# Importance of minimum aperture?



## PenAffair

Hey All,

I've been tossing up for a couple months whether I can afford a new camera, and assuming I had the funds, can't decide between the Canon powershot G10 compact, or the Canon EOS-1000D DSLR.

The main thing I'm worried about with any compacts, is minimum aperture is about F8, whereas with the DSLR, you can go down to around F22, depending on the lens. I want to have crisp pictures with the whole pen in focus.

I'm not happy with the results from my Powershot A580. Attached is a sample straight from the camera, taken in my light tent, just resized and compressed to fit forum requirements. The image seems muddy and depth of field on a long shot is quite narrow. Admittedly shooting with the Auto setting, but aperture sets itself to 2.6 or 4 usually (no aperture priority), 80 ISO and around 1/100 second.

So back to the point of the post. Do you think f8 as a minimum aperture is sufficient for most pen photography, or is the bigger settings of f11- f22 going to give better shots? I know pushing the aperture that small could start creating noise by forcing longer exposures, which may be the opposite effect to what I want anyway. I'm just not sure.

To be honest, even going to the G10 is stretching my budget, but I'm looking for RAW mode, and this seems to be the best of the few compacts that have RAW mode. The new Powershot SX1 almost looks better, except it doesn't have RAW!! Dunno what Canon are thinking of there? The next option is to drop down to the SX10IS and give up RAW mode to save some $$.

Any comments on high end compact vs low end DSLR for pen photography would be appreciated.

Thanks. Russell.


----------



## Art Fuldodger

With any lens, you are not at full sharpness full-open.  As you stop down, you get sharper and sharper, until you hit f/8.  After that, the more you stop down, you lose more sharpness due to diffraction.

The only reason you should stop down any more than f/8 is for depth-of-field, and only then, only stop down as much as you *need* to.

Also, if you're not using strobes, a smalle aperture means either higher ISO (and hence, more noise), or a longer shutter speed, which will be more blurry.

Also, if you're filling the frame with your pen, movement will be a very large factor, and the "1/focal length" rule won't even be in the ballpark for the shutter speed that you need, unless you have a rock-solid tripod and either a timer or remote.

The physically small sensor in a point-and-shoot imposes great limitations, but you can still improve upon what you're currently getting by throwing enough light at the subject to get your aperture around f/8, and your shutter speeds to at least 1/200th.


----------



## Dr. Frank N. Stein

Hi Russell,

I can't begin to claim I know the real world meanings of these digital imaging specifications. I can however offer some comments for your consideration before you purchase another camera. Last month someone in my office bought the new Olympus Stylus 9000 with a gazillion bells and whistles. Heck it even works underwater. It takes great pictures in fluorescent lighting, outstanding pictures in natural light and again great macro pictures. I had just prior to that bought the Canon SD1100IS which replaced an Olympus I had used for the last couple of years. When I first tried out the SD1100 my purpose was to use it for close ups and macro shots.

Fully expecting it to fall short I was surprised at how well it performed! Lacking two megapixels and the underwater feature it performed just as well as the Stylus camera. It does everything I hoped it would work for and all the camera's that the people in the office brought in to compare were JPEG camera's in the still mode. All of them newer than my past Olympus camera and all of them produced exceptional photographs.

Last week at a promotional ceremony where I sat in the back of the conference room and on my view screen I snapped away and that is where I saw these camera's fall down. All the images were very dark and even the ones taken in decent lighting came out amber colored with blue hues to them. Looking at the images taken by 'the photographer' using the EOS and Nikon DSLR is where the difference was dramatic to say the least.

Those photo's were just as good as any SLR camera anyday. Megapixels-Gigapixels take your pick. The photo you posted looks just as good as most internet photo's around. Most all the websites these days squish them down to almost Undistinguishable objects, at least with these eyes in order to save bandwith or capacity? Thank goodness this site don't do either! I can see what I'm reading about here!

Then about the format medium I say this to you, if you take a good picture in jpeg, tiff or raw you have a good picture. If it's a bad picture the same is true regardless of the format. What I would consider myself if I wanted to preserve a good picture would be to save those in .raw format from my editing software. Since my source files are already good compressed jpg's I leave them alone except for cropping etc.

Find yourself an inexpensive newer compact that has tiff format built-in if you just need the close up feature and quick ease of use, or for the all you can see captures look for the DSLR on sale and build your lens accessories from there. That pretty much are the options available to you. Me? I'm sticking to my reasonably priced one and I've learned to 'sit in the FRONT'. )

Best of Luck to you!

Regards,
Mike

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are some really smart and helpfull people here!
behind and in front of the lathe.


----------



## PenAffair

Thanks Mike & Art.

So Art, you're saying higher than f8 is not that great anyway? DoF is my concern, but I guess I can just align my pens better so they're pretty much in a plane for the picture. With my A580, I tried forcing the F-stop down with more light, but the stupid thing just decided it'd take f2.6 and a faster speed.

Mike, I see what you mean. Once again, maybe I'm just being picky, but this camera likes the shutter wide open, as most compacts do, being biased to landscape & happy snap photography. Even changing to some of the "scene" modes doesn't make things better, and sometimes even makes them worse. The .jpg's coming out of the camera seem rather grainy to me, even though I'm on large format/superfine setting, and it has no .tif or .raw format, so I'm stuck with what it gives me. I usually end up pushing the exposure by .5 - 1 in photoshop too, to try and get the whites & detail back into the picture as well.

I guess my real dilema is not knowing whether a significant investment (for my budget) in a new camera will actually give me appreciably better results, or whether I'm getting the best I'm going to get right now. All the reviews compare like cameras with like cameras, so it's kinda hard to tell the difference between low/middle/high end compacts & then into the DSLR's. I guess I could gather the stats on image quality from a few reviews  and make up my own table - that may be useful.

Thanks for the suggestions.
Russell.


----------



## Ed McDonnell

Russell, One other factor to consider is that if you take the DSLR route, the camera body is just the beginning of your investment.  If you want the best quality pictures, you will want (need?) to invest in one (or more) high quality lens.  A top quality Canon "L" lens will cost a whole lot more than the camera body you are considering.  In my opinion, the choice of lens is far more important than which body you hang on it. 

Having said that, if all you want is good quality pictures of your pens I think a DSLR would not be a cost efficient choice.  

Another choice available to you would be to use focus stacking software (~$30 to the sky depending on features you want).  You take a couple photos with varied focus (easiest if your camera has manual focus and you use a tripod) and the software combines them using only the in-focus parts to create an in-focus picture with depth of field far in excess of what the camera alone could achieve.  Here's one package that gets decent reviews and is not that expensive:

http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.htmlhttp://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html

Now we come to the solution that might be the most practical and cost efficient if you don't care about status.  Look on ebay for a used Nikon Coolpix 950.  You can probably find them for less than $40.  It may be all you need for pen photography.

If you haven't come across it, http://www.dpreview.com/  is a great photo sight for researching photo equipment before purchase.


Good Luck.

Ed


----------



## W3DRM

Russell,

I don't want to disagree with the other posters here but you have already a camera that is very capable of taking excellent pictures of your pens. All it will take is a few adjustments to take better pen pictures.

First of all, make sure you have plenty of light in your light-tent. A lot of the units sold are really under powered and don't give you enough light to really allow you to get a crystal sharp image. Low light levels will cause the camera to automatically open up the lens thus reducing your depth of field.

I am assuming that you are using a "white" background for your images - correct? If so, it appears that your white balance is off. The Canon Powershot A580 had a "custom" white balance mode that you should be able to adjust for each shot. If you use a standard phtographic "gray card" that will let you set the camera up so it sees white with the lighting you are currently using. your backgrounds should then show a true white and not the gray you are now seeing.

Read through your camera user manual to find out how to do some the things I'm suggesting and try some of these things before you spend uneccessarily on a new camera.


----------



## PenAffair

parklandturner said:


> If you want the best quality pictures, you will want (need?) to invest in one (or more) high quality lens.  A top quality Canon "L" lens will cost a whole lot more than the camera body you are considering.  In my opinion, the choice of lens is far more important than which body you hang on it.



Yes I agree, which is why I was leaning to the G10.



parklandturner said:


> Another choice available to you would be to use focus stacking software (~$30 to the sky depending on features you want).



Cool, I hadn't seen these before. I do like macro photography of all kinds, and this may be a cost effective way to overcome some of it's limitation for the budget conscious (i.e me :tongue.



parklandturner said:


> Now we come to the solution that might be the most practical and cost efficient if you don't care about status.  Look on ebay for a used Nikon Coolpix 950.  You can probably find them for less than $40.  It may be all you need for pen photography.



You're right Ed, it may be a decent way to go, but it's not for status reasons, I've just had too many bad experiences with 2nd hand, so I always get stuff new, even though it costs me significantly more. Plus while I'm buying for pen photography, I do like photography in general, so like to be future proofed a bit. If the CCD and flash hadn't died on my Canon S1IS, I'd still be using it though.

I'll look into the software more either way. Which reminds me of another question. Is it cheating to touch up your photo's in Photoshop etc to present a "better" image of a pen for sale, than what you can capture, as long as that final image is showing what you believe to be a true visual representation?

Russell.


----------



## PenAffair

W3DRM said:


> First of all, make sure you have plenty of light in your light-tent. A lot of the units sold are really under powered and don't give you enough light to really allow you to get a crystal sharp image. Low light levels will cause the camera to automatically open up the lens thus reducing your depth of field.



Hey Don,

I've tried boosting the light level, but without much success, just ends up with an overexposed image as the silly camera won't stop it down for some reason. I've tried using fireworks mode too. Sure boosts the exposure - shame about the quality - hehe.

Regarding the white balance, yeah I guess I've just been to too lazy to balance it manually. I don't have a gray card. Will using a sheet of copy paper work sufficiently?

Does the picture look grainy to you? It's capturing at 80 ISO supposedly, but the image is still looking rough to me. I don't know if it's the light, the JPEG processing in the camera, or just CCD in the camera itself? I didn;t think there was much different in the sensor across the whole compact range, but I could be wrong there.

I'll review the settings and see if I can improve. At least with digital camera's, it's free to experiment, although I think that's making us lazy these days and maybe forgetting how to compose and soot properly in the first place. But anyway, I digress.

Thanks.
Russell.


----------



## Art Fuldodger

Dr. Frank N. Stein said:


> Those photo's were just as good as any SLR camera anyday.



You seem to judge how well the camera performs solely on how well the auto white balance feature works... much like judging a car on how well the cupholders work.



PenAffair said:


> So Art, you're saying higher than f8 is not that great anyway? DoF is my concern, but I guess I can just align my pens better so they're pretty much in a plane for the picture.



Above f/8, your sharpness will begin to degrade.  Now, if you can't get your entire subject in focus, that doesn't work, either!  So, if you need to stop down to more than f/8, then do so only just enough to get your subject in focus, and *that* will be your optimal balance between resolving power and actually being in focus.



parklandturner said:


> Russell, One other factor to consider is that if you take the DSLR route, the camera body is just the beginning of your investment.  If you want the best quality pictures, you will want (need?) to invest in one (or more) high quality lens.  A top quality Canon "L" lens will cost a whole lot more than the camera body you are considering.  In my opinion, the choice of lens is far more important than which body you hang on it.



Eh.  I have lenses in my bag from the four-figure L lenses to the $80 "nifty fifty", and it would surprise many people just how inexpensively they can take a wonderful picture for.  Even the 18-55 kit lens that they give away can actually take an impressively sharp picture *at f/8*.  True, my f/2.8L zooms are awfully sharp wide open, but at f/8, the kit lens will do a good job.  And the 50mm f/1.8?  At f/8, it's razor sharp.  As sharp, or maybe even a hair sharper than my f/2.8L zooms, which would be expected... zooms are an exercise in compromise.  The kit lens, at f/8 and sufficiently fast shutter, will take pictures that (in the area of sharpness) will make point-and-shoots blush.  Lots of folks like to argue about that, until I take their camera and lens and produce a very sharp picture with the kit lens.  Then they say "huh", and get quiet.

Now that's not to say that a good macro lens won't do even better.  But come on, we're talking about pictures for the web, not pictures to print out at 48" across.

Before you buy another camera, see if you can't get more light on your pens, and get your camera to stop down somewhat.   If you're going to buy another camera, the downfall of a dSLR for the average joe is that while it gives you more capability, it demands more work out of you in order to take advantage of it, and most folks would rather just take pictures than fiddle with everything.


----------



## Ed McDonnell

Hi Art - I guess the point I was trying to make is that if you are going to spend the money on a DSLR rig, you really should plan to use it for a lot more than taking pen photos.  And if you are going to use it for a lot more than taking pen photos, you will ultimately want (need?) one (or more) lens that don't have to be pegged at f8.  That costs money.  

The A580 is really lacking in features and is not a good choice at all for product photograph (as Russell has found out).  I'm sure that with enough effort under the right cirumstances a decent photo could be extracted from the A580, but is it really worth the hassle?  Everyone will have their own answer, but me?  I think there are many better alternatives.

Ed


----------



## W3DRM

PenAffair said:


> Hey Don,
> 
> I've tried boosting the light level, but without much success, just ends up with an overexposed image as the silly camera won't stop it down for some reason. I've tried using fireworks mode too. Sure boosts the exposure - shame about the quality - hehe.
> 
> Regarding the white balance, yeah I guess I've just been to too lazy to balance it manually. I don't have a gray card. Will using a sheet of copy paper work sufficiently?
> 
> Does the picture look grainy to you? It's capturing at 80 ISO supposedly, but the image is still looking rough to me. I don't know if it's the light, the JPEG processing in the camera, or just CCD in the camera itself? I didn;t think there was much different in the sensor across the whole compact range, but I could be wrong there.
> 
> I'll review the settings and see if I can improve. At least with digital camera's, it's free to experiment, although I think that's making us lazy these days and maybe forgetting how to compose and soot properly in the first place. But anyway, I digress.
> 
> Thanks.
> Russell.


 
About the usage of copy paper for white balance - no, it won't work. The white you see with your eye is different than what a camera sees as white. White balance is a pretty complex process. If you want to know more about it, do a Google search on it.

I guess my main concern is that going with a high-end camera is fine but considering that most of us will only be posting images on the internet which can't display the high resolution and image qualities that high-end cameras are capable of producing is simply a total waste of money. Of course, all of this is very subjective and it is you who have to decide what you want and can afford.


----------



## Ed McDonnell

Russell - As far as enhancing / touching up photos is concerned, I would be amazed to find a picture on a product or in an ad that had not been extensively refined on a computer these days.  As long as the final picture is a fair representation, then I don't see a problem.

With respect to RAW.  In the field I shoot almost exclusively in RAW.  Nature doesn't always cooperate and you don't always get a chance to get everything set just right when that once in a lifetime opportunity suddenly flies by.  Shooting RAW might allow you to salvage some marginal shots that you might never get another chance at.

RAW is also extremely useful if you are shooting in a location with multiple lighting types (or quickly moving from one light source to another).  Auto white balance on consumer grade DSLRs leaves a lot to be desired.

With product photography, you don't really need RAW.  Settle on a lighting setup that works, use a camera with reasonable controls and a sturdy tripod and your JPGs will be more than adequate.  

Just my opinion.

Ed


----------



## marcruby

As a rule, depth of field provides most of the visible sharpness cues.  The type of distortion caused by stopping down a lens has little effect on perceived sharpness.  Especially when the image is going to  be displayed on digital media like a monitor screen.

If you want sharp, close pictures of your pens you will need to stop down.  I usually use my 60mm Macro at f22 if I'm concerned about depth of field - which I am for pens.  Another important source of sharpness is camera steadiness - don't handhhold close-up shots.  Even if you're using a flash with high speed synchronization.  Which brings up the third source of perceived sharpness - contrast.  Avoid 'flat' lighting.

Marc


----------



## Sylvanite

Russell,

It sounds to me like you want more control over your photos than your camera allows.  With that in mind, I'd suggest finding an inexpensive model that has the settings you want.  Then you can experiment with aperture to discover what works best for you.  There are many cameras out there at a reasonable price with features such as aperture-priority (or full manual) exposure, exposure compensation, custom white balance, macro (or at least close) focus, etc.

One of the great things about digital photography is that you can shoot as much as you want without extra expense.  Then once you've achieved the exposure you want, you can move up to lighting and composition.

You're ready for a camera with all the controls.  Go and get yourself one.

Regards,
Eric


----------



## PenAffair

I guess in the end, it'll come down to money whether it's a DSLR or not. In compacts, something like the Canon SX110IS is the cheapest I think I'd go for, at around AUS$350. But at only $225 more, the Powershot G10 looks a much better deall. I'd be looking at around $900 for the base EOS 1000D, which is probably stretching things too far.

As long as a compact will give me what I need, I'm hasppy ot stay that side of the photographic range. Obviously I'd love a DSLR, but feeding the wife & kids will have to take priority for now :tongue:

Russell.


----------



## Ed McDonnell

Russell - Have you taken a look at the Canon A590 IS?  Substantially less money, with the features you are looking for.

I'm a fan of Canon DSLRs with their low noise CMOS sensors.  Some of the Canon P&S with CCD sensors can be extremely noisy (picture degradation, not sound).  G10 is one of them.  Have you looked at the Panasonic LX3?

Ed


----------



## Woodlvr

I would read the posts by GerryR. He seems to be a very experienced photographer and would be able to give you some good advice.


----------



## PenAffair

parklandturner said:


> Russell - Have you taken a look at the Canon A590 IS?  Substantially less money, with the features you are looking for.
> 
> I'm a fan of Canon DSLRs with their low noise CMOS sensors.  Some of the Canon P&S with CCD sensors can be extremely noisy (picture degradation, not sound).  G10 is one of them.  Have you looked at the Panasonic LX3?
> 
> Ed



I'm worried the lower compacts will give the same quality image, and despite my squarking about money being an issue, I will not take the cheapest option unless it provides quality results. I've always been a best value-for-money guy, instead of cheap-as-chips, even if int he end the best value for money option is unafforable.

I'd previously compared the LX3 & G10 and had decided the G10 was better, but this morning I have been re-reading the G10 reviews and the noise is a concern, as image quality is the most important thing I'm looking for. The LX3 is also at least $75 more than the G10 at the best price I can find here.

Bleh, will re-review LX3 specs. Darn it, why can't oine camera have the best of everything??? 

Russell.


----------



## Ed McDonnell

Russell - I never could figure out how stuff gets priced around the world.  Here in the US, the LX3 is about $75 less than the G10.  I know nothing about Panasonic Raw.  If you aren't familiar with it, that's something else that might be worth researching a bit.

If you are going to buy at a local store, maybe they would let you set up a little work area and take some tests shots of pens with each camera you are interested in to see what works best for you.  

If they won't accomodate that, maybe you want to spend your hard earned money somewhere else.

Shopping for these kind of things is not easy.  I've been looking for the "perfect" digital camcorder for my local turning club.  That has proven to be an incredibly frustrating experience.

Good luck,

Ed


----------



## gerryr

Try reading this, it might help. http://content.penturners.org/articles/2008/pen_photography.pdf


----------



## PenAffair

gerryr said:


> Try reading this, it might help. http://content.penturners.org/articles/2008/pen_photography.pdf


 
Yes I have read that before. Unfortunately it doesn't helpw ith this decision.

Having a look at the LX3, the biggest hassle is the 2.5x zoom only, plus in my case the price. The reason I can get the G10 cheaper is just a couple of discount PC parts places have them at $200 less that the standard camera shops retail at. I thought they may have been grey market imports, but they assure me it's a standard Canon Australia deal, so how they can get them so much cheaper, I have no idea. 

As a closer comparison, the EOS 1000D cheapest I can find for the single lens kit is $791.60 (plus delivery) and the twin lens is $831.80 (plus delivery). From everything I've read again today, even forgetting teh aperture differences, I really should be looking at a DSLR to get the image quality I'm after, but darn the price is really money I should be spending on other things.

So I guess the question in that case is, do I do nothing and live with the A580, or do I save up for 6 months and forgo all the other pen making accessories I need? Not questions anyone else can answer anymore I think, it all comes down to my circumstances.

Thanks everyone for all the help and suggestions.

Russell.


----------



## gerryr

I've said it before and I will say it again, you do not need a DSLR to take good pen photos.  You might need a DSLR and professional glass(meaning quite expensive) if your plan is to take photos for publication in a high end catalog, but even that could be debated.  If your basic need is taking photos to put on the internet, a DSLR is definitely not needed.  There are many, literally dozens, of P&S cameras that will do the job very nicely.  Most of the photos you see posted here are not taken with a DSLR.  The most expensive camera and lens on the market will not produce good pen photos if your lighting is inadequate, you either don't use a tripod or use a worthless flimsy one, or don't understand exposure and white balance.  I have seen some truly awful photos taken with Nikon D3 cameras by people who just have lots of money to burn and I’ve seen outstanding photos taken Nikon D40 cameras by people who understand the camera dn pay attention to the basics.  The photo you posted is probably 1 full stop under-exposed and that is easily corrected by setting the exposure compensation to +1.0 and using the histogram to verify the exposure.

There has been some dead wrong information put forth in this thread that needs to be corrected.  First of all, for the majority of lenses image quality does not begin to degrade at f/8.  The sweet spot for most lenses is in the range of f/8-f/16, but to make a blanket statement that all lenses degrade beyond f/8 is absurd.  I have several lenses that I routinely use at f/16 and they are tack sharp.  Above f/16, IQ does begin to degrade, even on the best lenses I own.  There is variation and some lenses will hold IQ better than others at very small apertures but the image will not be as sharp at f/22 as it was at f/16 or f/11.

As long as you have the pen set up basically parallel to the sensor as in the photo you posted, the depth of field only needs to be about 3/4-1”.  I routine use a 55mm Micro-Nikkor lens set at f/11 for pen photos and never have a problem with DOF.  I have a copy of Helicon Focus, used it once for a pen photo and haven’t used it for that since.  It is more trouble than its worth if your technique is any good at all and you just pay attention.  I rarely even use it for serious macro photography and the best macro photographers I know don’t use it.  Probably the biggest waste of $30 I’ve encountered in photography.

There is a difference in DOF at a given aperture between P&S and DSLR cameras.  That is why most P&S cameras have very small aperture ranges yet deliver excellent DOF.  I can’t remember the technical explanation for this and can’t find the article right now, but I will keep looking and provide a link when I do.

If you’re not using a rock solid tripod to photograph your pens, you are doing it wrong, period.  At the distances involved in macro photography, the image will invariably be blurry no matter what the shutter speed due to movement on your part.  Using some flimsy tripod is unlikely to resolve the issue and using a flimsy tripod with an extended center column will probably make it worse.  I use a tripod that weighs about 5 pounds with a ball head that weighs about 2 pounds.  There is no center column because I cut it down to almost nothing.

You stated that you need to photograph pens in RAW.  Why do you think you need to do this?  If you were shooting for publication in print that would be true because you need to get to a TIF format image, but for just posting to the web, large fine JPG is more than adequate.  Someone stated something about shooting JPG and then saving it in RAW.  That is really cockeyed.  If you truly need the raw sensor data, you must shoot in RAW in the first place.  You cannot retrieve that lost sensor data from a JPG, ever. 

My final comment is that I would be very wary of taking advice from people whose work you have never seen.  There are some folks here who take very good pen photos.  Look at the photos in SOYP and send a PM to those who post photos you like and ask them about their setup.  At least you know what their photos look like.


----------



## Art Fuldodger

gerryr said:


> There has been some dead wrong information put forth in this thread that needs to be corrected.  First of all, for the majority of lenses image quality does not begin to degrade at f/8.  The sweet spot for most lenses is in the range of f/8-f/16, but to make a blanket statement that all lenses degrade beyond f/8 is absurd.



  Absurd?  Nope, it's physics.  Do some reading.  Or, look at actual resolving tests of lenses.  Some will fall a little on either side, but f/8 is where it's at.  Why do you think they've been saying "f/8 and be there" for so long?

Here are some actual tests (chosen at random), and you'll see that the peaks are centered right around f/8:

http://www.photodo.com/topic_52.html
http://www.photodo.com/topic_132.html
http://www.photodo.com/topic_14.html

You'll see that max sharpness is within 1 stop of f/8.  You'll also see that while some lenses are as sharp (or nearly as sharp) a little wider, but that when stopped down more, sharpness degrades quickly enough that it's often just as bad at f/16 as when they're wide-open.  The sweet spot (in terms of resolution) is actually more along the lines of f/5.6 to f/8.

I could post more tests, but I've never seen one depart significantly from that pattern.  Be careful slinging around words like "absurd"...

The rest of what you say is, however, I agree with.


----------



## alphageek

PenAffair said:


> I guess in the end, it'll come down to money whether it's a DSLR or not. In compacts, something like the Canon SX110IS is the cheapest I think I'd go for, at around AUS$350. But at only $225 more, the Powershot G10 looks a much better deall. I'd be looking at around $900 for the base EOS 1000D, which is probably stretching things too far.
> 
> As long as a compact will give me what I need, I'm hasppy ot stay that side of the photographic range. Obviously I'd love a DSLR, but feeding the wife & kids will have to take priority for now :tongue:
> 
> Russell.



I don't know if this helps you.... The picture of my pen on the front page right now (the puzzle pen) was taken with my sx110IS.   However, I got that one for its portability.   If you are looking for a BETTER camera at a lower $$, look for a S5IS while you still can.  It's one gen back from the new sx10 and is a GREAT camera for about the same price as the sx110.

Before my sx110 I had a s2is and loved it too.   I ALMOST bought the sx10, but went with the sx110 for the size (portablility).


----------



## marcruby

Art Fuldodger said:


> Here are some actual tests (chosen at random), and you'll see that the peaks are centered right around f/8:



Rather, you seem to have chosen your lenses very carefully.  Both of the Nikon macros I know peak around f11 to f16.  You also seem to be a victim of the misconception that  because a lens isn't at its peak it isn't sharp enough.  I, for one, am not particularly interested in producing 16x20 posters of my pens.  For that matter, the 16x20's I have done from 35mm lenses during a long time photographing have never looked shoddy for being stopped down to f16 or 22.

Marc


----------



## PenAffair

OK, so if we're saying a P&S camera is sufficient, how does one tell a sufficiently accurate model, apart from seeing pen pictures taken with evert type?

The problems I see with the A580, visible in 100% views of the original out of camera Jpeg are as follows :-

1. Picture is always under exposed. My light tent has two 5500K 24w energy efficient lamps. There seems to be plenty of light. Are the highlights on the pen fooling the proce3ssor into underexposing? I almost alwasy push the exposure .5 - 1 ev in photoshop to try and correct it, which is easy, but shouldn't be needed. Flooding the light tent with more light simpkly produces washed out highlights, not a better image. I put this down to lens or ccd quality.

2. The image is usually "muddy". There seems to be a lot of blurred detail when looking at the wood grain. I do use a tripod normally, but it doesn't seem to help. Evedn images taken outside in bright daylight at 1/160' or more seem to have this problem. Not sure if this is a lens, ccd, processor or jpeg conversion problem.

3. Jaggies & noise. Seems more than ther should be to me. I put this to jpeg conversion.

4. DOF is limited. We've discussed this and ways to get around it, so ignore that for now.

5. Dynamic range. Seems limited - highlights are wshed out, shadow detail is low. Apart from HDR tricks in photoshop, I know it's a limitation of compact cameras, but can be better on better quality units.

6. Colour reproduction. While saying the images are underexposed, the overall colours always seem washed out. Blacks are kind of grey, greens are always pale, a glorious blue sky looks smoggy. No idea why.

My whole goal is to get images up on my pen shop web site that jump off the page and grab the viewers attention. I want them to stand out, show the detail of the handmade finish and look like they are worth more than a corner store Bic.

As secondary concerns, I make & sell boomerangs over the net which need decent photo's but not the quality of the pen shots, I also enjoy taking pictures of sunsets, misty morning fog, close ups of insects, reptiles, flowers and other small objects, The moon & stars, and my family. Printing I do very little of, but the occassional A4 photo will come out.

I realise no amount of technology will fix a poor technique, but I have been succesfully taking photos I've been happy with, with my old film SLR for 25 years, and more recently with my S10IS. Although it had it's limitations compared to todays digital quality, it was excellent for it's vintage.

I had an urgent need to get the A580 when I purchased it, but it was a spur of the moment thing that I'm now regretting. This has made me wary of investing in another P&S and potentially more funds spent with the same result. While the camera reviews are a big help on some aspects, they're still hard to base a decision on. Most said the A580 was a good camera for the price, no price is good if you're not happy with the results for your situation.

Sorry I'm waffling on. Are we going around in circles here?

Russell.


----------



## gerryr

Art Fuldodger said:


> I could post more tests, but I've never seen one depart significantly from that pattern.  Be careful slinging around words like "absurd"...



Well then you might want to look at the tests for the Sigma 150mm and 180mm macro lenses; both peak at around f/16-18.

The old saw "f8 and be there" has nothing to do with the actual aperture.  It meant that sometimes the technical aspects of getting the photo are not as important as just being there with your camera ready to shoot.  It was one of Weegee's favorite sayings.

But, the next time I make a pen from a lens resolution test, I will be sure to shoot only at f/8.  I do not plan to respond to any more of the lens resolution silliness because what is important is how the lens behaves under actual shooting conditions, not how it behaves shooting a test pattern.


----------



## coach

If you are shooting an object against a flat background you should use f-8 to f-11.  You don't want a shallow depth of field for it.


----------



## alphageek

PenAffair said:


> OK, so if we're saying a P&S camera is sufficient, how does one tell a sufficiently accurate model, apart from seeing pen pictures taken with evert type?
> 
> The problems I see with the A580, visible in 100% views of the original out of camera Jpeg are as follows :-
> 
> ..... clipped  ....
> 
> Sorry I'm waffling on. Are we going around in circles here?
> 
> Russell.



Russell, I'm a huge fan of the Canon cameras.   However, if you are hoping for the camera to do it all for you, you're going to have problems.   What we shoot is quite a bit out of the range of what they normally 'optimize' for.

If possible, setup your configuration and snap a picture of the configuration (lights, tripod, etc.)

I have a feeling with some tweaks to the mode that you shoot in, you can get much more improved shots with the model you have.   For example, the 'underexposed' is a matter of the metering not being what you need.   If we push up to the manual side of the camera, we can make some big steps.

After that we can tackle some other of the problems.  

Feel free to email/pm me if you want some more 'direct' help.


----------



## Art Fuldodger

marcruby said:


> Rather, you seem to have chosen your lenses very carefully.  Both of the Nikon macros I know peak around f11 to f16.  You also seem to be a victim of the misconception that  because a lens isn't at its peak it isn't sharp enough.  I, for one, am not particularly interested in producing 16x20 posters of my pens.  For that matter, the 16x20's I have done from 35mm lenses during a long time photographing have never looked shoddy for being stopped down to f16 or 22.
> Marc



Actually, I really did pick those at random.  I just picked four more at random, to find the same results.  None of those that I picked were true macro lenses, but it would make sense, since you need to stop down macros heavily in order to obtain DOF.  I just looked at the Tamrom 90mm macro, and the Canon EF-S 60mm macro, both peaked near f/8.  It's not magic, it's just diffraction, nobody beats the game.  Unless you have tests in hand that show that your lens is sharper somewhere else, the safest bet for max resolution is f/8, plain and simple.

As for me being under a misconception, perhaps you missed the part where I said that we were talking about pictures for the web, not 48" prints.  The OP said he wants sharper images, I suggested he stop down, since his camera is staying fully or mostly open.  I dunno why that would be a misconception on my part...


----------



## PenAffair

alphageek said:


> If possible, setup your configuration and snap a picture of the configuration (lights, tripod, etc.)
> 
> I have a feeling with some tweaks to the mode that you shoot in, you can get much more improved shots with the model you have. For example, the 'underexposed' is a matter of the metering not being what you need. If we push up to the manual side of the camera, we can make some big steps./quote]
> 
> Happy to do that, but I work away from home during the week, so can only get pictures on the weekends, so will have to wait till then.
> 
> Russell.


----------



## alphageek

PenAffair said:


> Happy to do that, but I work away from home during the week, so can only get pictures on the weekends, so will have to wait till then.
> 
> Russell.



No problem Russell... In the mean time, I'll snap a couple pictures of what I do, and give you an idea of a few of the settings that I use.   Maybe that will give some more things to try this weekend.

Dean


----------



## Sylvanite

PenAffair said:


> The problems I see ... are as follows ...
> 1. Picture is always under exposed.
> 2. The image is usually "muddy".
> 3. Jaggies & noise.
> 5. Dynamic range. Seems limited - highlights are wshed out, shadow detail is low.
> 6. Colour reproduction. ...the overall colours always seem washed out. Blacks are kind of grey, greens are always pale, a glorious blue sky looks smoggy.



Most of these problems could be caused by improper exposure and incorrect white balance.  Most current digital cameras beyond the point-and-shoot variety will give you sufficient control of both.



> I realise no amount of technology will fix a poor technique


Precisely!  Back when I was taking photography classes, I had an instructor who liked to say that what's behind the camera is much more important than what's inside it.  From your previous posts, I believe you have an understanding of the fundamentals, so all you really need is a camera that has sufficient controls to let you experiment and find what works.



> I have been succesfully taking photos I've been happy with, with my old film SLR for 25 years


If you want to go with an SLR with interchangable lenses, then the conventional wisdom is to pick a lens series first (the two most popular are Canon and Nikon).  Then spend what your budget allows on the body.  As technology improves, you'll be able to upgrade camera bodies while preserving your investment in lenses.  

I myself went with Canon and currently use a 30D body which is way more camera than needed for pen pictures.  The one thing about it that really improved my photos is the computer-control software.  I can connect the camera to a PC via USB and shoot remotely.  I find it's much easier to judge picture quality full-size on the computer monitor than on the camera LCD.  I also instantly notice lighting and composition problems that I completely overlooked through the viewfinder.  The immediate feedback helps me home in on better settings before I even think about image manipulation.  The better the initial image, the less adjustment it needs.

Regards,
Eric


----------



## PenAffair

Sylvanite said:


> I myself went with Canon and currently use a 30D body which is way more camera than needed for pen pictures. The one thing about it that really improved my photos is the computer-control software. I can connect the camera to a PC via USB and shoot remotely. I find it's much easier to judge picture quality full-size on the computer monitor than on the camera LCD. I also instantly notice lighting and composition problems that I completely overlooked through the viewfinder. The immediate feedback helps me home in on better settings before I even think about image manipulation. The better the initial image, the less adjustment it needs.


 
Interesting you say that Eric. I've always been a Canon person just because of the lenses. My T70 was purchased for that reason. I think Pentax was also a contender in the lens department way back then, but I don't hear much about them these days. I could be just behind the times though. I believe others have also caught up a bit these days, and Nikon lenses are great too.

As for the software, I was wondering how useful that was. The EOS 1000D (I see it's a Rebel XS for you guys in the states) also comes with this remote control software. Apart from helping reduce camera shake from pressing the shutter button, I wasn't sure what else it might do.

Interestingly, the EOS 1000D went on sale here locally in the twin lens format for $888, usually $999 vs the slightly cheaper $831+pp I can get mail order. The standard EF-S 18-55mm lens has a max f3.5 aperture setting though, but the reports don't seem to mark it down for that. Seems most of the kit lenses on teh entry DSLR's are similar. Tell you what though, lens prices sure have skyrocketed since the good old days. My old Sigma 70-210mm lens for my T70 I'm sure was a very expensive $150 or something like that, compared to the $700 - $2,000! you'll be paying these days. Shame you can only sell those old lenses on Ebay for about $20.

Russell.


----------



## gerryr

PenAffair said:


> Shame you can only sell those old lenses on Ebay for about $20.



That's why I now use Nikon.  I have lenses that are 30+ years old that work just fine on the latest digital body.


----------



## Sylvanite

gerryr said:


> That's why I now use Nikon.  I have lenses that are 30+ years old that work just fine on the latest digital body.



Well, when I bought the 30D body, I also bought new lenses (figuring that my old lenses were incompatible).  To my surprise, the AF series lenses I had from an EOS film camera DO work.  They set aperture and autofocus just fine.  I dont' use them simply because the new lenses have better glass and focus much faster.

Regards,
Eric


----------



## PenAffair

Boy,

I'm flip-flpping more than a fish out of water here. Saw some aussie posts about the LX3 and how they love the picture quality, so I did some more research and figured maybe it was the way to go after all. Checked the specs again, has some major non-image limitations over the G10. Plus price is still $100 more. Checked aussie availability anyway, seems there's no stock and a long wait in Australia. I could have a G10 tomorrow...

I think I need to try and find some pictures from them all and compare.

Russell.


----------



## alphageek

Try dpreview.com (mentioned once before in the tread) for sample images and detailed reviews of many cameras including the g10, but I still think your current camera has alot of untapped potential.


----------



## PenAffair

alphageek said:


> Try dpreview.com (mentioned once before in the tread) for sample images and detailed reviews of many cameras including the g10, but I still think your current camera has alot of untapped potential.



Yep, DPReview is a great site and my first place to check. Photographyblog is also good. I think I need to browse around flickr though and see some more real world situations, and images closer to pen photography. I,m beginning to think the combo of low contract wood grain, and high contrast pen highlights really taxes a cameras image definition abilities.

I haven't completely given up on the A580 yet, but until I can get home and do some more on that front, I'm just continuing to explore other avenues, although I have been known to "damn the expense" and jump on a good deal if I see one.

Russell.


----------



## gerryr

I've gone through the specs of the A580 and the G10 and the only significant differences are the size of the sensor, megapixels and of course pixel density.  You can get new camera if you want, but don't expect your photos to be any better until you take control of the camera and stop letting the camera make all the decisions.


----------



## PenAffair

gerryr said:


> I've gone through the specs of the A580 and the G10 and the only significant differences are the size of the sensor, megapixels and of course pixel density.  You can get new camera if you want, but don't expect your photos to be any better until you take control of the camera and stop letting the camera make all the decisions.



Thanks for that. What about the actual lens? They never seem to mention it in any of the reviews. Surely the lens quality matters as well, or do all compacts have basically the same glass anyway?

I was browsing around Flickr last night comparing A580 shots against G10 shots, and must admit, some of the A580 shots do look great, so I'm beginning to think that maybe I.m being hyper-critical, and yes, need to better my technique further. Mind you, the Flickr shots aren't 100% crops, so it's hard to tell the fine detail.

What also showed though was, the lack of control one has with the A580. There is a much broader range of shot styles with the G10, which may indicate popularity and owner control more than the camera, but the A580 shot were a little flatter, which I think reflects that you are stuck with very limited manual control. If only I'd spent another $50 for shutter/aperture priority on the A590. My fault for not doing research and believing the salesman.

So as much as I'd LIKE a G10, you may be right with the end results I'm going to get, not being the vast improvement I'm imagining. I'm going to have to go back to square one with teh A580 I think and see how I can improve there before worrying about a new camera. If you're still happy to help with that respect, I'll certainly start a series of experiments on the weekend and see where I'm going wrong.

Thanks again. Russell.


----------



## alphageek

PenAffair said:


> Thanks for that. What about the actual lens? They never seem to mention it in any of the reviews. Surely the lens quality matters as well, or do all compacts have basically the same glass anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> To an extent yeah, it matters, but i don't think its the weak link.
> 
> 
> 
> PenAffair said:
> 
> 
> 
> What also showed though was, the lack of control one has with the A580. There is a much broader range of shot styles with the G10, which may indicate popularity and owner control more than the camera, but the A580 shot were a little flatter, which I think reflects that you are stuck with very limited manual control. If only I'd spent another $50 for shutter/aperture priority on the A590. My fault for not doing research and believing the salesman.
> 
> 
> 
> Ouch.. I've never had a canon without Av&Tv.  You do have a M mode,  but that may make it a bit harder overall, but still possible.   The answer is still that you need to get out of the auto modes to improve.
> For the most part, you'll have to pick your aperature, then play with the length of shot.
> 
> At least you have custom white balance and the M mode.   You should be able to improve w/o spending more $ if you want.   Save that money for one of those other toys you are asking about
> 
> But this will take a bit of f time to play with.  Your a580 is definately on the weakest end of the canon line.
> 
> Dean
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## PenAffair

alphageek said:


> The answer is still that you need to get out of the auto modes to improve.
> For the most part, you'll have to pick your aperature, then play with the length of shot.



Which bringws me back to my original problem with the A580. From memory of my former attempts at "fixing" the aperture, even in M mode, it was almost impossible to get a specific setting. When I get back home on Friday, I need to re-read the user manual though.

OK, so if we're going to do some experiments, in preparation, do I need to go buy a gray card to set the white balance? I'm using two 5500K bulbs with my light tent. Should not a standard daylight setting match this?

Anything else I might need to prep?

Russell.


----------



## alphageek

You are right that 5500K should be pretty standard, but a grey card is never a bad idea in general.   I honestly can't find anything for sure that says balance to an 18% card for this camera so I have no idea if it will make a difference.

I'll play with my M mode too, just to see since most canons work the same way.


----------



## alphageek

Posted a new thread with my camera setup so you can see and ask questions Russell.

Good luck playing this weekend.  Post or PM so we can see


----------

