Are these pics ok? see if my camera is working fine. Canon SD400

SSP

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
17,727
0
0
The only thing I find distracting is the bokeh. The flower looks fine. Maybe composition can be improved (rule of thirds?).

Edit - 2nd pic looks a tad underexposed.
 

Mrvile

Lifer
Oct 16, 2004
14,066
1
0
Hmm, the second one looks a bit fuzzy but it's barely noticeable unless you want to zoom.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,709
10,456
136
How much was your SD400? I'm trying to get one with 512mb for under $350...don't know if that's possible yet.
 

Epoman

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2003
2,984
0
0

Epoman

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2003
2,984
0
0
Originally posted by: Mrvile
Hmm, the second one looks a bit fuzzy but it's barely noticeable unless you want to zoom.

Check out pic number 3 please and tell me what you think.
 

Epoman

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2003
2,984
0
0
Originally posted by: UNCjigga
How much was your SD400? I'm trying to get one with 512mb for under $350...don't know if that's possible yet.

Well I got it for:

$399
-$40 Free Target gift card.
-10% off $359 Got 10% for signing up for a Target VISA.

So I got the camera for about $320 including tax, and I got the 1GB Sandisk SD card for $54.99

So about $375 for the SD400 and a 1 GB SD card.
 

Epoman

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2003
2,984
0
0
Originally posted by: SSP
The only thing I find distracting is the bokeh. The flower looks fine. Maybe composition can be improved (rule of thirds?).

Edit - 2nd pic looks a tad underexposed.

huh? :confused:

 

Actaeon

Diamond Member
Dec 28, 2000
8,657
20
76
Doesn't look that great, but no worries, its a compact camera. With such a small camera, there is bound to be some sacrifices in a camera that small. In this case, the lens is very tiny, and its image quality that suffers. Check out Dpreview and Stevesdigicam's reviews, and they'll also mention something about image quality. Apparently its very good for an ultra compact camera, but definately not on par with a bigger sized one.

I have the Sd300, and sometimes the pictures look washed out. I understood that when I bought it, and honestly, I think its okay.
 

Epoman

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2003
2,984
0
0
Originally posted by: Actaeon
Doesn't look that great, but no worries, its a compact camera. With such a small camera, there is bound to be some sacrifices in a camera that small. In this case, the lens is very tiny, and its image quality that suffers. Check out Dpreview and Stevesdigicam's reviews, and they'll also mention something about image quality. Apparently its very good for an ultra compact camera, but definately not on par with a bigger sized one.

I have the Sd300, and sometimes the pictures look washed out. I understood that when I bought it, and honestly, I think its okay.

See that's what I'm worried about I ONLY take digital I don't use film. My last camera was BIG and it was only a 1.2 MP but it took great pictures, I ordered 4X6 prints and they looked pretty darn good. I guess I might have to take this back and go for the bigger size cameras so I can get the best possible quality. I notice on this camera blurryness is a problem in low light or action shots.
 

habib89

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2001
3,599
0
0
looks like good pictures to me.. wish i could take good pictures like that.. i have no idea how to use the macro function
 

abaez

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
7,155
1
81
Originally posted by: Epoman
Originally posted by: Actaeon
Doesn't look that great, but no worries, its a compact camera. With such a small camera, there is bound to be some sacrifices in a camera that small. In this case, the lens is very tiny, and its image quality that suffers. Check out Dpreview and Stevesdigicam's reviews, and they'll also mention something about image quality. Apparently its very good for an ultra compact camera, but definately not on par with a bigger sized one.

I have the Sd300, and sometimes the pictures look washed out. I understood that when I bought it, and honestly, I think its okay.

See that's what I'm worried about I ONLY take digital I don't use film. My last camera was BIG and it was only a 1.2 MP but it took great pictures, I ordered 4X6 prints and they looked pretty darn good. I guess I might have to take this back and go for the bigger size cameras so I can get the best possible quality. I notice on this camera blurryness is a problem in low light or action shots.

If you don't care about size it is definately worth it to get a bigger camera. For me it was down to the Canon g6 or Sony v3. Canon had slightly better image quality, but the Sony was about 3x faster focusing, it's very very fast. Add nightshot mode that works and it uses IR to focus, it's extremely fast even at night.

 

getbush

Golden Member
Jan 19, 2001
1,771
0
0
Get a Canon Rebel XT and a EF 24-70L f/2.8, then go here Photography on the net forums ;)

Meh those pics look fine to me. It's all about how motivated you are and how much you want to learn, and oh ya how much you have to spend. Have fun.
 

zimu

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2001
6,209
0
0
had done a lot of reading up on the sd300/400 vs the s410, eventually recommended the 410 to a friend who was buying. size may be different, but too many complaints as to the sd300/400's lack of sharpness and detail, as well as poorer color contrast relative to the full sized S's.

however your photos did come out awesome. guess unless i see a side-by-side comparison of what the s410's version would look like relative to the sd400's i'd get a better "picture" ;)
 

Epoman

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2003
2,984
0
0
Originally posted by: SSP
Originally posted by: Epoman
Originally posted by: SSP
The only thing I find distracting is the bokeh. The flower looks fine. Maybe composition can be improved (rule of thirds?).

Edit - 2nd pic looks a tad underexposed.

huh? :confused:

These are links right from google since it'll do a much better explanation then I can.

Basic composition in photography.

Bokeh

Thanks for links.

What do you think of the 3rd pic?

 

Epoman

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2003
2,984
0
0
Originally posted by: abaez
Originally posted by: Epoman
Originally posted by: Actaeon
Doesn't look that great, but no worries, its a compact camera. With such a small camera, there is bound to be some sacrifices in a camera that small. In this case, the lens is very tiny, and its image quality that suffers. Check out Dpreview and Stevesdigicam's reviews, and they'll also mention something about image quality. Apparently its very good for an ultra compact camera, but definately not on par with a bigger sized one.

I have the Sd300, and sometimes the pictures look washed out. I understood that when I bought it, and honestly, I think its okay.

See that's what I'm worried about I ONLY take digital I don't use film. My last camera was BIG and it was only a 1.2 MP but it took great pictures, I ordered 4X6 prints and they looked pretty darn good. I guess I might have to take this back and go for the bigger size cameras so I can get the best possible quality. I notice on this camera blurryness is a problem in low light or action shots.

If you don't care about size it is definately worth it to get a bigger camera. For me it was down to the Canon g6 or Sony v3. Canon had slightly better image quality, but the Sony was about 3x faster focusing, it's very very fast. Add nightshot mode that works and it uses IR to focus, it's extremely fast even at night.

See the thing is I LOVE this cameras design and its features. The video mode is GREAT for when you forget your miniDV and the features are great. I have been messing around with settings and I am starting to take better pics I guess it is just me over reacting since with my old camera I just pointed and shot. I only buy a camera every 3-4 years and I want it to be a good one, and with the size of the SD400 I take it everywhere.