Cheapest 12mp Digital Camera

cheapest 12mp digital camera

    digital camera
  • a camera that encodes an image digitally and store it for later reproduction

  • A digital camera (also digicam or camera for short) is a camera that takes video or still photographs, or both, digitally by recording images via an electronic image sensor.

  • A camera that records and stores digital images

  • Usually captures images with the help of a CCD chip. The image data received is then saved to special memory cards or other storage media. (SmartMedia, xD-Picture Card,  Compact Flash,  Memory Stick,  SD Card,  MMC Card)

  • (of prices or other charges) Low

  • Charging low prices

  • (cheapness) bargain rate: a price below the standard price

  • (of an item for sale) Low in price; worth more than its cost

  • (cheapness) tastelessness by virtue of being cheap and vulgar

  • (cheaper) biligari? ( buhy-lee-ar-ee? )

Skyline Drive: trip #2

Skyline Drive: trip #2

[Kodak ISO800 negative print film in disposable camera > Epson V100 cae aec -3 gamma 1.9 4800dpi > Gimp with a usm mask & GND mask, brightness & contrast adj]

Not much fine-detail here, so obviously there was a bit more camera-shake. What did I do, point it back over my shoulder while riding? :) Oh yeah I took this standing next to my bike while the RV labored up the hill.

Shame, the view to the left was much better than this, did I not shoot it because I used my last film shot to shoot an RV climbing a mountain road? I definitely screwed up this trip, wasting film at high speed, bought only one disposable camera with film to start with, then dropped it and rolled over it with my bike, and wasted interesting lighting and scenery on top of that. One advantage of shooting disposable film: you drop and crush a $7 disposable, you only lose the shots, not the camera too. One advantage of shooting digital: you have enough storage to make up for borderline-stupid choices with earlier shots when you have a limited amount of film. Can't delete shots from film. And most decent digital cameras that shoot raw also embed full-res camera jpegs in the raw files (unlike the G9 which only embeds 1200p camera jpegs, 2MP images). And another thing, yet again there are scratches across the sky and a big water-spot also, all from mishandling the film. This is the first time that I've even touched this film, it didn't even make it out of CVS in good shape. This reminds me of shooting the 5D at night at ISO3200 and watching all the streaks come out in the sky after the raw-converter pushed the exposure (before I learned how to turn off the auto exposure-compensation in raw-development). I'm starting to see that compared to film, at least cheap film, and shooting the same lenses, digital cameras look pretty damm good especially for small-format. I could get this out of a Fuji A340 not to mention a 5D shooting raw. If the V100 is doing a decent job of scanning the film at 3200dpi then I would have to say that film I've shot so far tops out somewhere between 12000 and 2400dpi. It's not hard to compare a 3200dpi scan of 35mm film to a 12MP raw shot from a G9 because that scan would be about 12MP except in 3:2 not 4:3. So the scan should have higher linear resolution. So far it is pretty-much a waste to scan this film to 4800dpi, certainly with this V100, and that's assuming a good stable well-focused shot with a sharp lens. The Tamron 28-80 is only so sharp, but the earlier scans came out with much more fine-detail than this one out of a Kodak ISO800 disposable. Even the previous scan of Kodak ISO800 has more fine-detail than this. But then again I was shooting ISO400 film at -1eV in broad daylight with a 28-80 lens. The shots were at least 1/250s, this looks to be around 1/45s with maybe a 35mm effective lens. I guess about as slow as Kodak thought they could get away with.

In any case I liked the light here under these conditions, and there were definitely some shots that I didn't get that I would love to have, my only concern is that without the green leaves (or any leaves except for evergreens) it wouldn't be worthwhile to come up here in the winter, but then again, how can one be sure if one doesn't try. As long as it's not too icy I guess I'll try it once more, in a car. With lots of film :).

Though I should also take at least a G11. "Incentive, incentive!" :)
On the other hand now that I have a small collection of Sony & Nikon-mount zooms...with, it looks like, one more on the way...I got the 28-300 in Sony-mount that I "bought now" for $150, and I've got my eye on a range of 24-135s for under $100. I do regret paying so much for the 28-300 but it's in good shape and mounted on the 500si with a Hoya mcUV filter, a done deal. Now I could use something a little-bit longer than the Tamron 28-80 on the N80. If it's wider too and about the same size & price, no biggie. So this opens up some pano work with the very bottom of the Sony & Nikon DSLR range (well, an A200 but at least a D50 or D70, with the AF motor) for a head-to-head comparison with film shot with wide-angle lenses. And that's pretty-much "free entertainment" when you're talking about DSLRs that can be picked up for under $300 on eBay.

In the meantime I'll worry about why this is high in contrast yet still looks so saturated. It just looks "wan". So fine-detail is clearly not the only thing to worry about, but I know from long experience that digital cameras can produce this same effect very easily. This is a color problem not a camera problem and it was not avoided by shooting film. Aside from the fact that it's pretty clear that I was getting better resolution from even the G9 not to mention the A200 than I am getting from 35mm film with this scanner. It seems that 35mm film, at least the cheap film that I've shot, is adequate for casual photography but still getting obsolete at high speed,

College Park Trails

College Park Trails

[Fuji ISO200 > Minolta 500si Minolta 35-70 > CVS processing > Epson V300 scanner cae dg 1.8 ael -2 > Gimp]

So the V300 shows up a day before Christmas, a mere 6 weeks after it was shipped from California. Obviously a hectic time for USPS. Though maybe one of their little "elves" decided to return the scanner they stole from a mail-truck. This imbecile shipped the box without wrapping and then just wrapped the scanner in brown paper. Dumping the power-converter and cables into the box, unwrapped, and then running a single strand of packing tape around the short side of the box. I'm surprised that this thing didn't explode in shipping.

But it works well...
Epson has left only two display-gamma settings in the 2.50 driver that I had to download to get it to work with the V300. Either 2.2 or 1.8 now, and luckily I was using 1.9. So given the minor adjustments that I have developed, I was able to get this fairly easily. Also the multitude of scanner dpis is no longer supported, just even fractions and multiples of the base 4800dpi.

The scanner now generates 4800dpi scans quite easily. And cleanly.With better resolution, notably better resolution, than the V100 at 4800dpi. Or even at 3200dpi. This is a blowout win for the V300 though almost definitely the V30 is the same thing with the film holder added. Plus the lid works right and the lamp is LED which works instantly, no warm up required. It's just a much better scanner.

The files are scanning to 30MP easily and saving after USM with jpeg Q98 and they are 10-15MB instead of 25-30MB with obviously better detail and resolution when viewed at 100%.

I was happy with the old scanner, I'm practically ecstatic about this one. Sure I have not done a head to head density test, dynamic-range, color accuracy ect but I don't see ICC-profiling this scanner to be necessary, the CAE works almost well enough, it's a matter of artistic taste at this point. I could generate ICC profiles for it but not easily, not right now. When I can, maybe I will. Right now this is doing quite well.

The only real problem that I have with 35mm film now (and I was pretty happy with 35mm film with the V100) is the occasional grain that shows up in the sky and the dust, dirt and scratches of mishandled film. But 99% of that depends on how it is handled during development. Once I get it, it's treated with kid gloves. And I can see that I have to get them to cut it and sleeve it there or else they will just roll it up and dump it in a cardboard sleeve, at which point any debris on the film is ground between two turns of film as the roll shifts. And at 4800dpi viewing at 100% on a 120dpi 15" diagonal monitor you can see fingerprints & scratches in the scan at a magnification of about 3:1. They are not easy to see at full-image, but a good high-quality scan will pull them right off the film.

****Looking at the macro level***

Scanned 35mm film is just doing an outstanding job. The value quotient is simply outstanding. Now, *sure*, you shoot a lot of film the cost is going to tilt towards digital. Digital is much easier to deal with to get "decent" results. You get a cheap but good digital camera and get good results from it, that obviously affects the value quotient. You get a G11 for $50 on eBay? It's going to be hard to beat that. And I let one slide through my fingers yesterday writing about the mere issue of photography in and of itself and its significance, missed out on a $50 G11 with a couple of small scratches in the lens, and I'm hoping the guy gets back to me about that. Because I would love to compare the output of that camera to what I am getting with scanned 35mm film.

But clearly it might beat scanned film in terms of fine-detail at 100%, but it isn't beating it in terms of color. Even if S35mm film isn't exactly "right"? It's definitely not "CGI". It isn't coming out washed-out and chalky in the highlights, just unreally intense in the midtones and another thing that is simply huge: the 35mm color negative film and the scanner have WAY WAY more dynamic-range than the scenes that I'm shooting have. So I don't have to worry about DR: I take the shot, I adjust the clipping-points, scan it, and I don't have to do any masking. I just adjust the hue, brightness and contrast to get an overall exposure and color-balance that looks good.

It may not be "RIGHT".

But it sure looks good and it's damm easy.

And again this is *absolutely* not hurting for fine-detail. I do not need 30MP scans. But it cost me virtually nothing to get them. There's no point in scanning the film to 12MP or even 5MP when I can scan it to 30MP just as easily. The biggest problem by far is getting the film safely from the camera to the scanner. But as long as I'm just shooting casually walking around town, you know what? It isn't a disaster if a shot gets scratched up. And as long as I have 36 shots on a roll and two or three ro

cheapest 12mp digital camera

Similar posts:

camera stores glasgow

best small digital camera with viewfinder

nikon camera d90

digital camera battery packs

flip camera australia

paper pinhole camera

dome camera system

underwater usb camera

Category: None |Trackbacks(0) |Comments(0)

Post a comment

Only the blog author may view the comment.