Best Point and Shoot Camera?

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Good, I'm glad to know that you did that on purpose. I was wondering...

I'm an old fart and sometimes don't understand what's the objective to some things these days. I never would have imagined that would have been a goal; however, I do use bokeh a lot in my wildlife photography, so now I see this as something similar.

Dave

I'm sure a dedicated tilt-shift lens or some heavy post-processing would do a better job. But, you have to admit, it's pretty cool to see a pic like that from a single, versatile, built-in lens.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

... But, you have to admit, it's pretty cool to see a pic like that from a single, versatile, built-in lens.

I'll have to admit that I don't comprehend it at all. That's not my idea of a good image, but that perhaps confirms my "old fart" status. That's probably done with the camera's internal software, rather than the lens.

[The1]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I'll have to admit that I don't comprehend it at all. That's not my idea of a good image, but that perhaps confirms my "old fart" status. That's probably done with the camera's internal software, rather than the lens.

Completely software related.

My buddy just picked up the 60D and i was watching him play with some of the in camera post processing, I feel it's a pretty unnecessary addition to the camera itself in my opinion, but if it helps sales, then it's needed i guess.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by The1

Completely software related.

My buddy just picked up the 60D and i was watching him play with some of the in camera post processing, I feel it's a pretty unnecessary addition to the camera itself in my opinion, but if it helps sales, then it's needed i guess.

Yeah, when you've experienced the extra flexibility and dynamic range of shooting RAW, you never would take a chance to go back to letting the camera do it. I'll admit, the first week that I had my 5D MkII I actually shot a large number of shots in the green-box Automatic mode, because I went straight on vacation and didn't really have time to study, but once I moved over to RAW there was no turning back.

Dave

[The1]

I like shooting in Program, it seems to work well on the camera. But i only use that when i'm not really concerned about the over all pictures. when i want to do something more serious, all the filters come off the lenses, camera goes into raw, and the mode goes to Manual.

the camera is nice and flexible that way. If i were doing what you do on a regular basis with the wildlife, it would always be filterless and RAW, and in manual mode.

(when i say filter, i really mean lens protector as the L series lenses don't need filters, unless you need a polarizer)

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by The1

I like shooting in Program, it seems to work well on the camera. But i only use that when i'm not really concerned about the over all pictures. when i want to do something more serious, all the filters come off the lenses, camera goes into raw, and the mode goes to Manual.

the camera is nice and flexible that way. If i were doing what you do on a regular basis with the wildlife, it would always be filterless and RAW, and in manual mode.

(when i say filter, i really mean lens protector as the L series lenses don't need filters, unless you need a polarizer)

I keep a high quality UV filter on my 24-105mm and 70-200mm and only pull them off in lighting situations where a filter might add flare or reflection. They're both L-lenses, but, in general, they help the IQ and protect the front elements. The 500mm has a big ole carbon fiber hood that protects the lens. The contrast and color from that lens is so great that I've never even considered buying a drop-in filter or two.

I do own and occasionally use polarisers on the two shorter lenses.
Dave

[The1]

where did you find the carbon fiber hood???

that would be very sexy to see on a lens.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by The1

where did you find the carbon fiber hood???

that would be very sexy to see on a lens.

It comes stock with the very expensive 500mm f/4L IS. The lens is titanium and magnesium with a CF hood, but still heavy, due to all the big chunks of glass in it. The inside of the hood is covered with non-reflective, black fabric and the outside is painted greyish white to match the rest of the Canon big-lens fraternity, so it's not as sexy looking as you might expect.

We're probably not too many years away from carbon fiber super-tele lenses. It makes sense and there's enough budget in those lenses to make it financially viable.

Dave

[The1]

do you think canon will do any more DI lenses in the future? like the 400mm. Was a great way for them to save weight and size.

and i think it will be interesting to see the future of the lenses, but i don't know if carbon fiber would be impact resistent enough to be considered a good substitute for the body. Yes it's stronger then steal, but it's also more fragile at the same time. Time will tell.

and too bad those hoods are painted to match the bodies

[KingOfJericho]

I have the Canon PowerShot SD1400 and I LOVE it. It's TINY which is great for a P&S as I often forget I even have it on me until I need it. It has rounded edges as well which makes it the perfect pocket camera.

[The1]

I was in a store we have here in canada called XS cargo where they sell a bunch of refurbished stuff they had point and shoot camers for 30-50$ canadian....

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Good, I'm glad to know that you did that on purpose. I was wondering...

I'm an old fart and sometimes don't understand what's the objective to some things these days. I never would have imagined that would have been a goal; however, I do use bokeh a lot in my wildlife photography, so now I see this as something similar.

Dave

As Chewy mentioned, people usually use a tilt-shift lens to do that kind of shot on a DSLR. However, the fact that this camera has such a feature is pretty cool. It's even got the fish-eye effect as well as a bunch of other ones. Sure you can use post processing but with a built-in feature like that you can preview the pix before heading home.

At the MSRP of $400 it's a bit much but at around $300-350 this camera is well worth the value.

[ChasVS]

Canon S95 hands down. Worth every cent I paid for it. Had the S90 and sold that to help fund the upgrade!

[immiketoo]

Originally Posted by The1

and i think it will be interesting to see the future of the lenses, but i don't know if carbon fiber would be impact resistent enough to be considered a good substitute for the body. Yes it's stronger then steal, but it's also more fragile at the same time. Time will tell.

and too bad those hoods are painted to match the bodies

If they can make aerospace and F1 parts precise and strong enough, they can make a lens. I would LOVE the debate about whether or not to get the
1X1 or 2X1 carbon weave on your lens!

OP, I have the S90 and for a small camera, the color reproduction and clarity are amazing. Get the S95. You won't be disappointed. I also have a Canon SD4000 which is a bit smaller and still takes great pics. Not quite as good as the S90 though.

[The1]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

If they can make aerospace and F1 parts precise and strong enough, they can make a lens. I would LOVE the debate about whether or not to get the
1X1 or 2X1 carbon weave on your lens!

OP, I have the S90 and for a small camera, the color reproduction and clarity are amazing. Get the S95. You won't be disappointed. I also have a Canon SD4000 which is a bit smaller and still takes great pics. Not quite as good as the S90 though.

I don't see the F1 cars being that strong, I saw a video of Sebastien Vettel's car driving along and the front end just dropped off. But for a tube that holds lenses, maybe it's good enough.

and areospace stuff is designed for 0 gravity, so it's not like it even has to have that much pressure put on it.

I guess we'll see though.