioned hender your photography? Or are they just something you heard about and don't like?

Make a list of what's important to you, and what's not. Research each camera, and decide what you can live with and what you can't. Remember, pick the best tool for you and then learn how to use it. Shortcomings are only shorcomings in the hands of the inexperienced.
 
tko said:
It will come out in June, 2022. It will be based on a holographic
storage system using a gravity lens. Once it arrives, all other
camera production will stop. Since the new camera does everything
perfectly, there will be no need for any other cameras : )

Sorry, couldn't resist. Todays camera's are perfect compared to
cameras 1, 2, 5, and even 20 years ago - and tomorrow's cameras
will be even better.

Tell me. Did any of the defects that you just mentioned hender your
photography? Or are they just something you heard about and don't
like?

Make a list of what's important to you, and what's not. Research
each camera, and decide what you can live with and what you can't.
Remember, pick the best tool for you and then learn how to use it.
Shortcomings are only shorcomings in the hands of the inexperienced.
Click to expand...
--I see sarcasm is alive and well on two continents. What is important to me is razor sharp photographs and the feeling that I have made a mistake despite massive research. How can anyone say a camera is great but not as sharp as it could be? If it's not sharp it can't be great. Or that they had to get 2 or 3 of them to find a good one (A2) or that hopefully firmware will correct the purple fringing (F828) or that the newer, cheaper camera by the same manufacturer is better in all respects than the one you have a couple grand invested in (D100).
MRD
 
But it's not sarcasm without a point : )

The point being, that nothing is perfect, so don't go on an endless hunt for something that is. Define what's important to you. You said resolution is important, but to what end? If you're doing 8X10's any of the cameras you mentioned will do a decent job. If you're doing poster size prints maybe you need a dSLR?

For pure image quality in the prosomer field, the Oly 8080 is tops. The Canon Pro1 is very good as well. It's only the ergonomics that are different.
 
Marvin Doering said:
tko wrote:
Click to expand...
Snip, snip, snip!
Marvin Doering said:
Marvin Doering said:
Make a list of what's important to you, and what's not. Research
each camera, and decide what you can live with and what you can't.
Remember, pick the best tool for you and then learn how to use it.
Shortcomings are only shorcomings in the hands of the inexperienced.
Click to expand...
--I see sarcasm is alive and well on two continents. What is
important to me is razor sharp photographs and the feeling that I
have made a mistake despite massive research. How can anyone say a
camera is great but not as sharp as it could be? If it's not sharp
it can't be great.
Click to expand...
Snip,snip,snip!
Marvin Doering said:
MRD
Click to expand...
Hi,

OK. As your criteria is sharpness, may I suggest you buy a tripod and use it and then get a DoF calculator (a quick search on the forums will find it). It would help to have a remote control or cable release for the camera but the self timer will do. And you'll need manual focusing and that means a proper SLR and not one of those EVF things as several have suggested they are hard to use. If you wear glasses then get a pair made for using with the viewfinder but save that for the last resort.

Personally, I like sharpness but sometimes I have to do without it for reasons to do with the light available, shutter speed and so on.

Of course, you could always sharpen later on with say an Unsharp Mask software: it's up to you.

Regards, David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top