|
danielb
Nov 5, 2002, 3:00 PM
Post #1 of 16
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Posts: 232
|
Anyone else here using a digital camera to take pictures when climbing? If so what make and model?
I use a Fuji Finepix 2600 which is a 2 megapixel (1600x1200) resolution and a 128mb smartmedia card which gives about 168 pictures at most detailed setting.
Danielb
|
|
|
|
|
rckfreek
Nov 5, 2002, 3:13 PM
Post #2 of 16
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2002
Posts: 149
|
Well I will first off say that I am absolutely abhorred with normal digital cameras. Until you start getting into the really expensive stuff around $1200-$5000 best being Nikon F5 digital version. I think that for real photography digital is a joke. You have no control over depth of field (F-stop and so on) that the pictures are flat and you are down to the level of point and shoot 35mm $30 dollar camera.
I am honestly sorry for my soapbox on this particular issue of Digital cameras but I think that the art of the dark room is being lost slowly but surely. I think that knowing your camera and the art of manipulating photos through the lenses is a much purer way to do things.
- ROCK FREEK
With this said my climbing partner uses a HP photosmart 318. It dosn't have to many opptions, and takes "moderate quality snapshots" as he puts it.
|
|
|
|
|
psych
Nov 5, 2002, 3:49 PM
Post #3 of 16
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 416
|
I recently bought a Nikon Coolpix 4500 which I'm so far very impressed with, both for the quality and for the range of manual controls I can use. I unfortunately got it just after our normal outdoor season stopped up here, so I've taken only 1 climbing shot with it.
I do agree though that it takes a fair chunk of money to get into the type of digital cam that you can get more than "point and shoot" flat shots with. It's defenitely nice being able to go crazy taking pictures and not worrying about developing costs. Just missing that satisfying "click" of the shutter of my Minolta XD-5...
Mike...
Mike...
|
|
|
|
|
sonus
Nov 5, 2002, 4:08 PM
Post #4 of 16
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 120
|
I use an Olympus C-3020Z. The colors on this camera are superb for the price. Those who don't consider digital photography true photography have let the digicams of the past influence them too much.
You can check out my mom's site at http://www.rideoftheheart.com. She uses the Olympus also on her travels. Keep in mind, however, that the pictures on the site are GREATLY reduced in quality!
I don't have any climbing pics taken with my cam just yet (i have just begun climbing, and sadly, it is almost winter here in the midwest....i guess I can take some pics in the local gym though ), but if anyone is interested, I can e-mail you some photos I have taken with my camera.
Peace,
Sonus
|
|
|
|
|
pushfurther
Nov 5, 2002, 4:16 PM
Post #5 of 16
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 2112
|
doesn't good film have 10 megapixels?
anyway, i'd rather get in the darkroom and see the pics come to life rather than download them to my computer and photoshop them..
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Nov 5, 2002, 4:42 PM
Post #6 of 16
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
I use a canon A40 .. 2 megapixel, fairly cheap. It takes great photos, has a few manual controls (apature, and shutter speed)when required, and it is small so I can easily carry it while leading.
Contrary to popular belief, more megapixels doesn't equal better pictures, a 2 megapixel camera will do just fine printing up to 8x10" right out of the camera, and larger prints can be made through digital enlargement.
in the last 4 months I have taken approx 3200 photos, which is about 3100 more than I would have taken on my film camera. I would recomend digital to anyone who has an intermediate knowledge of computers; to get the most out of your digital camera it really helps to know some basic post processing.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Nov 5, 2002, 5:00 PM
Post #7 of 16
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
Use a tripod whenever possible and you won't be worrying so much about megapixels. It's a tradeoff -- noise vs. grain -- most people find noise to be less perceptibly disturbing.
Film is too much of a hassle for most people to worry about it anymore. I'm toying with the idea of getting a tiny little Elph or some such, so that I'll always have *something* with me when a good shot comes up. Last weekend I was climbing at Stone Mountain and I *really* wish I'd brought my camera with me, because some guy sent Bombay Groove and I had the perfect angle, the perfect fall colors, etc. All the megapixels in the world won't do you a bit of good if you don't have them with you when it counts.
I had left the F100 in the car because I wanted to make it a casual outing (and my girlfriend always worries that I'm not going to pay attention if I bring the camera), but I felt like a dork afterwards for it.
The best camera is the one you have with you when it matters. Nobody drags a view camera up a pitch, despite the theoretical 100+ megapixels of a 4x5" sheet of film. Draw your own conclusions. Personally, I'm leaving at least the 20-35 or 50mm lens on my camera, and carrying it even on casual outings from now on. When it becomes practical for me to switch to digital I'll do so, because I will *not* miss the glacial speed of my film workflow in the least.
YMMV, but that's my experience so far.
|
|
|
|
|
rckfreek
Nov 5, 2002, 5:01 PM
Post #8 of 16
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2002
Posts: 149
|
Sonus - Well i checked out your mothers pics. And they are very well composed, and pics with great color. The only thing that i would say is that only like 3 of the 20 pics that i looked at have any depth of feild what so ever. And that is only where there is a close up with a very far away background. The difficulty is being able to choose what is in focus and what is not, especialy when your focal point is somewhere other close to center. The other difficulty is shuter speeds. It becomes difficult to slow down your camera to get controlled motion blurs out side the "sports, portrait, or scenery" modes. I have used a fair amount of cameras and yes the newer they are the better they are getting. However it still costs a ton to get a good one that would allow you to have the control that you get from a good SLR.
GET IN THE DARK ROOM!!!!
My personal soapbox
- Rock Freek -
[ This Message was edited by: rckfreek on 2002-11-05 09:22 ]
|
|
|
|
|
mike
Nov 5, 2002, 5:22 PM
Post #9 of 16
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 1461
|
I use a Sony DSC-S85, 4.1 Megapixel. It has shutter priority, aperature priority, and complete manual modes. You can control these things. The real trouble is the smallest aperature is 9, so depth of field can be a problem. But, I still wind up with a far greater number of photos that I am happy with because of the real time feed back through the display. I seldom shoot in auto mode.
edited to change largest to smallest
[ This Message was edited by: mike on 2002-11-05 09:24 ]
|
|
|
|
|
eric
Nov 5, 2002, 5:47 PM
Post #10 of 16
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430
|
jabbeaux, absolutely. I was kicking myself this weekend -- lugged my SLR up every pitch for 2 days, but on the 3rd decided not to bother. Naturally it was the day with the best light, the best angles.... yada yada.
My system is usually to carry my SLR (now a Nikon D100) when I'm planning to really shoot, but just for climbing I carry a tiny P&S (Ricoh GRS-1). Lately I was experimenting trying to mix the photography in with the climbing more (and just carrying the SLR), but unless you're a group of 3, it really doesn't work.
rckfreek, I think you need to put your soap box away. It's full of holes and may collapse at any second.
|
|
|
|
|
jeffers_mz
Nov 5, 2002, 11:54 PM
Post #11 of 16
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 357
|
15 years ago i was shooting to eat while in college, using a Nikon F3/MD4/SB11, Nikkormat, and a Pentax MG (the F2 135 it came with rocked for basketball), and today i wouldn't trade my digital Olympus C4000Z for the world.
4.1 MP, 2280 x1600, 130 images on a card, and yes, you have control over shutter speed and aperature. You can also flip back and forth between 100ASA, 200ASAm and 400ASA without wasting 5 or 6 shots each time like you have to do using analog film. My Nikons wouldn't shoot video either.
Other than the web, I don't publish photos, so print quality isn't an issue, and when choosing between hours of editing the problems out of scanned images or downloading straight from the camera, then FTPing up to the web, I'll keep the digital, thanks.
I paid $500 for the camera, and another couple hunderd for smart cards, batteries, chargers etc. but I've seen the same camera online for $330. Unless you're shooting for publication, it's worth a long look.
Here's a 2280 x 1600 JPEG, (you can shoot 2280 x 1600 TIFF's too at 8 meg each) that I resized down to 800 x 600, straight from the camera. Nothing special, but it'll give you an idea what 32 times more resolution will do for you when you max out the camera:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/deepwilderness/
|
|
|
|
|
coclimber26
Nov 18, 2002, 2:57 AM
Post #12 of 16
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2002
Posts: 928
|
i just use a cheap cannon 2 megapixel camera. I like it because its small and light and i think it takes nice photos but i'm not a photographer so what do i know.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Nov 20, 2002, 12:57 AM
Post #13 of 16
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
I was talking to a photog who said that he had experimented with a few different manual digital cameras, and he said that some of them had difficulty recognizing f/stop changes of up to two stops at times. This isn't the first time that I've heard this, but I haven't shot anything digital yet.
Has anyone else had this problem?
|
|
|
|
|
kevlar
Nov 20, 2002, 4:51 PM
Post #14 of 16
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2002
Posts: 272
|
wow...
i use a Canon s100 Elph. The best camera i ever bought...and i own some very nice 35mm models...but that is other forum topic
Rckfreck...i appreciate your not being of sound mind an body...
we are not all privy to owning a dark room...but many now are afforded the opportunity to download an share photos
Back to the camera...it is small an fits easly in my pocket...affording me to take some pics..i would otherwise not have taken
drawback...the rechargable battery...has short life time...
[ This Message was edited by: kevlar on 2002-11-20 09:01 ]
|
|
|
|
|
mattheww
Nov 21, 2002, 6:21 AM
Post #15 of 16
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2001
Posts: 121
|
Mike is right ablout the Sony camera. My brother's friend did the pictures at his wedding, touched them up in Photoshop and then printed them with an Epson Photoprinter. He also took pictures with a Nikon N90 SLR and you can't tell much difference between the two cameras. Thats saying a lot for the Sony.
|
|
|
|
|
blackjack
Nov 21, 2002, 6:54 AM
Post #16 of 16
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2001
Posts: 95
|
I use a digital camera SONY CYBERSHOT with 3.6M.... But I am quite unhappy with its performance: photos with normal cameras are much much better than digital cameras.
|
|
|
|
|
|
