Panoramic Photos
Remember when cameras were point-and-click? You could never predict the result with these cameras but then neither can I when I start messing with aperture, exposure and the focus. Thankfully when I bought myself a digital camera last year it came with an Auto setting. Needless to say, it spends most of its time in that configuration. It's hard enough trying to capture a moment without having to mess about with all those dials. But what if I want to get adventurous or take a photo not suited to this setting. Well, recently, I discovered a really nice feature of my camera called BestShot. You just have to choose the one that most closely matches your subject's surroundings.
The camera comes with a CD that includes about 130 BestShot scenarios that I hadn't bothered to look at until now. Foolish me. There's one to cover just about every situation. Food, sports, backlit portrait, monkey playing in moonlight etc etc. All you have to do is select the style and take the photo. Brilliant.
Another great feature of this camera is the ability to easily take panoramic photos. Here's one that I managed not to muck up (you really should have a tripod if you attempt this), taken from the top of a rock in Sri Lanka. I like this one because of the way the sun setting behind the pagoda makes it appear to be encased in a dome of light. Spooky. Click the image if you want to see a larger version.
And to make it worth your while having read this far, I have some interesting news. Moon Software have decided to start giving away their Multimedia Xplorer program as Freeware. My preferred method for viewing images, photos and movies.
Skip to the 
You can subscribe to an individual
Maybe I too should look over all the software that came with my camera. I've recently posted about how shotty most of my images have been of late.
Nice pic of the pagoda.
Jake, as you know, I also have a QV4000 and - like you - I recently loaded up the Best Shot collection off the CD and onto my memory card. I haven't had time to try many of them out yet but now summer (!!!) is here I'm looking forward to taking more photo's. The only thing you have to remember is not to format the memory card or you will have to re-load the Best Shot collection.
If you are interested in panoramic pictures, check out Pixtra Pano Stitcher. {Link}
I am old school on the cameras. The quality/resolution just isn't there yet for digital. May never be.
Cheers Dan. The Casios come with some panorama software that seems pretty good at the job and is what I used to stitch the above together.
The latest in this line of cameras from Casio is the QV5700 {Link} which is 5.4 megapixels. How much more do you want?
Jake, I expect we'll be at 10 megapixels in a few years and then there will be no doubt that digital is the preferred format for most. For me, it's the convenience of digital that I love. I can upload an image to photobox.co.uk any time before 4.00 PM and the print arrives in the post next day. And I only pay for that print, not the additional 35 that came out rubbish like in the old days :-(
The stitching looks as good as anything I got.
How much more do I want? For about $10,000 you can get a 16 megapixel back for a Hasselbad or the like. That is still not as good as 35 mm film.
Interesting web page comparison.
{Link}
I remember reading that medium format is like 72 megapixels.
None of this makes any difference at all until you are blowing them up to at least 8" x 10". Unless you are holding the picture in your hand, it really doesn't show until about 11" x 14" or even bigger.
I won't argue with that Dan. You obviously know your stuff.
If you have a moment can you email me as there's something you might be able to help me with.
Jake AT codestore DOT net
I don't know about "know my stuff". I have an opinion and can find a website that agrees with me. The other one I sent you comes to the opposite conclusion.
Recent scanners for filmstrips (hope that's the correct translation, colour films for making slides) operate at resolutions up to 4000 dpi. For a regular 35mm slide, this equals roughly some 19.8 Mebi pixels. I won't provide any specific reference, you can quickly check this by doing a Google search for these expensive pieces of hardware.
Like Dan said, it's down to your very personal needs if this is important to you or not.
For me, it's mainly a matter of the absolute costs. There are multiple legendary 35mm compact cameras from the 70s and 80s that easily outperform /any/ digital camera in terms of picture quality. And you can get them for less than 30 EUR at eBay. On the other hand, a good digital camera would most probably fullfill my needs in 95% of all cases as well (plus adding a lot of compfort), but I'm not willing to pay the price (I consider the lower limit to be around 450 - 500 EUR) for that yet. It's not just the resolution of the CCD that matters.
Anybody with only a slight interest in this topic should have a look at {Link} . While the site is operated by a german hobby photographer, the complete navigation and a fair amount of the contents are available in english as well.
I myself have a Canon powershot G2. Similar to Jakes with a 4.1 mgapxl resolution.
The quality of the photo's taken by this camera are great, but only for basic 'normal' sized prints. If your a pro who likes to showcase their work then the digital format just hasn't got the ability yet. THe new CCD replacements are helping, but they're still not there. I'll give it 2 more years untill we see a digital camera perfrom the same as an 35mm
Cost is a big factor. I bought a used Minolta 7000i for $80 about a month ago. I already had a lens, but that would be another $50 for a fixed, maybe $100 for a zoom.
For that you get a professional camera of the '80s.
Resolution aside, to get a digital camera with those features would be over $1000.
I break cameras. I have three dead Minolta bodies in a box. Digital cameras are still way too expensive for that.
The currrent state-of-the art are the Canon EOS-1Dx (your local designation may be different), at just over 13MP, and the Kodak DCS 14n Pro (Nikon body), at a hair over 14MP, both using 35mm bodies with 24x36mm chips (full-frame 35mm -- no lens-length conversion). While neither approaches, the 8000ppi that a current-generation pro film/slide scanner can achieve (85.7MP), the retrievable detail really needs to be seen to be believed, since the concepts of "grain" and "dye clouds" are thrown out the window. Better than scanned 35mm film, if you ask me, and the pixel count can be bumped by a factor of four (2x in each direction) without appreciable damage (yielding 24"x36" prints at 250ppi not substantially different from ISO 100 film stock) -- but the prices are also out of this world (between $US 6K-10K, sans lenses). That doesn't mean much to us now, but give it some trickle-down time, and we're really rockin'. No more wasting Tech Pan or Ortho Litho for darkroom stuff. Heck, I can relace the darkroom altogether now that Epson has stuff that outlives Cibachrome (sorry, we have to say "Ilfochrome Classic Deluxe" now). If there were just an inkjet equivalent of platinum/palladium....
Stan is there a subject in the world that you know nothing about?
Jake, I once answered that question with "goldfish", whereupon I was presented with an encyclopaedic tome on that very subject. I find it easier now to just say "no" -- it's much cheaper than buying bookcases.
I remember a friend who knows almost everything once saying:
"The only time I was ever wrong was when I thought I was wrong and it turned out I was right!"
He was probably paraphrasing somebody else but it made me laugh anyhows...
Since this is a geek site (is that okay to say?), I'll post some photography links appropriate to that.
Digital Zone System
{Link}
Depth of Field Charts
{Link}
Throw away your light meter
{Link}
I don't mind being called a geek Dan but I like to think I am not one ;o) Just a normal person who happens to have an unhealthy love of technology.
Thanks for the links. Look like they many come in handy!
Hy boys and girls.
I just bought Casio qv 5700 a fiew days ago and i am looking for a best way to take a photo of a moving object from a close range like a drop of water or bugs or something simmilar.
Help?
Thanks