New Camera

[NeverSure]

Dancealot, when we talk about shutter speed, in normal light it is common for the shutter to be open for only 1/125th to even 1/500th of a second. It isn't uncommon though for it to be as "slow" as 1/60th of a second. That's pretty fast and will keep most pictures from suffering to much from camera shake if you learn a little technique like holding your breath and squeezing the shutter release smoothly.

When we talk about a "slow" shutter speed to blur a waterfall or to follow focus, we might need to be as "slow" as 1/8th of a second up to maybe 1/2 second.

In use, it's still very fast but relative. You do probably want a tripod to steady a camera to take that waterfall shot and keep the rest of the picture sharp and free of blur from camera motion. I have however many times held the camera firmly against a tree or something and taken several shots and found one or maybe all to be fine.

If you're going to use your car for a steady prop like that, shut the engine off, LOL.

[Dancealot]

How do you explain how i managed to get this shot then? I just played with shutter time( i think) and have no idea what i did.

The cam was too big for me and my friend let me use it.

I am clueless, but i love that shot.

[NeverSure]

How do you explain how i managed to get this shot then? I just played with shutter time( i think) and have no idea what i did.

The cam was too big for me and my friend let me use it.

I am clueless, but i love that shot.

Nice picture!!

I don't think you did anything. I think the camera was set to automatic. The aperture was fairly small because there is full depth of field - everything in focus from foreground to infinity. The camera appears to have a light sensor which is center weighted and it "read" the light inside the building and balanced the shutter speed for that, to let in just enough total light to properly expose that inside. It's wonderful but you can't always count on all of the stars lining up just right for you like that.

Nice!!

[NeverSure]

Dancealot, much has been said here and it might overwhelm. Don't let it. We are really only talking about three things so far. Quality and function of the machine, lens (aperture) opening, and shutter speed.

There are examples of what shutter speed can do with a waterfall and a moving model car. There are examples in the video of what aperture setting can do to control depth of field. That's it.

All that left is learning to get the proper exposure, meaning that if you choose aperture as your priority to control depth of field, then the shutter must be set to the proper speed for that to let in just enough light. If the shutter is the priority to control any sense of motion, then the aperture is adjusted to let in just enough light. That's it. The camera has a meter which will tell you what to set the second thing to, after you have chosen the priority.

For now that's it, and as you can see, in no time you can be taking some amazing photographs with a decent quality camera.

Go for it.

[Dancealot]

So, in theory.. Could i have unintentionally overexposed this pic?

Excuse me for asking.. but you seem to clarify my unanswered questions.

[tw25rw]

I am a little slow on the lingo here. Excuse me.

But i understand i can manually focus the RX100 and adjust shutter/iso and this is very small cam. I want it.

Loads of non DSLRs can do that. It's not unusual.

[tw25rw]

Whats wrong with a leica? That cam looks good to me. Still doesnt fit n my pocket though unless i detach the lens.

If you're thinking of buying either a compact or a bridge Leica then just buy the Panasonic equivalent instead. The only difference is a 50% price cut and the lack of a red button.

I had been referring to the Leica Ms which do everything he wants, but might not quite come under budget.

[NeverSure]

So, in theory.. Could i have unintentionally overexposed this pic?

Excuse me for asking.. but you seem to clarify my unanswered questions.

I don't think you did anything that way. I think the camera had the ability to read the light and set the proper exposure. I'd also guess that the particular camera's exposure sensor was reading the center of the picture where the light is. If so it set the exposure for the light in the building, ignoring the dark parts and properly exposed the center of the picture.

I'd also guess that the camera was aperture priority, either by design or by a setting. The aperture was small because the depth of field is large, meaning that everything is in focus from foreground to infinity. The aperture setting had to be small.

Because it's obvious that the aperture (hole into the lens) was small, then the length of exposure (shutter speed) had to be a bit on the long side to let in enough total light to properly expose the inside of the building. I'd have to guess that the camera read the light inside the building because it read only the very center of a scene, and set the shutter speed to the number needed to let enough light come through that small aperture opening and get a proper exposure of the inside of the building.

[Guest]

I was at the same situation as you and spent a lot of time trying to figure out what camera would be best for me. With the help of this forum I found mine.. and love it. (Canon SX50HS) http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/607903-new-bridge-super-zoom-camera/

If you are still open for ideas, I would second getting an bridge camera.

It gives pretty much full control of the camera, comes often with an good zoom and there is no need to buy expensive lenses later on.

Downsides are: Bridges are bigger than pocket cameras, those are almost the same size as the DSLR or mirrorless cameras. Bridges also have smaller sensors, which often means that those are not so good in the night or evenings shots as DSLR's as the sensor collects less light.

[manarak]

So, in theory.. Could i have unintentionally overexposed this pic?

Excuse me for asking.. but you seem to clarify my unanswered questions.

I don't think you did anything that way. I think the camera had the ability to read the light and set the proper exposure. I'd also guess that the particular camera's exposure sensor was reading the center of the picture where the light is. If so it set the exposure for the light in the building, ignoring the dark parts and properly exposed the center of the picture.

I'd also guess that the camera was aperture priority, either by design or by a setting. The aperture was small because the depth of field is large, meaning that everything is in focus from foreground to infinity. The aperture setting had to be small.

Because it's obvious that the aperture (hole into the lens) was small, then the length of exposure (shutter speed) had to be a bit on the long side to let in enough total light to properly expose the inside of the building. I'd have to guess that the camera read the light inside the building because it read only the very center of a scene, and set the shutter speed to the number needed to let enough light come through that small aperture opening and get a proper exposure of the inside of the building.

And I think if the cam was set to automatic, that everything except the lighted area of the hut's interior should be black (except if the shot was taken at some very favorable time of the day). Some special function must have been used, such as enhance dark areas or something similar to in-camera HDR.

[NeverSure]

So, in theory.. Could i have unintentionally overexposed this pic?

Excuse me for asking.. but you seem to clarify my unanswered questions.

I don't think you did anything that way. I think the camera had the ability to read the light and set the proper exposure. I'd also guess that the particular camera's exposure sensor was reading the center of the picture where the light is. If so it set the exposure for the light in the building, ignoring the dark parts and properly exposed the center of the picture.

I'd also guess that the camera was aperture priority, either by design or by a setting. The aperture was small because the depth of field is large, meaning that everything is in focus from foreground to infinity. The aperture setting had to be small.

Because it's obvious that the aperture (hole into the lens) was small, then the length of exposure (shutter speed) had to be a bit on the long side to let in enough total light to properly expose the inside of the building. I'd have to guess that the camera read the light inside the building because it read only the very center of a scene, and set the shutter speed to the number needed to let enough light come through that small aperture opening and get a proper exposure of the inside of the building.

And I think if the cam was set to automatic, that everything except the lighted area of the hut's interior should be black (except if the shot was taken at some very favorable time of the day). Some special function must have been used, such as enhance dark areas or something similar to in-camera HDR.

I agree it was set to automatic. I think it had to be either an aperture priority camera, or it was set to aperture priority. I think the blue sky shows it was taken a while after sunset or before sunrise, and the light was so low inside the building that it exposed enough to lighten the sky. I've had a dark sky turn blue from a timed exposure on a tripod at night, filming stars. Too long of course and the stars will streak as the earth moves.

I think it was just one of those happy times where a center weighted meter and a small aperture made it happen. You could do it on purpose, but you'd have to know what you were doing, and bracket the shot each way.

It's a dandy photo that I'd be proud to say I took.

[NeverSure]

Dancelot, I'd like to show you this yellow car again for another reason. There's a photo topic called "composition" meaning composing the picture. A rule of thumb is that the "center of interest" which in this case is the car, shouldn't be in the center of the picture. Center of interest means the thing you want to stand out - the thing you're photographing.

The rule of thumb is 1/3rds. If you divided the picture into thirds side to side and top to bottom, the car should be on the line of one of the thirds. Here it is 1/3 of the way into the picture. It might even look better if it was also only 1/3 of the way up from the bottom.

A moving object should have room to move into. If the car was moved to the right in the picture, to the right 1/3, it would appear to be almost ready to leave the picture, and not have much room to move. By putting to the left, the photographer left it with lots of room to move into.

Even with non moving items, they still look better centered on a line of 3rds.

HERE are lots of such pictures, where my search term was "camera rule of thirds."

[NeverSure]

I found this demo which I really liked. One is the typical snapshot - center of interest is dead center. The other places it 1/3 of the way up from the bottom, and 1/3 of the way in from the left. I call the first a snapshot, and the second a photograph just to make a point.

[Goshawk]

another weapon in my photographic arsenal that's small, pocketable & might be right up the OP's street... is the Canon PowerShot S95...

http://www.thaivisa....-powershot-s95/

it's a couple of years old now, believe the S110 is the latest incarnation of the S series, but these high end small Canon's are really good, especially in low light with their F2.0 lens.

[NeverSure]

another weapon in my photographic arsenal that's small, pocketable & might be right up the OP's street... is the Canon PowerShot S95...

http://www.thaivisa....-powershot-s95/

it's a couple of years old now, believe the S110 is the latest incarnation of the S series, but these high end small Canon's are really good, especially in low light with their F2.0 lens.

Awesome photographs. You're good! Thanks for posting them.

I inserted a link to the S110 in post #24 here and got no responses, LOL. I NEED one hahaha. It hits the sweet spot for lens quality and features at the right price point.

You just proved it. Thanks.

[Dancealot]

Fantastic! And many thanks for all the support everyone. And for the lessons NeverSure.

[NeverSure]

Welcome Dancelot. Just out of curiosity I took Golhawks' S95 idea and searched ebay US for one. As is often true, it was $200 where the S110 is $400 at Amazon. The S95 was mint with original box and for the difference I'd rather have the S95. As I mentioned somewhere else, I often find that an electronics item which was the bees knees just two years ago will be 1/2 the price of what's the greatest today. I buy computer components that way for a new build. If it was the greatest just two years ago it will serve me well today for 1/2 price.

The S95 as Golhawk showed is a very fine compact camera and I'll think I'll buy one. $200. Used to spend that on slide film in a month.

BTW I've been enjoying your village photos in your Isaan thread. That's some really good information and very warm human interest stuff.

[Dancealot]

Thanks, man. I have to live there one day so i am checking it out. I know a lot but there is so much more to learn from the farmers.

Be returning to the farm soon and hope i can get a clearer picture this time

Indeed i have to choose between s95 and rx100. I think the main difference FOR ME between the 2 units is i cannot turn the lens manually(focus) on the S95.

Word around the campfire is that beginners who have bought the RX are left with endless nit picking options they need years to learn.

Read the thread on the S95(110) and i am quite satisfied with the posted results! If i could shoot like this with this camera i do not need more.

I am not the type of guy to carry around lenses and batteries and such on his travels. Also not a photoshop- guy. I always go with 1 small backpack which i consider a small burden already. And i hate suitcases.

I do want to take my photos more seriously so i am trying to learn the basics now. Want to take it to the next step so to say.

I am so thankful my interest developed in the digital age. I remember my grandfather struggling to sort his slides and keep them in order. And yes he had a dark room as well! Oh my..

[NeverSure]

Dancelot, you can switch the Powershot S95 and 110 to manual focus and use the focus ring, or so I read in many places. If I knew for sure I couldn't, I wouldn't want it. When I use the large aperture to get shallow depth of field, I NEED to be able to decide what is in focus.

Not mine:

[Dancealot]

Yes that is my motivation for this camera thing. The cam(phone) i used this year didnt have an auto focus turn off button which repeatedly frustrated me. All that work i did shooting and organizing and then to think i only made lucky shots. I had absolutely no control.

[samuijimmy]

Yes that is my motivation for this camera thing. The cam(phone) i used this year didnt have an auto focus turn off button which repeatedly frustrated me. All that work i did shooting and organizing and then to think i only made lucky shots. I had absolutely no control.

It helps to be sober when shooting!

But joking a side, even the best intentioned shoots, some times don't turn out the way we would like....

It comes down to doing the settings often enough that you remember what to do ... the next time... and having the patience to fiddle and try several shoots, at different settings .... some times "on the fly" shots don't make that possible!!!

[NeverSure]

Yes and sometimes we get lucky and a shot is ten times better than we hoped. Some of my best photos have elements in them that I didn't plan.

[Goshawk]

Dancelot, you can switch the Powershot S95 and 110 to manual focus and use the focus ring, or so I read in many places.

yes.. to confirm, the S95 & S100 front ring can be set to various functions including manual focus.

edit: a few more of my S95 sample images..

$200 sounds like a bargain for it today.. think i paid around £400 for it new back then.

[Dancealot]

FYI. RX100 Euro600 / S110 Euro380. New, Jan 2013.

[NeverSure]

FYI. RX100 Euro600 / S110 Euro380. New, Jan 2013.

Last model with basically same same features and plenty good enough - S95 $US200.

See posts above with shots from S95.

[Tywais]

I had a pinned topic on dSLRs a long time ago so you might want to browse through it. A bit dated but the general information is still valid.

dSLR Q&A

[Dancealot]

I had a pinned topic on dSLRs a long time ago so you might want to browse through it. A bit dated but the general information is still valid.

dSLR Q&A

+1

[FracturedRabbit]

I had a pinned topic on dSLRs a long time ago so you might want to browse through it. A bit dated but the general information is still valid.

dSLR Q&A

+1

Except that the original assumption of that thread, which started more than three years ago, that the only upgrade from a Point & Shoot is a DSLR, is an assumption that may have had some validity then; but the camera market has changed considerably since.

There is now a huge selection of advanced compact and inter-changeable lens mirrorless cameras; all of which offer as much control as a DSLR and many of which might serve as a better tool for someone learning the basics of photography.

[ThaiBob]

I had a pinned topic on dSLRs a long time ago so you might want to browse through it. A bit dated but the general information is still valid.

dSLR Q&A

.........

There is now a huge selection of advanced compact and inter-changeable lens mirrorless cameras; all of which offer as much control as a DSLR and many of which might serve as a better tool for someone learning the basics of photography.

yes, but those cameras do not meet the OP's requirement that they fit in his pocket.

[FracturedRabbit]

I was referring the link which was ostensibly about DSLRs which also don't fit in the pocket. But there are plenty of advanced compact cameras that do; some of which have already been mentioned in this thread.