[iron]

ahhh!!! i took my new camera out with me this weekend and while in P mode, i accidentally had the ISO set at 3200 for about 1/3 of my shots, and the ones i really, really wanted. is there any way to edit those after the fact???

[Tigerotor77W]

There's noise software that can do a decent job of removing noise, but it works better on RAW files than JPEG. That could be your first option. As far as "undoing" using ISO3200... sadly, no, once set it's done.

[mike]

This won't help you now, sorry. You bought the e620 correct? Go in the menu system and set the maximum ISO range for auto mode. I believe it works for program mode too but I'm not positive, better read the manual. I set mine at iso400. That way you can't make that mistake again. Or if the knob gets moved by accident.

[iron]

ok i just dropped my e620, smashed a lens, and submerged the body for 10 seconds before retrieval. the camera is likely shot, but fortunately, i had insurance on it. so, now i'm looking for a likely a different dslr. after using the e620 for awhile, i found that i really wanted a camera with the ability to shoot in low light, especially night shots. i realize this is partly a product of the lens, but it seemed the nicer olympus lenses were $$$ to get something in the f2.0 range, whereas finding that in a nikon or canon lens appears a little easier. additionally, i am somewhat leaning towards a camera that has weatherproofing. all of this, of course, while being used and inexpensive. thoughts??? thanks!

[puzzlr]

I've been using my new Panasonic LX5 for about a month now. The lens is F2.0-3.3 (depending on your zoom setting). Obviously it's not a DSLR, but you mentioned an F2.0 lens, and that is why I bought this camera. Nice thing is, it's also small. Is $460 inexpensive? Another reason I posted is that this camera has lots of settings, and on one of my first outings I ended up with a few shots that were at minimal resolution and only about 20KB. Can't go back and get those again! I figured out what I did wrong but that's a bummer.

[Tom]

Iron, not sure I follow what you're saying about the lenses. One of the strong points of the Olympus system is the lenses. The 12-60 f/2.8 (24-120 effective) may seem expensive but you're going to pay the same money for a Canon or Nikon lens covering the same effective range and they're not going to be as sharp wide open (or open up to f/2.8). Maybe you are referring to the cheap (but sharp) 50 mm f/2.0 primes the other systems offer? Either way, if you want low light performance you should probably invest in another system. Now that the D7000 has been announced you might find a good deal on a used Nikon D90.

[mike]

Don't think you're going to find inexpensive, weatherproof and good low light performance all in the same camera. That 12~60 that Tom was talking about is about as good as it gets and is weather proof when mounted on an E3 which is coming down in price on the used market. Some of the other brands have better low light performance but we're only talking maybe a couple of F stops at most, not enough difference to matter much for night shots. And they are more expensive. You could run your night shots through noise reducing software like NeatImage no matter which camera you get.

[joker]

For low light, bigger and newers sensors tend to be the direction you want to go (plus getting good noise reduction software - Lightroom 3 has gotten pretty decent, but Noise Ninja or the like will do even more for you when you're pushing it). Bigger sensors have bigger pixel sites, so you have more photons landing on each pixel, which gives you a better signal:noise ratio (at least that's my understanding of the issue - someone else who reads more on this stuff may step in and correct me...). This of course conflicts with "inexpensive" (as does "weatherproof").

[Tigerotor77W]

[mike]

[MLHSN]

Hey Iron, I was searching for threads and on beginner DSLR suggestions and came upon this one. I think I'm now in the same boat you were in a few years ago. I would like to expand my outdoor picture taking abilities. Any advice in hindsight looking back at the first setup? I'm thinking about getting this one: http://www.costco.com/Pentax-K-50-Weatherproof-DSLR-Camera-2-WR-Lens-Bundle.product.100071823.html

[iron]

originally i got an olympus 520 (or something like that). i thought it took really nice pics with the 2 kit lenses and was well-priced. i proceed to drop it in a creek and that was the end of that camera. next camera was the nikon d7000. i really liked the UI, but highlights were consistently blown out - a known issue that surfaced as more and more people got experience with that camera. i think the newer versions of that model lineup are better, but don't know for sure. what really killed that camera was an oil issue. the oil used to lube the mirror hinges would drip onto the mirror. you'd get spots all over your pictures. it was horrible. after a couple times of sending it into the shop, i gave up on the camera (nikon = poor customer service on this issue) and sold it. next camera (and current) is canon 60d. i like it for the most part. not as nice of a UI as the nikon. i haven't installed the canon hack thing to get better timelapse or long exposure settings, but could see that being a nice update to the software. what i find is that while i like using DSLRs for their easy ability to shoot fast and at the setting you want, i end up taking way too many pics which then need to be sorted, deleted, edited, etc. i kind of miss the days of a P&S and only having 100 pics to edit. in that regard, using a "slower" clumsier camera could be better. i would also really like a camera with a viewfinder with the live view inside of it - so then you can see how you're metering and whether your sky looks right. with P&S, this is very easy to see (okay sky looks blue = shoot). i know sony NEX has this feature, but it also has really poor low light performance when i last checked. i think the trend is for people to go with full frame P&S bodies with interchangeable lenses. it's a constantly changing field so who knows if what's best for you today will still be in 3 years. i do think HDR is nice and i'd like to start using it - but not to the extremes that some do.

[gb]

Although with a micro 4/3 sensor, the Olympus EM-1 produces great image quality (it's renowned for that in jpgs). I change lenses like a banshee but the camera is good at eliminating dust on the sensor - hasn't happened yet. The camera body is about a pound as are the very high quality zooms. Prime lenses and lower quality zooms are much lighter. Because the camera is lighter (especially with telephotos and zooms ) than full frame or ASPC cameras, the tripod can also be lighter. Mine is about two pounds. If I'm not shooting in low light (after sunset) there is no need for a tripod because of superb image stabilization in the camera body, so on most trips I don't carry a tripod. Just saying…..it's far superior to my old Nikon film camera with a spate of very high quality primes.

[boot up]

Wow, things have changed a lot in the last 4 years since the original posting! M4/3 has only become a more and more viable compromise for high end hiking photos. (ALL cameras are a compromise of some sort). Olympus e-m1 or e-m5 are splashproof, although you have a more limited selection of lenses that are also splashproof, you have quite a range of glass in general. (note the e-m10 is sadly NOT splashproof.) I was looking seriously at those options, but ended up with a very portable and easy to use Panasonic GX7, which is NOT splashproof but is tiny, yet has a built in viewfinder. Oly and Panny M4/3 can all use the same lens interchangeably. Note, as APS-C and bigger sensor DSLR's have gotten the bodies smaller, they are restricted by the laws of physics on how small the lens can be. M4/3 can always be a smaller lens, since it requires a smaller patch of light. I find the newer M4/3 sensors get a good dynamic range and decent low light sensitivity, while staying a reasonable size for packing. Everyone's priorities are different though. Some people are willing to drop to even smaller sensors and go for super telephoto in a tiny package. M4/3 is NOT cheap either. Although a major driver on getting the GX7 "old" model instead of the new e-m1 was that I could get the "old" technology GX7 for almost half the price. Also I can get a viewfinder m4/3 with a 28-280mm equivalent zoom for 1.5 pounds total with the GX7.

[Opus]

This was my second summer using a Sony NEX6. It replaced the Canon 40d that I carried for several years before that. So far I'm very happy with the Sony. The body with lens weighs less than the body alone of the 40d (and in one case less than a single Canon lens!) It's smaller overall too though not really pocketable. Image quality is as good or better than the 40d. Focusing is also faster and pretty reliable. It has a decent electronic viewfinder and a nice LCD that tilts upwards. Very useful for macro shots. Sony's lens selection is still pretty bad. The 16-50 kit lens is decent for its size. Their 55-210 zoom is good for the price. I picked up a Zeiss 16-70 f/4 lens last year and really like it. Great sharpness and colors. Low light is pretty good. I go to ISO1600 or 3200 pretty often with good results. It's certainly not in the league of a full frame SLR but still pretty good. It definitely requires care vs a point-and-shoot but I'm pretty protective of my cameras. I carry it in a ThinkTank "mirrorless mover" bag all the time, unless I'm just wandering around camp with it.