Question for camera people - Pics in post #40

[Catlady711]

Yeah, a point and shoot camera taking a great pix of a far away hawk, probably moving to boot, is gonna be a real challenge if not darn near impossible. That's one area a SLR/DSLR with a telephoto lens makes the difference.

What kind of camera is it you have if you don't mind me asking? Sometimes I can find manuals online for some cameras depending on what it is.

I'm not a pro either....yet, just a serious hobbyist for the moment, with a serious love for photography and cameras (and I buy some of my cameras used also).

I still remember when I got my first SLR back in the early '90's, at the time all I could afford was a Canon Rebel II (yup, that started my love for Canon lol). At the time it cost $400, and I drooled over the Elan cameras, WAY more than I could afford. Funny thing is they couldn't do much that my Rebel couldn't do either, and now both sell on ebay for pocket change, IF they even sell at all.

Cost of camera doesn't actually mean much. The price I paid for my SLR incidentally was the same price I paid years later for the first and second digital cameras. Both of which don't resell for squat, but from the pictures I posted you can tell they still do a more than adaquate job which is why I have kept them.

While I myself often spend more money than I need to, or even should at times on cameras and gear. The fact is it always angers me when people get talked into spending huge dollars on fancy equipment that doesn't suit their needs or is even necessary for what they want to do. When many times just a few tips would help them use what they have better and be much more satisfied with the pix, and have more money in the wallet. I've been known to tick off a few sales people at camera stores when I hear them upselling someone on something that obviously isn't going to benefit them for what they want to shoot or how they use it.

[jennielynn1970]

What I have now is an HP Photosmart R817. It's 5x optical zoom, and 8x digital zoom.

It has all kinds of stuff under the menus, but I have no clue what a lot of it means.

I wanted something to take good, clear pictures that would also be easy to email.

I'm not a fan of the HP, and I actually miss my Nikon Coolpix cause the one I have now is NOT as user friendly as that one was. The Nikon was only 2mega pixels, but took some good shots.

This HP has the longest shutter tiime I'm ever seen. I can't get a moving shot to save my life on it. Or if I'm taking a pic of one of the cat, you know he's gonna change his pose by the time the shutter actually goes off. It's a pain in my butt. I want something that is easy to use, and has a faster shutter speed.

I did buy it used on ebay, about 2 years ago, and it was about 150.00 with shipping included.

[Catlady711]

Here's the review for your camera from my fav site for looking up cameras.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_...s/hp_r817.html

I like that site because it does a good job with showing pix of the menus, and once showed me a trick for one of my cameras that was NOT in my manual!

From what I'm reading there your camera is something cross between my A40 & S3 with more features built in for novice photographers that email pix alot. Not quite as user friendly for menu access as my Canon's but not the worst I've seen by far.

The 'shutter time' you're refering to is called 'shutter lag', it's a common thing with any point and shoot digital camera, some are better than others, but they all have it. DSLR/SLR do not have shutter lag (one of the other perks of a very high price tag).

The trick to dealing with shutter lag (and my A40 has a horrendous one) is to use the pre-focus (shutter button pushed halfway and hold it), wait for the action, then push the shutter button gently all the way down just BEFORE when you want to stop the action, taking alot of shots also helps. After awhile you'll get better at timing the shots to catch the moment you want. According to the site for yoru camra "Shutter lag (time from pressing the shutter release to actually capturing the image) was less than 1/10 of a second when pre-focused" That's not too bad for a P&S camera really.

Pushing your menu button (big round button on the back) will let you scroll through the different settings your camera has available. This will let you change your ISO speed, white balance, set your image quality etc.

Your camera also has a built in Macro mode focusing down to 4.7 inches. That is great for shooting close ups of flowers, bugs etc. Just be sure you're not blocking your own light, I've done that too many times myself. lol

Overall your camera isn't a bad one, it just depends on what you want to do with it whether it suits your needs or not. Best I can tell from reading the detailed review is your camera is more than capable of taking excellent pictures that you could even enlarge past 8x10 size.

[jennielynn1970]

Hrm... basically that means I just don't know how to use it properly. Bad librarian, not reading the manuals!!

Guess I'll have time to do that now, being on sabbatical now, lol.

I'll have to check out that site and read up on abbreviations and such (ISO? I thought that was In Search Of... ).

I just picked up my mom and dad's camera. Oh my goodness. It's a mess!!! Talk about dirty!! My dad should be ashamed for the state it's in. I'm going to go to the one camera shop down here and see what they say about cleaning and refurbing it. My mom said if they'll take it in trade for something else, I can do whatever I want to. Wow.

[Catlady711]

I can't be sure what ISO stands for anymore without googling it, (been using the abbreviation too many years) but basically it would refer to the sensitivity of film (or in this case digital sensor) and the amount of grain (or noise as it's called in digital).

Here's a quick breakdown; Low ISO numbers mean less grain (noise), but low sensitivity to light. Higher ISO numbers mean more grain (noise), but high sensitivity to light.

Quick examples: (all hand holding, no tripod)

Bright sunlight, moving subject - ISO 50-100

Cloudy day, moving subject - ISO 100-200

Setting sun, moving subject - ISO 400-800

Indoors, moving subject - ISO 400-1600

If you have a tripod and a NON moving subject you can usually get away with lower ISO numbers just use a longer shutter speed.


This may sound a bit weird but I've had many people do this before and they've said it was helpful.... Post a couple pix you took that you think turned out bad, I should be able to kinda give you a rough idea what caused the problems, or what you can do in the future to prevent them if possible. If you have any details about the lighting, or settings (you can find those under properties or info when you right click your pictures usually), those might help narrow it down a bit more. I have a couple friends I help out by email and that's the only way I've figured out to do it since I'm not there when they take the pix. Up to you if you want to or not.

[Cinder & Smoke]

I can't be sure what ISO stands for anymore without googling it ...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -

ISO film speed scales

International Standard ISO 5800:1987 from the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defines both an arithmetic scale
and a logarithmic scale for measuring color-negative film speed. Related standards
ISO 6:1993 and ISO 2240:2003 define scales for speeds
of black-and-white negative film and color reversal film.

In the ISO arithmetic scale, which corresponds to the older ASA scale, doubling
the speed of a film (that is, halving the amount of light that is necessary to expose the film)
implies doubling the numeric value that designates the film speed. In the ISO logarithmic scale,
which corresponds to the older DIN scale, doubling the speed of a film implies
adding 3° to the numeric value that designates the film speed.
For example, a film rated ISO 200/24° is twice as sensitive as a film rated ISO 100/21°.

To continue with a really *serious* technical discussion - go to >>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed

/s/ Phred

[Catlady711]

Thanks Cinder, I had totally forgotten what it stood for. I was thinking International Standard something but couldn't remember what the O stood for. Although the way it's written technically it should have been IOS. LOL

Yeah, that whole ASA thing used to throw me off in the beginning until I got it figured out that it was the same as ISO.

OMGosh that site is 'serious', WOW. Talk about high tech wording and mathmatics!

Since many people I talk to about photography only know digital I found I have to simplify things. Actually ALOT of people I talk to about photography stuff are just people who just want to get good pictures but don't know why their pix don't come out good. I usually simplify it down so I don't confuse them with too many technical things they don't understand or aren't interested in anyways.

I've gotten into the habit of simplifying my 'tech speak' so much that when I'm around very serious photographers I'm sure they think I don't know which end to point at the subject and which end to look through. LOL