I'm looking to put up some pictures comparing lens vs. resolution. Are there internet sites that have free hosting of pictures?

My brother-in-law cuts gemstones as a hobby, and he was trying to photograph them with a Samsung 7 MP digital camera. Gemstones can be difficult to capture accurately. The way in which they refract/reflect light may completely appear as another color to your equipment. Anyway, I took out my Panny SD9, and placed it on the lightbox pedestal.

We all know the SD9 only takes 2MP pictures. Compared against a 7MP camera which has a macro function, the outcome should have been predictable. It wasn't. I'd like to show side-by-side comparison, the Panny's lens is better than the Samsung, the resolution doesn't make a difference when the imaging isn't sharp.

Any recommendations for free picture hosting? Thanks.

I'm looking to put up some pictures comparing lens vs. resolution. Are there internet sites that have free hosting of pictures?

My brother-in-law cuts gemstones as a hobby, and he was trying to photograph them with a Samsung 7 MP digital camera. Gemstones can be difficult to capture accurately. The way in which they refract/reflect light may completely appear as another color to your equipment. Anyway, I took out my Panny SD9, and placed it on the lightbox pedestal.

We all know the SD9 only takes 2MP pictures. Compared against a 7MP camera which has a macro function, the outcome should have been predictable. It wasn't. I'd like to show side-by-side comparison, the Panny's lens is better than the Samsung, the resolution doesn't make a difference when the imaging isn't sharp.

Any recommendations for free picture hosting? Thanks.


??? Wrong forum.

Perhaps it is the wrong forum, but I wanted to bring awareness to the fact that digital camcorders are outperforming digital cameras, at taking digital pictures!

No one expects a digital camera to make great movies. By the same token, I never expected a digital camcorder to take great pictures.

The gemstone images (shot in similar conditions by the two technologies) would show that optics make the difference. The Panny is only taking a 2MP snap, but has superior detail over a 7MP camera. IMHO, the better lens is on the lower resolution device (I'm sure the electronics also contribute, but can only capture what the lens sees.

I thought camcorder-users in this forum might be interested to see the difference, if there were a web-site I could post the pics to.

Perhaps it is the wrong forum, but I wanted to bring awareness to the fact that digital camcorders are outperforming digital cameras, at taking digital pictures!

No one expects a digital camera to make great movies. By the same token, I never expected a digital camcorder to take great pictures.

The gemstone images (shot in similar conditions by the two technologies) would show that optics make the difference. The Panny is only taking a 2MP snap, but has superior detail over a 7MP camera. IMHO, the better lens is on the lower resolution device (I'm sure the electronics also contribute, but can only capture what the lens sees.

I thought camcorder-users in this forum might be interested to see the difference, if there were a web-site I could post the pics to.

You really have no basis to draw the conclusion that your camcorder will take better macro images then the still camera. First off, the differences could be to human error in camera workflow, set up, or lighting. Also, you cannot conclude that the differences are because of the lens without more controlled testing. Also, the differences could be in the auto-focus mechanism, and/or the way AF is used. In addition, aperture would come into play, and the distances from the gems the camera is set to, as these two attributes will effect depth-of-field.

Do a more controlled test before you draw such conclusions.

If one is into gems and making pictures of them, they really would benefit from a DSLR still body with macro lens capabilities, and I mean real macro, and not the so called that many lens makers write on their lenses.

First off, the differences could be to human error in camera workflow, set up, or lighting.

--the only change is the device. Light, distance, aperature, focus, and pedestal, are static, set at its minimum macro distance that can be manually corrected at widest focal length.

Also, you cannot conclude that the differences are because of the lens without more controlled testing.

--read above

Also, the differences could be in the auto-focus mechanism, and/or the way AF is used.

--not used

In addition, aperture would come into play, and the distances from the gems the camera is set to, as these two attributes will effect depth-of-field.

--not a factor in a light box. 5500K lamps, f22 on both devices, manually set. Rule of Thumb. Also, both devices controlled by wireless remote, on a Gem pedestal in a basement ( no vibrations).

Do a more controlled test before you draw such conclusions.

--see above

If one is into gems and making pictures of them, they really would benefit from a DSLR still body with macro lens capabilities, and I mean real macro, and not the so called that many lens makers write on their lenses.

-- highly reflective surfaces describe the cleanliness (or lack thereof) of surrounding environment. Dust, dirt, lint, and other particles are almost invisible to our eyes. They were visible to the Samsung, but BROADCAST by the Panny. The debris was so clear it became the subject.

I stand by my opinion.

You can upload the pictures on many places:

- rapidshare.com
- vimeo.com
- spaces.live.com (and skydrive)

I don't believe any HD still comes close so I'd be curious to see it.
Which Samsung is this?

If it was very dark and you moved the camera or didn't adjust shutter time ok.

If you can take pictures like the photo's below let me know:

http://lucienk.spaces.live.com/photos/cns!A4AE3FB12A26635!809/

Note the pictures were shot with a compact digital camera. Any digital camcorder still I've seen has some color bleeding...

I checked some images from SD9 and the pictures are as I expected. Lot of color bleeding. I checked watch-impress and zdnet. Here's one picture:

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080305/ezsp0014.jpg

Compare this to a 7 year old Canon S30 for example (and also my $100 Fuji F20 beats it):

S30: http://zhaouw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p20U7JNVxq5zpcUvDrPYd0EJ81fmK2rqvCA_B3aOE1HQsA6SBaJgF72lcp 5rFGkKWDLVUvptKcBEbqn-imzbwKA

So can you show us the picture?

I agree with Luc48...the chances of the camcorder frame beating a still camera's is very small...lets see a sample?

Also, why use F22? Often that apertuer setting will cause light diffraction, which causes softness in sharpness....