Ok I thought it would be easier to answer your questions here, hope you dont mind. So others can also read it all and learn/make comments suggestions etc. Shelia Evening light II Shelia You did this WITHOUT manual settings????????? and the other one too????? HOW?????? I'm totally impressed. HATS OFF to you!!!!!!! no way could i do that!!!!!!! Magnificent capture! Shelia: Yes you could. In this case it is more to do with choosing the right lighting conditions than it is to do with the amount of control you have or dont have. In the two evening light images, the sun was low almost directly behind, this gave warm tones, this type of lighting is not unusual here (when its not overcast lol) also the light was fairly uniform throughout the scene except for the deep shadow, the important thing is that there were no real bright highlights, it that was so it would not have worked very well. I metered off of the mid tones (the trees on the other side of the loch) Shutter and aperture were all auto on the P&S and on the DSLR it was f8 1/60 Both on a tripod. Cynlee wow!! 2 mg huh? how bout distance, do you notice a dif there? i'd like to get more detail with mine but maybe i'm asking too much for that... thanks simon :] Im not sure that I have understood the question. If you mean in the focal length, it is difficult to compare as the DSLR is measured in lens focal length taking into account the 1.6 crop factor and the P&S is 6x optical zoom, however I know that wide is approx 36mm and tele is approx 230mm 35mm equivalent. So I set the P&S @ its widest and the dslr lens was set at 23mm giving it an equivalent of approx 36mm taking into account the 1.6 crop. The actual image is almost identical in view. Dose that make sense? As a point of note the fact that there is a 1.6 crop factor the actual focal length of any said lens does not change, it is wrongly said to be a magnification factor, whilst this is how it seems, in actuality all that happens is that because the sensor is smaller than the full frame of 35mm film, the angle of view is cropped from the outer edge of the lens. (my interpretation) Eternity Shelia The camera was on fully manual, f8, 1/125 there were three lights, the main (key) light with softbox 45 towards the model on the left metered at f8, 1/125, the fill light with softbox 45 towards the model on the right metered at f4, 1/25 (to fill the shadow on her back and back of head) the third light was directional using a snoot and honeycomb at the rose from the side and higher pointing downward, metered at f8 1/125. There are mistakes with the lighting and the compo is a little off as Cynlee pointed out. Oh well no ones perfect lol It was the first time that I have been in a proper studio unassisted so all things considered not bad.

Message edited on: 06/02/2005 18:37

Shelia Yes the bright white shirt was a problem and caused over exposure a little, the original was not quite so bad, but the toning has emphasised the problem a little.
Will have to do better next time.

Message edited on: 06/02/2005 18:44

Sorry you have provide a link. I have no idea what this is about, and couldn't find any thing that was in the forum to make sense of this message. Sounds interesting and would like to know and help unless this should be an IM:}

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=970112&Start=1&Artist=LostPatrol&ByArtist=Yes

ty simon... i guess the 2mg cam has a better lens on it then i was thinking as the distance detail was pretty clear... do appreciate your reply!! :]

Better lens than the DSLR? I hope not, the 17-40, on the Canon is a pro series lens. In comparison the P&S lens is very small. But I agree that the image looks crisper, I think this has more to do with the sensor and sensor type than the lens and the fact that I usually shoot landscapes on the DSLR with long exposures to get the DOF. Wind conditions almost always a problem here. This particular shot the conditions were exceptional and clear, often visibility is a little hazy here so distance detail is affected by that too. The print quality though is where the benefit shows most.

I've compared my DSLR efforts to a friends point and shoot, and generally he seems to get really bright and sharp images very easily, where as I have to take more care and possibly even post process to get similar results. I guess this is because the P&S camera does all its post processing for you (sharpness and saturation), where as my DSLR seems to give more neutral tones. Also the shear size of the DSLR makes it more prone to focus spoiling vibration (especially with larger lenses). I think also that the crisp image of the P&S shot here isn't only the sensor, its the pairing of the lens and the sensor together in one package. It's image quality is designed into the product. Of course a DSLR is more flexible than a P&S, but that isn't stopping me thinking about buying a good quaity P&S camera for use when my SLR is just too bulky/awkward to have around. Theres plenty of artists here that get stunning photographs from even the cheapest P&S compact digital camera :)

The pairing of lenses in a good point and something that I have thought about also. The fact that a P&S is designed to go with a specific lens clearly makrs a difference, and is made to go with that specific sensor. I wouldnt give up the DSLR but there are times when a small camera has advantages. Just my opinion but I feel that some DSLRs tend to under saturate and soften at their default settings. The 10D is a great camera, but in todays high tech world it is probably pretty old technology now.