[Rtech]

Here's one I took yesterday of the moon through the trees. As you can see, too grainy! Thats why I'm exchanging this cam for the canon.



Rt

[v12]

Hey rtech, how much are u payin for the A400?

[Rtech]

getting it for 10K.

BTW, selling my Nikon 2200 for 7,000 if anyone is interested.

Rt

[Rudra Sen]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (rtech @ Oct. 29 2004,11:08)]Here's one I took yesterday of the moon through the trees. As you can see, too grainy! Thats why I'm exchanging this cam for the canon.



Rt

Hey rtech, grain has nothing to do with the camera unless the lens has lost it's contrast. In this case your camera's CCD had tried to capture the entire tonal range (which in any case a camera should do) and failed due to lack of information (less mega pixel) delivery. Also there is very less tonal range in the sky. I don't think you get this result all the time otherwise.
BTW did you try to enhance sharpness in your software?

[Rtech]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]don't think you get this result all the time otherwise.
BTW did you try to enhance sharpness in your software?

Aaah the guru is in da house!

Well Rudra, if you see the other pics of marine drive, you will notice that even in daylight, the pictures turn out pretty bad - noisy i think is the word?! Like the ISO is too high or something (although it says ISO 50 for those daylight shots).

The night shot is as taken by the cam, only i resized it a bit. If you see V12's pics, the dark portion is clear. I know his is a much better cam, but I still think the pics should have turned out better.

Rt

[Hatari]

khaadu75.. nice dog.. but the owner looks like a guy to me
big chunky watch on his left hand !

[v12]

hey rtech,
instead of gettin the A400 why dont u extend ur budget a bit or wait for a month or two and go for the Canon A75. Its better than the A400 and has 3x optical zoom.

Also u cud try checking out Sony too. They have a instalment/finance scheme for various digicams. along with 0% interest.

[Rudra Sen]

rtech, thanks for starting this thread. Here are some of the photographs. Essentially what I feel correct in terms of composition and tones. Expecting all of you guys to comment.


Jerash (Jordan) oval plaza. One of the best preserved Roman outpost. Shot in 1999.



Petra (Jordan) once the stronghold of the gifted Nabataens. Look what they had done those days. Carved the entire city from stones. Shot in 1999.


Shot in Nandi temple. 75 km from Bangalore. Shot 2004.

Second set follows..

[Rudra Sen]

In London. 2004 Feb

Tower bridge. I like the angle. 2004 Feb.

Another angle

Reflection of the past on modern.

Will post some more. A mix of photos and my digital images.
Don't forget to put your comment guys.

[SLK]

These are professional pics couldn't have been better.!

Though they are a bit dark or say not so bright.... i.e. can enjoy the pics only if I raise the brightness/contrast to full from the monitor controls.

but too bad.. pros' wont give full size pics

[Domnic]

Awesome Pics Rudra... simply superb!!!!!

Cheers
Dom

[v12]

woah !! Those are really good pics rudra.

Anyways, i was just wondering one thing. To take professional pics, is it necessary to have a professional camera. Or can one take professional pics with a normal cam too (as normal as a Rs 900 Kodak camera).

Any tips on how to take good car pics, rudra? Or Maybe we cud start a new topic on that.

[Rtech]

Wow! These photo's are worthy of Nat. Geo!

I love that last pic of the old building reflecting in the new glass building. Also that sparrow pic is a beaut!

Have you touched up these pics or are they what came directly?

Rt

[Rudra Sen]

v12, to take a professional pic I agree to an extent, a good camera helps. Actually you get more accurate exposure. Also a lens plays almost 90% role. A new topic on car photography should be interesting. I'll start it after I finish some sketches for explanation. Will do it for sure cause it's my passion.

rtech, they're ok photographs. Nat Geo pics are in different level most of the time.
These are not touched up pics. When I work on my photographs, I label them as IMAGE.

Will post some more soon.

[Rtech]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (v12 @ Oct. 29 2004,19:41)]hey rtech,
instead of gettin the A400 why dont u extend ur budget a bit or wait for a month or two and go for the Canon A75. Its better than the A400 and has 3x optical zoom.

Also u cud try checking out Sony too. They have a instalment/finance scheme for various digicams. along with 0% interest.

Hey V12

Well, i'm already stretching my budget with the A400 actually!

And, after checking out the 2 cam (A400 & A85/75), I must say there is not that big a diffeence between the two. The A75 has more manual controls, which, at this point I don't really need.

Take a look at the scores from www.digitalcamerainfo.com. Although this is for the A85, the only diff is that the 85 is 4MP and the 75 is 3.

The A400 got a total score of 198 while the A85 got a 215. Not that big a difference comparing the difference in price. Also, the A400 was actually better in some of the more important area's such as Noise.

All in all, I feel the A400 suits my purpose, leaving me with a bit extra dough for a 128mb SD card.

Rt