Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Want to buy a new digital camera to replace my Nikon 5700, big problem is museum flash

Reply
Thread Tools

Want to buy a new digital camera to replace my Nikon 5700, big problem is museum flash

 
 
Gisle Hannemyr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-06-2005
All Things Mopar <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Gisle H.:


> The problem is, for reasons I haven't been able to
> determine, that the flash pulse shuts down prematurely.
> And, please, no more talk about glare "confusing" the
> TTL sensor!


Ooops! I've already done that.

And for the life of me, I can't understand why this should not be
mentioned.. After all - there must be a reason for this problem
only appearing in car museums, and glare seems to me to be the
most likely culprit.

>> Anyway - I would suggest you try to go fully manual.
>> Shoot with 100% flash power and the largest aperture.
>> If it still is underexposed, then your flash is not
>> powerful enough and you need a more powerful flash.


> Now you're having the same comprehension problem as
> "Paul". What part of "it didn't work on manual" don't
> you understand? I try to read what posters say /in their
> entirety/ before I "run off at the mouth" with a reply.
> You're now mis-replying when I just previously clarified
> the exact point you're refuting.


OK - I get it now. You don't really want to be able to take
correctly exposed images in car museums. You just want
somebody to recommend to you to buy some new gear that probably
is not going to work any better in car museums than the excellent
equipment you've already tried.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Skip M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-06-2005
"Gisle Hannemyr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Skip M" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> Lumiquest makes a couple of flash "bouncers," the MiniBounce and the
>> PocketBounce. These allow you to bounce flash when not in an
>> environment that would normally allow it, like outdoors or with tall
>> ceilings.

>
> That is unfortunately not the case.
>
> The LumiQuest devices only spread the light. This works fine in
> an environment with a light walls and ceilings, which then will
> reflect the light spread by LumiQuest back on the scene. But
> with no reflective surfaces, the light spread by the LumiQuest is
> just wasted. Outdoors, for intstance, it is useless.
>
> These diffusers doesn't magically turn the strobe from a point light
> source to an area light source. Modifiers that actually has area,
> such a soft boxes and umbrelleas, will do that.
> --
> - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gisle, it is not wasted any more than any other light source. It is just
more diffuse, that is all. True, they are not as diffuse as an umbrella,
but far more practical for putting on a shoe mounted flash. And
considerably softer than a direct source.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-06-2005
Jerry,

I've followed this thread and the previous ones, and I'd like to suggest a
different approach which has worked for me in museum situations - albeit
not cars. Perhaps if you camera dealer will allow you another test, you
may bet some better results?

- use natural light, not flash

- use a camera allowing longer hand-held exposures - e.g Panasonic FZ20.
This has an image-stabilised lens giving about three stops gain in what
you can hand-hold at. So with a 100mm equivalent focal length you might
be able to hand-hold down to 1/12s or even longer.

- (perhaps) get a monopod to allow slower shutter speeds, without the
inconvenience of a tripod.

If you do try the FZ20, I recommend keeping it on ISO 100 to avoid the
noise being too great.

Yes, do try it with flash as well, but just perhaps the natural light will
work as well. If it does, and you want to have something better, then you
could also consider a DSLR with wide-aperture lenses. The DSLR would
deliver lower noise or allow the use of a higher ISO and hence faster
shutter speeds.

Yes, I know you /want/ flash - but just perhaps without flash may give you
the consistency you seek.

Cheers,
David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Randy Berbaum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-06-2005
David J Taylor
: <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
: wrote:
: Jerry,

: I've followed this thread and the previous ones, and I'd like to
: suggest a different approach which has worked for me in museum
: situations - albeit not cars. Perhaps if you camera dealer will allow
: you another test, you may bet some better results?

: - use natural light, not flash

: - use a camera allowing longer hand-held exposures - e.g Panasonic
: FZ20. This has an image-stabilised lens giving about three stops gain
: in what you can hand-hold at. So with a 100mm equivalent focal length
: you might be able to hand-hold down to 1/12s or even longer.

: - (perhaps) get a monopod to allow slower shutter speeds, without the
: inconvenience of a tripod.

: If you do try the FZ20, I recommend keeping it on ISO 100 to avoid the
: noise being too great.

: Yes, do try it with flash as well, but just perhaps the natural light
: will work as well. If it does, and you want to have something better,
: then you could also consider a DSLR with wide-aperture lenses. The
: DSLR would deliver lower noise or allow the use of a higher ISO and
: hence faster shutter speeds.

: Yes, I know you /want/ flash - but just perhaps without flash may give
: you the consistency you seek.

: Cheers,
: David

Along the same lines. If you have a camera with a B (bulb) setting (mostly
on DSLRs) you could actually "paint" with your flash. Place the camera on
a tripod, use lowest ISO, close down the lens (highest f-stop) and lock
the shutter open. Then walk around the subject (car) with a flash with a
"test" button, flashing it at intervals with special emphasis on any
special feature that you like. Then close the shutter and wait for the
camera to do its thing. It is possible to take a full min to paint the
light around and get a nice clear picture. And as a side benefit, if there
are a few people wandering around your subject, anything that is moving
tends to blur out and so they may tend to disappear. And this scheme works
best in an area that is rather dark. I have seen photos in caves where the
shutter was open for upwards of half an hour with several hundred
individual flashes from a single flash unit.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

 
Reply With Quote
 
All Things Mopar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-06-2005
David J Taylor commented courteously...

I'm afraid not, David. I simply refuse to believe that it isn't
possible with a $1000 camera to do the same thing a $150 one can
do. Maybe the "good" camera is "too good", but I do not and will
not shoot available light. End of discussion on that subject.

> Jerry,
>
> I've followed this thread and the previous ones, and I'd
> like to suggest a different approach which has worked for
> me in museum situations - albeit not cars. Perhaps if you
> camera dealer will allow you another test, you may bet some
> better results?
>
> - use natural light, not flash
>
> - use a camera allowing longer hand-held exposures - e.g
> Panasonic FZ20. This has an image-stabilised lens giving
> about three stops gain in what you can hand-hold at. So
> with a 100mm equivalent focal length you might be able to
> hand-hold down to 1/12s or even longer.
>
> - (perhaps) get a monopod to allow slower shutter speeds,
> without the inconvenience of a tripod.
>
> If you do try the FZ20, I recommend keeping it on ISO 100
> to avoid the noise being too great.
>
> Yes, do try it with flash as well, but just perhaps the
> natural light will work as well. If it does, and you want
> to have something better, then you could also consider a
> DSLR with wide-aperture lenses. The DSLR would deliver
> lower noise or allow the use of a higher ISO and hence
> faster shutter speeds.
>
> Yes, I know you /want/ flash - but just perhaps without
> flash may give you the consistency you seek.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
>




--
ATM, aka Jerry
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-06-2005
All Things Mopar wrote:
> David J Taylor commented courteously...
>
> I'm afraid not, David. I simply refuse to believe that it isn't
> possible with a $1000 camera to do the same thing a $150 one can
> do. Maybe the "good" camera is "too good", but I do not and will
> not shoot available light. End of discussion on that subject.


No problem, Jerry, I so hope you find a solution.

Cheers,
David


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GIDS 2009 Java:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf Python 0 12-24-2008 07:35 AM
Canon Museum: Camera Hall and History Hall newcamz.blogspot.com Digital Photography 5 07-25-2006 03:29 AM
I want to buy a 3.0 MP digital camera.. What one would you recommend? footman727@yahoo.com Digital Photography 0 03-15-2005 03:40 PM
Want To Buy: Broken Digital Camera with good LCD screen ff Digital Photography 1 01-03-2005 02:26 AM



Advertisments