BTW: THAT camera isn't for sale.

congrats.

just one lens now? hah! watch the family multiply. resistance is futile.

Just the one. Just for now I suppose. I tried 1.8 (I think) macro lens and it was so huge I could hardly imagine myself carrying it around. I was scared.

I'm sure I'll expand the family soon enough, but I guess I should first learn to use all the knobs and dials on what i've got first!

My mac needed nothing. Plug in the camera and get the pictures. It treats the camera as a drive.

with xp it shouldn't be a problem. try it--if it doesn't work load the software.

This only matters if you plan on shooting in RAW format. Every manufacturer has a slightly different RAW format and installing the software allows for optimal conversion from RAW into whatever format you wish or to work with Photoshop etc.

Rocky

...figured out how to do that, too. Ah...

For the longest time the only thing I knew how to do in Photoshop was to resize the jpeg file.

This seems a normal state of affair to me, now I got this fancy camera and all I know to do with it is to turn one dial and press one button!

....hmm...perhaps this should go in the When Complaining is Really Bragging thread...

Look for books by Scott Kelby. He's a well-known Photoshop & digital imaging expert/guru and founded and edits Photoshop User magazine. I have his Photoshop Book For Digital Photographers, from which I've learned some excellent tricks. He writes well and his instructions are very easy to follow.

For tips, tutorials, books, dvd's, etc., go to http://www.photoshopcafe.com/

The tutorials are categorized by effects grouping, but also (usually) labelled by skill: beginner, beg/int, intermediate, int/adv & advanced. Just pick an effect that you'd like to try & you'll be taken through it step by step.


While Photoshop truly is magical, a free alternative (for Unix, Windows & Mac) is called The GIMP.

http://www.gimp.org/

second new camera? or did i miss something?

i was all enthused about buying that nikon l1 that maurice linked to and bought but have now read some iffy things about it (some have reported focussing problems). am now considering this mutant creature.

I've yet to learn all the features but so far I am more than happy with my Olympus.

hmmm the a610 does sound good too (over on cnet). lippy, can you report on macro performance? my current camera sucks at close-up photography and that's one of the reasons i want to upgrade.

cnet does not think much of the olympus stylus 800's photo quality. plus i want at least a 4x optical zoom.

I read CNET's review. Don't agree with it. I've taken photos with it while driving. It's as good as my SLR. My SLR was about $200 cheaper though.

I think Lippy is correct about DPReview being a better source of information than CNET. And the Canon forums were invaluable to me in evaluating whether or not my Powershot Pro1 was a lemon or not. (It was! They sent me another one.)

I used to regard CNET as infallible, but they just aren't very thorough, and I think they're spread too thin.

The super-macro on my Canon Powershot Pro1 was the final deciding factor for me. It can get 1.3" away from the subject matter.

These are some shots I just took for the hell of it, out in my yard a few minutes ago.







Of course, to get the full effect, I'd post a close-up of the original size. These are just cropped images where I zoomed in some.

A flower at a farm this week:

Overcast & rain are actually good conditions for photography. Since the contrast & glare are reduced, colours are more saturated. Of course, there are also the "moody" photo's (as-is or trying out the B&W or sepia modes for added effect).

If the number of pixels don't affect quality, then see how satisfied you'd be with a 1 pixel camera.
The more pixels there are, the greater the detail that you can capture. If the scene doesn't have much detail to begin with, then there's no point to having higher resolution, but as Lippy pointed out: "Another advantage of more megapixels is that you can crop your photo and still retain quality." In fact, that's exactly what digital zoom is – cropping a photo (and thereby reducing the final resolution) to make it appear zoomed-in. You can do it yourself with much greater control... and quality.

Capturing detail is just one matter, printing it is another. Home ink-jet printers vary widely with regards to the level of detail that they can print. Some of the limitations are: (obviously) the resolution capability of the printer (although most newer printers are quite good) & what you have it set to; and the paper type that you're printing on (plain, matte, glossy, photo-matte, photo-glossy, textured, etc.). Also obvious, is the resolution of the original photo/file.
One good option for high-quality prints, is to take the image file to a lab (or ftp it, if the service is available) to print it for you using the very same photo dyes and papers that they use when printing photo's from negatives. Prints from a lab will last as long as a "regular" photographic print.

I agree with you, though, on the points that mega-pixels aren't everything. If the other factors affecting picture quality aren't there, then resolution is meaningless.

Granted, but if you're travelling, you'll take advantage of every opportunity that you can get. One of the nice things about photography-in-the-rain is the lack of people getting in the way. For urban shots, the reflections of coloured lights at night add greater interest. As long as you're relatively dry & comfortable (and it's not coming down in buckets), then go for it.

well, i did say 5x7. couldn't do that with a 1 megapixel camera, could i? my ancient 2 megapixel kodak dc 280 takes very high quality pictures in most circumstances. the only reason i am changing is because its macro sucks, it doesn't do well in low light and because on my recent trip to india i realized it is nice to have more than a 2x zoom. these are not issues that a 8 megapixel camera could help me with. if i can get the features i need then anything over 4-5 megapixels is a bonus. at this point does anyone even make a decent new <4mp camera?

[Emphasis added to my quote for clarification.]

1 megapixel would be much better that 1 pixel ( no "mega" ).

Anything in the 2 to 3 megapixel range is good enough for transmission by e-mail.
Here's a "quick & dirty" calculation of how many pixels comprise a 5"x7" print taking a lab resolution of just 400 dpi:
• labs take standard RBG files, so each pixel of a colour image is actually comprised of 3 bytes
• given the above resolution, 5x7 = 2,000 x 2,800 for a B&W image, therefore triple those bytes for colour
• 5x7 (RGB colour) = 6,000 x 8,400 bytes = 50,400,000 Bytes or roughly 50.4 MB
[Calculations are before any file compression is done, such as jpeg (which is a lossy format).]

By contrast, a monitor's resolution of 72 dpi for a 5x7 image = 1080 x 1512 = 1,632,960 bytes.

Obviously, the camera's (and files) that we use – around the 4 to 5 megapixel range – are losing a LOT of real image data. The programs that we use to print images (as well as the labs) use algorithms to extrapolate the data so that we may have reasonable image sizes to print. The greater the camera's resolution, the more accurate the image... colour, tone, contrast, etc.
It all works together.
[Edited to add...] Remember, way back, when attempting to print a nice "big" pic from the web or e-mail, how disappointingly small the resulting pic would be? Postage stamp sized! They were big on-screen, but were being printed pixel-for-pixel. Many of the images are just as small today, but the software has been changed to accommodate our whims... within limits ("Print Screen" works quite well now, but it's still not photo quality; similar changes to s/w have been done to most graphics programs, but there we generally use larger image files which naturally result in better printouts). For most people, these images are "good enough", but it's kinda like comparing the sound quality of AM radio with modern music CD's (and older digital images were akin to 1930's era radio).



<4MP camera's are being phased out simply because the demand is going towards the higher megapixels. Camera manufacturers are currently capable of producing camera's in the range of 50+ megapixels quite easily... but why go straight there when they can "milk the market" for another 10 years or more?

To quote dpreview:

Expect more higher resolution cameras & much smaller useful cameras in about 5 years or so (about the time that the patents should expire (unless renewed) on the Foveon sensor technology... which can triple the resolution of a given sensor area).

The Canon EOS 20D is highly recommended. I still only know how to use about three buttons and thingies so far, but the camera is so good it's making me look like I actually know what I'm doing!

Second the DPReview recommendation. Good advice!

lippy, have you had the opportunity to put the a610 through all its paces yet? how happy are you with the macro and/or low-light shooting?

Pim, where were those taken? The first shot (sardines?) is making me hungry - nice work.

Have fun getting acquainted with the rest of the features and contraptions - can't wait to see what comes next!