|
|
|
This thread is locked; no one can reply to it.
|
1
2
|
| Digital cameras |
|
Ariesnl
Member #2,902
November 2002
 |
Don't buy a tripod that is too heavy though ! and BE SURE you can tilt the head sideways !!! ( my first mistake in buying a tripod) Perhaps one day we will find that the human factor is more complicated than space and time (Jean luc Picard) |
|
GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
 |
Heh, it's near as important as your camera choice. "Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours" |
|
Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001
|
Quote: My advice is .. wait a bit.. cameras will become cheaper Yeah! Always wait till next year! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest. |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
 |
Indeterminatus said: That really depends on the ground you use to photograph. In rocky environments, for example, it's not always possible to mount a tripod, especially cheaper ones (you'd need one that gives you much control for this). A monopod may let you increase shutter time a bit, but quite frankly, I don't know if it'd be worth the investment. I'm quite happy with my tripod, which so far I could mount everywhere, so I never really had the need for a monopod -- it's either a tripod or none at all for me. If you've got shaky hands, a monopod might help, but then again, image stabilisation would be the better option, imho. The only reason I can think of why one would consider a monopod is that they are mostly easier to carry around than a "full-fledged" tripod.
It all depends on what you're doing. If you feel you can lug one around and have the time to set it up for each shot, go tripod. But sometimes the extra portability and speed matters - if you're out photographing wildlife for example, a tripod will be next to useless unless you're in a hide or blind of some kind. If you don't mind the extra weight and are going to shoot mostly stationary scenes: bring a tripod. -- |
|
Andrei Ellman
Member #3,434
April 2003
|
Ariesnl said: get an SLR ! sooner or later you will want to fix another lens on it . and even more the quality of the CCD in Digital SLR's is much better than those of simple cameras, I'm not talking about pixels here. Those are way outside my current budget. I spoke to a few people I met on the trip about their digital cameras. One person's camera cost £300 with an additional £500 lens. Also, the powershot cameras are a lot less bulky than the SLR ones. Ariesnl said: 200 euro for any "good" digital camera is a small budget. My advice is .. wait a bit.. cameras will become cheaper (as all electronics do) and you 'll have more money to spend. I've been waiting since 1999 for this to happen (I got a crappy digital camera back in 1998 but it's max resolution is only 640x480 and only has memory for 25 pics. I also have a phone-camera (also 640x480 but with lots of JPEG artefacts)). Patrick (who travelled with me on my 2005 trip) got a digital camera back in 2005 but that only has a 3.1 megapixel resolution. Who knows - if I wait another 10 years, I may be able to get a camera with enough optical resolution to allow you to record individual photons for only €50. Currently, the Canon A580 is my preferred choice. gnolam said:
If you don't mind the extra weight and are going to shoot mostly stationary scenes: bring a tripod. The Vanguard Walking Stick doubles as both a monopod and a walking-stick. This would make it ideal for when I go on my mountain walks, as I'd get to exercise my upper body as well as have a 'third leg' for those tricky paths. And besides, I'm a big fan of multi-purpose objects. Also, do the cameras have the ability to save the images in a lossless format (such as PNG) or do they at least give you some control over the JPEG compression percentage setting? AE. -- |
|
BAF
Member #2,981
December 2002
 |
PNG is not a format for images. But yeah, higher end cameras let you save in RAW format (lossless) or control JPEG. The camera I recommended will allow you to do just that if you use a third party firmware. |
|
Andrei Ellman
Member #3,434
April 2003
|
RAW is basically a lossless image, so if you want RAW images, wouldn't it make sense to use PNG compression to save space? -- |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
BAF said:
PNG is not a format for images. O RLY? Andrei Ellman said: RAW is basically a lossless image, so if you want RAW images, wouldn't it make sense to use PNG compression to save space? They do use lossless compression, but to use PNG would be to discard the whole point of using RAW format in the first place. PNG is an image format designed for use on the Internet - it's got paletted or 24 bit sRGB only. RAW OTOH is just what it sounds like - the raw output from the camera's sensor*, which could be in any format and any number of bits per channel depending on the model. In other words, it's the data before it's run through a bunch of filters and brutally squeezed into the bland, dreary mold of 24 bit color space. That said, RAW really only matters if you intend to do any post production work on your pictures, so I don't bother with it much... * Well, sort of. There's a bit of processing done before it's saved, but it's the output before anything really destructive is done to the data. -- |
|
BAF
Member #2,981
December 2002
|
I meant format for photos. |
|
Neil Walker
Member #210
April 2000
 |
There's a big difference between RAW format and lossless format. For starters most cameras only offer jpeg. But regardless, RAW format doesn't embed the white balance, colour settings, etc. in the pixels so you can adjust them easily. Whereas other formats they are within the image so when you make adjustments from photoshop, etc. it isn't the same. But the problem with RAW is there is no standard. In fact my mate has a high-end canon and is having difficulty getting the plugin for photoshop as his existing one for his previous canon is incompatible. [edit]sorry, didn't read gnolam's post which is what I've just said, sort of Neil. wii:0356-1384-6687-2022, kart:3308-4806-6002. XBOX:chucklepie |
|
GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
|
Well, you should not be using Photoshop for developing your Raw. Well, IMHO. "Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours" |
|
Ariesnl
Member #2,902
November 2002
|
also you should take the best picture you can.. Photoshopping is no substitute for good photography. Perhaps one day we will find that the human factor is more complicated than space and time (Jean luc Picard) |
|
Andrei Ellman
Member #3,434
April 2003
|
Just out of interest, howmany bits of resolution does a colour-channel of a consumer digital-camera CCD contain? I think I may have heard somewhere that they usually manage only 6 bits (64 levels). I also heard that analogue colour film also has an equivalent number of grey-values, wheres analogue monochrome film has 65536 grey-levels. Also, are PNGs limited to 32-bit RGBA or can they handle higher colour-depths? AE. -- |
|
GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
|
I have just found this which is about Canon Raw Format only, but it is already a start, hehe ! "Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours" |
|
Ariesnl
Member #2,902
November 2002
|
@ Andrei Ellman That really depends on the film, the faster the film the bigger the grain and the lower the number of (color) gradations. Reversal film has a whopping resolution and color gradations so that is usually used for photographs that are put on posters etc. as for digital that depends on the chip, I have a black and white setting on my camera that uses all the capacity to store greyvalue information. so in that setting you will have a lot more grey values than when you convert a color photograph to black and white. Perhaps one day we will find that the human factor is more complicated than space and time (Jean luc Picard) |
|
|
1
2
|
