OT: New digicam

[Mats Olsson.]

After trying more than a few digital compact cameras in the last year, I decided to buy a single lens reflex model. My original plan was to purchase in november-december but yesterday I was offered a really sweet deal that was very hard to ignore...

 

Below are some pics I took just before dawn, a few hours ago, enjoy!

 

http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16118940/031231/IMG00043web.jpg

 

http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16118940/031231/IMG00047web.jpg

[Stephen Fortner]

Gorgeous pictures, Mats. What kind of SLR digital was it? I'm currently shooting with a Nikon Coolpix 5000, which is a rangefinder camera, but have been thinking about upgrading to a Canon Digital Rebel. Keyboard mag's editor, Ernie Rideout, had one at NAMM and I was pretty impressed with it. I'd love to get the Olympus, but it's a little beyond my budget.

[Mats Olsson.]

I was planning on buying a Canon Eos 10D (or better), I have been using a EOS 5 for close to a decade.

 

Yesterday I bought a Sigma SD9, it has some limitations (it isn't very good in low light, only saves raw files, limited selection of glass available) but also some very nice features. For what I payed, this feels like a real bargain.

[theblue1]

Great color, Mats. I take it those are unretouched.

 

I have 4 digital cams but only one did I spend more than $100 on -- and that was back in '98 ($150). My first couple cams were low on pixel count. One had good color; one was great with low light. My next was really cheap and had more pixels but it had a terrible lens (or the lens was mismounted). The next had more pixels and a decent lens but the slowest shutter speeds I've ever seen. You have to be careful with the dang thing on a tripod, lest the movement of the earth blur the picture...

 

I think I'm due for something a little more workmanlike. But I guess I'll have to spend more than a hundred bucks...

[jeffbayson]

Beautiful photos, Mats. They remind me of my hometown, except where that yellow building is, there would be a strip mall, and where that river is, there would be a strip mall.

[theblue1]

jefe

 

That goes for my old hometown. Only in addition to the strip malls, replace the deep blue sky with a brown smear of smog...

 

Happily, my adopted hometown has a big slab of oily ocean where a bunch of stip malls would be. But they are -- honest to God -- filling in sections of the harbor to build a shopping area to act as a "magnet" for the money-losing (but very nice) aquarium they built a few years ago -- they built the aquariaum as a "magnet" to draw business to the floundering nearby downtown shops and stores...

 

I'll go down to the beach and snap a shot with my 'good' cam. Hopefully if I hold my breath and squeeze that shutter button reeeeeeeeeal slow...

 

_____________________________

 

 

I'm back. Bad batteries. Will ya settle for a webcam shot? [it's not even from today. ]

 

http://bluetrip.com/images/bb_img/2004-02-17-2.jpg

[Dan South]

Great shots. Excellent clarity and color. Perfect exposures. I like how you avoided perspective distortion in the buildings by holding the camera parallel to their walls. The reflections render this angle of view satisfying.

 

[Philip OKeefe]

Nice shots Mats - congrats on the new camera.

[Mats Olsson.]

Thanks for the nice words!

 

Yep, both photos are unretouched and not cropped. I was taking my new camera out on a walk, we have to get to know each other. One thing learned the hard way: don't turn off the camera while it's saving to memory - I lost more than one picture this way!

The Sigma is different from my Canon, the exposure metering will take some time to get used to and I can't use the lenses I'm used to. Also the ergonomics are a little bit different and there's no eye-controlled autofocus. I also must buy at least 8 more rechargeable batteries and a new flash, eventually also some new lenses but that will have to wait.

What I really like is that the color seem to be very correct and predictable.

 

I take a lot of pictures but most of it is for finnish newspapers (I cooperate with a finnish freelance reporter who lives here). On average, we do about three jobs each week - not enough to live on but it helps to pay the bills. This gig is a nice addition to my mastering & duplication business and I also get to meet a lot of people outside of music.

[ani]

Incredible shots Mats. You have some beautiful scenery over your way. I've been playing quite a bit with my camera also. The one thing that I do like about mine is the fact that I can take night shots without problem.

 

I'm in the process of discussing doing the full blown promotion end of a newer Indie label here in Kansas City. The guy was referred to me by a music business coordinate of mine in NYC. The first gig is set for June 5th and is in the heart of the most harsh territory in the Kansas City area. I'm apprehensive about accepting the gig without requesting the provision of security to escort me to and from my car. At that, I'm still a bit uneasy driving alone in the area after dark.

 

Here are a few of the shots that I've taken recently.

 

http://musicbizbuzz.net/art/fountain.jpg

 

http://musicbizbuzz.net/art/fountain2.jpg

 

http://musicbizbuzz.net/art/unionstation.jpg

 

http://musicbizbuzz.net/art/lonerider.bma.jpg

[Dan South]

Ani,

 

I like your last photo a lot. The hazy backlighting adds an artistic, moody effect.

 

The other shots are nice, but I might have tried to take them at dusk when there was still a little bit of color in the sky. You get more detail and less dark shadow at that hour. Your shots are nicely exposed for the highlights resulting in a somber, Rembrandt look.

 

What camera did you use?

[Jeebus]

Nice pictures Mats. To this day I'm still snapping analog pics and I just started to look into digi-cams myself. I don't even know where to begin, what features to look for, what storage media I need, or what a good deal is. All I know is that a higher pixel count is more desirable than a lower one. "duh"

 

*Sigh*

 

Jeebus - now researching digital cameras

[Dan South]

Jeebus,

 

Don't worry about your "analog" camera. I shoot all film, all the time. Film cameras still have many advantages. The big advantages of digital are instant feedback (did Grandma have her eyes closed?) and instant sharability of images (no developing and scanning, just upload 'em).

 

Oh, and if you want to take kinky photos of the missus without having One Hour Photo call the FBI, digital is the way to go!

 

[Mats Olsson.]

Higher pixel count more desireable? Yes, to some extent. Just like small diaphragm microphones are more noisy, high pixel count sensors can be noisier. But the size of the sensor also matters and what sensitivity you use.

 

The pixel count dictates how large prints you can make, if you only make smaller prints then 2-3 megapixels is all you really need.

 

The single component that have the largest impact on picture quality is the lens. I also believe that user interface and ergonomics is very important - it affects how (and when) you will use your camera.

 

Some good resources:

 

Shortcourses

 

Fred Miranda Forums[/url)

Petteri\'s Pontifications

 

Steve\'s Digicams

 

Digital Photo Review

 

Good luck!

[Mats Olsson.]

Originally posted by Dan South:

Jeebus,

 

Don't worry about your "analog" camera. I shoot all film, all the time. Film cameras still have many advantages.

Agreed!

 

I still have all my analog cameras and I intend to keep most of them, they are still just as good as they ever was. (On last count I had 10 cameras)

 

Prices on digicams are still going down, equal quality analog cams are a lot less expensive. A well exposed analog picture is outstanding. Film also behaves differently. If you use film for color slides there is no digital option. The main disadvantage with analog is costs for film & development.

 

Digital cameras are much more fragile, they use a lot of batteries and memory cards aren't exactly cheap. When you get a digital camera you must also spend a substantial amount on rechargeable batteries and memory, a speed charger and a USB-2 card reader is also suggested. But after the steep entry fee, you can take as many pictures as you want without worrying about cost.

 

Digicam technology is still maturing but much of what's on offer now is rather good.

 

PS

I have also invested in a film scanner. The plan is to digitize & organise my archive. It is a time consuming project but I will at least give it a try.

[ani]

Originally posted by Dan South:

Ani,

 

I like your last photo a lot. The hazy backlighting adds an artistic, moody effect.

 

The other shots are nice, but I might have tried to take them at dusk when there was still a little bit of color in the sky. You get more detail and less dark shadow at that hour. Your shots are nicely exposed for the highlights resulting in a somber, Rembrandt look.

 

What camera did you use?

Thanks Dan, I have some others of the fountain that were taken prior to sundown. Unfortunately I was not in a position to get to where I could get a good full shot of the fountain and the sun was completely down before I could locate parking and get in position.

 

This is one that I took over my shoulder while sitting at a stop light. I cropped this one to level the fountain with the bottom edge, but all else is as it was in the original shooting. There is a small sun glare in the shot, but I still like the pic. I don't know if I should try editing out the sun glare or not; it's not obnoxious.

 

http://musicbizbuzz.net/art/fountain4.jpg

 

(okay, I cheated on the edit for my web page; here is the link with the sun spot removed http://www.musicbizbuzz.net/mbb/Inspirationals/good%20times.htm )

 

There is not a lot of parking accessible to that fountain while heading east without going into underground parking garages and walking a half mile back to it. Also, you are trapped inside of medians that will not allow you to turn back around easily without driving a half mile up the road. Bad timing, to say the least. I need to make a special trip back down there around sundown, but haven't had the time.

http://5starselectronics.com/shop/Images.asp?in=f717.jpg

 

SONY

DSC-F717 Digital Camera !!! 5.24 MegaPixel Super HAD CCD image sensor, 5.02 MP effective; Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar 5X Optical zoom lens, 2X Precision Digital zoom, 10X Total Zoom

The place I bought it from has lowered the price considerably to $479.00 for the camera itself. I purchased the PRO series to accompany the camera, but in the shots taken above, I was simply using the camera without any of the extras.

 

Retail stores are still pulling $799.00 for the camera alone. These online dealers did well by me, so I'll buy again from them. At $479.00, I may pick up another camera. Although, I did notice that Sony is up to an 8 mega pixel digi camera. If the pro series kit that I bought for the F717 would interchange with the F828 I may upgrade to the 8 mega pixel.

 

http://5starselectronics.com/shop/Product.asp?ProdTypeList=1000&Sku=SONF717

 

For the differences between digi and analog photography; I had an analog Minolta 35 mm camera years ago that I ended up selling off to my uncle. The constant need to buy film, developing fees if you don't have your own darkroom, print charges, and the "what you see is what you get" feature that doesn't allow room for err can be costly. I have an analog Canon 35 mm sitting in the box that I've never used; it's about a $300.00 camera.

 

Also, perhaps it's just an organization issue, but I used to end up with slews of film rolls that would get taken and never developed; instead they would get tossed in a drawer somewhere to process later. Sometimes they would be marked as to what they were, and other times NOT. Six months down the line you find a drawer full of WHAT THE ????

 

Another thing I hated about analog; every now and then your film would slip off the track and waste a bunch of shots.

 

The ease of use with a digital camera is SO MUCH more "ME". I have an instant view of what I have just shot or I can review all images I've taken in that setting and delete those that are not up to snuff, while freeing that memory space up for taking more photos.

 

If I have easy access to my computer, I can dump the images into my hard drive and free up the memory stick again. (That's why I want a portable BusLink of at least 20gigs)

 

The final and best feature yet is the fact that my images are already in digital format for transferring to other applications. Many printers use CMYK, PNG, or JPEG to apply images to other surfaces; with the proper image editing programs you can save to your desired format. On analog photography, there is quite a bit more that goes into getting your images ready for transfer.

 

I carry dual battery paks. One is on the charger while the other is in the camera in use. I have a cigarette lighter adaptor to charge in the car, or an AC/DC adaptor to plug into a wall. As far as memory storage, I am looking into buying a BusLink portable device (as mentioned above) that will allow you to dump up to 20gigs of memory from your memory stick, or other type memory cards.

 

The BusLink takes 7 different types of memory cards. This would allow virtually unlimited photos for the average trip or event shooting as long as you are starting out fresh with 0 stored in the memory bank. Right now I'm using a 256 mega pixel memory stick and I can get roughly 76 high resolution photos on it; unless I use the motion recording feature. With the video, I can record up to about 15 to 20 minutes with one stick with no other pictures taken.

 

My nephew showed me that there was a way to take extremely high res pics that would chew up the memory in no time flat; but they would allow you to blow the shots up beyond Poster size without losing quality. I haven't a clue what steps he took to get there as it was a quick "show me" while he was hogging the camera ; needless to say he was fascinated with it. If I do buy the 2nd camera, he and I are going to go out for some joy shooting while I pick his brain. It would be easier for both of us to each have the same type cameras in our hand, rather than passing one back and forth. I'm spoiled to digital and unless something crazy happens, I don't see going back to analog.

[Matt.Hepworth]

Ani, that is the most beautiful picture I have ever seen - stunning. (Referring to the last one with the fountain and the sun behind) Would you be willing to email me a larger one (or your edit) to use as a background?

[Mats Olsson.]

I just found a great article on digital photography:

10 Rules For Top Digital Quality Format, Exposure, Highlight Control, And More

 

IMO, there's one important thing they forgot to include in the artcicle: white balance .

 

And spending quality time with the users manual pays off!

[Dan South]

Ani,

 

That's a striking shot!! The water looks like glass. Very beautiful!!!

 

I've heard good things about the Sony's. I like the new one (don't remember the model number). It's bulky, but it has a lot of nice features.

[Dan South]

Originally posted by Mats Olsson.:

Originally posted by Dan South:

Jeebus,

 

Don't worry about your "analog" camera. I shoot all film, all the time. Film cameras still have many advantages.

Agreed!

 

I still have all my analog cameras and I intend to keep most of them, they are still just as good as they ever was. (On last count I had 10 cameras)

 

Prices on digicams are still going down, equal quality analog cams are a lot less expensive. A well exposed analog picture is outstanding. Film also behaves differently. If you use film for color slides there is no digital option. The main disadvantage with analog is costs for film & development.

 

Digital cameras are much more fragile, they use a lot of batteries and memory cards aren't exactly cheap. When you get a digital camera you must also spend a substantial amount on rechargeable batteries and memory, a speed charger and a USB-2 card reader is also suggested. But after the steep entry fee, you can take as many pictures as you want without worrying about cost.

 

Digicam technology is still maturing but much of what's on offer now is rather good.

 

PS

I have also invested in a film scanner. The plan is to digitize & organise my archive. It is a time consuming project but I will at least give it a try.

Yeah, there are so many considerations. If you take a long trip with a digital camera and you want to take high resolution images, you'll have to being along a laptop or invest a LOT of expensive memory cards. Film is cheap and easy to carry, plus you can buy it in any developed area, but it can be damaged by excessive heat or multiple exposures to X-rays. Four trips through the X-ray machine is usually the limit for film under 800 speed. Faster film should never be X-rayed.

 

That said, I've only had one incident where film was damaged by X-rays (in Europe somewhere, but I don't remember where). I've travelled through Death Valley in the summer, and my images came out fine. A roll of film holds a LOT of information, and if you lose it, you're out a few a bucks. Memory cards cost hundreds of dollars.

 

Digital cameras are getting better, but they still have a lag when you press the shutter button, and you can only take a few photos in a row. With a film camera, you can shoot a roll of 36 exposures in a few seconds.

 

Battery life is a major annoyance for digital cameras. I've had to scramble to buy batteries in emergency situations. Many digital cameras use proprietary rechargeables that you can't buy in a drug store. You have to carry two or three of them around, plus the charger, plus voltage converters if you're travelling abroad. Plus memory cards, plus a laptop and a bunch of cables. I've had intensive ten-day photo excursions where I never once changed the batteries in my film cameras.

 

People love to discuss whether film or digital is better, but to me, they're just different, and each has its strenghts and weaknesses. It's like the Strat/Les Paul argument. They're complimentary. Use the one that makes sense for the job. Or just use the one that you HAVE and get the best out of it. In the final analysis, it's not the camera that matters. It's the imagination and skill of the person who's using it.

[Mats Olsson.]

If Apple had a gizmo for dumping memory cards into the iPod's HD, they would sell a million more units in no time flat.

[ani]

Originally posted by Dan South:

Yeah, there are so many considerations. If you take a long trip with a digital camera and you want to take high resolution images, you'll have to being along a laptop or invest a LOT of expensive memory cards. Film is cheap and easy to carry, plus you can buy it in any developed area, but it can be damaged by excessive heat or multiple exposures to X-rays. Four trips through the X-ray machine is usually the limit for film under 800 speed. Faster film should never be X-rayed.[/QB]

http://www.officedepot.com/ddSKU.do?level=SK&id=358480

Dan, the portable BusLink that I referred to can be purchased for $299.00 and will store up to 20 GIGS of memory; all you need is one or two memory sticks at most when you have the BUSlink Portable Photo Bank USB Hard Drive With 7-In-1 Card Reader. When your stick fills up, dump it into the BusLink to free up your capacity and then continue on. The BusLink is palm sized and comes equipped with a card reader.

 

A roll of film holds a LOT of information, and if you lose it, you're out a few a bucks. Memory cards cost hundreds of dollars.

See above...

 

Digital cameras are getting better, but they still have a lag when you press the shutter button, and you can only take a few photos in a row. With a film camera, you can shoot a roll of 36 exposures in a few seconds.

On the higher quality digital cameras, one can stop an airplane on a dime. There is a midway function when pressing the button; this readies the camera to snap instantaneously to the pressing of the button. Here is a small pic of an airplane that I snapped while at a lake. It was in the distance, but still I was able to capture the subject without blur. Also, on my camera there is a burst feature that will take 3 shots consecutively back to back, and it will re-ready itself for the next shot immediately. Plus I have video ability.

http://musicbizbuzz.net/art/airplane.jpg

Sometime when I have time to play around with it, I'm going to head out near the airport to capture some of the airplanes taking off or landing near to ground level. The last time I attempted, I was actually AT THE AIRPORT and was approached by Airport security to make sure I didn't have a bazooka or some type of ground to air missile. ...In the name of terrorism.

 

Battery life is a major annoyance for digital cameras. I've had to scramble to buy batteries in emergency situations. Many digital cameras use proprietary rechargeables that you can't buy in a drug store. You have to carry two or three of them around, plus the charger, plus voltage converters if you're travelling abroad.

This IS a downfall. I average about one memory stick full of data per charge life of the battery; if you do not have access to recharging, it would be necessary to have multiple battery paks. However, if you are in a car or have access to electricity, the recharging accessories are easily transported in the camera bag and don't require a lot of extensive time to recharge. The upside is the fact that once you buy them, they DO tend to pay for themselves in the long run; as you can reuse them over and over and over again. Regular batteries are NOT cheap, and once they die, THEY ARE DEAD.

 

Plus memory cards, plus a laptop and a bunch of cables.

No need for a laptop of a bunch of cables with the BusLink photo bank, and minimal memory cards would be necessary. Depending on how often you wanted to have to dump the data would determine how many megs you'd want to pick up in a memory stick.

 

People love to discuss whether film or digital is better, but to me, they're just different, and each has its strenghts and weaknesses. It's like the Strat/Les Paul argument. They're complimentary. Use the one that makes sense for the job. Or just use the one that you HAVE and get the best out of it.

To me, it's somewhat like acoustic and electric or synth..... It's what you are comfortable with and how proficient you are with the art that makes it all work out..... as Dan said...

 

In the final analysis, it's not the camera that matters. It's the imagination and skill of the person who's using it.

[ani]

Originally posted by NE-One:

Ani, that is the most beautiful picture I have ever seen - stunning. (Referring to the last one with the fountain and the sun behind) Would you be willing to email me a larger one (or your edit) to use as a background?

Originally posted by Dan South:

Ani,

 

That's a striking shot!! The water looks like glass. Very beautiful!!!

BTW,

 

Thank you to both of you guys; I loved the glass effect also... even with the sun spot... the beauty of editing allowed me to correct the photo by cropping the lopsideness out and even eliminating the sun spot in the photo used for the web!!!

 

NE... For what type of background would you want to use the photo, as I "do" have it dropped into one of my Inspirational pages that resides on my commercial web site? I have dozens of shots of that fountain at all different hours of the day that I wouldn't mind just sending one or two your way; but that one inparticular is in commercial use already.

 

If it would be for a personal web site with no commerciality, perhaps that would be okay providing you acknowledge and credit my authorship to the photo on the same page as it is displayed. I don't actually have a website built for my photography yet, but it will be in the near future that I will begin developing it... it would be nice to have a link back to the new site once it's done.

[Matt.Hepworth]

A desktop background - something in the neighborhood of 1024x768 pixels. Just for my home computer.

[ani]

NE,

 

I attempted to send it once and my program closed.... I don't think that it accepted the first send, so I resent the photo again. Check your email listed in your profile here

[Mats Olsson.]

Ani, great photos!

[ani]

Thanks Mats,

 

I admire the crispness and the precision of your photos, they are simply beautiful. I've been playing around quite a bit with the additional functions of my camera, and often times I leave it on AUTO...

 

I'm VERY tempted to go ahead a pick up a second camera to entice my nephew out into the field while letting him guide me. If he and I can get out schedules coordinated, he has already offered to go out with me in just having the one camera. I'll probably spring for another in a few weeks.

 

Here are some where I used more control over the settings...

 

http://www.musicbizbuzz.net/mbb/Inspirationals/reflections.jpg

 

http://www.musicbizbuzz.net/mbb/Inspirationals/mini%20waterfall.jpg

 

http://www.musicbizbuzz.net/mbb/Inspirationals/dawn.jpg

 

In the first pic, the two white dots are actually small sunbursts that are more accented in the larger version of the pic.

[ani]

Here some more colorful ones that were taken on the AUTO setting...

 

These are TRUE colors of some of Missouri's skylines

 

http://www.musicbizbuzz.net/mbb/Inspirationals/smithville%20sun.jpg

 

http://www.musicbizbuzz.net/mbb/Inspirationals/fence.jpg

 

 

http://www.musicbizbuzz.net/mbb/Inspirationals/riverfront%20lightpost.jpg

 

http://www.musicbizbuzz.net/mbb/Inspirationals/blue%20horizon.jpg

 

... here's one of the ice storm we had the past winter...

 

http://www.musicbizbuzz.net/mbb/Inspirationals/icedlight.jpg

[Jeebus]

Thanks for the tips everyone. I'm aware of the advantages of both digital and film cameras. I plan to keep my film cam as well.

 

Originally posted by Dan South:

Battery life is a major annoyance for digital cameras. I've had to scramble to buy batteries in emergency situations. Many digital cameras use proprietary rechargeables that you can't buy in a drug store. You have to carry two or three of them around, plus the charger, plus voltage converters if you're travelling abroad. Plus memory cards, plus a laptop and a bunch of cables. I've had intensive ten-day photo excursions where I never once changed the batteries in my film cameras.

I think I actually prefer proprietary rechargeables (lithium ion). They tend to last a long time (as long as full discharges are avoided) and are more cost-effective than constantly having to buy regular batteries. My cousin has a cam that takes a Li-ion battery, and the whole thing just sits in the cradle attached to his computer for charging and dumping photos, just like a Palm would. One charge lasted him an entire 2 week vacation. I guess the quality of batteries varies between different manufacturers. You don't need to carry 2 or 3 around either, just keep them at home.