[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Killietalk] digital camera recommendations

Joe,

I'm sure you are right, and any careful user will have little problem in relatively clean surroundings. They just need to be aware. The bulk of *my* photography is in windy, dusty desert areas, where I have to clean the lens (actually, UV filter or polarizer) at least every day, and sometimes much more often.

Tips like just pointing your camera downward while changing lenses probably help, too.

I use auxiliary lenses, 1, 2, and 4X portrait or 1.5X telephoto to extend the 5X zoom range of my Sony, and to get good macro, free of the color fringing of so many well-known consumer digitals. All are easy to clean, tho.

Cameras, not just digital, are highly individual beasties. Some folks love P&S ease, while others (like me, and probably you) want a lot more control and performance. That makes anything but feature suggestions pretty difficult when questions like Matt's arise. Our needs and wants all differ. Susan loves her Nikon 4500, whereas I hate the Nikon glass in *all* their consumer cameras. Too slow and still showing lots of lateral chromatic color fringing and barrel distortion. Not maybe as bad as the 990, but still impossible if you want Tony's goal of well-defined scales and fin rays. [See: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/C4500/C45PICS.HTM]

Shutter lag is not trivial, and is ridiculously long on many consumer digitals. I got to my 4th digital before I had one with a decently-ergonomic half-press to set final focus and exposure and sufficiently little lag on the final press that I stopped getting pics of fish tails only. :-)

I used to shoot mostly medium format -- 2 1/4 square in Bronica, Rollei, etc. or 4X5 in my Speed Graphic. 35mm was a fun toy for easy field use, but pretty worthless for serious, publication-quality technical photography, IMHO. [I let my son take my OM2 off to high school, and never saw it again. Didn't miss it for a long time. Then I wondered where it went. :-)]

I cannot afford the 10D, but would probably have one if I could. It performs almost as well as the smaller MF cameras, and better than film-based 35mm cameras in all areas but lenses (where it obviously is equal). True MF performance is probably available from the Canon EOS 1Ds (about $9000) or the Kodak 14n (about $4000), but even those have issues (particularly the Kodak), and lenses are hard to find that will begin to match those full-frame sensors.

Things to look for in a digital fish camera:

Control of shutter delay. Good half-press to preset, or really, really fast autofocus.

Larger individual sensor-cell size for lower noise. [Higher MegaPixels usually means worse noise from smaller cells. Nikon 5700 is an exception, with *lower* noise than the 4500. They are getting better all the time.]

Larger sensor and faster lenses. [At least f2.8 or better from a good design. I favor Zeiss.] Lenses create the image, and lights give it brightness. The sensor can only record what is presented to it, so needs to be tailored to the system and final use.

Useful remote release to stop camera shake and keep photographer well out of sight of the fish.

External flash sync. Hot shoe or PC connector is essential, IMO.

Good (metal) tripod mount. Should not block battery or memory access.

External power supply or very good battery life. [Proprietary batteries, like Sony Info-Lithium are better than NiMH, IMHO.]

Another point to remember, if you want steady. A light tripod may work OK with a big, heavy camera, but a tiny pocket camera usually needs a big heavy tripod to get the same stability! Seems backwards, but it's true.

Wright

Joe Weber wrote:
Wright, that drawback is not as great as reported by the photo mags and film photographers. I've had a 10D for several months and use it extensively indoors and out. Great camera, but you just have to be a bit careful. I never change lenses outdoors even on a perfectly calm day. I can get most of what I want outdoors without a lens change by using a zoom such as a Tameron 28-300mm(roughly a 50-480mm in 35mm terms) or a Canon 70-210mm IS. Indoors I use a number of the EOS prime lenses and have had no problem with dirt so far. My shot count is somewhere in the 3000s, although I have no idea how often I've changed the lens. There's a lot to like about the camera, but it isn't perfect.

Wright Huntley wrote:
snip

Either are great if you can put up with the problem of needing a clean
room to change lenses. The interchangeable-lens SLR concept still has a
huge problem in the digital world. Unlike film, where each picture is on
a new sensor, the ccd attracts dust like mad (electrostatic problem) and
can only be cleaned with great skill or a long, slow, expensive trip to
the factory. :-(

snip


--
Wright Huntley -- 760 872-3995 -- Rt. 001 Box K36, Bishop CA 93514

"If people are basically evil, the last thing you'd want is a big
government staffed by those evil folks exercising control over you."
  -- David Bergland



To join the AKA see http://www.aka.org/pages/join.html
Archives are at http://fins.actwin.com/killietalk/