Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DSLR Verses PIS

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
June 23, 2005 5:06:05 PM

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

How sad. I have been looking to upgrade to a 20D soon and after reading
some forms, some are compiling that the Flash pictures are underexposed even
with the 580 ( $500.00 ) flash. So the band aid is to set the control up a
notch or two. I thought that was auto is allabout. I would thought that a
over a grand a Camera could do better than that. Finally a friend
purchased one and he came over and it looked good in his hands. We took
several pictures and sure enough allot of them were too dark for me. I found
in my drawer an old Toshiba 1.5 mp camera that hasn't been used in a year,
put in batteries in it and took some flash pictures with it. Guess what 90%
of the shots taken from two feet away to 12 feet was in good shape NOT too
dark but good. If this older camera can do this, why is there such a
problem with these newer and much higher cost Cameras. Most cant seem to do
with out a bunch of work around, or Band-Aids.
Our old A1 Film camera no matter what the setting were in the Program mode
hardly never under or over exposed a picture with its external flash. Not
bad for a 20 plus year design.

More about : dslr verses pis

Anonymous
June 23, 2005 5:24:07 PM

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

SteveJ wrote:
> How sad. I have been looking to upgrade to a 20D soon and after
> reading some forms, some are compiling that the Flash pictures are
> underexposed even with the 580 ( $500.00 ) flash. So the band aid is
> to set the control up a notch or two. I thought that was auto is
> allabout. I would thought that a over a grand a Camera could do
> better than that. Finally a friend purchased one and he came over
> and it looked good in his hands. We took several pictures and sure
> enough allot of them were too dark for me. I found in my drawer an
> old Toshiba 1.5 mp camera that hasn't been used in a year, put in
> batteries in it and took some flash pictures with it. Guess what 90%
> of the shots taken from two feet away to 12 feet was in good shape
> NOT too dark but good. If this older camera can do this, why is
> there such a problem with these newer and much higher cost Cameras.
> Most cant seem to do with out a bunch of work around, or Band-Aids.
> Our old A1 Film camera no matter what the setting were in the
> Program
> mode hardly never under or over exposed a picture with its external
> flash. Not bad for a 20 plus year design.

What?
June 24, 2005 12:43:26 AM

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

"SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RNOdneOFDMuNZyffRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> How sad. I have been looking to upgrade to a 20D soon and after reading
> some forms, some are compiling that the Flash pictures are underexposed even
> with the 580 ( $500.00 ) flash. So the band aid is to set the control up a
> notch or two. I thought that was auto is allabout. I would thought that a
> over a grand a Camera could do better than that. Finally a friend
> purchased one and he came over and it looked good in his hands. We took
> several pictures and sure enough allot of them were too dark for me. I found
> in my drawer an old Toshiba 1.5 mp camera that hasn't been used in a year,
> put in batteries in it and took some flash pictures with it. Guess what 90%
> of the shots taken from two feet away to 12 feet was in good shape NOT too
> dark but good. If this older camera can do this, why is there such a
> problem with these newer and much higher cost Cameras. Most cant seem to do
> with out a bunch of work around, or Band-Aids.
> Our old A1 Film camera no matter what the setting were in the Program mode
> hardly never under or over exposed a picture with its external flash. Not
> bad for a 20 plus year design.
>

What are you trying to say?
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 11:27:04 AM

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

Juan wrote:
> "SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:RNOdneOFDMuNZyffRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>
>>How sad. I have been looking to upgrade to a 20D soon and after reading
>>some forms, some are compiling that the Flash pictures are underexposed even
>>with the 580 ( $500.00 ) flash. So the band aid is to set the control up a
>>notch or two. I thought that was auto is allabout. I would thought that a
>>over a grand a Camera could do better than that. Finally a friend
>>purchased one and he came over and it looked good in his hands. We took
>>several pictures and sure enough allot of them were too dark for me. I found
>>in my drawer an old Toshiba 1.5 mp camera that hasn't been used in a year,
>>put in batteries in it and took some flash pictures with it. Guess what 90%
>>of the shots taken from two feet away to 12 feet was in good shape NOT too
>>dark but good. If this older camera can do this, why is there such a
>>problem with these newer and much higher cost Cameras. Most cant seem to do
>>with out a bunch of work around, or Band-Aids.
>> Our old A1 Film camera no matter what the setting were in the Program mode
>>hardly never under or over exposed a picture with its external flash. Not
>>bad for a 20 plus year design.
>>
>
>
> What are you trying to say?
>
>
He trying to say a 20D is too complicated for him. He's trying to say he
can't read the instructions for the 580 flash and basically he's
probably better off with a camera which doesn't need a user to spend
time understanding the complexities of these two very fine pieces of
equipment before they can take award winning photographs which can be
enlarged to previously unheard of proportions with stunning clarity and
definition.

Douglas
June 24, 2005 11:27:05 AM

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

"Ryadia" <just@the.group> wrote in message
news:42bb2928$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Juan wrote:
>> "SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:RNOdneOFDMuNZyffRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>>
>>>How sad. I have been looking to upgrade to a 20D soon and after reading
>>>some forms, some are compiling that the Flash pictures are underexposed
>>>even with the 580 ( $500.00 ) flash. So the band aid is to set the control
>>>up a notch or two. I thought that was auto is allabout. I would thought
>>>that a over a grand a Camera could do better than that. Finally a friend
>>>purchased one and he came over and it looked good in his hands. We took
>>>several pictures and sure enough allot of them were too dark for me. I
>>>found in my drawer an old Toshiba 1.5 mp camera that hasn't been used in a
>>>year, put in batteries in it and took some flash pictures with it. Guess
>>>what 90% of the shots taken from two feet away to 12 feet was in good shape
>>>NOT too dark but good. If this older camera can do this, why is there such
>>>a problem with these newer and much higher cost Cameras. Most cant seem to
>>>do with out a bunch of work around, or Band-Aids.
>>> Our old A1 Film camera no matter what the setting were in the Program mode
>>> hardly never under or over exposed a picture with its external flash. Not
>>> bad for a 20 plus year design.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What are you trying to say?
> He trying to say a 20D is too complicated for him. He's trying to say he
> can't read the instructions for the 580 flash and basically he's probably
> better off with a camera which doesn't need a user to spend time
> understanding the complexities of these two very fine pieces of equipment
> before they can take award winning photographs which can be enlarged to
> previously unheard of proportions with stunning clarity and definition.
>
> Douglas

Oh.
June 24, 2005 11:27:06 AM

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

What I am saying is that its bad when a cheap camera can bust a Canon on the
first try.


"Juan" <corrales@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5SFue.2686$re.1017@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Ryadia" <just@the.group> wrote in message
> news:42bb2928$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> Juan wrote:
>>> "SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:RNOdneOFDMuNZyffRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>>How sad. I have been looking to upgrade to a 20D soon and after reading
>>>>some forms, some are compiling that the Flash pictures are underexposed
>>>>even with the 580 ( $500.00 ) flash. So the band aid is to set the
>>>>control up a notch or two. I thought that was auto is allabout. I would
>>>>thought that a over a grand a Camera could do better than that.
>>>>Finally a friend purchased one and he came over and it looked good in
>>>>his hands. We took several pictures and sure enough allot of them were
>>>>too dark for me. I found in my drawer an old Toshiba 1.5 mp camera that
>>>>hasn't been used in a year, put in batteries in it and took some flash
>>>>pictures with it. Guess what 90% of the shots taken from two feet away
>>>>to 12 feet was in good shape NOT too dark but good. If this older
>>>>camera can do this, why is there such a problem with these newer and
>>>>much higher cost Cameras. Most cant seem to do with out a bunch of work
>>>>around, or Band-Aids.
>>>> Our old A1 Film camera no matter what the setting were in the Program
>>>> mode hardly never under or over exposed a picture with its external
>>>> flash. Not bad for a 20 plus year design.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What are you trying to say?
>> He trying to say a 20D is too complicated for him. He's trying to say he
>> can't read the instructions for the 580 flash and basically he's probably
>> better off with a camera which doesn't need a user to spend time
>> understanding the complexities of these two very fine pieces of equipment
>> before they can take award winning photographs which can be enlarged to
>> previously unheard of proportions with stunning clarity and definition.
>>
>> Douglas
>
> Oh.
>
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 11:27:07 AM

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

SteveJ wrote:
> What I am saying is that its bad when a cheap camera can bust a Canon on the
> first try.

A cheap camera (aka P&S) won't "bust" a 20D. If you don't want to learn
how to use the 20D then you should stay with P&S cameras. There is
nothing wrong wanting a P&S over a DSLR. Just remember that a DSLR
requires the user to be knowledgable about the camera to get the ost
from it.

> "Juan" <corrales@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5SFue.2686$re.1017@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>"Ryadia" <just@the.group> wrote in message
>>news:42bb2928$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>>>Juan wrote:
>>>
>>>>"SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:RNOdneOFDMuNZyffRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>How sad. I have been looking to upgrade to a 20D soon and after reading
>>>>>some forms, some are compiling that the Flash pictures are underexposed
>>>>>even with the 580 ( $500.00 ) flash. So the band aid is to set the
>>>>>control up a notch or two. I thought that was auto is allabout. I would
>>>>>thought that a over a grand a Camera could do better than that.
>>>>>Finally a friend purchased one and he came over and it looked good in
>>>>>his hands. We took several pictures and sure enough allot of them were
>>>>>too dark for me. I found in my drawer an old Toshiba 1.5 mp camera that
>>>>>hasn't been used in a year, put in batteries in it and took some flash
>>>>>pictures with it. Guess what 90% of the shots taken from two feet away
>>>>>to 12 feet was in good shape NOT too dark but good. If this older
>>>>>camera can do this, why is there such a problem with these newer and
>>>>>much higher cost Cameras. Most cant seem to do with out a bunch of work
>>>>>around, or Band-Aids.
>>>>>Our old A1 Film camera no matter what the setting were in the Program
>>>>>mode hardly never under or over exposed a picture with its external
>>>>>flash. Not bad for a 20 plus year design.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What are you trying to say?
>>>
>>>He trying to say a 20D is too complicated for him. He's trying to say he
>>>can't read the instructions for the 580 flash and basically he's probably
>>>better off with a camera which doesn't need a user to spend time
>>>understanding the complexities of these two very fine pieces of equipment
>>>before they can take award winning photographs which can be enlarged to
>>>previously unheard of proportions with stunning clarity and definition.
>>>
>>>Douglas
>>
>>Oh.
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 11:27:07 AM

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

"SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1N2dndDSjq4EpSbfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> What I am saying is that its bad when a cheap camera can bust a Canon on
> the first try.
>

So how does a 11x14 enlargement from that 1.5mp Toshiba look?
June 24, 2005 11:27:08 AM

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

That's right, but you would think that it should at least take a good
picture in the AUTO mode, the older Canon A1 did a very good job when used
in the auto position.
Besides there is too many talking about this problem also, and it is not
from like of knowledge of the 20D camera. Sure there is many adjustments on
this fine camera, but the point is it should be great in Auto and flash.
That's like if someone buys a car with a automatic in it and then telling
them their stupid because they did not read the manual. It should drive just
fine from the start with out any Band-Aids or workarounds to make it go.




"Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
news:Ce6dnQcbp-ga2ybfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> SteveJ wrote:
>> What I am saying is that its bad when a cheap camera can bust a Canon on
>> the first try.
>
> A cheap camera (aka P&S) won't "bust" a 20D. If you don't want to learn
> how to use the 20D then you should stay with P&S cameras. There is
> nothing wrong wanting a P&S over a DSLR. Just remember that a DSLR
> requires the user to be knowledgable about the camera to get the ost from
> it.
>
>> "Juan" <corrales@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5SFue.2686$re.1017@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>"Ryadia" <just@the.group> wrote in message
>>>news:42bb2928$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>
>>>>Juan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:RNOdneOFDMuNZyffRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>How sad. I have been looking to upgrade to a 20D soon and after
>>>>>>reading some forms, some are compiling that the Flash pictures are
>>>>>>underexposed even with the 580 ( $500.00 ) flash. So the band aid is
>>>>>>to set the control up a notch or two. I thought that was auto is
>>>>>>allabout. I would thought that a over a grand a Camera could do
>>>>>>better than that. Finally a friend purchased one and he came over and
>>>>>>it looked good in his hands. We took several pictures and sure enough
>>>>>>allot of them were too dark for me. I found in my drawer an old
>>>>>>Toshiba 1.5 mp camera that hasn't been used in a year, put in
>>>>>>batteries in it and took some flash pictures with it. Guess what 90%
>>>>>>of the shots taken from two feet away to 12 feet was in good shape NOT
>>>>>>too dark but good. If this older camera can do this, why is there
>>>>>>such a problem with these newer and much higher cost Cameras. Most
>>>>>>cant seem to do with out a bunch of work around, or Band-Aids.
>>>>>>Our old A1 Film camera no matter what the setting were in the Program
>>>>>>mode hardly never under or over exposed a picture with its external
>>>>>>flash. Not bad for a 20 plus year design.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What are you trying to say?
>>>>
>>>>He trying to say a 20D is too complicated for him. He's trying to say he
>>>>can't read the instructions for the 580 flash and basically he's
>>>>probably better off with a camera which doesn't need a user to spend
>>>>time understanding the complexities of these two very fine pieces of
>>>>equipment before they can take award winning photographs which can be
>>>>enlarged to previously unheard of proportions with stunning clarity and
>>>>definition.
>>>>
>>>>Douglas
>>>
>>>Oh.
>>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 11:27:08 AM

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

"Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
news:Ce6dnQcbp-ga2ybfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> SteveJ wrote:
>> What I am saying is that its bad when a cheap camera can bust a Canon on
>> the first try.
>
> A cheap camera (aka P&S) won't "bust" a 20D. If you don't want to learn
> how to use the 20D then you should stay with P&S cameras. There is
> nothing wrong wanting a P&S over a DSLR. Just remember that a DSLR
> requires the user to be knowledgable about the camera to get the ost from
> it.

One does have to go through a learning curve to use a DSLR properly. They
aren't for everybody, but in the right hands they can do amazing things.
I'm still learning (D70), and when I do get it right it's astounding.
Thanks to this group I've been taking some stunning sunsets and finally have
it down now. My macro shots are getting better, and my next challenge is to
get some great portraits using fill flash with my new SB800 -- when it
arrives.
June 24, 2005 11:27:09 AM

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

"SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:x72dnbaECcc0zSbfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> That's right, but you would think that it should at least take a good
> picture in the AUTO mode, the older Canon A1 did a very good job when used
> in the auto position.
> Besides there is too many talking about this problem also, and it is not
> from like of knowledge of the 20D camera. Sure there is many adjustments on
> this fine camera, but the point is it should be great in Auto and flash.
> That's like if someone buys a car with a automatic in it and then telling
> them their stupid because they did not read the manual. It should drive just
> fine from the start with out any Band-Aids or workarounds to make it go.
>
>
>

Get a Nikon.
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 11:27:09 AM

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

In article <x72dnbaECcc0zSbfRVn-gw@comcast.com>, SteveJ <SJ@comcast.net> wrote:
>That's right, but you would think that it should at least take a good
>picture in the AUTO mode, the older Canon A1 did a very good job when used
>in the auto position.

The older Cannon A1 was dealing with film, in which you do
better by exposing a bit bright.

The digital one, as with other DSLRs, is exposing to minimize
the chances of "blown" highlights -- that is with all three colors at
the maximum value possible. (And you can see no difference between
various levels beyond this, because the camera has no means of recording
the difference.

Film has a soft knee as the exposure gets higher and higher, and
it is possible to extract some information from seriously overexposed
highlights, so the optimum exposure is different.

In contrast, a digital has more information recoverable from the
shadow area, so the exposure is set to make use of this.

The assumption is that you will use a program on your computer
to adjust the image (ideally from a RAW mode, which preserves even more
information) to the brightness which you desire.

This problem with blown highlights is a consideration in serious
photos -- but less so in the typical ones shot with the point-and-shoot
(which is want I presum you mean by "PIS" in the "Subject: " header.)

Note that I am not defending Cannon specifically -- I don't even
own one. You will find the same behavior in *all* of the Digital SLRs.
They are set to expose in such a way as to allow recovery of the maximum
amount of information. This is certainly the case with my Nikon D70.
It also has the information provided so you can see whether you are
close to blowing highlights, and boost the exposure in some cases. (The
image on the display will blink blown highlights between black and white
to make them obvious -- and there is also a histogram showing the
distribution of brightness levels.

> Besides there is too many talking about this problem also, and it is not
>from like of knowledge of the 20D camera. Sure there is many adjustments on
>this fine camera, but the point is it should be great in Auto and flash.
>That's like if someone buys a car with a automatic in it and then telling
>them their stupid because they did not read the manual. It should drive just
>fine from the start with out any Band-Aids or workarounds to make it go.

To keep your automotive analogy, the Cannon (and other Digital
SLRs) is akin to a Formula I racecar, and the P&S is akin to an old
Chevy or perhaps a Honda. The Formula I may have an automatic
transmission -- but it is optimized for the shift points which make
sense in race terms, while the Chevy or Honda is optimized for tooling
around town doing your shopping. You certainly need more training to
drive a Formula I without wrecking it than you do a Chevy or a Honda --
though there is (or certainly should be) more training before you get a
driver's license than you seem to imply.

If you want the behavior of the Cannon to emulate that of the
P&S, you simply set the exposure adjustment a couple of stops higher --
and you will get the blown highlights (in many shots) along with the
brightness which you seem to expect.

For *you* -- the P&S may well be the better choice. Those of us
who buy the Digital SLRs expect more control -- and defaults which give
us a greater chance of pulling all the information which we want from
the images produced.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 11:27:09 AM

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

You might think that, but...

I don't know about Canon specifically, but I bought a Nikon D1x about a year
and a half ago. Although there is a lot of automatic stuff on it, you _really_
have to understand the camera because even on automatic everything (but not
white balance!) there are still a depressingly large number of ways to take
bads pictures.

Put it on auto, or "P" for programmed exposure mode, and you still get to /
have to correctly set which form of metering you want. You have matrix
(supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread, but not in my experience),
centerweighted, and spot, and you want to select them correctly for different
shots. Underexposure is common with the D1x (at least when I take the pix, and
esp. when I take them and don't ride herd on all the different things...)
There's the manual focus / autofocus / continuous autofocus that keeps getting
set on manual accidentally, and I'm wondering why I can't see the subject
sharply 'til I notice that.

Then there's a diopter adjustment for the viewfinder which somehow mysteriously
got misadjusted - I'm the only one that uses the camera so its misadjustment
was indeed mysterious - and it took me a little while to remember about this
and find the problem of a fuzzy viewfinder.

Getting back to the "P" programmed auto exposure, you'd think that, in low
light, it wouldn't allow the camera to go way down to the really slow shutter
speeds like 1/15th second without first opening the lens all the way up, but...
it did, and I have a lot of blurry pictures from a Florida sinkhole swimming
hole where the camera did exactly that - I only had it about a month and hadn't
tumbled to this failure mode.

And leave the white balance on incandescant and go outside... you get to
correct all your pix for white balance in the computer, wasting a lot of time
you could have saved if you'd done it right the 1st time!

The bottom line is: Don't get a pro or semi-pro camera if you don't want to
work at taking good pictures, 'cuz you won't get good pictures unless you work
at it with these cameras.

Dave Head


On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:15:33 -0500, "SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote:

>That's right, but you would think that it should at least take a good
>picture in the AUTO mode, the older Canon A1 did a very good job when used
>in the auto position.
> Besides there is too many talking about this problem also, and it is not
>from like of knowledge of the 20D camera. Sure there is many adjustments on
>this fine camera, but the point is it should be great in Auto and flash.
>That's like if someone buys a car with a automatic in it and then telling
>them their stupid because they did not read the manual. It should drive just
>fine from the start with out any Band-Aids or workarounds to make it go.
>
>
>
>
>"Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
>news:Ce6dnQcbp-ga2ybfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
>> SteveJ wrote:
>>> What I am saying is that its bad when a cheap camera can bust a Canon on
>>> the first try.
>>
>> A cheap camera (aka P&S) won't "bust" a 20D. If you don't want to learn
>> how to use the 20D then you should stay with P&S cameras. There is
>> nothing wrong wanting a P&S over a DSLR. Just remember that a DSLR
>> requires the user to be knowledgable about the camera to get the ost from
>> it.
>>
>>> "Juan" <corrales@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5SFue.2686$re.1017@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>>"Ryadia" <just@the.group> wrote in message
>>>>news:42bb2928$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>
>>>>>Juan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:RNOdneOFDMuNZyffRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How sad. I have been looking to upgrade to a 20D soon and after
>>>>>>>reading some forms, some are compiling that the Flash pictures are
>>>>>>>underexposed even with the 580 ( $500.00 ) flash. So the band aid is
>>>>>>>to set the control up a notch or two. I thought that was auto is
>>>>>>>allabout. I would thought that a over a grand a Camera could do
>>>>>>>better than that. Finally a friend purchased one and he came over and
>>>>>>>it looked good in his hands. We took several pictures and sure enough
>>>>>>>allot of them were too dark for me. I found in my drawer an old
>>>>>>>Toshiba 1.5 mp camera that hasn't been used in a year, put in
>>>>>>>batteries in it and took some flash pictures with it. Guess what 90%
>>>>>>>of the shots taken from two feet away to 12 feet was in good shape NOT
>>>>>>>too dark but good. If this older camera can do this, why is there
>>>>>>>such a problem with these newer and much higher cost Cameras. Most
>>>>>>>cant seem to do with out a bunch of work around, or Band-Aids.
>>>>>>>Our old A1 Film camera no matter what the setting were in the Program
>>>>>>>mode hardly never under or over exposed a picture with its external
>>>>>>>flash. Not bad for a 20 plus year design.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What are you trying to say?
>>>>>
>>>>>He trying to say a 20D is too complicated for him. He's trying to say he
>>>>>can't read the instructions for the 580 flash and basically he's
>>>>>probably better off with a camera which doesn't need a user to spend
>>>>>time understanding the complexities of these two very fine pieces of
>>>>>equipment before they can take award winning photographs which can be
>>>>>enlarged to previously unheard of proportions with stunning clarity and
>>>>>definition.
>>>>>
>>>>>Douglas
>>>>
>>>>Oh.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
June 24, 2005 11:27:09 AM

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

SteveJ wrote:
> That's right, but you would think that it should at least take a good
> picture in the AUTO mode, the older Canon A1 did a very good job when used
> in the auto position.
> Besides there is too many talking about this problem also, and it is not
> from like of knowledge of the 20D camera. Sure there is many adjustments on
> this fine camera, but the point is it should be great in Auto and flash.
> That's like if someone buys a car with a automatic in it and then telling
> them their stupid because they did not read the manual. It should drive just
> fine from the start with out any Band-Aids or workarounds to make it go.
>
>
>
>
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
> news:Ce6dnQcbp-ga2ybfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
>
>>SteveJ wrote:
>>
>>>What I am saying is that its bad when a cheap camera can bust a Canon on
>>>the first try.
>>
>>A cheap camera (aka P&S) won't "bust" a 20D. If you don't want to learn
>>how to use the 20D then you should stay with P&S cameras. There is
>>nothing wrong wanting a P&S over a DSLR. Just remember that a DSLR
>>requires the user to be knowledgable about the camera to get the ost from
>>it.
>>
>>
>>>"Juan" <corrales@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:5SFue.2686$re.1017@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ryadia" <just@the.group> wrote in message
>>>>news:42bb2928$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Juan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:RNOdneOFDMuNZyffRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How sad. I have been looking to upgrade to a 20D soon and after
>>>>>>>reading some forms, some are compiling that the Flash pictures are
>>>>>>>underexposed even with the 580 ( $500.00 ) flash. So the band aid is
>>>>>>>to set the control up a notch or two. I thought that was auto is
>>>>>>>allabout. I would thought that a over a grand a Camera could do
>>>>>>>better than that. Finally a friend purchased one and he came over and
>>>>>>>it looked good in his hands. We took several pictures and sure enough
>>>>>>>allot of them were too dark for me. I found in my drawer an old
>>>>>>>Toshiba 1.5 mp camera that hasn't been used in a year, put in
>>>>>>>batteries in it and took some flash pictures with it. Guess what 90%
>>>>>>>of the shots taken from two feet away to 12 feet was in good shape NOT
>>>>>>>too dark but good. If this older camera can do this, why is there
>>>>>>>such a problem with these newer and much higher cost Cameras. Most
>>>>>>>cant seem to do with out a bunch of work around, or Band-Aids.
>>>>>>>Our old A1 Film camera no matter what the setting were in the Program
>>>>>>>mode hardly never under or over exposed a picture with its external
>>>>>>>flash. Not bad for a 20 plus year design.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What are you trying to say?
>>>>>
>>>>>He trying to say a 20D is too complicated for him. He's trying to say he
>>>>>can't read the instructions for the 580 flash and basically he's
>>>>>probably better off with a camera which doesn't need a user to spend
>>>>>time understanding the complexities of these two very fine pieces of
>>>>>equipment before they can take award winning photographs which can be
>>>>>enlarged to previously unheard of proportions with stunning clarity and
>>>>>definition.
>>>>>
>>>>>Douglas
>>>>
>>>>Oh.


Is 20D the most popular camera ever? DRebel and other Canon DSLR have
the same flash system so why people are picking on 20D only? I had to
increase the FEC on the DRebel too. Nevertheless, I love my 20D.
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 11:27:09 AM

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

"SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:x72dnbaECcc0zSbfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> That's right, but you would think that it should at least take a good
> picture in the AUTO mode, the older Canon A1 did a very good job when
> used in the auto position.
> Besides there is too many talking about this problem also, and it is not
> from like of knowledge of the 20D camera. Sure there is many adjustments
> on this fine camera, but the point is it should be great in Auto and
> flash. That's like if someone buys a car with a automatic in it and then
> telling them their stupid because they did not read the manual. It should
> drive just fine from the start with out any Band-Aids or workarounds to
> make it go.
>
>
>
>

The A1 didn't have an "Auto" mode, it had a program mode, which the 20D also
has, and which does a better job than the "one size fits all" auto mode.
That being said, there is a recognized problem with underexposure, the 20D
and Canon brand flashes, which seems to be alleviated with non Canon flash
models.
There is a learning curve with DSLR cameras, much of the in camera
processing from P&S cameras is missing from DSLRs, or at least left up to
the discretion of the photographer.
It's more like buying a car with a manumatic, and complaining that it
doesn't accelerate like your neighbor's car, when he knows when to shift for
himself and when to let the car do it...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 11:27:09 AM

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

I have a P200 and a 300D and each have their place for my needs. If I
were limited to one camera it would be a tough choice because the
quality of the pictures and convenience of the P200 has shown me another
side to photography.

IMO, anyone that expects ANY digital camera to perform flawlessly in
full auto mode will be disappointed. Sometimes I think people expect
less from a cheaper camera and just aren't as critical on it's performance.

Think of the 20D as a sports car with a manual transmission. If the
driver doesn't know how to work the clutch, know the shift pattern or
how many gears it has then it's going to be a rough trip. If a person
learns these things then driving will become much more fun and exciting.

SteveJ wrote:
> That's right, but you would think that it should at least take a good
> picture in the AUTO mode, the older Canon A1 did a very good job when used
> in the auto position.
> Besides there is too many talking about this problem also, and it is not
> from like of knowledge of the 20D camera. Sure there is many adjustments on
> this fine camera, but the point is it should be great in Auto and flash.
> That's like if someone buys a car with a automatic in it and then telling
> them their stupid because they did not read the manual. It should drive just
> fine from the start with out any Band-Aids or workarounds to make it go.
>
>
>
>
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
> news:Ce6dnQcbp-ga2ybfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
>
>>SteveJ wrote:
>>
>>>What I am saying is that its bad when a cheap camera can bust a Canon on
>>>the first try.
>>
>>A cheap camera (aka P&S) won't "bust" a 20D. If you don't want to learn
>>how to use the 20D then you should stay with P&S cameras. There is
>>nothing wrong wanting a P&S over a DSLR. Just remember that a DSLR
>>requires the user to be knowledgable about the camera to get the ost from
>>it.
>>
>>
>>>"Juan" <corrales@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:5SFue.2686$re.1017@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ryadia" <just@the.group> wrote in message
>>>>news:42bb2928$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Juan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:RNOdneOFDMuNZyffRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How sad. I have been looking to upgrade to a 20D soon and after
>>>>>>>reading some forms, some are compiling that the Flash pictures are
>>>>>>>underexposed even with the 580 ( $500.00 ) flash. So the band aid is
>>>>>>>to set the control up a notch or two. I thought that was auto is
>>>>>>>allabout. I would thought that a over a grand a Camera could do
>>>>>>>better than that. Finally a friend purchased one and he came over and
>>>>>>>it looked good in his hands. We took several pictures and sure enough
>>>>>>>allot of them were too dark for me. I found in my drawer an old
>>>>>>>Toshiba 1.5 mp camera that hasn't been used in a year, put in
>>>>>>>batteries in it and took some flash pictures with it. Guess what 90%
>>>>>>>of the shots taken from two feet away to 12 feet was in good shape NOT
>>>>>>>too dark but good. If this older camera can do this, why is there
>>>>>>>such a problem with these newer and much higher cost Cameras. Most
>>>>>>>cant seem to do with out a bunch of work around, or Band-Aids.
>>>>>>>Our old A1 Film camera no matter what the setting were in the Program
>>>>>>>mode hardly never under or over exposed a picture with its external
>>>>>>>flash. Not bad for a 20 plus year design.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What are you trying to say?
>>>>>
>>>>>He trying to say a 20D is too complicated for him. He's trying to say he
>>>>>can't read the instructions for the 580 flash and basically he's
>>>>>probably better off with a camera which doesn't need a user to spend
>>>>>time understanding the complexities of these two very fine pieces of
>>>>>equipment before they can take award winning photographs which can be
>>>>>enlarged to previously unheard of proportions with stunning clarity and
>>>>>definition.
>>>>>
>>>>>Douglas
>>>>
>>>>Oh.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
June 24, 2005 11:27:10 AM

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

DoN. Nichols wrote:

> To keep your automotive analogy, the Cannon (and other Digital
> SLRs) is akin to a Formula I racecar, and the P&S is akin to an old
> Chevy or perhaps a Honda.


I can't determine which group you've insulted more, old Chevy owners or
Honda owners. I have both, and I'm torn. Torn I tell ya! :) 


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 2:16:10 PM

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

In message <RNOdneOFDMuNZyffRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
"SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote:

>How sad. I have been looking to upgrade to a 20D soon and after reading
>some forms, some are compiling that the Flash pictures are underexposed even
>with the 580 ( $500.00 ) flash. So the band aid is to set the control up a
>notch or two. I thought that was auto is allabout. I would thought that a
>over a grand a Camera could do better than that. Finally a friend
>purchased one and he came over and it looked good in his hands. We took
>several pictures and sure enough allot of them were too dark for me. I found
>in my drawer an old Toshiba 1.5 mp camera that hasn't been used in a year,
>put in batteries in it and took some flash pictures with it. Guess what 90%
>of the shots taken from two feet away to 12 feet was in good shape NOT too
>dark but good. If this older camera can do this, why is there such a
>problem with these newer and much higher cost Cameras. Most cant seem to do
>with out a bunch of work around, or Band-Aids.

I'm not excusing Canon; I think they make a lot of bad design decisions
(metering flash at a single AF point with no option is stupid, IMO), but
I think part of the reason P&S cameras seem to expose better is that
they compress the RAW highlight data in the JPEG output, so there is
little variation in output highlight levels with a greater deviation in
exposure.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 2:23:03 PM

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

In message <42bb2928$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Ryadia <just@the.group> wrote:

>He trying to say a 20D is too complicated for him.

Which is a valid complaint, when the complexity is not warranted.
Complexity should only exist to create options, not to necessitate
unnecessary adjustments.

>He's trying to say he
>can't read the instructions for the 580 flash

You are being a dick.

Do you *really* think that the manual for either the camera or the flash
admits to their idiosyncrasies and tells you that you have to compensate
for them?

Manuals are better than no manuals, but they are basically junk.


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 2:24:57 PM

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

In message <Ce6dnQcbp-ga2ybfRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
"Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote:

>A cheap camera (aka P&S) won't "bust" a 20D. If you don't want to learn
>how to use the 20D then you should stay with P&S cameras. There is
>nothing wrong wanting a P&S over a DSLR. Just remember that a DSLR
>requires the user to be knowledgable about the camera to get the ost
>from it.

That's it, raise your hand high, and show that you are a toady.

The manuals are wonderful; they explain all the logic used in the
camera, Ha?

Get serious.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 2:52:15 PM

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

In message <d9fs5d$186$1@Fuego.d-and-d.com>,
dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) wrote:

> If you want the behavior of the Cannon to emulate that of the
>P&S, you simply set the exposure adjustment a couple of stops higher --
>and you will get the blown highlights (in many shots) along with the
>brightness which you seem to expect.

No; the problem reported with the 20D is that only a narrow area
centered around the chosen AF point or points is used for flash
metering, meaning that for consistent metering, you have to turn all the
points on, thereby ruining focus on many shots. You can't "recompose"
with flash metering, so that is not an option. Most people turn on
center-only AF and recompose to get accurate AF. Canon designs much of
the logic in the firmware around all-points AF.

Why must the problem always be the user? Why all this toadiness?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 5:07:38 PM

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

> I'm not excusing Canon; I think they make a lot of bad design decisions
> (metering flash at a single AF point with no option is stupid, IMO), but

"E-TTL II auto flash (linked to all AF points), FEL and FP flash (high-speed
synchro) with built-in flash and EX-series Speedlites"

Source: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/20d.html
!