Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Yet another recommendation request

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
July 1, 2005 9:21:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In misc.consumers.frugal-living I saw the recent cross-posted thread
by the woman wanting a camera that uses AA batteries (plus other
things). Wow, I never thought to ask on the NG's when I purchased my
Canon A75 about a year ago. I checked Consumer Reports (useless) and
with a professional photographer I have work contact with (near
useless) and with my son who had an earlier model (marginally helpful)
but basically it was just pick by size and feel and price.

In those areas I think I got a good deal. I suppose it could be more
robust but for the sort of "drop it off the table...throw it against
the wall" level I'd like I suspect I'd pay mega-bucks. It takes good
enough photos however there are some negatives I'd like to fix in my
next camera:

I hate icons. In the car, on the computer, and especially on the
camera. In the history of written communication we started off with
pictographs, went to a stylized form (hieroglyphics), and finally
evolved into writing. Now we've slipped back to pictographs. It's so
bad in the camera that I have to take the manual with me and try to
find a translation into English. Pretty hard too because there's no
alphabetization of icons. Can someone recommend cameras that use no,
or because that's probably too much to ask for, few icons.

There are far too many "modes" and options. They even have one for
fireworks! Please, something simple. I take the dog, the kids, the
house, friends, a building, a monument...except for the portraits,
almost always in daylight. Unfortunately I suspect that it's like
cars: If you want the high quality mechanicals and body, you have to
accept the frills like memory seat positioning and electric windows.
Am I wrong? Are there high-quality cameras that don't have all these
features?

The screen on the back shows a different brightness level depending on
the ambient light. Tilt it up the picture is brighter, down darker.
How about a black rubber eye cover? Or just work on correcting the
brightness of the screen?

And finally the flash. Two problems here. The first is the delay
between flashes. Very awkward when taking pictures of small children
or animals. Many fabulous shots I've missed because I can't go flash,
flash, flash (five would be reasonable) with no delay. Any cameras
that work like this?

The second flash problem has to do with the intensity of the light. It
seems to be constant and usually far too bright to the point that I
have to stand off to some distance and zoom in or forego the flash and
risk the jiggle of a slow speed. Can't we have a camera that adjusts
the flash level depending on the optimum lighting required?

Anyone have any suggestions?

More about : recommendation request

Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 1, 2005 9:21:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I don't mean to be harsh, but realistic. Your complaints like shutter
delay are commonplace for point-and-shoots which have be inexpensive
yet instantaeous in response (your expectation). You want a camera
that can read your brain, then set itself to the mode based upon what
it reads in your brain, in fact smarter than you are because you want
it to set itself to a wide range of circumstances (than it cannot
possibly otherwise know), if you yourself don't recognize it! An old
Kodak Brownie is super easy to use, but it also fails to take a
satisfactory picture in many circumstances. The digital camera
manufacturers put the options for portaits, fireworks, etc. simply so
that it can try to adapt to be more sucessful than the Brownie, but it
relies upon YOU for some of that information to be passed (via which
switch position). There a dozens of languages in use in the world, yet
you insist upon English as the language of choice, adding to the
complexity of knowing which language to use, without you telling it
which one, since you dislike icons. Sorry, but what you want is not
really achievable!

--Wilton
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 1, 2005 9:21:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I don't mean to be harsh, but realistic. Your complaints like shutter
delay are commonplace for point-and-shoots which have be inexpensive
yet instantaeous in response (your expectation). You want a camera
that can read your brain, then set itself to the mode based upon what
it reads in your brain, in fact smarter than you are because you want
it to set itself to a wide range of circumstances (than it cannot
possibly otherwise know), if you yourself don't recognize it! An old
Kodak Brownie is super easy to use, but it also fails to take a
satisfactory picture in many circumstances. The digital camera
manufacturers put the options for portaits, fireworks, etc. simply so
that it can try to adapt to be more sucessful than the Brownie, but it
relies upon YOU for some of that information to be passed (via which
switch position). There a dozens of languages in use in the world, yet
you insist upon English as the language of choice, adding to the
complexity of knowing which language to use, without you telling it
which one, since you dislike icons. Sorry, but what you want is not
really achievable!

--Wilton
Related resources
July 1, 2005 9:21:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The Canon A75 camera is rated very good by many photo sources, and has been
rated very high by Consumer Reports magazine. I have the older 2 megapixal
A60 and love it. I even went out and recently bought the 5 megapixal A95
version. All I have to say is use it in the "P" mode. And also spend some
time reading the manual. I have pretty much worn out the A60 user manual and
have taken lots of GREAT pics. Also go to the website www.dpreview.com to
find out about the Canon cameras, and also all the rest. I have to say none
of the cameras that take great photos are easy to use at first. And yes,
there is way too much "functionalitry" in all the digital cameras. You just
got to read up on how to use them.

Good Luck,
Dan


<NiceGuy@ShouldBeFreeISP.gov> wrote in message
news:93i9c194e28qre549kvd0kei47bk9teuec@4ax.com...
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living I saw the recent cross-posted thread
> by the woman wanting a camera that uses AA batteries (plus other
> things). Wow, I never thought to ask on the NG's when I purchased my
> Canon A75 about a year ago. I checked Consumer Reports (useless) and
> with a professional photographer I have work contact with (near
> useless) and with my son who had an earlier model (marginally helpful)
> but basically it was just pick by size and feel and price.
>
> In those areas I think I got a good deal. I suppose it could be more
> robust but for the sort of "drop it off the table...throw it against
> the wall" level I'd like I suspect I'd pay mega-bucks. It takes good
> enough photos however there are some negatives I'd like to fix in my
> next camera:
>
> I hate icons. In the car, on the computer, and especially on the
> camera. In the history of written communication we started off with
> pictographs, went to a stylized form (hieroglyphics), and finally
> evolved into writing. Now we've slipped back to pictographs. It's so
> bad in the camera that I have to take the manual with me and try to
> find a translation into English. Pretty hard too because there's no
> alphabetization of icons. Can someone recommend cameras that use no,
> or because that's probably too much to ask for, few icons.
>
> There are far too many "modes" and options. They even have one for
> fireworks! Please, something simple. I take the dog, the kids, the
> house, friends, a building, a monument...except for the portraits,
> almost always in daylight. Unfortunately I suspect that it's like
> cars: If you want the high quality mechanicals and body, you have to
> accept the frills like memory seat positioning and electric windows.
> Am I wrong? Are there high-quality cameras that don't have all these
> features?
>
> The screen on the back shows a different brightness level depending on
> the ambient light. Tilt it up the picture is brighter, down darker.
> How about a black rubber eye cover? Or just work on correcting the
> brightness of the screen?
>
> And finally the flash. Two problems here. The first is the delay
> between flashes. Very awkward when taking pictures of small children
> or animals. Many fabulous shots I've missed because I can't go flash,
> flash, flash (five would be reasonable) with no delay. Any cameras
> that work like this?
>
> The second flash problem has to do with the intensity of the light. It
> seems to be constant and usually far too bright to the point that I
> have to stand off to some distance and zoom in or forego the flash and
> risk the jiggle of a slow speed. Can't we have a camera that adjusts
> the flash level depending on the optimum lighting required?
>
> Anyone have any suggestions?
>
>
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 1, 2005 11:53:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

NiceGuy@shouldbefreeisp.gov wrote:

: I hate icons. In the car, on the computer, and especially on the
: camera. In the history of written communication we started off with
: pictographs, went to a stylized form (hieroglyphics), and finally
: evolved into writing. Now we've slipped back to pictographs. It's so
: bad in the camera that I have to take the manual with me and try to
: find a translation into English. Pretty hard too because there's no
: alphabetization of icons. Can someone recommend cameras that use no,
: or because that's probably too much to ask for, few icons.

Unfortunately this one is not likely to be "fixed" anytime soon. Since
most consumer products are now marketed internationally icons make sense.
Since many cameras (and lots of other products) are manufactured in Japan,
you wold probably end up with selectors labeled with Japanese characters
if "words" were used instead of icons. So I suspect that you are just
going to have to get used to more and more "pictographs" in your life.

: There are far too many "modes" and options. They even have one for
: fireworks! Please, something simple. I take the dog, the kids, the
: house, friends, a building, a monument...except for the portraits,
: almost always in daylight. Unfortunately I suspect that it's like
: cars: If you want the high quality mechanicals and body, you have to
: accept the frills like memory seat positioning and electric windows.
: Am I wrong? Are there high-quality cameras that don't have all these
: features?

I also want a watch that just tells time, but finding something that
simple will probably cost more than one with lots of functions I do not
need. Cameras fall under the same situation. More functions to satisfy a
wider range of consumers is going to be the norm. Just figure which
functions you will want to use and ignore the rest.

: The screen on the back shows a different brightness level depending on
: the ambient light. Tilt it up the picture is brighter, down darker.
: How about a black rubber eye cover? Or just work on correcting the
: brightness of the screen?

This is a disadvantage of an LCD screen. Accuracy of the image rendition
is very dependant on view angle and lighting conditions. The best way to
avoid this problem is to get a camera with an optical view system. This
would either be a P&S camera with a seperate optical viewer, which has a
second lens that you look through to aim, or an SLR camera which is viewed
through the main lens. The seperate lens can be a problem if the lenses
are not properly alligned or when you are shooting macro shots as the view
you are seeing in the viewfinder is not the exact image that the camera
sees when taking the photo. An SLR will give you the correct view, but no
large live "video" image is possible as the image through the lens is
being routhed to the viewfinder until the photo is captured, and while the
image is being captured, no live image is available for the finder. Its
one or the other.

: And finally the flash. Two problems here. The first is the delay
: between flashes. Very awkward when taking pictures of small children
: or animals. Many fabulous shots I've missed because I can't go flash,
: flash, flash (five would be reasonable) with no delay. Any cameras
: that work like this?

Most built in flashes are all-or-nothing types. They flash or they don't.
The problem is that in order to make the flash work they need to multiply
the current available from the batteries. This is done by charging a
capacitor over a long time and discharging it in a short time. But once
the charge is discharged it has to charge up again. The only way to fix
this is to either have a HUGE battery pack (very unlikely in a "pocket
camera" or to vary the flash intensity when only a little additional
illumination is needed (thus needing less charge time to recharge in
relatively bright lighting conditions). This last solution is expensive
and not likely to be used on a built in flash. More below.

: The second flash problem has to do with the intensity of the light. It
: seems to be constant and usually far too bright to the point that I
: have to stand off to some distance and zoom in or forego the flash and
: risk the jiggle of a slow speed. Can't we have a camera that adjusts
: the flash level depending on the optimum lighting required?

There are a few external flashes that fit on a hot shoe and read the
ambient light level and adjust the flash intensity appropriately. But they
read all the light in the area, not just the light on your subject. So the
fact that you are taking a closeup view of a person wearing a hat, casting
their face in shadow, in a brightly lit room would not be helped by this
kind of flash as the flash would read the entire surrounding area and
flash accordingly, still leaving your subject's face in shadow.

I would suggest you look into an external flash (assuming your camera has
a hot shoe on it) that can be tilted. This way you can bounce the flash
off the ceiling, or if the flash can also be panned, bounced off a wall.
This will tend to keep the intensity of the flash under control. In
addition a bounced flash reduces the likelyhood of red eye. There are a
few possible problems with bounced flashes. If the wall or ceiling you are
bouncing off of is brightly colored, the flash takes on the color of the
surface and so you can get some strangely tinted pictures. Also if the
surface you are bouncing off of is too far away (or non existant as in
outdoors or in a gymnasium) it won't do any good. Remember most flashes
have an effective range of about 10 to 12 feet. If the surface you are
bouncing off is more than 6 feet away the flash will travel more than the
12 feet of its effective range just getting there and back.

: Anyone have any suggestions?

Unfortunately, small, "easy" to use cameras are made to handle a set range
of situations, and not much else (and thus the "modes" to adjust these
settings). Or you can go for a more complex camera (also more expensive)
that allows you to adjust for more variable situations, but these require
you to make these adjustments yourself and thus will be more complex to
use. You have to have one or the other.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
July 2, 2005 10:13:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randy Berbaum <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:

>NiceGuy@shouldbefreeisp.gov wrote:
>
>: I hate icons. In the car, on the computer, and especially on the
>: camera. In the history of written communication we started off with
>: pictographs, went to a stylized form (hieroglyphics), and finally
>: evolved into writing. Now we've slipped back to pictographs. It's so
>: bad in the camera that I have to take the manual with me and try to
>: find a translation into English. Pretty hard too because there's no
>: alphabetization of icons. Can someone recommend cameras that use no,
>: or because that's probably too much to ask for, few icons.

>Unfortunately this one is not likely to be "fixed" anytime soon. Since
>most consumer products are now marketed internationally icons make sense.
>Since many cameras (and lots of other products) are manufactured in Japan,
>you wold probably end up with selectors labeled with Japanese characters
>if "words" were used instead of icons. So I suspect that you are just
>going to have to get used to more and more "pictographs" in your life.

I don't buy it! Most are manufactured in the PRC, perhaps in Canon's
case to Japanese specifications. In any event that's irrelevant. Every
nationality has to translate the pictographs into their own language
so the problem exists for the Japanese too. Further, although there
are far too many icons, the menu items such as "Erase" are in English.
Clearly either Canon makes the camera just for the English-speaking
market or they expect other-language speakers to understand words such
as "erase". If you're Japanese going from some barely legible icon to
Japanese or from the English word "erase" to Japanese is not too
different.

More plausible reasons are that they think they can't fit any
sufficiently-descriptive word into the allotted space or what I'd call
the dumbing-down factor. Many of our citizenry, although literate to
some extent, haven't read a book since high school (where they were
coerced to do so) and eschew any magazine which doesn't have lots of
pretty pictures. To these people a lightening bolt in a circle conveys
the meaning more easily than the word "flash" so if you want to sell
to them you'll actually have more success with icons than with words.

However the explanation is unimportant. I have dollars to vote with
and I want to spend them on a product that's more convenient to me.
That means no or few icons. You obviously don't know of any meeting my
requirements.

To the person who suggested http://www.dpreview.com/ I already checked
there. They don't rate or evaluate the quantity of icons or any of the
other things I asked about.


>: There are far too many "modes" and options. They even have one for
>: fireworks! Please, something simple. I take the dog, the kids, the
>: house, friends, a building, a monument...except for the portraits,
>: almost always in daylight. Unfortunately I suspect that it's like
>: cars: If you want the high quality mechanicals and body, you have to
>: accept the frills like memory seat positioning and electric windows.
>: Am I wrong? Are there high-quality cameras that don't have all these
>: features?

>I also want a watch that just tells time, but finding something that
>simple will probably cost more than one with lots of functions I do not
>need. Cameras fall under the same situation. More functions to satisfy a
>wider range of consumers is going to be the norm. Just figure which
>functions you will want to use and ignore the rest.

I'm wearing a $15 analog Casio about 10 years old which just tells
time. It's strong, accurate, easy to get batteries and face for, and
is still sold.

Same as the first question. I want to support a camera--vote with my
$-- that just does the functions I want and none of the marginal ones.
You don't know of any.

>: The screen on the back shows a different brightness level depending on
>: the ambient light. Tilt it up the picture is brighter, down darker.
>: How about a black rubber eye cover? Or just work on correcting the
>: brightness of the screen?

>This is a disadvantage of an LCD screen. Accuracy of the image rendition
>is very dependant on view angle and lighting conditions. The best way to
>avoid this problem is to get a camera with an optical view system. This
>would either be a P&S camera with a seperate optical viewer, which has a
>second lens that you look through to aim, or an SLR camera which is viewed
>through the main lens. The seperate lens can be a problem if the lenses
>are not properly alligned or when you are shooting macro shots as the view
>you are seeing in the viewfinder is not the exact image that the camera
>sees when taking the photo. An SLR will give you the correct view, but no
>large live "video" image is possible as the image through the lens is
>being routhed to the viewfinder until the photo is captured, and while the
>image is being captured, no live image is available for the finder. Its
>one or the other.

I also have a 15 year old Olympus SLR; I understand the principles of
both that and the viewfinder type. The SLR function adds too much
weight and bulk to the camera to the point that on my last trip (to
New Orleans at Mardi Gras) I left the Olympus at home and used
disposable cameras. The quality of the photos (very poor) from that
trip was one of the reasons for the acquisition of the Canon.

I would think that it would be electronically feasible to have a
light-sensing cell beside the LED and depending on that the LED could
be brightened or darkened. Alternatively I don't really see anything
wrong with my rubber boot suggestion.

>: And finally the flash. Two problems here. The first is the delay
>: between flashes. Very awkward when taking pictures of small children
>: or animals. Many fabulous shots I've missed because I can't go flash,
>: flash, flash (five would be reasonable) with no delay. Any cameras
>: that work like this?

>Most built in flashes are all-or-nothing types. They flash or they don't.
>The problem is that in order to make the flash work they need to multiply
>the current available from the batteries. This is done by charging a
>capacitor over a long time and discharging it in a short time. But once
>the charge is discharged it has to charge up again. The only way to fix
>this is to either have a HUGE battery pack (very unlikely in a "pocket
>camera" or to vary the flash intensity when only a little additional
>illumination is needed (thus needing less charge time to recharge in
>relatively bright lighting conditions). This last solution is expensive
>and not likely to be used on a built in flash. More below.

The batteries in the Canon last a long time. I just replaced the
originals after a year of (agreed--not very intensive) use. If they
expired in a month I wouldn't object. Could I then please have 5
condensers charging serially and the actual flash getting its power
from whichever one is fully filled.

>: The second flash problem has to do with the intensity of the light. It
>: seems to be constant and usually far too bright to the point that I
>: have to stand off to some distance and zoom in or forego the flash and
>: risk the jiggle of a slow speed. Can't we have a camera that adjusts
>: the flash level depending on the optimum lighting required?

>There are a few external flashes that fit on a hot shoe and read the
>ambient light level and adjust the flash intensity appropriately. But they
>read all the light in the area, not just the light on your subject. So the
>fact that you are taking a closeup view of a person wearing a hat, casting
>their face in shadow, in a brightly lit room would not be helped by this
>kind of flash as the flash would read the entire surrounding area and
>flash accordingly, still leaving your subject's face in shadow.

>I would suggest you look into an external flash (assuming your camera has
>a hot shoe on it) that can be tilted. This way you can bounce the flash
>off the ceiling, or if the flash can also be panned, bounced off a wall.
>This will tend to keep the intensity of the flash under control. In
>addition a bounced flash reduces the likelyhood of red eye. There are a
>few possible problems with bounced flashes. If the wall or ceiling you are
>bouncing off of is brightly colored, the flash takes on the color of the
>surface and so you can get some strangely tinted pictures. Also if the
>surface you are bouncing off of is too far away (or non existant as in
>outdoors or in a gymnasium) it won't do any good. Remember most flashes
>have an effective range of about 10 to 12 feet. If the surface you are
>bouncing off is more than 6 feet away the flash will travel more than the
>12 feet of its effective range just getting there and back.

Any additional equipment (external flash or batteries) is out of the
question.

Forty or so years ago when I bought my first Canon (an SLR) I had to
manually focus, worry about aperture, speed, and god only knows what.
The A75 takes care of all that for me; asking it or some other mfg to
calculate the light at the center or averaged and adjust the flash
accordingly doesn't seem too much to me.

>: Anyone have any suggestions?
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
July 8, 2005 2:42:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

NiceGuy@ShouldBeFreeISP.gov wrote:
> Randy Berbaum <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
>
>
>>NiceGuy@shouldbefreeisp.gov wrote:
>>
>>: I hate icons. In the car, on the computer, and especially on the
>>: camera. In the history of written communication we started off with
>>: pictographs, went to a stylized form (hieroglyphics), and finally
>>: evolved into writing. Now we've slipped back to pictographs. It's so
>>: bad in the camera that I have to take the manual with me and try to
>>: find a translation into English. Pretty hard too because there's no
>>: alphabetization of icons. Can someone recommend cameras that use no,
>>: or because that's probably too much to ask for, few icons.
>
>
>>Unfortunately this one is not likely to be "fixed" anytime soon. Since
>>most consumer products are now marketed internationally icons make sense.
>>Since many cameras (and lots of other products) are manufactured in Japan,
>>you wold probably end up with selectors labeled with Japanese characters
>>if "words" were used instead of icons. So I suspect that you are just
>>going to have to get used to more and more "pictographs" in your life.
>
>
> I don't buy it! Most are manufactured in the PRC, perhaps in Canon's
> case to Japanese specifications. In any event that's irrelevant. Every
> nationality has to translate the pictographs into their own language
> so the problem exists for the Japanese too. Further, although there
> are far too many icons, the menu items such as "Erase" are in English.
> Clearly either Canon makes the camera just for the English-speaking
> market or they expect other-language speakers to understand words such
> as "erase". If you're Japanese going from some barely legible icon to
> Japanese or from the English word "erase" to Japanese is not too
> different.
>
> More plausible reasons are that they think they can't fit any
> sufficiently-descriptive word into the allotted space or what I'd call
> the dumbing-down factor. Many of our citizenry, although literate to
> some extent, haven't read a book since high school (where they were
> coerced to do so) and eschew any magazine which doesn't have lots of
> pretty pictures. To these people a lightening bolt in a circle conveys
> the meaning more easily than the word "flash" so if you want to sell
> to them you'll actually have more success with icons than with words.
>
> However the explanation is unimportant. I have dollars to vote with
> and I want to spend them on a product that's more convenient to me.
> That means no or few icons. You obviously don't know of any meeting my
> requirements.
>
> To the person who suggested http://www.dpreview.com/ I already checked
> there. They don't rate or evaluate the quantity of icons or any of the
> other things I asked about.
>
>
>
>>: There are far too many "modes" and options. They even have one for
>>: fireworks! Please, something simple. I take the dog, the kids, the
>>: house, friends, a building, a monument...except for the portraits,
>>: almost always in daylight. Unfortunately I suspect that it's like
>>: cars: If you want the high quality mechanicals and body, you have to
>>: accept the frills like memory seat positioning and electric windows.
>>: Am I wrong? Are there high-quality cameras that don't have all these
>>: features?
>
>
>>I also want a watch that just tells time, but finding something that
>>simple will probably cost more than one with lots of functions I do not
>>need. Cameras fall under the same situation. More functions to satisfy a
>>wider range of consumers is going to be the norm. Just figure which
>>functions you will want to use and ignore the rest.
>
>
> I'm wearing a $15 analog Casio about 10 years old which just tells
> time. It's strong, accurate, easy to get batteries and face for, and
> is still sold.
>
> Same as the first question. I want to support a camera--vote with my
> $-- that just does the functions I want and none of the marginal ones.
> You don't know of any.
>
>
>>: The screen on the back shows a different brightness level depending on
>>: the ambient light. Tilt it up the picture is brighter, down darker.
>>: How about a black rubber eye cover? Or just work on correcting the
>>: brightness of the screen?
>
>
>>This is a disadvantage of an LCD screen. Accuracy of the image rendition
>>is very dependant on view angle and lighting conditions. The best way to
>>avoid this problem is to get a camera with an optical view system. This
>>would either be a P&S camera with a seperate optical viewer, which has a
>>second lens that you look through to aim, or an SLR camera which is viewed
>>through the main lens. The seperate lens can be a problem if the lenses
>>are not properly alligned or when you are shooting macro shots as the view
>>you are seeing in the viewfinder is not the exact image that the camera
>>sees when taking the photo. An SLR will give you the correct view, but no
>>large live "video" image is possible as the image through the lens is
>>being routhed to the viewfinder until the photo is captured, and while the
>>image is being captured, no live image is available for the finder. Its
>>one or the other.
>
>
> I also have a 15 year old Olympus SLR; I understand the principles of
> both that and the viewfinder type. The SLR function adds too much
> weight and bulk to the camera to the point that on my last trip (to
> New Orleans at Mardi Gras) I left the Olympus at home and used
> disposable cameras. The quality of the photos (very poor) from that
> trip was one of the reasons for the acquisition of the Canon.
>
> I would think that it would be electronically feasible to have a
> light-sensing cell beside the LED and depending on that the LED could
> be brightened or darkened. Alternatively I don't really see anything
> wrong with my rubber boot suggestion.
>
>
>>: And finally the flash. Two problems here. The first is the delay
>>: between flashes. Very awkward when taking pictures of small children
>>: or animals. Many fabulous shots I've missed because I can't go flash,
>>: flash, flash (five would be reasonable) with no delay. Any cameras
>>: that work like this?
>
>
>>Most built in flashes are all-or-nothing types. They flash or they don't.
>>The problem is that in order to make the flash work they need to multiply
>>the current available from the batteries. This is done by charging a
>>capacitor over a long time and discharging it in a short time. But once
>>the charge is discharged it has to charge up again. The only way to fix
>>this is to either have a HUGE battery pack (very unlikely in a "pocket
>>camera" or to vary the flash intensity when only a little additional
>>illumination is needed (thus needing less charge time to recharge in
>>relatively bright lighting conditions). This last solution is expensive
>>and not likely to be used on a built in flash. More below.
>
>
> The batteries in the Canon last a long time. I just replaced the
> originals after a year of (agreed--not very intensive) use. If they
> expired in a month I wouldn't object. Could I then please have 5
> condensers charging serially and the actual flash getting its power
> from whichever one is fully filled.
>
>
>>: The second flash problem has to do with the intensity of the light. It
>>: seems to be constant and usually far too bright to the point that I
>>: have to stand off to some distance and zoom in or forego the flash and
>>: risk the jiggle of a slow speed. Can't we have a camera that adjusts
>>: the flash level depending on the optimum lighting required?
>
>
>>There are a few external flashes that fit on a hot shoe and read the
>>ambient light level and adjust the flash intensity appropriately. But they
>>read all the light in the area, not just the light on your subject. So the
>>fact that you are taking a closeup view of a person wearing a hat, casting
>>their face in shadow, in a brightly lit room would not be helped by this
>>kind of flash as the flash would read the entire surrounding area and
>>flash accordingly, still leaving your subject's face in shadow.
>
>
>>I would suggest you look into an external flash (assuming your camera has
>>a hot shoe on it) that can be tilted. This way you can bounce the flash
>>off the ceiling, or if the flash can also be panned, bounced off a wall.
>>This will tend to keep the intensity of the flash under control. In
>>addition a bounced flash reduces the likelyhood of red eye. There are a
>>few possible problems with bounced flashes. If the wall or ceiling you are
>>bouncing off of is brightly colored, the flash takes on the color of the
>>surface and so you can get some strangely tinted pictures. Also if the
>>surface you are bouncing off of is too far away (or non existant as in
>>outdoors or in a gymnasium) it won't do any good. Remember most flashes
>>have an effective range of about 10 to 12 feet. If the surface you are
>>bouncing off is more than 6 feet away the flash will travel more than the
>>12 feet of its effective range just getting there and back.
>
>
> Any additional equipment (external flash or batteries) is out of the
> question.
>
> Forty or so years ago when I bought my first Canon (an SLR) I had to
> manually focus, worry about aperture, speed, and god only knows what.
> The A75 takes care of all that for me; asking it or some other mfg to
> calculate the light at the center or averaged and adjust the flash
> accordingly doesn't seem too much to me.
>
>
>>: Anyone have any suggestions?
>
>
>


What you want may be too much for them. Take a look at the Epson RD-1
(luminous-landscape.com has a review). This is a camera designed for
very narrow market and it has a price to match -- $3000 without lens.
Voting with your pocketbook can cost a lot. For $3k I'd think you could
also look at the better DSLR's too. Maybe there is something there for
your needs but the costs get quite high.

My personal take is quite cynical and have given up looking for the best
fit for me. At this point when I look for any product, from paper plates
to houses, I pick the handful of must have features and adjust accordingly.

Where I in your position I would look for an excellent late generation
film camera and an excellent *film* scanner (not a flatbed). That way
you can digitize pictures taken with your favorite equipment. Assuming
you wish to reject your Olymus SLR then then choose from any number of
compact film cameras. I chose to pick-up an Olympus XA-2. Small and
light but admitedly lite on the flash. Further costs are limited to the
computer/scanner side of the equation.. maybe $1500 to $10000 depending
on your film size, expected print size and patience with the hardware.

The others are right, you will not escape icons but you could limit your
exposure to them while you capture your light.

-Guy
!