I don't know the difference between the various cameras that are available,
'Ere, this'll do, since it seems to be about photography - I take indoor photos of archery competitions and presentation ceremonies, mostly because as the 'official' club piccyist I get asked to do so. The lighting in the club house has been improved during the last couple of days; nevertheless it is still poor. Here's a selection: http://gallery110671.fotopic.net/
I've been told that I need a film camera for these shots to work properly. OK, I can do that, but - which one? It needs to be reasonably cheap because I've got no spare dosh; it needs to be simple to use because I don't understand about photography. Suggestions?
I love you. All of you. Because you're so helpful. -- / Fran O(<|={ \
In article <[email hidden]>, W. D. Grey <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
I was impressed with the G6 when a pal of mine bought one recently - so much so that I felt I just had to have one too. I'm delighted with it, and the recent photos I've taken on the Isle of Mull and Iona (in glorious weather ) are excellent. The camera performed superbly. The only thing I would like is the lens adapter tube plus a wide angle attachment.
They go for just over £30 + P&P on eBay, don't know how that compares to chop prices...
I don't know the difference between the various cameras that are available, I was impressed with the G6 when a pal of mine bought one recently - so much so that I felt I just had to have one too. I'm delighted with it, and the recent photos I've taken on the Isle of Mull and Iona (in glorious weather ) are excellent. The camera performed superbly. The only thing I would like is the lens adapter tube plus a wide angle attachment.
My Fuji S5500 came with the lens adapter, which I leave on permanently to protect the lens, Unfortunately my old SLR filters are 52 mm so they won't fit the adapter, which is 55mm. I would have liked the polarising filter when I took some photos of large fish in a nearby country park, and to cut the reflections when I take birdie photos through the window.
....And it's lovely and plasticky, so it is light enough to carry all day in my waterproof jacket map pocket. ;-) -- Gordon Harris
I don't know the difference between the various cameras that are available,
'Ere, this'll do, since it seems to be about photography - I take indoor photos of archery competitions and presentation ceremonies, mostly because as the 'official' club piccyist I get asked to do so. The lighting in the club house has been improved during the last couple of days; nevertheless it is still poor. Here's a selection: http://gallery110671.fotopic.net/
I've been told that I need a film camera for these shots to work properly.
Bunk. You need a digital camera without too much noise at higher ISO settings.
Quoted message said:
OK, I can do that, but - which one? It needs to be reasonably cheap because I've got no spare dosh; it needs to be simple to use because I don't understand about photography. Suggestions?
Ah, there's the rub. Low noise at high ISO tends to mean DSLR and they come in at about 575 quid for the recently superceded 300D with the kit lens.
Anybody else like to suggest a compact with better high ISO performance? -- Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
On 15/6/05 23:23, in article [email hidden], "W. D.
Grey said:
I don't know the difference between the various cameras that are available, I was impressed with the G6 when a pal of mine bought one recently - so much so that I felt I just had to have one too. I'm delighted with it, and the recent photos I've taken on the Isle of Mull and Iona (in glorious weather ) are excellent. The camera performed superbly. The only thing I would like is the lens adapter tube plus a wide angle attachment.
Sounds good. Don't forget to look at the uk.rec.walking flickr photo pool !!!
I've been told that I need a film camera for these shots to work properly. OK, I can do that, but - which one? It needs to be reasonably cheap because I've got no spare dosh; it needs to be simple to use because I don't understand about photography. Suggestions?
Nonsense, a digital would render these without any problems. You do have play around with contrast and saturation on even a simple program but this is no more than you would do with B & W for example!
I don't know the difference between the various cameras that are available,
'Ere, this'll do, since it seems to be about photography - I take indoor photos of archery competitions and presentation ceremonies, mostly because as the 'official' club piccyist I get asked to do so. The lighting in the club house has been improved during the last couple of days; nevertheless it is still poor. Here's a selection: http://gallery110671.fotopic.net/
I've been told that I need a film camera for these shots to work properly.
Bunk. You need a digital camera without too much noise at higher ISO settings.
Quoted message said:
OK, I can do that, but - which one? It needs to be reasonably cheap because I've got no spare dosh; it needs to be simple to use because I don't understand about photography. Suggestions?
Ah, there's the rub. Low noise at high ISO tends to mean DSLR and they come in at about 575 quid for the recently superceded 300D with the kit lens.
Anybody else like to suggest a compact with better high ISO performance?
*Better* high ISO performance is difficult. Off the top of my head, though, the Fuji S7000 (£325) has the ability to do ISO 1600, and has a hot-shoe if flash is allowed. Not sure if it (or the Canon EOS 300D) satisfies the simple-to-use criterion.
Here's a thought. The recommendation to go to film is probably rooted in the easy availability of ISO 400 (400ASA) film stock. Borrow a small zoom compact film camera and try shooting with 400 ASA film. You'll get two stops advantage over the 100ASA of your Fuji 2800, meaning two steps faster shutter speeds or smaller aperture. See if the results are worthwhile.
In article <[email hidden]>, Phil Cook <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I've been told that I need a film camera for these shots to work properly.
Bunk. You need a digital camera without too much noise at higher ISO settings.
Quoted message said:
OK, I can do that, but - which one? It needs to be reasonably cheap because I've got no spare dosh; it needs to be simple to use because I don't understand about photography. Suggestions?
Phil has it in a nutshell. Digital cameras can capture images in very low light without any problems - even at ISO 100.
Your efforts are very good and do what you want of them. Don't get hung up on technicalities, today's cameras are quite foolproof. O.K. there are times when some knowledge of what it's all about does help but for most shots the cameras can work it out for themselves.
For what it's worth I have an Olympus Z4040 zoom - it is the camera you've seen me use on the expeds I've been on. I'm prepared to sell it - you can guarantee it's been handled carefully and well looked after.
In article <[email hidden]>, Alan Dicey <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
Here's a thought. The recommendation to go to film is probably rooted in the easy availability of ISO 400 (400ASA) film stock. Borrow a small zoom compact film camera and try shooting with 400 ASA film. You'll get two stops advantage over the 100ASA of your Fuji 2800, meaning two steps faster shutter speeds or smaller aperture. See if the results are worthwhile.
The initial cost of going digital may be prohibitive, but even a modest digital camera will prove cheaper in the long run over a film camera simply because of the cost of the film and processing.
I've just bought two Fuji silde films one was about 5 quid and the other nearer 8 quid. There's 13 quid and I haven't spoiled any shots yet - even the spoiled ones cost money !!! BTW I've gone to Trannies for a good reason - not my choice. -- Bill Grey http://www.billboy.co.uk
In article <[email hidden]>, Gordon Harris <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
My Fuji S5500 came with the lens adapter, which I leave on permanently to protect the lens, Unfortunately my old SLR filters are 52 mm so they won't fit the adapter, which is 55mm.
Go on you old skinflint - the filters - say UV would only cost a couple of quid and a polariser not much more unless you go for a Circular Polariser which are a bit dearer.
Quoted message said:
I would have liked the polarising filter when I took some photos of large fish in a nearby country park, and to cut the reflections when I take birdie photos through the window.
Can you see the polarised effect through the viewfinder? I find the LCD screen isn't bright enough in daylight to really appreciate what's happening.
In article <[email hidden]>, Gordon Harris <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
My Fuji S5500 came with the lens adapter, which I leave on permanently to protect the lens, Unfortunately my old SLR filters are 52 mm so they won't fit the adapter, which is 55mm.
Go on you old skinflint - the filters - say UV would only cost a couple of quid and a polariser not much more unless you go for a Circular Polariser which are a bit dearer.
Quoted message said:
I would have liked the polarising filter when I took some photos of large fish in a nearby country park, and to cut the reflections when I take birdie photos through the window.
Can you see the polarised effect through the viewfinder? I find the LCD screen isn't bright enough in daylight to really appreciate what's happening.
Quoted message said:
Uh-Oh! I've only used filters with SLRs, but the S5500 has a button to brighten the screen for a short time, so maybe it would work.
It used to be great for enhancing clouds when shooting across the sun, skies always being a weak point of my landscrapes. I used to dodge them when printing my own B & W shots, but I haven't delved into masks etc in PS. -- Gordon Harris
In article <BED77CED.44559%andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk>, Andy Howell said...
Quoted message said:
On 15/6/05 23:58, in article [email hidden],
Fran said:
I've been told that I need a film camera for these shots to work properly.
Nonsense, a digital would render these without any problems.
Well, everyone seems to be in agreement, so I'll stick with digital. If I can ever work out how to get the best out my Fuji 2800 I may even find that I can stick with that... The problem I've had in the past has been that even playing with the white balance and various other settings hasn't given me sensible colours, and because of the nature of the indoor shots (that is, the archery ones) flash isn't an option. Maybe I need to think about getting something with a higher resolution though, since I only have 2Mp to play around with at the moment.
I don't know the difference between the various cameras that are available, I was impressed with the G6 when a pal of mine bought one recently - so much so that I felt I just had to have one too. I'm delighted with it, and the recent photos I've taken on the Isle of Mull and Iona (in glorious weather ) are excellent. The camera performed superbly. The only thing I would like is the lens adapter tube plus a wide angle attachment.
My Fuji S5500 came with the lens adapter, which I leave on permanently to protect the lens, Unfortunately my old SLR filters are 52 mm so they won't fit the adapter, which is 55mm. I would have liked the polarising filter when I took some photos of large fish in a nearby country park, and to cut the reflections when I take birdie photos through the window.
...And it's lovely and plasticky, so it is light enough to carry all day in my waterproof jacket map pocket. ;-)
Looks like we just need to mention Paul to turn a thread into a discussion of photography.
In article <[email hidden]>, Gordon Harris <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Can you see the polarised effect through the viewfinder? I find the LCD screen isn't bright enough in daylight to really appreciate what's happening.
Quoted message said:
Uh-Oh! I've only used filters with SLRs, but the S5500 has a button to brighten the screen for a short time, so maybe it would work.
BTW When I was on Iona last weekend with my Canon G6, I really felt I wanted a polariser. Seeing as I don't yet have the lens adapter or filters I had to improvise so I place the lens of my polarised Sunglasses in front of the lens and BINGO it worked fine. I managed to get one or two small flares in the picture but Photoshop got rid of those easily.
In article <[email hidden]>, Gordon Harris <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Can you see the polarised effect through the viewfinder? I find the LCD screen isn't bright enough in daylight to really appreciate what's happening. >
Uh-Oh! I've only used filters with SLRs, but the S5500 has a button to brighten the screen for a short time, so maybe it would work.
BTW When I was on Iona last weekend with my Canon G6, I really felt I wanted a polariser. Seeing as I don't yet have the lens adapter or filters I had to improvise so I place the lens of my polarised Sunglasses in front of the lens and BINGO it worked fine. I managed to get one or two small flares in the picture but Photoshop got rid of those easily.
Email coming soon - I've been away for the weekend and got back late. After the heat and lots of driving from here to Bedford and back I'm totally knackered. -- / Fran O(<|={ \
In article <[email hidden]>, Adrian Godwin said...
Quoted message said:
Fran said:
In article <[email hidden]>, W. D. Grey said...
Quoted message said:
E-mail me Fran if you're interested.
Email coming soon - I've been away for the weekend and got back late. After the heat and lots of driving from here to Bedford and back I'm totally knackered.
