QUAINT INSTRUCTION SHEETS

It’s obvious that some overseas companies rely on (bad) software that literally translates every word from their language into the closest English word, but, of course, completely out of context. It’s a good thing that this particular product I purchased online was simple enough that I didn’t need instructions, because two years later I’m still trying to decrypt the piece of paper that came with it.
It’s actually quite amusing to read, and it amazes me that they wrote so much about how to use a simple, slave-only strobe that screws into a light bulb socket. Here are some snippets, and my interpretations:

“Thank you to choose the series electronics to dodge the lamp, it is that the ideal light source taken a photograph is dodged in the various rooms that this series electronics dodges the lamp.”
INTERPRETATION: Not sure why you’d want to dodge the lamp, but they’re deeply grateful that I purchased it.

“It still possesses advanced the gleaming remote sensing device, can receive the pulse and gleams at the distant range place, thus synchronously gleaming with the signal voluntarily, the lamp colour temperature ideal is dodged to this series, and it is big to shine the angle, and ability and various soft light umbrellas and reflection of light umbrella cooperate to use in the reality is applied, but effect is better.”
INTERPRETATION: OK, so apart from being a hellishly long sentence, I get the idea that it gleams (handy for a strobe light), remotely triggers without a struggle, has a dodged (aha – matched maybe?!!) colour temperature (to what, we’re not sure) and gleams nicely (in reality) with a bounce umbrella, or not.

“The item is paid attention to:
1. Long-term whens disuse, the dump, and at a distance from one period to the electronics dodges the lamp to be charged to try to dodge several times, and can lengthen the electronics dodging life span. Leave, and is not affected with damp to be heated.”
INTERPRETATION: Methinks it can hold its charge for a long time after it’s unplugged, and is ready to be fired (oh-oh, is that what dodged means?) when screwed back into the socket. And, whatever you do, remember never to heat the damp.

It continues:
“2. Not dismantling the electronics, if the sick requests (company name withheld) repair section or this company to be engaged by special arrangement the maintenance ministry and repairs at will.”
INTERPRETATION: They have a Maintenance Ministry in their country, so if you try to take apart your sick (strobe), a school bus will pull up to your door and several heavily armed Ministry auditors, accountants and actuarials will kick your door down and throw you to the floor.

If there are any overseas manufacturers reading this, I would like them to know that in addition to being a wonderful stock photographer, I’m also a technical writer and a very good proofreader. So, please get in touch at my other web site: www.taskpartner.ca

ARE POINT-AND-SHOOT CAMERAS REALLY THAT GOOD?

As someone who shoots stock images using SLRs, it may seem strange that I find it necessary to have a digital point-and-shoot in my possession.

Not so strange when you consider that the lenses, resolution and exposure modes are starting to catch up with their big, interchangeable lens cousins. Besides, sometimes a small no-fuss camera, due to its portability, is available to capture images we would otherwise miss because we left our clunkier gear at home.

But can they really compete on image quality? I decided to pit a Canon Rebel XTi SLR against a Panasonic Lumix FX500 point-and-shoot, each claiming 10.1 megapixel resolution. I shot the same image outdoors on each camera in rapid succession, so the light was consistent. The Rebel was set to record in JPEG only (instead of RAW) so that it matched the Lumix method of recording. Each was set to aperture priority and f/8. Shutter speed was 1/40th to 1/50th for each. Both were set for auto white balance.

The fundamental difference between the two cameras, of course, is the physical size of the sensor and the technologies used. The Rebel uses a CMOS sensor, while the Lumix uses a smaller CCD sensor. To be accurate, it should be noted that the Lumix creates a 10.1 megapixel image when in 4:3 mode, while in 3:2 mode (to match the Rebel's aspect ratio)the image size is actually 9 megapixels.

Examining the zoomed-in crop of each image, it's apparent that the little CCD can't compete with the larger CMOS, both in terms of sharpness in transitions from white to red, for example, and in colour saturation in general. Also, the CCD appears "grainier" amongst the blades of grass, and falls short in latitude (or dynamic range) when compared to the Rebel image.

The results may seem obvious, given the smaller size and lower cost of the p & s. So why bother?
Well, I wanted to gauge just how far apart the quality levels were. In my opinion, while the p & s is not up to pro standard, it's still amazingly good. I'm going to use it to take test shots of scenes that I might want to return to later and shoot with the SLR. Besides, how many times have we jumped in the car and wished later that we had grabbed a camera?