How many of you guys are now using Digital cameras for nature

[martin_england]

How many of you guys are now using Digital cameras for nature,

either complete digital or second body only digital. Also how many of

you are considering going digital in the very near future. Especially

interested in anybody using or intend to get the new D60.

I look forward to your replies

 

All the best Martin England

[ahaohio]

I carry a P&S digital as a second camera.

 

Use the digital pictures for the web. for sharing and as an instant memorybook. The real pictures are all "analog".

[john_bald]

Ake -- and any others -- I'd like to hear your comments on using a digital camera (any kind) as a backup for a film SLR. I own one SLR body, but I've been tempted lately to get a digital backup, undoubtedly a P&S digital since the digital SLRs are out of my price range. Thanks.

[dane_skye]

Martin-

 

Still in film. I have yet to see a digital that can really be a great nature camera for me. Maybe for outdoor sports digital is ok. For me, a 100% landscape/rocks/trees kind of guy film could never be replaced by digital. In fact I recently added a 645 medium format and love it. Mamiya has the 645e kit for $700, I think it will give you better nature shots than any digital. I look at a 645 Velvia slide and it blows away 35mm and totally crushes a D100.

 

I can scan it and still get the benefit of a home darkroom.

 

Now for a backup/instant feedback a digital might be ok, but your camera is obsolete by the time you read the manual. If a Dslr body could use your current lenses and only cost as much as an N55, then maybe. But why pay $2000+ for a camera that cannot produce an image as good as a N55?

 

Just my $0.02

[ahaohio]

For certain purpase a low end digital can be convenient. Otherwise agreed but I would not compare with an N55. Rather with one of the better single use cameras.

 

The benefit is the "instant reward" and for digital media where high resolution is not a must.

[alan_woolnough]

Hello Martin,

 

I use 35mm & 645, and at my age, im likely to stay with the conventional equipment and film that i use, as it certainly produces a quality that i am extremely happy with.

 

However, if i was starting out in wildlife photography, maybe in a couple of years, then i think it would be a sensible consideration, with the future in mind.

 

As things stand, at this moment in time, i think digitals main advantage for wildlife work is the ability to edit in camera. Although film is relatively cheap, over the years, i would have saved a small fortune had i been able to do this. I think this function would be extremely useful, especially in wildlife/bird photography, as the subjects have a mind of their own, and will not take instructions from the photographer.

 

As an example, from my own experience using 645/15 exposures: If i was lucky to have a fidgity wader, landing in front of my hide, for a few minutes, out of those fifteen exposures, probably five shots would be ruined by subject movement, two or three lost through bad focusing{man.focus lens}, and out of the remaining seven or eight shots, due to composition, i may possibly only be left with three or four shots that i feel are worth keeping, but i still have to process the entire film.

 

Im unlikely to add to my current equipment these days, but if i did, i guess a auto focus lens would be the priority for me. Even though i would class myself as an extremely experienced manual focuser, unfortunately i cant fight against nature, regarding my eyesight.

 

Cheers

[gary_anthes]

I use a Canon D60 now almost exclusively, and I get significantly better photos than I did previously shooting on 100-speed color print film and scanning the negs at 2,400 dpi.

I love the D60 but I have to warn you of an occasional and unpredictable tendency to underexpose in low light. I�ve had it in to Canon twice for repair and they say they can�t find the problem. (Others also have reported this problem at another forum.) I�ve learned to always check the histogram after low-light shots and to bracket upward in exposure when the curve is shifted toward the left (dark end of the scale.)

[jonathan_bundick]

Gary,

 

Define "significantly better" What is better about the digital images you get now as opposed to your previous film based images? Have you done any side by side testing, and if so what specific comparisons have you drawn? I read these kind of comments all over the web, but most of the time no specifics to go with them.

 

Don't get me wrong, each product has it's place and usage. Personally I don't think either is better than the other, I just would like to read something specific. Something beyond "significantly better."

[gib]

Canon G2 at 4 megapixels and with lots of exposure control is a good camera for landscape work.

[the lone ranger]

i shoot half of my nature pictures on digital and the rest on fuji velvia. with some photoshop work you can make digital look just like velvia if not better in some cases. with the right cameras and work editing you can get great quality from your digital prints to 16x20. depending on your intentions with photography, digital is not that bad of an option. unless you are gonna be out there everyday and have your own gallery and sell huge posters, then digital is excellent for every other use. most of the pictures on my site are from olympus digital cameras. check it out: www.angelfire.com/jazz/user0188

[gary_anthes]

Jonathan, yes, I should have been more specific. I am only comparing what I have direct and fairly extensive experience with: Canon D60 shot (mostly) at 100 speed and large (fine) .jpg and input to Photoshop vs. 100-speed Kodak Supra negatives scanned into Photoshop at 2,400 dpi. Images from the D60 are:

 

1. Sharper and more detailed, especially in very dark and very bright areas.

2. Cleaner � less noise, fewer artifacts, less grainy. I don�t know how to describe this exactly, but the images, especially when significantly enlarged, look smoother and cleaner while still holding greater detail. Possibly because of this, I can sharpen the images more in Photoshop without introducing that artificial, gritty appearance.

 

Again, I�m only comparing the D60 to my previous practice. If you are shooting Velvia and scanning at 4,000 dpi, I suspect the D60 would not compare so favorably.

[mlfly]

I read somewhere, a long time ago, that photography was a journey, not a destination. Equipment you use today may not be what you have in the future. Slides you love now may not be acceptable to you as time goes by. I interpret this as use what you have and do the best you can with it but enjoy the process.

 

So, I am using a digital mostly now. I've always enjoyed darkroom work - not the put my hands in the fixer part but the results you get when you do it yourself. Digital processing satisfies me in that regard. I also like the immediate feedback and the quality is getting me saleable 11x14's (or 10x15's). I don't do 16x20's as they are too big for my personal taste (but admittedly striking in the right setting). These sell and I'm happy with that - simply a part time pursuit.

 

So far the D60 has been really good. At the local store where I bought mine (until recently running quite a waiting list), they have not had a single return. Sometimes it is hard to find the contrast needed to AF but that's rare and there haven't been many missed shots, not many more than with the 1n. The 1.6x factor is great with the 300 IS and 600 F4 but that's a silly point because this is no more than in camera cropping to me. 6mp quality is great and I would not buy the 1Ds for the 11mp (but I would buy it for a bigger buffer, more focus points and a quicker AF).

 

Have fun with whatever you have and for me, for birds, it's digital. Said differently, Digital is for the birds :)

 

Mike

[alex_p._schorsch]

Dear martin, I'm using the D60 for nature photos. I'm preparing a publication on the Iguassu National Park (Brazil) and have done almost all of my landscape work, panoramics, etc. with slide film. I found that my portfolio was lacking some frame-filling closeups of birds and animals. After much soul searching I opted for the D60 instead of investing in huge glass. I am happy with the results so far. I have found only a few problems: 1)The latitude of the capture chip seems to be inferior to slide film. The practical result of this is that you just don't have a very high range of contrast so that your whites get really blown out and can even cause halation as some of the white will be transferred to neighboring pixels. Therefore this camera works better if you take pictures only of relative evenly-lighted subjects. 2) I think it can be difficult to get exposure right when using long exposures, for example, over 15 seconds. It seems that the digital media also has its own type of reciprical failure. Although the instant feedback allows you to adjust 3) The viewfinder is smaller than a conventional camera. I find this a bit annoying while doing macro-photography. This camera has some very good points. When you work with even lighteing it can give you great results. The fact that the chip selects a smaller part of the image makes it great for tele shots. It opens up a whole new world of opportunities for shooting birds and animals without having to lug around heavy telephoto lenses. Have a look at the shot of the peccary in my portfolio. This would have been an almost impossible shot with my present equipment if I hadn't had the D60. The instant feedback is fantastic as well as the software and the possibility to change ASA in midroll (midcard). I wanted a lightweight, portable system for shooting in the thick brush and think that this system has been the answer to my wishes. One last comment, a 400mm becomes a 640mm lens but taking photos of birds and animals is still a VERY difficult chore. Having this reach now available to me makes me admire Arthur Morris and the other specialists even more. It's still a great challenge to get the best shot, but at least with the D60 we have a much better chance. FWIW, good shooting, Alex.

[dick_ginkowski]

I found that with slides everything pretty much sat in the box and editing on the light table was difficult in terms of keepers vs. garbage vs. maybe.

 

Now, when I come back from a shoot, I download and start editing right away. The best shots become prints in a day or two. The slides are still in boxes.

 

Feel free to check out my little presence on the web -- so far a 100% digital site!

 

www.pbase.com/dickg/

[Michael Eckstein]

Currently shooting 100% digital with EOS D300. Find prints superior to those I

made or had made from 35mm or medium format. Here are a few of my nature

shots.

 

http://www.web.tampabay.rr.com/eosd30images<div></div>

[david_senesac]

No, sticking with Pentax 6x7 and Provia 100F since it provides excellent landscape results and I know how to smoothly get out of it what I want. That said, I now keep a bunji'd Dimage X ready in my pocket to shoot quick non-aesthetic informational shots. Digital camera technology has been changing too rapidly the last few years. Large market forces are putting significant engineering resources into new development and that should continue till a technological knee is reached. Today I could buy for lots of money the best new digital back technology to get fine results. But would those results be significantly better than what I am already doing? But in a few years given the expected size of the best imaging chips, there may be products with smaller 35mm sized gear at the same resolution with better depth of field than now available with larger backs, plus hopefully even lens movements. -dave

[arnabdas]

Still in love with Velvia, shooting FM3A+200micro nikkor primarily. Plan to go digital in 2 years, or when Nikon DSLR bodies are below $1000 -- whichever is sooner. Even then primarily considering that as backup to film camera.

 

Just a different means to the same end ...

[ricardo_jamin]

Here's my $.02

 

I no longer shoot 35mm as I feel my D1x is more than capable to compete with 35mm film. I no longer own 35mm bodies.

I still have an old Yashica 6x6 camera but it doesn't get use very much. I probably shot 1 frame of 6x6 for every 500 D1 shots.

I mainly shoots wildlife and macro.

 

I have my D1x shot printed to 20"x30" and it looks damn good at normal viewing distance. I'm not sure how the detail at this print size vs 35mm since I never saw 35mm enlarged to this size. But for sure the D1x will produce much cleaner shot.

[howard_grill]

Hope you folks don't mind if I insert a somewhat related question here. How does a scanned 35mm slide, say with a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000+ as opposed to an Imacon or drum scan, hold up to a digital photo from the newest digital SLRs. Before you stop reading in disgust, I DON'T mean in terms of resolution and detail capture as I know that has been discussed extensively in other threads. I am talking more on the order of the capture of tonal gradations, detail in the shadows and highlights, color renedition etc. I ask because I presume that there is different quality in different CCD/CMOS brand capture and there may be various issues that have to go into camera, as opposed to scanner design, in regards to this.

 

Howard

[mlfly]

I had Dale Labs scan some images for me and they made very nice 11x14 prints (I'd been told 8x10 was the max I could expect). Perhaps there is justification for going no larger than 8x10 but these were good enough at the larger size.

 

I can do the same with the images from the D60 and get better quality in the prints at 11x14 (and, I presume, larger).

 

But, I'd not complain about either. WIth the scanned prints, I had little manipulation to do. With D60 Raw images, there was plenty to manipulate and it is exceedingly difficult not to go too far (especially sharpening).

 

I'd base it on desired subjects and camera handling. Personally, I think the D60 needs more power - remember the EOS 1n without the power booster - it seemed like only 1/2 a camera once you tried the booster. A little faster focus, a few more focus points and a much, much larger buffer and burst rate and this would make an already excellent camera superb.

 

Mike