| Digital
Camera Notes |
Edward
Frank |
|
Dec
16, 2005 20:22 PST |
ENTS,
Many of you have a camera that you use in the field. Others are
considering buying one in the near future. I put together this
list of
suggestions and recommendations for what to look for in a
digital camera
for a friend. I thought I would pass it on to the group as a
whole to
consider.
I have a Nikon 8700 digital camera. The pictures I took this
summer are
fantastic! I sent it back for repairs soon after MTSF this
falls, so
those photos are not representative of the quality of the images
from
camera. It has a fixed lens, 8 MP image.
If you have $4-500 to spend on a camera this is what I would
suggest:
1) Camera, at least 5+ megapixels, the more pixels the better.
In
the $300- 400 range you can find them from 5 to 8 MP (There is
an
Olympus compact camera with 8 MP for $297 at Wal-mart). Right
now 8 MP
is something to shoot for. The Canon Digital Rebel for about
$900 with
interchangeable lenses.
2) Get an extra memory card, 512 KB should run $30-50, a 1
Gigabyte is
better and can be found on sale for as little as $60 - The best
prices
in local stores I found at Staples.
3) Batteries- get an extra battery. I would strongly recommend 2
sets, and a charger that works from a car lighter. Some cameras
have
proprietary batteries, and hence they cost more. This is one of
the
biggest limitations of a digital camera, running out of power in
the
middle of a shoot. If the camera uses standard sizes, like AA,
look for
rechargeable batteries at someplace like Wal-mart. I bought some
AA
size NimH batteries (I think they were anyway) and a charger for
$29.
These were special ones that could be recharged in 15 minutes- a
big
plus if you suddenly find yourself with dead
batteries. If they have proprietary batteries, get generic
quivalents.
A good place is http://www.atbatt.com/
Often the generic ones have more
capacity than the cameras manufacturer's and are much cheaper.
Look to
pay $30 -50 for this necessity. The bigger capacity the better.
4) Get a tripod. This will improve your pictures more than any
other
accessory. Get one that is fairly heavy, and extends to 5 feet
or so.
Heavier tripods shake less, and taller ones give you a chance to
take
pictures at near eye level. In darker areas such as the forest,
the
exposures on these digitals will be relatively long because
their lenses
are small and have small apertures. Exposure lengths in the 1/4
to
1/30th second are not uncommon - too slow to handhold a tiny
camera
without bracing or a tripod. You don't need an expensive one,
but you
should have a dedicated tripod. Cost around $30- $70. I plan to
buy a
good one for both video and still shots and am looking in the
$300-400
range.
*****These things above are not suggestions, but things you must
have.******
What to look for in the camera:
a) pixels - at least 5MP, try for 8 MP in this price range.
b) batteries - what does it use? see above
c) Does it have a panorama mode? Pretty much a necessity to get
good
tree pans. Panorama mode locks in the same exposure and other
settings
for all of the frames in a panoramic sequence so they can be
pasted
together without creating seams causes from different settings
on
adjacent frames.
d) Does it easily allow you adjust exposure? In forest setting
auto
exposure always wants to burn out the images. Manual adjustment
is a
must. It should be easy to use button on the camera, not down a
series
of menus. Not having this is a deal buster. The more manual
adjustment
the camera allows you to do, the better.
e) Can you turn off the stupid pop-up flash? It is annoying and
if it
goes off, unless you are doing a close-up, it will guarantee
that you
will get a badly underexposed picture. If you can't disable the
flash -
don't get the camera.
f) There are SLR's which you look through the lens, range finder
where
you look through a hole in the camera body, and EVF electronic
viewfinder. I prefer the EVF cameras they show the image as it
will be
captured by the camera. You can see before you snap if the
exposure is
right, if it is framed right, if the color balance is right. The
SLR
ones are passable, the rangefinder ones are terrible.
g) Software - most cameras come with software that lets you
download
the images to a computer, including usb cord. They usually have
some
basic picture editing software. See if what you get with the
camera
works before getting any other software. A nice free photo
editing
program is called inrfanview.exe and can be downloaded from
http://www.downloads.com/
I really like Thumbs Plus ($80). I also have
Paint Shop Pro, Adobe Photo Elements, Microsoft Image Composer,
and a
few others. I use Thumbs Plus for the vast majority of my photo
editing.
h) Optical Zoom - the greater the optical zoom the better. Also
consider how wide of an image you can get. Digital zoom simply
blows up
a portion of the image, and thus degrades the image quality
significantly. Ignore the digital zoom values as they are
useless.
i) I find that I use the wide angle end of the zoom far more
than the
telephoto. Find out how wide the lens will go - look for the
equivalent
of a 35 mm cameras 28 mm wide angle lens, or at least the
equivalent of
a 35 mm wide angle lens.
j) How close does the lens focus? Macro photography is very
useful. I
shoot many macro shots and it was an important consideration in
choosing
my camera.
k) Can you adjust the focus manually? My camera doesn't let me
do it
manually, but has a series of zones for the autofocus. So I need
to
switch focal modes depending on the distance to the subject.
Full
manual adjustment of focus option would have been better, but I
can live
with the annoying limitations.
k) The controls that are adjustable from buttons on the camera
body the
better. You want to easily adjust exposure, and turn of the
stupid
flash at least.
Things that are nice, but not deal-busters:
a) A shutter cord release option. On a regular camera this is a
hole
with threads in it on the shutter button. You can screw in a
cord and
push a plunger on the cord to set off the shutter. That way you
are not
touching the camera and are less likely to cause vibration when
you do a
longer exposure. I often use the timer option on the camera in
lower
light settings. That way the vibrations from pushing the button
die
down before the shutter goes off - (not useful unless you are
taking
still photos rather than action shots)
b) Threads on the front of the lens that allow filters. If it
does, get
a clear glass filter to protect the lens from dirt and scratches
and
keep it on the camera at all times ( maybe $25). A polarizing
filter is
a very useful filter as well and runs maybe $60. There is no big
need
for any other filters for the camera, although a few might be
useful for
special circumstances. Most filters I feel actually detract from
the
final image rather than enhance it. (I super-glued a step up
ring
adapter to the front of my lens shroud to enable me to use screw
on
filters with the camera - If you do this watch for vignetting -
i.e. the
edge of the filter ring showing in the image when using the lens
at its
widest setting.)
c) Do you have a cd or dvd burner? If not you need to get one, a
cd
burner costs $30 or so, a dvd burner that does both cds and dvds
costs
maybe $60. You need to archive your images somewhere and cd-r is
the
way to go. A stack of 100 blank cd-r disks will cost $18 or so
on sale.
I just bought a stack of 100 dvd+r for $25. Again Staples is a
good
place to buy.
The point is don't spend all your money on a camera and then not
buy
these other items. You need these items to make the camera work
in a
practical situation. Your spending limit on the camera is
hatever is
left once you factor in buying these other items.
One thing to consider with a digital camera, that most people
used to
using film have a hard time getting through their head, is that
you can
shoot a dozen photos of a single scene searching for the perfect
frame
or exposure - it doesn't matter it costs nothing to shoot the
images. I
take pictures of interpretive signs, signs listing the names of
the
geyser at Yellowstone, anything with useful information, trail
maps,
whatever, Why Not? When you download the images to the computer
or
disk you will then always have access
to this information - if you don't print them, they cost you
nothing.
When in doubt take more photos.
A final comment about choosing a camera. Get one that has the
features
you want on it (perhaps the ones I recommended?) and don't
bother with
recommendations from sources like Consumer Reports. Most of
their
advice on technology items is outdated by the time they publish,
even
the online versions, and I think much of the time they have
their head
up their magazine when it comes to technology. If you are buying
a
camera for taking photos in the field of nature and trees, you
do not
have the same requirements in a camera that people wanting to
take
birthday snapshots. Consumer reports is geared to people taking
birthday photos. Outdoor Photography magazine or Digital
Photography
magazines are better sources for camera information than
Consumer
Reports.
As stupid as it may sound, I highly recommend reading any of the
nature
or landscape photography books by John Shaw - get one from the
library
if you don't want to buy. I know you think it is a waster of
time. You
will pick up a few hints that are useful if nothing else, but
the aspect
that is important is the approach he takes to photography - sort
of the
"Philosophy" of nature photography. I really believe
his words and
ideas stick to you as you set up to take photographs in the
field.
Read the operators manual that comes with your camera - don’t
just try
to wing it. Take the users manual with you in the field (or at
least in
your car) until you have mastered the use of the camera or I
guarentee
you will regret it.
Ed Frank
"What you see depends mainly on what you look for."
Richard J. Vogl
http://www.nativetreesociety.org |
| RE:
Digital Camera Notes |
Paul
Jost |
| Dec
17, 2005 08:28 PST |
All,
I would add one note. Ed mentions the desirability of having a
macro
focus function. I would actually limit my choices even more.
Some
cameras have macro or close-up focus distances with minimums of
12-18
inches while others will focus as close as 2 inches. If you plan
on
taking pictures of small objects like lichens or wildflowers,
opt for a
camera with a macro mode that allows pictures to be taken at
distances
of less than 6 inches with 2-3 inches preferable. Close ups are
taken
without zooming in, so with 5 or more megapixels and a 2-3 inch
macro
mode, you can take some excellent photographs of some of the
smaller
subjects!
Paul Jost
|
| RE:
Digital Camera Notes |
fores-@earthlink.net |
| Dec
17, 2005 13:16 PST |
1) one
thing, sometimes (not always) more MP means smaller photosite
per pixel which means more noise at higher ISO and forests are
often dark, then again one probably should use a tripod anyway
(although in practice it can sometimes be a pain).
c) regarding panorama mode just a note:
DSLRs will never have such a mode listed, however you can just
use exposure lock or switch it into manual and get the same
thing.
f) Regarding Manual focus, SLR, and EVF viewfinders:
manual focus is almost impossible with the limited res of EVF.
coming from a serious photography background I would rank DSLR
with their look through the lens with your eye by far the best
and EVFs way down, but to each their own. if by any perhaps
unlikely chance anyone here also wants to shoot sports, DSLRs
with their lack of shutter and no viewfinder lag are certainly
the way to go. they also have much, much better high ISO
performance (although you can always use tripod and use lower
ISO with a point and shoot EVF camera, but the DSLRs also have
greater dynamic range which really can improve forest and nature
scenics, get more shadow detail with your highlights still
high). DSLR certainly are bulkier and more expensive once you
get the proper lenses. if you are really into photography and
getting the single bestiamges I would go for a DSLR, otherwise
P&S's are more compact and might suit the casual
better.
Do make sure
the P&S has a wide enough wide-angle, some only give the
equivalent of
a 35mm (or even only 48mm or more) lens FOV on a 35mm camera
which is only
passably wide others can get you to 28mm equivalent, not sure if
they have any that go to 24mm equiv.
Regarding filters: some of the really cheap filters
can degrade the image, lots of camera shops try to make their
money on stuff like this and will sell some nasty piece of glass
for $20-30 (sometimes for same price as mail-order places have
the good HOYAs and B+Ws for) with no anti-relfection coatings
and warpings in the glass. HOYA SHMC and B+W MRC are really,
really good, the regular HOYA and certainly B+W
are not bad. polarizer can sometimes be useful,
occasionally half neutral density.
a DVD can usually burn 4.7GB of pics in teh time a CD burner
will only burn like 1GB or less, I would go for a DVD burner,
certainly if you get a higher MP camera, or DSLR or ever shoot
in RAW mode.
Larry Baum |
| RE:
Digital Camera Notes |
Edward
Frank |
|
Dec
17, 2005 22:21 PST |
ENTS,
I don't really disagree with anything that Larry or Paul has
said in
these posts. A couple of points for clarification I want to
mention -
1) I think you should always use a tripod unless in really
bright light,
so more megapixels may be a tradeoff in light sensitivity, but
not a
problem when using a tripod. If you are into sports a more
expensive
DSLR may be a better way to go.
2) Panorama Mode: My Nikon calls it Panorama mode, so you may
see it
listed as such in the camera descriptions. Essentially it is
like Larry
says: An exposure to lock to assure that all the frames in the
sequence
are exposed the same way. So it may be called panorama, exposure
lock,
or something else.
3) Certainly the overall performance of DSLR are much higher
than the
cheaper EVF cameras - but they are much more expensive as well.
My
notes concerned primarily the cheaper models in the $300 - 500
range.
For focusing a SLR is vastly superior. Often you can't tell if a
photo
is blurry or not using only the EVF viewfinder. You don't notice
bad
photos until you see the image full sized. In this price range
you are
not going to find a DSLR camera - your choice is a rangefinder
or an EVF
and I think EVF is better. Most of these cameras have autofocus,
for
better or worse, so the biggest problem in these photos is
exposure.
EVF is better for seeing exposure than are SLR viewfinders.
I anticipate that within a year I will be buying a higher end
DSLR
camera, but a cheaper one as I am discussing is a good place to
start
until you decide to jump in full tilt. I would not have even
considered
buying a higher end DSLR until I had used a digital for a period
of time
as a trial camera.
4) I agree with Larry's comments on filters 100%. My
original figures for the
costs of the filters were much understated in my original
post. I don't know
what I was thinking. The one on my camcorder for example
cost about $80.
5) Paul talked about macro ranges. I certainly would not
consider
focusing at 18 inches to be macro - proper macro is in the less
than a
couple inches range. This is something to watch for when a
camera touts
its macro capabilities - is it really a true macro lens or
something
totally unsatisfactory. Buyer beware on this -
don't just jump at the
words macro, actually check on how close the camera will
actually focus.
Ed Frank
|
|