Rico, I calculated that with a 1 gig memory card I can record 6 hours of sound at 22.050 kHz. That's amazing, if you ask me. I shall start dictating my novel forthwith.

It was a crappy and settling night...

I found that the flash gives a bit better coverage than I immediately thought. And I'm quite pleased that the battery has as long a life as it does. I finally wore it down after a couple days of screwing around with it, 98 pictures taken, and having the LCD on nearly constantly because I was working my way through the menus trying to figure out things while referencing the manual. (There are billions of options, most of which have me bewildered.) With normal care given to power management, there's no reason that the manufacturer's claim (or the review's experience) of 210 shots couldn't be met or exceeded.

Crap, this thing has more controls and options than the Space Shuttle, and I have no doubt the manual is nearly as thick. I'm itching to try stitching together a panorama.

And these batteries are so small and light, carrying a couple spares would be no big thing. And did I mention that I saved about forty bucks right of the bat because I didn't have to buy a fast-charger and two or four NiMH rechargable batteries?

Once you have the software installed on your computer, nothing could be easier than to transfer the pictures. You can just do it from the menu on the camera without launching or fussing with any software on the computer. You can transfer "All Images" or "New Images," click a confirmation, and it just does it. Camera software will automatically launch on the PC or OSX when you initiate the transfer of pictures via the camera, but you needn't fuss with this software if you don't want to. You can just go directly to the folder in "My Pictures" or wherever. But what the camera doesn't do is just show up on the Desktop (or the sidebar) as a USB volume. That kind of sucks, but maybe that's fairly typical. And, of course, you can't transfer images to any computer unless, I guess, you have first loaded it with the right software. But I suppose that's why they make card readers.

Couldn't you just suck the pages into iPhoto without installing any camera-specific software whatsoever?

Whenever I plug my camera into my Mac, iPhoto auto launches, I hit one button "import" badaboom, badabing.

Couldn't you just suck the pages into iPhoto without installing any camera-specific software whatsoever?

What the hell is iPhoto? LOL. Never heard of it. But I booted back into OS X 10.3.7 which didn't have the Canon software installed. I didn't want to mess with the current installation in 10.4.8. And I launched iPhoto and it recognized the Canon camera and sucked up the photos. So yeah, no doubt iPhoto will work the same or better in 10.4.8. It's just that I never thought to try it.

I'll eventually try out both the Canon software and iPhoto see which is better at handling and organizing photos. But the "badaboom badabing" factor is really there for me by just clicking on the menu choices that automatically present themselves on the camera when in "playback" mode. After the transfer, then I get a folder full of photos which I browse in the Finder and then I drag a few to Photoshop to take a closer look. I generally hate fooling with image browsers, but I'll try to keep an open mind about both iPhoto and Canons "ImageBrowser" software. There are so many friggin' options in all this shit (both with the various camera featurs and the computer software) it's a bit overwhelming. "Point and shoot" ain't lookin' like such a dumb idea. Just let me get to it. And that's why I loved, and still love, my old Minolta manual SLR's. No fancy programming mode. I get to see the shutter speed and the aperture. And I can set them them how I want. And really, with that old camera, I must set them or else you get dark or blown-out photos, or photos that are a blur. I love the idea of putting in, say, 200 speed film, setting either the shutter or the aperture to suit whatever the artistic need was. If I needed to stop the action, then I set it at 1/500 or more and make due with whatever aperture I have left to work with. Conversely, if I'm needing a very large depth of field, then I might have to go to a tripod mount in order to accommodate a 1/30 shutter speed (although that might, of course, suck for any foliage blowing around in even a light breeze). If I needed a shallow depth of field, then that was one of the easiest challenges of all. Just crank that f-stop open all the way and you pretty much know you'll have all the shutter you need. Ahhh. But what do you do when you get to some of those in-between circumstances where, say, you want to blur the waterfall with the shutterspeed but want a rather shallow depth of field. Well, that's a wonderful problem to have. But even then, there ain't all that much to think about. The problem is relatively easy and well-defined.

But Jesus H. Kodak, on these modern cameras with their tons of features, it's a whole new learning curve. Yes, I understand the concept of dodging and burning, so those various "shooting modes" (portrait, snow, beach, etc.) makes sense because (I assume) that they at least meter for the brightness of the beach and ignore the sky. (I'm assuming they don't dodge the sky a little, which would be really helpful.) You have some real power with these new-fangled cameras, but the less-is-more simplicity is shot all to hell. If "Auto" works great (and so far so good), then fine. But if it doesn't then you're screwed. You might as well spend more and get simple, and yet I doubt the more expensive cameras are really that much different in terms of complexity.

BN with an 8GB card you would be able to record 48 hours of sound.

What brand 1GB card did you get with call letters/numbers? If you have not tested the movie mode yet you may want to give it a try. Some cards are not up to speed to properly handle the movie mode.

Your camera pouch will get you by. LowePro does a decent job of it. The next step up would be their Apex model which is all weather. It actually has a little jacket that can be pulled out that is the real weather proof part. I have the Slingshot 100 LowePro which also has the cover. The Apex has no outside pocket. I also have a Tamrac hip pack model 5525 which is really small (almost to small) I work in combination with the slingshot. The hip pack might interest you. (It is not weatherproof) I have gone thru numerous bags. Non are even remotely perfect. This Slingshot/Hip pack combo is about as perfect as I have come to what I need.

The Canon software is pretty good. Canon even supplies good support for it. I think the Apple version is better than the PC version. We used to use it in the office. When Adobe brought in the Browser/Bridge we started using it. We/I use Imagecapture to import all photos. Imagecapture can be set up to launch when a camera or media device is attached to the computer. Imagecapture lets me store the images were I want them and not in some central depository set up by the software. I have never used iPhoto for this reason.

Due you have access to USB2.0 on your MDD machine? The transfer speeds will be much faster. Especially with faster SD cards. You may want to get a card reader that you insert the SD card into instead of connecting the camera directly to the computer. I have always been wary of connecting the camera directly to the computer as there could be a chance the USB connection could cause damage to the camera. It is a waste of battery power for the camera as well transfering files directly from the camera.

A card reader sounds like a good idea, Rico. I don't know what the brand of the SD cards was. I can find out. But I'm going to try my first video right now and see how it comes out. If I get Steward Copeland's permission, I'll post it here at thalo.net. Hang on...

Okay, I imported this movie into iMovie in order to crop it a bit and cut the size in half. But it looked really good at full size except for some kind of blue vertical lines in a couple places (on the part that was cropped out) that were caused by lens flare. Other than that, nothing else was done to it. And Stewart was gracious enough to give the okay. (Guess who went to a Police concert last night.)

Ooops. I probably should have made this streaming video. I unchecked that box thinking it might make it smaller. Well, it will work anyway. It's only 9.8 megabytes. Sorry for the dorky laugh. But my brother just cuts me up sometimes.

Don't Drum So Close to Me

LMFAO!!!
Danger, Will Robinson. You're treading very close to digikid-dom.

OMG that was priceless.

This is sensory overload into the world of brother Nelson's!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RicoX,

Great funny mood in that video - Thanks!
So i can skip the police-concert here, bc this video is everything compressed into 41 secs.

So i can skip the police-concert here, bc this video is everything compressed into 41 secs.

LOL. Well, I didn't make it to the concert but my brother and cousin did and they both loved it. The Police played a great selection of songs. And you apparently really were watching a Police concert. There weren't four or five of the usual chicks backing up Sting on vocals. THIS WAS THE POLICE. And it was apparently a very less-is-more show. Not a lot of bullshitting with the audience. They pretty much just played their music and put all their energy into that. No Steven Spielberg-ish stage effects. Just The Police. And I was actually quite shocked when I heard this from my brother. I couldn't believe that they would actually go back and do The Police and not some mish-mash between The Police and Sting's solo stuff. This was the real deal. Now, if only they would put out a new album. But I've not even heard any good rumors for this.

You're treading very close to digikid-dom.

I felt the digikid vibes kicking in, brother thalo. You're right about that. I played back that video and was stunned at the quality. I remember thinking "Oh, so this is what it's all about." And I'm sure in some dark recess of my brain I was also thinking: "Where's my Go-Gurt and skateboard?"

---

Rico, what's a decent price to pay for a card reader? Also, the memory card for the SD1000 is a ScanDisk 1.0 GB SD card. The only numbers on the card other than what I've already stated are on the back of the card and they are: BB0631205013D.

Does this bike make me look fat? Sheesh. I still am carrying around about 20 extra pounds. I go biking. I get even hungrier than usual. I eat. It's seems to be a wash. Today I got in about 3 hours riding and picture taking and I really could feel the strength in my legs. So there is real progress being made in some areas.

I think I ate my fill of salmonberries along the way, most of them redder than this one, which are the riper ones. But I think orange-colored ones can be perfectly ripe as well. As with huckleberries, you'll find the sweeter, juicier ones in the shade. I found a particularly thick patch of salmonberries and made a pig of myself. And I wondered why no one else had touched them. They were in an area right near the trailhead and there were bushes on both sides that you could easily reach out and pick with no effort at all. And yet it looked like most people didn't know you could eat them. I was standing there stuffing my face when a husband, wife, and son walked by. I said hi and showed them a couple particularly ripe berries and invited them to give them a try. I don't think they believed me when I said they were edible. But I had had my fill so I moved on. I wonder if they tried any or if they thought I was trying to poison them for kicks.



Trying to take a picture while out bike riding is like being entered in the Olympic skiing and shooting event. You spot something on the side of the trail, you get off your bike, pull out the camera, and then try to calm your breath after perhaps peddling a hundred yards uphill in order to try to hand-hold the camera as still as possible for a shot. I find that I can sometimes use the bike seat as a monopod to steady it. And if I can find a very light monopod that is retractable and is about 6 feet tall, I may buy it. A couple of the shots (if they turned out well – haven't looked yet) of the mountains I quite literally got down on my hands and knees with the small tripod mounted on the camera and sitting on the ground. And you never know what's where on the ground. And while I was framing what I hope will be a gorgeous shot of the woods and mountains with Seattle in the background, I had black ants swarming all over the tripod. But there really wasn't any place else to set the tripod. And I had mosquitoes and flies buzzing all around me as well no matter where I was. If I stopped for a few minutes anywhere they began to swarm me. It must have been the wet spring we had. But you just do what you have to do to get the shot. I set the self-timer to 2 seconds, clicked the shutter, got my shot, and then blew and shook the ants off the camera and the tripod and was on my way again. I'm not sure what marks I got from the judges. And hopefully I got a photo that was worth the effort.

---

Here's an image that I just call "The Woods" because I think it captures the typical foliage and vistas (on the Vista Cruiser, no less) that I'm traversing in the Green Mountain area. I reduced it to 40% of its previous size and then hit it with 44%/1.0 radius/3 levels of unsharp mask in Photoshop. No other modifications were made. I think the colors and contrast generally look pretty good right out of the box, and the histograms look good as well. I hope you have a high-res LCD to view these on or else they'll look way too big and, from the typical viewing distance from your chair to the monitor, they won't look right.

---

Achieving depth of field can be a real bitch. And I still have to figure out manual focusing, assuming I have any kind of control at what depth the lens focuses. (I assume that I can somehow pick a spot and then hold the focus at the depth of this chosen spot.) This shot, which I call "Cousin It," would have been more effective if more of it had been in sharp focus. And, of course, there isn't a strong compositional focus to this shot either. It's just one big blob. I tried boosting the saturation of the greens a little and adding some contrast via "curves," but I found that I preferred the sort of "high key" green look for this one.

quote:

And I wondered why no one else had touched them.

Don't worry, brother, a little DEER URINE never hurt anybody.

If you have a bicycle, what do you need a monopod for? Steady the cam on the handlebars, and wheel right up to the target. Less is More.

Interesting picture of a salmonberry. Up close like that, don't they look like a little cluster of candied apricot-like fruits, each with its own stem? That camera really seems to do its job. I should be getting paid for something on Monday, I think I'm going to order my camera right away.

I think I'm actually gaining weight because of this bike. All I use it for is going to get tasty treats. Today I used it to go get an eggplant parm sub for lunch, which was out of this world, by the way. Melt in your mouth. They make it fresh, from a tray of eggplant parm, not from frozen eggplant slices put in a deep fryer. They put the sandwich in the oven with a couple of slices of extra cheese on top, so the bread toasts up just a bit, the cheese melts... strings of melted cheese everywhere.

Holy crap, I feel like people are going to ask me for my autograph because of this bike. I've never been approached by so many total strangers to talk about it. It really gets a lot of attention. I let one cutie today ring the bell. Electra should give me a commission.

The Leaf. Do you suppose this shot has been done a few times before? But I like this one. I would have liked it more if the whole leaf was in razor-sharp focus. But the background is blurred about just the way I like it. You could blur it more, which might be what would typically be done, but I think that would just take it out of context. I don't want a disembodied leaf. I want a leaf that is alive in the forest. I hit this with two doses of 57/1.0/2 unsharp mask. I read once where it is sometimes better to do a couple passes rather than to try to get it all in one.



---

What would it take to get that eggplant sub FedExed to Washington? You shouldn't post something like that unless you have enough to share with the whole class. Boy that sandwich sounded good.

This shot, I think, is of a plant called the Devil's Club. Yes, those spikes do hurt, but they are fairly pliable. They are not hard like a rose bush's thorns. But you'll get at least some light scratches from them, and they can certainly draw blood if you rub up against them hard enough. Last time I went out biking, both my forearms were striped red from riding through these things which had overgrown from both sides on one section of a trail I was traversing.

Here's a shot I found interesting for the sheer fun of patterns. It looked like someone has strung a bunch of beads together and made a plant. I wish it was sharper but I'm tryin'!

This is a view you get of Seattle, and this is probably only about 3/5 up the mountain.

And this one I call "The Fern That Ate New Jersey." It looks like it's alive. Well, it is alive. But it looks like it's moving. It looks like a scavenger on the prowl.

Every Move You Make

Every breath I take
Every move this makes
Every time I shake
Every frame I break
I'll refocus you



Every pixel stray
Every blurred sun ray
Every frame that's nay
Every time I bray
I'll refocus you



Oh, can't you please
Stop this friggin' breeze
How my poor A/F
Is wrecked with every breath

Every move I make
Every cloud that shades
Every mile I take
Every breath intake
I'll refocus you




Since going mobile I've been lost without a brace
I dream of studios, I get only al fresco space
I look around and by flies I'm always chased
I feel unsteady and I long for unsharp's grace
I keep crying baby, baby, freeze…




Oh, can't you please
Make this thing shake-free
How my poor wrists ache
From lying close to snakes

Every blur I make
Every shot I waste
Every time I quake
Every lame retake
I'll refocus you

That's some mi-T-fine silly, brother natureboy.

Hey, did you see mini Elvis on the cover of the new Land's End catalog? Is he moonlighting on you?

Part of my trepidation with P&S cameras is focus. I guess that's one of the tradeoffs.

Okay, I think I solved my focusing problems by (unintuitively, in my opinion) turning auto-focus off. (I wanted the word "would" to be in focus, and it was.) I mean, to me that sounds like the camera isn't going to focus at all. Why not have "Auto" and "Manual" as the sub-menu options rather than having "AiAF" (which is the autofocus) with the choices of "on" or "off"?



No unsharp mask was applied to this. But it was reduced to 25" in Photoshop. That book jacket is white, although it is mostly lit under incandescent bulbs. Looks like the auto-white-balance, which has been doing an outstanding job as far as I'm concerned, was possibly confused by the lack of a broad spectrum of colors in this shot. But anyway, I think I've ditched full auto mode. I'm not being a snob about it, it's just that it tends to automatically give me unpredictable results. Will it flash or won't it flash? What will it focus on? And in this mode I get more direct access to the ISO setting. I can still set this on auto, but I can jump right to ISO 200, for instance, if I want. It's the poor man's aperture priority, but it should suffice.

I can't find the Lands End catalog online. Got a scan of it sometime?

---

Another thing I'm trying to figure out is whether or not I can reduce the power of the flash so I can get just a little fill with it. I guess, I could carry around a couple pieces of white cardboard for reflectors, but just a tiny bit of fill would be nice sometimes.

---

I might also want to use the "spot" metering mode. Just like the manual focusing mode, you can click the shutter halfway and whatever is in the very center of the viewfinder is the depth of where the focus will be, and in spot metering mode, what you're exposing for. Hopefully this means that if I'm trying to get the far hill to turn out, and to heck if the closer ones are too dark, I should be able to get this.

---

I wonder if the old photographer's trick of putting something white and translucent in front of the flash in order to diffuse it will work with a digital camera. Will it screw up the metering? Is the metering at all done through the lens or via an external meter? Is there any kind of feedback so that the camera knows that it's not putting out full flash? Will I have to use exposure compensation to compensate? This is gripping stuff. I'm sure you're in as much suspense as I am. Now, what the hell have I got laying around the house that will work as a diffuser?

---

I was messing around with the ISO settings to see what was usable and what wasn't. Remember that we're looking at close-up details. If you look closely at film you'll also see some grain.

By the time you print out the 800 ISO photo, or reduce it for viewing on the web, it looks almost fine. And there seems no question that the 400 ISO photo is well within range of fine. But the 1600 ISO photo is a mess. Perhaps like the digital zoom feature, it's just included in there as a marketing feature, or for those times that you think you spot Britney Spears sunbathing nude on the beach while you are flying overhead in a jetliner at night.

BN you are a quick study.

I downloaded the manual for the SD1000. The AiAF mode is the face detection feature. As you have found it is easier to turn this off for general focusing. I don't think the SD1000 has "manual" focus. You can do focus lock to get the focus to stop hunting.

There is a flash compensation function were the camera pre flash's to set exposure before actually taking the image. Another thing you may try instead of this method is exposure compensation.

There are small collapsible relfectors.

You have had this camera for what less than a week and you are already out stripping it's features.

The translucent trick should work for the flash.

For thalo the LX2 will have full manual focus. There is a joystick that controls the focus.

The high ISO shoots should convert to B&W nicely. The 1600 is stretching it but the ISO800 should do well in B&W.