New S5 IS - annoyed

DreDaze wrote in post #4819979
like one of these 2 scenarios?...they're both still the right orientation for me...yes i actually got on the ground and had to pretend i had a 12 month old..haha...oh yeah and these pictures suck...but you can see which way the screen is flipped out

more like the bottom one....but tip it slightly up......or hold it at an assortment of odd and seemingly unlikely angles where it takes flipping out the screen and risking a sprained neck to see the screen....

maybe there's an option to turn that off?

Is there a way to turn off the thing where it reorients the picture (in playback mode) when I tip the camera? I'd rather tip the camera to look at vertical shots than view them scaled down like that...

I swear I read the book...both, the basic one and the advanced...and then I looked in the box again to see if there was a book that explained the advanced book...there isn't...

I keep feeling like having taken a year and a half of photography classes in high school should mean that this stuff makes sense....if you needed b&w film developed I could do that...I could probably still find my way around the darkroom... but I'm not sure that this stuff is even related to that...Admittedly that was 10 years ago...

Patty OGreen wrote in post #4819764
=Patty O'Green;4819764]Jeffre​y, that is a beautiful shot of a beautiful baby (and trust me, they aren't all beautiful)! Would it still have worked as well during tummy time?

You mean if the child was on their stomach? In that case I'd shoot it and see if I was getting harsh shadows on the face from the overhead light. It might still be OK.

If the shadows were a problem, I'd place the child near a window if possible. Meter the scene as close to ambient as possible (meaning don't go higher than you are comfortable in ISO or slower than you want in shutter) and then still bounce the flash. If you are within 2 stops of the ambient exposure the window light will lift the shadows.

Bounce flash turns your ceiling into a big white light. This light still comes from overhead, but it is diffuse and does not make harsh shadows generally.

Here is another example shot with bounced flash. This is just a snapshot, but you can see the effect of the light on slightly downturned faces. Flash is the only source of light in this exposure.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

If you want to try something on the cheap you might want to look into making something to put over your flash. I tried an experiment which took about 3 mins - I ripped off a chunk of paper from a white envelope, jammed it into the bracket where the flash lifts up and then bent the paper to point upwards.

It wasn't pretty and it wasn't elegant but it did make the flash less harsh and more natural-looking in my opinion.

The flash fired, hit the paper and was bounced up to the ceiling. Also, some of the flash went through the paper. Here's the end result: http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com …12388508_c99129​4a48_o.jpg

The photo I took with flash without the paper looked a lot worse.

The onboard flash on the S5 looks a lot like the onboard flash on my camera so you might have some success...

Jo- thanks, I think I'll try that today

Jeff- your kids are beautiful. It's snapshots like that that make up the majority of the pictures I take...photo journaling you might call it... ok, what's the least expensive,yet reasonably decent flash? While there is a window in my classroom, it faces north into a covered walk way...and it's winter...it's not a lot of help.

Patty OGreen wrote in post #4822139
=Patty O'Green;4822139]Jo- thanks, I think I'll try that today)

Jeff- your kids are beautiful. It's snapshots like that that make up the majority of the pictures I take...photo journaling you might call it... ok, what's the least expensive,yet reasonably decent flash? While there is a window in my classroom, it faces north into a covered walk way...and it's winter...it's not a lot of help.

Canon 430EX is available for about $225 from B&H or Adorama.

There are other cheaper 3rd party units that will work but you need to know what you are looking at to ensure it is dedicated and they are all bigger.

I think you want the smallest hotshoe flash you can get on a S5 to keep the thing balanced.

BTW, the shots I posted in this thread were taken with an SLR, but I picked them because I think you would get about the same result with a S5 using a bounced flash.

JeffreyG wrote in post #4824870
Canon 430EX is available for about $225 from B&H or Adorama...

Or you could look for a used one for about $200 shipped.

I had a 430 on my S5, and it gets extremely top-heavy. Not balanced at all. Feels like it's going to snap at the shoe-moung. But it's still managable.

You would get the same result with the S5 if the ambient lighting were sufficient to add fill-light to the darker spots.
On an SLR, you can bump the ISO to 800 and use bounce-flash effectively, but on the S5, you can't do that.
Look at the pictures HERE

Those were taken with the S5 using a 430 and bounce-flash on a 14 ft ceiling. Notice the eye-shadows and such.
An SLR allows you to soak up much more ambient light. The S5 is great, but it will only take you so far.

I followed your link S-MAN and I agree that you were getting some shadows there. I also have to point out though that the shot was a little bit underexposed (the one without the bounce card) which made it worse. Can you apply FEC with the S5?

I also checked my own EXIF. I don't know if ISO400 is usable on the S5 but that was what both shots I posted here were at. Unfortunately, I pretty much never shoot my 5D below ISO400 unless in full sun so I have no bounce flash examples to show below ISO400.

5D + 35L + 430EX is much better balanced.....but weighs about 4 pounds total!

I would not conclude that ISO 400 is usable on the S5. ISO 400 was barely usable on the S3. The S5 has significantly more noise. Even at ISO 200 it was noticable. The shots I submitted were taken at ISO 100, 1/15 second f4.5.
Yeah, the shot was underexposed without the card, but I think slower than 1/15 would have been blurry. I could have bumped ISO to 200, but didn't think about it at the time.
The S5 does have FEC, something I never figured out how to use.

I too keep my XTi on at least ISO 400 indoors, and mostly at 800 indoors. Outdoors I'll use 100-200.
4 lbs.! I guess you get a nice little workout with a 6-hour shoot? Poor wrists...
Even on my XTi, the 430 still makes it feel a tad top-heavy.

My elderly mother just ordered a S5 but I have not been able to play with it so I'm not totally familiar with all the controls. As far as FEC, camera metering of flash can always be a little dodgy. Then you shoot with a flash (at least on an SLR) the camera fires a pre-burst, evaluates the results and then fires the main burst and makes the exposure. Bright stuff, shiny surfaces and close objects can all fool the camera into using too little flash power.

When you see this (checking the histogram in the display) after the shot then you adjust the FEC (flash exposure compensation) using the direct buttons on the back of the 430EX. I think cranking it up 2/3 to 1 stop on that first (no flash card) shot would have helped a lot.

Shutter speed does not affect flash exposure level at all. Flash duration is so short it fits entirely within the window of the shutter event. You control flash exposure entirely with ISO, aperture and (mainly) FEC.

The shutter speed only decides if ambient light contributes much at all to the lighting.

Yeah, for some reason the 5D seems pretty reasonable until I add the 430EX, which is really not all that big and heavy a flash. That just seems to put it over the top.

OK - here is one more for the OP. Another snapshot.

This time my 3rd daughter is facing away from the window and down. This is the kind of shadow you may get for "tummy time".

ISO 800, f/3.5 and 1/60

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.