Subsonic Radio

The following three posts really gave me the idea to start a thread about camera discussion. Being a forum where we all try to frequent the parks, I think having a great camera is important. So let's give this a shot...


Wow I really have missed out on a lot here. Very cool to see all your pictures M-dude. Any changes with your camera or are you still using the same one? I recently upgraded to the 7D and am currently looking at the 24-105 f4L IS as my walk-around. Don't know if that will be wide enough though. If not might just use my point and shoot for extremely wide angle stuff.

Len90 wrote:Wow I really have missed out on a lot here. Very cool to see all your pictures M-dude. Any changes with your camera or are you still using the same one? I recently upgraded to the 7D and am currently looking at the 24-105 f4L IS as my walk-around. Don't know if that will be wide enough though. If not might just use my point and shoot for extremely wide angle stuff.

Hey, Len! Yeah, I'm still using the same camera, but now I'm also using a "point and shoot" Olympus that does really well (I think it's the "Tough TG-320" model...). We bought it for underwater shots and so forth, but it takes pretty good pics overall too. It's more convenient to lug around when we were on the island and stuff, so most of those shots were taken with it. I'm getting a little bit tired of the Nikon because it's a little too "user friendly" in that no matter what I do with the various settings it always wants to compensate automatically in the other areas to make it look like what it thinks it should look like. I would really like to upgrade to one that lets me have full manual control of everything if I choose to do that. I know Nikon makes more high-end models than the one I have, so I need to look at those. But who knows... you may yet convert me to Canon...

Mousekedude wrote:

Len90 wrote:Wow I really have missed out on a lot here. Very cool to see all your pictures M-dude. Any changes with your camera or are you still using the same one? I recently upgraded to the 7D and am currently looking at the 24-105 f4L IS as my walk-around. Don't know if that will be wide enough though. If not might just use my point and shoot for extremely wide angle stuff.

Hey, Len! Yeah, I'm still using the same camera, but now I'm also using a "point and shoot" Olympus that does really well (I think it's the "Tough TG-320" model...). We bought it for underwater shots and so forth, but it takes pretty good pics overall too. It's more convenient to lug around when we were on the island and stuff, so most of those shots were taken with it. I'm getting a little bit tired of the Nikon because it's a little too "user friendly" in that no matter what I do with the various settings it always wants to compensate automatically in the other areas to make it look like what it thinks it should look like. I would really like to upgrade to one that lets me have full manual control of everything if I choose to do that. I know Nikon makes more high-end models than the one I have, so I need to look at those. But who knows... you may yet convert me to Canon...

You use NIKON??? Egad!!

I have a Canon eos Rebel. I think it's the second digital Rebel they came out with, it's about 9 years old. LOVE MY CAMERA. With the exception of the # Mp (I know there's a WORD for this, but I can NOT for the life of me THINK OF WHAT IT IS!) I wouldn't change a thing about it. Sometimes I use one of its program modes, like sports or portrait, but most of the time I keep it in aperture priority and let 'er rip. I can go completely manual, and if I turn off the AF on the lenses, I can go COMPLETELY manual. I can't imagine using anything different. I just love it.

I would still use my Minolta 35 mm camera if I could - I love that one, too - but film is harder to come by and pretty much a pain. I still own it, though. Don't imagine I'll be getting rid of it any time. Maybe if I ever do any art photography that's truly art I'll use it.

Len, does a lens that only stops down to f/4 give you enough flexibility in low light conditions? Or do you just compensate with ISO? Or do you just use it in medium to high light situations? My two zoom lenses only stop down to f/4 and I'm frequently frustrated by that. I can put on my fixed 50 mm f/1.8 lens but especially at the girls' swim meets having the zoom capability is a real godsend.

Definitely like that M-dude is a Nikon person as we can have input from almost all aspects.I personally went Canon and will stay with Canon because of their lenses. I feel that L glass provides the sharpest images and the most vibrant colors. With that said, the newer high end Nikon stuff, especially the D600, really caught my eye. However, with SLRs once you pick a brand you pretty much have to stick with it due to the lenses.

cy: I definitely feel the same way as you. I do feel that 35 mm film camera provide probably the best pictures, it's just no longer cost effective to use it. Film has gotten scarce and the digital age has allowed more burst mode shooting and decreased the guilt feeling of taking a bad picture since you can easily delete it. However, it has made people more lazy in taking pictures as everything is now auto or a scene mode. I personally prefer to always shoot in shutter priority (TV). We also still have a 35mm Canon body in the house that can mount any of the lenses I use on the 7D. Just another reason why it is easier to stick with Canon.

You are correct that a f4 lens will be tough for lowlight conditions. However, the newer bodies can go to such high ISOs that you can still pull off an ok picture. The IS features on lenses now do provide improvements for f4 lenses in lowlight. A f2.8 lens would be ideal for lowlight, but those do come with a hefty price tag that I can't fully justify. Like you, I have a 50mm prime f1.8 that I will only use for low light. My main and really only telephoto lens is a 70-200 f4L and it is a beast. That is what I used for all my airliners.net pictures. I have also been using it at all the hockey games I have been to lately. The lighting at a hockey arena is not the greatest, but I have been able to do pretty well with a f4 lens in the stands.

My telephoto zoom is also a 70-200. At 70 mm it will stop down to f/3.5 or maybe f/4 (I honestly don't remember) but at full telephoto it only goes down to f/5.6. That makes swim meets a serious challenge, because they, too, aren't as brightly lit as they seem. That's when I pop into sports program. I use ISO settings of 800 and higher, but only when I really must because the images are so noisy.

In all honesty, though, 90% of my photographs are taken in bright to overcast daylight so that I don't have to mess with them much in Photoshop. I do think that having the ability to just "recycle electrons" rather than blow a frame of film gives me the courage to take more risks with what I do. Rather than playing it safe all the time, I might try this angle or that exposure, or even try doing a series of something that I see, or think I see, in a certain way. It doesn't bother me if I don't get what I was looking for because recycling electrons isn't expensive.

I personally feel that digital has really allowed me to learn more since it is cheaper to experiment. My total cost for "film" is a $50 CF card I bought on amazon which is 16GB and reads/writes at speeds that can keep up with the camera's processor for burst mode. I definitely think you should try looking into the 70-200 f4L without IS. That is the lens I have had for about 6.5 years now and it is the best thing I ever got. Amazon has it for relatively cheap when you think about how much that stuff can run.

Since this thread is meant to be about camera discussions in general, I will also share my current point and shoot. I am using the Canon S100, which now has been replaced by the S110. Although a bit pricey for a point and shoot, I do like how it offers full manual controls and has decent low light capabilities. The image quality is decent, but I still think the DSLR works best. However, there are just some times where the weather is bad or you just don't want to carry that big thing around.

I got Baloo a Nikon L105 for Christmas last year (011). It is a good entry level fixed lens DSLR. After she used it a few times she felt it was to big and now has a Kodak easy share C183, it takes the pictures she wants. I actually have inherited the Nikon and I am teaching myself how to use it. I like to know how you all feel about using the record function to get the stills you want. I'm finding this to be a lot easier method when shooting fast action such as fireworks. The one big function I would have looked for if I would have thought about it is a steady cam function. This is the main reason I've gone to recording stuff instead of shooting stills, less blurry pictures. Also right now I am using the windows picture software, it downloads really quickly. What other software options are out there?

i am currently running a Canon T1i, with an 18-55mm IS lens, and a 55-250 on the way

dstrawn9889 wrote:i am currently running a Canon T1i, with an 18-55mm IS lens, and a 55-250 on the way

The ef-s 55-250 f4-5.6?

We're currently using the Nikon D3100 with the 18-55mm lens it came with. We have rented other lenses in the past so we can try out lenses before committing to one. Cbog40 has pretty much taken it over though...
We're both still uneducated about the true power of the DSLR, but are having fun playing around with the settings.

Our current point and shoot (or "my camera") is an Olympus SZ-11 14MP, 20x optical zoom. (I'm a zoom junkie)
I like it just fine and it's great for when we don't feel like lugging around the Nikon. It took me a while to get used to the fact that there's no viewfinder though. I miss that, and it's getting harder to find on a point and shoot.

Jacca5660 wrote:I got Baloo a Nikon L105 for Christmas last year (011). It is a good entry level fixed lens DSLR. After she used it a few times she felt it was to big and now has a Kodak easy share C183, it takes the pictures she wants. I actually have inherited the Nikon and I am teaching myself how to use it. I like to know how you all feel about using the record function to get the stills you want. I'm finding this to be a lot easier method when shooting fast action such as fireworks. The one big function I would have looked for if I would have thought about it is a steady cam function. This is the main reason I've gone to recording stuff instead of shooting stills, less blurry pictures. Also right now I am using the windows picture software, it downloads really quickly. What other software options are out there?

Well, I guess it depends on how much you want to spend and what you want to be able to do. The standard image editing software is Adobe Creative Suite. I think they're on CS6 or 7 now. I have CS5 and haven't used much more than Photoshop, although I hope to be able to use other things when I put a graduation party video together for Meghan this year that can loop on my laptop. The downside to this software is that for the average home user it's rather pricey. If you know a teacher, that person can buy it at a significant discount for you. Or, if you know a college student, have that person check in the bookstore on campus to see if it's there for less $$. You're technically violating the purchase agreement but unless you do something to raise suspicion it's doubtful anyone would ever know or care.

If all you're interested in doing is adjusting exposure a bit, then Photoshop Elements is an economical alternative to full-blown Photoshop or CS. I think you can get it for $100. It does most of the common things that PS does but costs as much as 3/4 less.

If you're ONLY going to be cropping images, you can do that with Microsoft Office Picture Manager. It doesn't come as a standard install for Office, but if you have Office installed already, it's available to download for no additional charge. Microsoft stopped having things like Movie Maker and Picture Manager be standard installation items because a majority of Office users didn't use them.

Now back to your blurry image issue. Sure, you can record a bunch of images ("video") and then pick out what you want, but it does tend to eat up battery life and storage space.

The purist in me says you should learn how to take really good shots by understanding exposure, ISO, and image stabilization. There are a LOT of online video lessons that cover everything you ever wanted to know, and with that and a bunch of practice you can get a grip on how to take quality images without having to go overkill on the electron recycling. Another thing you can do is get a tripod or tall monopod to hold your camera, and that will dramatically improve your low-light shots.

Thank you for all the advice. From what you posted and for what I do, I think what I'm using is all I need for now. For my other issue, I think I need to explore my camera more. I've just barely gotten into it. I'm still learning all the functions. I'm gonna go on line and see if I can find a better manual, the one that came with it just has the basics and I've found things on the camera that it doesn't talk about.

Jacca5660 wrote:Thank you for all the advice. From what you posted and for what I do, I think what I'm using is all I need for now. For my other issue, I think I need to explore my camera more. I've just barely gotten into it. I'm still learning all the functions. I'm gonna go on line and see if I can find a better manual, the one that came with it just has the basics and I've found things on the camera that it doesn't talk about.

I honestly don't read the manuals. If I want to learn about something I'll read up on it or just play around and figure it out myself. I do think cy did an excellent job summing everything up. I currently have CS4 on my mac, which is older now but it is what I learned to use when in high school. I do plan on putting on CS5 as I got it for free when someone upgraded from CS5 to CS6. On my PC I actually do have an older copy of Photoshop elements and it does do a decent job. You can probably get it for less than $100, just look online at like amazon or something. When you are talking about blurry images are they very pixelated or is there visible motion blur. If it is the first then you could have your camera in a lower quality setting or just be shooting at too high an ISO.

MmeLeota, I've actually never been a fan of the super zoom point and shoot. I feel that the more optical zoom you use the softer the pictures will be. Viewfinders on point and shoots are becoming rarer and rarer. The idea now is to have the 3 inch display so you no longer have to hold the camera to your eye and can just reach out and get your picture. I personally still like viewfinders as well. Even a lot of the DSLRs have gone to the screen now. I just don't like that at all.

Len90 wrote:MmeLeota, I've actually never been a fan of the super zoom point and shoot. I feel that the more optical zoom you use the softer the pictures will be. Viewfinders on point and shoots are becoming rarer and rarer. The idea now is to have the 3 inch display so you no longer have to hold the camera to your eye and can just reach out and get your picture. I personally still like viewfinders as well. Even a lot of the DSLRs have gone to the screen now. I just don't like that at all.

I think the viewfinders were put on to make the digital cameras appear more like the old 35mm film cameras, but with the screen it was redundant. I'm still a bit old school as I tend to still use the viewfinder much more than the screen. I just personally gravitate that way. But you're not "old school" like us, Len90 - I'm surprised you still like the viewfinder as well.

Agreed that the super zoom does tend to soften the image, but it definitely comes in handy from time to time, and I rarely use it to its full extent...especially without a tripod...because there is usually no hope for those photos. :/