Jump to content


FiZZ

Member Since 15 Sep 2007
Offline Last Active Dec 03 2007 03:53 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: 400d - Rc5 And Self Timer

28 November 2007 - 08:41 AM

QUOTE (Vinny68 @ Nov 7 2007, 02:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hi all

Very much a newbie to the whole DSLR thing, recently bought a 400D, amongst the features that I liked I was told that you could activate the self timer by using a wireless remote. This was a feature that I wanted as the self timer facility on my previous compacts did not leave me enough time to take a decent "self" picture when I was fishing ( I have a comprehensive catalogue of shots with me in various stages of "Carp juggling" !!)
I went out and bought an RC 5 wireless remote today but cannot find a way of activating the self timer with it, all I can do is take a shot with a 2 sec delay. Any help - even if its "you've been mis-informed as to the desired capability" would be appreciated.

Hope theres a solution otherwise (god forbid) I'll have to teach the wife how to use the canon and take her fishing with me.

Thanks
Vinny


I don't remember a ten second remote feature on the EOS 400D. I only remember a two-second remote feature, and a ten-second self-timer.

In Topic: Battle Of The Superzoom Compacts

28 November 2007 - 08:36 AM

QUOTE (AmandaLouise @ Nov 28 2007, 11:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I can actually help here!

I have tested out at home; Lumix TZ3 / Sony DSC-H9 / Kodak C875 / Ricoh R7.
I have been into a v good camera shop who talked me through about 15 others; Canon Powershots, G9 / Sony's / Nikon's / Fuji's. We took photos with them in and out, we uploaded them onto a PC in the shop, the staff were even waving arms around for movement detection shots!!

The bottom line is, NO compact (even the bigger, bulkier ones) take really good shots where there's movement. Sometimes, occasionally they do, if you have sat and got ready for the shot...but how often do you do that when you're out and about! Kinda defeats the object of a point and shoot if you ask me.

I have had technical camera data from all angles and basically thats just the way it is. If you want to guarantee good shots all the time then get an SLR.

My old camera; Kodak DX7440 has gone way up in my respect and love for it. It takes brilliant photographs. It is 4MP / 4 zoom and 4 yrs old.

Why the compacts have got worse in their ability to be a plain old press the button and get a good photo in the 4 yrs since my camera came out, I have no idea!

But basically if you just want to press a button and get a good shot every single time, look on Ebay for my camera. If not get an SLR....which is what I intend to do......now which one!


Great advice Amanda!

Personally, I never trust Sony with cameras. Yes, they have great technology, but thats it, technology. I am still to see a good camera manufactured by Sony that will impress me.

That being said, I have always had a little inclination towards Panasonic in the sub-SLR category. The reason being is that they great superb electronics, but more because they have Leica manufacturing their lenses for them, which is a HUGE deal.

Leica make, hands down, the best lenses ever used by man. They give Zeiss and Hassie a run for their money. Recently, Panasonic and Leica entered a deal to start manufacturing digital cameras. Most recent Panasonics are really just Leica-hybrid digital cameras.

I say go for Panasonic.

But not before you listen to Amanda's advice.

In Topic: I'm Going For It And Getting An Slr...but Need Advice Please!

28 November 2007 - 08:31 AM

QUOTE (AmandaLouise @ Nov 28 2007, 11:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I have tested compact, even clever ones to death and NOTHING can take a good pic every time if there's movement. Its crazy!
I've had my boys jumping on the sofa and doing forward rolls and I getting the odd good pic but generally all blurred.

Soooo, I am going to get an SLR and go on a course and start to do things properly!

BUT, which one, what's a good camera / good lenses etc as a good starter package?
I take pics of moving kids and sport mainly if that helps.

Many thanks!


If you are a beginner, then I recommend starting with a Canon EOS 400 or a Nikon D40x.

These are fine for outdoors, but not so much for indoors (only because of the lens they come with).

For moving objects, both perform well outdoors, indoors is an issue (again only because of the lens).

There is one problem with both, and that they have slow motor drives. They can only take up to 3 frames per second. Sports photographers go for 7+ frames per second.

If you are a beginner, then there is no need to splash out that much money for an advanced SLR, so I recommend to stick with beginner entry cameras.

I incline more towards the Nikon D40x.

I tried both the EOS 400 and the D40x, and hands down the D40x is a clear winner.

Both cameras come with the same lens coverage (18-55mm), and both have the same aperture. However, the Nikon camera is way WAY better in terms of handling and quality. It feels better, sturdier, and fits VERY nicely in your hand. The lens that comes with it is quite sharp for a kit lens, and has VERY little distortion.

The EOS is very cheaply done, handles poorly, feels like a toy. The kit lens is terrible. And I mean terrible. At 18mm, you have HORRIBLE barrel distortion (if you shoot any vertical lines, they will all come out to be curved).

Right now, I'm using a D40x for some professional work, and the only thing I wish it has that the Canon has, is mirror lock-up. But thats a minor detail, since I can get around it with a good tripod (mirror lock-up is a way to reduce the vibrations in the camera when the shutter is released, and this is needed on slow speeds where hand-held will give you a blur).

If you feel like lashing out extra $$$, and you want to go big, then I recommend the Nikon D300. Nice camera, 12 megapixels, awesome pictures, and 6.5 frames per second, its great for sports without going for really pro cameras.

Again, this is all from personal experience, and I prefer Nikon over Canon, so in the end it all depends on how the camera feels.

What level of photographer are you?

In Topic: Lighting Question

28 November 2007 - 05:57 AM

QUOTE (Andrea NC @ Oct 30 2007, 07:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (nickelb @ Oct 30 2007, 11:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Question?

In a large poorly lighted room how would you increase detail in the background if your subject matter was less than 10 feet away and the only equipment you had were a camera and a handheld electronic strobe?

Thanks in advance.




I feel like a robot... "Need more input, please!" LOL. Seriously, a lot of this depends on what you are shooting. And define "poorly lighted," i.e., dim, nearly dark, florescent lights, etc. Theoretically, opening the F-stop of your lens wider (cannot say exactly, because everything is relative) should give you greater depth of field, therefore bringing your background into greater clarity. Are you shooting digital or film?

What exactly is it that you are shooting?


First advice I would give is use MORE REFLECTORS.

Get anything reflective, aluminum foil, mirror, car shade, white card, whatever, and use it to light your seen. With one strobe and enough reflectors you can change the quality of the light.

As for your question, need more input as well.

From what I understood, you have a subject in front of you, and your light source isn't strong, and you are asking how you can get more detail from the background.

That just sounds like asking for better exposure. The method I described increases the amount of light in the scene, by as much as two or three stops. That should help you get more detail.

In Topic: Traveling With Hundreds Of Digital Photos

28 November 2007 - 05:53 AM

QUOTE (JasminenHoney @ Nov 27 2007, 12:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hi Scott smile.gif

I & my husband do alot of traveling & how we store is with Panasonic 512 MB cards &Kingston data Traveler.
Right now when we travel, we carry with us 4 of these 1kb & 2 kb size...
With 1 I get at least 250-300 images depending on the size.
Then we go to a Internet Cafe when they are full & burn to a CD.
We went to Hunza... Northern Pakistan, close to the China border and when we got home, we had 3000 images.
Easy and well worth the captured images!
I would say this is your best way to travel & bring home your treasure's.
~Kelly
PS---> Canadian here too smile.gif

QUOTE (JasminenHoney @ Nov 27 2007, 12:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Scott smile.gif

I & my husband do alot of traveling & how we store is with Kingston data Traveler.
Right now when we travel, we carry with us 4 of these 1kb & 2 kb size...
With 1 I get at least 250-300 images depending on the size.
Then we go to a Internet Cafe when they are full & burn to a CD.
We went to Hunza... Northern Pakistan, close to the China border and when we got home, we had 3000 images.
Easy and well worth the captured images!
I would say this is your best way to travel & bring home your treasure's.
~Kelly
PS---> Canadian here too smile.gif



That is one way to do it.

I just recommend using lots of cards. Its the way I would do it if I didn't want to take my laptop with me.

You can get high storage cards (I saw some up to 8GB). If you were shooting RAW, thats about 800+ images per card. Thats a lot. A couple of those should be enough or so.

You can just use the other method, and thats shoot, burn/store online, but that requires Internet/computer access. I am trying to plan a trip to Bangladesh soon, and I am thinking of taking my laptop as I will be there for about two weeks or so, and its a project I'm working on, so I need computer access. However, I will also be using film, so you should think about that if you can. They're easier to carry than digital for some reason.