My new digital camera -- thanks ipmman!
jonathanb
Posts: 3,764 ✭✭✭✭✭
Inspired by ipmman's thread this weekend, I picked up a Sony DSC-W55 camera myself tonight, and I've been playing with it for an hour or two.
I've been using a Fuji FinePix A340 for the past several years,and I've never been all that happy with it. It's fine, but the focus has always felt soft, and I've never been able to get a white balance that I really liked. I wasn't positive that the problems were the camera's fault rather than mine, but I've tried everything I can think of, and the only remaining option is to try a new camera, so it was time.
I know that I "should" get a digital SLR, but I just don't want to pay $500 for a camera that I will then have to worry about lugging around on vacations. The A340 fit in my pocket, more or less, and I liked that. Well, the W-55 only set me back $200, and it's smaller than the A340 to boot. Plus, it's 7 megapixels versus 4. All of those are good things... but how are the pictures?
This is a very small (18 mm) medallet produced for the US Centennial. The top picture was taken with the old Fuji, while the bottom one was taken with the new Sony. I know the colors don't quite match, and I'll work on that, but you can immediately see that the bottom picture has a much smoother image. In particular, the fields to the left and right of the steeple have even tones on the bottom versus being much more blotchy on top. Also, the tiny lines within the windows are pretty much legible on the bottom, while mostly just blurred on top. These pictures, fwiw, were taken with exactly the same lighting -- I moved the cameras, but not the medal or the lights.
One thing you can't see from just that pair of pictures is that the top image is absolutely as large as I can get with the old A340. The bottom image, on the other hand, is reduced to about a quarter of what the W55 can do because I wanted to get images that matched in size for that comparison. There appear to be two reasons for the difference. First, there's the difference in megapixels (7 versus 4). That contributes some, but it seems the main contributor is the focus. The minimum focus distance for the A340 is listed at 3.9 inches; for the W55 it's listed at 0.8 inches. I can fill the entire viewframe even with this 18 mm medal, something that I couldn't do even with a silver dollar and the A340. I was concerned that there "couldn't possibly" be enough light on the coin to take a picture with the camera less than an inch away, but that appears to be a non-issue. This is what the W55 can do at max size:
If I do my math right, that works out to about a 25x magnification. I like errors and varieties, and I've often wished I was set up to do microphotography. Now I can:
1941 1c DDO #2 (cherried from a bag of wheats)
1960-D/D 1c RPM #7 (I think)
One thing I'm still having problems with is the focus. The online reviews of the W55 caution that the focus really falls off towards the edges of the frame in macro mode. I think I'm seeing some of that. I also think I need to spend a little more time getting the camera exactly perpendicular to the surface I'm shooting against, because I'm seeing a lot of linear focus problems, where the focus drops out from left to right or from top to bottom. In the 1960-D picture above, the focus on the die polish lines below the bust is great, but the focus above the date is poor. If I can get everything in focus at the same time, that would be a Good Thing.
In all, I'm very pleased with the W55. The pictures I'm taking after 2 hours are significantly better than the ones I was taking after 2 years with the A340. It should be interesting to see what I can do with a little practice...
Thanks, ipmman, for pointing out this model!
jonathan
I've been using a Fuji FinePix A340 for the past several years,and I've never been all that happy with it. It's fine, but the focus has always felt soft, and I've never been able to get a white balance that I really liked. I wasn't positive that the problems were the camera's fault rather than mine, but I've tried everything I can think of, and the only remaining option is to try a new camera, so it was time.
I know that I "should" get a digital SLR, but I just don't want to pay $500 for a camera that I will then have to worry about lugging around on vacations. The A340 fit in my pocket, more or less, and I liked that. Well, the W-55 only set me back $200, and it's smaller than the A340 to boot. Plus, it's 7 megapixels versus 4. All of those are good things... but how are the pictures?
This is a very small (18 mm) medallet produced for the US Centennial. The top picture was taken with the old Fuji, while the bottom one was taken with the new Sony. I know the colors don't quite match, and I'll work on that, but you can immediately see that the bottom picture has a much smoother image. In particular, the fields to the left and right of the steeple have even tones on the bottom versus being much more blotchy on top. Also, the tiny lines within the windows are pretty much legible on the bottom, while mostly just blurred on top. These pictures, fwiw, were taken with exactly the same lighting -- I moved the cameras, but not the medal or the lights.
One thing you can't see from just that pair of pictures is that the top image is absolutely as large as I can get with the old A340. The bottom image, on the other hand, is reduced to about a quarter of what the W55 can do because I wanted to get images that matched in size for that comparison. There appear to be two reasons for the difference. First, there's the difference in megapixels (7 versus 4). That contributes some, but it seems the main contributor is the focus. The minimum focus distance for the A340 is listed at 3.9 inches; for the W55 it's listed at 0.8 inches. I can fill the entire viewframe even with this 18 mm medal, something that I couldn't do even with a silver dollar and the A340. I was concerned that there "couldn't possibly" be enough light on the coin to take a picture with the camera less than an inch away, but that appears to be a non-issue. This is what the W55 can do at max size:
If I do my math right, that works out to about a 25x magnification. I like errors and varieties, and I've often wished I was set up to do microphotography. Now I can:
1941 1c DDO #2 (cherried from a bag of wheats)
1960-D/D 1c RPM #7 (I think)
One thing I'm still having problems with is the focus. The online reviews of the W55 caution that the focus really falls off towards the edges of the frame in macro mode. I think I'm seeing some of that. I also think I need to spend a little more time getting the camera exactly perpendicular to the surface I'm shooting against, because I'm seeing a lot of linear focus problems, where the focus drops out from left to right or from top to bottom. In the 1960-D picture above, the focus on the die polish lines below the bust is great, but the focus above the date is poor. If I can get everything in focus at the same time, that would be a Good Thing.
In all, I'm very pleased with the W55. The pictures I'm taking after 2 hours are significantly better than the ones I was taking after 2 years with the A340. It should be interesting to see what I can do with a little practice...
Thanks, ipmman, for pointing out this model!
jonathan
0
Comments
And check this out -- With sharp focus it becomes clear that this medal is actually double-struck (or maybe a doubled die). Look at the left edge of the building, and the left several windows especially. Within the stars on the right you can see the remains of another set of stars, offset by half of a star's width. None of this is visible in the picture from the A340, and only barely visible in my first attempt at a pic from the W55 (with poor focus). Neat!
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
Oh, and don't shoot parallell, go at a little angle to get contrast with the details.
The picture magnification is determined by the formula; PE eyepiece power x objective power.
The original medal is 18 mm.
That works out to 280 / 18 = a bit over 15x.
I don't know where I got the 25x number. Maybe I had the monitor set differently. In any case, it's "a lot bigger".
The "true" optical resolution of the camera is 3x (I think). I'm just talking about apparent magnification: the difference between squinting at the original medal and looking at the image on screen.
I see what you are saying, but it is much easier to follow these rules to get an exact measurement of magnification.
Magnification is the relationship between an object's real size and its size on film. If, for example, you take a picture of a US 25¢ coin (roughly 24mm in diameter) such that it creates a 24mm wide image on-film, the magnification is equal to 1. (Also written 1:1.) If, instead that coin takes up 12mm on the film's frame, you have a 1/2 or 1:2 magnification ratio.
The magnification formula is mainly used by macro shooters, though it also has other applications. For example, the Field of View calculation has magnification as one of its factors.
Formula Used
The magnification of a given lens, given its focal length and the distance to the subject is calculated as:
M = f/(s-f)
where f is the focal length of the lens, and s is the distance from the camera to the subject. Both values must be in the same unit, such as millimeters.
All I mean is that it's lots bigger!