posting pics

[justin_tx_16]

ok, in a few minutes, not that anyone REALLY cares haha, i will post two pics from my Nikon D1 and D1X, a picture of a motocycle from Julia's Junkyard in Bellville Texas, the place i used to call home (Bellville, not Julias ) and then a picture from our beach house on GrandCayman (a skyline picture). The total file size for the two of these is 3mb so only view them if you have broad band, this is just to show the quality you can get with 5.47 mega pixels (or it might be like 5.14...)

be back in a few haha

------------------

-justin

SoundWise Tech Support

I am an amateur, if it is professional;

ProMedia help you want email Amy or call her @ 1-888-554-5665 or for an RA# 800-554-7724 ext 5

Klipsch Home Audio help you want, email support@klipsch.com or call @ 1-800-KLIPSCH

RA# Fax Number=317-860-9140 / Parts Department Fax Number=317-860-9150s>

[justin_tx_16]

http://www.marua.com/klipschter/images/bikeinfeild(bellville-juliasjunkyard%201.jpg

http://www.marua.com/klipschter/images/caymannightscene-@beachhouse.jpg

Ok, so to look at the full sized image, click the link below them. I am sorry about the crappy pictures, my nice ones are all on cd's.

------------------

-justin

SoundWise Tech Support

I am an amateur, if it is professional;

ProMedia help you want email Amy or call her @ 1-888-554-5665 or for an RA# 800-554-7724 ext 5

Klipsch Home Audio help you want, email support@klipsch.com or call @ 1-800-KLIPSCH

RA# Fax Number=317-860-9140 / Parts Department Fax Number=317-860-9150s>

[WMcD]

I'm a bit new to digital photography. I have a Mavica 92. Works for me.

If you're going to be cropping, editing, and printing, high mega pixels are needed.

However, here on the internet, we are pretty much limited in file size and the resolution of the viewer's screen. Therefore, low resolution pictures are about all we can use. 640 x 480 size is about the limit, I'd say. And we have to use JPG compression to keep the file size down.

The problem is that we might take pictures at mega pixel resolution in bitmap or TIFF. Then we need to pare them down with a picture editor.

So, to some extent, the high resolution cameras are causing problems in common applications.

Gil

[edster00]

Just like picking out your (Klipsch) speakers for a particular application be it HT or 2 channel, it is also important to know what you are going to do with the digital photo once you take it.

If you plan on printing your photos it requires more pixels for larger prints. My 2.1 megapixel camera takes 1600x1200 pixel photos and they do very well for a 4x6 print. Some folks say you can do an 8x10 at that resolution but I don't think the quality of the print is good enough. Many (HornEd ) would be appalled at the quality of an 8x10 print taken at a 1600x1200 resolution.

On the other hand if you are going to be using the photos for web work a 1600x1200 image works just fine. Most of the photos I attach to an email, post on this BB, or place in an ad are reduced by at least 50% (800x600 pixels) and usually even more-in the 400x300 pixel range.

It is important to remember that you can always make a photo smaller than the original to preserve the quality of the photo, you cannot make it larger than the original.

You can "right click" on any (almost) any photo on the web and then go down to "properties" and you can see the actual pixel size of the photo

[HornEd]

Gil, so many of us look up to your clear and accurate definitions in the audio realm that I shuddered when you spoke of high resolution cameras being "somewhat" of a problem in common applications. You did preface your remarks as being a bit new to this field. But the "aura of authority" contained in a William F. Gil McDermott is usually enhanced by effective disclaimers... I guess it goes with your profession.

Please understand that this is a friendly post from an admirer, Gil, concern is high but it is intended to be a "no flame" observation. I don't know of any main stream high resolution camera that cannot be set to take photos at the same resolution as lesser digital cameras... or put the result out in an easy to use jpeg format. Thus, you CAN use your "whiz bang" camera at the most convenient level of your understanding... and move on up as knowledge of camera, software, etc. as you progress up the learning curve.

For less than $100 you can have a piece of software that translates Justin's highest resolution Belleville Kawasaki photo into a sharper version of one taken with your Mavica... even after being reduced to the same size and format as the Mavica! And the process is at least an order of magnitude less complicated than setting an ideal subwoofer crossover point.

Highly regarded folks carry a greater potential for being misunderstood when venturing into the photo backwaters of the digital sea... particularly when knowledge is overshadowed by verbal skills and stellar reputations. It just isn't hard at all to reduce a high resolution digital camera to the functionality and ease of your Mavica... only the photos will be better! And that is no ethereal "wire thread" conclusion!

Gil, a mind like yours could have a pleasant romp in the digital fields that lie beyond the valley of a '92 Mavica. And, thanks for the many posts that brought audio clarity to a sometimes fuzzy thinking HornEd.

[dougdrake2]

I'm evaluating 4 cameras for purchase now, and I am definitely in the "point and shoot" arena. Also needing to stay in a street price of around $400. I imagine the times when I will print an 8x10 picture will be rare. However, I realize that sometimes it's not about printing a larger version of an entire picture, but rather cropping a picture and blowing up the remaining area to a standard (say 4x6) size. How much is that affected by 2 vs. 3 megapixels?

I am considering:

1) Minolta DiMage X - for its size and 3x optical

2) Fujifilm FinePix 2800 - for its 6x optical

3) Canon ELPH S110 - for its size, image quality, and 20fps video mode

4) Canon ELPH S300 - same reasons as S110 but also for 3x optical

Any thoughts/suggestions/experiences are welcome!

Doug

------------------

My System

[HornEd]

Justin, forgive me but as I was about to respond to your post... Gil's caught my eye... and I didn't want his many Forum fans to stunt their digital photography fun by misinterpreting the thrust of his statement.

On the D1, the problem wasn't with the superb lenses... it was with problems associated with the interchangeability of great lenses and the exposure of the CCD array that caused the problems. Much of my photography is professional level event photography where photo opportunities preclude running back to a relatively clean environment in the motorhome to change lenses. Stray particles undetected in the viewfinder would raise their ugly heads in 16"x20" blowups leaving me with all the expenses of covering the event and "perfectly exposed" substandard results. It turned out to be far more expensive than the D1... and so I dropped back a half-a-megapixel in resolution and bought a working solution in the Olympus E-20N... with every lens accessory they had... for about what I spent on the D1.

But, as you probably realize, old Nikon habits die hard... and I wouldn't be surprised to have a digital one back in my hands as CCD contamination is less a factor... cleaning compromised CCD arrays is no picnic at a picnic!

It's nice to be able to read the dials on that old Kawasaki due to the resolution and lens quality you have... maybe you should composite it with your Cayman sunset as an "End of the Trail" photo. On second thought, better to wait till you snap a tired old Indian down on its rims.

In the main, I have a very high regard for Nikon in general and the D1 in particular... but I think greater cameras at better price/performance points are just not that far away. And the ability to deliver increasingly higher quality photos of Klipsch speakers and audio support gear will bring a lot of extra value to the Forum. That being said, I think an Olympus C-4040z is better than any "Koolpix" I have previewed... although I have not reviewed the 5000.

As you know, Justin, the learning curve to get better web quality photos is just not that difficult... but the art of photography... the challenges of composition, exposure, backlighting, and "camera shake"... are the significant areas for improvement of photographic skills... and they remain so whatever the camera format may be.

I am glad to see more and more Forum members sticking their digital photo necks out so we can know more about their audio situations. At one time I was able to sneak photos directly into the body of the posts without reference to an outside url. But, Justin, accessing a higher res photo on your above post is certainly a compelling argument for having one in addition to my commercial sites.

These are the highly "transitional" days of digital photography for pros, as well as, consumer grade cameras. The time when you need to get all the use out of every purchase you can... because a better, cheaper camera is just around the corner. So now I use what gives my photos more value in paperback publications... while I wait for old age or technical advancements to get an old favorite name back in focus.

HornEd

[edster00]

Doug,

Let's say I take a 1600x1200 pixel photo with my camera. Now I print the full size image as an 8x10 picture and I am satisfied with the quality of that picture. Let's say I decide to crop the outside edges off the photo to emphasize the main subject, and the resulting image is now 832x571 pixels (or any pixel count that is less than the original). If I try to "blow up" the new 832x571 image to print another 8x10 photo it isn't going to work. The resulting photo will be very grainy. You will be able to see all the individual pixels, like a photo in a newspaper. I can print the new 832x571 pixel image smaller than 8x10, probalby 4x6 or something.

The same example holds true for viewing on the computer. If you take a small photo and blow it up past its original pixel size it will look grainy.

Now on the other hand if I take a 1600x1200 pixel photo and print a 4x6 picture, crop off the edges to make a new photo of 832x571 pixels I "MAY" still be able to print an acceptable 4x6 picture...it depends on how much I crop out of the original.

The more pixels the larger picture you can print (or view on a computer monitor) with out pixelation(sp?) of the photo.

I have not used any of the camera you are considering. The more optical zoom you have the better (IMHO). Storage media for the cameras has come way down in price, my first 64mb Compact Flash card cost ~$110 at discount online a couple of years ago. I just purchased a 128mb CF card for $49 (regular price $59) at Costco.

[HornEd]

Doug, I have just finished a preliminary check (as promised Keith) of a camera that Talk-to-Keith is considering... a Fuji FinePix 2800. As usual, T-T-K seems to have found a bargain in sub $400 cameras... a price range that I do not often follow as I require higher resolution, better lenses and a single lens reflex to get my jobs done.

As usual, T-T-K seems to have found a bargain in sub $400 cameras... a price range that I do not often follow as I require higher resolution, better lenses and a single lens reflex to get my jobs done.

I'll answer your concerns first, Doug, and illustrate them by how T-T-K's find handles the situation.

Higher resolution for the same price is almost always better ("almost" because sometimes because all CCD's are NOT created equal)... and 3.3 MP (MegaPixel) gives effectively gives you a HUGE advantage over 2.1 MP offering. T-T-K's find keeps the cost down by providing a 6:1 optical zoom... which means if you can master the art of composing in the viewfinder... your photos will likely have the resolution they need for webwork. Of course, if you have a 3.3 MP camera and if you have the skills to crop your photo in the lens... you are that much ahead in making "near photo quality" printouts.

Three central problems negatively impact candid photos by entry level photographers with highly automated, auto focus digital cameras.

1. "Camera Shake" - Like Daniel Boone squeezing off a round to put supper on the table... the more rock steady the camera is at the instant the picture is taken... the better a photo will be. Even Ansel Adams used a tripod... a solid one. Most inexpensive tripods are hardly worth the effort let alone the money.

2. "Seeing Beyond the Lens" - Human eyes may take a back seat to an eagles... but they are still marvelous in their ability when compared to a camera lens. At the moment a picture is taken, the lens sees and records nearly everything in the viewfinder (more or less depending on the camera... even when it comes to SLR's). Too often, the candid photo snapper uses his marvelous eye to focus in to some detail within the field of view of the lens... and gets so excited by the photo opportunity... snaps the picture. Only to find the area of his attention was really only a small part of the overall picture actually taken.

Cropping the photo down to the interesting part means filling a picture size frame with a fraction of the pixels needed (i.e., the smaller area of interest has fewer original pixels to define it) and results in a "jaggy" caricatures of the real thing.

The trick is to keep your mind aware that you have to zoom in or move closer to fill the viewfinder with the subject your keen eye has singled out as a winner. With a little discipline, you will be amazed at what you can do with just about any camera!

3. "Mr. Auto Blurry" - While keen-eyed pros stick to manual focus settings... some of us with slowly fading eyesight are forced to use some autofocus crutches. Although the technology of autofocus varies from camera to camera (e.g., some cameras even have more than one kind) it is important to know how yours works.

Most consumer grade cameras have a spot focus... an area in the middle of the viewfinder usually marked with a circle and sometimes "crosshairs" as well. This is the area on which the camera will focus. If your subject is your pooch sitting-up on a garbage can... but the circle in the center of your camera is on the barn a hundred yards away... you can bet you got yourself a fuzzy pooch picture.

So, if you take an autofocus picture, the subject you desire to be in focus must be in that circle. Many times it is advantageous to have your subject in sharp focus and the rest of the photo slightly out of focus... in order to call attention to your subject. That's called depth-of-field... something at which classic "LIFE" photographers were particularly adept to get past the editor's critical eye.

Fortunately, many consumer grade cameras have a provision which allows you to aim at your subject, push the button halfway down to set the autofocus... and then move the camera to compose your shot... so even if the circle is now on the sky... your subject will be in focus... to the best ability of that camera.

Of course, there is a lot more than mastering this "Terrible Trio" to excellence in digital photography... but conquer them (as well you can!) and you will be on the high road to greater satisfaction for you and those who view your pics! Digital photography has it's pitfalls and slick tricks just like the audio world... and obviously, this post could be a lot longer in the attempt to get better quality photos on the Forum for all to see.

A couple of tips sparked by looking at T-T-K's choice as an example. Four rechargeable NiMH batteries and a charger can be added for about $35. Digital cameras eat batteries even when your not taking photos! I use special NiMH batteries that allow me to take and review in camera between 500-1,000 high res photos.

Having two sets of NiMH batteries (far better than NiCads) charged up an ready-to-go is a cheap insurance policy of making the most out of your photo opportunities... and is extremely cost effective. My experience is that better known brand NiMH batteries tend to perform better than "cheapies" I have known and found more expensive when you include their performance curve. All NiMH's are not created equal either.

The last thing for this post ( Whew!) is the digital cards (SM or CF) that hold the images. (The CCD acts as "film" at the moment of exposure... and that image is digitally transferred onto cards which acts as "film" in its storage capacity. These cards have come down tremendously in price and increased dramatically in their capacity. So, generally I advise putting in the highest capacity card your camera will take.

Currently, I use an IBM MicroDrive in a CF format that holds One Gigabyte of information PLUS a 128 MB SmartCard... which allows me to take over 300 five megapixel photos without stopping... and when you are taking a series of action shots at 8,000ths of a second, you would be amazed at how many shots you can take. That is part of why I use two virtually identical cameras on a shoot.

Remember, you can always cut a high resolution photo down to a lower pixel size... usually with a higher benefit than the same photo taken at the lower resolution (i.e., the issues are similar to super sampling in audio). BUT, when you take low resolution photos, you do not have enough information to fill in a higher resolution format even if your computer software offers you one.

And, T-T-K, off the spec sheet, it looks like you have found yourself another winner providing you use it wisely... we all look forward to photos of your audio bargaining trophies. HornEd

PS: Nice summary edster00

This message has been edited by HornEd on 03-07-2002 at 12:41 PM

[dougdrake2]

Once again Keith and I are on similar ground (remember the AudioQuest Sidewinders, Keith?).

Great info, Ed(s). Thanks for those tips. Since the 4 I listed are all about the same price (+/- $50), would you swing towards the Fuji due to the 6x optical (they all have 2megapixels)?

One thing a user commented about, who owned the Canon ELPH, was that part of the fun of digital photography is being able to snap pix whenever you want, review them, and toss them if you don't want them, and the ELPH was well suited to that because of its small size, which made it easy to always have with you, ready to "capture the moment." A larger camera, in his opinion, was less likely to be with you (in your pocket, or whatever), thus decreasing the chances of taking fun pix. Interesting point.

I guess I just have to prioritize my needs/wants and pick one best suited to that ranking.

Doug

------------------

My System

This message has been edited by dougdrake2 on 03-07-2002 at 02:03 PM

[boa12]

ok i'm startin to get it. got a free 30 day trial on adobe photoshop elements at www.adobe.com

now you can see my space limits. & that awful wallpaper - gotta do something about that.

------------------

My Home Systems Page

[boa12]

ok didn't get the front stage pic in there.

------------------

My Home Systems Page

[HornEd]

Way to go, Boa! The flash halo on your mirror shows that it's a great mirror. And a leather couch is a great way to enjoy your HGS 18! I hope your example helps more folks into the sharing mode. It looks like you are getting elements to do what you want. Keep up the good work.

Doug, one of the things I may have left out on the earlier posts is that I recommend that people try to read the manual of a prospective camera purchase. These days, many manufactures have them on line in a PDF format. Some digital cameras have very awkward chip sets that are a nightmare to use to their fullest extent. A poorly organized manual and the procedural steps within in it are often a clue to a bad configuration on an otherwise good (stat-wise) camera.

Most better consumer grade cameras (even in the $400 range) have the ability to delete photos on the fly and use the space for more photos... so that shouldn't be a sticking point... but check though.

While I haven't used the Fuji 2800 I have heard many glowing reports from typical consumers... with rave reviews of picture quality. Much of it seems to be split between the 6:1 zoom and the rather aggressive COD transfer algorithm used by Fuji.

I haven't had time to see if one of the reviewers I know personally (read that as "trust") has reviewed the 2800... but my offhand guess is that it will be the best performer for web photography of the four choices you named.

Good luck to you Doug, Keith, Boa and all you digital photogs lurking just out of camera range. -HornEd

This message has been edited by HornEd on 03-07-2002 at 02:43 PM

[HornEd]

Okay, gang, my cell phone just alerted me to head out to the beach to take some kite-surfing pics with my lens rigged at 420mm. But, I just finished a review by someone I value highly of the 2800 and it looks like a runaway winner to me! Lots of fun stuff and a truly great zoom lens for the money.

The one caution I would add, however, is that few people can do a good job at hand holding a maximum zoom shot with this camera. So, try to brace yourself, use a monopod or, better yet, a sturdy tripod for the max zoom shots.

I even liked the audio note taking feature. Looks like a fun camera to me! Enjoy! -HornEd

[edster00]

Size was a big concern for me also (of my camera). I had a nice big fairly expensive 35mm camera that I just loved. I never took it with me anywhere though because of it's size.

My digi camera is small enough to put in my pocket but with an extra battery, extra CF card(s) etc. I usually carry it in a fanny pack if I go somewhere special. I also have a bigger camera gear bag that I keep the battery charger, another spare battery, CF card reader, camera manual (although I don't need it much anymore), and some other odds and ends. It is still a smaller bag than I had with my 35mm. I don't carry the larger bag with me but I take it with me so I will have the supporting equipment if I need it.

It is hard to plan for every eventuality concerning lens needs. If you are into spectator sporting events and want a close up of someone on a football field, a car at a race track, a player's face at a basket ball or soccer game etc. the more optical zoom you can get the better. OTOH I tend to take family photos, close-up shots (flowers, pets, "unusual" subjects), in these cases I can move my camera into a position that the zoom is not as important. HornEd hit the nail on the head (as usual) about framing your shots. Most people don't fill the view finder with the subject of the photo, they tend to leave too much "air" around the main subject then you have to crop it out later and it severly limits the file size/available pixels to do any "tweaking" later. Landscapes etc. are the exception, people shots need to have the people fill the view finder.

This photo has nothing to do with this thread, just a photo of me that I like, and there is at least one frequent poster on this BB that might recognize where this shot was taken:

This is called a "splash 'n dash"...anyone know where it was taken?

------------------

This message has been edited by edster00 on 03-07-2002 at 03:22 PM

[justin_tx_16]

isnt that montgomery?

...

...

my dad was a pro photographer and i once wanted to be his protege hehe. i have access to about 10 nikon cameras from the af series to the f series to the d series. and lens galor, though we just downsized, sold about 50 lenses. i hope to someday get to teh studio and take some pics of our (err his) setup. plasma tv connected to his AVID for his editing (and then dual 36" mitsubitsi moniters for the old school editing suite), his two HDTV camera, dvd burners (with licensing ability (not DVDRAM or DVDRW, real deal DVD), the betacams and digibeta, DAT recorders, and ofcourse, his studio system and more. he does audio, video and picture production. great for home movies

what i like best about the high pixel is the ability to edit without worry of distortion. you get a picture that is massively blown up and then when you add effects (like i did in the pictures below) when you size them down you don't see any of your flaws when drawing, and fixes that red eye hehe.

here are a few more of my pics with my D1 (just majorly downsized)

------------------

-justin

SoundWise Tech Support

I am an amateur, if it is professional;

ProMedia help you want email Amy or call her @ 1-888-554-5665 or for an RA# 800-554-7724 ext 5

Klipsch Home Audio help you want, email support@klipsch.com or call @ 1-800-KLIPSCH

RA# Fax Number=317-860-9140 / Parts Department Fax Number=317-860-9150s>

[Seb]

Justin, beautiful pics!

There really is artistic value in these IMO. I especially loved the elderly people picture, it evoked life passing them by at too quick a pace...

------------------

http://members.fortunecity.com/sebdavid - go laugh at my crappy website/equipment

http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mc.asp?alias=Sebdavid - go laugh at my puny little DVD collection

[T2K]

Thanks for the work checking out my choice Ed. I've been reading about low cost digitals and believe the Fuji is the camera I'll buy.I have Nikon and Minolta cameras I never use and thought I'd buy the Fuji for unloading excess inventory on E-Bay.Thanks again.

Enjoyed the pics boa!

Keith

EDIT} Seb, that's the way life is for everyone.It just takes some years for people to realize it.Reminds me of years ago as the wife packed my lunch in a new paper bag.I asked 'where's the other bag I was using?'.The wife said 'well that old bag was wrinkled and looked bad'.I responded 'well it still works! Just because something is old and wrinkled doesn't mean that its useless'.Wonder if thats where the 'old bag' phrase came from? :^)

Justin, are those stool pigeons outside Bose Corporate HQ ?

This message has been edited by talktoKeith on 03-07-2002 at 09:27 PM

[justin_tx_16]

quote:

---

Originally posted by talktoKeith:

Justin, are those stool pigeons outside Bose Corporate HQ ?

---

Actually this was taken last summer while on my Europe trip, a government building in Denmark.... or Sweden... can not exactly remember haha

thanks for the compliments, i LOVE to do photography, got a new 500mm NIKKOR last week, can't wait to get my still shot tripod so i can do some... space ship watching haha. the thing uses a telescopic mirror lens (or whatever hehe) so it is only like 6 inches long, half the length of my 250mm. PhotoShop and Jasc are my favorite photo editers, i really like Jasc, so fast

------------------

-justin

SoundWise Tech Support

I am an amateur, if it is professional;

ProMedia help you want email Amy or call her @ 1-888-554-5665 or for an RA# 800-554-7724 ext 5

Klipsch Home Audio help you want, email support@klipsch.com or call @ 1-800-KLIPSCH

RA# Fax Number=317-860-9140 / Parts Department Fax Number=317-860-9150s>

[WMcD]

Horn Ed took me to task, and honestly so.

Horn Ed, I don't take your comments as a flame by any means. You're not that kind of guy and we all recognize it.

Thanks for the kind comments on audio. I try hard, which is often a matter of reflection and editing. I'll try to carry on.

My posts tend to be too long and I sometimes keep them short; particularly when I'm in unfamiliar territory. This leads to generalizations. As Ann Landers says: all generalizations are false; including this one. Smile.

The comments have forced me to re-evaluate my comments and identify what is bugging me. Let me think out loud.

The bottom line is that I'm judging cameras on (1) ease of file transfer, (2) macro capability, (3)lighting control, and (4) focus. These are independent of "resolution" except for (1).

(1) I may have mega pixel envy (but see below) and also some frustration that more expensive electronic cameras don't the feature of the Mavica 92 which is so appealing. I.e., the floppy disk. (This is in addition to a memory stick.)

Yes, the Mavica does allow selection of resolution. It even will automatically create 320 size "e-mail" copies in a subdirectory. I think that is too small but there is no way to bump it up to 640. Dang.

The floppy is handy for moving the files to any computer on hand. Otherwise, one has to use a memory stick reader or USB connection on the other computer. Yeah, I've used the USB to dump the collection of Christmas pictures (max resolution) off the memory stick to a computer for manipulation and burning a CD Rom, and printing.

It is primative in the world of networking and USBs. Still, the most common way of physically moving data around.

I suppose I'm annoyed at lack of a better solution. The Sonys with built in CD burners may come close.

Again with the pixel envy and sour grapes. Resolution is ramping up with every model. Now, admittedly, no manufacturer is saying this makes them better cameras for internet use. So why should resolution be the first item in advertisement?

I'd like to point out that if we're limited in file size and monitor resolution for transmission and display, the resolution advances are not great advantage in this application.

Yes, photo processing software make it easy (once you master the menu) to cut down resolution. There is a lot of such software appended to office applications and the software disk which comes with the cameras. (End of (1).)

Perhaps Horn Ed and I are on the same wavelength regarding what is very good about advanced electronic cameras. They go to subjects 2,3, and 4.

The newer cameras are getting closer in flexibility/features to say, an old Nikon. I love my F-3. These are important for recording specific items in specific conditions. This is very much aside from resolution. And I'll say, the Mavica 92 gets away from the point and shoot mentality and toward them; with some short comings.

(2) We need macro functions to take pictures of labels and cross over components. What ever the physical issue might be.

(3) Conditions at home are often poor and we need exposure control or control over strobe levels. We sometimes have to stick the lense into the back of a speaker box to record the printing on the back of a driver.

(4) Focus control is also necessary. The old Mavicas had a manual focus option (good). This new one has some presets which are often not enough. The macro works well enough sometimes, but it will "hunt" between three items in the field of view when I want it to lock on a specific one.

My gripe is that high resolution is not enough, and often a red herring. Rather factors 2,3,4 will make or break a good "shoot".

Therefore, it is disappointing that manufacturers tout resolution, and don't give attention to the others.

Best to all.

Gil