jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,562
|
Post by jamesp on Mar 1, 2014 11:11:13 GMT -5
First, photo taken on a bad heavily clouded day. All crops are of this first photo. No other shopping, just cropping. Full size photo 5184 X 3888 = 5.9 Megapixels. Taken with point and shoot set on 20 Megapixels. White background reduces pixels though. Then the first crop 2728 X 1910 = 2.2 Megapixels Then the second crop 1562 X 1009 = .73 Megapixels or 730 Kilopixels. Then the third at 777 X 546 = .206 Megapixels or 206 Kilopixels. Flicker must reduce the size due to obvious distortion from low pixel count. And the final at 518 X 273 = .084 Megapixels or 84 Kilopixels. Also reduced due to severe distortion. I picked flicker size 'large' on all these photos. Meaning if the photo was larger than 1064 X 661 from the camera it was reduced to 1064 X 661 for the forum pic. 1064 X 661 gives good clear image for the short time it takes to load those almost screen size photos.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,562
|
Post by jamesp on Mar 1, 2014 11:33:40 GMT -5
This is the same rock taken in better conditions(full overhead sunlight) with a camera that would cost 10 times more but only a 6 Megapixel camera. And the first crop at 1302 X 1018 And then a severe crop at 747 X 542 pixels I conclude that both cameras performed very similar in image quality if the cheaper camera had taken in better light. The point and shoot is not a true macro so i could not fill the photo with the stone. But the expensive camera is a true 1to1 macro allowing me to fill the whole photo with only a portion of the stone. So it started out more magnified in the macro camera allowing the photo to be cropped about equally in terms of distortion even though it was a lower 6M camera vs the 20M camera.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2014 13:31:03 GMT -5
Nice photo essay.
The lens quality of the point and shoot will be what determines the image quality at pixel peeping super crop sizes. Is it a Zeiss lens?
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,562
|
Post by jamesp on Mar 1, 2014 14:56:36 GMT -5
It says Sony lens. It is a cheap Sony camera(DSC-H200). But the(expensiver) Panasonic DMC I had, had a Lieca lens. Similar in quality to Zeiss. And i wonder if Sony contracted it to Germany. The new lens machines are making fine lenses for even cell phones. I wonder how close to really good they are? By the way, the old DMC sounded like a sand grinder when you operated the zoom LOL. Too many expeditions in sand country. Wife has almost the Sony's twin and it is a Nikkor. The Sony looks just like the Nikkor. So, i would guess Nikkor made it for Sony. What do you think?
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,562
|
Post by jamesp on Mar 2, 2014 8:49:11 GMT -5
Nice photo essay. The lens quality of the point and shoot will be what determines the image quality at pixel peeping super crop sizes. Is it a Zeiss lens? Scott, from my favorite camera review/comparison site www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_cybershot_dsc_h200_review/The front of the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H200 is dominated by the Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar lens, here boasting a maximum aperture of f/3.1 and a focal range the equivalent of a ultra-wide angle 24mm to 633mm in 35mm film terms - This camera's best strength is that it is cheap. But camera ratings are tricky. For shooting good light, fixed subjects, low ASA situations like rocks it could be the best in the world. But, if it were terrible in speed shots, video, low light etc it would still get crappy ratings. This cheapo camera does poorly at ASA 400 and higher. But i take every rock pic at ASA 100(or lowest setting) I do not care about the other options. Lenses are usually tuned for certain uses. They could probably make a Zeiss equipped camera for $50 that would smoke most expensive general purpose cameras for taking rock pics if they dialed for that purpose. Since these photos are taken at good light, fixed subject. No need for big lenses to gather light. No need for fast zoom mechanisms. If they got rid of Image Stab, zoom, flash, video, perceptive low light focus, and all that other stuff and dialed it to macro and up to 4 feet away shots it would be simple and serve for a certain use. The wide bandwidth of abilities that these cameras perform is stretched by the ccd's and other amazing type electronic sensors greatly magnifying what the fitted mechanical lens can do. If they reduced the lens to certain tasks there is no telling how great the photos could be. Maybe they do. And without buying a 10 pound expensive DLSR to fit the single purpose lenses to. I intentionally bought this cheap camera because it sucked at action and video and high ASA. Still has the a bad @ss Ziess that they put on the bad @ss $ cameras. Probably the same mass produced electrical sensor they put in the expensive cameras. May end up being great for rocks and scenery. I know Sony contracts a lot w/the German folks. Did not surprise me that it said 'Sony lens' . To me that is a contracted item from Nikkor or Ziess or Lieca. My wife has a comparable Nikon Coolpix and my camera smokes hers on macro. It says Nikkor lens. But it has a much better zoom. Focuses on things better, especially in lower light. Mine is terrible to focus on low light subject. And a good quick focus bumps the cost up a lot. For rocks i want manual focus-what is that??-not available. Mt wife's Nikkor lens was an almost exact copy of the Zeiss lens, cause it looks too much the same. And Nippon folks are famous for...copying. Bet the Nikkor was a copied Zeiss. Anyway, i have been doing some camera studying. And i typed this blog partly so that i would remember what i ran across in the study. That review site will tell you about your particular camera's strengths and weaknesses. But teach you a lot about operating it too.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Mar 2, 2014 9:58:52 GMT -5
Interesting to see the white dots in the macros are actually the tips of red plume structures. Kind of like Woodward red plumes often have black centers when cut through. I really like macros and often look at my slabs wet under my dissecting scope. Neat to see how the patterns we enjoy so much are constructed......Mel
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,562
|
Post by jamesp on Mar 2, 2014 10:24:19 GMT -5
Interesting to see the white dots in the macros are actually the tips of red plume structures. Kind of like Woodward red plumes often have black centers when cut through. I really like macros and often look at my slabs wet under my dissecting scope. Neat to see how the patterns we enjoy so much are constructed......Mel There is a whole world to be appreciated in these mosses and plumes. The white dots were serving as magnification references on this rock. Never even noticed that the white was associated with each plume. It looks like the cross section of each plume is white too. Do you agree ? Am peaking out at about 25X after posting on screen Mel. What power do you use mostly on your microscope. And is it a stereo ? I just posted some macros of bryozoans in the fossils category. Should give them a view.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Mar 2, 2014 12:07:18 GMT -5
Yup, I'm thinking the plumes are white inside which is weird to me as most often it's the white plumes that are black inside. Exception I've seen is Owlhead Mtns Plume which seems to go both ways, sometimes being white inside and sometimes black but then that's one of the stranger plumes I've seen. My dissecting scope is mainly for bugs so is 20 power but I think I have additional eyepieces around somewhere for 30 and 40 and it is stereo. Just wish I had bought the one with the camera mount but I didn't think I'd be taking pics.
Those bryozoan pics are cool. I have a bunch of that Savanna River material in my rock pile out back.....Mel
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,562
|
Post by jamesp on Mar 2, 2014 12:31:28 GMT -5
Mel, i think they sell a USB camera if i am not mistaken. It fits on the eye piece. For that simple purpose it may take very nice photos, being a simple task. The dang thing has software most likely which is aggravating to me but end the end is probably better as it couples some of your computer intelligence to the camera. I may have the descript wrong. They can be seen by looking at S=stereo microscopes on ebay. The older scopes have some of the best optics. And i think those cameras are under $100 again by memory. 20X is about right for most rock applications.
OK, i am glad you detailed the issue of the plumes having white centers. I sorted through those agates to find white or bright references. That was the only one out of many red moss agates that had white spots as i have them segregated by color.
The bryozoans in limestone you posted is fabulous. That is as clear of a bryozoan fossil as i have ever seen, hands down.
|
|
MrCoffee
has rocks in the head
Member since December 2005
Posts: 634
|
Post by MrCoffee on Mar 2, 2014 15:46:31 GMT -5
Even though the Nikon is only 6 megapixels, it still out performs the Sony, in my opinion. And this is simply because of the better quality of lenses offered by Nikon, and the ability to manual focus. The Nikon can also be purchased at a cheaper price than the Sony. I currently have a GE X5, which is old but performs at a similar level to the Sony. I have had to set the ISO to a higher setting, so I can get a closer to the items I'm photographing. However, I believe I can still get better photos than I can with the iPhone.
|
|
bhiatt
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since July 2012
Posts: 1,532
|
Post by bhiatt on Mar 2, 2014 16:06:23 GMT -5
big difference between them photos. Them last few are cool looking. Im a fan of sunny shots.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,562
|
Post by jamesp on Mar 2, 2014 16:51:06 GMT -5
One of these is from the expensive camera.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,562
|
Post by jamesp on Mar 2, 2014 17:02:29 GMT -5
Even though the Nikon is only 6 megapixels, it still out performs the Sony, in my opinion. And this is simply because of the better quality of lenses offered by Nikon, and the ability to manual focus. The Nikon can also be purchased at a cheaper price than the Sony. I currently have a GE X5, which is old but performs at a similar level to the Sony. I have had to set the ISO to a higher setting, so I can get a closer to the items I'm photographing. However, I believe I can still get better photos than I can with the iPhone. Just above this post is a 2 photo comparison. Not too far apart. I put the cameras on a rack and manually focus them. The Nikon was shot at f16 and the Sony at f5.6. So i put the Sony at a disadvantage from that stand point. And the Sony was in later sun. So i was just looking at the sharpness and not so much the color.
|
|
MrCoffee
has rocks in the head
Member since December 2005
Posts: 634
|
Post by MrCoffee on Mar 2, 2014 20:16:38 GMT -5
You're doing some good research, jamesp. A lot of what I am seeing, is that megapixels are one thing, but optics come into play, as well as the size of the image sensor. I will have to think through which purchase I make, when I have the funds available.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,562
|
Post by jamesp on Mar 2, 2014 21:44:50 GMT -5
The digitals have have a big advantage. They can have tiny thin lenses that can be made w/great accuracy inexpensively. Because of the amplifying sensors. They have been hiring Zeiss and Lieca to make their small lenses for years now. Some of the best lens makers in the world. As is Nikkor and Canon. My big Nikon does have great lenses. About a pound of them. The glass alone is expensive. And the grinding. And thick lenses can reduce light entry. The big Nikon fitted with a 1:1 macro has a big magnifying advantage. Requiring a lot less cropping. The digital had to be heavily cropped and made up for it with raw pixel density. If the Nikon had a 20M body there would be no match fitted w/a 1:1 macro. But in this case, i compared a 20M cheapy to a 6M cadillac w/great magnifying optics. And the cheapy held it's own. I have faith in the small lenses. And the ability of amplification.
|
|
jollyrockhound
spending too much on rocks
Member since March 2013
Posts: 409
|
Post by jollyrockhound on Mar 2, 2014 23:01:11 GMT -5
That camera does a good job!
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,562
|
Post by jamesp on Mar 3, 2014 7:04:03 GMT -5
That camera does a good job! Surprised the heck out of me jolly. New technology has made great photography cheap and light weight. Wading thru the new functions of digital photography is challenge. Lot different than film for sure. They will continue to improve too.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,562
|
Post by jamesp on Mar 3, 2014 7:24:11 GMT -5
Yup, I'm thinking the plumes are white inside which is weird to me as most often it's the white plumes that are black inside. Exception I've seen is Owlhead Mtns Plume which seems to go both ways, sometimes being white inside and sometimes black but then that's one of the stranger plumes I've seen. My dissecting scope is mainly for bugs so is 20 power but I think I have additional eyepieces around somewhere for 30 and 40 and it is stereo. Just wish I had bought the one with the camera mount but I didn't think I'd be taking pics. Those bryozoan pics are cool. I have a bunch of that Savanna River material in my rock pile out back.....Mel Here is some eyepiece 'cameras' for a microscope Mel. They are cheap because they probably have no lenses, just an optical sensor. So your money goes toward a nice optical sensor and not a bunch of lenses. The microscope serves the lenses. And the software that drives it has a minimal photo shop package for the application. They are nice because you see the image in real time on your computer screen and not have to look into the scope. So you could put swamp water on a slide and watch protozoa running around. The cost is controlled by the megapixel rating. Like 2M to 8M. And you could feed your image directly to wherever as you see it. A 5M would put sharp images full screen on a lap top most likely. www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=microscope+camera+usb+eyepiece
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Mar 3, 2014 9:20:12 GMT -5
You know, I'd love to get one of those but barely understand the terminology in the advertisements. I'm not very computer literate. *L*. I'll have the ask the wife if she thinks she could instal all the software and such for me....Mel
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,562
|
Post by jamesp on Mar 3, 2014 10:38:06 GMT -5
Or have it done by a computer service guy. He comes by the house once or twice a year for $100 to do tune ups. Best Buys may do it for you. Once it's installed your probably set. I relate.
|
|