motor

adamwich · 08-10-2005, 05:08 PM

Very nice camera! Congratulation. The quality of the pictures is very good!

Darkel · 08-10-2005, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by BADMIHAI

At full res you'd just get one big blurry, distorted image.

Mostly noisy pics, too many pixels on a too little sensor :bah:
That's the problem, people think it's better when it's a 7M than a 5M and then they only use the 3M mode to be able to take more pictures (that's nearly my case)

Originally Posted by antonioledesma

(I hate this, the fastest speed available is 1 second, not 1/32, nor 1/25, etc)

Fastest ? you mean slowest, I'm sure your digicam has some 1/100s up to 1/1000s mode

antonioledesma · 08-10-2005, 07:17 PM

when I bought the digicam I did not had all the choices I wanted. I would have killed for a slr. In USA I could have bought a regular-good slr for what I'm paying for this camera.
Also I bought it because my ex-boss wanted a "big megapixels" camera to print posters. Now I'm stuck with this camera because I paid it with my credit card and the company where I was working went bust.

about the noisy pics, yes, it's true, but I use 5M to take more pics.

and.... Darkel, it's the fastest speed available with long shutter (sorry, don't have the words to describe it in english) because it doesn't have the option to capture at 1/32, 1/2 seconds. So when I want to take a pic TT style (eg the orange lambo murci photo that won some Photo of the Month), a lot of light come trough and my pic comes very very bright. I'll try to take some pics to show
also it does not have an "action mode" (for us regular users), neither the option of 1/1000s, etc speeds

it's a crappy camera for the serious amateur

Darkel · 08-10-2005, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by antonioledesma

and.... Darkel, it's the fastest speed available with long shutter (sorry, don't have the words to describe it in english) because it doesn't have the option to capture at 1/32, 1/2 seconds.

Oh, I understand now, it's okay

I had the same problem with my old digicam, automatic mode sucks at night
But TT used something like 10 seconds or so, and it was just long enough so 1 second shouldn't be too much

antonioledesma · 08-10-2005, 07:43 PM

I still can do the crappy slow speeds, but it's a pain in the ass to see 50% of the pics blurry because the camera doesn't have fast shutter speeds

nthfinity · 08-11-2005, 03:17 PM

also, a lot has to do with the diameter of the lens... the smaller, the less light is able to reach the CCD, and requiring a longer shutter speed for the same amount of light to pass through.

because of that, i definately recomend you get a tripod for eavening/night shooting. unfortunately, it doesnt look like your camera is hot-shoe capable (flash).

antonioledesma · 08-11-2005, 04:04 PM

I already have a tripod, and the first photo is with the long shutter mode.
of course it's some trouble to carry the tripod, installing, etc
photo of my GM chevy, in europe known as corsa. The first was with the long shutter mode. It looks kinda grainy. Used 1" and ISO400

and with the normal autofocus

nthfinity · 08-11-2005, 07:18 PM

Used 1" and ISO400

try staying with ISO 200, and it shouldn't be so grainy, if im using a tripod, i always shoot down to ISO 100 (my slowest speed) for a higher-quality image.

my sony had almost as much grain as yours does at the same ISO.. .and unusable at ISO 800.

antonioledesma · 08-11-2005, 07:32 PM

I've used ISO 200 and 100 these last days and it looks less grainy.
Now I'm training to use the camera inside churchs (lots of friends are getting married) without flash, of course most of the pics come out blurry

for now I'll have to stick with this camera and save for a slr

BADMIHAI · 08-11-2005, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by antonioledesma

I've used ISO 200 and 100 these last days and it looks less grainy.
Now I'm training to use the camera inside churchs (lots of friends are getting married) without flash, of course most of the pics come out blurry

Use flash at the wedding. Don't be scared to use it. You really have no choice indoors with such a camera, especially when sooting people. Just make sure you are close enough to the subjects (so that you don't have to use the zoom, preferably). The built-in flash is really not effective at distances greater than 10 m. Canon makes pretty good point-and-shoot cameras, so you should be able to get some decent shots with this camera. My A75 can pop out amazing results. Still, a D70s is coming soon.

antonioledesma · 08-11-2005, 09:46 PM

yes, I will have to use it. I hate it because it's very annoying.
thanks a lot for the tips. I really hoped to take better pics without the flash, and indoors I'll avoid the zoom

BADMIHAI · 08-11-2005, 09:56 PM

For wedding photography you should be fine. You usually focus on the bride and groom and the immediate family, which should keep you within the flash's range. I know this is kind of annoying, but also try not to get too close to the subjects when using the flash because it will cause awkward reflections and shadow, not to mention overexposure and the feeling of there being no depth (sorry, I don't know how to express this properly

ops: ). As you can already tell, using the camera in 7 MP mode is kind of useless. When we (www.championphotos.ca) photograph events, we find it's not really necessary go go beyond 3 MP images due to the fact that other variables, such as camera shake, improper focus and/or exposure, barrel distorsion, etc., ruin the picture long before you run out of pixels. It should still be good for printing 8x10 pictures.

nthfinity · 08-11-2005, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by antonioledesma

yes, I will have to use it. I hate it because it's very annoying.
thanks a lot for the tips. I really hoped to take better pics without the flash, and indoors I'll avoid the zoom

really nothing is wrong with a flash, just dont bother with the goofy 'red eye reduction' as it will drain your batter more quickly, and take longer to focus...

does the camera have a manuel, or fixed focus mode? most cameras have the ability to be able to have a huge depth-of-field, particularly with a greater aperature (F)... but its not totally nessisary, since less light gets in

i think its reasonable to snap unblurry pictures in the church at 1/60 to 1/30 of a second by hand (w/out flash) with a 200 ISO and have good quality pictures. and 1/200th with the flash on

hope the pictures turn out, and keep practicing

Darkel · 08-12-2005, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by nthfinity

i think its reasonable to snap unblurry pictures in the church at 1/60 to 1/30 of a second by hand (w/out flash) with a 200 ISO and have good quality pictures.

The burst mode can be very useful in those cases, you just have to spend 30 minutes to sort them out then