Camera Confusion

Looks I may well be in the need of new camera soon. I just can't the results that seem pleasing to me with an old Acer CE-5330 Digital Camera, 5MP, 3 x Optical Zoom etc - [ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Acer-CE-5330-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B000ADKTMQ"]Acer CE-5330 Digital Camera: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Y5Y6DNHWL.@@AMEPARAM@@31Y5Y6DNHWL[/ame] and need higher quality pictures.

It also has to be digital.

I'll be mostly using the camera for trophy shots and close up work. I'd ideally like to take shots where the background is out of focus but the foreground is pin sharp so that the angler and fish stand out. My other use of it will be for close up shots for rigs and stuff like that.

I'm a complete camera novice so would like somethign that suits these needs and all I'm used to doing is pointing and shooting.

I don't have a budget in mind but the lower the possible would be ideal.

A lot to ask I know but I'm hoping someone can help me decide.

P.S. It also has to be as small as possible as I like to travel light and don't want something that takes up too much room in my bag.

Get something whose 'macro' feature is applauded as this is a very important feature in close work. My Nikon is 8yrs old and only 4mb but it focuses down to a cm from the subject.

I would recomend a Nikon - I use a D60 SLR and it produces superb pics. I shoot on automatic for 90% of my pictures so is good for starters. It cost £320 around 3 years ago. A second hand one would be a very sound investment.

as I mostly do self takes, there are disadvantages. I would like a live screen that flipped around to help framing - but now got so used to working with the limitations it doesn't matter.

The other thing, is because it is a true SLR when I do ask for someone to take a picture they hold it a foot away from their faces rather than looking through the view finder.

Nice camera but a bit out of my price range Christian. Got a wedding to pay for this year and another kid on the way!

The problem with DSLRs is that they are heavy and bulky.

There are now compacts which can virtually compete with DSLRs and which will go into your pocket.

I recommend that you look at the Nikon P7001.

The Canon G12 is also worth a look, but doesn't have the lens versatility of the Nikon

The G12 is a great camera and has a flip out screen so you can see yourself as you compose your shot. Downside, best part of £400.

Some of the Panasonic range are really nice and far cheaper.

If you want to take shots with a blured background then you usually need a manaul control for setting the aperature and then open up the lens, this reduces the depth of field, as you have reduced the depth of field the focus becomes more critical and it is very easy for the whole shot to become blured.

Ray Roberts said:

If you want to take shots with a blured background then you usually need a manaul control for setting the aperature and then open up the lens, this reduces the depth of field, as you have reduced the depth of field the focus becomes more critical and it is very easy for the whole shot to become blured.
__________________

Click to expand...

You can do that with the better compacts such as the P7001. You can't do it with the cheapies, which are basically designed for point and shoot.

It sounds to me that you might not need a new camera just change the setting.

I'll explain, you want a shallow depth of field in your images. This means that only the bit of the photo you focus on is actually in focus and the rest is blurred.

If you have the camera set on auto the camera doesn't know this, if your compact(camera) has a sports setting (usually a man running) it might be worth giving it a go.

Cameras love light and if you give it enough everything will be in focus (on the auto setting) if you trick it into thinking that it only has a small time to get the image because it thinks your going to take a picture of something moving quickly the shutter will not be open for very long.

If the shutter isn't open for long then the aperture has to be open more to let the light in this makes a shallower depth of field.

Just realised how geeky this is so I'll stop the bad explanation.

If your compact doesn't have this setting then make sure when you buy another that it has this option or you might have the same problem.

Thanks Matthew and thanks for your explanation. I've just been playing around with my camera and it does have a sports setting.
With the camera set in this mode, the details of my pictures that I have just taken are now -

Exposure Time - 1/250 sec
ISO Speed - ISO-100
F-Stop - f/2.8
Focal Length - 5mm
Max Aperture - 2.97

Does this information help? I'll have another tinker with it but its definetly made a difference with the the foreground object standing out from the background.

bigchub said:

Nice camera but a bit out of my price range Christian. Got a wedding to pay for this year and another kid on the way!

Click to expand...

Thats gonna knock fishing on the head thenmg:

chav professor said:

Thats gonna knock fishing on the head thenmg:

Click to expand...

Oh ye of little faith

Hello, yes it does help. The crucial bit is the F-stop f2.8.

The lower the number the wider the apperture. So f2.8 wide open f16 closed quite small.

Why does this bother you? Because if you take a picture with f2.8 (this will change on your camera depending on light and subject matter) then you should only have a small depth of field.

An example would be that if I was taking a picture of a path going off into the distance and there was a rambler walking up the the path, to get everything in focus including the start of the path and where I lost sight of it I would use f16. If the rambler happened to be a scantily clad woman I would use f2.8 and focus on the girl. I wouldn't care about the hills in which she was wallking.

Another thing that might help is that the closer you are to the subject the smaller the depth of field.

Another ridiculous example, you have the fish and you want to take a photo of it on a fence. Your camera is set at f2.8 but you are standing fifty yards away. You focus on the eye of the fish but perhaps thirty fence posts are also in focus. Next image still on f2.8 and from the same angle so you can still see all the fence posts in the view finder but you are only one yard away. This time only one fence post will be noticable and it won't be in focus.

The best way is a quick practice in the garden. Put something on a table and take two shots on fully auto, one close and one from further away and then repeat using sports mode. If you have the house, shed fence etc. a couple of yards behind what you are photographing you should be able to see if it makes a difference. Focus on the front part of the object for all four images.

Now I've just written that it has just occured that even that small camera might have apperture control on it, if it does just wind it down to the lowest number you can get and try that.

Hope I haven't just confused you, Matthew.

I had a few experiments with the different settings in the sports mode and I'm having much better results. I've took some pictures of some completely random objects for comparison in different light conditions and now feel much better suited for trophy shots -

First is a picture of a plant pot, taken in daylight with the following settings on the camera -

Exposure Time - 1/250 sec
ISO Speed - ISO-100
F-Stop - f/2.8
Focal Length - 5mm
Max Aperture - 2.97

ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting

The second image is of a pot of Shake N' Vac (gotta put the freshness back!), taken just now in a room with artifical light, with the following settings -

Exposure Time - 1/250 sec
ISO Speed - ISO-50
F-Stop - f/2.8
Focal Length - 5mm
Max Aperture - 2.97

ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting

I feel that the second picture is a lot sharper and closer to what I want to achieve.

Good work, I also think that the background is a bit blurred in the second image. In photography this is used to draw the eye to the subject, in fishing it can be used to hide your location.

Another trick might be to have the camera on full X3 optical zoom and then get as close to the subject as possible but still focusing. This should decrease the depth of field putting more of the background out of focus.

I bought myself a digital slr camera a few years ago. After a few months I had to admit to myself it wasn't my camera but me that stopped me getting the images I wanted. I joined a club and did some evening classes. I still don't get the shots I want but I can now identify the problem a week later when looking at them on my computer.

I just don't want you to buy a new camera and get the same results.

Good luck, Matthew.

Thanks for all the advice Matthew. If I still can't get the results that I want, would another option be to use a paint program such as Gimp, Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop to simulate the shallow depth, or would this be cheating?

I don't think it's cheating but for me it's more difficult than getting the image right in the first place.

Everyone edits, they always have done. This could be in their dark room or even by what film or who developed it.

I use light room, but picasa is free and very good if you already have half the photo you want.

Photography is a bit like fishing (or life), some people are just gifted and with any equipment they will take better photos than me, some people buy the best and still can't take an image. Most fall in the middle and with a little knowledge and a bit of practice get a lot better very fast.

I have just re read your last post and if you are happier using a computer than a camera I would say go for it. It is in no way cheating. Getting the image you want is the most important thing.

Keep your apperture wide and your depth of field small, good luck, Matthew.

Yes, but you can buy many good books on the subject of photography as well as magazines. I recommend "Digital Photo".

The biggest tip I can give anyone (and I've had thousands of photos published in my time) is to take command of the viewfinder. Fill the frame with what you want to see and cut out any surplus background. Get in close where possible.

And on the subject of landscapes, remember the rule of thirds.

Look that up on google.