OT Boat & GP Camera
 

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:45:36 GMT, "Butch Davis"
wrote:


Now, I have no interest in anything fancy. Easy is the goal but I'd still
like decent results. I'm talking about memory shots here not art.

That's what I thought when I bought a Canon PowerShot A530.
The problem for me is the lag when taking shots.
Since all my previous shooting was done with a film SRL (Minolta 102)
I was disappointed at how slow this digital camera is, even with new
batteries, and it gets worse as the batteries age.
Yeah, it's cheap ($150) and does what it's supposed to do, but if
you're accustomed to a quick camera, this digital at least is
irritating, like you frame a cute dog face looking at you, and by the
time the camera focuses, shoots and records, you have a picture
of a dogs ass.
Might just be this camera, not digital itself, but I was spoiled by my
Minolta SLR.
Try the camera you're buying by shooting a couple dogs, and see if you
can shoot what you're seeing NOW. If I had done that, I would have
bought a faster camera even if I had to pay much more.
And I'm using dogs as an example, but it goes for any candid shot.
It just happens that my pooches were the only ones around when the
camera came in the mail. Had the same issue with wildlife shots
later.
You want a camera you enjoy using, otherwise you won't even
want to use it when those "memory" shots beg to be taken.

--Vic

OT Boat & GP Camera
 

Wow, guys!!! Super info and I thnk you. RG, thanks for all the detailed
info. Y'all are the best!

Butch
"Butch Davis" wrote in message
k.net...
Am finally determined to get a digital camera. Would like at least a 6 Mp
with 2+" LCD viewer and 4+ optical zoom.

Fifty years ago I used to make a few bucks free lance shooting for press
outlets. Did all my own darkroom work except for color. Used Speed
Graphic and an assorment of 35mm along with the odd 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 or 2 1/4
X 3 1/4.

Now, I have no interest in anything fancy. Easy is the goal but I'd still
like decent results. I'm talking about memory shots here not art.

So, looking for recommendations from you shooters on the group. What
camera, what source, and what software if any is needed for snapshots.
Any pointers on printing would also be appreciated.

Probably should have posted this on alt.binaries.pictures.sports.ocean but
maybe I can cross post. Anyway, I'll try to post there via the Cc:
feature.

Thanks,
Butch

OT Boat & GP Camera
 

I've been experimenting with it on the E-300 and the D-50. I have a
19' TFT monitor which is pretty faithful and comparing shots done in
sRGB and aRGB taken in .jpeg mode, I can't tell the difference. I
have a pretty good color sense, so I don't think it's that.


Here's a thought: My Nikon manual tells me that when I shoot jpegs in aRGB,
that nugget of information regarding color space is included in the EXIF
data. If the viewing/printing hardware/software is intelligent, it will
read the color space from the EXIF data and automatically compensate. Maybe
what you're witnessing is the photos after being automatically compensated
for color space. The auto compensation should theoreticaly bring any photo
shot in any color space back to pretty much a baseline color gamut, I would
think. Sort of like adjusting white balance to compensate for different
colored light sources to remove any light-induced color cast and present the
photo in light-neutral color.



Mode III is the sRGB space with a higher saturation of colors, especially
greens. It affords more vivid landscapes.

Now here's something else. Do you use graduated neutral density
filters when you shoot landscapes? The one problem that I've noticed
with the Oly and the Nikon is that the zonal metering systems have
trouble metering sky vs ground and vice versa. I bought a set of B&W
GNDFs and noticed a definite improvement in what I'm shooting.

I don't, although it's the correct solution for dealing with bright skies
and darker ground. It seems to be even more important with digital, with
its lower dynamic range than print film. Digital dynamic range has often
been compared to transparency film. Sometimes the effect of a GNDF can be
simulated to a small degree in your editing software, but I've had limited
success with it. I finaly got around to buying a good quality (B&W)
circular polarizer. I used to always shoot landscapes with a polarizer back
in my film days, and finally broke down and got one for my Nikon 18-200
lens. I haven't had much time lately to shoot with it


I can bracket WB in ORF (RAW) so I'm not sure I understand your
comment. All RAW does is put the basic image data with the widest
possible amount of color composition - white balance is more of a
correction by the camera so if you correct or bracket WB in RAW, that
is reflected in the data.

Yes/No?

Well, shooting in raw sort of renders bracket shooting for either exposure
or WB somewhat moot, since in the conversion process you can easily do
multiple conversions of the same raw shot with various exposure and white
balance adjustments, with little or no detrimental effect to the resulting
jpegs. After-the-fact bracketing, if you will. In fact, that, in my
opinion, is the primary advantage to shooting raw. What I was trying to
communicate was that much of that same effect of doing multiple raw
conversions with various EV and WB adjustments can best be simulated when
shooting jpegs by using EV bracketing and WB bracketing while you shoot.
This is essentially the same thing as doing multiple conversions from raw,
it's just that it is done in the camera, and results in multiples of jpegs
on the card. It's a better way to allow for such adjusments than not
bracketing jpegs and expecting to get the same range of possible results by
post-editing a single non-bracketed jpeg shot of a scene in your editing
software. If I think I'm shooting an outstanding scene, I'll usually shoot
a single raw shot (for a given composition), and then bracketed jpegs, and
then see what comes out best in post-editing. My limited experience has
typically favored one version of the bracketed jpegs for the scene over the
raw shot, but not always. Which is why I do both in that situation. But
for everyday shots, I don't bother with raw.



Much of this can be accomplished by
shooting JPEG's with exposure and WB bracketing. Beyond this feature, I
find raw to be a bit over-hyped and more trouble than it's worth. Not
surprisingly, I don't find raw the most compelling reason to shoot with a
DSLR (there are a few higher-end point and shoots that also allow raw
shooting). These are my reasons for preferring a DSLR format camera:

All valid points and good ones, but I still think that a p-n-s can be
as effective as a DSLR even at lower resolutions - not in all
situations I'll grant you, but within their basic technologies, they
can be a great tool for those situations where you need to get a
picture or as you said, a backup.

Currently, I keep the D-50 in the truck along with a Oly C-7070 as a
backup. I use my Oly E-330 for those special situations in which I
want to make sure I get the best image I can. It's a personal choice
- back in the film days, I had the OM series cameras and liked them
much better than the F-1 that I inherited. That just translated over
to the digital space with the E-1, which I still use occasionally, and
subsequently to the E-300 which I gave to one of the kids when I
bought the E-330. Another kid will get the E-330 when my Christmas
present shows up. I bet you'll never figure out that that will be.
:)


E-500?

We ought to set up a photography competition sometime - we have a lot
of people with decent cameras and the willingness to use them. I'd be
willing to give some web space on my site to set something like that
up.

Hmmm - must give that some thought.

I'm in.

OT Boat & GP Camera
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:59:22 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:52:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:46:20 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:25:08 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 11:47:37 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:45:36 GMT, "Butch Davis"
wrote:

Am finally determined to get a digital camera. Would like at least a 6 Mp
with 2+" LCD viewer and 4+ optical zoom.

Fifty years ago I used to make a few bucks free lance shooting for press
outlets. Did all my own darkroom work except for color. Used Speed Graphic
and an assorment of 35mm along with the odd 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 or 2 1/4 X 3 1/4.

Now, I have no interest in anything fancy. Easy is the goal but I'd still
like decent results. I'm talking about memory shots here not art.

So, looking for recommendations from you shooters on the group. What
camera, what source, and what software if any is needed for snapshots. Any
pointers on printing would also be appreciated.

Probably should have posted this on alt.binaries.pictures.sports.ocean but
maybe I can cross post. Anyway, I'll try to post there via the Cc: feature.

How much are you planning to spend? I've got a Nikon D200 that I love, but
it's not cheap. I just bought my wife a Nikon D50 for Christmas. It's not
cheap either, but it's in a price range I found acceptable. It's not
overloaded with features, but it'll be plenty for her. It *is* a digital
single lens reflex (SLR) which I like much better than the point and shoot.

I disagree with that.

Point and shoot cameras always have had the ability to produce images
at the same quality level as a DSLR. The advantage of the DSLR is
that you have a greater adjustment, the ability to shoot in several
different color standards and different lenses rather than fixed
length or restricted variability lenses. In fact the main advantage a
DSLR has over a p-n-s is lens aperture - there is a big difference
between 28 mm and 58 mm lens size.

How can you disagree with a statement about what I like? I know what I
like, and it's not point and shoots - mainly for the shutter lag problem.
They may have cleared that up now, as my last pns was the Nikon 5700. But,
I've taken photos with other pns recently and the lag still exists. It
drove me up a wall. But, if still objects are the subject of the photos,
then the lag makes no difference.

I apologize for misreading your post - which, but the way said nothing
about shutter lag. :)

I was being cryptic.

Shutter lag caused me to lose a bunch of shots at a grandson's baptism. I
was using a Nikon 5700, which I'd just bought. I quit using it very soon
thereafter. The picture quality was great, and the zoom telephoto was nice,
but the shutter lag drove me up a wall.

I can agree with that - p-n-s shutter lag can be a PIA.

But then again, I never use a p-n-s for those situations. Or I use a
close facsimilie of a DSLR with the C-7070 which doesn't suffer that
particular problem.

I just looked at the C-7070 for my wife, that's a pretty pricey point
and shoot. The Fuji point and shoot that I have does lag, and I hate
it. Do you know of any other point and shoots that don't lag?

OT Boat & GP Camera
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 18 Dec 2006 09:03:15 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:

I just looked at the C-7070 for my wife, that's a pretty pricey point
and shoot. The Fuji point and shoot that I have does lag, and I hate
it. Do you know of any other point and shoots that don't lag?

I'm not really into p-n-s cameras, but I can say with some certainty
that the higher end cameras like the C-7070 don't have the basic lag
problem that seems to plague the less expensive cameras.

The mid-price ($250 and up) Canon p-n-s cameras seem to be a nice
compromise though. I don't have any experience with the Nikons or
Sigma/Fuji/Pentax cameras.

I'll look into them. I just can't get the knack of pressing the shutter
release and having nothing happen for a second.

OT Boat & GP Camera
 

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:54:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Well, it seems like a second - it isn't.

Even a 1/4 second seems like a lifetime when you're trying to catch a
dolphin in mid jump.

OT Boat & GP Camera
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 18 Dec 2006 10:57:53 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 18 Dec 2006 09:03:15 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:

I just looked at the C-7070 for my wife, that's a pretty pricey point
and shoot. The Fuji point and shoot that I have does lag, and I hate
it. Do you know of any other point and shoots that don't lag?

I'm not really into p-n-s cameras, but I can say with some certainty
that the higher end cameras like the C-7070 don't have the basic lag
problem that seems to plague the less expensive cameras.

The mid-price ($250 and up) Canon p-n-s cameras seem to be a nice
compromise though. I don't have any experience with the Nikons or
Sigma/Fuji/Pentax cameras.

I'll look into them. I just can't get the knack of pressing the shutter
release and having nothing happen for a second.

Well, it seems like a second - it isn't.

It seems like a freakin minute! It's just not natural to me, I guess.
Being a 35mm kind of guy, my mind is trained that at the moment I press
the shutter release, things should be happening.