Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Churchcrawling] Re: Digital Cameras

Expand Messages
  • Julian Doncaster (Yahoo)
    ... From: Riverandtree@aol.com [mailto:Riverandtree@aol.com] Sent: 01 June 2004 03:58 To: Churchcrawling@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Churchcrawling] Re:
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Riverandtree@... [mailto:Riverandtree@...]
      Sent: 01 June 2004 03:58
      To: Churchcrawling@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Churchcrawling] Re: Digital Cameras


      >Thanks Julian for the information about printers.
      >I have had Epson printers, since I bought my first computer many moons ago.
      >I have always been happy with them, and they are workhorses.

      I had one bad Epson printer.

      The original MX80 was ahead of it's time.
      Followed by an FX80 that was utterly dreadful at feeding paper, and replaced
      by a Star NL-10 (first low-end printer with a working, cheap, paper sheet
      feed).
      Then switched to the Canon that looked like a large-slot toaster (still
      going strong 13 years later).
      Then back to Epson when they brought out an A2 colour inkjet (in 1997).
      Imho they have never lost the lead since.

      Julian
    • Gareth Foster
      I tried to send this the other day when it was more current, but the ISP wasn t co-operating! A known problem of automatic digital camers of the compact
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 31, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I tried to send this the other day when it was more current, but the ISP
        wasn't co-operating!

        A known problem of automatic digital camers of the "compact" (whatever
        that means) type is that they insist on resetting everything whenever
        the shutter is pressed, thus delaying actually taking the picture by a
        couple of seconds. This is fatal with a moving subject and is probably
        part of the cause of fuzzy interiors - you get tired of waiting and move
        the camera!

        Solutions:

        (1) Turn of unnecessary automation.

        (2) Press down the shutter halfway to make it auto focus, etc., then,
        when it has finished fiddling about, fully press the button WITHOUT
        RELEASING IT IN BETWEEN; that way it cannot delay and fires immediately.

        (3) Use a tripod; small pocket size ones are available which can stand
        on quite a small surface. I recently bought a tripod with flexible legs
        which should stand on rough surfaces, and it only cost about £2.

        (4) Get a camera wfich does not delay taking photos, SLRs don't.


        Gareth
      • Doctor Digi
        ... then, ... immediately. Good points, but it should be noted that most consumer digitals have a significant shutter lag. ... Well, actually, they do
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 31, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Churchcrawling@yahoogroups.com, "Gareth Foster" <g1drg@b...>
          wrote:

          > (2) Press down the shutter halfway to make it auto focus, etc.,
          then,
          > when it has finished fiddling about, fully press the button WITHOUT
          > RELEASING IT IN BETWEEN; that way it cannot delay and fires
          immediately.


          Good points, but it should be noted that most consumer digitals have
          a significant shutter lag.


          > (4) Get a camera wfich does not delay taking photos, SLRs don't.


          Well, actually, they do (although most are quite quick - but not if
          you are taking action shots) - unless you are willing to shell out
          for the top-of-the-range. The same comments you and I have made still
          apply.

          BTW, an SLR is not a solution as it comes with its own set
          of "problems" if you are coming from a point-and-shoot camera. The
          major one is that you will find you suddenly have poorly focussed
          shots - mostly due to a lack of depth-of-field.

          The reason is that on a P&S camera, the lens is so small that even
          with an aperture of, say, f2.8 (that's "wide open" - so letting lots
          of light in) you have a HUGE depth-of-field - enough to cover the
          interior of a church. With an SLR the lens is many times bigger and
          at f2.8 your DoF is going to be very narrow - not enough to cover a
          church interior. To get more DoF you have to reduce the aperture,
          meaning longer shutter speeds and - you guessed it - you need a
          tripod.

          One last point - rather than get one of those useless screwy
          little "tripods", get a monopod instead. Used correctly they are
          steadier and, as a bonus, you can use them as a walking staff when
          not being used for photography. Also usefull (like a full-sized
          tripod) for photographing through high up windows.

          dd
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.