Very VERY disappointed with SD500 after today

OK, thus far I have loved the photos this cam has taken, but today i went up onto the roof to take shots of the best sunset ive seen in a while, apart from being biten about 20 times by mosquitos i also took about 30 terrible pics. i tried to keep the camera as firm as possible and took shots at many different settings, to no avail. check these out...

'] http://scotchphotos.bizhat.com/IMG_0720.JPG[/img] [/URL]
'] http://scotchphotos.bizhat.com/IMG_0722.JPG[/img] [/URL]

ok not sure how to post photos on here, the above method didn't work, so here at the links.

can anyone tell me whether the problem lies in me or the camera? but surely it cant be that difficult to take a nice sunset picture

interested to but can't see the pictures mate.
try putting them on your website or on something like yahoogroups

sd500 has come up trumps for me so far, haven't tried sunset or landscape though. going to invest in a mini-tripod for this type of thing.

sorry about that - rememberings romys pics from the other day, there are absolutely shocking and not realistic whatsoeber

interesting. the first one looks totaly buggered, not sure what you were doing. the second one looks good, but noisy. i suspect the camera has chosen a high iso. I would put of the camera on a fixed object and reduce the iso to 50 or 100. the sd500, like most megapixel > 6 is not great on high iso.

this is an interesting review on dcresource, where the reviewer shows night time pics from the sd500 at different iso ratings:

this is iso50:



this is iso100:



this is iso400:



a pretty big difference.

rgds

every photo without a flash was blurry, and hwen i used flash the photo was very unrealistic

either the camera is faulty, which is unlikely. or the dim light is simply causing the camera to use a long exposure and you are shaking. I would use a solid tripod or place the camera on a table or surface top, without windy conditions. they try. if it is still blurred something strange is going on

but surely a $500 camera would be able to take some nice shots of a sunset without needing a tripod?

its physics mate. shake a $10,000 eos1 and you'l get the same effect

Not if your human. People have to breathe, etc.

With night shots the shutter speed is probably running 1/4 to 4 seconds. In that case you have to use a tripod or be very very steady handed. Any motion and the shot is blurred. That's why image stabilization is so nice such as those on the super zooms and Canon S1. But of course they are not small compacts.

Sure wish they would put image stabilization into compacts or ultra compacts.

I returned my Canon SD500 as I gave up trying to take decent indoor (or night) shots without blurred focus. I just couldn't do it without a tripod. Why have an ultra compact if I have to lug around a tripod (even a mini tripod)?

If you buy the Casio EX-Z750 you will have more control of "camera shakes" because that ultra compact alone has shutter priority and aperture priorty mode as well as nearly full manual control options (ISO, white balance, exposure compensation and metering). The SD500 does not have shutter/aperture priority modes (nor does the Sony W7 and Nikon 7900).

The Casio also has these scene modes to help reduce camera shakes:

"Sports", "Party", "Pet", "Splashing Water" and "Anti-Shake"

They won't completely solve the indoors problem but with the proper ISO settings, full control of shutter speeds and aperture, etc. you will have capability to get off better shots with the shakes.

Also at sunset light levels change dramatically. your eyes don't register the change as much as the camera's light sensor does. So shot to shot can be even longer exposure.

Tripod or up the ISO
--
Keep Shootin!
http://philb.fotopic.net/

i saw romy in another thread took perfect photos of sunsets and he said he didnt use a tripod

Hello,

Larry Wolf said:

Sure wish they would put image stabilization into compacts or ultra
compacts.

Click to expand...

They do:

http://www.megapixel.net/reviews/panasonic-fx5/fx5-gen.php

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicFX7/

--
Cheers,bg

P.S., I'm terrible at proof reading my posts for spelling errors,so I use ieSpell with Internet Explorer and SpellBound with Firefox(both are free).Once installed, I just Right-click on my message here and select Check Spelling. Now,would someone give me a link to a grammar checker for forum messages

Hmm... without a shutter priority mode, manual focus or full manual controls (is that correct?), it would quite challenging to be able to catch a correctly exposed picture in challenging lighting situations.

I took a look at the EXIF data of the 2 shots you posted. The shutter speed for the first picture is 1/4 second, and I doubt you would be able to keep the camera steady without a tripod that way - unless you have a robotic arm ;-) AFAIK most Canon digicams will display a "camera shake" warning below a certain threshold.

And for the second pic, unless the camera flash is powerful enough to reach infinity, don't use it for landscape shots; it's only good enough to illuminate foreground objects, and it will be even darker because the camera is assuming it's lighting up the entire scene (which it isn't) and use a faster shutter speed.

Your best bet for nighttime photography is using the night snapshot or the fireworrks mode, and for both of these you will definitely need either a tripod or at the very least rest your camera on a flat surface.

You can also try taking pictures on a less cloudy day, and when the sun is actually visible above the horizon i.e. not blocked by low-lying trees or houses. This will brighten the image considerably, and should easily allow for handheld shooting.

--
---------
Terence
http://www.pbase.com/auriga_m38

Why would you think that? Light is light... when there is little of it... it doesn't matter how much the camera costs.

Vassko R said:

but surely a $500 camera would be able to take some nice shots of a
sunset without needing a tripod?

Click to expand...

thank you for that reply... it was helpful.

is it like that for most cameras - namely that they need to be on a flat surface or in a tripod? also, can i change the shutter speed?

All cameras work the same insofar as how bright a scene is dictates what the ideal exposure settings should be. Now typically, you don't really need a tripod to capture most sunsets, because there's usually enough available light for you to be able to easily handhold a camera and capture a perfectly sharp image. I think because of the amount of clouds obscurring the sun in your case, the amount of light was significantly reduced, facilitating the need for a tripod.

Your camera would need something called Shutter Priority, or full Manual (Tv and M respectively on your mode dial) in order for you to be able to control the shutter speed of your camera. I don't have an SD500 so I don't know if it does or not.

Basically, when you press the shoot button halfway on your camera, it automatically analyzes the scene and determines on its own what the appropriate shutter speed and F-value should be.



--
---------
Terence
http://www.pbase.com/auriga_m38

hmm i have an M on the mode dial...?

nice pic btw. and thanks again for the continued info

A basic rule of thumb is that if you don't have to squint into the brightness of the sunset, you'll probably need a tripod or other stable surface to capture it. There just isn't enough light in your scene.

I have a few sunset shots that look nice, but in each case there was still ample light. If it's overcast and the light is fading/dim, there isn't much you can do without a tripod.

Photographers have a measurement system called EV. It measures the total strength of light. At a certain EV level, no combination of aperture and shutter speed and ISO will be possible to shoot handheld. You can't shoot stars at night handheld, for example.

Also if you're zoomed in, you're cutting out a lot more light than if you're fully zoomed out (wide). This is what the f/2.8 vs f/4.9 numbers tell you on the lens. I had a lot of bright light remaining on this shot - which is why I could take it zoomed in and hand held:



Exposure: 1/125
Aperture: f/4.9
ISO Speed: Auto
Exposure Compensation: none
Focal Length: 23.1mm (111mm equiv)

--banzai
http://www.ebanzai.com/

Hi,

I'm not too familiar with the SD but looking at those shots they're exactly what to be expected with shooting in those conditions. Not a fault of the camera, you just need to play around with it some more and learn the other modes. Its not a big deal lots of times people assume that the Auto setting is smarter than it actually is, sadly it isnt.

You said you have the M on your dial thats full manual mode, you'll run into the same problems with manual mode. Leave that for when you get around to mastering the other modes, check out all the scene modes take tons of photos with them so you can see what the results will look like. Note not all of them are going to work out, just use them so you get an idea of what to expect with them. Also check out the manual on the section on shooting modes, it give pretty good information on what they all do.

Sunsets are typically low light shots, as stated before even the most exensive cameras need light to get a good shot off. Try this for a test, dont worrry about getting a perfect shot from your roof just try this looking out a window. Set the camera on a solid surface (table, window edge etc..) Use the 2 second self timer option, and shoot a shot in Auto mode. Now try the same shot with different WB settings so you can see what changes in color are made by different settings, also try the Vivid mode so you can see how the colors are boosted for sunsets. When you're done with figure out if you like the Vivid mode for sunsets and what WB setting looked the best. Now try taking the shot with different scene modes and see how they look differently.

Part of the joy / pain (depending on how you look at it) with digital cameras is playing around with the settings and figuring out what the beast can do.

Regarding what you see on the screen isn't always a true representation of what your going to see on a print. In other words looking at something at full zoom on your computer screen would be like putting your print under the microscope (ok not that much but you get what I mean). Printing all that information on a standard size print tends to smooth out and at times clean up the image.

Remember its a digital your not paying for film so take a 100 shots of the subject if you want its doest cost you anything.

Ed
--
A95 Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/eddyb/a95