Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) Looking to lose that spare tire? Ideal weight 200+? Frustrated being a large cyclist in a sport geared for the ultra-light? Learn about the bikes and parts that can take the abuse of a heavier cyclist, how to keep your body going while losing the weight, and get support from others who've been successful.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-13-08, 01:27 PM   #1
WhaleOil
2008 Prouty
Thread Starter
 
WhaleOil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NH
Bikes: 2007 Trek 7.5 FX 2007 Trek 4300
Posts: 347
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Cameras

Jeepers Crow! I hesitated to take my Olympus 4.something mp that I paid around $700 for a few years ago and then I came across this: http://www.overstock.com/Electronics...html?#moreinfo

WOW! 7.gazillion mp for less than a hundred and a 1/2!

I understand the mp / size relationship. Matter of fact I'm fairly versed in Photoshop. But how can you beat that deal?

Historian, what do you use? You submit beautiful pics.
__________________
The direct link to support me in the 27th Annual Prouty Bike Ride, July 12, 2008:
https://www.kintera.org/faf/donorReg...upId=219633987
Please support others by supporting me.

Thank You! -eric
WhaleOil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-08, 02:43 PM   #2
Little Darwin
The Improbable Bulk
 
Little Darwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wilkes-Barre, PA
Bikes: Many
Posts: 8,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
For online pics, 1 megapixel is enough.... An 800X600 image is less than 1/2 megapixel.

The quality of the camera is obviously an issue... and I think that the higher quality cameras may well have a higher megapixel rating, but the two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Higher megapixels are definitely useful for printing, or for other high resolution use, but a really nice looking web image could be taken with a 1 megapixel camera.
__________________
Slow Ride Cyclists of NEPA

People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Little Darwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-08, 03:14 PM   #3
rickyaustin
I Design Stuff
 
rickyaustin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago
Bikes:
Posts: 341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Megapixels don't equal quality.

A cheap 7 megapixel camera will allow you to take very high resolution garbage.

You'll get better photos out of a quality camera. We're at the stage in time where all cameras have enough megapixels that no amateur should have to worry about it. Check consumer reports (CNET) for quality reviews.

Ignore megapixels.
rickyaustin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-08, 03:15 PM   #4
Wogster
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Bikes: Norco Bushpilot (out of commission), Raleigh Delta
Posts: 6,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Darwin View Post
For online pics, 1 megapixel is enough.... An 800X600 image is less than 1/2 megapixel.

The quality of the camera is obviously an issue... and I think that the higher quality cameras may well have a higher megapixel rating, but the two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Higher megapixels are definitely useful for printing, or for other high resolution use, but a really nice looking web image could be taken with a 1 megapixel camera.
Higher quality cameras tend to have more features, not always more MP, some will have interchangeable lenses, or longer focal length zooms, many will allow for higher EV factors, and less image noise then the cheaper cameras. Some will have camera shake reduction circuits, better auto focus and auto exposure options. Some will have more accessories available. MP is like bike gearing, a 30 speed bike is somehow better then a 24 speed bicycle, even though the highest and lowest gears may be equal.
Wogster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-08, 03:33 PM   #5
bdinger
Chubby super biker
 
bdinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nebraska
Bikes:
Posts: 1,980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The coolpix line rocks, but.. for me.. I'm kind of jaded. In 2002 I bought one of the high-end Sony's with a Carl Zeiss lens, and I've never upgraded. It takes some of the best digicam pics I've seen from non-SLR's, so I've yet to stray.

The Canon PowerShot lineup is also pretty good, I've been thinking of ordering a older one to take on rides. Currently I use whatever smartphone I am using that week for riding photos, the "flavor of the month" is the Sprint Mogul, which takes awesome pictures. The Sprint Touch it replaced took.. BAD pictures to put it mildly! Treo 755p which was before that also did very well.

Anyway, that's what I do. YMMV!
bdinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-08, 03:45 PM   #6
CACycling
Senior Member
 
CACycling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oxnard, CA
Bikes: '08 Fuji Roubaix RC; '07 Schwinn Le Tour GS; '92 Diamond Back Ascent EX
Posts: 4,565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've had 3 CoolPix and they have all been great cameras. Nice lenses with 3x or more optical zoom. My last purchase was the L3. I was looking at the L4 but the reviews on it were terrible. Not so much picture quality but camera quality - seems they didn't hold up well. Another plus is they us AA batteries so when you are out somewhere and your rechargeables die, you can pick up AAs anywhere.
CACycling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-08, 03:56 PM   #7
Rohan
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Idaho
Bikes: Vision recumbent
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I use a Sony dsc-w7. I"m very happy with it, on the 1 gig card I bought I can take about 250 7mp pics, it uses AA battries, and the ones that come with it seem to last quite a long time.

link

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscw7/
Rohan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-08, 04:40 PM   #8
WhaleOil
2008 Prouty
Thread Starter
 
WhaleOil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NH
Bikes: 2007 Trek 7.5 FX 2007 Trek 4300
Posts: 347
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh Yeah, Zeiss rocks! But for a $150 camera that 'might' crash lol

how can you beat a Nikon?
__________________
The direct link to support me in the 27th Annual Prouty Bike Ride, July 12, 2008:
https://www.kintera.org/faf/donorReg...upId=219633987
Please support others by supporting me.

Thank You! -eric
WhaleOil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-08, 07:10 PM   #9
B Piddy
Keep on, keepin on
 
B Piddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: La Crescent, MN
Bikes: IRO Jamie Roy Custom build, Giant Sedona, '06 Trek Madone 5.2
Posts: 228
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Canon SD1000 - small, great quality pics, versatile.

I should use mine more. Probably one of the highest rated cameras on all review sites for the money (typically $130-180)
B Piddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-08, 07:19 PM   #10
kenyan_boy
Beer. I love.
 
kenyan_boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tampa, FL
Bikes: 2006 Specialized Roubaix Comp
Posts: 115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickyaustin View Post
Megapixels don't equal quality.
Well said. I have a Kodak DC220 digital camera (purchased in 1999). I don't know if the term 'megapixels' was in use then or yet to be coined at the time. I still get awesome photos of test setups (I work in an Electromagnetics lab). Recently, a customer asked what camera I use as he liked the quality of the pictures. When I showed him the 'ancient' he couldn't belive his eyes. He said he thought I used a 6 MP camera.

Last edited by kenyan_boy; 05-13-08 at 07:26 PM.
kenyan_boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-08, 05:52 AM   #11
neilfein
Senior Member
 
neilfein's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Highland Park, NJ, USA
Bikes: "Hildy", a Novara Randonee touring bike; a 16-speed Bike Friday Tikit; and a Specialized Stumpjumper frame-based built-up MTB, now serving as the kid-carrier, grocery-getter.
Posts: 3,781
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm surprised nobody has yet pointed this out as it's a standard BF catchphrase, but this thread is useless without pictures.
__________________
Tour Journals, Blog, ride pix

I'm in the celtic folk fusion band Baroque and Hungry. "Mended", our new full-length studio album, is now available for download.

Artistic Differences - 8-track EP Dreams of Bile and Blood now available for download.
neilfein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-08, 07:30 AM   #12
AirBeagle1
2nd Century TBD
 
AirBeagle1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Bikes: Felt F75, Trek 7.2 FX
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickyaustin View Post
Megapixels don't equal quality.

A cheap 7 megapixel camera will allow you to take very high resolution garbage.

You'll get better photos out of a quality camera. We're at the stage in time where all cameras have enough megapixels that no amateur should have to worry about it. Check consumer reports (CNET) for quality reviews.

Ignore megapixels.
+1 -- From an engineer in the digital camera business
__________________
My Biking Blog: http://bikebeagle.blogspot.com
AirBeagle1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-08, 07:32 AM   #13
piper_chuck
Senior Member
 
piper_chuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Columbia, SC
Bikes:
Posts: 562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
From all the reading and testing I've done, it's very true that there's way more to getting good pictures than megapixels. For example, many cameras have an annoying lag between when you push the button and when the picture is actually taken. Choose your camera well and this problem is significantly less. Another issue is the amount of time between pictures. My wife's last camera takes 4 or 5 seconds to store a picture, very annoying. In continuous shooting mode my D40 can take 2.5 pictures per second. And then there is the issue of high megapixel, but low quality, CCDs that do a terrible job of capturing the image. Combine that low quality built-in lenses and you get terrible pictures.

Also, a comment on shooting only low resolution, such as 800x600 when you know you're going to post online. It certainly is true that this resolution is enough for online viewing. However, shooting at a low resolution reduces your options for cropping. I've been able to get some really good actions shots during one of my other hobbies, radio control boat racing, by cropping out much of the background. When taking these pictures I can't zoom in too close on the boat because they're often going by at 70 mph about 75 feet from me. If I stay zoomed out a bit I have a better chance of getting the whole boat, and then I can crop out what I don't want.

To validate this thread, from a BF perspective, here's a picture of me riding the "family bike" at the beach with my daughter. It was taken by my wife with my Nikon D40. The file I uploaded was actually a much higher resolution, but photobucket was nice enough to shrink it for me.



Last edited by piper_chuck; 05-14-08 at 07:39 AM.
piper_chuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-08, 07:37 AM   #14
KirkeIsWaiting
the dog ate my earbuds
 
KirkeIsWaiting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Jersey Shore
Bikes: '05 Litespeed Siena Campy, Bridgestone X03 , Peugeot dream bike gets FIXED, Waterford Campy Record Colbalto, Motobecane Tandem in perfect condition, A Belgium made Bertin that was sent by an angel
Posts: 2,121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't care what anyone says about the number of pixels ....
it's still all about the lens.

Have we all forgotten why we stepped up to higher end 35mm cameras before digital?

One of the scores out there, lens wise, was the Panasonic FZ1 with the Leica lens.
As the mega-pixel game increased, the FZ1 became obsolete in the eyes of their FZ30.
Originally retailing for about $550, I bought one new for $180 on ebay.
(I also own the FZ30.)

The photo is from the 2 MP FZ-1.

This is the camera that I mount on my bars that has traveled on bike trips. Digital and optical zoom are particularly good as well.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg greenapple.jpg (41.9 KB, 10 views)
__________________
Litespeed Siena, Campy
Peugeot U010, Deep V's in orange and fixed
Bridgestone X03 - the beer bike
Waterford R2200, Campy Chorus/Super Record Cobaltobrakes
Motobecane Tandem - Craigslist find
Belgium Bertin. an angel spared it and sent it my way.
Fuji Folding 4130 Mountain bike - Marlboro edition trash find
Specialized HR -A1, latest trash find (who throws bikes out??!!)

Last edited by KirkeIsWaiting; 05-14-08 at 07:44 AM.
KirkeIsWaiting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-08, 08:19 AM   #15
bcc
Large Member
 
bcc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canterbury, UK
Bikes: 2008 Cannondale Bad Boy 700
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirkeIsWaiting View Post
(I also own the FZ30.)
+1 on the Panasonic optics. I had an FZ30 too (which I sold about 6 months ago) and we've just bought my wife an FZ8 on clearance. They're a bit high on the megapixel count for my liking, so you get a bit of noise in low light, but the lenses (made by Leica) on those lines of cameras are superb. The smaller compact ones review very well too.

Why did I sell my FZ30? I was very happy with it, but wanted a real viewfinder. I bought a secondhand EOS300 ("only" 6 megapixels) for about what I got for my FZ30 then spent about the same again after negotiating with my wife on one decent quality lens - the EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM for anyone who cares about such things. I carry it around in my backpack with other supplies.

I have to admit to being tempted by one of those little Oregon Scientific handlebar cams though...
bcc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-08, 09:01 AM   #16
heckler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South Jersey
Bikes:
Posts: 2,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My GF 5 year old Canon Powershot 3.2MP takes better pics than the 6.x Point and Shoot Casio

+1 to the more MP =more cropping ability this is a nice feature, but somewhere north of 4 or 5 MP just move closer to take it. a 3.2 MP at full res will produce prints larger than anything i would actually print the 10.1 MP cameras blow my mind. The full print would be like the size of my wall.
heckler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-08, 11:25 AM   #17
piper_chuck
Senior Member
 
piper_chuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Columbia, SC
Bikes:
Posts: 562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
With 6.1 MP I'm supposed to be able to easily print 20x30 posters. The largest I've done so far is 16x20. I cropped the picture some and it came out great.
piper_chuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:48 PM.