Digital Camera Help

**bfrikken** · 08-09-2006, 11:29 AM

And to add my primary uses:
1. by far is taking pics of my daughter. We snap so many family pics, but the daughter pics are always tricky, because she is two.
2. Portraits of my daughter. Again, she moves so much that this turns into action shots, but she is actually very good about sitting still. But my old camera takes so long to get the photo, sometimes she hears the click or gets the flash, and she'll squint or make a face.
3. Action shots. We are getting very active with our daughter. We plan on doing many outdoor activities where I want to be able to capture great action sequences. Teh same for when I go to a baseball game. I want to get some great shots of the Tigers this year.
4. My wife has a home business. And we want to setup great pics of her items for sale. The current camera is ok for this.
5. Landscape, scenery. current camer is ok for this too.

**tuttlejr** · 08-09-2006, 11:52 AM

This is a great site for researching digital cameras:

http://www.dcviews.com/cameras.htm

**bfrikken** · 08-09-2006, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by tuttlejr

This is a great site for researching digital cameras:

http://www.dcviews.com/cameras.htm

Thanks, this one is too... http://dpreview.com/

I'm more interested in some firsthand advice from our local experts

**Joe Lyddon** · 08-09-2006, 12:20 PM

To start, TURN THE FLASH OFF & keep it off... and take a few test pictures.

I think you'll notice a huge difference in time and quality.

It takes more battery power to recharge that flash unit every time!
You should also notice a longer battery life before you have to recharge / replace them!

Try it and get back with us... OK?

**bfrikken** · 08-09-2006, 12:25 PM

Hi Joe - This definitely helps with time, but not quality. Quoting me above:

"And many many times we use the flash. Cause it just seems to work like crap unless the target is flooded with enough natural light, or the right amount of room lighting."

In most cases, the "auto" flash just flashes any time we are indoors. So I've just manually turned it off, and it does help with speed, but again, most often (not always) i get such dark pics that it's not worth the trade off.

**mschrank** · 08-09-2006, 12:30 PM

I feel your pain regarding snapping digital pix of a 2-yr old. I think that delay you're speaking of may be due to two different reasons.

One may be flash. In the old days of using my SLR, I know it took awhile for the flash to recharge between pix. Not sure if that's an issue with the small flash on a digital camera. Nevertheless, dig into your camera's manual and see if you can't find a way to adjust the "aperature." (I don't think most digital cameras have a physical aperature) I can bump mine up or down to let in more light. This may eliminate the need for using the flash so much. The only time my camera triggers the flash is if it is truly a low light situation (inside at night).

The other delay between pressing the shutter button and the actual picture capture is just inherent to digital cameras...although I think some of the newer models have resolved this.

Regarding action shots: I'm not familiar with your camera, but my Canon has a setting specifically for action. Again, consult your manual.

**LCHIEN** · 08-09-2006, 01:03 PM

I'm not really familiar with that camera, but:

The flash is a big time waster.. flashes use 300-400 volts, the battery is typically 2.5volts and the circuit needs to "pump" up a storage device to get the high voltage. Since it takes power to run the pump, they don't actually keep the storage device charged, they only run the pump when you want to take a picture.

So turning off the flash makes a big difference. - maybe 2-3 seconds.
But then the pics are too dark or blurry, both from not enough light.

The solution to that is partially, increasing the ISO rating. Many cameras have a programmable ISO of like 100, 200, 400, 800 and even up to 1600.
This is like you usd to buy 400 speed film for indoors and 100 speed film for outdoors. If you up the sensitivity, then the shutter speed will decrease (less blur) and the pictures will be brighter. The downside is that the pics will not be so clear - the digital noise will take over and
just like you got grainier shots with 400 speed film, you will get a similar effect with the camera set to 400 or 800. But maybe not objectionable compared to too dark or blurry.

Just make sure there's no windows or bright spots in the background that will confuse the camera meter and give you a dark foreground.

Even without the flash digital cameras have an annoying delay between button-to-pcture, but I think in this case you are talking about the flash charging delay.

**MilDoc** · 08-09-2006, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by mschrank

The other delay between pressing the shutter button and the actual picture capture is just inherent to digital cameras...although I think some of the newer models have resolved this.

Absolutely. The camera review sites will tell you what each models pic-to-pic delay time is.

I have the Canon S2IS - love it. Does well in low light since the is feature keeps it focused. 12X zoom is fantastic. And it takes great 640x480 30 FPS movies. My SIL has the Nikon DSLR. More features, more weight, and doesn't take noticeable better pics.

**Anna** · 08-09-2006, 01:07 PM

Get a digital SLR. Pretty much all other kinds of digital cameras will have the same problems you've mentioned. We have a Nikon CoolPix 5000, and it's a piece of crap. It's next to useless when trying to get shots of kids who can never sit still for more than a second. It took great pictures of scenery and still life. But otherwise useless.

I bought a Nikon D70s. There is a less expensive version called D50 which a friend really likes. It's pretty much the same as the D70s except for some functions. As one reviewer noted, if you don't know what these functions mean (he had a list) you probably don't need them. For non-professional uses, the D50 is more than adequate.

Anyway, I picked the Nikon over the Canon because I already had a Nikon film SLR, and I can use the lenses with the digital version. I've been a photo buff since high school and pretty much stuck with Nikons. The Canon digital SLR models are also well-reviewed, though.

**paynea** · 08-09-2006, 01:09 PM

I wholeheartedly endorse the Canon Rebel XT, and purchase of same from Costco.

Once DSLRs finally hit a reasonable prosumer price point, I took the plunge. I agonized between the Canon 20D and Rebel XT. If it were the original Digital Rebel, there would be no contest, but the XT includes significant improvements that reduce the compromise involved. For my purpose (photos of our newborn, now 4 months old), the Rebel XT is even better, as it has much quieter mirror/shutter than the 20D (which can startle/spook animals & kids, and bug people in a quiet setting such as a church for a wedding). Having an older Canon 35mm film SLR body (EOS Elan II), I can also reuse my old lenses etc.

We buy everything we possibly can through Costco, particularly consumer electronics because of the exceptional lifetime guarantee of no-hassle returns. The cost was competitive with other avenues, and the Rebel XT is stocked in the brick & mortar locations to avoid shipping time & costs.

So why is this DSLR better than our old digital point-and-shoots, esp for infant/toddler pics?

* Virtually instant-on. From sleep mode or turned off, on the table, the camera is on and ready to take a picture at my eye in about one second. No wasted photo ops while waiting for the camera to take the first pic.

* Speedy flash recycle time. Our old P&Ses would take 4-6 seconds for the flash to recharge for the next pic. On the XT with built in flash (still haven't bought/needed an external flash to put on the hot-shoe on top) it's about a second between pics.

* Brief shutter lag. The half second delay between depressing the shutter button and actually taking the pic, as you note, means you don't get the shot you expect with a point-and-shoot. The XT (and most DSLRs as far as I can tell) do lag slightly more than a film SLR, but it's way faster than a P&S.

* "Rapid fire operation." The camera takes, I think 6 shots per second, max. Others take more, but I'm not trying to catch every nuance of an Olympic high dive. It is great, however for pics of the little one. I get a bunch of shots, and one is almost guaranteed to have the right expression, gaze direction, and pause of baby wiggling activities.

* Exceptional low light performance. Who cares how fast the flash recycles, this camera has very little 'noise' in low light. I set the effective film type (ISO) to 800 or 1600 (rather than the default, or only option, on most P&Ses of a "slow" 100 ISO film). Rather than becoming an expert in the triad of film speed, shutter setting, and aperture, I often leave things in "P" mode (slightly less than fully automatic) with a "fast" film setting, to ensure the shutter times are set very quick to avoid blur in low light. I usually take 4-6 exposures (hold down the shutter release for a second or so) at once, and one always catches a pause in baby's movement and my own camera wobbling. We have beautiful shots of baby's baptism taken from the audience by a non-camera savvy friend, with no flash using this approach. Plus, shots with natural light streaming in from a window look one heck of a lot better than a flash ever has for me -- richer colors, better shadows, warmer tones, etc. Sort of like a great hand rubbed finish vs. the flash's generic stained & poly'd artificial look

I do occasionally use a tiny flash from Ritz camera (I think it was about $20) with a little white dome on top that senses the flash from the camera, and fires itself. It's nice when I need more flash to fill a room (e.g. taking renovation pics of a whole room), or to hold at arms length to the side to get a better look on a portrait (light from multiple angles and less red eye).

Lately I've been reading Mastering Digital SLR Photography by David D. Busch. It's been a great resource for better understanding exposure and how to get the most out of the camera. When I got the camera in April, I'd say I used it 90% of the time in full automatic mode, and 10% in "P" mode to keep the flash down. After reading a bit, now I haven't used auto in a month, except to hand off the camera to someone else, use aperture priority mode with confidence when I want to focus on a greater area from front to back (depth of field), and use a flash maybe 15% of the time.

I'd say buy a Rebel XT with confidence at Costco, and you won't need to exercise the generous return policy unless it breaks.

Adam

**mikel** · 08-09-2006, 01:45 PM

I love the new fuji's the image quality is amazing. I love the f-10 it's been discontiniued but it's around. The fuji's have awsome high iso images. I love shooting with no flash. I like two kinds of cameras a big one for great images usally a DSLR and a walk about shooting the kids cam. The big ones the canons and nikon are great.

Look here http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/

I tried to make that short...

...mikel

**Howard** · 08-09-2006, 05:16 PM

Here is a subject I have some experience in. I have owned a whole slew of Nikon cameras - N75, N80, F100, F5 and now the F6 which is their top of the line pro film camera. I also owned the D1x and D2h which were the choice of pro PJ's in magazines and newspapers. What you are describing is shutter lag which is a byproduct of the computer inside the camera telling the shutter when to open. In consumer digital cameras, shutter lag continues to be a problem. In my D2h, a very expensive DSLR, the shutter lag was almost nothing, on par with a film camera. That's one of the many reasons the pro's like it. They can't afford to miss the shot because of waiting on the shutter to open. ISO's are becoming more and more irrelevant when it comes to "noise" as the technology has reduced this "noise" from higher ISO's, typically 800 and then 1600 dramatically. There was no noise at all at 400 in my D2h. Even then, most good software programs, ie. photoshop CS or elements, have a noise reduction filter to remove what the camera didn't. The flashes on the consumer models are pretty weak with low guide numbers. Plus, they have a bad habit of creating "red eye" because the flash is being fired at the same level as the subjects face so the retina is reflected into the sensor. Not that you have to go out and buy a $1600 D200 or Canon equivalent to get good shots. The D50 and D75 are great cameras with pretty high resolution. There will still be some shutter lag and the write speed isn't the greatest when taking multiple action shots but they work very well. The main benefit is that you can change lens depending on your situation and more importantly, you maintain creative control by being able to change aperture, shutter speeds, etc to get the depth of field you want or to freeze action. I would also recommend a dedicated separate flash unit that attaches to the flash shoe. They are much, much better than the built in ones and provide a lot more light. Unfortunately, a consumer digital only comes with the built in lens and you most likely are not able to make critical adjustments to them. They are good for snapshots and landscapes but not for action or low light. Another good thing about the SLR's is the built in cropping factor of 1.5 on most cameras except the high end Canon's which have a full frame sensor equivalent to the size of a 35mm frame. By cropping factor I mean the sensor is about a third smaller than a 35mm film frame so if you can imagine only 2-3rds of the middle of any given frame is being recorded on the sensor, that's what is what you get. The correct term is APS sized sensor FWIW. What this does is make a 50mm lens into a 75mm, a 300mm into the equivalent of a 450mm and so on. Not really magnifying the image, just taking a smaller section. This is great if you like telephoto shots, the exact opposite is true for wide angle. My widest angle lens is a 24 mm but mounted on a DSLR it thinks its a 36mm so I would have to get farther back to get a wide angle shot in. Not very good. I have gone back to film because it is easier for me to deal with and the picture quality is simply unbeatable. I also have a dedicated 4000 dpi film scanner so I can scan the ones I want to share digitally or to blow up. Kinda the best of both worlds... Hmmmm. no wonder I don't have a budget for more WW tools....

**JimZ** · 08-10-2006, 05:15 PM

I'll second the digital Rebel XT endorsement

If you can afford a "prosumer" digital SLR, take lots of pictures, and either know how to use it or are willing to invest some time learning. Using a digital SLR is not rocket-science, but it's also not a Kodak Disc camera, either

I got started in photog about 25 years ago as an avid amateur.

Worked up to a Canon A1. Stayed with it, a long, log time, until about 4-5 years ago, when my wife's arthritis got bad enough to make us look for a newer, lighter camera.

She eventually chose a Rebel (film) SLR and liked it.

I got a digital camera around 2001 (a non-SLR) and did NOT like it. Very slow to power on, slow shot-to-shot, picture quality so-so compared to high-end film and good glass on the Rebel, and NO comparison to the A1 with top Canon glass.

Fast forward to late this winter.

With the newest generation of CCDs and such, it was time to take the plunge. I researched a lot, and narrowed it down to the Nikon D70s and the Digital Rebel XT. Ultimately, our choice came down to better glass (Nikon) or lighter weight (Canon). I had her test-drive it at Best Buy, and she immediately picked the lighter, smaller Canon as more comfortable.

She's taken 3,000+ pictures so far (she shoots for our sons' school and other community events) and loves it. I'm impressed as well. For our purposes (we're 'knowledgeable amateurs', YMMV), it's instant-on, the burst mode is more than adequate, the picture quality is excellent, and all the reasons I used to have for not going digital are gone. My wallet is a lot lighter, but even a cheapo like me can't complain.

BTW: The Nikon is also an excellent choice. A friend boght one and swears by it. Judging by his prints, he has reason to.

Good luck.

Now -- what are people using to print with ?

**paynea** · 08-10-2006, 05:37 PM

Photo Printing

JimZ, we "outsource" most of our photo printing. Since my wife is an avid scrapbooker, we sort through the 3000+ photos we've already taken of our 4 month old (!) and ship off the best to someplace like ophoto, shutterfly, or even drag them down to Costco or a pharmacy on the memory stick. We just don't trust the inks in consumer printers (even photo printers) not to fade, or for all components to be acid free/archival grade to contribute to the longevity in a scrapbook (which represents a level of labor comparable to woodworking projects, oddly enough). Plus the pro equipment has the resolution to take advantage of the nice glass and image chip on the Digital Rebel for prints with great clarity. Interestingly, I've been disappointed with prints from our local Wal*Mart, though it looks like the have the same equipment as the other places. Perhaps it's just not well tuned or maintained?

Otherwise we have a Canon Selphy (compact photo printer) won as a door prize at our company holiday party that we can press into service for a quick snapshot to pin up to the ol' cubicle wall.

Adam

Digital Camera Help

Digital Camera Help

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Footer Ad