Got a new camera for model photos


Graff

Airbrush artist
Hi all!
My wife gave me this for Christmas :
upload_-1.jpg


A Sony DSC QX100 WIFI Camera!

I have tested it briefly, and it looks promising. These pics are unedited and I only used the room lighting:

upload_-1.jpg




upload_-1.jpg




upload_-1.jpg




upload_-1.jpg




upload_-1.jpg


A really cool gadget!
 
Odd looking camera but sure takes a nice photo.

The advantage is that I can remove the lens from my phone and use the phone as a remote screen/controller for the camera.
Much easier to shoot low angle shots.
 
Is this a stand alone camera or an auxiliary lens for a phone? If a stand alone camera, does it use Bluetooth to make a connection to the phone? Very interesting and good pics either way.
 
Wow! Great pics. But where did you find grass growing around that prototype engine house? ;) It's been snowing out near Denver. Seriously, great model and great pics!
Happy New Year!
 
Is this a stand alone camera or an auxiliary lens for a phone? If a stand alone camera, does it use Bluetooth to make a connection to the phone? Very interesting and good pics either way.

It is a stand alone camera that connects to the phone thru WiFi.
It has its own memory card that saves the full format images and transmits a smaller, web friendly copy to the phone.
 
The impression I have is that cameras with very short focal length -- as this one appears to have -- get much higher depth of field, which is also what you see in the sample photos. The advantage of a good-quality conventional DSLR has been that it can take much higher megapixel photos, which means they're more conventionally publishable. I think this difference has gradually gotten less important. On one hand, much lower resolution photos are just fine on the web, but it looks like the short focal length point-and-shoot type cameras are also getting steadily higher resolution. As far as I understand this, it means that the F stop exposure is less and less important.

As of half a dozen years ago when I got a DSLR, the conventional advice from Pelle Soeborg at MR, for instance, was to get one with at least 8 MP that would get at least F 22. I'm just not sure how far this applies these days.

If someone can correct or clarify this, it would be great.
 
This one is 20.1 megapixel with a F11 minimum aperture, that gives a depth of field from 2"- infinity....
 
Well, this confirms that technology is probably overtaking conventional wisdom. I would think that your camera would take eminently publishable shots for MR, although point-and-shoot cameras have won their photo contest for years. Given the depth of field in the short focal length, the F11 probably doesn't mean that much.
 
Hmmm, any idea what that would equate to on a 35mm equivalent. I've read several things on-line but can't find a nice conversion table. I really don't want to "do" the math.

The f-stop is a dimensionless ratio, which means it is independent of format. No conversion is needed.

Steve S
 
Does it take video too (probably a silly Q, what doesn't). Only a few years ago I remember a tutorial in MR on how to get depth of field pictures of scenes so you could look at any part of the picture and see it clearly. Involved multiple shots of the main subject and others of the surroundings with shifted focuses and then blend them all together in Photoshop.
 
The f-stop is a dimensionless ratio, which means it is independent of format. No conversion is needed.
That is true for the raw number for the lens but because the area from the lens is falling on a much smaller sensor area (instead of 35mm of film), both the amount of light getting to the sensor and the associated depth of field are different. I have the formulas to compute these things, but I was hoping they were just in the documentation of the lens.
 
I junked all my DSLRs because my tiny Sony DSC-WX220 159 Dollar camera takes far better photos in low light and the depth of field is much greater.

Smaller image chips used to mean that IF you could put more pixels in a small area, the image would not improve due to how the light was adversely effected by the smaller pixel size. That has somehow been overcome and the smaller image area makes good quality lenses cheaper and the use of available light is better to reduce the noise-floor in the chip. In the late 90s I worked at a company designing the imaging electronics for up to 64-megapixel monochrome imaging chips used in astronomical and scientific applications. They had to have huge image areas to get that many pixels in. The lenses were also huge and expensive to correct any aberrations. The image chips were also many thousands of Dollars just for the chip and had to be cooled in liquid nitrogen "Dewar" vessels.

Even consumer stuff today they has made amazing progress that hardly anyone has the knowledge to appreciate. BTW - Sony has always had a fantastic engineering group for imaging chips and several other famous camera brands used Sony chips.
 



Back
Top