matthew_cromer

Well, it's pretty easy to beat up on the CP5700 this way. The AF is so poor you'll be lucky to get a lock with any wildlife that still has a pulse. The Sony 717 lens + Oly TCON17 is just about 2 full stops faster than the 5700 (and faster than an f/4 zoom) and you can get both new for about $800 shipped. (versus $800 for a two year old D30 with questionable longevity, less resolution, and no lens).

 

On the other hand, 323mm is not much when shooting wildlife. The SLR has it all over the 717 for focal length possibilities, assuming the budget permits.

 

But I wouldn't consider the 5700 acceptable for anything except static landscape shots because of the slow lens and dismal AF.

I'm using a Sony 717 (190mm equiv.) plus an Olympus B300 teleconvertor for a total equiv. of 323mm.

 

I mostly shoot landscape (for which the 717 is a really excellent camera) but I also am shooting some waterfowl at local parks. 323mm is too short for a lot of wildlife, and I'll be getting a dSLR and some big glass soon to get the longer focal lengths. As the lens is f/2.4 (and the afocal teleconvertor doesn't slow the lens down more than 1/4 stop or so) I can shoot ISO 100 when the f/4 guys are shooting ISO 400. Also Neat Image does a great job with Sony 717 images up to ISO 400 (the results at ISO 800 are good for 5x7 prints but not large prints). I also can shoot braced / handheld and get closer to the action because there is no mirror slap to spoil image sharpness. The 717 has good AF speed outdoors in decent light (not flight-shot good, but yes swimming animal good). Also there is much more DOF to play with instead of the razor-thin DOF you get with long fast glass on a dSLR (which can be good and bad, depending). Having the live, tilting LCD to frame the shots really helps get those waterfowl images -- I often hold the camera out over the water when shooting ducks, ducklings, etc.

<br>

<br>

 

Note that other consumer digicams with slower lenses and worse high-ISO and AF performance (almost all of them) will probably give pretty disappointing results shooting active wildlife in dimmer light.

 

I think your best bet is to get a 10D or D100 unless you want to focus on macro-sized subjects. With macro subjects the increased DOF of consumer digicams and the better "handholdability" make it a tougher call. Like I said, I want one of each, and I expect I'll still use the 717 for certain close-in shots, as well as photographing frogs.

<br>

<br>

<a href='http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work'>Some of my shots, including wildlife</a>

Bob, Pentax has already announced the *ist D digital camera. Were you aware of this?

<br>

<br>

For those interested, here are some

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/neat_image">Neat image test shot examples</a>

I'm using a Sony 717 with two conversion lenses covering 26mm to 323mm.

 

The image quality is very good. The big difference with a dSLR is more noise -- I use Neat Image which does a SUPERB job removing noise without hurting detail.

<br>

<br>

 

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work">samples from 707 / 717</a>

There are a great many of us who never were "film photographers" in a meaningful sense of the word but who only became interested in photography as a pursuit after buying our first digital cameras.

The DO lenses make OOF specular highlights look like doughnuts, much like a mirror lens.

I suspect the quality will not be sufficient. I was hoping to run into someone who had used both and could talk about the image quality from the TCON-300 in comparison as being pretty decent or unacceptably bad.

 

Certainly the TCON-14B produces very good images with many high-end fixed-lens digicams.

The Sony 717 may be a point and shoot camera (in your definition, not mine) but it has an excellent Carl Zeiss lens.

 

The image quality I have seen with my "add-on supplementary" wide angle conversion lens (HGD-0758) which gives 26mm - 120mm equivalent FOV is better than samples I have seen from wide angle zooms with equivalent FOV on the D60 and D100 (where you must use an approx 17mm wide angle because of the 1.5x FOV crop on those cameras).

 

I'm curious for someone who has used both to comment on whether or not the TCON-300 delivers good quality images in their opinion.

Anyone out there using an Olympus TCON 300 with an Oly E10/20 or Sony

707/717? I'm looking for someone who has used this combination and

used a Nikon or Canon 500/4 lens.

 

Can you tell me what the image quality of the TCON-300 is like in

comparison to the Canon and/or Nikon glass? I'm thinking of picking

one up for shooting wildlife.

 

Thanks.

Michael Gordon says he undersizes the printouts so there is 1/4" margin around the edge of the matte. He then signs on the whitespace.

 

 

 

oh, btw, dictionary.com says:

 

Matte --

 

A decorative border placed around a picture to serve as a frame or provide contrast between the picture and the frame.

(also mat)

 

So both mat and matte are correct.

 

I feel uniquely qualified to choose this word.

 

Signed,

Matt

How do people generally sign their fine art landscape and wildlife

prints? I am planning to sell prints (as soon as I pick up my 2200)

and I'm pretty happy with my framing and matting presentation.

However, I am not sure how best to sign the pictures.

 

Right now I am signing on pencil on the matte right under the

picture, but this is for prints hanging in my house and given as

gifts to family. I want to make sure I use the best solution so I

can get the best possible reception to my work.

I take two or more exposures on my digital camera, then combine in Photoshop, blending the two at whatever regular or irregular line I choose. The feather tool makes the transition as hard or soft as you like.

 

I think the physical Grad ND filter is good for slide technology or for people who don't like to work in Photoshop, but you can get superior results using a PS blend otherwise.

I'm not sure I would advise Chad to worry much about film processing or slide projectors. The majority of people who can afford to go on photography workshops already own digital SLRs, or are planning on purchasing them in the next year or so.

Once you get a digital camera you will almost certainly shoot many more frames, probably an order of magnitude more.

 

I've shot 10 times more pictures in the past year than every frame I ever took before in my life.

I'd be very wary of going into South Africa with $30,000 worth of camera gear.

 

It has become a terribly dangerous country recently, and that amount of gear makes you a tempting target.

I'm surprised to hear of your trouble with the D100 AF. Lots of people have been complaining about the D60 AF but I hadn't heard many problems with the D100. Too bad about that, you might think for $2,200 you would get good quality AF.

I find it very hard NOT to encourage serious photographers to switch to digital. I think a digital kit will develop a photographers skill at least 2x - 3x faster than a film kit assuming the person is serious about developing their ability, due to the immediate feedback and the ability to shoot and shoot and shoot for free.

 

My interest in Photography as a serious pursuit only arrived after having a digital camera for a while. While that first 1.4MP point and shoot model had many limitations, I was able to shoot as much as I wanted to and I could see the pictures on the back LCD screen as soon as I took them. Eventually I moved from just wanting snapshots to the desire to take good pictures. I scraped together some coin and bought the best digital camera I could afford. In the 9 months that I have owned that new camera, I've put 14,000 frames through it and my photography skills today are almost infinitely better than they were a year ago.

 

The D100 is a good camera and I suspect you will really enjoy the digital workflow and the ability to shoot for free. In a couple years you will upgrade to something better, but in the meantime the D100 will give you great enjoyment and tons of great pictures.

Yes.

 

I shoot with a Sony DSC-F707 right now, and while saturation is generally good, the Sony pics "out of the camera" are almost always flatter than the actual scene. This is very common for digital cameras which are trying very hard to increase dynamic range and avoid "blowing out" whites, which on a digital camera is the worst possible thing to happen when capturing a scene.

 

Hence, if I didn't increase contrast, almost all my pictures would look dark and musty. There is no "slide" in digital photography, so I generally just adjust to where the image "looks good" to me. Usually that is a contrasty, Velvia-like image, but sometimes I tone down contrast instead and create a pastel effect.

 

BTW, I always use adjustment layers and use an 'S' curve to punch up contrast, as that prevents clipping your dynamic range which the normal PhotoShop contrast control does.

I'd save up and get an Olympus 2100UZ, Sony DSC-F707 or 717, Minolta Dimage, or a Nikon 5700.

 

All of these have reasonably long lenses and you can get cheap teleconvertors. They are all capable of fully-manual operation with good image quality. All are available in the $500 - $1000 range.

 

Using a digital camera, you can shoot and shoot and shoot again. What's more, there is immediate feedback (and with these cameras you can even see LIVE the effect of changing f/stop, wb, etc. on the image).

 

I've taken 14000 digital images in the past 9 months since getting my Sony DSC-F707. The digital camera has been critical to my ability to improve my photography. For someone on a tight budget, it's almost negligent to suggest anything else.

 

Here is a link to some of my nature photographs almost all taken with the F707:

 

http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work