Forum Index > Photography Talk > Your Favorite Backing Camera
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Slide Alder Slayer
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 1960 | TRs | Pics
Slide Alder Slayer
Member
PostSat Feb 09, 2002 12:44 pm 
I’m totally lost and confused in camera world! I have been using my point & shoot Olympus SuperZoom 3000 for the last four years. Occasionally I even get some good pictures, but more often then not I don’t. Considering a new backpacking camera has been a daunting task, SLR or point & shoot, fixed lens 25MM, 35MM, or zoom. Some things that have worked well are our new hp deskjet 990c printer, hp scanjet 5470c scanner, Adobe Photoshop Elements, and Sony VAIO. Virtually 100% of use is outdoor mountain scenery in all four seasons. I use the zoom about 20% of the time. Ideas, thoughts, experiences, RECOMMENDATIONS, are warmly appreciated!!!!!!!!!!!! P.S. Film, Film, Film, what kind of film do you use?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
polarbear
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 3680 | TRs | Pics
Location: Snow Lake hide-away
polarbear
Member
PostSat Feb 09, 2002 1:13 pm 
camera: Nikon N6006 (old model, new ones like N60 are alot lighter and have even better metering) lens: 50 mm and zoom 35-105 with built in macro feature which is nice. I wish the zoom had a little larger range. film: Fuji Velvia slide film (it's a slower film, but since I only hike in the sunshine wink.gif it seems to work well). I think Fuji has some comparable print films. I have also tried Kodachrome 64, but don't like colors in it. I've tried Kodak 25 speed print film (don't know if it's still available) for some pictures up by Freemont lookout and they turned out ok. It's fun to experiment..that is when things turn out.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Slide Alder Slayer
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 1960 | TRs | Pics
Slide Alder Slayer
Member
PostSat Feb 09, 2002 5:47 pm 
Thanks Polarbear!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
polarbear
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 3680 | TRs | Pics
Location: Snow Lake hide-away
polarbear
Member
PostSat Feb 09, 2002 7:13 pm 
Slide Alder, I like having an SLR vs a point and shoot--that way what you see is what you get. My fingers never show up in my pictures anymore rolleyes.gif but SLR's are usually larger and more expensive (you can pull your p&s out of a pocket while the SLR is usually coming out of a bag). Also, the point and shoots may not allow you the use of as wide of an array of film speeds (at least they didn't used to). My point and shoot only accepts 100 and higher, whereas my SLR goes down to 25. The faster films give a grainier print, but it depends on what size you are enlarging them to. You can get nice shots with a point and shoot using 200 speed film, but I doubt they enlarge to well. You might want to try changing films first, though, and see how much things change.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
polarbear
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 3680 | TRs | Pics
Location: Snow Lake hide-away
polarbear
Member
PostSat Feb 09, 2002 7:48 pm 
and furthermore, check out the difference between kodachrome 64 anc velvia for two pictures taken at approximately the same location (Banf/Jasper area). I'm curious which one you like better. I think the velvia was closer to what it looked like that day. http://www.dotphoto.com/go.asp?l=polar%2Dbear&AID=197101 [hmmm...interesting how the clouds changed between about the time it took to change rolls of film]

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sore Feet
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics
Location: Out There, Somewhere
Sore Feet
Member
PostSat Feb 09, 2002 7:49 pm 
I definitely would recommend an SLR, even a cheap one is a gbig leap above point and shoot cameras. The Canon Rebel series are pretty cheap (starting around $225), and I think they come with a 28-80mm lens standard. I'd suggest doing a little research for features you'd like, then buying whatever you want through Ebay. I found a brand new Canon Elan 7 body with a 28-110 and a 100-300 telephoto, 3 filters, a lens hood, caps for all the lenses and a unregistered warranty card for under 300 bucks. Ebay is by far the best place to go camera shopping.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Steve F
Guest




Steve F
Guest
PostSat Feb 09, 2002 10:06 pm 
I'll offer a completely different viewpoint. I have an SLR but they are too bulky and heavy. The pictures are a bit better. But for hiking, weight and convenience are more important unless you are publishing photos. So I use a fixed-focal length point and shoot. Mine is an Olympus Stylus Epic with 35/2.8 (about $100 new) and it's very sharp. I also prefer slides but shoot the least expensive 100 speed stuff. The camera fits in a shorts pocket, or with the string over my neck and the camera tucked in my shirt. Ultra convenient -- take way more photos now. Actually my camera takes publishable images. Instead of using a zoom, I wait until I'm closer to the scene. But what you might consider is a digital camera. Seems like the technology has recently gotten affordable and the quality is getting really good. The only issue is printing. But if you like emailing pictures, or putting them on a web page, might as well go digital these days. So consider digital. Then you don't have to buy any film at all.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote View IP address of poster
JimK
Member



Joined: 07 Feb 2002
Posts: 5606 | TRs | Pics
Location: Ballard
JimK
Member
PostSat Feb 09, 2002 11:02 pm 
For years I carried my old Minolta SLR. With extra lenses it was bulky and heavy. I switched to a Pentax IQ90WR and have been very happy. It zooms from 38 to 90 and is quite light. Best of all it is water resistant. I take it out in rain with no worries. Previously I was paranoid about getting my SLR wet. My camera has been replaced with the IQR105wr. This one is 38-105 zoom. My Pentax has been the perfect hiking camera for me.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Alan Bauer
Member
Member


Joined: 11 Jan 2002
Posts: 942 | TRs | Pics
Location: Fall City, Washington
Alan Bauer
Member
PostSat Feb 09, 2002 11:25 pm 
I won't even go into detail of what all I typically carry since you all would call me nuts and laugh me off the mountain. But then again I'm hiking to obtain images to be used, I don't mind the weight, and I hike slower than many of you. Steve F. even knows I can sort of move along with him as long as I have him hiking with me on a rest day after he has already had two days of 30 milers behind him! tongue.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Lazyboy
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Feb 2002
Posts: 34 | TRs | Pics
Location: Butte Falls, OR
Lazyboy
Member
PostSun Feb 10, 2002 12:28 am 
I'll use my digital if I only want to use the pic on-line. But I enjoy prints much more. I use a decent Canon SLR usually but on backpacking trips I take a small rangerfinder Canon with a built in zoom. That camera is very small and weighs well under a pound. It's ok, but the SLR is the best.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostSun Feb 10, 2002 1:50 am 
I'd have to disagree on the digital image quality comments. You can get film quality 8x10's out of a 4MP digital camera. Maybe I should have my eyes checked wink.gif. Even with a lower MP digital camera, 5x7's will look great, but if you want to crop or make larger prints (and you will) I wouldn't go less than 4MP. The only reason I would go with film (over digital) is if cost is an issue. One huge advantage of digital that isn't often mentioned is the faster learning curve vs. film. When you shoot 100-200 pictures on a hike you learn very quickly what makes good pictures and what doesn't. Furthermore, because you can take many more pictures, you're bound to get a lot more "keepers", not to mention that because images are already digitized, any flaws are much easier to correct than film.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostSun Feb 10, 2002 4:06 am 
I've shot digital exclusively for almost 2 years now. There are certainly advantages and disadvantages, mostly related to megapixels of the CCD. I've seen printed 8x10s from a 3.3mp digital camera (Nikon CoolPix 990) that were indistiguishable from film prints of the same size. All depends on what you want to do with them. Give digitals about 3 more years and the quality will be better than film. Mass market 8mp cameras are coming out soon, and there's actually a 12mp camera on the market if you want to pay the $24,000 pricetag. dizzy.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostSun Feb 10, 2002 9:23 am 
Let me elaborate: Digital images look FLAT. To me it's the difference between video and film. I think digital is very convenient, but even shot on the best digital my paintings look horrible on digital as compared to a garden variety slide shot on a garden variety SLR. No depth. Nothing personal. I'm sure the technology will catch up to film someday.

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Alan Bauer
Member
Member


Joined: 11 Jan 2002
Posts: 942 | TRs | Pics
Location: Fall City, Washington
Alan Bauer
Member
PostSun Feb 10, 2002 2:27 pm 
Some of the "FLAT"ness of digital images that allison speaks of may be from noise making it into images when they are shot at slower shutter speeds. This is what I've viewed as mundane effects in some digital shots I've seen. That, or the temptation for people to crank up the ASA to 400/800 since it is sort of dark outside, and that quality level isn't going to be very good as well. Luckily newer cameras, middle-price range anyhow, are now coming with anti-noise features that you can turn on when shooting at 1/15th or slower which does an excellent job eliminating this and giving the sharpness I would want. The image takes longer to take/ties up the camera for more seconds, but it's perfect for landscapes, macro work, etc... My experiments with my new Nikon Coolpix 5000 that I now carry for getting archived shots of great things I'm normally shoting (or serves as backup camera should my big gear fail me) showed great loss of quality in digital shots at 1/8th shutter speeds...1/15th was marginal. Shot at 1/2 or slower and the results are unacceptable. But with the noise reduction set on it makes all the difference in the world!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostSun Feb 10, 2002 5:40 pm 
I think what Allison has observed is the lower dynamic range of consumer digicams vs. film (i.e. less detail in the shadows). This is not necessarily the same thing as "noise" which is what Alan is talking about. Basically at higher exposures or ISO (ASA) settings, heat from the camera's CCD will create "noise" in the image. This can be mitigated via the camera's "noise reduction" (dark frame subtraction) technique that will kick in at longer shutter speeds. The camera takes a second picture with the shutter closed and subtracts the "noise" in the second image from the original image. While this may create a cleaner picture, I do not believe it adds to the dynamic range. For hiking pictures, "noise" is not generally an issue since you are shooting outdoors in natural light. On my Canon G2 I shoot at ISO 50 which procudes (virtually) noise free images. That's not to say digital cameras can't match the dynamic range of film. If you shoot with a tripod you can use exposure bracketing to take the same shot with different exposure biases (for foreground and background) and merge them together in photoshop to get the desired dynamic range. Also, those that want to spend the bucks could get a digital SLR like the Canon D30 for around $1500 now. Digital SLR's have much larger CCD's which get you a lot more dynamic range (closer to film equivalent?), not to mention the ability to shoot virtually "noise free" at higher ISO settings. Most "consumer" (i.e. sub $1500) digicams won't produce acceptable images above ISO 200.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Photography Talk > Your Favorite Backing Camera
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum