Re: The "Oh no not another Burpday Moot" Thread

Carl LHS Williams wrote:

Sena wrote:

guy.king@xxxxxxxxxxxx said...

BTW, on which subject, and on account of being faulty, (for want of a better
excuse) I've just bought a minolta Dimage Z3 off've eBay. factory recon
(with 6 months warranty from minolta) and I don't want to know if it was a
rip-off at 90-odd quid.

Did you avail yourself of the opportunity to play with my Z3 while I was
over then? My main gripe is the poor focus in dim light. Other than that
it's not a bad camera.


I'm still looking for an easy to use fingery camera that will take
indoor photos sans flash. They seem to be about as common as hen's
teeth.


Wot WonK said - many of 'em will do it. An image stabiliser will help a

lot, and the bigger the physical size of the sensor relative to the
number
of pixels, the better - in other words summat with fewer pixels might
well
be better in low light.

You never get something for nothing. Less light needs longer exposures,
during which things have a tendency to move.

Cheaper/smaller lenses usually let less light through (the maximum
aperture is smaller), and bigger, more expensive lenses let more
light through at the expense of depth of field, i.e. less is in focus
at a
wider aperture.

Bigger sensor elements means more sensitivity (but lower sensor
resolution), bigger sensors cost more money, take more space and
require physically larger lenses with longer focal lengths.

'Tis all trade-offs.

low light piccies with no flash need slower-moving subjects, bigger
camera sensors, faster (bigger aperture) lenses, a tripod, very
steady hands, image stabilisers, extra non-flash lighting or all of
the above.

More magnification also magnifies any movement - trying to take
pictures of a fast-moving child's nostril hairs in candlelight from
the other side of the room, you're essentially on to a loser pretty
much regardless.

Making the camera itself a lot physically heavier can help in terms
of eliminating shake if you're disinclined to use a tripod - gaffer
tape
a heavy object to it or summat, and drink less coffee beforehand,
rest the camera on a solid surface, learn to go dead still and to
press the shutter release without moving the camera.

The D70 and similar SLRs are quite good in low light 'cos of a modest
6M pixels in a sensor knocking on for an inch across, whereas yer
typical moden digi compact has a miniscule sensor with 6 or 8 million
pixels crammed in, most of which might as well not be there in low
light 'cos you'll just get an apallingly slow shutter speed and lots of

noise.

The ability to hand-hold low shutter speeds comes down to
practice. I got to be able to manage about a second or two using
me little Coolpix (3M pixels) but it's not easy, and obviously if your
subject moves then it doesn't matter if you're a human tripod or not.
Still, it's all good practice - I routinely handhold 1/15 sec on
"proper"
cameras and the piccies are sharp enough, more often than not
these days.

I would say start with what you've got and practice, learn what it
can do, and how and why.

By and large, although posher kit might give you an edge in terms
of overall quality, and physically bigger sensors, lenses and image
stabilisers are a definite and very measurable advantage, for any
given camera the photographer can make at least as much of a
difference.

I can take acceptably sharp pictures at 1/8 second on a typical 35mm
SLR with a 50mm lens. The "rule of thumb" minimum shutter speed
for the average person to get a sharp picture on a 35mm SLR is
one over the focal length, i.e. 1/50 sec for a 50mm lens and so on.

Grace Robertson said "a healthy young person ought to be able to
handhold 1/4 or 1/2 second," in a kind of stern and challenging
way, but she uses Leica rangefinders which are lovely and smooth
to handhold, and has had _rather_ a lot of practice. She would take
vastly better pictures in available light using your existing digi cam
than I could using one of her Leicas, I suspect.


I've had decent results out of the Fuji Finepix 2800, with and without the little built in flash*, and the hubby is doing rather well with his new Canon EOS 350D. I find the Fuji excellent for my rather tiddly paws. The Canon is a bit big. The hubby has huge paws, and even the Canon looks little-ish in his grasp.

I think this new camera is a thinly disguised excuse for a shedload of new posh lenses and filters and lens hoods. Ne're mind: It gives me a whole catalogue of birthday and crimble prezzy ideas for the next few years!


*While I do take *some* pix of scenery and stuff when out, mostly I take close-ups and full length indoor shots of garments and bits of sewing and sewing machinery. They tend not to wander about much! I must admit that the two new daylight fluro's in the new room (four 6' tubes in a room 12' by 22' approx) are a great help for some of this.
--
Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.katedicey.co.uk
Click on Kate's Pages and explore!
.

Loading