So I replaced my $6k camera setup with a $300 digital - GoFuckYourself.com

CheeseFrog · 07-30-2006, 07:58 PM

Ok I didn't totally replace it. My Canon EOS-1DMkII (24-70mm 2.8L glass, 550EX flash, about a TB worth of memory cards) is off being repaired, so I picked up one of those Canon Digital Elph SD30's at Fry's. Below are some sample shots taken with the 1DMkII and some sample shots taken with the Digital Elph. Do you guys think it's worth the $5k+ difference?

EOS-1DMkII

Digital Elph SD30

tony286 · 07-30-2006, 07:59 PM

besides the colors are more vivid not much different lol

notabook · 07-30-2006, 08:01 PM

Just more proof that it's not the camera that really matters but the hands that it's in.

sweetcuties · 07-30-2006, 08:02 PM

Prefer the Digital Elph SD30

xclusive · 07-30-2006, 08:02 PM

Not worth the 5k+ upgrade as far as I can see

Ray@TastyDollars · 07-30-2006, 08:02 PM

ha...ha...haa choooo

go bless you!

Both sets look great

Dynamix · 07-30-2006, 08:06 PM

If you add a $20 filter attachment to the digi I'd say they're equal ;)

Basic_man · 07-30-2006, 08:06 PM

I like the result with the 300$ cam, but there's one big difference

Libertine · 07-30-2006, 08:10 PM

How can we tell if you don't use the same amount of compression on each set?

Show some high quality, large pictures of each set, and maybe we'll be able to say something useful

Dagwolf · 07-30-2006, 08:10 PM

Different lighting, different background.. it's not a fair comparison.

MikeVega · 07-30-2006, 08:14 PM

I think it helps that you know about lighting and angles to shoot .. the first set does have better color ..

Grapesoda · 07-30-2006, 08:18 PM

I shoot with a 4 mg camera myself

Doctor Dre · 07-30-2006, 08:30 PM

It was 2 different days ugh ? The lightning is so different ... the first = warm lithing

the 2nd = cold light

CheeseFrog · 07-30-2006, 08:39 PM

Yeah, shot different days, similar conditions. The SD30 was set on "Auto White Balance" and unfortunately the pics came out on the cool side. Almost looks Nikon'ish. I couldn't get the nice warm tones like I could with the 1-series. One thing the pics don't show is the speed of the camera. With the 1-series I can just crank out as many pics as I care to take. Press the button and the thing fires. With the Digital Elph, usually when I press the button it takes a good 3-4 seconds for the thing to actually fire. This is in itself is so frustrating it makes the price difference almost worth it for that feature alone.

cj_purve · 07-30-2006, 08:40 PM

I don't think the difference is anything that matters for web, but the elph ones are a little flat in color, not as much contrast.

But isn't it amazing the pics some of the cheaper cameras can take these days?! If your lighting is right, there's very little difference noticable on a computer. I always have my old coolpix with me when I shoot because there's some types of lighting it just handles easier.

E$_manager · 07-30-2006, 08:44 PM

all pics are perfect.

Matt 26z · 07-30-2006, 08:46 PM

Look at the URL watermark on each set. The first has been compressed so much that the photos look like shit.

BSleazy · 07-30-2006, 08:47 PM

The last pics are way better.

latinasojourn · 07-30-2006, 08:48 PM

web jpg compression rates downgrade image quality of high rez camera sensors and lenses.

so you really can't tell too much with small web samples.

now if you were looking at full-size raw images you would see huge difference.

also, the closer you are to the subject matter will be a factor and how the image is cropped.

shooting a landscape and then enlarging it to full size you will see a big difference.

true, a digital rebel is probably good enough for web work, but for pro photography requiring cropping, or large display prints you need good equip.

truth is, "consumer" grade cameras will usually look better for web work because they are setup with default sharpening and color saturation, with pro cameras you are usually doing more post processing work to get the look you want.

2HousePlague · 07-30-2006, 08:50 PM

Sweet fucking ass -- -- whatever equipment ya use --

2hp

Digipimp · 07-30-2006, 08:57 PM

ummm would surfers really notice the difference? probably not so why waste more money.

John69 · 07-30-2006, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digipimp

ummm would surfers really notice the difference? probably not so why waste more money.

there ya go

Matt 26z · 07-30-2006, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj_purve

I don't think the difference is anything that matters for web, but the elph ones are a little flat in color, not as much contrast.

This isn't 1997. Monitors are big and beautiful now. Images online can now be better than that of magazines and rival photographs. So I don't agree with the old "it's just for the web" stuff anymore.

The Elph images can be improved by adding saturation in an image editor. I just tried bumping the first one up +20 and there is a clear improvement in the color.

Sosa · 07-30-2006, 09:12 PM

they are all nice pics

Gerco · 07-30-2006, 09:14 PM

I like the first pic the best, nice focal lenth. You can do that with the cheap cameras.

CheeseFrog · 07-30-2006, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

The Elph images can be improved by adding saturation in an image editor. I just tried bumping the first one up +20 and there is a clear improvement in the color.

Hmm interesting. I'm going to try that right now

Juilan · 07-30-2006, 09:38 PM

I like the DOF and color rendition on the EOS-1DMkII better, the Elph reminds me of the cheaper sony ccd's like the early cybershots. With the Elph you could maybe get by with smaller 800x600 sized web photos but try making a calendar of prints of your exclusive girls for members and it just ain't gonna compare.

Kimo · 07-30-2006, 10:13 PM

i think im going to go pick one of those up soon!

Vitasoy · 07-31-2006, 02:05 AM

Can't really tell so go with the 300 cam

Mutt · 07-31-2006, 02:35 AM

awesome shot - she's got a gorgeous body.

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 07-31-2006, 02:41 AM

Great subject

A picture is a picture, even ones taken with a cheap cell phone.

For example.

Anyone can produce content these days. I started out with a Cybershot 3.2 Megapixel. The technology makes it easy, it's point and shoot.

Havign an eye for whats good is a whole different matter but then again "Whats Good" is perceptual. What you think is good might not be,what you think is bad I might like.

LiveDose · 07-31-2006, 05:28 AM

Jayden is oh so fine...

nico-t · 07-31-2006, 05:43 AM

i prefer the sharpness of the digital pics

rowan · 07-31-2006, 05:46 AM

The 1DII shots look heavily filtered. Can you post sample shots straight out of each cam, resized & watermarked only?

I don't think I'll ever give up my brick - no compact goes down to 12mm rectilinear!

CheeseFrog · 07-31-2006, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowan

The 1DII shots look heavily filtered. Can you post sample shots straight out of each cam, resized & watermarked only?

I don't think I'll ever give up my brick - no compact goes down to 12mm rectilinear!

Those are pretty much straight out of the cam. Except for some Gaussian Blur brush to hide some of her acne and a couple mosquito bites that she got (we forgot to bring bug spray. Color, contrast, DOF, etc are all straight out of the camera.

flashfreak · 07-31-2006, 09:21 AM

nice pics...
I'd say it's not worth the extra $.

pornguy · 07-31-2006, 09:27 AM

For some reason, the first set just looks like they have been shopped already. I like the colors in the second set. Now I know exactly what you mean about the speed of the photos. I have a 20d, and an older SonyFD95. the 95 shoots 2.1mega, and the photos are nice, but it takes about 18 seconds between photos.

CamsLord · 07-31-2006, 09:28 AM

based on those sample pics, it's not much of a difference

OMG Jim · 07-31-2006, 09:41 AM

I've been using the Canon Elph at the last three shows and I think that they are best for the closer shots. The lighting can be tricky especially when you are not using the flash. It is frustrating having to hold the button and wait for the click. The camera's size is also what makes it such a great little camera.

If I were going to sell the photos then I would definitely go for a more sophisticated set up.

_

divinity · 07-31-2006, 08:51 PM

personally I prefer the second set with the cheap camera! maybe because it's more real looking...

vidvicious · 07-31-2006, 09:25 PM

actually you lose the depth of field with the 300$ jobber

anne · 07-31-2006, 11:00 PM

Yea i love my elph

KRL · 07-31-2006, 11:09 PM

The 2nd set from the less expensive camera looks much better.

johnnyhey · 07-31-2006, 11:10 PM

depth of field is much better on a real camera, if you're shooting pro, there's NO way to get DOF with the elf.

L-Pink · 07-31-2006, 11:18 PM

Take 5,000 photos and see which shutter still works.

07-30-2006, 07:58 PM	#1
CheeseFrog Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: AZ Posts: 1,724	So I replaced my $6k camera setup with a $300 digital Ok I didn't totally replace it. My Canon EOS-1DMkII (24-70mm 2.8L glass, 550EX flash, about a TB worth of memory cards) is off being repaired, so I picked up one of those Canon Digital Elph SD30's at Fry's. Below are some sample shots taken with the 1DMkII and some sample shots taken with the Digital Elph. Do you guys think it's worth the $5k+ difference? EOS-1DMkII Digital Elph SD30 __________________ Cary \| AIM: cheesefrog \| ICQ: 4287002

07-30-2006, 08:01 PM	#3
notabook Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Not a Library! Posts: 9,748	Just more proof that it's not the camera that really matters but the hands that it's in. __________________

07-30-2006, 08:02 PM	#4
sweetcuties Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere Posts: 5,859	Prefer the Digital Elph SD30 __________________

07-30-2006, 08:02 PM	#5
xclusive Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 35,218	Not worth the 5k+ upgrade as far as I can see __________________ I support MediumPimpin.com / Shemp's Outlawtgp.com /

07-30-2006, 08:02 PM	#6
Ray@TastyDollars www.TastyDollars.com Join Date: May 2002 Location: Montreal Posts: 6,797	ha...ha...haa choooo go bless you! Both sets look great __________________ The nets best interracial and cuckold site The nets hottest teen site ICQ me: 161 375 873

07-30-2006, 07:59 PM	#2
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	besides the colors are more vivid not much different lol

07-30-2006, 08:06 PM	#7
Dynamix G F Y not Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: MN Posts: 2,910	If you add a $20 filter attachment to the digi I'd say they're equal ;) __________________ TGPFactory Full TGP Design & Installation Services ICQ 250 142 484 · AIM TGPDynamix · Email: patrick (at) tgpfactory (dot) com See who I am at AdultWhosWho.com!

07-30-2006, 08:06 PM	#8
Basic_man Programming King Pin Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Montreal Posts: 27,360	I like the result with the 300$ cam, but there's one big difference __________________ UUGallery Builder - automated photo/video gallery plugin for Wordpress! Stop looking! Checkout Naked Hosting, online since 1999 !

07-30-2006, 08:10 PM	#9
Libertine sex dwarf Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 17,860	How can we tell if you don't use the same amount of compression on each set? Show some high quality, large pictures of each set, and maybe we'll be able to say something useful __________________ /(bb\|[^b]{2})/

07-30-2006, 08:10 PM	#10
Dagwolf President of Canada Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Leaving Hell, Entering Limbo Posts: 23,141	Different lighting, different background.. it's not a fair comparison. __________________ Sleep well, and dream of large women.

07-30-2006, 08:14 PM	#11
MikeVega Porntrepreneur Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New York Posts: 12,788	I think it helps that you know about lighting and angles to shoot .. the first set does have better color .. __________________ Mike Vega-ICQ:253868499-AIM:mikeydicevega

07-30-2006, 08:18 PM	#12
Grapesoda So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Montana Posts: 46,238	I shoot with a 4 mg camera myself

07-30-2006, 08:39 PM	#14
CheeseFrog Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: AZ Posts: 1,724	Yeah, shot different days, similar conditions. The SD30 was set on "Auto White Balance" and unfortunately the pics came out on the cool side. Almost looks Nikon'ish. I couldn't get the nice warm tones like I could with the 1-series. One thing the pics don't show is the speed of the camera. With the 1-series I can just crank out as many pics as I care to take. Press the button and the thing fires. With the Digital Elph, usually when I press the button it takes a good 3-4 seconds for the thing to actually fire. This is in itself is so frustrating it makes the price difference almost worth it for that feature alone. __________________ Cary \| AIM: cheesefrog \| ICQ: 4287002

07-30-2006, 08:40 PM	#15
cj_purve Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,065	I don't think the difference is anything that matters for web, but the elph ones are a little flat in color, not as much contrast. But isn't it amazing the pics some of the cheaper cameras can take these days?! If your lighting is right, there's very little difference noticable on a computer. I always have my old coolpix with me when I shoot because there's some types of lighting it just handles easier.

07-30-2006, 08:44 PM	#16
E$_manager Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: pink adult dreams Posts: 13,557	all pics are perfect. __________________ Enjoy more sales with EnjoyBucks! Homemade: Asian : Ebony : GFs : Voyeur : Nudist : Public : 3D

07-30-2006, 08:46 PM	#17
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	Look at the URL watermark on each set. The first has been compressed so much that the photos look like shit.

07-30-2006, 08:47 PM	#18
BSleazy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: USA Posts: 6,721	The last pics are way better. __________________ icq 156131086

07-30-2006, 08:48 PM	#19
latinasojourn Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 3,191	web jpg compression rates downgrade image quality of high rez camera sensors and lenses. so you really can't tell too much with small web samples. now if you were looking at full-size raw images you would see huge difference. also, the closer you are to the subject matter will be a factor and how the image is cropped. shooting a landscape and then enlarging it to full size you will see a big difference. true, a digital rebel is probably good enough for web work, but for pro photography requiring cropping, or large display prints you need good equip. truth is, "consumer" grade cameras will usually look better for web work because they are setup with default sharpening and color saturation, with pro cameras you are usually doing more post processing work to get the look you want.

07-30-2006, 08:50 PM	#20
2HousePlague CURATOR Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: the attic Posts: 14,572	Sweet fucking ass -- -- whatever equipment ya use -- 2hp __________________ tada!

07-30-2006, 08:57 PM	#21
Digipimp BP4L OT DL Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: BP4L Swap Meet Posts: 13,481	ummm would surfers really notice the difference? probably not so why waste more money. __________________ Still Hosting at Webair and You Should Be Too

07-30-2006, 09:12 PM	#24
Sosa In Tushy Land Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Nebraska Posts: 40,149	they are all nice pics

07-30-2006, 09:14 PM	#25
Gerco Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,052	I like the first pic the best, nice focal lenth. You can do that with the cheap cameras. __________________ Http://www.extremehole.com ** CLOSED ** 400 HOURS of exclusive custom extreme content, already on external HD in Raw DV ready to encode. over 150,000 exclusive images and more.

07-30-2006, 09:38 PM	#27
Juilan Sultan of Swing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: XXXodus Posts: 15,141	I like the DOF and color rendition on the EOS-1DMkII better, the Elph reminds me of the cheaper sony ccd's like the early cybershots. With the Elph you could maybe get by with smaller 800x600 sized web photos but try making a calendar of prints of your exclusive girls for members and it just ain't gonna compare. __________________ My Best Converting VOD Sponsor \|

07-30-2006, 10:13 PM	#28
Kimo ... Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Maryland ICQ:87038677 Posts: 11,542	i think im going to go pick one of those up soon! __________________ ...

07-31-2006, 02:05 AM	#29
Vitasoy GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 58,202	Can't really tell so go with the 300 cam __________________ [email protected]

07-31-2006, 02:35 AM	#30
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	awesome shot - she's got a gorgeous body. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

07-31-2006, 02:41 AM	#31
AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE best designer on GFY Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: IALIEN.COM - High Definition Video and Photographic Productions -ICQ 78943384 Posts: 30,307	Great subject A picture is a picture, even ones taken with a cheap cell phone. For example. Anyone can produce content these days. I started out with a Cybershot 3.2 Megapixel. The technology makes it easy, it's point and shoot. Havign an eye for whats good is a whole different matter but then again "Whats Good" is perceptual. What you think is good might not be,what you think is bad I might like. __________________ NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo! \| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily \| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 \|ICQ: 78943384 \|

07-31-2006, 05:28 AM	#32
LiveDose Show Yer Tits! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere Out there... Posts: 25,792	Jayden is oh so fine... __________________ Scammer Alert: acer19 acer [email protected] [email protected] Money stolen using PayPal

07-31-2006, 05:43 AM	#33
nico-t emperor of my world Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: nethalands Posts: 29,903	i prefer the sharpness of the digital pics

07-31-2006, 05:46 AM	#34
rowan Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 17,393	The 1DII shots look heavily filtered. Can you post sample shots straight out of each cam, resized & watermarked only? I don't think I'll ever give up my brick - no compact goes down to 12mm rectilinear!

07-31-2006, 09:21 AM	#36
flashfreak Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: cloud number 9 Posts: 4,396	nice pics... I'd say it's not worth the extra $. __________________ SEO Mogul \| ICQ: 163671223

07-31-2006, 09:27 AM	#37
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	For some reason, the first set just looks like they have been shopped already. I like the colors in the second set. Now I know exactly what you mean about the speed of the photos. I have a 20d, and an older SonyFD95. the 95 shoots 2.1mega, and the photos are nice, but it takes about 18 seconds between photos. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

07-31-2006, 09:28 AM	#38
CamsLord Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,663	based on those sample pics, it's not much of a difference __________________ sig for sale - pornpicz(at)gmail.com

07-31-2006, 09:41 AM	#39
OMG Jim Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 3,153	I've been using the Canon Elph at the last three shows and I think that they are best for the closer shots. The lighting can be tricky especially when you are not using the flash. It is frustrating having to hold the button and wait for the click. The camera's size is also what makes it such a great little camera. If I were going to sell the photos then I would definitely go for a more sophisticated set up. _ __________________ ICQ: 254 914 537 - Skype: AlmightyJim

07-31-2006, 08:51 PM	#40
divinity Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: SF, CA Posts: 1,041	personally I prefer the second set with the cheap camera! maybe because it's more real looking... __________________ ICQ: 308-491-180