Camera comiseration

[MollyM/CA]

I'll also have to sport for the new camera with the long lens to get good photographs

It's a wonderful excuse, but maybe not, depending on the current camera. If you can rack up the quality of the pictures to where you can use a fairly small crop of one, you could set up a tripod (or anything to rest the camera on) at a distance such that the whole birdbath (or feeder) is in focus and get a remote thingie instead, if the camera supports one. You'll need it anyway most likely with a long lens, so as not to wobble it. If you can figure out something uninteresting for a camera rest you could leave it out all the time so the birdies get used to it. Our birds aren't too interested in us if we're behind a window -- you could put the bird attractant pretty close to one and have the remote on the other side (mine's on a cable but some cameras can use a wireless one).

If you're talking about a real telephoto, I just succumbed to one and it's depressingly heavy, and long enough that to get a really clear picture hand-held is almost out of the question. The lens of a telephoto is at the far end of a lever (the camera is the fulcrum), in effect, and the least wobble translates into blur --sometimes just a little, sometimes not.

m

[Judy G. Russell]

It's a wonderful excuse, but maybe not, depending on the current camera. If you can rack up the quality of the pictures to where you can use a fairly small crop of one, you could set up a tripod (or anything to rest the camera on) at a distance such that the whole birdbath (or feeder) is in focus and get a remote thingie instead, if the camera supports one.I'm sure the Canon G6 would do all of that... but then I'd still be sitting here wanting a new toy...

If you're talking about a real telephoto, I just succumbed to one and it's depressingly heavy, and long enough that to get a really clear picture hand-held is almost out of the question. The lens of a telephoto is at the far end of a lever (the camera is the fulcrum), in effect, and the least wobble translates into blur --sometimes just a little, sometimes not.What'dja get? What'dja get??? I'm lusting after the Canon S3 which has image stabilization...

[MollyM/CA]

I kind of backed into taking over my husband's Canon EOS 10D, a big hunky SLR digital. He and my son already had some EOS lenses for their film cameras. Ross & I got him the digital back with a 28-135 macro zoom, a beautiful little lens and much easier to use and lighter than the L-series lenses I'm using most the time now (long story), but slower --needs more light than some of my favorite venues provide. I was too cheap to spring for the IS on the 70-200mm lens and I sure wish I had. The 1DS is the dream level version but has been around for a while and I think they must be going to have to come up with a new version. It weighs even more than the 10D, 2 pounds for just the back.

I do miss the foldout screen on the Powershot --I could take pictures of the undersides of leaves and flowers without groveling on the ground and straining my neck. None of the (Canon SLR) digitals have an image screen --there is a fixed screen but it's just for playback.

My grandniece got herself a Kodak (530?) with her graduation loot and it is mind-boggling, as are her pictures. I hope she sends me some. I hope she doesn't because they make me look like a rank beginner and I hate admitting I am. The depth of field on her extreme closeups is staggering. The quality with the extreme zoom is unbelievable. She took a series of her ceiling fan in room light and the 'sport' setting stopped it and from what I saw the picture was clean as clean --no multicolored snow from the fast speed, or maybe it was black magic. If I were to get another handy camera, I'd have a hard time resisting that Kodak. It doesn't have a viewfinder, just the screen, but Elizabeth wasn't having any trouble composing in bright sun.

m

[Judy G. Russell]

There's a brand spanking new zoom Kodak out with 12x IS features ... I many have to check that out too. But I really like the tilt-twist LCD of the Canons...

[MollyM/CA]

I kind of backed into taking over my husband's Canon EOS 10D, a big hunky SLR digital. He and my son already had some EOS lenses for their film cameras. Ross & I got him the digital back with a 28-135 macro zoom, a beautiful little lens and much easier to use and lighter than the L-series lenses I'm using most the time now (long story), but slower --needs more light than there is, some places. I was too cheap to spring for the stabilization on the 70-200mm lens and I sure wish I had. The 1DS is the dream level version but has been around for a while and I think they must be going to have to come up with a new version. It weighs even more than the 10D, 2 pounds for just the back.

I do miss the foldout screen on the Powershot --I could take pictures of the undersides of leaves and flowers without groveling on the ground and straining my neck. None of the Canon SLR digitals have an image screen --there is a screen but it's just for playback.

My grandniece got herself a Kodak (530?) with her graduation loot and it is mind-boggling, as are her pictures. I hope she sends me some. I hope she doesn't because they make me look like a rank beginner and I hate admitting I am. The depth of field on her extreme closeups is staggering. The quality with the extreme zoom is unbelievable. She took a series of her ceiling fan in room light and the 'sport' setting stopped it and from what I saw the picture was clean as clean --no multicolored snow from the fast speed, or maybe it was black magic. If I were to get another handy camera, I'd have a hard time resisting that Kodak. It doesn't have a viewfinder, just the screen, but Elizabeth wasn't having any trouble composing in bright sun.

The pictures are the two L-series lenses --the 24-105mm macro with extension tube for the ladybug, and the 70-200mm telephoto with an additional lens that doubles it to 400mm --the first day I had it and I hadn't learned where to rest it yet, so not as clear as it should be, but an unforgettable moment, and you can see how noise-free it is even though it's a little tiny crop from the original, and resized downward as well.

m

[MollyM/CA]

Yep, that screen is amazing. There's no angle it can't be maneuvered to. I take most my pictures with the camera sideways and it's amazing how little consideration the designers of the SLR accessories give to that. Can't get a tripod that works right, and the Canon lens hoods are set for wide side top and bottom and can't be turned.

I guess Elizabeth's camera is just so little it doesn't need a tilt-screen. It's the size of a pack of cigarettes, if that, and much thinner.

[Judy G. Russell]

I guess Elizabeth's camera is just so little it doesn't need a tilt-screen. It's the size of a pack of cigarettes, if that, and much thinner.The real mini-cameras are fun too... I have a Canon S400 that I carry with me everywhere "just in case." I need to replace it -- it's just not up to some of the tasks I'd like to put it to!

[Judy G. Russell]

Oh egads... Molly that ladybug shot is SPECTACULAR. I keep trying to do macros like that and just can't quite make it...

http://www.pbase.com/jgr/image/59446424/medium.jpg

[Mike Landi]

I have a Canon S400 that I carry with me everywhere "just in case." I need to replace it -- it's just not up to some of the tasks I'd like to put it to!

Wanna sell it? <g>

[Judy G. Russell]

Wanna sell it? <g>Hmmm... I'm thinking about it... but it really isn't up to snuff compared to what you're used to. It's only 4.1Mp, and the flash isn't the best. You might want to think about the SD400 instead. It's lighter (4.5 oz compared to 7.8 oz), a bit smaller (3.4x2.1x0.8" compared to 3.4x2.2x1.1") and not all that much more expensive ($200 on eBay compared to $150 for the S400). And the SD400 has Digic-II processing rather than the older Digic processing of the S400. The one advantage of the S400 is that it takes CF cards while the SD400 takes SD cards.

[Mike Landi]

Hmmm... I'm thinking about it... but it really isn't up to snuff compared to what you're used to.

I'm thinking about it as a replacement for my A310. The S400 is a near match to my G3 in MP and processing, but smaller and it does take CF cards.

I think I can get about $50 or so for my A310 on eBay.

[Judy G. Russell]

I'm thinking about it as a replacement for my A310. The S400 is a near match to my G3 in MP and processing, but smaller and it does take CF cards.Yeah, it'd probably be okay as a replacement to the A310, escept that it takes proprietary batteries.

[sidney]

This seems like a good thread to jump in with a question I have...

Last Sunday, I brought Isabelle's Canon A60 to Ari's birthday party, which was at an indoor miniature golf place. While retrieving a ball that one of the kids hit into a stream, I managed to dunk the camera. Did you know that could kill a digital camera? :o

So now I have to select a low end point and shoot to replace it with. The bad news is that this is not in my budget, now that I'm both a poor full time grad student and about to make the largest real estate expenditure of my life so far.

The good news is that I don't think I could find a low end point and shoot that is not significantly better quality than the now relatively old A60, so this will automatically be an upgrade.

I'm partial to Canon, having only had good experiences with their digital cameras. I was looking at the A430, which for some reason costs no more here in New Zealand than in the US after accounting for the exchange rate. But any model would be on the table -- B&H ships internationally at reasonable cost.

So, what are everyone's suggestions? One consideration is media. We have a number of CF cards already, but I see that SD/MMC cards and cameras are less expensive. On the other hand, I just noticed the comments in this thread that implied that using a CF card is an advantage for a camera. Why is that? Aside from media, are there any of the point and shoot Canon models that are better or worse than the others?

- sidney

[Mike Landi]

The battery bit is NBD.

Let me know if you think about selling it...or at least give me a heads up when you put it on eBay. <g>

[Judy G. Russell]

The good news is that I don't think I could find a low end point and shoot that is not significantly better quality than the now relatively old A60, so this will automatically be an upgrade.Oh yes... the A60 is only 3.2mp, 3x optical 35-105mm f/2.8-4.8 zoom, 2.5x digital zoom, so you're in for a REAL treat.

The cards are no big deal either way; it's just that if you already have CF cards (as Mike does, which is why I made the comment to him), you don't want to have to invest in other types. But SD cards aren't all that expensive, so it doesn't add all that much to the overall cost.

In your shoes I'd look at the Canon A530 or thereabouts. It's a major step up from the camera you have, but retains much of the interface you're used to, actually is smaller and lighter and has tons more in terms of features. Right now you can get one in the US for about $160 new (at B&H, only $10 more than the A430). On eBay, the Buy It Now price is anywhere from about $130-160. If you can sport into the $200 range, the A610-620 is terrific and has the tilt LCD screen which you will love.

[Judy G. Russell]

I'll give you right of first refusal, how's that?

[Mike Landi]

Thank you, Lady! <g>

[MollyM/CA]

Are you sure the camera's forever dead? Have you tried taking everything removable (care, batteries) out of it and drying it in, say, the oven with the pilot light on and the door propped open a bit? We've revived many a device this way --there was the school video camera that got in the way of the ring sprinklers at a dressage clinic... the neighbor's phone she dropped in the sink full of dishwater...

I got the Powershot because (a) it used a CF card and I'd been using them for ages and had a good solid card reader and PCMCIA card adapter, and also knew them to be reliable and cheap and getting cheaper and (b) it used AA batteries. (b) seems to be something of a non-issue, with the incredible battery life the newer cameras get, though I missed enough pictures with the EOS (mostly by forgetting to take the charger on a long trip) that I just got a second battery with car and AC charger. The price probably evens out, because the failure rate and shelf life (of charged batteries) of new reusables seems to be increasing in the first case and decreasing in the second.

I'm still trying to puzzle out the card situation. I didn't know when I got the Powershot that many of our friends' cards and cameras are a real pain when the space is used up, or to try to transfer pictures to one of my computers from. The cameras won't upload to the computer without their own software being installed and the CD is of course in the state of Bontana or somewhere, and at least one of the cards won't read in anything but the camera's proprietary card reader, also not remembered for the trip.

The question is, will any of the new-generation CF-like cards fit my readers. And who needs the security features of the new cards for their pictures of the family barbecue --are the consumers going to put up with it or will we go back to CF cards?

[MollyM/CA]

But that's a wonderful picture. Great depth of field (compare it with the ladybug), the color is great, the wasp stuck around, and getting his (her? they're mostly--) shadow is terrific.

I just read something that gave me a real "well, duh:" the photographer said he used the 'doubler' with the extension tube. I'd planned to use the doubler with the shorter lens, which has the macro function, but the lenses of whatever it's used with have to be quite recessed and the 24/105 has a lens element almost flush with the end of the tube. It's too hot to lift the camera, but if it works it will make the doubler much more worth the price.

[Judy G. Russell]

But that's a wonderful picture. Great depth of field (compare it with the ladybug), the color is great, the wasp stuck around, and getting his (her? they're mostly--) shadow is terrific.Thanks, but I'd sure prefer it to be a tad sharper...

[sidney]

Are you sure the camera's forever dead?

It didn't resurrect after being dried out. Even if nothing is wrong except the on/off switch, I don't think I'll get to find out.

I just found a local grey market importer that has prices slightly less than what it would cost me at B&H after adding in international shipping. If I can satisfy myself that the warranty service they provide is acceptible, I'll probably get a camera from them. They have both the A530 and the A610. I'm trying to decide whether the flip screen is worth paying NZD$65 more right now, as that seems like the main benefit to the A610.

-- sidney

[Judy G. Russell]

I'm trying to decide whether the flip screen is worth paying NZD$65 more right now, as that seems like the main benefit to the A610.Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and then some. You can do SO much with that flip screen. Take a picture with the camera held over your head. Stand facing away from your subject and still get the shot as a total candid (the subject won't know you're shooting that way!). Angle the flip screen to minimize glare. It's about the best thing to come the way of photography since digital came about. You will not regret it one minute.

[Judy G. Russell]

Sidney, the photo below couldn't have been taken without the flip screen. These mushrooms are about 2" tall. I set the camera on the ground, tilted the screen so I could see it, and got the shot. It's this sort of thing I love the tilt screen for (click image for full size):

http://www.pbase.com/jgr/image/62435946/medium.jpg (http://www.pbase.com/jgr/image/62435946/original)

[MollyM/CA]

Judy G. Russell]It's this sort of thing I love the tilt screen

Me too, and you're absolutely right where the Kodak's concerned because it doesn't have a viewfinder, but with a camera that it's not impossible to get such pictures without the flip screen, just more chancy because the little frame outlines in the viewfinder never seem to work quite right, more work and harder on the clothes, which come back muddy and infested with plant parts. But if you go to an SLR or it's too bright to see the screen, the viewfinder might be the best bet. (With an SLR where you're looking right through the lens the parallax is no problem--)

This Sand Spurry was no more than an inch high. I was a mess because it was growing in mud. Still, for former film photographers who already have Nikkor or Canon lenses, a digital back might be the most satisfying way to go. For a while yet --the way the lenses and the sensing and processing technology are improving I begin to wonder how much longer the gap will hold.

[MollyM/CA]

I'd prefer almost every picture I've ever taken to be a tad sharper, and I'd prefer the blur to start just where I, not the camera, want it in the macros. But the likes of you and I are never going to get it in an outdoor shot of something alive and I'm not sure anyone does. Maybe if you could shoot at F22 or the equivalent, and then you'd have to have a tripod, and the tripod would not only chase the wasp away but do something to the flower so it wouldn't make a good picture (like smash it to the ground, or you would when you stepped on the base of the plant trying to get the tripod in). So kwitcherbitchin.

That said, I was flabbergasted with the depth of field my niece got with her new Kodak with it's ha'penny sized lens. Or seemed to. I didn't have a chance to really work the view over as I would at home --zoom way in or use the ThumbsPlus loupe to compare the various parts of her flowers. I do hope I'll have a chance to put up some examples. I e-mailed her mother for some. Can't think of a better way to show what a camera can do than a 13-year-old's first day with it.

[Judy G. Russell]

Okay, it may not be impossible for people who can crouch down in the mud to get shots like that, but for me... gimme the tilt screen any day!

[Judy G. Russell]

I'd prefer almost every picture I've ever taken to be a tad sharper, and I'd prefer the blur to start just where I, not the camera, want it in the macros.That's probably true, but bitchin' is in my job description!!!