U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: slightly off-topic...or not (re cameras)

Re: slightly off-topic...or not (re cameras)

Really, the lag thing is not so much an issue...I mean, with autofocus, almost any camera needs a slight amount of time to do its focus thing. The trick is to do a half-press which focuses the cam and then click off your shot. The actual click takes no time at all, there's no lag in the clicking, it's the autofocus...it's not an issue at all.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: slightly off-topic...or not (re cameras)

Thanks so much to everybody for the encouraging (and wide range of) replies. Last time, I followed list advice (from Tom.... wasn't it?) which proved excellent, tho now we see the "revolution of rising expectations." Then, no digital did rapid response, so we didn't expect it. Now, it seems many can, so I NEED it. (And if I'd had it last night, when we had Gay Pride on the block, I could have caught & blown up to billboard size the lady who thought "gay rights" included vomiting into my areaway for me to clean up. She was literally blind drunk, but her enabler was, let's say, disgruntled when I, um, interfered in a manner that might be called "energetic.")

At this point.... what is it the Mets (or Yankees?) say?... "Wait til next year"? Tho, experience is that just having the right camera on hand can magically forestall all sorts of problems (by brain waves probably).

I will meanwhile agree with Jeremy re "view finder." There is allegedly a view finder on my Canon, but 1/3rd of it is blocked by the lens and the rest shows only a squinty blur. But the LCD (if that's what it is, I've just called it "the monitor"), which swings out to whichever angle you want, is SUPERB, and the reason I chose this model in the first place.

However, this weekend I had a houseguest whose camera was so appealing it went to the top of my (preliminary) list -- (at least I won't have to reproach myself for being impulsive). What charmed on this one was exactly the viewing screen.... the entire back of the camera. The image there is so bee-utiful we might not manage to make a print as luscious.

That's the Canon Powershot SD 790IS, "Digital Elf." Friend didn't have specifics on the time lag, but it seemed a fraction of a second. She also has hers set for the largest possible file per shot, so each is (approx.) 3 to 5 mgs, tho it could be smaller. (My jpegs are 1-1/2 mgs... which in my innocence I've found enough. I mean if it looks scant, photoshop can always dial in some more, can't it? (I'm not trying to be Timothy Greenfield Sanders.)

My thought now, however, is that almost any small or smallish camera could help prevent osteoporosis -- as they tend to keep us walking, allegedly the *best* exercise. That RNC summer when I shot all those T-shirts, I lost almost 10 pounds. (They found me again since then, however. Maybe I haven't been shooting enough.)

Meanwhile, many thanks to all for the suggestions -- I'm making a list, and then (with more thanks) will study the website.


On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, Jeremy Moore wrote:

Not everyone agrees. I prefer the LCD on the back of the camera to the
IMO-useless optical viewfinders found on most point and shoots--I have the
LX2 which doesn't have an optical viewfinder and I have never wished it had
one. Then again, I prefer composing 2-3 feet away from my face as the 4x5 is
my most used camera.


On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Linda Stinchfield <linda@turtlesilk.com>wrote:

Now my new hobby horse-- do NOT get one without a viewfinder. I just got a
new little Panasonic Lumix to carry in my purse, and I cannot see *
anything* in that d***d LCD window. Have gone back to lugging my older,
larger Lumix around with me. Maybe it helps prevent osteoporosis.>>