68lbs
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,450
- Name
- April 2008
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't know whether it's my inexperience with the DSLR and the fact I'm still learning, but I think I would have got better results on my recent travels with the family if I'd had a P&S. Largely because there were quite a few low-light opportunities, I only had the built in flash which causes a shadow with my usual lenses and I was having to shoot handheld at a much higher ISO or larger aperture (do you call smaller f number larger? I do) than I really wanted, leaving DoF much shorter than I would have liked in many cases.
I took nearly 1000 shots last week but some are such high ISO the IQ is just cack, whilst others have missed the point completely because I sacrificed DoF to lower the ISO.
To add insult to injury, I was getting comments like "oh, and there's David Bailey over there", only to find i'd produced images more akin to me having drunk a bottle of Baileys!
I know that I can (and will) get much better results with the Canon 400D when I have time to use the tripod, plan the shot, etc.
But for every day 'carry around a camera, take lots of pics' etc, I am struggling. Would I be better off with something like a Canon G9 with built in flash etc shooting in RAW? I seem to remember seeing something like a Sigma P&S too in a mag that has a sensor the same size as the 400D too?
Seems a bit like going backwards, but I am not sure what I could have done other than carry around EVERYTHING which is just impractical for me a lot of the time when you're trying to do all the other usual family things - keep the missus happy, daughter, etc.
Am I doing something wrong?
I'm probably expecting too much and just shouldn't expect great pics if I'm taking them willy nilly using only half my gear. :shrug:
I took nearly 1000 shots last week but some are such high ISO the IQ is just cack, whilst others have missed the point completely because I sacrificed DoF to lower the ISO.
To add insult to injury, I was getting comments like "oh, and there's David Bailey over there", only to find i'd produced images more akin to me having drunk a bottle of Baileys!
I know that I can (and will) get much better results with the Canon 400D when I have time to use the tripod, plan the shot, etc.
But for every day 'carry around a camera, take lots of pics' etc, I am struggling. Would I be better off with something like a Canon G9 with built in flash etc shooting in RAW? I seem to remember seeing something like a Sigma P&S too in a mag that has a sensor the same size as the 400D too?
Seems a bit like going backwards, but I am not sure what I could have done other than carry around EVERYTHING which is just impractical for me a lot of the time when you're trying to do all the other usual family things - keep the missus happy, daughter, etc.
Am I doing something wrong?
I'm probably expecting too much and just shouldn't expect great pics if I'm taking them willy nilly using only half my gear. :shrug:
