|
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Looking to get a new camera for this year. Looking for something with the fastest delay time...if that makes sence...
The one I have is about 2 years old, 8 megapixel and it takes a few seconds between photos to snap another one. Looking to get one with 2 things...
1. Big wide screen in the back
2. Fastest delay time inbetween taking photos.
Thanks for any and all your help. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | Looking for a DSLR or a point and shoot? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes | I run mine in movie mode then take the frames off you want. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | We use DSLRs, D40 Nikon, D50 Nikon, and a D80. REALLY fast, great features and easy to use. The 40 also accepts the SDHC 4 gig card. Got my 40 with the 18 to55, plenty of lens for the rig, for around $475. Get a $60 Pelican Case and the camera can knock around the rig, even in the rain. You can also carry the Archos and hat cam in the Pelican.
Attachments
----------------
 DSC_0092.JPG (43KB - 102 downloads)
DSC_0043.JPG (104KB - 108 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Just looking for a simple point and shoot with a wide screen and a fast. Any more suggestions? I'll look into that Nikon Steve, thanks! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4053
Location: Land of the Musky | I have four Fuji E550 cameras. Great camera IMO and you can pick them up on eBay for about $40-$60. Plug and play into a computer with no programs too. I take all my lure pics with one. They have all the settings (if you know how to use them). My first one cost me over $300 and was worth it then. I buy them when I think of it just ot have extra ones on hand.
James |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | I have a Sony Alpha. I would've like to have gone Cannon, but being a Minolta guy back in the days of film, I have a bag full of lenses. The Sony is a helluva camera though, and I don't have the first complaint.
For a point and shoot, I carry an Olympus 720. Submersable waterproof, shockproof, size of a deck of cards. They're up to a 770 now which is crush and freezeproof as well. They're 7.1 mp, and the shot-to-shot delay is quick enough for my satisfaction for taking fish pics, which is what I bought it for. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 385
| I have a sony cybershot, and it seems to recover fairly fast to take another photo. Only complaint I have(and this may be the case with most dig. cameras) is that thing sucks the juice out of batteries pretty fast. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Long Prairie, Minnesota | Mike:
Have to go with Steve on this one. The SLR's are definately the way to go. I use an Olympus and it is sweet. Put a 2 gig memory card into it and can store 2000 pics on it. Plus you can shoot a ton of shots in a matter of seconds. Throw in a pelican case like Steve mentioned and you are golden. Might cost you some extra greenbacks in the beginning, but you will definately not regret it at all!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | Agreed. I use my DSLR in a boat, but on foot I don't like carrying it and trying to keep it dry. Then I carry the Olympus 720. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Those Nikon's look really nice, but I want a larger screen in the back. I have NEVER used the eye view finder on a digital camera and I want to have the biggest screen possible. Sony seems to have the largest screens....any thoughts on how fast their delay time is? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
| I will never!!! buy a sony!
2 of my friends have the "nicer Sonys" $400-$600 range half the pics on both of them are terrible. Especialy at night be prepared to take 5 seconds between photos in the dark only to have 1 of 3 pics be blurry.
Fujis rock
I'm on my third now and a few friends buy them now because of it.
I've even droped an older fuji in the lake and used it for years after.
I would Look at the f series.
Jason
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Long Prairie, Minnesota | Agree with Jason on the Sony's. While the one we have at work takes really nice pictures, the time between pics is way longer than any other camera i have used. The recovery time between shots only gets worse the more demanding the setting is for the picture, i.e. Nighttime, etc |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Thanks Jason, I will look into those FUJI's! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1316
Location: Madison, WI | Sony's are nice but the big problem is their proprietarymemory cards (pro duo). You'll end up spending about $10 a gig for memory. Where secure digitals you'll spend about $5 per gig. The wife has a DSC-W80, it's take nice pictures and is pretty quick to bounce back after pictures. But if you're looking for very quick, as Steve said go with a DSLR. They are a little bulky, but it will take a much better picture and there's no delay.
Check out
http://dealnews.com/categories/Electronics/Cameras/167.html
for some good up-to-date deals
and for some reviews. I'll ask some buddies who have some higher end cameras to see what sites they use.
http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/?tag=glnav
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1316
Location: Madison, WI | Here's one.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm
and another
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/
cnet can sometime be a little bias. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | Magruter - 3/24/2008 9:56 AM
Sony's are nice but the big problem is their proprietarymemory cards (pro duo).....But if you're looking for very quick, as Steve said go with a DSLR. They are a little bulky, but it will take a much better picture and there's no delay.
Agreed on the DSLR, and the Sony DSLR (vice CyberShot) takes standard Compact Flash cards. |
|
| |
|
| Pentax Optio W30. Waterproof, nice big screen and even takes decent video |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | Jason Bomber - 3/24/2008 9:26 AM
I will never!!! buy a sony!
2 of my friends have the "nicer Sonys" $400-$600 range half the pics on both of them are terrible. Especialy at night be prepared to take 5 seconds between photos in the dark only to have 1 of 3 pics be blurry.
Manta18 - 3/24/2008 9:38 AM
Agree with Jason on the Sony's. While the one we have at work takes really nice pictures, the time between pics is way longer than any other camera i have used. The recovery time between shots only gets worse the more demanding the setting is for the picture, i.e. Nighttime, etc
Are you guys speaking of DSLR's or Cybershots? There's a significant difference between the two platforms.
The problems each of you site, aren't the camera's problems, but are the nature of low light photography. The longer shutter speeds at night take more "information" into the camera. It has to sort through it and put it to disc. Instead of taking in 1/1000 sec. worth of image, it's taking in 3/4 sec up to 30 seconds of imagery. It's got to commit all of that digital information to memory. That's the nature of the beast. Some cameras can work faster, but you'll find that in the $1500+ bodies.
Likewise, "blurry" shots aren't a function of the camera, it's a function of the camera not being held still while the shutter is open. Even a $6000 Cannon will be blurry if you don't hold it perfectly still while shooting in low light.
Jeff
Edited by esoxfly 3/24/2008 2:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
| I believe they both have DSLRs, but the fact of the matter is My old 3.2 fuji takes less blurred pics than the brand new 8.3 sonys.
"Even a $6000 Cannon will be blurry if you don't hold it perfectly still while shooting in low light. "
I do 90 percent of my fishing at night. All my photos are at night. The pic quality has nothing to do with me not holding the camera still. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Along the same lines as Brad, my vote goes for the waterproof, freezeproof, crushproof Olympus Stylus 770. As far as point and shoot cams this one has been sweet. I have snorkeled with it for the last ~2 months and it has been fantastic. Have jumped off a 30' waterfall with it attached to my wrist and still no problems. Most cams have a feature that allows you to take up to 16 photos in rapid succession (a few seconds). Might be a nice feature for a guide to take a sequence of shots from the net, hold, and back into the water. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 227
Location: New Brighton, MN | You should take a look at Casio's low profile cameras. Very thin profile, with a huge LCD screens in back, and take pics quick, VERY little or no delay.
http://www.casio.com/products/Cameras/Exilim_Card/EX-S10BK/
Edited by Willis 3/24/2008 9:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | Jason Bomber - 3/24/2008 1:30 PM
I believe they both have DSLRs, but the fact of the matter is My old 3.2 fuji takes less blurred pics than the brand new 8.3 sonys.
"Even a $6000 Cannon will be blurry if you don't hold it perfectly still while shooting in low light. "
I do 90 percent of my fishing at night. All my photos are at night. The pic quality has nothing to do with me not holding the camera still.
I'm not wanting to argue, but rather clarify. By blurry or blurred, are you referring to general picture quality, exposure, depth of focus and resolution, or the image actually being blurred, as in showing motion? If you use flash, you're good to go, and your shutter speed can remain nice and quick, and the image nice and crisp. But flash can wreak havoc on exposure and image quality if the camera didn't meter properly. This can wash out the image and ruin a good picture. And an apeture not set correctly can leave parts of an image out of focus, due to shallow depth of focus. But true blurriness is motion being captured on the sensor or film, depending on format, and unless it's a fighter jet at high speed, it has to do with slower shutter speed and camera movement. It's why you use a tripod and remote release when taking landspcapes and images of the Aurora or other night shots with no flash and slow ss.
Again, I'm not wanting to argue or get off topic, but I hate to see a camera villianized for the wrong reason. Sony makes a fine camera. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | Let me add- I can't speak to the Cybershot. They may very well suck. But the Sony Alpha platform is well done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Long Prairie, Minnesota | Sorry......and to clarify, I was speaking about the Cybershot.
The DSLR that I have is an Olympus. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ahh, I have the solution to all the worry about blurry...
This body and this lens, with VR....
Nikon D50, AF-S NIKKOR 16-200mm :3.5-5.6G ED
Lens will mount up with a D40 too.
Images shot with my knock around SLR: Panasonic DCM-FZ8, Image quality set at .3 megapixel wich is 640X480 pixels, perfect for the boards. When I use it to shoot anything serious, I set it to 7 megapixel. Cool little digital SLR
Probably more than Mike wants to spend, but when I point this camera and hit that shutter button, I'm going to get great images.
Attachments
----------------
P1010055.JPG (164KB - 101 downloads)
P1010056.JPG (152KB - 106 downloads)
P1010057.JPG (162KB - 103 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Another point:
One image was shot with the Panasonic at .3 megapixel, the other resized to the same pixel count. Which is which? Good glass is important, google digital imaging and you'll read article after article that the the lens quality pretty much determines the overall picture quality if the rest of the camera is made reasonably well.
Attachments
----------------
P1010065.JPG (158KB - 105 downloads)
P1010066.JPG (75KB - 103 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1710
Location: Mt. Zion, IL | is the top one higher resolution? The ceiling in the back room is where i noticed a SLIGHT difference
|
|
| |
|
| Mike, with all the crappy days you spend on the water IMO you would be smart to look at waterproof or water resistant cameras...the Pentax is water PROOF so you can get it soaking wet, even take release pics underwater and not have to worry....
takes good pics, 7 megapixels, and has a big screen.
do you want a big bulky camera or something small that is waterproof and takes good pics?
as for the time it takes to recover between shots..it's minimal...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1504
Location: Oregon | Mike,
The lengthy delay you are talking about may just be a result of the image size selected on your camera. If you haven't already, change the size of the image to something smaller like what you would use to email someone instead of something with tons of pixels. With an 8megapixel camera the delay is probably the camera storing the huge image. Just a thought.
I bought a 6 megapix Pentax Optio WPI a couple years ago which is waterproof. I bought the camera because lots of anglers spoke highly of them here in the west. The camera has given me no problems whatsoever and like it for the most part. My only complaint would be that the movie quality is low. You might look at this camera.
Jed
Edited by RiverMan 3/25/2008 12:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
| RiverMan - 3/25/2008 12:53 PM
"Mike,
The lengthy delay you are talking about may just be a result of the image size selected on your camera. If you haven't already, change the size of the image to something smaller like what you would use to email someone instead of something with tons of pixels. With an 8megapixel camera the delay is probably the camera storing the huge image. Just a thought. "
This makes NO sense.
Why would you buy an 8mp camera to take 3mp pics?
I'm sure some of these pics will end up in MHM or another mag/ad so lower res is probably not an option.
Always have your camera set on the highest res!
Edited by Jason Bomber 3/25/2008 1:32 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Another vote for the Olympus Stylus shock and waterproof cameras. Just got one for my wife at Christmas and it is a great camera w/ fast recycle time. On days when I don't want to get my D-70 wet the Olympus will get the call.
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1314&...
Edited by Will Schultz 3/25/2008 2:32 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1504
Location: Oregon | Jason Bomber - 3/25/2008 1:29 PM
This makes NO sense.
Why would you buy an 8mp camera to take 3mp pics?
I'm sure some of these pics will end up in MHM or another mag/ad so lower res is probably not an option.
Always have your camera set on the highest res!
Hi Jason,
Digital cameras come with a "small, medium, and large" setting because the manufacturers recognize that not everyone needs a super high pixel count image for what they are doing. Keep in mind, the images you see on your computer will only be as good as the pixel count on your monitor (or fish finder).
A 2MB photo like you would get from a "high" setting is not needed if you are going to do nothing more with it than upload it to a web page or email it to someone. Have you ever gotten an email photo from someone that is 2MB in size and you sit around the computer for two minutes while it downloads? Now if you intend to enlarge the photo for a desktop wallpaper, or to print and frame, archive them for some reason, then yes by all means use a larger setting which leaves your options open for the future. Keep in mind too that if you are storing 1-2MB photos by the hundreds you will gobble up the hard drive space on your machine very quickly. Bottom line, use a medium to small setting for most photos and the quality will be more than good enough.
Riverman.
Edited by RiverMan 3/25/2008 4:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 46
| MIKE, MAKE SURE THE CAMERA YOU BUY HAS A POWER HANDLE..LOL CANNON MAKES ONE'S WITH BIG SCREENS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | RiverMan,
That's why I posted the images earlier, showing a shot taken with the camera set at .3 mega pixel, and the other taken at 7 mega pixel, then resized to the ideal size (640X480) for the board. The second image was resized.
Shooting images for WalleyeFIRST tournament coverage, we use the highest setting possible and save every one burned to a CD. The idea is to have a Hi Rez copy available if anyone want one for print media. Then we resize them for the web at 640X480 and upload them to the board and an album.
I'd argue it's no more difficult to grab my D50 out of the waterproof Pelican than finding a little hand sized unit in the dash or somewhere in the rig, and once I have that thing pointed at the angler and fish, I will shoot extremely high quality images with color that pops and great detail, FAST. |
|
| |
|
| what if it is pouuuuurrrring down rain...do you still use your non water proof camera???
also, what about battery life in realllllly cold weather...say it's 30 degrees does your battery last all day taking shots?
the little ones like the pentax fit nicely in your front jeans pocket or inside your bibs to keep them warm so the battery life is good in cold weather...and the underwater release shots are pretty sweet too...ask Sorno! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 203
Location: Minnesota | Mike... you'd might want to check out digital camcorders... taking movies and the capability of having a pic taken all in one... cant beat that... If I can remember right, Sanyo makes a good camera... waterproof... dont have to stop video to take pic then back to video... u can keep the video running and take a pic at the same time... and all those muskies you hook... you can video them underwater... including totally in-water release... for sure there'll be cool shots there... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 106
Location: Michigan | D2H 8g card 24 to 120mm lens SB flash. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | bn,
Yes I do. The camera is only out of the Pelican Case for a couple seconds ( kept under a console) and I have 6 shots. I use my cap bill and a little waterproof cloth draped over the housing, or a small $3.50 umbrella stored in a rod locker if I think we are going to have a complete photo shoot including video. Didn't think all the PWT and FLW weigh ins are in sunny weather, did you? That's 3 hours shooting in the rain. No problems at all. Sure it's a little more hassle, but the high quality images are worth it to me. Battery life with the Nikon D series is excellent, even in extreme cold. I carry it out on the ice quite a bit and shoot in very cold temps with no trouble. I can shoot over 450 shots and still have plenty of juice left at 35 degrees or less.
I can't tell you how many times we have looked at shots otherwise composed perfectly that are not 'fixable' enough in photoshop to use on the cover. Almost every time, the camera is a smallish pocket unit, and the light was poor enough the camera wasn't capable of compensating.
That said, if a personal memory shot is all you are after, you may not want a D series Nikon or similar SLR.
The D2H is sweet...
I think any guide who is taking shots his clients will treasure and he will use to promote his business should look into a DSLR, but that's me. |
|
| |
