Canon S3

[AndrewWG]

I have to disagree with Andy on the durability of SD vs. CF and leaving it in the camera. The SD cards are more plastic, but as long as you do not abuse them, then they will be just fine. Mine have had tons of use with no damage. They have one big durability advantage over CF. The contacts on SD are many times over more durable than the CF prongs. Bend one of those on your camera and you have a costly repair. I always use a card reader for transfers to conserve battery power. Transferring from camera does a number on your batteries and even rechargeables have a limited life, so why use it up when it is not necessary.

Kevin

Kevin,

I agree that the CF prongs can be a real problem if they are damaged. Actually, I hadn't thought of that when I was writing this response. I personally, like the SD better than the CF and am glad that my S2 uses them. I just get concerned sometimes when plugging the card into my reader that it may get bent or something. I have never had it happen, it just seems more likely than with the CF.

I don't care about battery life because I am rich. No, not really, but I don't see a large drain of the batteries when transferring the photos as it goes quite quickly. I'm sure that what you say is correct though as you are in fact draining the batteries while transferring the photos.

I have no experience with lithium vs alkaline disposables. I mainly shoot alkaline batteries and they last a decent amount of time so I never tried anything else. Maybe I'll try the lithium and see the difference.

As far as rechargable batteries, one question I would have is, do these batteries have "memory" like they did in the old days? I remember that if a battery wasn't totally discharged before re-charging, eventually, they just wouldn't charge worth a darn. Is this still true? I imagine not, but I just don't know.

I am sure that in a month or two, I will be coming on this site and telling everyone the exact opposite of what I am saying today as I am just now trying to take my photography more seriously and will be using the camera about twice as much or more than I usually do. We'll see...



Andy

 

[ukcatfan]

Kevin,

I have no experience with lithium vs alkaline disposables. I mainly shoot alkaline batteries and they last a decent amount of time so I never tried anything else. Maybe I'll try the lithium and see the difference.

As far as rechargable batteries, one question I would have is, do these batteries have "memory" like they did in the old days? I remember that if a battery wasn't totally discharged before re-charging, eventually, they just wouldn't charge worth a darn. Is this still true? I imagine not, but I just don't know.

I am not sure how many shots you will get with alkalines, but you should get somewhere between 1000-1500 on lithiums. They are also nice for infrequent use b/c they hold their power where NiMH need to be recharged after about two weeks of no use. They do not have the memory problems like the old NiCd batteries did. Also, if you plan on doing video, I suggest rechargeables b/c at $10 a set for the lithiums, it is kinda wasting to burn them up with video.

Kevin

 

[Jeanne B]

UKCAT FAN, what would you recommend then? If price were no object, and I want to do occasional snippits of video of the toddlers in action?

I have a port in my lap top that accepts my memory cards and I use that to down load. That being said, does one card download faster than another. I have a very powerful laptop that I bought just for photos and it is awesome.

Not Kevin here but I use my S3 a little bit for video and I use SanDisk Ultra 1GB and 2GB cards when I know I'm going to video otherwise I use standard cards (usually SanDisk or PNY). IMO it's always a good idea to have more than one SD card on hand so if you know you're going to use the video option you might want to consider picking up both a standard card and an Ultra type card. I use primarily lithium batteries, haven't tried rechargeables yet.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I am trying to venture into using some of the manual settings of my S3 and haven't always had great results. Would appreciate some help.

Here I think I used aperture priority/AV going for DOF from a distance. All came out white.

And a similar shot from the same location using Auto:

Here I used shutter priority/TV trying to get some quick shots. Again, white.

And a similar shot using Sports mode (she was moving around a lot.) ETA: this was actually taken on auto, my goof.

Can someone explain what I'm doing wrong?

ETA this was taken using sports mode:

 

[jann1033]

don't know how the s3 is set up but they look overexposed..is there any thing that shows when the exposure is correct..ie on my rebelxt there is an exposure scale by the shutter ap numbers in my viewfinder that has a dot that stays green when exposure is ok...do you have anything like that? you probably either had to slow a shutter for the aperture or to large an aperture for the shutter. if you have some kind of metering modes to change you might be able to adjust that as well.
can you tell what the shutter and ap are when you use an auto mode? if so that would give you an idea what to set with ap or tv modes. it may say in your book or maybe online if it doesn't have anyway to tell on your camera (not sure how they work that)
you might need to check the iso as well. not sure if a sensor is the same as film but with film the iso also doubles in light sensitvity( if i am remembering that right) so if they are shot at different iso i think it would also affect the exposure ( ie 1/1600 at 200 wouldn't be the same as 1/1600 at 100, iso at 100 would need 2 xs the light as the 200 would)

 

[tinksdad]

They are obviously overexposed. Have you noted the shutter and aperture levels in the different modes?

According to the EXIF in the first two shots;

#1)shutter- 1/1600, f/4

#2) shutter- 1/2500, f/8

Thats a big difference!! Maybe the camera got a problem. Should be compensating and adjusting the valves to meter correctly for the value you set (aperture or shutter speed).

 

[Pea-n-Me]

is there any thing that shows when the exposure is correct..ie on my rebelxt there is an exposure scale by the shutter ap numbers in my viewfinder that has a dot that stays green when exposure is ok...do you have anything like that?

It's quite possible there is, but I've never used it. Will have to look into it. The green dot sounds like a nice feature. Maybe some other S2/3 owners will chime in here.

I really need to get out by myself and use this camera. It seems I'm always rushed an not able to really take the time to play with these features. I wonder how using these settings on this camera compares to using them on a DSLR? Someone here has both, don't they?

 

[Pea-n-Me]

They are obviously overexposed. Have you noted the shutter and aperture levels in the different modes?

According to the EXIF in the first two shots;

#1)shutter- 1/1600, f/4

#2) shutter- 1/2500, f/8

Thats a big difference!! Maybe the camera got a problem. Should be compensating and adjusting the valves to meter correctly for the value you set (aperture or shutter speed).

Thanks. No, I haven't noted the differences - yet. I was thinking I really didn't have to using the mode dial, maybe I was wrong. My plan was to begin by using the dial, then later, when I'm comfortable with that, moving into setting the manual settings on my own.

 

[tinksdad]

I'm not familar with your camera, but most have some method of identifying the exposure levels and thus getting the correct exposure. Try setting the camera in manual and adjusting both the shutter and aperture levels to that correct position and see what you get. I would set the ISO for a consistant value for the test.

 

[jann1033]

Jen i forgot you have a live histogram on there..that should let you know if it is exposed right or not...if it's all scrunched over touching the far right edge it's over exposed...it should have a little room on both edges of the histogram...i'm looking at the canon site to see if i see anything about exposure scales on it.


i can't find any kind of accurate exposure indicator in the reviews i read but there is some kind of safety you can set while using av and tv that sets the correct exposure if it's wrong...not sure if you could use that as a learning tool or not...it's in the menu

 

[JR6ooo4]

If the histo is all bunched up on the right that means the scene is mostly brighter colors to all white. But if the vetical bars go off the top of the graph then those colors represented by each vertical bar (along the curve) have been overexposed.

Mikeeee

 

[DueyDooDah]

I believe Jann is correct here. Data falling off either end is the real culprit here. Mark B. gives a good explanation here. The way I understand it, vertical lines indicate the percentage of a specific "color" or lighting level the image contains. I defer to others for a more complete explanation.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Thank you. I'll research the histogram tomorrow. Thanks for the link to Mark's explanation, Duey.

I think what I really need is a photography class. I wish I took it in high school. Why didn't I?

 

[photo_chick]

Just looking at the first two shots.....

Yes...Both shots are at the same ISO... The first one is at a wider aperture for a longer time. The second one is a narrower aperture for a shorter time making it a shorter exposure. That tells the story right there.

I actually ran into a problem with my new lens today, I set the aperture to 1.8 and the camera could not give me a fast enough shuter speed with the ISO I was set at (forgot it was at 1600, DOH!) I took a picuture and saw it was overexposed. Took me a sec to figure out what I had going on there (I miss the simplicity of film sometimes!!!!). I don't know if what caused yours is similar or not.

I do know that the equivalent exposure of f/8 at 1/2500 woudl be f/4 at 1/4000 and the shutter speed of that camera only goes to 3200. That is given that both shots have the same focal length and same ISO. The ISO was the same, but your focal length on the first shot was slightly shorter than the second. That means that you would need a little less light for that first shot and consequently an even faster exposure.

The second set of shots look like something similar, but the ISO is not listed for the one on auto. It looks like with the shutter speed you chose at that ISO the camera just could not do anything but over expose the shot.

If I am wrong, plesae correct me guys. It has been a few years since my Photo 1 class, though I did make an A on the technical exam.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

photo_chick, thank you. I understand your explanation.

I guess I thought that choosing TV or AV on the mode dial would set the correct settings automatically. I need to figure this out for my particular camera. But I am "getting it", so I do appreciate the help.

I wonder if anyone else actually uses these settings on their S2/S3s? Haven't heard from anyone. I'm going to edit the title to see if I can lure them in, not to exclude SLR users.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

They are obviously overexposed.

I've re-read this thread several times and every time I just have to chuckle at this sentence. Although now it makes complete sense to me, I didn't realize that's what it was (major "duh" moment - where's the Tag Fairy?) Maybe an explanation is in order.

I've always loved taking pictures. The sheer amount of pictures I've taken over the years rivals many here. Back in the early 90's I considered buying an SLR, but I'd never learned the technical aspect of photography, and decided to stick with automatic. Same for when I went digital several years ago. My life got very busy for a while, but it's finally slowed down. So it's just now that I'm trying to learn the technical side of things. I've read (and often review) several photography books and have followed as many technical posts as I could here. I'm getting there, but it ain't easy. Kind of like learning computers for the first time as an adult (which I did, too, so I'm confident I can learn this as well.) I think a class is definitely in my near future.

I have the feeling there are a lot of people here who are like me. I don't know how many post that they are but I want to learn and I'm sure there are others who will learn from these things as well. So, thanks to all who are willing to help us late bloomers!

 

[JarettK]

Just remember, Tv/Av/Sv are all program modes, and have limitations on their settings for each value.

At f4, your cameras array of values is probably limited to between 1/2sec - 1/1600 sec (even though the camera can goto 1/3200 in a different mode)

From: imaging-resource.com
Program AE (P): Places the camera in control of shutter speed and lens aperture, while you maintain control over everything else (i.e., white balance, ISO, metering, exposure compensation, flash, etc.). Available shutter speeds range from one second to 1/3,200 second.

Shutter-Speed Priority AE (Tv): Allows you to control the shutter speed settings from 1/3,200 to 15 seconds, while the camera controls the aperture. All other exposure settings are available. (Note that the maximum 1/3,200 shutter speed is only available when the lens is at its maximum wide-angle setting.)

Aperture Priority AE (Av): Allows you to set the lens aperture from f/2.7 to f/8.0, while the camera controls the shutter speed. The maximum aperture depends on the zoom setting, ranging from f/2.7 at the wide angle end to f/3.5 at the telephoto position. In this mode, you maintain control over all other exposure variables. Maximum exposure time in Aperture Priority mode is one second. Maximum possible shutter speed varies with the aperture chosen:

* 1/1600 at all apertures
* 1/2000 at f/4.0 and higher (wide) or f/5.0 and higher (tele)
* 1/2500 at f/5.6 and higher (wide) or f/7.1 and higher (tele)
* 1/3200 at f/8.0 (wide only)



Also remember that at wide angle extreme distances, your far focal range of DOF will almost always be infinity.

On a canon s2, at 16mm focused at 500ft:
F4:
Near limit 38.7 ft
Far limit Infinity
Total Infinite
In front of subject 461.3 ft
Behind subject Infinite

F16:
Near limit 10.3 ft
Far limit Infinity
Total Infinite
In front of subject 489.7 ft
Behind subject Infinite



For future reference, you should say "Canon S2" or "Canon S3". There is actually a Fuji S2 dslr and Fuji S3 dslr which people usually term the "S2' and "S3". They were out on the market first. I actually shoot a Fuji S2 and check in on posts with S2 in the title for that reason.

 

[tinksdad]

I've re-read this thread several times and every time I just have to chuckle at this sentence. Although now it makes complete sense to me, I didn't realize that's what it was (major "duh" moment - where's the Tag Fairy?) Maybe an explanation is in order.

I've always loved taking pictures. The sheer amount of pictures I've taken over the years rivals many here. Back in the early 90's I considered buying an SLR, but I'd never learned the technical aspect of photography, and decided to stick with automatic. Same for when I went digital several years ago. My life got very busy for a while, but it's finally slowed down. So it's just now that I'm trying to learn the technical side of things. I've read (and often review) several photography books and have followed as many technical posts as I could here. I'm getting there, but it ain't easy. Kind of like learning computers for the first time as an adult (which I did, too, so I'm confident I can learn this as well.) I think a class is definitely in my near future.

I have the feeling there are a lot of people here who are like me. I don't know how many post that they are but I want to learn and I'm sure there are others who will learn from these things as well. So, thanks to all who are willing to help us late bloomers!

Glad you're able to laugh at the process!! We are ALL learning to one degree or another. For some the technical side of things come easier than to others. But, to take great photos, "that" is not the only thing that makes it happen. I've seen some fantastic pictures that are taken in auto mode with a PnS because the person behind it had a vision and put that in the camera. Perspective, composition, white balance, exposure, lighting and the intricacies of the different cameras can be learned it you have the desire.


Artistic flare is more difficult!!!

 

[photo_chick]

Glad you're able to laugh at the process!! We are ALL learning to one degree or another. For some the technical side of things come easier than to others. But, to take great photos, "that" is not the only thing that makes it happen. I've seen some fantastic pictures that are taken in auto mode with a PnS because the person behind it had a vision and put that in the camera. Perspective, composition, white balance, exposure, lighting and the intricacies of the different cameras can be learned it you have the desire.


Artistic flare is more difficult!!!

I totally agree. Being technically proficent only takes you so far. A well taken shot means nothing if it is not an interesting shot to begin with.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I've seen some fantastic pictures that are taken in auto mode with a PnS because the person behind it had a vision and put that in the camera.

I like to think that describes me pretty well. My goal is to become better at both the instinctive and technical aspects of photography.