Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
A terrible thing happened over Christmas. A friend lent me a Canon EOS
400D with the kit lens (I think), after my point and shoot (Canon IXUS
800) died two weeks earlier. We still had our old Fuji F10, but it's
cripplingly slow to focus indoors, and very prone to over/under
exposing subjects with flash, so pretty useless for taking photos of
Christmas day! So, in desperation, we accepted the 400D.
The cries of "we'll never be able to use that thing" from both myself
and my wife were quickly replaced by us both taking photo after photo
- far more than we'd ever taken before (and 250 a day is not unusual
around Christmas and birthdays).
We loved...
* the instant and reliable auto focus
* the speed of shooting
* the speed of recovery
* the long manual zoom range (far further at both ends than we were
used to)
* the "safe" exposure (most shots were slightly dark but could easily
be lightened in software - opposite of the blown highlights we often
got with our PnS)
* the lack of red eye
* the quality of the photos
* the narrow depth of field on some shots
We hated...
* after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very
long time to recover, and became very sluggish
* having to look through a view finder - I know that's intrinsic to
how almost all DSLRs work, but we really missed the live view on the
LCD
We also missed the Canon Zoom Browser software, which we use to
automatically download the photos from the camera, spin them around,
and sort them into dated folders. Windows downloaded the photos,
Cpicture automatically spun the around, and I sorted them into folders
by hand.
The supplied lens maybe wasn't pixel sharp, but it was better than
what we were used to.
So, my question is, if I'm to take the leap into the world of DSLR,
what should I consider? I've looked at the Canon 400D and Nikon D40X
on dpreview. These reviews don't seem to focus on what I really care
about - they didn't mention the fantastic lack of red eye, or the
annoying flash recycle time problem with the 400D for example. How am
I to learn about these things before buying the camera? I don't want
to make an expensive mistake.
I can't imagine wanting to change lenses. The idea of exposing the
sensor to dust doesn't appeal anyway! I seem to have enough bad luck
with cameras as it is.
Alternatively, if there's a point-and-shoot which can match the speed
and safe exposure of the 400D, and yet still fit in my pocket and show
me everything on an LCD, I'd like to hear about it.
I was happy with my IXUS 400, back when I didn't know any better,
though the high (!) ISO400 was terribly noisy. I hated my Fuji F10 -
great reviews, useless camera for what I want it for. Most recently, I
was quite happy with the IXUS 800IS, but it only lasted 3 months. It
makes me a little wary of buying Canon in the future.
Any helpful advice gratefully received!
Cheers,
David.
A terrible thing happened over Christmas. A friend lent me a Canon EOS
400D with the kit lens (I think), after my point and shoot (Canon IXUS
800) died two weeks earlier. We still had our old Fuji F10, but it's
cripplingly slow to focus indoors, and very prone to over/under
exposing subjects with flash, so pretty useless for taking photos of
Christmas day! So, in desperation, we accepted the 400D.
The cries of "we'll never be able to use that thing" from both myself
and my wife were quickly replaced by us both taking photo after photo
- far more than we'd ever taken before (and 250 a day is not unusual
around Christmas and birthdays).
We loved...
* the instant and reliable auto focus
* the speed of shooting
* the speed of recovery
* the long manual zoom range (far further at both ends than we were
used to)
* the "safe" exposure (most shots were slightly dark but could easily
be lightened in software - opposite of the blown highlights we often
got with our PnS)
* the lack of red eye
* the quality of the photos
* the narrow depth of field on some shots
We hated...
* after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very
long time to recover, and became very sluggish
* having to look through a view finder - I know that's intrinsic to
how almost all DSLRs work, but we really missed the live view on the
LCD
We also missed the Canon Zoom Browser software, which we use to
automatically download the photos from the camera, spin them around,
and sort them into dated folders. Windows downloaded the photos,
Cpicture automatically spun the around, and I sorted them into folders
by hand.
The supplied lens maybe wasn't pixel sharp, but it was better than
what we were used to.
So, my question is, if I'm to take the leap into the world of DSLR,
what should I consider? I've looked at the Canon 400D and Nikon D40X
on dpreview. These reviews don't seem to focus on what I really care
about - they didn't mention the fantastic lack of red eye, or the
annoying flash recycle time problem with the 400D for example. How am
I to learn about these things before buying the camera? I don't want
to make an expensive mistake.
I can't imagine wanting to change lenses. The idea of exposing the
sensor to dust doesn't appeal anyway! I seem to have enough bad luck
with cameras as it is.
Alternatively, if there's a point-and-shoot which can match the speed
and safe exposure of the 400D, and yet still fit in my pocket and show
me everything on an LCD, I'd like to hear about it.
I was happy with my IXUS 400, back when I didn't know any better,
though the high (!) ISO400 was terribly noisy. I hated my Fuji F10 -
great reviews, useless camera for what I want it for. Most recently, I
was quite happy with the IXUS 800IS, but it only lasted 3 months. It
makes me a little wary of buying Canon in the future.
Any helpful advice gratefully received!
Cheers,
David.
Re: DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
"2Bdecided" <davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9da82d70-ee7a-4204-a6cd-5922000993f9@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups . com ...
>A terrible thing happened over Christmas. A friend lent me a Canon EOS
> 400D with the kit lens (I think), after my point and shoot (Canon IXUS
> 800) died two weeks earlier. We still had our old Fuji F10, but it's
> cripplingly slow to focus indoors, and very prone to over/under
> exposing subjects with flash, so pretty useless for taking photos of
> Christmas day! So, in desperation, we accepted the 400D.
>
> The cries of "we'll never be able to use that thing" from both myself
> and my wife were quickly replaced by us both taking photo after photo
> - far more than we'd ever taken before (and 250 a day is not unusual
> around Christmas and birthdays).
>
> We loved...
> * the instant and reliable auto focus
> * the speed of shooting
> * the speed of recovery
> * the long manual zoom range (far further at both ends than we were
> used to)
> * the "safe" exposure (most shots were slightly dark but could easily
> be lightened in software - opposite of the blown highlights we often
> got with our PnS)
> * the lack of red eye
> * the quality of the photos
> * the narrow depth of field on some shots
>
> We hated...
> * after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very
> long time to recover, and became very sluggish
> * having to look through a view finder - I know that's intrinsic to
> how almost all DSLRs work, but we really missed the live view on the
> LCD
>
> We also missed the Canon Zoom Browser software, which we use to
> automatically download the photos from the camera, spin them around,
> and sort them into dated folders. Windows downloaded the photos,
> Cpicture automatically spun the around, and I sorted them into folders
> by hand.
>
> The supplied lens maybe wasn't pixel sharp, but it was better than
> what we were used to.
>
>
> So, my question is, if I'm to take the leap into the world of DSLR,
> what should I consider? I've looked at the Canon 400D and Nikon D40X
> on dpreview. These reviews don't seem to focus on what I really care
> about - they didn't mention the fantastic lack of red eye, or the
> annoying flash recycle time problem with the 400D for example. How am
> I to learn about these things before buying the camera? I don't want
> to make an expensive mistake.
>
> I can't imagine wanting to change lenses. The idea of exposing the
> sensor to dust doesn't appeal anyway! I seem to have enough bad luck
> with cameras as it is.
>
> Alternatively, if there's a point-and-shoot which can match the speed
> and safe exposure of the 400D, and yet still fit in my pocket and show
> me everything on an LCD, I'd like to hear about it.
>
> I was happy with my IXUS 400, back when I didn't know any better,
> though the high (!) ISO400 was terribly noisy. I hated my Fuji F10 -
> great reviews, useless camera for what I want it for. Most recently, I
> was quite happy with the IXUS 800IS, but it only lasted 3 months. It
> makes me a little wary of buying Canon in the future.
>
> Any helpful advice gratefully received!
>
> Cheers,
> David.
No point and shoot will compare to a dslr for picture quality but they are
big and if that doesn't suit then there are plenty of alternatives. The link
below will give you everything about canon you want to know.
* photography-on-the . net /forum/showthread.php?t=42034
P.s. The viewfinder is better for getting sharp pictures
"2Bdecided" <davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9da82d70-ee7a-4204-a6cd-5922000993f9@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups . com ...
>A terrible thing happened over Christmas. A friend lent me a Canon EOS
> 400D with the kit lens (I think), after my point and shoot (Canon IXUS
> 800) died two weeks earlier. We still had our old Fuji F10, but it's
> cripplingly slow to focus indoors, and very prone to over/under
> exposing subjects with flash, so pretty useless for taking photos of
> Christmas day! So, in desperation, we accepted the 400D.
>
> The cries of "we'll never be able to use that thing" from both myself
> and my wife were quickly replaced by us both taking photo after photo
> - far more than we'd ever taken before (and 250 a day is not unusual
> around Christmas and birthdays).
>
> We loved...
> * the instant and reliable auto focus
> * the speed of shooting
> * the speed of recovery
> * the long manual zoom range (far further at both ends than we were
> used to)
> * the "safe" exposure (most shots were slightly dark but could easily
> be lightened in software - opposite of the blown highlights we often
> got with our PnS)
> * the lack of red eye
> * the quality of the photos
> * the narrow depth of field on some shots
>
> We hated...
> * after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very
> long time to recover, and became very sluggish
> * having to look through a view finder - I know that's intrinsic to
> how almost all DSLRs work, but we really missed the live view on the
> LCD
>
> We also missed the Canon Zoom Browser software, which we use to
> automatically download the photos from the camera, spin them around,
> and sort them into dated folders. Windows downloaded the photos,
> Cpicture automatically spun the around, and I sorted them into folders
> by hand.
>
> The supplied lens maybe wasn't pixel sharp, but it was better than
> what we were used to.
>
>
> So, my question is, if I'm to take the leap into the world of DSLR,
> what should I consider? I've looked at the Canon 400D and Nikon D40X
> on dpreview. These reviews don't seem to focus on what I really care
> about - they didn't mention the fantastic lack of red eye, or the
> annoying flash recycle time problem with the 400D for example. How am
> I to learn about these things before buying the camera? I don't want
> to make an expensive mistake.
>
> I can't imagine wanting to change lenses. The idea of exposing the
> sensor to dust doesn't appeal anyway! I seem to have enough bad luck
> with cameras as it is.
>
> Alternatively, if there's a point-and-shoot which can match the speed
> and safe exposure of the 400D, and yet still fit in my pocket and show
> me everything on an LCD, I'd like to hear about it.
>
> I was happy with my IXUS 400, back when I didn't know any better,
> though the high (!) ISO400 was terribly noisy. I hated my Fuji F10 -
> great reviews, useless camera for what I want it for. Most recently, I
> was quite happy with the IXUS 800IS, but it only lasted 3 months. It
> makes me a little wary of buying Canon in the future.
>
> Any helpful advice gratefully received!
>
> Cheers,
> David.
No point and shoot will compare to a dslr for picture quality but they are
big and if that doesn't suit then there are plenty of alternatives. The link
below will give you everything about canon you want to know.
* photography-on-the . net /forum/showthread.php?t=42034
P.s. The viewfinder is better for getting sharp pictures
Re: DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
On 18 Jan, 13:09, "Allowa" <p...@pp . com .> wrote:
> No point and shoot will compare to a dslr for picture quality but they are
> big and if that doesn't suit then there are plenty of alternatives. The link
> below will give you everything about canon you want to know. * photography-on-the . net /forum/showthread.php?t=42034
Thanks, fascinating. Lots to read!
> P.s. The viewfinder is better for getting sharp pictures
Even if I don't plan to focus them myself?
Cheers,
David.
On 18 Jan, 13:09, "Allowa" <p...@pp . com .> wrote:
> No point and shoot will compare to a dslr for picture quality but they are
> big and if that doesn't suit then there are plenty of alternatives. The link
> below will give you everything about canon you want to know. * photography-on-the . net /forum/showthread.php?t=42034
Thanks, fascinating. Lots to read!
> P.s. The viewfinder is better for getting sharp pictures
Even if I don't plan to focus them myself?
Cheers,
David.
Re: DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
2Bdecided <davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18 Jan, 13:09, "Allowa" <p...@pp . com .> wrote:
>> No point and shoot will compare to a dslr for picture quality but they are
>> big and if that doesn't suit then there are plenty of alternatives. The link
>> below will give you everything about canon you want to know. * photography-on-the . net /forum/showthread.php?t=42034
> Thanks, fascinating. Lots to read!
>> P.s. The viewfinder is better for getting sharp pictures
> Even if I don't plan to focus them myself?
A viewfinder has no lag. A monitor has the read sensor-interpret-
convert-display cycle, which you'll see if you turn with the
camera: the monitor lags behind.
AF is also faster and more accurate if you do not have to flip up
the mirror (there are a very few cameras that have a secondary
sensor for life view), because for AF you either have to flip
down the mirror again or you have to use contrast based AF
(compact camera type) instead of phase shift AF (SLR type).
The viewfinder also works when any monitor will only show grain
and noise due to a lack of light.
-Wolfgang
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
2Bdecided <davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18 Jan, 13:09, "Allowa" <p...@pp . com .> wrote:
>> No point and shoot will compare to a dslr for picture quality but they are
>> big and if that doesn't suit then there are plenty of alternatives. The link
>> below will give you everything about canon you want to know. * photography-on-the . net /forum/showthread.php?t=42034
> Thanks, fascinating. Lots to read!
>> P.s. The viewfinder is better for getting sharp pictures
> Even if I don't plan to focus them myself?
A viewfinder has no lag. A monitor has the read sensor-interpret-
convert-display cycle, which you'll see if you turn with the
camera: the monitor lags behind.
AF is also faster and more accurate if you do not have to flip up
the mirror (there are a very few cameras that have a secondary
sensor for life view), because for AF you either have to flip
down the mirror again or you have to use contrast based AF
(compact camera type) instead of phase shift AF (SLR type).
The viewfinder also works when any monitor will only show grain
and noise due to a lack of light.
-Wolfgang
Re: DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
>
> We hated...
> * after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very
> long time to recover, and became very sluggish
Until you switch over to one of those flashes that doesn't use batteries,
this problem will continue to plague you. That isn't to say that other
cameras might not do "better" in this respect, but likely only because of
other trade-offs, like less powerful flash and use of higher ISO's, etc.
Remember that you said that you shot more images with this camera; are you
comparing apples to apples? Off camera flash or a grip that holds an extra
battery will help alleviate the problem.
Eric Miller
w w w .dyesscreek . com
>
> We hated...
> * after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very
> long time to recover, and became very sluggish
Until you switch over to one of those flashes that doesn't use batteries,
this problem will continue to plague you. That isn't to say that other
cameras might not do "better" in this respect, but likely only because of
other trade-offs, like less powerful flash and use of higher ISO's, etc.
Remember that you said that you shot more images with this camera; are you
comparing apples to apples? Off camera flash or a grip that holds an extra
battery will help alleviate the problem.
Eric Miller
w w w .dyesscreek . com
Re: DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
On 18 Jan, 14:54, "Eric Miller" <millerericnos...@bellsouth . net >
wrote:
> > We hated...
> > * after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very
> > long time to recover, and became very sluggish
>
> Until you switch over to one of those flashes that doesn't use batteries,
> this problem will continue to plague you. That isn't to say that other
> cameras might not do "better" in this respect, but likely only because of
> other trade-offs, like less powerful flash and use of higher ISO's, etc.
> Remember that you said that you shot more images with this camera; are you
> comparing apples to apples? Off camera flash or a grip that holds an extra
> battery will help alleviate the problem.
Was it really the battery? I was told it was some kind of safety shut-
off that prevents the built-in flash from overheating. Certainly I
could wait a minute or so (with the camera switched on) and then
hammer it again for just as long until it slowed right down.
I wasn't noticing the battery indicator - I just replaced it when told
to. I know on other cameras the flash gets sluggish as the battery
runs down, but my recollection is that this issue happened with a
fresh battery, and was no worse 100 shots later. I could be wrong
though: the 400D has gone back to its owner now :-(.
Cheers,
David.
On 18 Jan, 14:54, "Eric Miller" <millerericnos...@bellsouth . net >
wrote:
> > We hated...
> > * after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very
> > long time to recover, and became very sluggish
>
> Until you switch over to one of those flashes that doesn't use batteries,
> this problem will continue to plague you. That isn't to say that other
> cameras might not do "better" in this respect, but likely only because of
> other trade-offs, like less powerful flash and use of higher ISO's, etc.
> Remember that you said that you shot more images with this camera; are you
> comparing apples to apples? Off camera flash or a grip that holds an extra
> battery will help alleviate the problem.
Was it really the battery? I was told it was some kind of safety shut-
off that prevents the built-in flash from overheating. Certainly I
could wait a minute or so (with the camera switched on) and then
hammer it again for just as long until it slowed right down.
I wasn't noticing the battery indicator - I just replaced it when told
to. I know on other cameras the flash gets sluggish as the battery
runs down, but my recollection is that this issue happened with a
fresh battery, and was no worse 100 shots later. I could be wrong
though: the 400D has gone back to its owner now :-(.
Cheers,
David.
Re: DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
On 2008-01-18, 2Bdecided <davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18 Jan, 14:54, "Eric Miller" <millerericnos...@bellsouth . net >
> wrote:
>> > We hated...
>> > * after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very
>> > long time to recover, and became very sluggish
>>
>> Until you switch over to one of those flashes that doesn't use batteries,
>> this problem will continue to plague you. That isn't to say that other
>> cameras might not do "better" in this respect, but likely only because of
>> other trade-offs, like less powerful flash and use of higher ISO's, etc.
>> Remember that you said that you shot more images with this camera; are you
>> comparing apples to apples? Off camera flash or a grip that holds an extra
>> battery will help alleviate the problem.
>
> Was it really the battery? I was told it was some kind of safety shut-
> off that prevents the built-in flash from overheating. Certainly I
> could wait a minute or so (with the camera switched on) and then
> hammer it again for just as long until it slowed right down.
>
> I wasn't noticing the battery indicator - I just replaced it when told
> to. I know on other cameras the flash gets sluggish as the battery
> runs down, but my recollection is that this issue happened with a
> fresh battery, and was no worse 100 shots later. I could be wrong
> though: the 400D has gone back to its owner now :-(.
>
> Cheers,
> David.
I don't know if it's the case with that particular flash unit, but some
have a capacitor that can hold enough charge for several flashes (how
many, depending in how much power is used for each flash, which varies
with most modern automatic systems). That means that the flash can be
ready for the next shot very quickly - but if you take a lot of shots in
rapid succession, the capacitor becomes discharged more quickly than the
battery can charge it up again and when that happens you have to wait a
bit longer than 'usual' for the 'flash ready' indicator to re-appear.
The "Canon EOS 400D" is also known in some parts of the world as the "Canon
EOS Digital Rebel XTi". This review of it might help you work out which
of its features you'd like to have in whatever camera you end up with
< * w w w .steves-digicams . com /2006_reviews/rebelxti.html> - that site
also has a useful 'compare and buy' tool, and has information about a
very large number of cameras.
< * w w w .dpreview . com /> is a comparable resource.
If you regularly use flash a lot, it would be worth considering a seperate
flash gun (or guns) and a camera that can be synchronised with the
external flash; self-contained flash units tend to have 'more power' in
all sorts of ways, than the units built into cameras - and they can give
much better lighting too.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
On 2008-01-18, 2Bdecided <davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18 Jan, 14:54, "Eric Miller" <millerericnos...@bellsouth . net >
> wrote:
>> > We hated...
>> > * after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very
>> > long time to recover, and became very sluggish
>>
>> Until you switch over to one of those flashes that doesn't use batteries,
>> this problem will continue to plague you. That isn't to say that other
>> cameras might not do "better" in this respect, but likely only because of
>> other trade-offs, like less powerful flash and use of higher ISO's, etc.
>> Remember that you said that you shot more images with this camera; are you
>> comparing apples to apples? Off camera flash or a grip that holds an extra
>> battery will help alleviate the problem.
>
> Was it really the battery? I was told it was some kind of safety shut-
> off that prevents the built-in flash from overheating. Certainly I
> could wait a minute or so (with the camera switched on) and then
> hammer it again for just as long until it slowed right down.
>
> I wasn't noticing the battery indicator - I just replaced it when told
> to. I know on other cameras the flash gets sluggish as the battery
> runs down, but my recollection is that this issue happened with a
> fresh battery, and was no worse 100 shots later. I could be wrong
> though: the 400D has gone back to its owner now :-(.
>
> Cheers,
> David.
I don't know if it's the case with that particular flash unit, but some
have a capacitor that can hold enough charge for several flashes (how
many, depending in how much power is used for each flash, which varies
with most modern automatic systems). That means that the flash can be
ready for the next shot very quickly - but if you take a lot of shots in
rapid succession, the capacitor becomes discharged more quickly than the
battery can charge it up again and when that happens you have to wait a
bit longer than 'usual' for the 'flash ready' indicator to re-appear.
The "Canon EOS 400D" is also known in some parts of the world as the "Canon
EOS Digital Rebel XTi". This review of it might help you work out which
of its features you'd like to have in whatever camera you end up with
< * w w w .steves-digicams . com /2006_reviews/rebelxti.html> - that site
also has a useful 'compare and buy' tool, and has information about a
very large number of cameras.
< * w w w .dpreview . com /> is a comparable resource.
If you regularly use flash a lot, it would be worth considering a seperate
flash gun (or guns) and a camera that can be synchronised with the
external flash; self-contained flash units tend to have 'more power' in
all sorts of ways, than the units built into cameras - and they can give
much better lighting too.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Re: DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
On 2008-01-18 08:30:46 -0800, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail . com > said:
>
> I don't know if it's the case with that particular flash unit, but some
> have a capacitor that can hold enough charge for several flashes (how
> many, depending in how much power is used for each flash, which varies
> with most modern automatic systems). That means that the flash can be
> ready for the next shot very quickly - but if you take a lot of shots in
> rapid succession, the capacitor becomes discharged more quickly than the
> battery can charge it up again and when that happens you have to wait a
> bit longer than 'usual' for the 'flash ready' indicator to re-appear.
It is not just that. Flash strobes will also overheat if you take too
many pictures in quick succession. Recycle times become longer to keep
you from damaging the flash. So sometimes just letting it cool for a
few minutes is all you need to do.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
On 2008-01-18 08:30:46 -0800, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail . com > said:
>
> I don't know if it's the case with that particular flash unit, but some
> have a capacitor that can hold enough charge for several flashes (how
> many, depending in how much power is used for each flash, which varies
> with most modern automatic systems). That means that the flash can be
> ready for the next shot very quickly - but if you take a lot of shots in
> rapid succession, the capacitor becomes discharged more quickly than the
> battery can charge it up again and when that happens you have to wait a
> bit longer than 'usual' for the 'flash ready' indicator to re-appear.
It is not just that. Flash strobes will also overheat if you take too
many pictures in quick succession. Recycle times become longer to keep
you from damaging the flash. So sometimes just letting it cool for a
few minutes is all you need to do.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Re: DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2008-01-18 08:30:46 -0800, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail . com > said:
>
>> I don't know if it's the case with that particular flash unit, but some
>> have a capacitor that can hold enough charge for several flashes (how
>> many, depending in how much power is used for each flash, which varies
>> with most modern automatic systems). That means that the flash can be
>> ready for the next shot very quickly - but if you take a lot of shots in
>> rapid succession, the capacitor becomes discharged more quickly than the
>> battery can charge it up again and when that happens you have to wait a
>> bit longer than 'usual' for the 'flash ready' indicator to re-appear.
>
> It is not just that. Flash strobes will also overheat if you take too many
> pictures in quick succession. Recycle times become longer to keep you from
> damaging the flash. So sometimes just letting it cool for a few minutes is
> all you need to do.
Last year I think I smoked a cap on an old thyristor Vivitar. I didn't
see the magic smoke, but I sure smelled it. It's still in use, though --
AC operation wasn't affected.
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: * improve-usenet.org
Blinky: * blinkynet . net
C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2008-01-18 08:30:46 -0800, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail . com > said:
>
>> I don't know if it's the case with that particular flash unit, but some
>> have a capacitor that can hold enough charge for several flashes (how
>> many, depending in how much power is used for each flash, which varies
>> with most modern automatic systems). That means that the flash can be
>> ready for the next shot very quickly - but if you take a lot of shots in
>> rapid succession, the capacitor becomes discharged more quickly than the
>> battery can charge it up again and when that happens you have to wait a
>> bit longer than 'usual' for the 'flash ready' indicator to re-appear.
>
> It is not just that. Flash strobes will also overheat if you take too many
> pictures in quick succession. Recycle times become longer to keep you from
> damaging the flash. So sometimes just letting it cool for a few minutes is
> all you need to do.
Last year I think I smoked a cap on an old thyristor Vivitar. I didn't
see the magic smoke, but I sure smelled it. It's still in use, though --
AC operation wasn't affected.
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: * improve-usenet.org
Blinky: * blinkynet . net
Re: DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
2Bdecided wrote:
> A terrible thing happened over Christmas. A friend lent me a Canon EOS
> 400D with the kit lens (I think), after my point and shoot (Canon IXUS
> 800) died two weeks earlier. We still had our old Fuji F10, but it's
> cripplingly slow to focus indoors, and very prone to over/under
> exposing subjects with flash, so pretty useless for taking photos of
> Christmas day! So, in desperation, we accepted the 400D.
>
> The cries of "we'll never be able to use that thing" from both myself
> and my wife were quickly replaced by us both taking photo after photo
> - far more than we'd ever taken before (and 250 a day is not unusual
> around Christmas and birthdays).
>
> We loved...
> * the instant and reliable auto focus
> * the speed of shooting
> * the speed of recovery
> * the long manual zoom range (far further at both ends than we were
> used to)
Do you really need zoom for family photos though? The reason I ask is a
fixed length fast 'prime' lens is really ideal for kids & indoor family
shooting: you can shoot without any flash at all and capture the
ambiance much better and you can get a faster shutter speed for
herky-jerky little kids.
Stuff like this:
* edgehill . net /Misc/misc-photos/nick/pg3pc13
> * the "safe" exposure (most shots were slightly dark but could easily
> be lightened in software - opposite of the blown highlights we often
> got with our PnS)
> * the lack of red eye
> * the quality of the photos
> * the narrow depth of field on some shots
>
> We hated...
> * after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very
> long time to recover, and became very sluggish
> * having to look through a view finder - I know that's intrinsic to
> how almost all DSLRs work, but we really missed the live view on the
> LCD
>
> We also missed the Canon Zoom Browser software, which we use to
> automatically download the photos from the camera, spin them around,
> and sort them into dated folders. Windows downloaded the photos,
> Cpicture automatically spun the around, and I sorted them into folders
> by hand.
>
> The supplied lens maybe wasn't pixel sharp, but it was better than
> what we were used to.
>
>
> So, my question is, if I'm to take the leap into the world of DSLR,
> what should I consider? I've looked at the Canon 400D and Nikon D40X
> on dpreview. These reviews don't seem to focus on what I really care
> about - they didn't mention the fantastic lack of red eye, or the
> annoying flash recycle time problem with the 400D for example. How am
> I to learn about these things before buying the camera? I don't want
> to make an expensive mistake.
>
> I can't imagine wanting to change lenses. The idea of exposing the
> sensor to dust doesn't appeal anyway! I seem to have enough bad luck
> with cameras as it is.
>
> Alternatively, if there's a point-and-shoot which can match the speed
> and safe exposure of the 400D, and yet still fit in my pocket and show
> me everything on an LCD, I'd like to hear about it.
>
> I was happy with my IXUS 400, back when I didn't know any better,
> though the high (!) ISO400 was terribly noisy. I hated my Fuji F10 -
> great reviews, useless camera for what I want it for. Most recently, I
> was quite happy with the IXUS 800IS, but it only lasted 3 months. It
> makes me a little wary of buying Canon in the future.
>
> Any helpful advice gratefully received!
>
> Cheers,
> David.
2Bdecided wrote:
> A terrible thing happened over Christmas. A friend lent me a Canon EOS
> 400D with the kit lens (I think), after my point and shoot (Canon IXUS
> 800) died two weeks earlier. We still had our old Fuji F10, but it's
> cripplingly slow to focus indoors, and very prone to over/under
> exposing subjects with flash, so pretty useless for taking photos of
> Christmas day! So, in desperation, we accepted the 400D.
>
> The cries of "we'll never be able to use that thing" from both myself
> and my wife were quickly replaced by us both taking photo after photo
> - far more than we'd ever taken before (and 250 a day is not unusual
> around Christmas and birthdays).
>
> We loved...
> * the instant and reliable auto focus
> * the speed of shooting
> * the speed of recovery
> * the long manual zoom range (far further at both ends than we were
> used to)
Do you really need zoom for family photos though? The reason I ask is a
fixed length fast 'prime' lens is really ideal for kids & indoor family
shooting: you can shoot without any flash at all and capture the
ambiance much better and you can get a faster shutter speed for
herky-jerky little kids.
Stuff like this:
* edgehill . net /Misc/misc-photos/nick/pg3pc13
> * the "safe" exposure (most shots were slightly dark but could easily
> be lightened in software - opposite of the blown highlights we often
> got with our PnS)
> * the lack of red eye
> * the quality of the photos
> * the narrow depth of field on some shots
>
> We hated...
> * after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very
> long time to recover, and became very sluggish
> * having to look through a view finder - I know that's intrinsic to
> how almost all DSLRs work, but we really missed the live view on the
> LCD
>
> We also missed the Canon Zoom Browser software, which we use to
> automatically download the photos from the camera, spin them around,
> and sort them into dated folders. Windows downloaded the photos,
> Cpicture automatically spun the around, and I sorted them into folders
> by hand.
>
> The supplied lens maybe wasn't pixel sharp, but it was better than
> what we were used to.
>
>
> So, my question is, if I'm to take the leap into the world of DSLR,
> what should I consider? I've looked at the Canon 400D and Nikon D40X
> on dpreview. These reviews don't seem to focus on what I really care
> about - they didn't mention the fantastic lack of red eye, or the
> annoying flash recycle time problem with the 400D for example. How am
> I to learn about these things before buying the camera? I don't want
> to make an expensive mistake.
>
> I can't imagine wanting to change lenses. The idea of exposing the
> sensor to dust doesn't appeal anyway! I seem to have enough bad luck
> with cameras as it is.
>
> Alternatively, if there's a point-and-shoot which can match the speed
> and safe exposure of the 400D, and yet still fit in my pocket and show
> me everything on an LCD, I'd like to hear about it.
>
> I was happy with my IXUS 400, back when I didn't know any better,
> though the high (!) ISO400 was terribly noisy. I hated my Fuji F10 -
> great reviews, useless camera for what I want it for. Most recently, I
> was quite happy with the IXUS 800IS, but it only lasted 3 months. It
> makes me a little wary of buying Canon in the future.
>
> Any helpful advice gratefully received!
>
> Cheers,
> David.
Re: DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
On 18 Jan, 16:45, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill . net > wrote:
> Do you really need zoom for family photos though?
It seemed very useful, but I don't know. The idea of changing lenses
worries me - I'd break something.
> The reason I ask is a
> fixed length fast 'prime' lens is really ideal for kids & indoor family
> shooting: you can shoot without any flash at all and capture the
> ambiance much better and you can get a faster shutter speed for
> herky-jerky little kids.
> Stuff like this: * edgehill . net /Misc/misc-photos/nick/pg3pc13
This is something I'm interested in. Let's say a given amount of light
(indoors, night, normal-ish lighting) meant the zoom lens needed ISO
1600 and 1/100th. I have no idea what aperture. The result would be
noisy, of course. What ISO could I come down to with a fast fixed
length lens, still at 1/100th, for a comparably bright picture, with
hopefully much less noise?
Thanks for the help.
Cheers,
David.
On 18 Jan, 16:45, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill . net > wrote:
> Do you really need zoom for family photos though?
It seemed very useful, but I don't know. The idea of changing lenses
worries me - I'd break something.
> The reason I ask is a
> fixed length fast 'prime' lens is really ideal for kids & indoor family
> shooting: you can shoot without any flash at all and capture the
> ambiance much better and you can get a faster shutter speed for
> herky-jerky little kids.
> Stuff like this: * edgehill . net /Misc/misc-photos/nick/pg3pc13
This is something I'm interested in. Let's say a given amount of light
(indoors, night, normal-ish lighting) meant the zoom lens needed ISO
1600 and 1/100th. I have no idea what aperture. The result would be
noisy, of course. What ISO could I come down to with a fast fixed
length lens, still at 1/100th, for a comparably bright picture, with
hopefully much less noise?
Thanks for the help.
Cheers,
David.
Re: DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
2Bdecided wrote:
> On 18 Jan, 16:45, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill . net > wrote:
>
>> Do you really need zoom for family photos though?
>
> It seemed very useful, but I don't know. The idea of changing lenses
> worries me - I'd break something.
>
>> The reason I ask is a
>> fixed length fast 'prime' lens is really ideal for kids & indoor family
>> shooting: you can shoot without any flash at all and capture the
>> ambiance much better and you can get a faster shutter speed for
>> herky-jerky little kids.
>> Stuff like this: * edgehill . net /Misc/misc-photos/nick/pg3pc13
>
> This is something I'm interested in. Let's say a given amount of light
> (indoors, night, normal-ish lighting) meant the zoom lens needed ISO
> 1600 and 1/100th. I have no idea what aperture. The result would be
> noisy, of course. What ISO could I come down to with a fast fixed
> length lens, still at 1/100th, for a comparably bright picture, with
> hopefully much less noise?
Those shots have the shooting data below each. The linked shot is 1/40
second f/1.2 (crazy fast lens) ISO 400.
A kit lens is probably f/3.5 at the wide end. You can get f/2.8 fixed
length (or zoom for high price) and that's about a half a stop. A stop
is a doubling for shutter speed & ISO, so ISO 1600 one stop relieved is
ISO 800 & a half stop is ISO 1200. OK lets make it simpler, assume the
kit lens at f/4 not quite zoomed out all the way, here's a chart of full
aperture stops (strange math):
f/5.6 1/100 ISO 3200
f/4 1/100 ISO 1600
f/2 1/100 ISO 800
f/1.4 1/100 ISO 400
But for indoor light bulbs only, you'll probably struggle to get 1/30
second unless you have really bright lightbulbs:
f/5.6 1/30 ISO 6400
f/4 1/30 ISO 3200
f/2 1/30 ISO 1600
f/1.4 1/30 ISO 800
or:
f/1.4 1/60 ISO 1600
You could get a 35mm f/2 autofocus for a Nikon D80 ($320 lens):
* w w w .adorama . com /NK352AFDU.html?sid=1200677506434282
Or a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for $390 which would work on a D40, Canon, etc.
but it's a fairly bulky lens.
For those, I used mostly manual focus versions on a D200 which probably
wouldn't interest you: 20mm f/2.8 (autofocus), 28mm f/2, 35mm f/2, 35mm
f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2
More examples:
* edgehill . net /Southwest/12-21-07-az/12-22-07-huddlestons/pg2pc6
2Bdecided wrote:
> On 18 Jan, 16:45, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill . net > wrote:
>
>> Do you really need zoom for family photos though?
>
> It seemed very useful, but I don't know. The idea of changing lenses
> worries me - I'd break something.
>
>> The reason I ask is a
>> fixed length fast 'prime' lens is really ideal for kids & indoor family
>> shooting: you can shoot without any flash at all and capture the
>> ambiance much better and you can get a faster shutter speed for
>> herky-jerky little kids.
>> Stuff like this: * edgehill . net /Misc/misc-photos/nick/pg3pc13
>
> This is something I'm interested in. Let's say a given amount of light
> (indoors, night, normal-ish lighting) meant the zoom lens needed ISO
> 1600 and 1/100th. I have no idea what aperture. The result would be
> noisy, of course. What ISO could I come down to with a fast fixed
> length lens, still at 1/100th, for a comparably bright picture, with
> hopefully much less noise?
Those shots have the shooting data below each. The linked shot is 1/40
second f/1.2 (crazy fast lens) ISO 400.
A kit lens is probably f/3.5 at the wide end. You can get f/2.8 fixed
length (or zoom for high price) and that's about a half a stop. A stop
is a doubling for shutter speed & ISO, so ISO 1600 one stop relieved is
ISO 800 & a half stop is ISO 1200. OK lets make it simpler, assume the
kit lens at f/4 not quite zoomed out all the way, here's a chart of full
aperture stops (strange math):
f/5.6 1/100 ISO 3200
f/4 1/100 ISO 1600
f/2 1/100 ISO 800
f/1.4 1/100 ISO 400
But for indoor light bulbs only, you'll probably struggle to get 1/30
second unless you have really bright lightbulbs:
f/5.6 1/30 ISO 6400
f/4 1/30 ISO 3200
f/2 1/30 ISO 1600
f/1.4 1/30 ISO 800
or:
f/1.4 1/60 ISO 1600
You could get a 35mm f/2 autofocus for a Nikon D80 ($320 lens):
* w w w .adorama . com /NK352AFDU.html?sid=1200677506434282
Or a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for $390 which would work on a D40, Canon, etc.
but it's a fairly bulky lens.
For those, I used mostly manual focus versions on a D200 which probably
wouldn't interest you: 20mm f/2.8 (autofocus), 28mm f/2, 35mm f/2, 35mm
f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2
More examples:
* edgehill . net /Southwest/12-21-07-az/12-22-07-huddlestons/pg2pc6
Re: DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
2Bdecided <davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18 Jan, 16:45, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill . net > wrote:
>> Do you really need zoom for family photos though?
> It seemed very useful, but I don't know. The idea of changing lenses
> worries me - I'd break something.
Unless you are in the habit of dropping your Ixus, you won't.
It's _build_ to be used.
>> The reason I ask is a
>> fixed length fast 'prime' lens is really ideal for kids & indoor family
>> shooting: you can shoot without any flash at all and capture the
>> ambiance much better and you can get a faster shutter speed for
>> herky-jerky little kids.
> This is something I'm interested in. Let's say a given amount of light
> (indoors, night, normal-ish lighting) meant the zoom lens needed ISO
> 1600 and 1/100th. I have no idea what aperture.
The zoom lens would probably have ca. f/4 (short end) or f/5.6
(towards long end) as fastest aperture.
> The result would be
> noisy, of course. What ISO could I come down to with a fast fixed
> length lens, still at 1/100th, for a comparably bright picture, with
> hopefully much less noise?
If the lens is f/2.0 or better (e.g. Canon 50mm f/1.8, ~ USD100
IIRC, optically sound but all plastics), ISO 400 or ISO 200.
If the lens is f1.4 or better (e.g. Canon 50mm f/1.4, Sigma
30mm f/1.4, ...), ISO 200 or ISO 100.
-Wolfgang
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
2Bdecided <davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18 Jan, 16:45, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill . net > wrote:
>> Do you really need zoom for family photos though?
> It seemed very useful, but I don't know. The idea of changing lenses
> worries me - I'd break something.
Unless you are in the habit of dropping your Ixus, you won't.
It's _build_ to be used.
>> The reason I ask is a
>> fixed length fast 'prime' lens is really ideal for kids & indoor family
>> shooting: you can shoot without any flash at all and capture the
>> ambiance much better and you can get a faster shutter speed for
>> herky-jerky little kids.
> This is something I'm interested in. Let's say a given amount of light
> (indoors, night, normal-ish lighting) meant the zoom lens needed ISO
> 1600 and 1/100th. I have no idea what aperture.
The zoom lens would probably have ca. f/4 (short end) or f/5.6
(towards long end) as fastest aperture.
> The result would be
> noisy, of course. What ISO could I come down to with a fast fixed
> length lens, still at 1/100th, for a comparably bright picture, with
> hopefully much less noise?
If the lens is f/2.0 or better (e.g. Canon 50mm f/1.8, ~ USD100
IIRC, optically sound but all plastics), ISO 400 or ISO 200.
If the lens is f1.4 or better (e.g. Canon 50mm f/1.4, Sigma
30mm f/1.4, ...), ISO 200 or ISO 100.
-Wolfgang
Re: DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
David,
I shoot my cousins often, and I couldn't imagine doing so with a point
and shoot. If you liked the DSLR just for Christmas, you'll grow to
love one after just two weeks of use. Make the investment.
The 400D and D40x are wonderful choices, but I'd look at other
options, namely from Sony and Pentax. I wouldn't necessarily recommend
these options if you were planning on buying into a system, but if
you're looking to buy a camera and lens to use for the next five or so
years without expanding your system, these options will do fine for
your needs. The advantage of these brands is that their cameras are
including in-camera shake reduction which will help you shoot indoors
without a flash at lower ISOs.
I'd look at the Sony A100 / Pentax K100D if you don't need to print
bigger than 8x10 and will mostly print at 4x6. If you feel you need
the ability to print bigger, look at the new A200 or the (likely to be
released soon) K200D. Whichever of the four systems you buy into, I'd
skip the kit lens. If you need a zoom, I'd stick to the 18-70 for
Nikon, the 17-85 IS for Canon, the 16-45 for Pentax, or the Zeiss
16-80 for Sony (that last one is a bit pricey, but a great lens). If I
were you, though, I'd seriously think about how often you're shooting
at the wide end of what you're used to and wonder if you could have
stepped backwards instead. Similarly, how often have you been zoomed
all the way in and not been able to just walk closer? If the answer is
"not very often" then you should really look into a 28mm or 35mm prime
lens. The pictures I get of my cousins using my Canon 28mm 1.8 lens
wide open, without a flash, are better than I'd ever be able to get
with any zoom lens, no matter how nice. It could be too limiting for
your needs, but shooting in and around the house, as well as duing
outings, usually doesn't need more than that fixed length, and soon
you won't miss the zoom because the pictures are so good. If not, the
four zooms I listed are all pretty great and pretty reasonably priced,
and especially with built-in shake reduction (or the Canon 17-85
included in-lens anti shake), will get everything you want.
But make the jump to DSLR. You won't look back. Everything you loved
will be present with any of these cameras (and with a prime, that
narrow depth of field will be very easy to achieve), and in most cases
you won't need that flash, so that eliminates one of your two
problems. As for live view... you'll get over wanting that.
Will
David,
I shoot my cousins often, and I couldn't imagine doing so with a point
and shoot. If you liked the DSLR just for Christmas, you'll grow to
love one after just two weeks of use. Make the investment.
The 400D and D40x are wonderful choices, but I'd look at other
options, namely from Sony and Pentax. I wouldn't necessarily recommend
these options if you were planning on buying into a system, but if
you're looking to buy a camera and lens to use for the next five or so
years without expanding your system, these options will do fine for
your needs. The advantage of these brands is that their cameras are
including in-camera shake reduction which will help you shoot indoors
without a flash at lower ISOs.
I'd look at the Sony A100 / Pentax K100D if you don't need to print
bigger than 8x10 and will mostly print at 4x6. If you feel you need
the ability to print bigger, look at the new A200 or the (likely to be
released soon) K200D. Whichever of the four systems you buy into, I'd
skip the kit lens. If you need a zoom, I'd stick to the 18-70 for
Nikon, the 17-85 IS for Canon, the 16-45 for Pentax, or the Zeiss
16-80 for Sony (that last one is a bit pricey, but a great lens). If I
were you, though, I'd seriously think about how often you're shooting
at the wide end of what you're used to and wonder if you could have
stepped backwards instead. Similarly, how often have you been zoomed
all the way in and not been able to just walk closer? If the answer is
"not very often" then you should really look into a 28mm or 35mm prime
lens. The pictures I get of my cousins using my Canon 28mm 1.8 lens
wide open, without a flash, are better than I'd ever be able to get
with any zoom lens, no matter how nice. It could be too limiting for
your needs, but shooting in and around the house, as well as duing
outings, usually doesn't need more than that fixed length, and soon
you won't miss the zoom because the pictures are so good. If not, the
four zooms I listed are all pretty great and pretty reasonably priced,
and especially with built-in shake reduction (or the Canon 17-85
included in-lens anti shake), will get everything you want.
But make the jump to DSLR. You won't look back. Everything you loved
will be present with any of these cameras (and with a prime, that
narrow depth of field will be very easy to achieve), and in most cases
you won't need that flash, so that eliminates one of your two
problems. As for live view... you'll get over wanting that.
Will
Re: DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
"wiyum" <w.beckley@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:44b1c172-178d-4e8d-bd1a-e6d0eeca1c1b@h11g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
>
>snip<
>
> The 400D and D40x are wonderful choices, but I'd look at other
> options, namely from Sony and Pentax. I wouldn't necessarily recommend
> these options if you were planning on buying into a system, but if
> you're looking to buy a camera and lens to use for the next five or so
> years without expanding your system, these options will do fine for
> your needs.
Is that even possible?
I can't imagine anyone owning a DSLR for five years without ever lusting for
a new lens...
dwight
(now with No. 3 - the 100mm macro)
"wiyum" <w.beckley@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:44b1c172-178d-4e8d-bd1a-e6d0eeca1c1b@h11g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
>
>snip<
>
> The 400D and D40x are wonderful choices, but I'd look at other
> options, namely from Sony and Pentax. I wouldn't necessarily recommend
> these options if you were planning on buying into a system, but if
> you're looking to buy a camera and lens to use for the next five or so
> years without expanding your system, these options will do fine for
> your needs.
Is that even possible?
I can't imagine anyone owning a DSLR for five years without ever lusting for
a new lens...
dwight
(now with No. 3 - the 100mm macro)
