what is your camera

[singalong]

But what out performs it in low light? I stand by what I said, 10 years old and still the best compact low light camera there is, 

Many of the current line up of compacts will comfortably outperform it because of larger sensors with newer technologies and better high ISO performance, improved image processors and faster lenses. Off hand, the ones that come to mind immediately are Sony RX100M3/M4/M5, Lumix LX100/TZ80, Canon GX series or the slightly larger Fuji XE100...

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Fire Bar Matt]

DP. 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Dr No

[Fire Bar Matt]

Nikon D40x though it rarely comes on holidays with me nowadays. 

[Welbeck]

6 hours ago, singalong said:

Many of the current line up of compacts will comfortably outperform it because of larger sensors with newer technologies and better high ISO performance, improved image processors and faster lenses. Off hand, the ones that come to mind immediately are Sony RX100M3/M4/M5, Lumix LX100/TZ80, Canon GX series or the slightly larger Fuji XE100...

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 

Put some pictures up from said cameras then.

Typical F31

Indoors at night without a flash 

If your wondering why you can't make his face out he's wearing a black mask

 

[Welbeck]

6 hours ago, Dr No said:

Nikon D40x though it rarely comes on holidays with me nowadays. 

Did you know the D40x and the D60 are the same camera, Nikon realised they'd fucked up with the D40x, it was taking sales away from the D80, as it had the same sensor but was a lot cheaper so they rebadged it as the D60 and put a VR lens on it and repriced it accordingly.

 

[singalong]

Put some pictures up from said cameras then.
Typical F31

Snip

Indoors at night without a flash 

Snip

If your wondering why you can't make his face out he's wearing a black mask
 

A couple that I took on a RX100M3

And an astrophotography photo not taken by me, but using a RX100M3 as a 20 sec iso1600 exposure, pretty much stunning...

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Welbeck]

On 09/12/2017 at 18:16, singalong said:

 

 

A couple that I took on a RX100M3

And an astrophotography photo not taken by me, but using a RX100M3 as a 20 sec iso1600 exposure, pretty much stunning...

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 

 

Nice pictures but, in all fairness they're no better from a camera that cost 3 times more

[Encora]

On 12/9/2017 at 18:35, Welbeck said:

Put some pictures up from said cameras then.

Typical F31

Indoors at night without a flash 

If your wondering why you can't make his face out he's wearing a black mask

 

With all due respect for theposter, sometimes itis not a matter of which is the better camera, but what are the skills of the photographer. Or in the case of these to pics, chalk and cheese. The four girls, probably used direct flash, if not, direct lighting on the faces.

the second pic, shot including the lights above the scene, shining straight into the lens. The contrast difference between the face in the shade and the naked lights shining into the lens, would defy the bedt of cameras.

if the photographer would have moved in close up to the guy showing no detail in his face, and excluded back lighting, the result would have been different.

The details of his black mask would have been clearly visible

we owned an F30, and I loved  its ability at low light. But todays tach ology is vastly improved. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Encora

[singalong]

On 11/12/2017 at 13:31, Welbeck said:

Nice pictures but, in all fairness they're no better from a camera that cost 3 times more

I may be a crap photographer, however, I differ when you can find no difference in pictures that are taken by two cameras that have obvious differences due to their technical capabilities. Maybe the differences are a bit difficult to make out given the small size of the pictures uploaded and the subjects, lighting and framing.

I am adding a couple of more pictures with an explanation of where and how they were taken as well as the shooting values. None of the pictures were altered in post processing in any way except for the first picture having a face obscured for privacy reasons. The pictures haven't been resized so they make time to load as they are 20mpx JPGs straight out of the camera...

This one was taken inside Sexy in the City of the great Ajanna who doesnt want to be barfined because she is perpetually has her periods - with extremely low lights, actually so dark that I was quite surprised that I got anything at all! 1/25th sec f1.8 ISO 1600 EV +1.5 

This picture was taken in my home - handheld (couldn't have done that without the excellent 5 axis stabilization), in a dark room with only the light from the corridor lighting the figurine. I did this just to check the high ISO performance of the camera and picture came out reasonably sharp without too much noise and no color cast! 1/5th sec f1.8 ISO 1600 EV 0.00

Please don't take this as any criticism of either your photography skills (mine are pretty crap!) or your camera - this is just as information as to how much tech has evolved over time and as information for people looking at new equipment. In fact I bought this camera at a sale where I got it for just under $500 and found it, to my delight, to be good enough to the extent that I do not travel around with a heavy DSLR kit and lenses (Canon 7D) any more...

Cheers

[singalong]

On 15/01/2017 at 10:24, jerry said:

I prefer the 28/1.8 over the 24/1.8 for shots of girls in the room . 

24 is great for architecture or to get the whole room in the pic but for portraits or close ups it's not ideal . 

28 is already to much wide angle for portraits but 24 will distort the face even more and will show more

background (a thing i don't want) . Of course you can zoom the 24 in to 28 but the F number will go a

bit up as well .  

The RX100M3 stays at 1.8 till about 33, the f number then goes up in stages till about 44 where it reaches 2.8 where it stays...

Just info...

[BryanDanielson]

18 hours ago, singalong said:

Please don't take this as any criticism of either your photography skills (mine are pretty crap!) or your camera - this is just as information as to how much tech has evolved over time and as information for people looking at new equipment. In fact I bought this camera at a sale where I got it for just under $500 and found it, to my delight, to be good enough to the extent that I do not travel around with a heavy DSLR kit and lenses (Canon 7D) any more...

Cheers

2

How did you manage to stay still in that shot?  Normally at that low of a shutter speed, I pretty much have to have something to hold the camera to keep it from getting motion blur. 

 

And I can tell the massive difference between the two technical performances.  The F30 produces noise that is more smeary and causes minor discoloration that is especially noticeable in the photo with the dude on the mask.  The RX is also grainy as hell but looks finer and I don't see any discoloration.  This shouldn't be shocking since ISO performance in cameras have improved rapidly in quality over the last 5 years thanks to the sensor arms race within the market.  Back when the F30 was out, 1600 ISO was considered extreme outside the most professional cameras while now 1600 ISO is pretty much a non-problem even for lower end cameras.

[singalong]

2 hours ago, BryanDanielson said:

How did you manage to stay still in that shot?  Normally at that low of a shutter speed, I pretty much have to have something to hold the camera to keep it from getting motion blur. 

 

Steady hands and decent breath control coupled with the excellent 5-axis sensor-shift stabilization in the RX100M3 , I guess! I have found that if I am sitting down I can handhold till about 1/4th sec, standing up that goes up to about 1/8th. This is with small cameras like the RX100M3, given a DSLR, even the entry level ones, I wouldn't try anything less than 1/15th or so...

Regarding noise, I agree that there's lots of noise in very lowlight pictures like this, but what the current sensors do best is to contain the noise to a finer grain like particles without affecting the overall sharpness/detail in the picture! This kind of noise can be handled to great extent by noise reduction algorithms, the best of which that I have seen is DxO PhotoLab's PRIME module though I use Lightroom when I process my photographs, which I didn't do in this case. As you noticed, at ISO 1600, there is very little, if any, colour noise or cast which starts creeping in at about ISO 3200 or so.

 

 

[BryanDanielson]

11 hours ago, singalong said:

Steady hands and decent breath control coupled with the excellent 5-axis sensor-shift stabilization in the RX100M3 , I guess! I have found that if I am sitting down I can handhold till about 1/4th sec, standing up that goes up to about 1/8th. This is with small cameras like the RX100M3, given a DSLR, even the entry level ones, I wouldn't try anything less than 1/15th or so...

Regarding noise, I agree that there's lots of noise in very lowlight pictures like this, but what the current sensors do best is to contain the noise to a finer grain like particles without affecting the overall sharpness/detail in the picture! This kind of noise can be handled to great extent by noise reduction algorithms, the best of which that I have seen is DxO PhotoLab's PRIME module though I use Lightroom when I process my photographs, which I didn't do in this case. As you noticed, at ISO 1600, there is very little, if any, colour noise or cast which starts creeping in at about ISO 3200 or so.

 

 

3

Yeah, the photo is definitely usable even with the noise.  It is really only obvious if you blow up the photo on a big screen, and it's pretty easy to fix otherwise.  Or you can do what hispters do and just make it B&W so it looks like you tried to make it edgier

[singalong]

21 hours ago, BryanDanielson said:

Yeah, the photo is definitely usable even with the noise.  It is really only obvious if you blow up the photo on a big screen, and it's pretty easy to fix otherwise.  Or you can do what hispters do and just make it B&W so it looks like you tried to make it edgier

Here it is after being run through DxO Photolab - noise reduction and a little bit of color and contrast correction.

The other advantage of most of the higher end compacts is their ability to shoot RAW so that these kinds of corrections are possible in post - JPGs just dont have enough information... 

[SenorWompWomp]

I have just bought a Canon t5i to take with me when I go visit the beaches, hopefully the Grand Palace and other non-mongering things. Idk if I want to go all out on lenses or video equipment or not yet

[Gibsons1]

I bought a Canon SX720HS ($400 CDN) as I read about good picture quality and 1080P video, before my trip last September to Bangkok.  Of course, I was pretty nervous taking any pics in Red Light districts, I probably took about 10 pics and 0 videos in 8 days. 

I like the pricier Canon P&S cameras as excellent video quality is one of the benefits.  Wanted the G7x mark II but skimped on the price. Bought the 720 as I saw some bloggers on YouTube blog with it and the HD video was excellent.  There's a Sony compact that seems to be a rival to the G7x II, but also expensive.

 

So I brought my P&S but got nervous taking it out anywhere to get photos and didn't want to ruffle any feathers in the Red Light districts (lets face it - that's the most interesting thing).

So to the guys asking if they should buy tons of crazy gear for their trip - only do it if you think you can be brave enough to pull it out to get the photos you are seeking.   Unless Pattaya is more forgiving to tourists shooting pics and video, I won't know until I get into town.  I'll still bring my Canon plus my smartphone.

[Sam Sallung]

Hi everybody ,

I have a Lumix G85 since about 6 months ;

12 y ago I had a Nikon Coolpix E4500 ; only 4 Mp but very nices photos with it .

After that I bought some compact Olympus,

a FE4030, and a TG610, I still have .

 

With the G85, I have a zoom 14-42 f/3,5-5,6 ( 28-84 in FF )

U can see my photos on my Flickr account;

I'm not a pro !! but I think some photos are " regardables "

https://www.flickr.com/photos/53115463@N06/with/38952458410/

[Bonkabit]

Nikon Coolpix S3200, very compact. I just want an easy-to-use small camera I can keep in my pocket when skiing or cycling. Put it on automatic so no need to make adjustments: just point and press. 

Good for photos of TG's in the room too!

Also camera on iPhone.

[Billyboy294]

As this is a mongers board It would be fine if we could see sample photos of girls in the room so we can judge if a camera is worth buying..

 

[jerry]

19 minutes ago, Billyboy294 said:

As this is a mongers board It would be fine if we could see sample photos of girls in the room so we can judge if a camera is worth buying..

Yes sir ... still happy with my Sony RX100 mark 1 . Existing light 800 ISO but like Encore said a few posts back it's not only the camera , understanding it and know how to use it is at least as important . 

[Billyboy294]

1 hour ago, Billyboy294 said:

As this is a mongers board It would be fine if we could see sample photos of girls in the room so we can judge if a camera is worth buying..

 

 

42 minutes ago, jerry said:

Yes sir ... still happy with my Sony RX100 mark 1 . Existing light 800 ISO but like Encore said a few posts back it's not only the camera , understanding it and know how to use it is at least as important . 

Thanks for that. Seems like a nice camera. Just remembered, i have one.ie. the Mk1.

I  set Program mode.  Then focus, point and shoot. (sometimes with or without flash). What more to you need unless you are like PC and find special looking girls who are willing to pose..

Here are two  pics of massage girls..

Edited March 12, 2018 by Billyboy294

[Encora]

Great to see you upgraded your camera, Billy. It shows, too.

although these RX100 get upgraded by Sony every year, they were good from the start, and the upgrades are very incremental. We have the Mk III, and I cant really see any reason to get a newerone...

[Billyboy294]

Most of my best girls were taken around 2005 with a simple Sony W1 (5 megapix) and which produced better pics than many i see posted recently..

 

[jerry]

If you simply want the best opt for a full frame reflex . Canon 6D , even at 5000 ISO  at 1/50 sec , 50% natural light and 50% artificial light still perfect color balance and hardly any grain . 

The 6D might be the cheapest full frame from Canon but probably the best of the serie in low light . 

[jerry]

Got tons of pics i would like to post but as this is the open part i'm limited to the 'dressed' ones ...  .