cameras

[Fuscus]

Some sort of bird ( think it is a budgie )

 

[Fuscus]

King Brown ( Mulga )

 

[Fuscus]

Some Lizards

 

[Fuscus]

Bredli playing hide the mouse. This shows the grain that occurs in low light

 

[instar]

What size image is 3.2 megapixels please Fuscus, will my new cam be any good for normal use?
Its a cheapy, ($190~) but seems to take pretty good pics. Its a kodak easyshare cx7300. neat little thing, and beating the hell out of the old pencam anyway Besides im still learning basic photography so it'll do. :lol:

 

[Fuscus]

3.2 is an image about 2400 x 1400 so its a good size. The images I have posted are at 800 x 600 and my original camera was 1.9 (1600 x 1200) from with you can produce photo realistic images on A4

 

[instar]

ust took a few snaps on "nightshot" to see how they turn out, couldnt find any intresting bugs or spiders out in the garden just now, too cool yet.

what do you think? LOL turts a bit blurry, too much light/reflection, too close to glass??
I liked the bonsai and ferns though!

 

[Fuscus]

How did you get the photo of the flying turtle? Got the kids to throw it past the camera
Glass is always probmatic, the general rule is have it as clean as possible and have the camera as close as possible to the glass to minimize reflection.
Is this the camera?
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/cx7300.html

 

[instar]

Hey Fuscus! Yeah thats the one mate, what you think? Getting 128mb multimedia mem card for it for $78 I store most pics on disc, but want to take a few more pics than its internal mem allows. P.S the turtle is swimming, lol the glass was pretty clean and i was close to avoid getting reflection of the cam in, perhaps i moved during the shot? no tripod. :?

 

[Hickson]

Instar,

You might have been too close, within the focal range of the lens. Or maybe the autofocus sensor focused on the glass, not the subject. I've had that trouble before.

I bought a Sony DSC-V1 earlier this year - $899, 5 megapixels, complete with a laser matrix for framing in dark locations, and infrared. Zoom is OK, and photographing anything moving is not as easy as it is with an SLR, but it's still a pretty good camera. Most of the photos in my gallery (except the Chondros, Diamond, and lizards) were taken with it.

http://www.aussiepythons.com/module...ame=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php

Unfortunately, some illegitamate son of a female dog broke into to my home a month or so ago and stole it. So now I'll have to upload some old photos into my gallery.

 

[Matty_2004]

Don't be thinking for a first camera you need to be spending heaps of money, cause trust me, $650 for a first camera these days is plenty.

If i was buying a new camera, i would buy either the FujiFilm S5000 (i think that is the top selling sub 1000 dollar camera this year), or an Olympus C-5060. Canon G5's are a great camera as you can get lots of adapters and accesories however they're now quite old.

Don't go for a camera that just has lots of mega pixels as having a closer range macro, larger shutter range and more adjustability is far more useful.

I recently bought my 2nd digital camera (i had used dads Canon EOS dSLR beforehand) however i am now more into photography and you really do not have to spend a **** load. You could run out and buy a dSLR tomorrow yet i can guarantee you anyone who has some idea about photography would be able to take better pics with a 500 dollar camera. I would not buy a dSLR for quite some time as there is alot of things you need to learn before hand. As nice as Fuscus's pics are (well done mate), i can pretty safely say he is not even using the camera to it's proper and full potential - even though he is quite knowledgable and skillful with a camera, as a dSLR isn't an easy piece of equipment to use, trust me. What i'm trying to say is, $600 dollars will get you an awesome camera to suit your level and you are better off buying a cheaper camera and mucking around and practising rather than buying a pro camera and just being mind boggled at what to do.

Anyways, here are a couple of pics i quickly took yesterday. . .not the greatest, i think they're slightly warped too as i was using a wide angle lens and than i changed the pics to 800x600 pixels (from a 12MP image), rather than doing a % re-size. . .ahh never mind!

PS: i've had my camera 5 days now...i'm crap!

The car pic seems look a little bit pixilated...ie: a bit of noise.

Cheers.

 

[instar]

Not too shabby Hix, nice pics! thanks for the info mate, think ill learn the basic basics first with my $200 jobby. Lol :wink: p.s. how did you get them on here so big? mine were compressed/resized automatically?????//

 

[Hickson]

Inny,

Those were taken at 5 megapixels and then I resized them down using the Picsizer software Lutzy recommended in a post.



Hix

 

[morpheus21]

We just bought a new digital camera the other week and it is awesome . It's a Kodak EasyShare CX7530, 5 megapixel. It has macro and the other usual modes, a rather good movie mode, 32mb mem but really need to get a card and only 3x optical zoom but thats still pretty good. It only cost $350 new and its a new model camera aswell just coming out last month. It takes excellent pics and have been having quite a lot of fun with it the last couple of weeks. Can't reccomend it enough and it is really an awesome first digital camera as it is really easy to use and excellent for the price. Would like to upload pics but don't know how . I can't believe how much some people pay so much for cameras :shock: and as it was $350 was almost to much for us.

 

[Fuscus]

I agree with most of what Matty_2004 said (include my photos (shown) not reaching the full potential) and a Dslr is not a suitable first camera. But if you want to do wild photography it is the only way to go, That horse wouldn't let me get closer than 70 meters and the wedgie was 10 meters away (I like the pose the bird has and the way the bird itself can out, but I dislike the flare on the background and the roo carcass). I wouldn't have even attempted those photos with a pocket camera.

Here is another photo of a wild tiger (a bit grainy, too much light). Anyone wanna guess how far away I was from the bity end?

 

[hey_im_sam]

4-5 metersish?

 

[Fuscus]

Good guess, but more like 2-3 meters

 

[nuthn2do]

a Dslr is not a suitable first camera. But if you want to do wild photography it is the only way to go

I'll back you up here Fuscus, point and shoot will not cut it as a wildlife outfit. You need the full control and systems options of a 35mm or digi slr.

 

[Matty_2004]

Pocket cameras will not come close to that, however, it does not mean you need a dSLR. . .i mean you can get SLR like (full adjustability) standard digi's with 12x optical zoom and 6.2 MP. . .dSLR's aren't the be all and end all, but saying that they're still the better option.

 

[danielsan]

I would recommend the Canon A80 as a first camera, I bought one last Oct after reading many reviews but this "useful review" is worth a read
http://albert.achtung.com/cameras/A80/index.html
Its a great cam to learn on since it has manual and program controls
If u know what ure doin ( I dont) u can take a good pic with it