cp5k-Is it me?

Mike Chadwick · Jan 1, 2002

Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Last night, I took (only) 48 indoor, flash, party photos with my two week old 5000. Of those 48, EIGHTEEN were unuseable due to SEVERE underexposure. (I'm not mentioning the poorly focused ones) Now, I understand if one really wants perfect indoor exposures an external flash is the way to go, but really... I have taken hundreds of photos in the exact same environment with my old 990 and 995 and aside from the focus issue, NEVER had such a ratio of underexposed images. I'm not talking distance here, every shot was of subjects no more then 12' or so.

So, I have seen the threads on the underexposure issues, but this is silly. Perhaps I have an excessively bad unit? I wonder if exchanging it would help?

I can't accept that ratio (almost half???) of unuseable indoor exposures from ANY camera, much less from a $1000 NIKON.

Is it just me?

Ralph Encarnacion · Jan 1, 2002

Could be you could be suffering from the finger over the flash sensor syndrom.
Ralph

Mike Chadwick said:
Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Last night, I took (only) 48 indoor, flash, party photos with my
two week old 5000. Of those 48, EIGHTEEN were unuseable due to
SEVERE underexposure. (I'm not mentioning the poorly focused ones)
Now, I understand if one really wants perfect indoor exposures an
external flash is the way to go, but really... I have taken
hundreds of photos in the exact same environment with my old 990
and 995 and aside from the focus issue, NEVER had such a ratio of
underexposed images. I'm not talking distance here, every shot was
of subjects no more then 12' or so.

So, I have seen the threads on the underexposure issues, but this
is silly. Perhaps I have an excessively bad unit? I wonder if
exchanging it would help?

I can't accept that ratio (almost half???) of unuseable indoor
exposures from ANY camera, much less from a $1000 NIKON.

Is it just me?

Mike Chadwick · Jan 1, 2002

Well, possibly, but I am aware of it, and was making a concious (hmm, perhaps more concious earlier in the evening) effort not to block it.

Ralph Encarnacion said:
Mike Chadwick said:

Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Last night, I took (only) 48 indoor, flash, party photos with my
two week old 5000. Of those 48, EIGHTEEN were unuseable due to
SEVERE underexposure. (I'm not mentioning the poorly focused ones)
Now, I understand if one really wants perfect indoor exposures an
external flash is the way to go, but really... I have taken
hundreds of photos in the exact same environment with my old 990
and 995 and aside from the focus issue, NEVER had such a ratio of
underexposed images. I'm not talking distance here, every shot was
of subjects no more then 12' or so.

So, I have seen the threads on the underexposure issues, but this
is silly. Perhaps I have an excessively bad unit? I wonder if
exchanging it would help?

I can't accept that ratio (almost half???) of unuseable indoor
exposures from ANY camera, much less from a $1000 NIKON.

Is it just me?

Click to expand...

Mike Chadwick · Jan 1, 2002

Sorry, conscious
(still a few cobwebs in my brain)

Mike Chadwick said:
Ralph Encarnacion said:

Mike Chadwick said:

Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Last night, I took (only) 48 indoor, flash, party photos with my
two week old 5000. Of those 48, EIGHTEEN were unuseable due to
SEVERE underexposure. (I'm not mentioning the poorly focused ones)
Now, I understand if one really wants perfect indoor exposures an
external flash is the way to go, but really... I have taken
hundreds of photos in the exact same environment with my old 990
and 995 and aside from the focus issue, NEVER had such a ratio of
underexposed images. I'm not talking distance here, every shot was
of subjects no more then 12' or so.

So, I have seen the threads on the underexposure issues, but this
is silly. Perhaps I have an excessively bad unit? I wonder if
exchanging it would help?

I can't accept that ratio (almost half???) of unuseable indoor
exposures from ANY camera, much less from a $1000 NIKON.

Is it just me?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ralph Encarnacion · Jan 1, 2002

I have been working on modifying the Kiwi 990 bracket to work with the 5K. I got it just about finished. You can read about it on another post here shortly. Anyway, I took 17 indoor Photos in a row for my pano, all with the Nikon SB-22S flash, and they all came out perfect. So maybe there is something wrong with yours.
Ralph

Mike Chadwick said:
Mike Chadwick said:

Ralph Encarnacion said:

Mike Chadwick said:

Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Last night, I took (only) 48 indoor, flash, party photos with my
two week old 5000. Of those 48, EIGHTEEN were unuseable due to
SEVERE underexposure. (I'm not mentioning the poorly focused ones)
Now, I understand if one really wants perfect indoor exposures an
external flash is the way to go, but really... I have taken
hundreds of photos in the exact same environment with my old 990
and 995 and aside from the focus issue, NEVER had such a ratio of
underexposed images. I'm not talking distance here, every shot was
of subjects no more then 12' or so.

So, I have seen the threads on the underexposure issues, but this
is silly. Perhaps I have an excessively bad unit? I wonder if
exchanging it would help?

I can't accept that ratio (almost half???) of unuseable indoor
exposures from ANY camera, much less from a $1000 NIKON.

Is it just me?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mike Chadwick · Jan 1, 2002

Thanks for the post, Ralph

But I don't see how your post is relavant to my situation. You are stating that you are using an external flash... My issue is with the internal flash.

Or am I reading something wrong?

Mike

Ralph Encarnacion said:
Mike Chadwick said:

Mike Chadwick said:

Ralph Encarnacion said:

Mike Chadwick said:

Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Last night, I took (only) 48 indoor, flash, party photos with my
two week old 5000. Of those 48, EIGHTEEN were unuseable due to
SEVERE underexposure. (I'm not mentioning the poorly focused ones)
Now, I understand if one really wants perfect indoor exposures an
external flash is the way to go, but really... I have taken
hundreds of photos in the exact same environment with my old 990
and 995 and aside from the focus issue, NEVER had such a ratio of
underexposed images. I'm not talking distance here, every shot was
of subjects no more then 12' or so.

So, I have seen the threads on the underexposure issues, but this
is silly. Perhaps I have an excessively bad unit? I wonder if
exchanging it would help?

I can't accept that ratio (almost half???) of unuseable indoor
exposures from ANY camera, much less from a $1000 NIKON.

Is it just me?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ralph Encarnacion · Jan 1, 2002

Okay, sorry. I assumed you where using an external flash. My bad. I haven't experimented too much with the built in flash yet. I am too busy making my pano bracket;-) I'll run some test and get back with you.
Ralph

Mike Chadwick said:
But I don't see how your post is relavant to my situation. You are
stating that you are using an external flash... My issue is with
the internal flash.

Or am I reading something wrong?

Mike

Ralph Encarnacion said:

Mike Chadwick said:

Mike Chadwick said:

Ralph Encarnacion said:

Mike Chadwick said:

Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Last night, I took (only) 48 indoor, flash, party photos with my
two week old 5000. Of those 48, EIGHTEEN were unuseable due to
SEVERE underexposure. (I'm not mentioning the poorly focused ones)
Now, I understand if one really wants perfect indoor exposures an
external flash is the way to go, but really... I have taken
hundreds of photos in the exact same environment with my old 990
and 995 and aside from the focus issue, NEVER had such a ratio of
underexposed images. I'm not talking distance here, every shot was
of subjects no more then 12' or so.

So, I have seen the threads on the underexposure issues, but this
is silly. Perhaps I have an excessively bad unit? I wonder if
exchanging it would help?

I can't accept that ratio (almost half???) of unuseable indoor
exposures from ANY camera, much less from a $1000 NIKON.

Is it just me?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mark68792 · Jan 1, 2002

Mike

I was having the same problem as you, none of my shot with the on board flash were working. I email for some advice and received a very good response, however before I pass that email along I will have to ask that persons permission. What I will say is that it was me and not the camera or the flash. All though my shots are not perfect they are greatly improved, which means I have work to do and I am now getting constant images
http://www.pbase.com/markdyer/the_gang

These Images were shot in a room with 4,30w sconces(sp?)
639, 635,637,649

Mark

Chadwick said:
Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Last night, I took (only) 48 indoor, flash, party photos with my
two week old 5000. Of those 48, EIGHTEEN were unuseable due to
SEVERE underexposure. (I'm not mentioning the poorly focused ones)
Now, I understand if one really wants perfect indoor exposures an
external flash is the way to go, but really... I have taken
hundreds of photos in the exact same environment with my old 990
and 995 and aside from the focus issue, NEVER had such a ratio of
underexposed images. I'm not talking distance here, every shot was
of subjects no more then 12' or so.

So, I have seen the threads on the underexposure issues, but this
is silly. Perhaps I have an excessively bad unit? I wonder if
exchanging it would help?

I can't accept that ratio (almost half???) of unuseable indoor
exposures from ANY camera, much less from a $1000 NIKON.

Is it just me?

Mike Chadwick · Jan 1, 2002

I figured we were miscommunicating somewhere.

I guess using an external flash would fix this, but then it becomes a 'system' not a portable 'pocket' type camera, which is much easier to deal with... Using a external flash, and I would just as soon use my E-20, which has an excellent internal flash, though it is far from 'pocket' sized.

I am wondering if I would do better witn a Canon S40 or an Oly D40 for the portability (with a useable internal flash)

Hmm 15 or so days left on the return option...

Ralph Encarnacion said:
Mike Chadwick said:

But I don't see how your post is relavant to my situation. You are
stating that you are using an external flash... My issue is with
the internal flash.

Or am I reading something wrong?

Mike

Ralph Encarnacion said:

Mike Chadwick said:

Mike Chadwick said:

Ralph Encarnacion said:

Mike Chadwick said:

Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Last night, I took (only) 48 indoor, flash, party photos with my
two week old 5000. Of those 48, EIGHTEEN were unuseable due to
SEVERE underexposure. (I'm not mentioning the poorly focused ones)
Now, I understand if one really wants perfect indoor exposures an
external flash is the way to go, but really... I have taken
hundreds of photos in the exact same environment with my old 990
and 995 and aside from the focus issue, NEVER had such a ratio of
underexposed images. I'm not talking distance here, every shot was
of subjects no more then 12' or so.

So, I have seen the threads on the underexposure issues, but this
is silly. Perhaps I have an excessively bad unit? I wonder if
exchanging it would help?

I can't accept that ratio (almost half???) of unuseable indoor
exposures from ANY camera, much less from a $1000 NIKON.

Is it just me?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mike Chadwick · Jan 1, 2002

I would love to learn of a solution, as I am on the brink of returning the Nikon.

PLEASE let me know when you can.

Mark said:
These Images were shot in a room with 4,30w sconces(sp?)
639, 635,637,649

Mark

Chadwick said:

Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Last night, I took (only) 48 indoor, flash, party photos with my
two week old 5000. Of those 48, EIGHTEEN were unuseable due to
SEVERE underexposure. (I'm not mentioning the poorly focused ones)
Now, I understand if one really wants perfect indoor exposures an
external flash is the way to go, but really... I have taken
hundreds of photos in the exact same environment with my old 990
and 995 and aside from the focus issue, NEVER had such a ratio of
underexposed images. I'm not talking distance here, every shot was
of subjects no more then 12' or so.

So, I have seen the threads on the underexposure issues, but this
is silly. Perhaps I have an excessively bad unit? I wonder if
exchanging it would help?

I can't accept that ratio (almost half???) of unuseable indoor
exposures from ANY camera, much less from a $1000 NIKON.

Is it just me?

Click to expand...

Mark68792 · Jan 1, 2002

Mike
I've sent you an email
Mark

Chadwick said:
PLEASE let me know when you can.

Mark said:

These Images were shot in a room with 4,30w sconces(sp?)
639, 635,637,649

Mark

Chadwick said:

Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Last night, I took (only) 48 indoor, flash, party photos with my
two week old 5000. Of those 48, EIGHTEEN were unuseable due to
SEVERE underexposure. (I'm not mentioning the poorly focused ones)
Now, I understand if one really wants perfect indoor exposures an
external flash is the way to go, but really... I have taken
hundreds of photos in the exact same environment with my old 990
and 995 and aside from the focus issue, NEVER had such a ratio of
underexposed images. I'm not talking distance here, every shot was
of subjects no more then 12' or so.

So, I have seen the threads on the underexposure issues, but this
is silly. Perhaps I have an excessively bad unit? I wonder if
exchanging it would help?

I can't accept that ratio (almost half???) of unuseable indoor
exposures from ANY camera, much less from a $1000 NIKON.

Is it just me?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Bearkite · Jan 1, 2002

Mark...

I guess we're all waiting with baited breath...

having just bought a CP5K myself... I'm having the same problems myself.

Let us know.

LouB

Mark said:
These Images were shot in a room with 4,30w sconces(sp?)
639, 635,637,649

Mark

Chadwick said:

Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Last night, I took (only) 48 indoor, flash, party photos with my
two week old 5000. Of those 48, EIGHTEEN were unuseable due to
SEVERE underexposure. (I'm not mentioning the poorly focused ones)
Now, I understand if one really wants perfect indoor exposures an
external flash is the way to go, but really... I have taken
hundreds of photos in the exact same environment with my old 990
and 995 and aside from the focus issue, NEVER had such a ratio of
underexposed images. I'm not talking distance here, every shot was
of subjects no more then 12' or so.

So, I have seen the threads on the underexposure issues, but this
is silly. Perhaps I have an excessively bad unit? I wonder if
exchanging it would help?

I can't accept that ratio (almost half???) of unuseable indoor
exposures from ANY camera, much less from a $1000 NIKON.

Is it just me?

Click to expand...

Rich Gibson · Jan 1, 2002

Mike,

I know this sounds overdone but I've experimented with my 5000 and was surprised to find that what I thought was acceptable finger placement actually interfered with the sensor. Yes, to all, I agree it was an unfortuante place to locate the sensor, but it is there and you can do three things: 1 return the camera, 2 continue to hold it the way you did the 9xx series and get a lot of missed shots, 3 practice holding it differently. Once I re-re-adjusted my grip the flash pictures were fine. I hope that's all that it wrong with your camera.
Rich

Mike Chadwick said:
PLEASE let me know when you can.

Mark said:

These Images were shot in a room with 4,30w sconces(sp?)
639, 635,637,649

Mark

Chadwick said:

Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Last night, I took (only) 48 indoor, flash, party photos with my
two week old 5000. Of those 48, EIGHTEEN were unuseable due to
SEVERE underexposure. (I'm not mentioning the poorly focused ones)
Now, I understand if one really wants perfect indoor exposures an
external flash is the way to go, but really... I have taken
hundreds of photos in the exact same environment with my old 990
and 995 and aside from the focus issue, NEVER had such a ratio of
underexposed images. I'm not talking distance here, every shot was
of subjects no more then 12' or so.

So, I have seen the threads on the underexposure issues, but this
is silly. Perhaps I have an excessively bad unit? I wonder if
exchanging it would help?

I can't accept that ratio (almost half???) of unuseable indoor
exposures from ANY camera, much less from a $1000 NIKON.

Is it just me?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

noreltny · Jan 1, 2002

I'm having the same problem with underexposed pictures. I've concluded that it is mostly due to my inexperiemce, so I would really like to learn what techniques are working for you. Please let me know if you get permission to share this info with the rest of the forum.

Thanks

Mark said:
These Images were shot in a room with 4,30w sconces(sp?)
639, 635,637,649

Mark

Chadwick said:

Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Last night, I took (only) 48 indoor, flash, party photos with my
two week old 5000. Of those 48, EIGHTEEN were unuseable due to
SEVERE underexposure. (I'm not mentioning the poorly focused ones)
Now, I understand if one really wants perfect indoor exposures an
external flash is the way to go, but really... I have taken
hundreds of photos in the exact same environment with my old 990
and 995 and aside from the focus issue, NEVER had such a ratio of
underexposed images. I'm not talking distance here, every shot was
of subjects no more then 12' or so.

So, I have seen the threads on the underexposure issues, but this
is silly. Perhaps I have an excessively bad unit? I wonder if
exchanging it would help?

I can't accept that ratio (almost half???) of unuseable indoor
exposures from ANY camera, much less from a $1000 NIKON.

Is it just me?

Click to expand...

Ralph Encarnacion · Jan 1, 2002

I took a bunch of test shots earlier with the built in flash and came up with the same conclusion as you. Keep your finger out of the way of that sensor and you won't have any more problems. It doesn't take much to throw it off. There is one more solution you didn't mention. I was thinking of having my second finger amputated so that I wouldt have any more problems.
Ralph

Rich Gibson said:
Mike Chadwick said:

PLEASE let me know when you can.

Mark said:

These Images were shot in a room with 4,30w sconces(sp?)
639, 635,637,649

Mark

Chadwick said:

Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Last night, I took (only) 48 indoor, flash, party photos with my
two week old 5000. Of those 48, EIGHTEEN were unuseable due to
SEVERE underexposure. (I'm not mentioning the poorly focused ones)
Now, I understand if one really wants perfect indoor exposures an
external flash is the way to go, but really... I have taken
hundreds of photos in the exact same environment with my old 990
and 995 and aside from the focus issue, NEVER had such a ratio of
underexposed images. I'm not talking distance here, every shot was
of subjects no more then 12' or so.

So, I have seen the threads on the underexposure issues, but this
is silly. Perhaps I have an excessively bad unit? I wonder if
exchanging it would help?

I can't accept that ratio (almost half???) of unuseable indoor
exposures from ANY camera, much less from a $1000 NIKON.

Is it just me?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rich Gibson · Jan 1, 2002

Yes, I was surprised how sensitive it is to the finger. Another solution, short of amputaion would be one right glove, like Michael Jackson. Paint your finger black? Glue a finger from an old blak glove to the handgrip.

Yeah, right!

Actually I may try a flat black curved piece of cardboard (for starters) which would fit right over the place where the middle finger wants to rest.

Rich

Ralph Encarnacion said:
I took a bunch of test shots earlier with the built in flash and
came up with the same conclusion as you. Keep your finger out of
the way of that sensor and you won't have any more problems. It
doesn't take much to throw it off. There is one more solution you
didn't mention. I was thinking of having my second finger amputated
so that I wouldt have any more problems.
Ralph
Rich Gibson wrote:

Carmen Towles · Jan 1, 2002

Hey Mike,

Sorry to hear another story about this problem. Plus I get a lot of out of focus pictures with my particular unit. I get way better results with my e100 and s30...If your interested in the s30/40 I can tell you they are great little cameras...fast at most everything too. I had the D-40 but I found the CA to be a little to much but correctable with an -.3 exposure compensation. Also it's somewhat slower thatn the Canon It does take some good pictures though. I liked the case and feel of the s30 better. I am going to wait till the next 5005 or whatever comes out. Good Luck

~~Carmen~~

.

Mike Chadwick said:
I guess using an external flash would fix this, but then it becomes
a 'system' not a portable 'pocket' type camera, which is much
easier to deal with... Using a external flash, and I would just as
soon use my E-20, which has an excellent internal flash, though it
is far from 'pocket' sized.

I am wondering if I would do better witn a Canon S40 or an Oly D40
for the portability (with a useable internal flash)

Hmm 15 or so days left on the return option...

Ralph Encarnacion said:

Mike Chadwick said:

But I don't see how your post is relavant to my situation. You are
stating that you are using an external flash... My issue is with
the internal flash.

Or am I reading something wrong?

Mike

Ralph Encarnacion said:

Mike Chadwick said:

Mike Chadwick said:

Ralph Encarnacion said:

Mike Chadwick said:

Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Last night, I took (only) 48 indoor, flash, party photos with my
two week old 5000. Of those 48, EIGHTEEN were unuseable due to
SEVERE underexposure. (I'm not mentioning the poorly focused ones)
Now, I understand if one really wants perfect indoor exposures an
external flash is the way to go, but really... I have taken
hundreds of photos in the exact same environment with my old 990
and 995 and aside from the focus issue, NEVER had such a ratio of
underexposed images. I'm not talking distance here, every shot was
of subjects no more then 12' or so.

So, I have seen the threads on the underexposure issues, but this
is silly. Perhaps I have an excessively bad unit? I wonder if
exchanging it would help?

I can't accept that ratio (almost half???) of unuseable indoor
exposures from ANY camera, much less from a $1000 NIKON.

Is it just me?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

George Berotti · Jan 1, 2002

Hello,

Even with the camera on full auto, there seems to be a relationship between the f/stop the system uses and the exposure you get with the built in flash. It is as if the flash always puts out the same light and it is not enough unless the lens is wide open.

When you zoom in, the aperture closes and not enough light gets through. Look in your info file and see if the above relationship obtains. Less than f 2.8 - under exposure??

Try locking the aperture. I haven't tried that remedy

--George Berotti

Gary Tuck · Jan 1, 2002

Mike Chadwick said:
Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

My wife bought me a CP5000 for Christmas and I exchanged it the day afterwards. The first dozen photos with flash I took were very underexposed too. Being new to digital cameras, I assumed it was me. Then I got some good shots. But there was a speck of material on the inside of the viewfinder so I returned it for a new 5000. I've had the same issue with some underexposed flash photos. I've taken 2 photos of the same subject doing nothing other than waiting to take the next picture-at least that is what I think I'm doing. One is dramatically underexposed and the next is fine. My hand is not over the sensor--is it proximity sensitive? Is there a reflection of the flash off the hand which affects the sensor? Anyway, I, too, would love some wisdom because the present situation is certainly unacceptable for a $1K camera. I'm brand new to this site, so please excuse any newbie faux pas.--Gary

noreltny · Jan 1, 2002

I tried photographing our Christmas tree earlier today. I used a tripod, so my fingers were no where near the sensor. Of the 5 pictures taken (without making any changes to the camera's settings), 3 were underexposed and 2 were acceptable. I can't quite figure out how to deal with the flash. Thank goodness this is digital. I sure would have wasted a lot of film, otherwise.

Gary Tuck said:
Mike Chadwick said:

Happy New Year All

I wish I could have some photos to remember last night by...

Click to expand...

My wife bought me a CP5000 for Christmas and I exchanged it the day
afterwards. The first dozen photos with flash I took were very
underexposed too. Being new to digital cameras, I assumed it was
me. Then I got some good shots. But there was a speck of material
on the inside of the viewfinder so I returned it for a new 5000.
I've had the same issue with some underexposed flash photos. I've
taken 2 photos of the same subject doing nothing other than waiting
to take the next picture-at least that is what I think I'm doing.
One is dramatically underexposed and the next is fine. My hand is
not over the sensor--is it proximity sensitive? Is there a
reflection of the flash off the hand which affects the sensor?
Anyway, I, too, would love some wisdom because the present
situation is certainly unacceptable for a $1K camera. I'm brand
new to this site, so please excuse any newbie faux pas.
--
Gary

cp5k-Is it me?

Well-known member

Ralph Encarnacion

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Ralph Encarnacion

Guest

Well-known member

Ralph Encarnacion

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Rich Gibson

Guest

Well-known member

Ralph Encarnacion

Guest

Rich Gibson

Guest

Senior Member

Member

Member

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts