If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Taking Night Pictures with Canon S410
I've had the Canon S410 camera for a couple of months now and am happy
with its features except for one: I cannot seem to take long-distance evening photos with the camera! If I shoot an image up close in the dark, then the camera works wonderfully. It illuminates the subject matter and the picture comes out very clear. Pictures taken from far away are a different story. If I shoot in auto mode, the image comes out dark. If I shoot in manual mode and adjust the ISO speed to be higher, then the image comes out fuzzy. Leaving the ISO speed low results in a clear but dark picture. I don't carry a tripod, and unless there is an object for me to place my hands on as I take the photo - which usually isn't the case - then night shots are pretty much out with this camera. Any advice? Any other adjustments I could be setting? Suggestions appreciated! Joy |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Martindale wrote:
[] Long exposures are prone to camera shake, and you simply must have a tripod for exposures longer than 1/8 sec or so if you expect them to be sharp. [] Dave A tripod or other stable support. We have had great success just using available objects - walls, seats, ledges etc - particularly with the Nikon Coolpix 990 range where the body is split so that you can alter the angle of the lens relative to the firmly supported body. Others suggest bean-bags. Just make sure that the camera is stable, and perhaps use the delayed action to ensure that you are not touching the camera at the moment of exposure. Cheers, David |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Martindale wrote:
[] Long exposures are prone to camera shake, and you simply must have a tripod for exposures longer than 1/8 sec or so if you expect them to be sharp. [] Dave A tripod or other stable support. We have had great success just using available objects - walls, seats, ledges etc - particularly with the Nikon Coolpix 990 range where the body is split so that you can alter the angle of the lens relative to the firmly supported body. Others suggest bean-bags. Just make sure that the camera is stable, and perhaps use the delayed action to ensure that you are not touching the camera at the moment of exposure. Cheers, David |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
(Dave Martindale) wrote in message ...
(Joy Brunetti) writes: If I shoot an image up close in the dark, then the camera works wonderfully. It illuminates the subject matter and the picture comes out very clear. Yes, the built-in flash illuminates things out to 10 feet or so (depending on ISO setting) If I shoot in auto mode, the image comes out dark. If I shoot in manual mode and adjust the ISO speed to be higher, then the image comes out fuzzy. Leaving the ISO speed low results in a clear but dark picture. I don't carry a tripod, and unless there is an object for me to place my hands on as I take the photo - which usually isn't the case - then night shots are pretty much out with this camera. You're running into a fundamental limit that affects all cameras. You need a certain amount of light to create an image. There are two ways to do this: a long exposure with existing light, or by adding light. Long exposures are prone to camera shake, and you simply must have a tripod for exposures longer than 1/8 sec or so if you expect them to be sharp. A monopod is better than nothing, but it's not comparable to a tripod unless you use something else at the same time as the monopod. So basically then I *have* to have a tripod, or at least some object to place the camera on as I take a photo? There's no "just alter these settings in addition to the ISO speed and it will be better"? weak grin I was in Europe in June at the Vatican trying to take a picture of the Pieta, which is in back of protective glass due to the ax-wielding idiot that tried to chop off bits of the statue back in the 80s. Anyways, taking the picture with flash was out, since the light would have bounced off the glass. So I took the photo without flash in auto mode and the camera raised the ISO speed, which means blurry picture. I played around with the ISO speed in manual mode and I got nothing but dark and/or blurry pictures. And this was all while I was setting the camera on the ledge in front of the glass to minimize shake. Basically I did not get a picture of the Pieta, nor was I able to take any pictures after 8:00 PM during the entire trip from afar. My crappy 35-mm Konika camera had no trouble with night shots, and I'm contemplating bringing it along in the future just to be able to take evening shots! But I shouldn't have to do this... To add light, you'll need a flash. The camera doesn't have a flash sync output, so you need an external flash that's triggered by the camera flash. You may need a flash that's fired by the *second* of two closely-spaced incoming light pulses, since the Canon cameras tend to fire their internal flash twice (once to measure exposure). Automatic exposure control for flash won't work either, so you'll need to manually set flash output, or use a flash that has its own auto flash sensor. And after all this, flash range is *still* limited to some larger but finite distance. You can't illuminate landscapes with flash. So what to do? I understand that landspaces have to have some natural lighting in order to be visible in evening shots, but when they do and I still get nothing but blurry pictures from this camera, what can be done about that? (For example, the Colosseum is lit at night, and I could not get any good pictures of it past sunset from a block away, which would have been pretty.) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
(Dave Martindale) wrote in message ...
(Joy Brunetti) writes: If I shoot an image up close in the dark, then the camera works wonderfully. It illuminates the subject matter and the picture comes out very clear. Yes, the built-in flash illuminates things out to 10 feet or so (depending on ISO setting) If I shoot in auto mode, the image comes out dark. If I shoot in manual mode and adjust the ISO speed to be higher, then the image comes out fuzzy. Leaving the ISO speed low results in a clear but dark picture. I don't carry a tripod, and unless there is an object for me to place my hands on as I take the photo - which usually isn't the case - then night shots are pretty much out with this camera. You're running into a fundamental limit that affects all cameras. You need a certain amount of light to create an image. There are two ways to do this: a long exposure with existing light, or by adding light. Long exposures are prone to camera shake, and you simply must have a tripod for exposures longer than 1/8 sec or so if you expect them to be sharp. A monopod is better than nothing, but it's not comparable to a tripod unless you use something else at the same time as the monopod. So basically then I *have* to have a tripod, or at least some object to place the camera on as I take a photo? There's no "just alter these settings in addition to the ISO speed and it will be better"? weak grin I was in Europe in June at the Vatican trying to take a picture of the Pieta, which is in back of protective glass due to the ax-wielding idiot that tried to chop off bits of the statue back in the 80s. Anyways, taking the picture with flash was out, since the light would have bounced off the glass. So I took the photo without flash in auto mode and the camera raised the ISO speed, which means blurry picture. I played around with the ISO speed in manual mode and I got nothing but dark and/or blurry pictures. And this was all while I was setting the camera on the ledge in front of the glass to minimize shake. Basically I did not get a picture of the Pieta, nor was I able to take any pictures after 8:00 PM during the entire trip from afar. My crappy 35-mm Konika camera had no trouble with night shots, and I'm contemplating bringing it along in the future just to be able to take evening shots! But I shouldn't have to do this... To add light, you'll need a flash. The camera doesn't have a flash sync output, so you need an external flash that's triggered by the camera flash. You may need a flash that's fired by the *second* of two closely-spaced incoming light pulses, since the Canon cameras tend to fire their internal flash twice (once to measure exposure). Automatic exposure control for flash won't work either, so you'll need to manually set flash output, or use a flash that has its own auto flash sensor. And after all this, flash range is *still* limited to some larger but finite distance. You can't illuminate landscapes with flash. So what to do? I understand that landspaces have to have some natural lighting in order to be visible in evening shots, but when they do and I still get nothing but blurry pictures from this camera, what can be done about that? (For example, the Colosseum is lit at night, and I could not get any good pictures of it past sunset from a block away, which would have been pretty.) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On 15 Aug 2004 10:42:19 -0700, (Joy Brunetti)
wrote: So basically then I *have* to have a tripod, or at least some object to place the camera on as I take a photo? Hi Joy, I don't normally take a tripod with me--certainly not to Europe--but I've found that in many situations it's possible to find a solid surface that I can either rest the camera on (horizontal) or hold the camera against (vertical). This photo was taken with the S400 being held sideways against a post. (The flat side of the S400 makes this fairly easy to do.)The exposure was 1/5 second, which is definitely not handholdable. The photo is published in the September, 2004, issue of Stereophile Magazine. http://www.pbase.com/image/32426835 The following photo was taken with the Canon S30, and although I don't have the exposure info, but I know that it was again in the non-handholdable range, with the camera resting on a horizontal solid surface. http://www.pbase.com/image/3524263. There's no "just alter these settings in addition to the ISO speed and it will be better"? Forget turning up the ISO. That will just increase the visual noise level (like grain) without giving you much of a meaningful increase in sensitivity. A longer exposure is much better. Make sure you use the self-timer exposure rather than the normal shutter release button. (Pressing the latter can introduce vibration.) Bob |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On 15 Aug 2004 10:42:19 -0700, (Joy Brunetti)
wrote: So basically then I *have* to have a tripod, or at least some object to place the camera on as I take a photo? Hi Joy, I don't normally take a tripod with me--certainly not to Europe--but I've found that in many situations it's possible to find a solid surface that I can either rest the camera on (horizontal) or hold the camera against (vertical). This photo was taken with the S400 being held sideways against a post. (The flat side of the S400 makes this fairly easy to do.)The exposure was 1/5 second, which is definitely not handholdable. The photo is published in the September, 2004, issue of Stereophile Magazine. http://www.pbase.com/image/32426835 The following photo was taken with the Canon S30, and although I don't have the exposure info, but I know that it was again in the non-handholdable range, with the camera resting on a horizontal solid surface. http://www.pbase.com/image/3524263. There's no "just alter these settings in addition to the ISO speed and it will be better"? Forget turning up the ISO. That will just increase the visual noise level (like grain) without giving you much of a meaningful increase in sensitivity. A longer exposure is much better. Make sure you use the self-timer exposure rather than the normal shutter release button. (Pressing the latter can introduce vibration.) Bob |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Small red dot on night pictures | Joshua Beall | Digital Photography | 16 | September 2nd 04 03:25 PM |
Canon s410 and standard (powered) USB mini-B cable | John Faughnan | Digital Photography | 3 | August 3rd 04 10:43 PM |
BEST CHOICE: Canon IXUS 430 (S410), Nikon Coolpix 4200 or MinoltaDimage G400? | Veggie | Digital Photography | 0 | June 29th 04 10:18 PM |
For Canon aficionados? Differences Between Canon S410, A80 and SD10 models. | Steve Lee | Digital Photography | 3 | June 29th 04 12:48 PM |
Nature : New pictures of the Night Sky | JEPobs | Photographing Nature | 0 | October 15th 03 04:11 AM |