[rescue] o2's available for sale

[Joshua D Boyd]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 10:35:32AM -0600, Scott Newell wrote:
>>I'm somewhat dubious about the advantages of flashes on most digital cameras.

> Why?  Sure, they've got the same disadvantageous as on point-n-shoot
> cameras (red-eye, no easy way to bounce or put distance between flash and
> lens, limit light output), but I've found it very handy at times.  Think
> fill-flash, optical slaves, and stop motion.

>From me experience, digital cameras aren't very smart with their flash useage.
Well, for that matter, neither are most point and shoot film cameras.  However,
the major difference is that even with a point and shoot film camera, you still
can use 800 ASA film to get decent results in most conditions, including stupid
flash useage.

On the other hand, from my Kodak, I don't think I have once gotten a nice 
picture when using the flash.  Further, it is already slow to take the actual
picture, and using the flash just makes it slower, so that you subject has 
plenty of time to leave the frame.

Thus, why delude people into thinking they will get a decent picture from the
flash if they won't?  Just leave the flash out (but perhaps include a flash 
mount), and let the users make do.  It just means that you won't be able to 
use the camera as well at parties that you don't control the lighting for, and
digital cameras already suck extremely under such circumstances anyway.

-- 
Joshua D. Boyd