| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/18/2002 05:12:04 PM · #1 |
I recieved a comment one time that suggested I should manually set the F-stop on my camera in order to better control DOF. I read the manual to my camera and I couldn't see anywhere on there if this is possible with my camera. I just wanted to ask any other users of this camera if it indeed is possible and, if so, how. Thanks in advance.
Connie |
|
|
|
10/18/2002 05:17:59 PM · #2 |
Connie,
It's "kind-of" possible... you can manually set it to a certain degree. If you are shooting in manual mode (M), you can click the WP button, and it will bring up the shutter speed, aperture controls. If you push display on that menu screen, it will change the aperture. You only have your choice of 2 "camera-determined" apertures though. For example, mine is changing from f2.8 to f8.0 right now. :)
JB |
|
|
|
10/18/2002 07:57:19 PM · #3 |
Thanks, Jeb, for responding. I will experiment. This is the first time I've found a limitation on this camera. So far, not a real big deal.
Thanks again,
Connie |
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:26:05 PM · #4 |
Without meaning any disrespect to JeB's answer, I'm not sure I understand where there would be a problem in controlling the f-stop with the S40. I have an S30, and from what I understand they operate virtually the same.
The best solution would be to put the camera in "Av" mode and use the "set" button (the rocker button on the upper right hand corner of the back of the camera) to choose an appropriate aperature. Choose the highest number you can (like f8) to get the most items in focus. The Av mode will select the appropriate shutter speed for the exposure. A small aperature could mean that you'll need to set up a tripod since the shutter speed will need to be slower.
Other than having fewer small aperatures to choose from, there should be no reason you can't fully control the Powershot cameras this way.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2002 11:43:16 PM · #5 |
Alan, I think you misread the camera make. They are discussing the A40, not the S40. It's a different camera.
But hey, you have D100 now. How are you liking it thusfar? |
|
|
|
10/19/2002 08:44:02 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Alan, I think you misread the camera make. They are discussing the A40, not the S40. It's a different camera.
Indeed - the S40 is much closer to the G2 (in terms of features & controls) than the A40...
|
|
|
|
10/19/2002 10:00:12 AM · #7 |
Ah -- terribly sorry! You're right... I thought we were having a Powershot discussion. I guess after getting the D100, my mind has been drifting from the Canon stuff this week :)
mcmurma - I got the D100 last Monday, and so far so good! I just wish the weather would clear up so I can give it a good workout. My neighbor (whobee) and I were planning a fall foliage journey to take some shots this weekend, but our weather is terrible.
My initial impressions of the D100 are great, though. The one thing that blows my mind is the battery capacity. It can supposedly take well over 500 shots on one recharge. I've taken nearly 200 so far and the battery life indicator (which the S30 doesn't have -- at least not until you are about to run out of battery) hasn't budged. |
|
|
|
10/19/2002 12:53:21 PM · #8 |
As a former Nikon slr user (I still have a half a dozen great lenses) I have been watching the Nikon DSLR market to see if one will come along that I can get excited about. (How in the world I will ever justify paying for it is another matter'-)
With the D100, the iso 200 thing blows my tiny mind. How do iso 200 pics compare to iso 50 pics from the S30? I'm sure they stone it to pieces, but 200 iso seems to be an awfully high starting point for such a pricy camera. I started out in photography using lots of kodachrome, both 25 and 64, so I am used to (and prefer) lower iso's. (Sidenote: Trips me out that you can't BUY kodachrome 25 anymore, and 64 is getting incredibly hard to find... It's like even the folks at Kodak are saying, yup, Fuji is a better film... Though my own archival tests between kodachrome and fujichrome clearly favor the kodachrome as the more stable emulsion.)
Anyway, the D1X seems to be an excellent camera, but the price would require a mortage. So Im still waiting to see what other cameras may come along with Nikon lens mounts. The Fuji S2 is cool, but software interpolation seems awfully cheesy at that price. Oh well. One of these days perhaps... |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 02:30:38 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
...With the D100, the iso 200 thing blows my tiny mind. How do iso 200 pics compare to iso 50 pics from the S30?...
I was equally surprised that the D100's lowest ISO was 200, but they're certainly crystal clear at that level. I would have preferred to have a 50 and 100 setting like my Powershot, but so long as it's nice & sharp, I'm fine with it. I haven't played with the ISO settings too much so far, but I've noticed very little grain when I have the D100 set to ISO 800, where the same setting on my Canon was noticably deteriorated.
Now when I set the ISO on the D100 to 6400, there's definitely some grain! |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 03:50:25 PM · #10 |
The thing is, for digital camera the ISO level is not the same as
the film ISO levels. Basically it is the amplification setting for
the digital camera sensor, so it is set to be 'about the same as the
equivalent ISO for film' and nothing much more accurate that that.
This means that ISO 25 on one digital camera could be the same as ISO 200
on another camera. The results are what matter, not the relative
numbers assigned to the settings. |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 04:06:51 PM · #11 |
| Gordon... thanks -- that's something I had wondered! |
|
|
|
10/21/2002 04:14:16 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The thing is, for digital camera the ISO level is not the same as
the film ISO levels. Basically it is the amplification setting for
the digital camera sensor, so it is set to be 'about the same as the
equivalent ISO for film' and nothing much more accurate that that.
This means that ISO 25 on one digital camera could be the same as ISO 200
on another camera. The results are what matter, not the relative
numbers assigned to the settings.
Yep, I know. Problem for me would be in the types of lighting I often seek out. The longer exposure times I've used for subjects such as waterfalls to capture the "silky water" effect would become much more difficult to capture at iso 200 vs 50 or even 100. I would need to use filtration (stacked polorizers?) just to slow things down enough to get the same results. |
|
|
|
10/30/2002 10:39:10 AM · #13 |
| You'd use neutral density filters for that instead of stacked polarisers. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 12:04:09 AM EDT.
