whats wrong with my camera.......

Hi,

Any clues?

Its a Nikon 5700.

I think its been misbehaving for a week now.

Take a look at these.....but not for long!





.I'll do it with links for obvious reasons

http://s134.photobucket.com/albums/q115/davidf_photo/?action=view&current=Picture2001copy-6.jpg


....not sure....


http://s134.photobucket.com/albums/q115/davidf_photo/?action=view&current=Picture2007copy-3.jpg

...awful!


http://s134.photobucket.com/albums/q115/davidf_photo/?action=view&current=Picture2046copy-2.jpg


....and again




but this one appears ok!!


http://s134.photobucket.com/albums/q115/davidf_photo/?action=view&current=Picture2016copy-1.jpg


This time I was really careful to keep the shutter speed up, and I most invariably used the mountain/infinity setting.

This is whats recommended for these cameras for anything over 10 feet and is hwat I have always used (unless overriding for some reason).

I have done the reset trick (+new batteries etc)......but can't think of anything esle.

It seems to be trying to focus on the foreground?

Thoughts?

tia




David

 

it sort of looks out of focus - has it got a manual focus setting its stuck in- or is it in a macro mode and not able to focus on longer differences ?

Just a guess.

 

I wonded if i had been leaving in macro...so i was daed careful yesterday.

looking though the nikon picture documents its clear (sorry! pun)that it HAS been on the mountain setting.

I'll try the other manual setting next, matrix/spot etc though it takes the camera longer (not a 5700 striong point at the best of times) to deal with that settiing than "mountain". See what that does.

The manual recomeends mounatin for eg shooting through windows when you want to totally ignore a fore ground item

Also a forum note suggested using for anything over 10 feet.

Using the "matrix" settings etc should at least prove a point though.

ie if that doesn't twork the camera IS at fault.

 

I wouldn't agree that the camera is at fault. But the key is do you understand how aperture works and what effect it has on depth of field and therfore what parts of the pictue are in and out of focus.

 

Oh my golly.....

Yes, but it prob looks like I don't!

Basically I now agree with you, its functioning at least accepably.

I do think its developed a few strange habits recenlty whch it never used to.

I used to use the "mountain" setting invaraiably (as opposed to matrix) which is recommended (ie mountain) for anything over 10 feet. That setting now seems to throw it into total confusion. I now use the matrix method predominantly and I have to say generally it does a goodish job.

The down side of this is that the focus mechanism takes a moment to sort it outself out (not a 5700 strength at the best of times) where as shooting in the mountain/infinity mode was far quicker.

I don't think it helped that the shooting I haven been doing over the past few weeks (whilst walking to alleviate a back issue) the weather has been pretty dismall.

The exposure is another question mark.

Some pics ahve def come out darker on the comp screen than either the cameras play back........or as it was!

It does NOT like low light...........nor are they reputed for it.

Again I wonder about the (new)sensor (ccd) that nikon put in last October.

 

yep....




yep....




its blown the high lights ouit but its always done that a bit




no.......




no.....

 

I don't think its dealt with these too badly....

 

A quick question related to the 5700... what is thi cameras reaction to a blown flash bulb? Mine stopped working a while back and when on flash mode it just shows the 'SB' sign with a flashing red dot next to it on the screen. Does this mean its blown?

If I take it Jessops are they likely to be able to replace it then and there?

Cheers

 

Sorry, Simon, not sure on that.

YOu have a 5700?

How do you get on with it? (other than the bilb)

I still say it gives (much) better results than the canon s3 I've been given my Dad. (Better colours +detail).

Unfortunetly indoor (again, low light) situs are f*****g hopeless (sorry, but they are),,,and its back to the canon.

I hanker after D70s; but not much hope of that after being off work with a (mega) stuffed back.

 

Yeah its crap in low light, hence I wish the flash worked!

On the other hand, for quality shots it has forced me to learn how to use it correctly! With the right conditions it really can turn in very good shots, but its not the best point and shoot since it seems sensitive to hand wobble even on fast shutter speeds.

 

If it wa me I'd

1) google for it like mad

2) got through the dp review forums



but at the end of the day it needs a new flash gun bulb

take it to jessops and stump up the cash

it'll be cheaper than sending it back to nikon

unlss any one can suggest anything else?

 

The output you get on the camera's LCD will be so small and such a low quality reproduction of your shots, you'll struggle to see the issues you're having until you get them home unless they're very prominent.

Are you manually changing any settings? Aperture/shutter/exposure/white balance?

Assuming they're on auto...

The photo of the lock - to me it just appears to be a little over exposed. Was it a dull day? The camera had probably just used a longer exposure to lighten the whole shot up a bit, resulting in the blown highlights which are only a small part of the photo.

The sky across the field is the opposite effect, but I'm still thinking the light was a little low on the day? The field is under exposed, but the sky is nicely exposed with some good details. If you had moved the frame down a bit so the camera's sensor saw less of the sky, it probably would have exposed the field correctly and blown out areas of the sky!

The canal shot with the bike has the same problem as the shot with the lock, so again, presumably low light. The camera has overexposed the photo slightly to get some decent light into the picture, blowing out some of the sky. The effect is far less pronounced on this one, so it's not a bad shot overall. You haven't got the light lock arm in the foreground showing the effect so prominently!

Unless the scene has plenty of light on a nice bright day, any cameras will suffer with these issues - they simply can't capture the range of dynamic lighting that the human eye can!

I'm by no means an expert, but hopefully that makes sense to you?



As a slight aside... are you familiar with HDR?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging)

HDR basically involves using multiple images of the same scene, taken with different exposures and then combining them into one image in post processing to provide a range of light that the camera or human eye can't.

The shot with the sky across the field is a good example...

The shot you have provides lots of detail of the sky but underexposes the field.

If you then had a second shot with a longer exposure, the sky's highlights would be blown but the field would be in plenty of detail.

You could then combine the two into one image and you'd have a well lit scene with plenty of detail in the shaded and lit areas!

 

An example of an HDR image...

The six different exposures:




The combined result:

 

Hi Mark,

Thanks vm for these thoughts/notes.

They were!

The one, as you say, with the bike in it was an obvious discrepancy

Are you manually changing any settings? Aperture/shutter/exposure/white balance?

Yes, they were....

I wondered intitially if I had been a bit clumsy and missed a warning, flashing shutter speed or apature. Baring that in mind as I was shooting , I made sure the shutter speed was up to at least 1/125; preferbly 1/250. In the past I've shot with that acmera at 1/60 without a problem (digis seem more tolerant than my old om10 was).

dullish..not too bad

That shot doesn't worry me unduely. The camera has always had a tendency to blow out the high lights...so thats nothing especailly new.

As a gentlemen on pf pointed out it(the camera) has probably just compensated for the dark back ground.

Agreed!

as above!

Yes , they all were....but certainly not THAT dull!

This(I feel )is a discrepancy......the camera should have done a better job of white balance/whatever....

...but shouldn't the camera have balanced the pic better??

agreed totally, the light was poor.....but not that poor!

perhapts.....

Certainly the light has not been on my side this last couple of weeks.

Its been bizarre actually.

EVERY time I wemt to out the weather turned against me. YOU could almost set your clock by it.

Very much so!

No.......I wasn't!

My camera does bracketing which I think is a similar principle?

Again a pf member reminded me of this function; I have to admit i'd forgotten about it (in trueth I ahven't used ithe camera in quite a time).

I didn't know it was known as HDR.

There are some interesting thoughts here!

....Yes, I have been doing a small amount of post pic editing recently.

Its Fascinating!

Do you do a lot of this Mark?

YOu sound keen!