Best small point and shoot camera

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I use to have the Canon Powershot s400, and I have to say I was
impressed with the quality. Although the quality was great - there was
RED EYE in every single picture. I couldn't take it any longer, so I
got the Sony Cybershot DSC-P200 7.2 megapixel. The quality is great,
and NO REDEYE. The bad news is, the picture clearity is 50/50. Half
the time it takes a great picture, the other half a blurry picture. I
had zero blurry pictures with the s400. After last night at a party
that contained many blurry pictures that I really wanted I've decided
to get rid of the Sony.

My question is, what do you guys suggest for quality and consistant
clearity with little red eye?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

utseay@aol.com wrote:

> I use to have the Canon Powershot s400, and I have to say I was
> impressed with the quality. Although the quality was great - there was
> RED EYE in every single picture. I couldn't take it any longer, so I
> got the Sony Cybershot DSC-P200 7.2 megapixel. The quality is great,
> and NO REDEYE. The bad news is, the picture clearity is 50/50. Half
> the time it takes a great picture, the other half a blurry picture. I
> had zero blurry pictures with the s400. After last night at a party
> that contained many blurry pictures that I really wanted I've decided
> to get rid of the Sony.
>
> My question is, what do you guys suggest for quality and consistant
> clearity with little red eye?


The deciding factor for red eye is the distance between the lens and the
flash and the subject, or pre-flash red-eye reduction. Are those two
cameras very different sizes or flash positioned differently?

Blur may be caused by a number of things, probably too long of a zoom??
Do you have an example with EXIF shooting settings?


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<utseay@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1115350942.273483.292770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I use to have the Canon Powershot s400, and I have to say I was
> impressed with the quality. Although the quality was great - there was
> RED EYE in every single picture. I couldn't take it any longer, so I
> got the Sony Cybershot DSC-P200 7.2 megapixel. The quality is great,
> and NO REDEYE. The bad news is, the picture clearity is 50/50. Half
> the time it takes a great picture, the other half a blurry picture. I
> had zero blurry pictures with the s400. After last night at a party
> that contained many blurry pictures that I really wanted I've decided
> to get rid of the Sony.
>
> My question is, what do you guys suggest for quality and consistant
> clearity with little red eye?

Redeye is rather unpredictable, but the closer the flash is to the lens axis
the more likely you are to get it, because the lens then is more likely to
"see" the part of the retina which is illuminated by the flash. Yet
users/reviewers often report that two cameras with the same lens-to-flash
spacing give very different amounts of redeye, sometimes even when they are
of the same brand and similar model. Personally I think this is more likely
to be a matter of randomness than actual difference between the two cameras.

Another factor is shooting distance. The closer you are, the *less* likely
you are to get redeye. again, this is a matter of the angles involved. When
shooting at a subject 20 or 30 feet away I have gotten very bad cases of
redeye even with a separate (shoe-mounted) flash unit, though that type of
flash effectively eliminates redeye at closer distances.

Are you using redeye reduction (pre-flash)? This often helps though it
certainly does not eliminate redeye.

Other than that, there isn't much you can do about any compact camera which
has the flash built in close to the lens, which unfortunately most of them
do. You might want to look at the Minolta (now Konica Minolta) DiMAGE X
series cameras which have the flash a bit farther from the lens than most
ultracompact cameras. I have *never* gotten redeye with my Minolta Xt or Xg
cameras, but this is probably more because the little indoor flash shooting
I've done with them has been at quite close distance, than because of any
substantial difference in these cameras from others.

As for the 50% blurry problem you mention, that sounds like your Sony has
autofocus problems in low light, which a number of digital cameras do at
least some percentage of the time. I have no familiarity at all with Sony
cameras so that's just a supposition on my part.

N.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

utseay@aol.com wrote:
> Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about. Some are good, some
> are dark, some are over exposed, some are blurry...ect.
>
> The canon s400 never had these problems. I could be running full speed
> and pass a deer running full speed in the oposite direction and still
> get a good picture. It would still produce red eye, but it would be a
> clear good quality deer.
>
> I have messed with the AF a little. It seems to help very little.
> However, I have not adjusted the shutter speed. I will give this a
> shot, hopefully it will work. Thanks for the tip. Check out the below
> pics and let me know if you think it will help:
>
> http://img.photobucket.com/alb-ums [...] 002-05.jpg
> http://img.photobucket.com/alb-ums [...] 002-03.jpg
> http://img.photobucket.com/alb-ums [...] 002-07.jpg
>
>
> http://members.aol.com/utseay/-sh.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/utseay/-sh2.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/utseay/-sh3.jpg
>
> http://members.aol.com/utseay/doo2

I'm assuming you were replying to my post. I can't get any of the above
links to work.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/ [...] dvds/DSC00 2-05.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/ [...] dvds/DSC00 2-03.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/ [...] dvds/DSC00 2-07.jpg

http://members.aol.com/utseay/sh.jpg
http://members.aol.com/utseay/sh2.jpg
http://members.aol.com/utseay/sh3.jpg

http://members.aol.com/utseay/doo2

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

utseay@aol.com wrote:
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/ [...] dvds/DSC00 2-05.jpg
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/ [...] dvds/DSC00 2-03.jpg
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/ [...] dvds/DSC00 2-07.jpg

These links did not work for me.

> http://members.aol.com/utseay/sh.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/utseay/sh2.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/utseay/sh3.jpg

The first two look like either the camera didn't focus or the person
taking the picture moved slightly. I find it best to put the focus mode
on center or spot and then center the subject of your photo and press
the shutter button halfway down until the focus locks. Then frame the
picture while still holding the shutter button halfway. At this point
completely press the button and take the picture. You might already do
this but I know many people that don't and get bad pictures as a result.
For the type of shots you were taking it would be better to force the
flash to make the subjects better illuminated. Also, when taking low
light pictures it is important to hold the camera very still while
shooting and make sure the subject doesn't move.

Another possibility is you may have a bad camera and you might want to
exchange for a different one.

> http://members.aol.com/utseay/doo2
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 6 May 2005 15:20:43 -0700, utseay@aol.com wrote:

> http://members.aol.com/utseay/sh.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/utseay/sh2.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/utseay/sh3.jpg
>
> http://members.aol.com/utseay/doo2
>
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/ [...] dvds/DSC00 2-05.jpg
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/ [...] dvds/DSC00 2-03.jpg
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/ [...] dvds/DSC00 2-07.jpg
>
> Sorry, I copy and pasted them from an old post and it through som "
> -"'s in there for some reason. They should work now.

Nope, the first three work. I don't know what's wrong with the
fourth (doo2), but it loads nothing bug garbage characters in the
screen of two different browsers. The last three don't work as
posted. These work:

> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/ [...] C00205.jpg
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/ [...] C00203.jpg
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/ [...] C00207.jpg

From the exif data the times the pictures were taken was:

DSC0203.jpg 21:49:32
DSC0205.jpg 21:49:47
DSC0207.jpg 21:50:11

DSC0205.jpg is the one that came out extremely dark. My guess is
that it was taken too soon after the unlisted DSC0204.jpg was shot,
and the flash's capacitor didn't have enough time to fully charge.
DSC0205.jpg was taken only 15 seconds after DSC0203.jpg, so if
DSC0204.jpg was taken, say, 10 seconds after DSC0203.jpg, that would
give the camera only 5 seconds to have charged the flash by the time
DSC0205.jpg was taken, and that may not have been sufficient to
charge the flash's capacitor. My camera's manual states that if the
flash isn't fully charged it won't be fired, but the picture will be
taken anyway. Other cameras may trigger the flash, though it won't
provide full intensity. It appears that the Sony DSC-P200 is one
that, like mine, takes the picture without firing the flash. You
can tell that it's the fault of the flash not firing since the
exposure is similar to the other two pictures. Also, one of the
objects in the middle of the right side of the picture (below the
calendar) seems to be glowing, brighter than the objects in the rest
of the picture, resembling a small video screen of some type. It's
easier to see if the photo is edited to increase brightness with
some gamma adjustment. In the one other picture it appears in
(where the flash went off) its luminosity is not seen.

As for the other outdoor pictures, I think the blurriness is
caused by not holding the camera steady enough. Try taking a few
more outdoors in similar light (or brighter), with the camera either
on a solid tripod or using some other means to keep it immobile.
The self timer may help too.

The shutter speeds used in these pictures were 1/125 and 1/160.
Try taking several more handheld pictures, varying the shutter
speeds from 1/125 to 1/1000 seconds to see if the faster speeds
reduce the blur. Try to take these in direct sunlight. The ones
you took were taken in shade, which caused the (relatively) long
shutter times.

All of the pictures were taken using ISO 100. It may help if you
try ISO 200 or even ISO 400. That may produce a little more noise
in the pictures, but it may be well worth it if it significantly
minimizes the blur.