Bought A New Camera

[unicorn]

I think 3 MP is pretty okey. Everybody have to make their own decisions. As I'm having an Epson R800 I guess 8 MP is overdue. Then I actually would like to have a Epson 4000 or at least 2100/2200... The R800 is to small.
So, I can understand the decisions about MP and zoom you made there adams. What I never would go for is an electrical zoom, I think that would drive me crazy. But your choize is still ok, spending money on "IS" can't be wrong with that type of zoom. By Minolta stops at 200mm (equiv) max focal length and the "AS" does a good job there.

(IS=image stabilized, AS=anti shake; two different methods that give roughly the same result - about 2-2.5 more stops to play with when you forgot your tripod.)

EDIT: For the jpg format only... Well, you allready understand I need RAW, otherwise I don't think it's fun enough.I understand that most people won't miss the RAW format.

[rikytik]

I only use jpg, even with my C-8080. I sent my C-740 Olympus 3 MP 10X zoom to my daughter. That is a very nice camera and I regretted parting with it. The C-8080 is heavy and much bulkier. But, I do love handling it. I would say that in the general scheme of things the C-740 produced pictures with as good quality as the C-8080. A bit less versatility.

My back up camera is a Pentax 4 MP Optio S4, very small 3X zoom. No bigger than a pack of cigarettes. I used it for a trip and it is OK, tho the lens is no where near the bigger cameras in terms if resolution, finess, or whatever the optical term is. Good for 4X6 prints but you wouldn't want to do much cropping.

[unicorn]

After some time I have now made a color profile for the camer, the screen and the printer. I am now getting prints that look nearly as expected... I think that profiling the screen was made the greatest impact.
It is not that bad spending an evening sorting pics and discover something with photoshop.
I gave up smoking, this is day 21 without any nichotin. Life is dull but slowly getting better. Killing an hour or two together with Photoshop makes it easier sometimes.
-------end of blogging---------

[adams]

unicorn, did you use some software to get everything calibrated the same or how did you do it?

[Cyberion]

my cousin who is a photophile, says that the Lecia is the most difficult camera ever to use. Though he took some amazing pictures with it. Sorry I don't have any shots.

[unicorn]

adams:

Calibration... a pretty complicated and boring procedure. And it costs money too. Ouch.
I have made color profiles for my scanner, camera, printer and monitors. Tedious. If you don't scan anything and if you can live without a special profile for your camera things are a little easier, but the two most important items to get profiled are still there - the printer(s) and the monitor(s) somehow must get profiled (=calibrated).
For my scanner and printer I use the software Profile Prism from ddisoftware. There are several to choose from but I bought Profile Prism as I had the necessary equipment (a flatbed scanner) to make the profiles. There are no other hardware needed. Another reason for choosing Profile Prism is that the same company makes the strange but indeed very well working software Qimage.
The monitor(s) is/are more tricky. Software only methods are not gonna make it for you. Using Adobe Gamma and similar methods is better than not doing anything. However - you will not get consistent results from time to time and any try to make two different monitors show the samw colors will fail. I finally had to buy a Spyder from Pantone/Colorvision. The same Spyder (a hardware measure tool you connect to the USB port) is used for their two different softwares PhotoCal and Optical. Optical is around $220 (PhotoCal is $150 only) but needed if you want the ability to match two monitors more exact to eachother (plus a lot of other features).
Expensive and not very sexy. But - I now suddenly get consistent colors from my printer. I also see colors in another way now and it took like half a second to see that the new AcDsee 7 needed some settings changed when I tried it the other day here...

Many will not need to calibrate their stuff. And that's good, there are more fun things to do with $250... If you just use a "simple" digicam producing so so jpegs and print them on your old cheap inkjet printer that came bundled with the box for example. Or in a single user system were you learn to adjust the colors to something acceptable and think that just a few prints are just a little out of line (colorwise) - maybe you can skip it.

If you think the colors change in a way you can predict. If you in vain try to get rid of color casts in pictures. If you want to be able to predict the result and if you want to be able to use Proof colors to see what the pics gonna look like... Well - then you have to start calibrate the monitor and printer setup.

hth,

[unicorn]

Nah, the Leica isn't complicated. You focus very fast and accurate. Then there is the shutter and the aperture to set. Mostly the same settings as a few minutes ago when you measured the light (always be prepared).
If you don't like to do it manual it's complicated. One has to find a way to work with it.
I miss my Leica a little now. The 35mm lens was so... so good! Absolutely flat, great bokeh and sharp from corner to corner. Theese prosumer digicams aren't close.

regards,



Leica M5, Summicron 35mm
The picture above shot just for the fun of it, the colors were cool with a pretty strange weather on it's way.

[Cyberion]

100%.. I was told that even the 8MP camera can't match a camera like that. Its also about the ccd not being any bigger and the image being worse on anything above 5MP, but I don't have a digi yet (always in the market).

[rikytik]

That is a wonderful primer on calibration, unicorn. Gonna give it a think. Thanks.

[unicorn]

The more I work with my freshly calibrated screens/monitors the more content I get - I should have done this long ago. When working with subtle details it is so nice to get prints looking like the pictures on the screen. For example this picture here:

Minolta Dimage A2, September 2004

Above it is in a small version in color. It is a strange motif - at first glance it can be hard to say what it is (or why?!). I wanted to show it in black and white instead, so I converted it. The purpose of this was to give an impression of a picture shoot like 20 or 30 years ago. It seemed a little boring or dull, became better when I adjusted the curves/levels and finally after turning it into a Duotone and sharpening it to get the combo of sharpness and grain it was another thing. The subtle differences from B&W to Duotone and trying different tones would have been hard to do without having the monitor calibrated. Now I could do it without to much of a guesswork; the first print was spot on. I'm not always that lucky, it still happens that I have to print a picture twice to get it right but it's much better now.

Here are links to the pictures for the interested (warning: 2 meg each), first
() and then (). I have no idea about how the B&W version look at your place unless you have calibrated your screen...