|
climber1
Apr 19, 2002, 7:47 PM
Post #1 of 6
(2210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2000
Posts: 484
|
Anyone here use either a Nikon Coolpix 995 or the Sony Mavica? I like the idea of storing photos on a CD(Mavica). Just wondering which takes better pics?
|
|
|
|
|
bradhill
Apr 19, 2002, 8:05 PM
Post #2 of 6
(2210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 486
|
I haven't forked out for a digital camer yet since my last one was stolen, but I often see fisheye and wide-angle lenses used to awesome effect in climbing photos. I know the Coolpix accepts different lenses including fisheye and wideangle.
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Apr 19, 2002, 9:30 PM
Post #3 of 6
(2210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
I would rather get the 995 ... cd seems cool but if you know anything about computers you wont find transfering data from memory cards very tricky. The 995 has all kinds of extra lenses,
the mavica (I assume you are talking abut the CD-300) can also has a lens thread for attachments .. the CD's cost money like $10 each and arn't resuable.
as far as image quality I woudl bet they are both about the same ..
the nikon can shoot at iso 800 the mavica can only do 400. that means that the nikon will prefrom better with high speed shots.
the zoom on the nikon is 4x mavica is 3x .. zoom is good in rockclimbing for those close up type shots.
here is a link to a direct comparison of image quality between the mavica cd300 and the nikon 990 (predecessor to the 995)
dpreview.com
|
|
|
|
|
awka
Apr 23, 2002, 7:13 PM
Post #4 of 6
(2210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 4
|
I have been in photography for more than 25 years and moved 3 years ago to digital.
There are a lot of advantages is you want to use your digital camera outdoors, namely the ability to check your shots (you dont' want to go back home after an epic adventure to discover that you have no photos).
There are however a lot of disadvantages too.
Let me premise that I have a 995 and I consider it awesome due to the ability to have full control on everything.
Disadvantages:
- given the CCD limitations, it is hardly recommedable to use higher ISO settings
- lenses are very dark, so action shooting outdoors in not-so-perfect conditions is not recommedable
- battery life can be abysmal, so you have always to think about spare batteries (I highly recommend rechargeable batteries)
- memory cards are limited, so if you plan a multiday adventure you either buy lots of memory cards ($$$$), buy a "dumping" system to download shots ($$$$) or edit your photos as you go keeping only the ones your card can support (at the end of your trip can be tedious to decide out of your say 150 photos which one to keep and which one to drop as it is difficult to appreciate photos using on board lcd).
- you have to be willing to do some homework at your computer. Digital stills normally lack contrast. The upside is that you will get the result you want.
- unless you want to use online services or local digital labs (like Kodaks), you better have a printer which is photo capable. You want to have prints at the end of the day.
- big time blow outs are hard to achieve (the maximum you can print a digital photo at is really 8x10 or a little bit more if you are willing to use things like genuine fractals)
- high tech looses vs. low tech out in the wild. Manual camera rarely goes bad, there is nothing to break, and takes hits better.
Advantages:
- full control pre-during-after. You get excatly what you want, if your system is calibrated and you know what you doing
- cheaper (after the initial investment) as you print only photos you really like and you dont pay for film
- easier to share (say you got mail!)
- lighter. Digital cameras are lighter and more compact even if you consider attachments
- speed. You have your photos right away without having to wait.
- easy to organize. It is much easier to organize digital albums (exp if you use something like Cumulus software) than a shoe box.
Hope it helps.
Awka
|
|
|
|
|
awka
Apr 23, 2002, 7:15 PM
Post #5 of 6
(2210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2002
Posts: 4
|
I have been in photography for more than 25 years and moved 3 years ago to digital.
There are a lot of advantages is you want to use your digital camera outdoors, namely the ability to check your shots (you dont' want to go back home after an epic adventure to discover that you have no photos).
There are however a lot of disadvantages too.
Let me premise that I have a 995 and I consider it awesome due to the ability to have full control on everything.
Disadvantages:
- given the CCD limitations, it is hardly recommedable to use higher ISO settings
- lenses are very dark, so action shooting outdoors in not-so-perfect conditions is not recommedable
- battery life can be abysmal, so you have always to think about spare batteries (I highly recommend rechargeable batteries)
- memory cards are limited, so if you plan a multiday adventure you either buy lots of memory cards ($$$$), buy a "dumping" system to download shots ($$$$) or edit your photos as you go keeping only the ones your card can support (at the end of your trip can be tedious to decide out of your say 150 photos which one to keep and which one to drop as it is difficult to appreciate photos using on board lcd).
- you have to be willing to do some homework at your computer. Digital stills normally lack contrast. The upside is that you will get the result you want.
- unless you want to use online services or local digital labs (like Kodaks), you better have a printer which is photo capable. You want to have prints at the end of the day.
- big time blow outs are hard to achieve (the maximum you can print a digital photo at is really 8x10 or a little bit more if you are willing to use things like genuine fractals)
- high tech looses vs. low tech out in the wild. Manual camera rarely goes bad, there is nothing to break, and takes hits better.
Advantages:
- full control pre-during-after. You get excatly what you want, if your system is calibrated and you know what you doing
- cheaper (after the initial investment) as you print only photos you really like and you dont pay for film
- easier to share (say you got mail!)
- lighter. Digital cameras are lighter and more compact even if you consider attachments
- speed. You have your photos right away without having to wait.
- easy to organize. It is much easier to organize digital albums (exp if you use something like Cumulus software) than a shoe box.
Hope it helps.
Awka
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Apr 23, 2002, 7:43 PM
Post #6 of 6
(2210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
Digital cameras are getting a lot better but until there is a reliable, solidly-built SLR without the horrendous lag time (== time between when you push the shutter release button and the time the picture is taken), I remain unimpressed. I don't work for a newspaper or make my living from photography so I am uninterested in $5000 bodies that won't record what my wide-angle lenses show.
I have a Coolpix 950 and an F100 with assorted lenses. I put up with the F100 and film *solely* because of the lens quality and the ability to take a picture of what is happening *at the moment I press the shutter release*. I rented a Fuji S1 (similar to the D1H or Canon D30) and, although it took great pictures and accepted standard 35mm SLR lenses, there was a horrible flaw in its UI whereby it did not alert me to its inability to save some images to the memory disk. (That particular camera has two sets of batteries, one for the LCD and AF motor, the other for saving memory buffers, etc.) I lost a day's worth of shooting in the Needles and some irreplaceable memories for a couple of guys from NC that were very happy to provide their mom with trip pictures.
Which brings up another point -- the Coolpix series, the D1 series, and almost all the digicams I have used really gobble batteries. This is not too cool if you're going to be headed far from the trailhead. I have seen a Canon ElphShot (or whatever it's called) take a 100' plunge down the ramp at the base of Ruper in Eldo. I picked it up, put the memory card back in, and informed my friend Jenny that it still worked. Not bad, my F100 would be an insurance claim if I did that to it! Still, I have issues with digicams.
They can take fine pictures, but I went back to film to entrust my memories to something archival. YMMV, as always. I use my Coolpix to take pictures of things I want to sell on eBay nowadays.
Here are some Coolpix 950 photos:
Airdrop at the Needles
top of the Matthes Crest
fat ice
Here are some scanned from film:
El Cap
A boy we met at Angkor Wat
Rosy Crucifixion
You can compare for yourself as far as quality goes. The portrait I threw in was simply to illustrate something that is impossible with the lenses built into most consumer digicams, namely, shallow depth of field.
Oh, I almost forgot. Nothing on earth will help your pictures as much as having interesting things to point your camera at, and a tripod to stabilize it. Doesn't matter whether it's a 4"x5" view camera, a pro digital SLR, or a point-and-shoot. Get a tripod, whether a tabletop $20 version or a $300 carbon-fiber whiz-bang version, and learn to use it. Your photos will improve.
[ This Message was edited by: jabbeaux on 2002-04-23 12:54 ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
