What type of camera do you use?

[wv4891]

Hi,

 

 

We also have the Canon Digital Rebel, purchased in 2003. In addition to all the comments already made about this camera, we have just purchased the new wideangle zoom lense EF-S 1-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM for this camera. Just a great lense and a great camera for this price range. We use one 1GB compact flash card (about 340 pix at 6MB per pix) and also use a 20GB FlashTrax (about the size of a Palm Pilot Handheld device) to download our Compact flash card to view and edit pictures (has 3.5" video screen) through either our PC or any T.V. with a video port. Also, agree that you need an extra flash for large rooms, as the flash on the camera is just not good enough.

[dougnewmanatsea]

OK, I'll go against the conventional wisdom here and suggest that what you need for big rooms at night isn't a flash at all, but a higher ISO speed. One of the great things about digital SLRs is that almost all of them will give great results up to and including ISO 800, and many go to 1600 while still giving levels of noise (aka grain) that are far lower than anything you'd see from film at even a much lower ISO (and far better than consumer digicams with small sensors). I never use a flash when taking photos of ship interiors, and never have a problem. In fact, my Olympus E-1 does not have a built-in flash and at the moment I don't even own a flash (I was waiting for Olympus to come out with the more affordable FL-36 flash, which I plan on purchasing soon)... Now, no flash at all does present problems in some instances, but taking photos of ship interiors isn't one of them.

 

My advice, if you buy a camera with a built-in flash - hold off on buying an external flash unit... Use the built-in first, see if it works for you, and if it doesn't, then purchase an external flash, rather than go out and spend money on something you may find you don't actually need.

[gkm]

Doug, may I ask you a question? You seem to really know about cameras. I've read reviews, but don't understand some of the lingo. I have a Nikon Coolpix 4800 and am looking to upgrade. Size matters to me (arthritis and lugging around a heavy camera don't go together) and have been looking at the Nikon 8400. Do you know anything about this one? I've always had Nikons and am comfortable with the settings. Thanks!

 

Garry

[canderson]

OK, I'll go against the conventional wisdom here and suggest that what you need for big rooms at night isn't a flash at all, but a higher ISO speed.

 

One thing that confuses some folks is this issue of "ISO" when talking about digital cameras. There are three primary factors that effect exposure on a film camera -- a) the size of the opening of the aperture (this has other effects as well), b) the amount of time that the shutter is open to allow light to hit the film, and c) the sensitivity of the film (ISO speed).

 

Both film and digital cameras allow for changing the aperture size "a", above. However, you can't change the sensitivity of the CCD in a digital camera -- it is what it is -- the way you can by swapping film in a film camera, the digital doesn't really have an ISO. What can be changed is the amount of time that the CCD collects the light before shuffling all the bits out into memory. It acts like the mechanical shutter from b), above. They call this integration time, and is why you can blur a picture with a digital camera in the same way you can with a film camera. If you move the camera while the light is being collected on the sensor -- well, don't do that!

 

The longer integration times required in low ambient light will bring to the fore any noise issues that the CCD may have. If you can avoid blasting the target with too much light, a shorter integration time with an appropriately powered flash will actually produce a less noisy shot than trying to take it under lower lighting conditions. And of course, less light = longer integration time to get the same exposure, so steadier hands are also more necessary under lower lighting or inadequate flash conditions. This is especially true when using the zoom feature extended out to 3X or more. I'm always a little amused (and sorry) for folks who can't seem to get a good picture at 5X zoom. They think they're pretty steady, and seem to be able to take good pictures most of the time, but if you put a 5X in their hands, they don't always appreciate that their movement is also amplified greatly, and are disappointed that their pictures aren't sharp.

 

Anyway - back to the topic of light...

 

One thing you will surely want to check on any camera -- how well can it handle auto-focus in less than optimum lighting conditions? Many who purchase a digital are surprised by this. The algorithms that handle unassisted auto-focus do so in part by running the focus in and out and attempting to find a setting that develops high contrast in the target. Many of the cameras on the market don't handle this well at all and require manual focus in even moderately low light, regardless of the CCD integration time (faux ISO speed). Sorting the distance in meters on a tiny LCD screen isn't easy on short notice.

[idssms]

Well said cander. Using a SLR in dark conditions makes focusing very hard. My Nikon SB80 flash has a infered beam that helps with the auto focus at night. It would be touch to take quality night pics with a DSLR without the use of a flash or some ambient light.

[canderson]

My Nikon SB80 flash has a infered beam that helps with the auto focus at night.

That would be an example of an "assisted" auto-focus, and I've kicked myself any number of times when I've had a camera in hand that didn't have it under less than optimal conditions.

 

While we're switching to the "assisted" version, there's a fair difference in the distance at which these work as well. I've run across some that are helpful only out to about 3 meters, and some that for whatever reason do better. With what kind of ranges have you had luck with the SB80? No experience with that model here.

[idssms]

I have used the SB80 in darken rooms at subjects 30 feet away and gotten good lighted pictures. The SB80 Speedlite also adjusts its flash output after assessing the situation.

 

I could not believe the operations manual supplied with this flash. It was at least 50-70 pages and as complicated to use as the D100 with multiple menus and submenus.

 

It took me months of experimenting before I mastered this flash. I called Nikon help several times with questions to figure out how it works.

 

If you go to google and type in this model flash you can read many pages of reviews and specs on it. This is my second Nikon Speedlight and the technology just gets better and better.

 

The coolpix camera's are basic point and shoot cameras and just do not produce the same quality photos as the SLR's. I recently took some family group pictures with the D100 and had them professionally blown up to poster size and they were incredibly sharp. I used TIFF files to do this. I also shoot in RAW which I store as a negative and can downsize as I see fit. This way the negative is always there for editing. "Nikon View" is also a great program and comes free with most of their cameras including the Coolpix's.

 

Further advice: Never buy a camera without a hotshoe. You need the ability to add a flash if you want to take good non-grainy indoor pictures. My Coolpix 5000 had a hotshoe so I imagine most of the higher end P&S cameras offer them.

 

Nikon-Man (my name on the Nikon chat board)

[garykool81]

Hey, folks --

 

Sorry I took so long to respond to the host of questions regarding what settings, etc., were used with the interior shots I posted of Mercury and Galaxy with the Canon Digital Rebel.

 

Host Doug is absolutely right . Everytime I see someone trying to take an interior shot of a beautiful room using a flash (so long as you are not shooting PEOPLE), I want to scream at them to stop. The absolute ONLY time you should use your own lighting for an interior shot (and NEVER a flash), is if you have high-end professional lighting equipment set up all over the room you are trying to photograph. Since I am guessing that is not the case, TURN THE DARN THING OFF!

 

Using a flash for an interior shot will make your photos come out dark and colorless, if at all, as it often reduces the exposure time GREATLY.

 

For the photos I took onboard, the film speed was typically not set above 800 for interior shots (anything close to 1600 makes them fairly grainy), and the exposure time was fairly long...often more than 2-3 seconds for the darker rooms.

 

And, it was all done using...NO TRIPOD. Since my partner insists I would look like a total idiot walking around the ship with a tripod, he's convinced me to not take one on past trips.

 

"How does he do such marvelous things," one might ask?

 

I find a small coffee table, chair or anything else to sit the camera on top of before taking the shot that I need. Need to angle the camera upwards? Use an ash tray or something along those lines.

 

Very difficult and annoying, but the results are just the same really :-)

 

Hope that answered most people's questions.

[cirpi]

Hey, folks --

 

 

 

Host Doug is absolutely right . Everytime I see someone trying to take an interior shot of a beautiful room using a flash (so long as you are not shooting PEOPLE), I want to scream at them to stop. The absolute ONLY time you should use your own lighting for an interior shot (and NEVER a flash), is if you have high-end professional lighting equipment set up all over the room you are trying to photograph. Since I am guessing that is not the case, TURN THE DARN THING OFF!

 

 

 

QUOTE]

 

Never say never regarding the use of a flash. In smallish rooms roughly the size of a two-or three-car garage, a speedlight bounced off a white ceiling or wall will provide even and pleasant illumination with no harsh shadows. I've used this bounce-flash technique successfully for decades. Otherwise, your advice to TURN THE DARN THING OFF is sound considering the fact that most on-camera flashes are almost totally useless beyond about 15 feet.

[garykool81]

Never say never regarding the use of a flash. In smallish rooms roughly the size of a two-or three-car garage, a speedlight bounced off a white ceiling or wall will provide even and pleasant illumination with no harsh shadows. I've used this bounce-flash technique successfully for decades. Otherwise, your advice to TURN THE DARN THING OFF is sound considering the fact that most on-camera flashes are almost totally useless beyond about 15 feet.

 

Agreed :-)

 

Again, unless you have more high-end equipment, you'll be far better leaving it off unless in a very small area, or photographing some friends/family at dinner.

[ABSCruiseLuvers]

Doug, may I ask you a question? You seem to really know about cameras. I've read reviews, but don't understand some of the lingo. I have a Nikon Coolpix 4800 and am looking to upgrade. Size matters to me (arthritis and lugging around a heavy camera don't go together) and have been looking at the Nikon 8400. Do you know anything about this one? I've always had Nikons and am comfortable with the settings. Thanks!

 

Garry

 

I was looking at a DSLR as an old film buff but in the end...for the most part due to size...I ended up with the Nikon 8700 and so far I love it! Small but at 8 MP great quality!

[smudge's mom]

Been fooling with the "night-time" setting on my Olympus C-50. What I've learned is - I will get poor results unless the camera is on a solid surface.

 

All those technical things you've said - well - for us "point and shoot" people - it doesn't matter why - just know, you won't get good results unless the camera is absolutely still while shooting in the dark.

 

And even when I shoot daytime photos from the veranda of my cabin - I prop the camera on the railing and shoot from there. I've gotten better results than when the thing is in my shaky hands.

 

For those of us with shaky hands - when are they going to come out with a reasonably priced digital with faster speed?

[canderson]

For those of us with shaky hands - when are they going to come out with a reasonably priced digital with faster speed?

Not soon. A technology will have to come along to replace the current CCD that senses the light in these cameras.

 

Backing up to the previous post -- the problem eventually becomes electronic noise (visual' date=' not audio).

 

The sensitivity of a CCD (think of it as you might think of "film speed") and how it collects and converts light into electrical charge that corresponds to the amount of light received is pretty interesting. It shares one aspect of film: like using 1600 speed film, things get a bit grainy if you don't spend much time collecting the light to begin with.

 

The ultimate gotcha is this regard is for the astronomers who use CCD cameres to collect their images. Since they're working with so little light to begin with, they use very sensitive CCD's, and to avoid the noise inherent in the electronics, they actually have to [u']cool[/u] the CCD to avoid it. In most all cases, cooler electronics = quieter electronics.

 

If you could handle a camera that eats batteries a mile a minute, I imagine that they could design a one of these as a hand held version for you with a Peltier cooling device.

 

Ah -- but the price -- a one megapixel version (that's right, "1" megapixel) will cost you around $7,000!

 

Meanwhile, it's just life in the real world that a steady camera is often necessary for a sharp picture. Remember that this is especially true when you start to run the zoom out past 1X. At 3X zoom, any motion you create is also magnified by 3X as well. Except in very bright daylight where the picture is formed very quickly by the CCD, I no longer trust myself much past about 2X without bracing the camera on something.

[dougnewmanatsea]

Doug, may I ask you a question? You seem to really know about cameras.

Thanks! I try to keep up with the technology :) .

 

I've read reviews, but don't understand some of the lingo. I have a Nikon Coolpix 4800 and am looking to upgrade. Size matters to me (arthritis and lugging around a heavy camera don't go together) and have been looking at the Nikon 8400. Do you know anything about this one?

It's a fine camera - but not worth the money. I would not spend anything over $500 on a consumer digital camera (that is, not an SLR) these days. There are consumer cameras that cost $1500 (Leica Digilux 2) but they're just not worth it.

 

At this point I guess I should explain something about a consumer camera v. digital SLR... Rather than do it myself, I'll refer you to this page which offers a great explanation.

 

Spending $500+ on a point-and-shoot (as defined by that article - many of them are much to complicated to really be called point-and-shoots, so I prefer to call them "consumer digicams" but that's beside the point) is pretty much a pointless excercise in these days of the $1000 D-SLR. The gulf in performance between consumer cameras and D-SLRs is just as huge as it was when a good consumer camera was $1000 and a good DSLR was $10,000 - and it always will be.

 

Now, the downside of a D-SLR is that it is much bigger than a consumer camera. A big consumer camera is still considerably smaller than a small D-SLR. Is the difference in quality worth it? Absolutely! The least expensive D-SLR on the market today, Canon's Digital Rebel, is 6 MP and costs about $900 with a kit lens. It will still run rings around any consumer digital camera in the world, if used to its full potential.

 

Your Coolpix is pretty much a brand-new camera - so I have to ask, what's wrong with it, or rather, why are you already in the market for something else? Knowing this would really help in recommending something to move up to.

 

Well said cander. Using a SLR in dark conditions makes focusing very hard.

Most D-SLRs do have a built-in focus assist light that should make focusing in dark conditions relatively easy.

 

Also, some have mentioned noise below. Digital SLRs, with their large sensors (most use CCDs, Canon uses CMOS, there's one Nikon - the D2H - that uses something called a JFET LBCAST sensor), have much lower noise at high ISO speeds than consumer cameras. With many D-SLRs, taking photos at ISO 1600 is no problem at all - you often get better results than you would with ISO 400 film.

[starsjohn]

The only problematic thing about the D70 is the lack of a good spot meter setting. Also there is no TTL flash mode with under water external flash units. Ikelite is working on this problem.

 

I use the professional series Nikkor lenses including the long focal length lenses. The D70 is a great easy to use picture taker and a lot easier to handle than my Fuji S2 and S3 pro cameras. But then again the Fuji camers will do some amazing things at twice the price. They use the Nikon flashes and lenses.

 

I now use a Sony Vario laptop with 80 gig backup drive. My experience with the Roadstor CD burner and Flastrax drives has been dissapointing in terms of the drives being very tempermental

[CajunLiner]

I finally decided on a new camera-Canon EOS 20D. So far, I love it, but I have not yet figured out all of it's features. The quality is awesome, colors vibrant, and easy to use. I'm still trying to learn how to do more on my own, without the automatic features, though. I purchased a few books this weekend, but if you have any suggestions, please let me know!

Thanks, Donna :)

[garykool81]

[quote name='CajunLiner']I finally decided on a new camera-Canon EOS 20D.[/QUOTE]

Excellent choice for a mid-end, not too pricey option! I am sure you'll love it!

[dougnewmanatsea]

[quote name='CajunLiner']I finally decided on a new camera-Canon EOS 20D.[/QUOTE]
Congratulations! This is an outstanding choice - probably the best in its class right now.

Use it in good health.