what digital camera are you using?

"Penny S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(Pete Cresswell) said:

RE/

Quoted message said:

but the 800 doesn't have the optical zoom at all. That's the one feature I would really like
to have

Why optical zoom? To see the subject better? Other than that, everything I've heard so far
suggests that you get better quality by just re-sizing/zooming later on in the graphics editor.
-----------------------
PeteCresswell

I found the zoom on the Nikon really sucks for things like getting shots

of

Quoted message said:

my son when he's playing soccer or on teh stage with the school band. A digital zoom seems to be
very limited; an optical zoom is much more clear. I've seen how the optical looks when looking on
other's cameras, far superior. Doen side by side comparisons at the last band concert. Of

course

Quoted message said:

I"m not a camera geek so I am sure someone will either clarify or flame me for getting it wrong
soon enough.

Penny

No you're right as far as digital/optical zoom goes. Though it's been replaced with a model with
higher res and less zoom but I have a Olympus Ultra Zoom C-700. It has a 10x optical zoom (I don't
even use the digital zoom) with a fairly bright fast lens which captures action shots very well even
at a distance. It also has a Quicktime movie mode with sound. It's a bit of a chunk to carry along
on rides however and I'm a little scairt to fall on a $475 camera.

Here's a sample shot pbase.com2736714Open ↗ Note this was reduced 50% before uploading.
I was standing a fair distance from the jump too.

Mike

Quoted message said:

For the single speed mafia:

Rigid SS, Vans, surf shorts, skate helmet and out-riding the stormtroopers on 8" bikes.

paradigmhosting.neta1.jpgOpen ↗

paradigmhosting.neta2.jpgOpen ↗

--
Pete "aforementioned camera geek" Fagerlin

Heee...that dude is cool and crazy!
--
Slacker

"Penny S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
: I think my trusty Nikon coolpix 800 that's been to the Yukon and back may have died. I bet the
: "system error" repair might run $150+ at that rate
I
: might as well start shopping as the technology has improved anyway.
:
: I don't know, would *you* fix or replace. I need it for work. ;-)
:
: penny
:
:

Olympus D510. Doesn't have all the features but it takes good shots and is light weight (which is
why I decided on it... for backpacking and mtb'ing). Along with a backpacking, collapsible tripod
it's all I need in a camera. Well... at least until I can afford one of those $1000+ dealies.

--

FlyingCoyote boarsgut.comboarsgut.comOpen ↗

--

"Penny S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I think my trusty Nikon coolpix 800 that's been to the Yukon and back may have died. I bet the
"system error" repair might run $150+ at that rate I might as well start shopping as the
technology has improved anyway.

I don't know, would *you* fix or replace. I need it for work. ;-)

penny

Been using a Minolta Diimage X a little bitty camera that is super flat and fits great in my back
pocket so it's easy to pull out in a hurry. It's only 2 megapixels but I don't know that you
really need a higher resolution camera for trail photos. Sometimes it would be nice to have a
higher zoom though.

-- Dennis

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I was using my Nikon 990 until a couple months ago when I did some ad-hoc research on it - by
experimentally determining that it will definately not continue to function normally after a
six-foot drop to concrete.

The Nikon does have a nice macro but the 800 doesn't have the optical zoom at all. That's the one
feature I would really like to have. The flash is not great either, but that hasn't been a
problem. Oh, well... I've got to go though the steps of getting the estimate anyway.

penny

Well, you shouldn't really use the flash. In fact, it's evil. Here's an example of what you can get
without it (all these taken with the
990):

/headtubesareimportant.jpg"]http://plaza.ufl.edu/phillee/[censored]/headtubesareimportant.jpg

IMO, much more interesting. Especially since I didn't know the guy.

You mention macro... Here's an example of that. (this pic is 1.3MB)

/eye.jpg"]http://plaza.ufl.edu/phillee/[censored]/eye.jpg

Again, avoid the flash!

/desat.jpg"]http://plaza.ufl.edu/phillee/[censored]/desat.jpg

The 990 is even workable as a studio cam (this pic is one of me):

/smallscary.jpg"]http://plaza.ufl.edu/phillee/[censored]/smallscary.jpg

Phil, Squid-in-Training

Phil said:

You mention macro... Here's an example of that. (this pic is 1.3MB)

/eye.jpg"]http://plaza.ufl.edu/phillee/[censored]/eye.jpg

That one's excellent!

Greg

--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons

Phil said:

Well, you shouldn't really use the flash. In fact, it's evil. Here's an example of what you can
get without it (all these taken with the
990):

/headtubesareimportant.jpg"]http://plaza.ufl.edu/phillee/[censored]/headtubesareimportant.jpg

Cool... how'd you do that?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Penny

"Phil" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| > > I was using my Nikon 990 until a couple months ago when I did some ad-hoc research on it - by
| > > experimentally determining that it will definately not continue to function normally after a
| > > six-foot drop to concrete.
| >
| > The Nikon does have a nice macro but the 800 doesn't have the optical zoom at all. That's the
| > one feature I would really like to have. The flash is not great either, but that hasn't been a
| > problem. Oh, well... I've got to go though the steps of getting the estimate anyway.
| >
| > penny
|
| Well, you shouldn't really use the flash. In fact, it's evil. Here's an example of what you can
| get without it (all these taken with the
| 990):
|
| /headtubesareimportant.jpg"]http://plaza.ufl.edu/phillee/[censored]/headtubesareimportant.jpg
|
| IMO, much more interesting. Especially since I didn't know the guy.

I disagree.

Using flash, and slow shutter speeds, and panning, you can get much better shots than no flash at
all, especially in the forest.

For instance, this shot would not have worked without flash due to the available light:

home.pacbell.netduncandrop.jpgOpen ↗

| Again, avoid the flash!
|
| /desat.jpg"]http://plaza.ufl.edu/phillee/[censored]/desat.jpg

Of course that would be an unneccessary place for flash, especially given the reflective nature of
autos. Panning always imparts a feeling of speed if the background is blurred sufficiently.

home.pacbell.nettomdee.jpgOpen ↗

Flash also comes in handy when you need fill flash to illuminate important features that will be
in shadow:

paradigmhosting.netja2.jpgOpen ↗

Since photography is painting with light, flash will always have its place.

--
Pete Fagerlin

Save Fruita trails! petefagerlin.combookcliffs.htmOpen ↗

"Penny S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Sony DSC P-51

I want more megapixels now though.

JD

"hippy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Penny S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think my trusty Nikon coolpix 800 that's been to the Yukon and back may have died. I bet the
"system error" repair might run $150+ at that rate

I

Quoted message said:

might as well start shopping as the technology has improved anyway.

I don't know, would *you* fix or replace. I need it for work. ;-)

I'm going holidying in Japan for a month and I'm looking at either the: Canon G3 Canon S45 Nikon
Coolpix 4500 Fuji Finepix 602Z (what is the diff. between the 602Z and the 602ZPRO?)

.....

Quoted message said:

The cameras above are not pro level, but they are certainly not average happy snap cameras either
- something in between. Fine for taking quick snaps but allow me to get all creative when I feel
like it.

....

Quoted message said:

HTH hip

i have 4500, and one thing it most definitely doesn't have is the ability to take quick snaps. it
takes 'forever' (more than 1 sec) from the time i press the shutter release button and until the
picture is taken, and some time more until it is stored. i tried filming people and animals, and
unless it was posing for me, i couldn't do that. nikon recommends prefocusing (half pressing the
button), but this means planning your photo well in advance. simply put, i don't use my camera.

ittay

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Phil" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| > > I was using my Nikon 990 until a couple months ago when I did some ad-hoc research on it -
| > > by experimentally determining that it will definately not continue to function normally
| > > after a six-foot drop to concrete.
| >
| > The Nikon does have a nice macro but the 800 doesn't have the optical zoom at all. That's the
| > one feature I would really like to have. The flash is not great either, but that hasn't been a
| > problem. Oh, well... I've got to go though the steps of getting the estimate anyway.
| >
| > penny
|
| Well, you shouldn't really use the flash. In fact, it's evil. Here's an example of what you can
| get without it (all these taken with the
| 990):
|
| /headtubesareimportant.jpg"]http://plaza.ufl.edu/phillee/[censored]/headtubesareimportant.jpg
|
| IMO, much more interesting. Especially since I didn't know the guy.

I disagree.

Using flash, and slow shutter speeds, and panning, you can get much better shots than no flash at
all, especially in the forest.

Yes - for those conditions, you'd have to resort to flash. My main gripe is with the artificiality
of flash photos. I guess you could say I'm more of a minimalist when it comes to these things.

Quoted message said:

Flash also comes in handy when you need fill flash to illuminate important features that will be
in shadow:

paradigmhosting.netja2.jpgOpen ↗

Since photography is painting with light, flash will always have its place.

I was speaking mainly in reference to people who don't know any better than to use the flash
exclusively, when it's really not necessary. Oftentimes it's simply lack of experience. Not using
the flash promotes smoother panning and IMO, better technique. When it comes down to our styles,
they're somewhat different.

I guess I'm just an available light person.

Phil, Squid-in-Training

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Phil" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]... Flash also comes in handy when you need
fill flash to illuminate important

features that

Quoted message said:

will be in shadow:

paradigmhosting.netja2.jpgOpen ↗

Where did he get that cool Zonic Man (I think?) mojo sitting on his stem? ;^)

Mike

"Ittay Freiman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

| i have 4500, and one thing it most definitely doesn't have is the ability to take quick snaps. it
| takes 'forever' (more than 1 sec) from the time i press the shutter release button and until the
| picture is taken, and some time more until it is stored. i tried filming people and animals, and
| unless it was posing for me, i couldn't do that. nikon recommends prefocusing (half pressing the
| button), but this means planning your photo well in advance. simply put, i don't use my camera.

Prefocusing works just fine, for people:

petefagerlin.comk wd stump.jpgOpen ↗

and animals:

petefagerlin.comDSCN4806.jpgOpen ↗

Practice, practice, practice.

--
Pete Fagerlin

Save Fruita trails! petefagerlin.combookcliffs.htmOpen ↗

P e t e F a g e r l i n said:

"Ittay Freiman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

i have 4500, and one thing it most definitely doesn't have is the ability to take quick snaps. it
takes 'forever' (more than 1 sec) from the time i press the shutter release button and until the
picture is taken, and some time more until it is stored. i tried filming people and animals, and
unless it was posing for me, i couldn't do that. nikon recommends prefocusing (half pressing the
button), but this means planning your photo well in advance. simply put, i don't use my camera.

Prefocusing works just fine, for people:

petefagerlin.comk wd stump.jpgOpen ↗

and animals:

petefagerlin.comDSCN4806.jpgOpen ↗

Practice, practice, practice.

Pete.. if you ever want to add a how-to still section to your site, I'd love read what you
have to offer.

penny

Penny S. said:

P e t e F a g e r l i n said:

"Ittay Freiman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

i have 4500, and one thing it most definitely doesn't have is the ability to take quick snaps. it
takes 'forever' (more than 1 sec) from the time i press the shutter release button and until the
picture is taken, and some time more until it is stored. i tried filming people and animals, and
unless it was posing for me, i couldn't do that. nikon recommends prefocusing (half pressing the
button), but this means planning your photo well in advance. simply put, i don't use my camera.

Prefocusing works just fine, for people:

petefagerlin.comk wd stump.jpgOpen ↗

and animals:

petefagerlin.comDSCN4806.jpgOpen ↗

Practice, practice, practice.

Pete.. if you ever want to add a how-to still section to your site, I'd love read what you have
to offer.

penny

Would be very intriguing. Taking still shots (albeit not as well or as artistic as yours) with an
SLR isn't too bad, since there's essentially no lag time between trigger and shutter, and you can
prefocus really easily. However, I'm still working out how to do it well with my digital, so taking
shots with a digital camera specifically would be great.

Jon Bond

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Michael Dart" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

| No you're right as far as digital/optical zoom goes. Though it's been replaced with a model with
| higher res and less zoom but I have a Olympus Ultra Zoom C-700. It has a 10x optical zoom (I
| don't even use the

digital

Quoted message said:

| zoom) with a fairly bright fast lens which captures action shots very

well

Quoted message said:

| even at a distance. It also has a Quicktime movie mode with sound.

It's a

Quoted message said:

| bit of a chunk to carry along on rides however

[censored].

Hehehe...

Quoted message said:

gallery.consumerreview.comPeteonMilagrosa.jpgOpen ↗

(note pack angle

Quoted message said:

as I forgot to strap it down for that part of the descent)

The rewards of getting some great pictures outweigh (pun intended) the

sore back that

Quoted message said:

comes after doing a long tech ride with a camera body, two lenses, flash,

extra batteries,

Quoted message said:

etc.

It's not so much the weight, as the size and the potential for damage (the way I ride!). I'll have
to invest in a HAWG to carry it with padding. I have a smaller / cheaper Olympus Camedia 500
something that fits in Camelbaks Comm Pocket.

Quoted message said:

For the single speed mafia:

Rigid SS, Vans, surf shorts, skate helmet and out-riding the stormtroopers

on 8" bikes.

Quoted message said:

paradigmhosting.neta1.jpgOpen ↗

paradigmhosting.neta2.jpgOpen ↗

I have lot's of admiration for style and skill esp. when combined!

On another photography related note...be careful standing in front of a photographer after he's
picked his spot.

pbase.com14628960Open ↗

Mike - or your [censored] will be all over the internet. ;^)

"Michael Dart" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

| It's not so much the weight, as the size and the potential for damage (the way I ride!). I'll have
| to invest in a HAWG to carry it with padding.

Yes, that's another factor.

I'm actually using the Hawg's big brother, the Transalp, in the pic.

--
Pete Fagerlin

Save Fruita trails! petefagerlin.combookcliffs.htmOpen ↗

"(Pete Cresswell)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

RE/

Quoted message said:

but the 800 doesn't have the optical zoom at all. That's the one feature I would really like
to have

Why optical zoom? To see the subject better?

You get a better resolution with the optical zoom. A digital zoom is just like looking closer
at your computer monitor. Sure things look bigger, but you begin to see the dots that make up
the picture.

Quoted message said:

Other than that, everything I've heard so far suggests that you get better quality by just
re-sizing/zooming later on in the graphics editor.

I don't know where you would have heard that. By using a good optical zoom you can get the 'best
picture' quality to begin with. After that any zooming, be it in the camera with a digital zoom or
outside the camera on the computer, begins to degrade that initial quality. BTW, 're-sizing' in a
graphics editor is another whole different kettle of fish. Resizing has it's own set of implications
for quality.
--
Westie

Penny S. <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think my trusty Nikon coolpix 800 that's been to the Yukon and back may have died. I bet the
"system error" repair might run $150+ at that rate

I

Quoted message said:

might as well start shopping as the technology has improved anyway.

I don't know, would *you* fix or replace. I need it for work. ;-)

Fix it, replace it, send old one to me.

Shaun aRe - HTH, HAND!

G.T. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(Pete Cresswell) said:

RE/

Quoted message said:

but the 800 doesn't have the optical zoom at all. That's the one feature I would really like
to have

Why optical zoom? To see the subject better? Other than that, everything I've heard so far
suggests that you get

better

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

quality by just re-sizing/zooming later on in the graphics editor.

Depends on what you're zooming in on. If it's wildlife or a rider at some distance then zooming in
digitally looks like [censored].

Shaun aRe