Digital camera again...

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/30/04-02:04:47 AM Z
Message-id: <>

Dear list,

First, more, many more thanks to the list for help I would have been so
much loster without -- and I'll add that one of the most valuable comments
made here was about the depth of field being greater in digital than at
the (supposedly) same f-stop in analog. Strangely, or not, neither the
manual, nor the "short course" book, nor any of several websites on the
topic mentioned this. It must be known -- but not to the ordinary user.

I was showing the camera to a friend who's a whiz with all sorts of analog
cameras, and when she asked why it was set at f4, I explained -- feeling
at last that I actually knew something! But even at f4 the background is
sharp, sometimes too sharp... There's no predicting (at least not yet by
me), but sometimes the background smashed right on top of the figure is
great (sometimes not, however). Less than f4, incidentally, if we're in
the sun, will wipe out all tone and color.

One problem that everyone mentions when you say "digital camera" is the
delay in shooting ("shutter lag"). But that's not happening -- maybe the
G5 is quicker, or it's because I'm not doing moving targets: The actual
picture-taking is so quick that folks tend to be surprised: "You mean you
took it already?"

I'm trying to go slower in fact, but usually, the quicker I shoot, the
better the expression... no time to "pose." The problem is that rushing
that way I don't always manage to get the exposure reading from a middle
value, instead of the black or white I'm aiming at... (If we'd have a
little more rain, I'd stay at home and practice.)

I also thank Gord for getting that great big camera... It made me at last
understand that the G5 is quite petite !!! And I got out my old Domke
camera bag, buried in the closet these many years... It balances very well
& has all those compartments (though I think I need to color code them, to
find things).

One other point I share, tho maybe everyone knew it but me: I bought a 3rd
party battery for the spare because it was $15 cheaper, but didn't know
enough at the time to ask if the capacity was the same. It isn't. I don't
have the figure, but I've noted the intervals, and the Canon battery
usually lasts about twice as many days. It's not serious -- but if I miss
the low camera warning (and I can), I may lose the shot. If I had it to
do over, I'd get the Canon battery... (JI don't know why the battery
gave out so quickly on the first round -- maybe I just didn't know to be
careful with the monitor. It's fine now.)

OK, enough persiflage... My first question is: I'm usually about two
feet, maybe a tad more, from my subject... if I shoot at chest level,
often the legs dwindle, a funny perspective effect. I figure that's NOT
another effect of digital perspective, but just the way the 35 mm (or 28
mm??) of the lens behaves.... I rarely saw anything like it in analog
because I rarely shot that close and rarely with less than 50 mm.

(I can't zoom because in crowded streets it's nearly impossible to move
further away... And there's no use heading for wide open spaces,,,,,, they
have no pedestrians !)

This is getting too long and too late... I'm going to ask my second
question under separate cover tomorrow (or this evening -- it's 4:01 AM).

cheers and joy,

Received on Fri Jul 30 02:05:09 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 08/13/04-09:01:12 AM Z CST