Camera comparison time.

For most readers here, this post may be a waste of time. If it is, skip it. But, I have been asked to post photos from two different cameras in a side by side comparison. Both cameras were set to their maximums, the Fuji at 2 megapixel fine, the Nikon at 20 megapixel– I don’t know off the top if it was fine or otherwise. As expected, the Nikon is grabbing huge hard-drive real estate at 4.19 MB for ONE photo, so I won’t do this very often. The Fuji, at its maximum, is only taking 748 KB of space. On your screen, if you blow them up to full size, the Nikon will gobble up– there’s no other word for this– 5152 x 3864 screen size, the Fuji is using 1600 x 1200. If you have a hankering to see your quarterback’s nose hairs in closeup, the Nikon would be the way to go. These were both the same scene, taken up the street from in front of my house.

First, the Fuji

DSCF0031

Now, the Nikon.

DSCN0030

 

The Nikon does give a wider field of view– important I think of you’re gonna use up space the way this does.

Note: Weather was cool, overcast, threatening rain later. Have to mention that so nobody thinks the sky was supposed to be blue.

Advertisements
Standard

13 thoughts on “Camera comparison time.

    • I’m no big fan of nose-hairs either. I won’t be using maximum settings on these cameras simply because it does eat up too much room. I have Photoshop Elements here, and that allows re-sizing to a much better web-size. I’ve found that 480 pixels wide by 360 pixels high gives a reasonable size photo for the web, so that’s what I’ll be using when I post. That really big size DOES have one good thing going for it though. If you want to use Photoshop to create a work of art, it’s a lot easier if you have a giant picture to work with. You can size it and cut and paste things to fit easier that way.

  1. Well, the sky spots are both saturated.
    For the Fuji shot, I couldn’t get the camera settings; for the other one I did: “4.5mm, f/3.7, 1/50s @ ISO 80, COOLPIX S3600” – though I don’t know what they mean.
    Now, did you try tinkering with the “balance of white” setting and changing the “weather” mode (it’s like ‘brightness’ or whatever) if there is such? I don’t know how some cameras do it – I only know they can and have seen it done: they balance the contrast of a (the) bright object with the much darker environment so that neither the sky goes a “blind bright” nor the rest “dumb dark”. To an extent, of course.
    It probably depends on what you’re aiming at to picture – my passion is “the bright”:)
    I beg you try to tinker about that “contrast of brightness” – I’d like to see if you can make the sky speakπŸ™‚ – with its amazing all-blue spectrum.
    I myself enjoy how those all-blue-but-not-always-blue colours flow, seamlessly, into each other through this vastness of aerial ocean, how one actually sees a fugue, or sonnet, symphony it happens.

    And well, if it gets you interested, the best way to come to picturing skies is when you yourself can observe (and enjoy) the spot with your naked eye. Then you can fasten your camera:) Usually I take a nice photo if the sun is oblique, or draped with a curtain of a tree branch, or a clump of such, or fuzzed by very thin clouds or haze.
    If there are some settings for that ‘bright adjustment’, I hope you won’t mind finding them.πŸ˜‰ Earth is incomplete without sky, Mikey:)

    • If you want blue sky I’ll have to pick a different day. This was typical November overcast– complete cloud cover, threatening rain later. I can’t make the sky blue except in Microsoft Paint, otherwise– unless the sky actually IS blue. Which it wasn’t.

      In these photos, the sun would be behind me, seeing that I’m facing North. You can’t tell of course from the photos– maybe you can if you really look– but the sky at the Northern horizon is slightly darker. A cold front was approaching, bringing rain and clouds.

      • I didn’t mean blue, I meant sky.
        Any camera can image a brick wall. Not every camera can catch a tree’s foliage (no matter pixels). And I take it that it’s at least difficult to “copypaste” the bright of a sky in its true colour.
        :faint:

  2. As of the comparison, I don’t think different cameras should set both to their maxima. On the contrary, I’d suggest their settings – and spots – were better to be “closened” to each other: for example, one could zoom with that which gives a wider picture – so that… Never mind, though – it’s all nuisances and matters not very much:) But anyway about zooming – if you try zooming at objects with different luminosity – see if the camera gets adjusting like automatically to balance the brightness/contrast or not.πŸ˜‰
    :beer:

  3. That’s strange!
    I’m with Opera, from the main page I definitely see “November 6, 2014 | mjmsprt40 | camera comparison, photo | 5 Comments”, but only “2 thoughts” here.
    Strange…

    • I don’t think I can help much with Opera. I use Chrome at the moment, which does show the right numbers. Firefox and IE both seem to work well enough too. I haven’t had Opera since they ran us out of town late last year.

  4. Maximizing space is pretty important. I use a cheap little Canon Powershot, which is good enough for most things, but terrible at close ups. I really want to invest in a better camera some day soon. So this post comparing two of them was interesting to read, thanks!

    • I wouldn’t say either is “better”. The Fuji is as old as the hills, uses a Smart Media card that you can’t buy anymore. It was sold back in the day when 2 megapixels was as big as it got. The Nikon is low-end point and shoot, I paid about $100 for it at Radio Shack. Another $30 or so for the 16 gigabyte SDHC card it favors– which because it’s still new you can buy anywhere. A cheap camera with 20 megapixel capabilities.

      Good part: These cameras can be mounted on a tripod for stability. That’s important when you see how much my left hand shakes sometimes. (Yeah, there’s a problem there somewhere– my brother has the same shaking in both of his hands, as I noticed last Saturday.)

      Josh has been giving me a time of it because my sky pics don’t seem to measure up. Sometimes the sky just looks like that– what can I say?

      • Is it a real tremor or sporadic shaking? (Too much coffee, huhπŸ˜‰?)
        In either case it’s important not to try stiffening your hand – exactly the other way round remember what they do to buildings in quaky places: imagine you’re floating in space while the earth and your whole body ARE moving, and their movement needs getting rid of – they are NOT your coordinate system but an obstacle.
        (Try not to faint down altogether, MichaelπŸ˜‰)

      • Whatever it is, it’s not a constant thing. Noticeable when it happens though– if I try holding the camera with that hand while pushing the button, everybody would notice because of the blur in the photo. Funny thing is, sometimes it’s steady as a rock– so it’s not constant anyway.

        Edit; add-on: Pay no attention to this, this is just an experiment to see if I can actually make this work. I’m going to attempt to post a photo from my library here into this comment.

        You've already seen this.

        OK, good. I got it to work.

  5. Special note: Taking a photo of today’s sky would be a really bad idea. The sky is made of lead today. I mean solid grey, with not much of any variation in it. It rained earlier, now it’s going to get cold as another polar vortex settles in. Typical November sky in Chicagoland.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s