 BetterPhoto Member |
The best camera for nature photography Hi guys!! I'm interested with nature photography, and I want to buy the best camera for this. My option is Canon EOS 5 or Nikon F90X (base on my budget).Some people says Nikon is more stronger than canon, and canon is so plastic (EOS 5).But now I beggining to think to buy EOS 5, because of cheaper than nikon,unless you guys have better opinion. Please tell me your expirience with Canon EOS 5 or Nikon F90x ,in extreme condition. I hope you can solve my problem.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tony Sweet |
First off, Alex, I hope that you're planning on shooting film. Digital isn't the right tool for nature photography because of the high contrast and various extreme weather conditions in which you will be working. In regards, to cameras, I use Nikon and always have, but Canon is just as good a choice. Plastic can be an issue and there are more electronics in Canon. Pros use both. Do your research. The choice is yours. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Laljit S. Sidhu |
I was wondering if you could elaborate on the disadvantages of using digital cameras for nature photography. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tony Sweet |
The issue that I find is that the files aren't remotely large enough for detailed large prints and the camera themselves aren't rugged enough to withstand extreme weather conditions. But, Ken Rockwell has a lengthy dissertation of film v. digital which is quite informative. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
|
|
|
|
||
|
Laljit S. Sidhu |
This is an old post and was wondering whether if you still felt the same way about digital photography for nature photographers given the advent of the latest digital cameras.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tony Sweet |
Wow! A blast from the recent past!! And an interesting question, Laljit! Do I still feel the same way...well the answer is "somewhat." Here's what I mean: I bought and use the Nikon D2X because that it is where the stock business is heading quickly and because it is an excellent field teaching tool. But,after using it exclusively since it came out, discovered that it (and the 1Ds) didn't handle highlights well. It appears to be an inherent issue with the technology (sensor), as my teaching partner's 1Ds has the same issues, even though it can create a larger file size (more mps). The color out of the camera is excellent, but can't hold a candle to Velvia50. Fred Miranda's Velvia Vision PS plug-in helps here a lot, and can create a genuine Velvia50 look with your digital files, although it can be a bit time consuming. The new professional digital cameras are pretty much bomb proof in regards to being out in various weather conditions. The D2X holds up perfectly well in rain, extreme cold, and blowing sand. Although, the same care and common sense must be taken to protect any camera (film and digital) against the elements. On balance, I like the D2X a lot and will be using it most of the time, but for situations that I know through experience will be a bit tough for the D2X to render the way I like, I'll use my Nikon F6 and Velvia50. Check the July issue of Shutterbug magazine for my extensive review of the D2X. By the way, for film shooters, Velvia50 will be discontinued by year's end, so I would suggest stocking up you freezer!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Irene Troy |
Wow¡KI am so glad that this thread made its way back to the active list! I purchased my first digital SLR ¡V a Konica-Minolta 7D (sorry it¡¦s not a Canon or Nikon; the pro choice!) just a couple of months ago. Because I am fairly new to serious photography and completely new to digital, I keep thinking that I am doing something wrong when my shots seem to lack punch. But, when I look at shots made with my Minolta Maxxum 9 compared to those made with the 7D I notice that the colors are stronger and more accurate with the 9. Now, I still think that I may be doing something wrong with the 7D; wrong white balance choice; wrong exposure; wrong something. Yet, after reading what Tony says here I am beginning to wonder if the problem is comparing film such as Velvia 50 with digital capture. One of the other issues I have experienced with digital is that of speed. Of-course, speed is not an issue when I am trying to photograph flowers, landscapes or still images. However, when attempting to shoot images of wildlife speed becomes a very important consideration. I was, initially, pleased that the 7D shoots at 3fps-RAW/Jpeg; however, I quickly learned that this is actually somewhat misleading. The shutter might function at 3fps, but the write speed is less therefore the actual shooting speed is less. Now before all you digital only folks jump on me ƒº - I have no intention of returning to solo film. I still have a ton to learn about digital and perhaps, once I gain more experience, I will (hopefully) create better images with more punch. But, this discussion has helped me to better understand what I might be coping with when my digital images don¡¦t have the color punch I want.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tony Sweet |
Hi Irene......and HOLD YOUR HORSES!!! Even when scanning Velvia, one still needs to make adjustments in color saturation and sharpening. The intermediary step from capture to viewing what you want to see on your computer still exists when using film and digital. As I said, I'll use my D2X for 95% of my work, but there are isolated, very specific situations where I feel that film still does a better job (for me...subjectively). I'm sure that other pros will vary in their opinions. In regards to color, check out Fred Miranda's (http://fredmiranda.com) to check out Velvia Vision. It really does give the Fuji Velvia color punch that you're looking for to digital files, and for $25, it's one of the best bargains out there. Yep, the fps can be a little misleading, but the write time can be noticeably sped up by using the fastest flash cards available. Right now, I use Sandisk 2.0GB, extreme III. On the Nikon D2X, the write time is only a second or 2 at normal exposure times. The longer the exposure time, the longer the write time. Digital is great, and believe me, I really love it. Film is great, and I really love it, too. And I love computers (I have a Mac Imac G5 and PB G4 for the road, and a G5 desktop with a huge HD monitor at the office). These are all very fast (maxed out RAM) in order to minimize my time in processing images. But, to me, it's all about the right tools for the scene and, it's important to me to be out taking pictures and not spending more time than I have to in front of the computer.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Irene Troy |
Hi Tony - I am sorry if I gave the impression that I do not appreciate the advantages of digital. That certainly was not my intent! I am so new to all of this that I do not feel myself in a position to pass judgment on the pros and cons of either. I was simply relieved to read that my struggles to understand some of the limitations of shooting with digital capture were not that unusual. I have found that when I started shooting with digital capture that my willingness to take risks and try new things increased rather dramatically. For a novice this is terrific because trying new things is how we learn. But, at the same time, perhaps because I am a novice, I have been disappointed by many of my digital images. This has been particularly true when attempting macro shots of flowers. If I shoot the same macro scene with my film camera and my digital camera the film image is generally sharper and the colors less muddied. I also find that it is easier for me to focus in closely with my film camera – I don’t know why this is so, I just know that this is how it feels to my eyes. I like your comment about the right tools for the right job. Another pro-photographer also suggested that I switch to a faster write flash card – something that I have just done. I also upgraded the in-camera software from Konica-Minolta that should accelerate the write speed. I know that there are many photographers, quite a few on these boards, who genuinely enjoy spending time manipulating images in Photoshop. I respect this interest and certainly enjoy seeing the results. But, for me the less time I spend in front of a computer the better!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Collette Photography |
Tony, In your first respons you said that digital was not the best choice fornature photographers. What would you say is best for portrait and wedding photographers? I'm struggling with what camera to get. I was goingto get a medium format film, 'cause everyone has always said that they were best for that. But after being on this site a I'm thinking about digital but I'm completely confused about wich will produce better image quality for larger prints and so on. Just wondered!! Thanks
|
|
|
|
||
|
Laljit S. Sidhu |
Interesting Tony and thanks for such prompt responses. With regard to the Velvia issue. I recently learned that parameters can be adjusted within camera (at least with Canon's) so that saturation and contrast can be set to give Velvia quality color. My understanding is that this essentially does the same thing as post-processing in Photoshop with a plug in. I have not yet tried it but plan to do so as I loved the punch of Velvia film. So far, I have loved the 20D. For an amateur such as myself, the immediate feedback is great for learning and improving. I have even posted some pictures on the site taken with the camera. Now that I no longer have to have slides processed and then brough home and scanned before uploading, the utility of taking classes for me will increase. In the end, I think its a matter of understanding how you will be using your equipment, whether digital or film, in order to decide what is best for a given photographer.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Regarding Velvia 100, the only stuff still currently available in the U.S. is Velvia 100F, which got battered and bruised by a fair number of Velvia 50 users. I went to the Ken Rockwell site and downloaded the data sheets there . . . one in English for Velvia 100F and the other in Japanese, supposedly for the "new" Velvia 100. However, one look at the curves at the end of the data sheets showed they were identical . . . not what I would expect if they were different films . . . particularly in color rendition . . . which is one of the common Velvia 50 user complaints about Velvia 100F. I'm thinking Ken doesn't really have a Velvia 100 data sheet . . . at least not for the "new" stuff that's supposed to be hitting the streets here soon (most credible reason). Either that, or there is no difference between it and Velvia 100F (least credible reason). IMHO, scanning film and printing from the scans doesn't leverage on all the information the film contains unless it's a drum or Imacon Flextite scan at 6000-8000 dpi, and printed at 400-600 dpi. I've seen the difference between "lesser" scans and print dpi's versus what can be done by a good lab with good optical enlarger and good techs operating it. Unless it's a scan and print at the resolutions I mentioned, I'll stick with optical printing. I used to use two labs based on the types of prints desired, but have shifted all my large printing to one of them because of this . . . the other one is doing film scans to print now and it shows. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tony Sweet |
For Irene: No. I didn’t get that impression at all! I just wanted to make you aware of the fact that both film and digital have their places. Again, this is one man’s opinion. A few great pros that I know feel that digital is better than film, and they probably have the photoshop expertise to back it up. You are correct in that digital frees you up to experiment and to see the results immediately. This is huge and one of digital’s great big pluses! As you probably know by now, some photoshop knowledge (not a lot) is required to get digital to have the same color punch as you you see in your flim. This is one of film’s great pluses, but can be equaled by applying some moves in PS. I’m continually looking for photoshop classes to take to hone my skills. It sounds like it might be time for you to consider the same. There are some great PS classes here on betterphoto. I’m considerting taking one next session (in addition to teaching a couple of classes), when our travels slow a bit.
The first post was, believe it or not, in 2002, and was reposted for a new opinion since the advent of the more advanced pro digital cameras. As of now, I’m one of the few pros that I know of who is using film at all. Most are using the Canon D1s and the Nikon D2X with fantastic results. There are certain situations that I feel work better with film and I shoot the Hasselblad Xpan, which is a panoramic film camera. For wedding and portrait work, digital is THE tool to use! Which digital camera to get? If you have Canon glass, consider the 20D, and again if money flowing freely, consider the D1s. The quality on all of these cameras is outstanding and it’s a matter of your budget. Hope that this helps. For Laljit: In regards to adjusting color in the camera, it really looks good on the LCD, but honestly I don’t know any professionals who do much of anything in the camera. I was taught by my gurus to turn off all color adjustments, hue adjustments, and sharpening in the camera and conduct all of those operations in Photoshop. Consider Velva Vision (fredmiranda.com) as your PS plug in to achieve the color saturation achievable with Velvia film. The 20D is an exceptional camera and you are correct that it is absolutely the right tool for immediate feedback and for taking an online class. Actually, in 2006, we will be suggesting that our location workshop students use digital in order to get instant feedback in the field and for being able to process and project images for critique, rather than relying on processing labs, which are becoming more and more rare as time goes by.
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
See luminous-landscape.com for nature done with digital. The best camera is whatever you can carry out there comfortably and get the best possible range of tones in your images. For Ansel Adams, it was the 8 x 10 view camera. For him, the weight and fiddling were worth it. For portability and a decent compromise between weight and output quality, I am considering the Mamiya 7II, or Bronica RF, both medium format rangefinders with superb optics. These negs or slides can be scanned with flatbed scanners that do not cost an arm and a leg. Medium format will always beat out 35mm for detail and microcontrast in the negative and slide. Some interesting claims are surfacing for high-end digital vs. medium format.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tony Sweet |
I agree with you, Doug. It's all personal preference. Of course medium format will beat out 35mm because bigger is always better! Just like 4x5 will always beat medium format and 8x10 will always beat out 4x5. Many photographers shooting high end digital cameras claim that the format is replacing medium format. Unfortunately, Bronica going out of business and Hasselblad focusing on digital backs supports that position. But, we always seem to return to the basic premise that it's all personal preference.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Collette Photography |
Thanks Tony that was imensely helpfull, Right now I have a Nikon N80, but I'm trying to figure out what I can afford, the two cameras you mentioned are the ones that I have been looking into. thanks again, -Collette-
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||