S400 Shooting Modes

[sstinman]

I have both the S400 and S45 cameras (trying to decide which to keep). But before I can make up my mind does anyone know why the S400 as left off the different shooting modes. Is the Auto feature that good where it knows automatically. Such as fast scenes from portrait scene?

I'm not too much into manual settings. In most cases I let the camera do the work. Except when I can't get the shot to work then I step in and make some minor tweaks to get it to work right. I'm afraid that the S400 will leave me with poor shots because of the situation and there would be nothing that I could do to correct it.

Last note. Would it bo possiable for Canon to release modified firmware to enable more control over the manual feature? Or add the missing modes found in the S45?

Right now I favor the S45 for the better controls but would like the portability of the S400.

[Guillermo Freige]

I don't know exactly how "intelligent" is the auto mode, but I don't think it can detect fast moving objects and set a faster shutter, but you can make some tests with your camera.
In the firmware front, I don't think Canon will upgrade to such extent the camera functions. The Sxxx line is a "point&shot" one, and the functions you want are already present in the similar sized (but a little bigger) Axx line, so, why to "clone" a S400 to a 4MP A70 for free, when you can buy the probably to be released soon 4MP version of the A70 (A80 anyone?), and make you to buy a new camera? :)

[Guillermo Freige]

Apparently the S40 "auto" mode is as I've thinked.
Please check the (bad) experiences of a S400 owner in the "S400 and moving subjects" thead in this forum

[gdufour]

Hi,

I'm the user who created the "S400 and moving subjects" thread.

In fact, in the case of moving subjects, the quality is very different from one shot to another.

I made some tests by asking someone to take several indoor shots while moving my arms very fast. The shots were very good.

But I also tried to take some outdoor shots of people playing football, and I got very important blur problem for 95% of the shots.

Remark : Another difference between indoor and outdoor shots I made was that I was closer of the subject in the case of indoor shots.

So, I now need to understand what I have to do (settings, light, position) to get good results with moving subjets.

Regards

[sstinman]

I've seen your post gdufour and it got me to try a few photos of my kids playing in the sprinklers. And got similar results that you mentioned some good some not, it seems dependant on the amount of zoom and distance.

On last thing the best resolution that I could get with s400 is 2272x1704 at 180 dpi the S45 has a RAW mode that can better.

I think I'm going to stay with S45. Anymore advise?

[Guillermo Freige]

Yes, probably you are getting more blurred pictures in the tele end than in the wideangle end. This is because:

1.- In Tele the lens is less luminous (so the shutter speed also is lower)
2.- Even at the same shutter speed, the picture is more blurred in tele, because the relative displacement is greater.
3.- You also have less DoF (depth of field) in tele, so you have less "in-focus" objects. This has nothing to do with the "movement" blur, but add a "focus" blur to the picture in certain areas.

I don't understand your comment about the resolution and RAW mode. The S45 has the same resolution of the S400, and the 180 dpi has nothing to do with this fact. Also the RAW mode only add more color depth (12 bit instead of 8) and no compression artifacts, not more resolution. Yes, you will obtain better pictures shooting in RAW (and also more flexibility to correct things in your PC), but the resolution is exactly the same.

[gdufour]

Guillermo,

I think you are right.

For most of my "bad" shots the blur problem is related to the auto focus and not to the "moving subject".

I'll try to take some closer shots and will post to say if better or not.

Again, if someone wants to share his experience with taking such advanced (for me) shots with the S400, he's welcome :).

Regards.