Um, it might be time to consider another brand of camera. Just sayin'.
grumblegrumblegrumble
What kinds of features, exactly?
Erm, let's see... at least 3x zoom, some aperture variety (weirdly, it's hard to get anything above f4 or so - but, but, landscapes! Meh! So I want at least f8, if I can get it. Can you get lens attachments that give you more depth of field?), um, the A95 had that nifty tilty flippy lcd screen that looked infinitely useful, I'd really like to get a camera that uses CF cards, because I have like 6 of them already, ditto on the AA batteries (besides, it's easy to find emergency replacements when they die), lots of manual options, like shutter speed/aperture and exposure, a video function, and I like the panorama function... see, I'm not picky at all....
You could always get a step up/step down ring for your new camera if the thread sizes don't match.
True. But still, camera accessory purchases are on hold until I get this whole Canon thing sorted out.
they can't do much for an overexposed photo, which is basically what I got my polarizer for...
Yeah, aren't polarizers great? I just hadn't bothered buying any colored ones, though.
although the more I play with it, the more I realize I actually need a graduated neutral density filter for what I want to do, which is have both a bright sky and a darkish foreground correctly exposed.
Yeah, I ran into the same problem. Polarizer helps a bit, as do composing tricks, but an nd filter is definitely next on my wish list once I get a good camera.
but I'm really not seeing much difference when I use mine.
Yeah, a lot of times it doesn't change much, because the camera automatically adjusts the exposure to compensate for the extra darkness. But I do notice a difference when I use it on water with glare (less sparklies, darker water), or with big patches of sky (they're definitely bluer). And sometimes it just subtly deepens the colors a bit all over. But yeah, it's best with reducing glare on shiny things.
And this is just my personal preference, but I like slightly deeper, darker pictures, so I tend to crank down the exposure 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop. That helps with bright skies and stuff, although you have to be careful you don't get things too dark.
Oh, and the Royal Mail seems to have eaten one of my photography books. Hmph. Maybe it'll still show up...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-08-16 05:02 am (UTC)grumblegrumblegrumble
What kinds of features, exactly?
Erm, let's see... at least 3x zoom, some aperture variety (weirdly, it's hard to get anything above f4 or so - but, but, landscapes! Meh! So I want at least f8, if I can get it. Can you get lens attachments that give you more depth of field?), um, the A95 had that nifty tilty flippy lcd screen that looked infinitely useful, I'd really like to get a camera that uses CF cards, because I have like 6 of them already, ditto on the AA batteries (besides, it's easy to find emergency replacements when they die), lots of manual options, like shutter speed/aperture and exposure, a video function, and I like the panorama function... see, I'm not picky at all....
You could always get a step up/step down ring for your new camera if the thread sizes don't match.
True. But still, camera accessory purchases are on hold until I get this whole Canon thing sorted out.
they can't do much for an overexposed photo, which is basically what I got my polarizer for...
Yeah, aren't polarizers great? I just hadn't bothered buying any colored ones, though.
although the more I play with it, the more I realize I actually need a graduated neutral density filter for what I want to do, which is have both a bright sky and a darkish foreground correctly exposed.
Yeah, I ran into the same problem. Polarizer helps a bit, as do composing tricks, but an nd filter is definitely next on my wish list once I get a good camera.
but I'm really not seeing much difference when I use mine.
Yeah, a lot of times it doesn't change much, because the camera automatically adjusts the exposure to compensate for the extra darkness. But I do notice a difference when I use it on water with glare (less sparklies, darker water), or with big patches of sky (they're definitely bluer). And sometimes it just subtly deepens the colors a bit all over. But yeah, it's best with reducing glare on shiny things.
And this is just my personal preference, but I like slightly deeper, darker pictures, so I tend to crank down the exposure 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop. That helps with bright skies and stuff, although you have to be careful you don't get things too dark.
Oh, and the Royal Mail seems to have eaten one of my photography books. Hmph. Maybe it'll still show up...