External flashes

[handicap18]

Crop body means the sensor is not equivalent to a 35mm frame of film (full-frame cameras are). To calculate the effective focal length of a lens on an XSi, you would multiply the lens' focal length by 1.6. Lenses appear to be longer on a crop body than on a full-frame.

From http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=414088

A 50mm lens on a XSi has an effective focal length of 80mm. This means the XSi's pictures appear to be closer with a crop body.

It turns out to not be as big of a deal as it sounds. However, it is one of the reasons I bought the Sigma 30mm. 30mm on the XSi is 48mm, which is about as close to 50mm as you can get. The first SLR I used was a 35mm film SLR, and most of the time I used a 50mm lens. The 50mm length most closely replicates what the eye sees, and I wanted something equivalent for my XSi.

Your pretty much right on here, except change "focal length" to "field of view".

80mm is 80mm no matter how you measure it. The focal length does not change, only the field of view.

 

[handicap18]

Thanks for the explaination of crop body. When I went in to one of the camera shops the guy was saying something about how you multiple the lens by a certain factor and I didn't understand why. Now I get it. Thanks for sharing all your knowledge. I am learning so much from everyone here. I can't wait to get my camera and start playing around with it!

If you never used a film SLR and lenses, then you wont need to worry about the "crop factor".

Many of us who have used SLR's for years going back to the film days will look at it differently. If I was used to using a 50mm lens on a film body then I would need to know how that same lens will affect my use on a digital crop body.

If you never had that film SLR experience, then there is nothing for you to really compare it to. However, it is nice to know the termanology when its being discussed even if it doesn't mean much to you.

Now, full frame digital bodies have been gaining some share in the dSLR market. Down the road if that technology drops down to the less expensive dSLR bodies, then it will make a difference for you on what lenses are used when and what kind of a different field of view you will get.

 

[scoot241]

Your pretty much right on here, except change "focal length" to "field of view".

80mm is 80mm no matter how you measure it. The focal length does not change, only the field of view.

Yeah that's what I meant when I was saying effective focal length. It's not the actual length of the lens. Field of view is the correct term though.

 

[ColleenG]

I think I get it now. Does the crop factor make a wide angle lens less wide? Does that make sense? I'm going by the picture above. If you wanted to get the full scene would you just have to move back?

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Nice shots! Are you spot metering, matrix or center weighted?

What about using auto ISO? Wouldn't that be easier than constantly having to adjust EC or shutter speed/aperture? Not sure if this has been discussed or used before...Would this be bass akward?

 

[Todd_H]

Great Pictures!

Thanks!

Nice shots! Are you spot metering, matrix or center weighted?

What about using auto ISO? Wouldn't that be easier than constantly having to adjust EC or shutter speed/aperture? Not sure if this has been discussed or used before...Would this be bass akward?

Thanks! I was using evaluative metering where the camera evaluates the entire scene to judge exposure.

On the ISO issue, it will work if your camera will select those expanded ISO modes if it needs them... my Canon won't do it. It will go up to 3200 automatically in shutter and aperture priority mode (which is what I use to shoot the dark rides), but won't go any higher than that. Not sure why .

 

[Todd_H]

I was going back through my shots last night and pulled just a couple more out that didn't make the first or second cut. Actually, looking at these now, I think they came out better than some of those I posted above.

Another one from the attic. I really like the cloudy/dirty champaign glasses (never noticed them before).

Here's the first scene when you enter the attic. I posted another one of these above, but I think this one turned out a little better, even if you can't see the picture details very well.

And here are 2 of the 3 hitchhiking ghosts

Thanks for continuing to look!

 

[Quicklabs]

Oh my! I am really enjoying these! Thanks so much for sharing the magic!

 

[Todd_H]

Oh my! I am really enjoying these! Thanks so much for sharing the magic!

Thanks, Laura!

 

[scrapbookersdis]

All hail the King of Disney Low Light!

Your work is truly amazing and a delight to behold. (As well as severely humbling.)

 

[JoeDif]

Does anyone have any experience with Vivitar camera flashes? I've been researching the 383 model but was interested to see if anybody has any positive or negative thoughts about this flash.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

What kind of equipment do you have?

 

[thecapells]

What kind of equipment do you have?

I have a basic automatic camera - it's a Canon Powershot SD1100 IS.
Nothing fancy - so am I just out of luck?

 

[jfinke]

It will probably only be useful for off flash lighting, unless you plan on doing everything manual anyways. I don't think it will work with any of the auto exposure setups like ETTL for canon.

 

[pjacobi]

Old flash units used high voltage to trigger the flash. If you expose a modern digital camera to high voltage it will fry all the circuits.

Leave the old flash unit in the dumpster or only use it as a slave off-camera flash.

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index2.html#trigger


-Paul

 

[Groucho]

I have some decent shots of the boarding area at Dinosaur. I tried some onride shots last trip and I thought I heard the shutter snap a few times but actually, no pictures got taken, so I must have been dreaming. Faster low-light focus might get the job done - you do have moments where you're stopped completely, so it's not impossible, especially with a superfast lens + image stabilization.

thecapells, it's really all about the imaging sensor. By and large - the bigger the sensor, the better results you'll get at high ISOs. Higher megapixel counts usually work against you, but newer technology can sometimes help. DSLRs have much larger sensors than PnSs, which get by with tiny sensors in order to make the camera itself tiny.

I made up a graphic a couple years ago to give an idea of the difference... the sensor in your Canon is almost certainly a 1/2.5" sensor - the smallest shown here. This is normal for the vast majority of PnS cameras. The majority of DSLRs have an APS-sized sensor - with about 15x the surface area. Olympus and Panasonic use the "4/3rds" sensor, which is a little smaller. A few very expensive (read, $2,500+) DSLRs have "full frame" sensors, which are the same size as 35mm film. Of course, these are also bigger and heavier and require bigger and heavier lenses to get comparable "zoom" as the smaller-sensored cameras.

Generally, the limit for remotely acceptable photos on a 1/2.5" point-n-shoot is ISO 800, on APS DSLRs it's 6,400, and on full-frame it's 12,800 or maybe 25,600 if the megapixel count is low enough. Each doubling of the number is one "stop" and that means you need half as much light to get a photo in the same period of time. In other words, you'll get the same picture at:
1/15th at ISO 800
1/30th at ISO 1600
1/60th at ISO 3200
1/120th at ISO 6400
1/240th at ISO 12800

As you can imagine, it's a lot easier to get a decent photo at 1/240th of a second than 1/15th!

 

[jfinke]

Love it when people post images like that. It always puts things into perspective.

 

[JoeDif]

Old flash units used high voltage to trigger the flash. If you expose a modern digital camera to high voltage it will fry all the circuits.

Leave the old flash unit in the dumpster or only use it as a slave off-camera flash.

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index2.html#trigger


-Paul

Thanks for the heads up on that

I believe the 383 model is a fairly new flash so it shouldn't be an issue

 

[YesDear]

I have the old 285H which is a workhorse for film. I still will use sometimes as an off camera fill. I have read a little about the 383 and it appears you can get the Canon, Nikon, etc version that is TTL.

Since I shoot Nikon and know that the 600,800,900 are so dependable, I am the kind to wait and save my money for one of those rather than use an off brand. That is just me. B&H has them for $129 which is a great price for a TTL flash. Just not something I would buy for my camera.

Vivitar flashes are known to be high quality though if that is the direction you want to take.

And yes the older flashes will fry your today's digital camera!

 

[jann1033]

i have read good things about some vivitar flashes including iehttp://www.strobist.blogspot.com/2007/02/return-of-classic.htmland that is actually the brand my camera store employees recommend... i've looked at them in person and they look ok just nothing "fancy". it kind of sounds to me like you need to know what you are doing with this one and since i am totally new to flash that makes me nervous
smart shooter in yrs past recommended a vivitar as well( don't remember the model) but doesn't this year ...i have the metz 58a1 on my wish list...that is one of their recommended flashes and has a cool little fill-flash . it's $399 so tough to decide, stripped down vivitar for 1/3 the price or the one i've been drooling over for 2 yrs( knew i was going to upgrade my body and wanted to make sure it would work)
it looks like they are reintroduced so i probably wouldn't buy one off ebay or someplace just to be sure i didn't get the old one that might damage something