Digital SLR

[stevehalupka]

my friend has the exact camera.. i think it shoots better out of water and the olympus shoots better under... link me to these pics

no editing to this pic:

i did edit these, but they were all p & s macros that turned out awesome.. I'm just saying, once you own an slr, you don't go back unless you don't want to haul it around. I fish with my olympus, but otherwise have my slr in my hands. They are worth the money imo.

this is with a 50 dollar kodak

click all to enlarge

but there is no way you're getting this out off any p & s:

 

[ryguyfi]

There's a pretty good thread in the OT section on this topic I started a few months ago. Good info in there.

thread

 

[pcray1231]

This is its first season. My underwater issue thus far has been finding clear water! Here's the link to those pics, and there are a few underwater in the group, but again the water wasn't perfectly clear and I didn't put it on the underwater setting, so that may help too. These were all taken with the D10.

Edit: Correct link.
http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g259/pcray1231/2011%20PAFF%20Jam/?albumview=slideshow

My "good" camera is the Canon SX10is, a superzoom, as I said with near SLR level controls but you can't swap lenses or use filters, and I've found times when I wish I could put a polarizer on there. Here's an example of it's prowess. They both do ok on macro, but the big camera is better.

None of these pictures are edited in any way by me, though I realize when I choose settings the camera is doing some editing on its own.....

 

[gfen]

stevehalupka wrote:
but there is no way you're getting this out off any p & s:

I can only assume you're trolling me for the lulz, because I can't quite figure out what's difficult about it? Its a white insect on a 18% grey background. Meter scene, +1EV, press shutter.

You've got full profile with a dun, you don't even have to sweat the details of the depth of field as its all in one plane of focus.

PS: I'd have edited the lower 10% of that out to remove the OOF front elements, which takes away. Or, apply front tilt, which you are correct is something a PnS cannot do. ;-)

 

[stevehalupka]

gfen,

why don't you just write a book on photography for me? The only point I'm stretching here is that an entry level slr is worth the money.

cray,

as I said before, I think that canon takes GREAT above water pics, but the underwater pics are poor. Olympus, even in clouded water, produces better imo.

 

[gfen]

stevehalupka wrote:
why don't you just write a book on photography for me?

You don't need one, you just need to stop making it so complex.

If you learn how to operate the basics, you'll know when to ignore the advanced. In turn, the advanced becomes basic.

Get hung up in the nuances, and you'll never find the forest because of the trees.

stevehalupka wrote:
The only point I'm stretching here is that an entry level slr is worth the money.

You're stretching, sure, but you're not making the point. You haven't shown me anything that can't be accomplished on a point and shoot camera. You're suggesting that fancy equipment is a neccessary aspect, and I'm simply pointing out its a crutch and you'd be just as capable if you put it all away and walked outside with that Mamiya and 50/1.7 you posted in OT. You'd actually end up better because you'd be forced into something creative and interesting, rather than white-bug-on-grey-field and relying on how close it is to excite me.

 

[pcray1231]

You may be right about the underwater thing, I dunno. But so far, I don't think I've reached the limits of the D10 for underwater, the operator is still the limiting factor!

 

[gfen]

postscript:

Two of these are a PnS, one of these was an SLR with my default 50mm lens. Its obvious which is which on context.

However, notice that even with a PnS held in my hand on the fly, I can easily give you something as fancy as what you've got with your robocamera, and when forced into being unable to rely on equipment for shortcoming issues, its about using what you've got to make an interesting photo (the caddis).

Do more with less.

edit: I notice if you attach files it makes 'em look jagged. click on them for less of that nonsense.

 

[stevehalupka]

lol dude... I think you have some personal desire to argue with me about everything that I post.

If you think a canon rebel xt is some fancy equipment you're nuts... it's entry level. Furthermore, I never try to make things complicated. I simply stated that on most p & s's, your camera is doing all of your aperture and shutter speed whereas with a slr, you have the power to manipulate that. I think it's pretty obvious in the pics you posted. If you think they are even close to the quality of the slr pics, you need new glasses.

The first pic you posted, if shot with a p and shoot, was very good indeed, but the majority of the time, in point and shoot presets, your depth of field is much greater.

the OP said he wanted to explore slr photography, then you got hard, wanted to argue like your usual self, and had to come in and boast about p & s cameras.

 

[stevehalupka]

there is no doubt in my mind you can get great shots with point and shoots and I carry one every time I fish.

I stand firm that there is no way in heck you get the same quality as an slr, no matter how complicated I seem to make to seem.

 

[pcray1231]

steve, gfen's 1st pic is obviously the SLR, the second two are the p&s. As he said, it's obvious by context.

And, there is a whole group of camera which bridge the gap between the two, it's not black and white. For instance, the advantages of an SLR over you're "traditional" point and shoot is to adjust aperture, shutter speed, exposures, etc. etc., as well as a big lens which gets more light and handles low light conditions better, faster shooting speed, and the ability to switch out lenses and add filters, etc.

But they make a whole class of advanced P&S's that have essentially full SLR functionality, where you can adjust shutter speed and aperture and all that fun stuff. They also have P&S's with large lenses that do well in low light conditions, and they have P&S's that take filters and such, they have ones that shoot real fast. The only thing they don't have is ones where you can actually change out the lens (because it becomes by definition an SLR), but with a 0-20x range in zoom on a high quality built in lens, I'm not sure thats so needed anymore.

The OP should decide what exactly he needs in functionality, and go shopping for a camera that does everything he needs at the best price. If its just about macro, spending dough on an SLR is pretty ridiculous IMO.

 

[gfen]

stevehalupka wrote:
lol dude... I think you have some personal desire to argue with me about everything that I post.

Just a vendetta against ignorance and mindless consumerism, mostly.

stevehalupka wrote:
If you think a canon rebel xt is some fancy equipment you're nuts... it's entry level. Furthermore, I never try to make things complicated.

You qouted him $450 for a camera body, and suggested a "a decent macro lens for 100 bucks if you look hard enough."

FWIW, a $100 macro lens will be no better than the simple one included in the PnS camera.

Keeping in mind our OP wanted to take pictures of the flies he's tied, you've now got him dumping $550+. I'm here to simply prove that it can be done with a barebones $100 camera.

Oh, and not complicated...?

stevehalupka wrote:
in the pics I posted of the flies, I was shooting with a standard 1:1 ratio 18-55 mm lens and holding the camera. Had I mounted on a tripod the pics would be even better. You really don't need a special lens, but they do help tremendously. You want a 1:2 ratio or better for some raunchy pics.

I'm pretty sure that's complicated for most people. If you'd like to uncomplicate it, you do this:

"Set the camera so the focus mode or the program mode is the little flower. Now, get in close as you can and start backing off til its in focus. Congrats, you've got macro."

See, not complex!

stevehalupka wrote:
I simply stated that on most p & s's, your camera is doing all of your aperture and shutter speed whereas with a slr, you have the power to manipulate that. I think it's pretty obvious in the pics you posted. If you think they are even close to the quality of the slr pics, you need new glasses.

Must need new glasses, coz they look fine to me. Of course, I'm shooting to impress myself, not the anonymous hordes and my ego.

stevehalupka wrote:
The first pic you posted, if shot with a p and shoot, was very good indeed, but the majority of the time, in point and shoot presets, your depth of field is much greater.

Keep to relevancy, we're dealing with small objects, Steve_1:2_Hapulka. You want all the depth of field you can get. Also, you can quite adroitly manipulate your DoF even on a PnS by clever application of the program modes and focal length and distance to subject.

(BTW, you learn that sort of thing really well when you only have one lens and you force yourself to operate within its confinces. Walking before running, all that sort of thing.)

stevehalupka wrote:
the OP said he wanted to explore slr photography, then you got hard, wanted to argue like your usual self, and had to come in and boast about p & s cameras.

clydeman wrote:
Looking to buy a new digital SLR camera with appropriate lens to shoot some pics of the flies that I tie.

Looks like he asked about taking pictures of the flies he tied, further quantified with:

clydeman wrote:
Since posting I have googled the subject and found lots of info on how to improve my photography. So maybe I should pursue that path before taking the plunge for a new camera as I do not have money to burn.

Eh wot?

 

[stevehalupka]

Cray,

fully aware of all that... the p & s's you speak of though are generally around 300 dollars... for a few more bones if you want a camera with just a little better quality, why not explore slr? It's a world in it's own and can become another hobby to coincide with your fly fishing.

I took the classes on photography at college and prior to doing so thought there was no way I would shell out that kind of money for a camera. I owned the olympus stylus at that time. Upon buying the rebel, I realized how much more there is to simply presetting a feature and pressing the shutter. I then realized 700 dollars for a camera, if you're into it, is pennies. It's not a muscle contest like he puts it out to be, and I don't treat it as a science neither. It's simply a hobby that I learn more about each and every day. Even through the witty a-hollish comments the middle aged child spews.

 

[troutbert]

Why not get off the "Quien es mas macho?" thing for awhile and get back to some camera stuff.

What do you all think about the Nex3 and Nex5? They would be fairly compact for us fishermen to carry, and they claim image quality equal to SLRs. They have big sensors, supposed to be good in low light (think hemlocks and rhododendron in narrow valleys).

You just can't look through the lens, you have to frame the picture with the screen.

Whaddya think?

 

[pcray1231]

You're post is a perfect example of the point of cost.

You say my fancy P&S is in the $300 category. You're right, it was. For a little more moeny, you can enter the world of SLR. Then after getting an SLR, you "realized" that $700 was pennies!

Thats more than double my "fancy" P&S for slightly better pictures, and its not pennies.

Nomatter what level you go to, you can always pay a little more for a little better pictures, a little more functionality, etc. All we're saying is that a $100 camera takes nice everyday pictures for most people. If the OP has a specific application in mind, he might have to pay a little more to get a camera that can handle it. But if that means he has to spend $200 to get what he wants, it's ridiculous to make thim think he's talking more than $500.

For the hard-core photography guys, and the professionals, yeah, SLR is the way to go. But if all he needs is to take a decent macro picture of a fly on his vice, comon man, it's ridiculous to steer him towards SLR and you know it.

 

[gfen]

pcray1231 wrote:
The only thing they don't have is ones where you can actually change out the lens (because it becomes by definition an SLR)

Actually, that's not the defination at all. What defines it is a single lens and you look through it to compose.

You look into a view finder, through a pentaprism and down through the ground glass, off another mirror and out through the lens.

A TLR is a Twin Lens Reflex, there's two seperate lenses. The top lens hits a mirror and reflects up to a ground glass. You compose on this. The bottom lens is the taking lens, and goes through the shutter and to the film plane.

A range finder has a single lens with a shutter, a seperate view finder you look through is corrected with masks to adjust for the lens you've affixed to the camera's body. It should focus in sync with the lens because of the cams between the two.

The oldest cameras with in camera focussing were operated by opening the shutter and passing the image back to a ground glass plate. Your image would appear inverse and upside down, and you would focus on this with a loupe. Close shutter, insert film holder and expose. The film is at the same level as the ground glass was, image is in focus.

Modern digital cameras replicate this method, actually. THere's no ground glass, but the image through the lens is displayed to the LCD. Its, technically, every bit as powerful as focussing right on the GG of an old camera, except you're limited to the resolving power of the LCD.

edit:
Troutbert, I generally don't keep up on advances (go fig), but see little need in our modern age for the simple view finders on most cameras. Composing on the LCD is more than ample enough, and hell, at least its rightways up.

 

[stevehalupka]

pcray1231 wrote:
You're post is a perfect example of the point of cost.

You say my fancy P&S is in the $300 category. You're right, it was. For a little more moeny, you can enter the world of SLR. Then after getting an SLR, you "realized" that $700 was pennies!

Thats more than double my "fancy" P&S for slightly better pictures, and its not pennies.

Nomatter what level you go to, you can always pay a little more for a little better pictures, a little more functionality, etc. All we're saying is that a $100 camera takes nice everyday pictures for most people. If the OP has a specific application in mind, he might have to pay a little more to get a camera that can handle it. But if that means he has to spend $200 to get what he wants, it's ridiculous to make thim think he's talking more than $500.

For the hard-core photography guys, and the professionals, yeah, SLR is the way to go. But if all he needs is to take a decent macro picture of a fly on his vice, comon man, it's ridiculous to steer him towards SLR and you know it.

I agree with no doubt... if all the OP wants a camera for is to take pics of flies in his vice and a few fish, buy a p and s... if you want to get into slr, like he said he did, then the cheapest you will find is around 600 dollars (that's without a carrying case, spare battery, charger, etc.)... I wasn't trying to force feed anything by any means, just stating an opinion.

I have a little one on the way and I also will be making a few bucks on the side this summer through sr. pics, weddings, and family portraits. Those things are impossible to do with ANY point and shoot camera. It's an investment, By the end of the summer, I will have made back all the money I spent... not to mention it got me one hell of a recommendation from a D.A now running for judge, in which I volunteered to attend his events and be the photographer for it all. In the process, I brought in clientele.

I disagree about the "slightly" better pictures.. I think the difference is a tad more than subtle, but that is just me.
All I can say is that if you have any interest in cameras and you don't own an slr, you're missing out.

I challenge any of you with point and shoots to get a clear shot of something with a fast shutter like this:

NEVER gonna happen.

 

[pcray1231]

Well, a shot like that is all about shutter speed and fps. So, it's all about the image processor and sensor.

I'm most familiar with Canon, but they have a whole line of P&S's with the Digic 4 image processor, which is the same chip thats in their top of the line DLSR's. I only know of one P&S with the CMOS sensor, though, and thats the SX1. And yes, its a P&S that offers faster shutter speeds and faster fps (in both continuous and burst modes) than most of the DLSR lineup. Of course, that P&S will run you $600 as well, so its in the same ballpark price wise as a DLSR.

But yeah, if you want to take photos of balloons bursting or bullets flying by, you need a quick/big sensor to allow you to get that kind of shutter speed, and thats gonna be a lot of money whether or not its in a DLSR or a P&S housing.

My point is, if something like that is a need, you look for the image processor and sensor you need, not the housing. It may well end up being a DLSR, but in many cases, an advanced P&S may offer everything a person needs at a lower price and less hassle.

 

[gfen]

Not to kickstart the nonsense again, but I was outside doing some pixelgraphs for the blarg and I thought it would be an ideal time to do a compare and contrast for the OP, and anyone who stumbles across this.

So, below are a series of photos. The names are easy enough to figure out, and any EXIF data is preserved. Don't ask me for what ISO or fstop they were taken at, I wasn't paying attention.

The PnS is a Pentax Optio WS80. I used "program mode" and I used "human portrait mode" for my choices in pre-sets. The camera was zoomed to maximum focal length (31mm, don't ask for the 135 equiv) and focus mode set to "macro" (ie, the little flower icon).

The DSLR is a Pentax K`00D, which is about 4 years old now. I used three lenses.

The "kit lens," an DA18-55/4-5.6 (eqi. 25-77/4-5.6, I think? zoomed all the way in, and I think stopped down to like 6.7 (check EXIF if you care).

The 50mm is the Pentax KAF50/1.4 (equiv 70mm), I had it stopped down a notch or two.

The "macro" lens is a junky Quantaray branded KAF70-300/4-5.6 (equiv 98-420) with 1:2 macro capability at 300m.

Post processing consisted of "auto levels" in Apple Preview. I don't have time or are for much else. Images weren't cherry picked, because my screen is broken and I can barely see 'em right now, I just tried to pick the ones that didn't look blurry.

Be your own judges if you can get by with a cheap PnS, a DSLR with a cheap lens, or a low end macro lens.

 

[stevehalupka]

maybe your knowledge of cameras far exceeds your ability to use them?

I wasn't even using a macro lens for the bug pictures I posted the other day. Replicate that and I'll be sold and once again, bow to your everlasting wisdom.