ND70

Elizabeth Schott · 01-10-2005, 12:59 AM

Sorry Jimmie and all you Nikon guys, a Canon person jumping in here.

Jimmie, if you are getting a slight blur and have "old age eyes", which you don't since you are such a young'n... you should have a diopter adjustment on the view finder of your camera, this might need adjustment. The Canon will not let you do a auto focus unless the flash is accessible. It cannot read the focus without the right amount of light. This is really disappointing for me. Sometimes I shoot it in auto then switch to manual just to make sure I have the right focus.

On the Canon, the cable shutter release is plugged into the side where you attach your USB cord. Personally, I don't care if your camera is set in concrete, you never touch it during a longer exposure and the self timer is so annoying, especially when shooting children. I have a cable release which attaches, it was only 40 dollars and functions like a standard SLR's - meaning a 1/2 pressure touch gives you meter readings, press full and you get shutter release. I still keep my eye in the view finder while shooting mainly so light is not seeping in. I have not looked at the remote ones.

Michele, you should check out the Gig memory cards now, I couldn't believe that they are now the same price as 1/2 the memory was a year ago.

Jimmie Arroyo · 01-10-2005, 01:28 AM

Quote:

The Canon will not let you do a auto focus unless the flash is accessible. It cannot read the focus without the right amount of light. This is really disappointing for me. Sometimes I shoot it in auto then switch to manual just to make sure I have the right focus.

I just realized that was the exact problem I am having with the Nikon. I took photos recently of a girl and of her mom. The pics with a flash came out very clear, whereas the others in lower light did not. For the Nikon owners, is there a way to make the model light near the lens turn on. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does'nt. If not, I will have to do the same as Beth, turning to manual. Thanks for bringing it up Beth.

Michele, I did'nt think it would make a difference, but the Nikon Capture software, recommended by Marvin is incredible. It was worth the extra $90. (if interested, I found it cheapest at the time thru CDW) When using RAW or NEF files, it helps adjusts photos better than Photoshop ever did, and quicker. I love the temperature control on it. It changes your original pic to daylight, flash, incandescent, etc... Then you can adjust it further by making it cooler or warmer with a slide bar. After, you can send it to Photoshop for any further manipulations. It may sound like a longer process now, but imho, it's quicker at getting better results. Then you press a button which automatically sends it to Photoshop if you need to do any erasing, copying, cutting and so on. I found it saves time in the long run. Hopefully Marvin can chime in to agree or disagree.

Michele Rushworth · 01-10-2005, 10:20 AM

Thanks, Jimmie. Sounds like I'll have to look into that.

Mike McCarty · 01-10-2005, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmie Arroyo

I just realized that was the exact problem I am having with the Nikon. I took photos recently of a girl and of her mom. The pics with a flash came out very clear, whereas the others in lower light did not. For the Nikon owners, is there a way to make the model light near the lens turn on. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does'nt. If not, I will have to do the same as Beth, turning to manual.

About the low light without a flash -- Do you recal what the ISO setting was? You really have to manage this setting in low light. If you leave it at 200 your shutter speed can drop to a point that will allow you to pick up very slight body / camera movement and thus make the picture blurry. I have gone as high as 800 ISO with acceptable results. As far as the other problem -- I don't think I understand.

Michele Rushworth · 01-10-2005, 10:48 AM

How has the Auto ISO setting worked out for everyone in low light? Doesn't that let the camera choose the best ISO for the lighting situation?

Mike McCarty · 01-10-2005, 10:59 AM

Michele,

I think this makes sense in theory. This is one of those settings that I may work myself into. I don't know what the down side to this would be. So many good features to take advantage of.

Elizabeth Schott · 01-10-2005, 11:02 AM

Mike - cute little girl, by the way - the ISO wouldn't have anything to do with a digital being blurry, as I understand this. The lens is the one that needs the light for focus in auto, not the recording of the pixels - isn't this true?

Jimmie using my trick while shooting people really doesn't work, unless you want just an idea. People move too much.

Congrats on the camera!

Mike McCarty · 01-10-2005, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth Schott

Mike - cute little girl, by the way - the ISO wouldn't have anything to do with a digital being blurry, as I understand this. The lens is the one that needs the light for focus in auto, not the recording of the pixels - isn't this true?

The ISO setting directly and proportionally affects the shutter speed. A shutter speed set too low will cause blur, a high SS will stop action. The longer the shutter is open the more time to record movement. You could think of it like this -- when the shutter is open you are recording like a movie camera for that instant in time.

Jimmie Arroyo · 01-10-2005, 11:53 AM

I always use a 200 setting, I'd use 100 if it were an option when using flash. I still feel it's still an inability to focus when not enough light is present regardless of speed. In no way am I trying to speak as an expert, but even taking pictures of my artwork, I always get the best results when taking them outside on a bright day. Under lower light conditions, it will usually blur a tiny bit, just enough to bother me. I thought it was me accidently moving the camera, which is why I had brought up the use of a remote control due to the lack of a cable cord option. I always use a tripod, and I have a pretty light touch (I think I do). I will continue to experiment with the model light on my strobe.

Michele, not to keep pushing the issue, but while I was with my wife at the doctor's this morning, I was browsing thru a copy of Popular Photography. Nov. 2004. It had a brief article on white balance and digital cameras. It highly recommends using RAW files, or at least taking both RAW and JPEG. If you'd like, I could e-mail you a sample of two pics, one not touched and one with only white balance adjustments. The difference was made under five minutes. It gives the immediate impression that a warming filter was used. It would have taken me (you may be quicker if you're better at Photoshop) about fifteen minutes opening seperate windows and balancing each color individually. The auto adjust feature in Photoshop rarely gives me a good result. Anyhoo, let me know if you'd like to view the pics before spending the money on the software. They're about 5 megs each, but I'd have to get permission from the model first before sending.