/out/ - Outdoors » Thread #87042

[37 / 12 / ?]

97KiB, 532x747, snowbear.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 16:32:13 No.87042 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>87051 >>87057 >>87179 >>87608

Does anyone here also photograph when they are outdoors, if so what camera are u using.

Looking to buy one myself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 16:38:24 No.87051 Report

Quoted By: >>87057

>>87042
I mostly hunt and fish outdoors, but because of the huge amount of wildlife I get close to I'm thinking about getting a camera as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 16:41:41 No.87057 Report

Quoted By: >>87078 >>87197

>>87042
>>87051

The thing I researched was how fast the camera went from off to snapping a picture.
There's nothing worse than a camera that takes forever to turn on. Meanwhile the thing you wanted a picture of has left or is over.

My camera is a little old now but at the time of my purchase the best choice was a Canon that fit in my pocket. The thing gets up and running almost instantly and has some kind of image stabilization. At 12 megapixels it's probably not the highest resolution these days but why you would ever need even that many is beyond me.

Piney Packer

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO F526c._1337881943.3909.jpg, 39KiB, 700x525

Piney Packer Mon 15 Apr 2013 16:49:18 No.87067 Report

Quoted By: >>87093

I just purchased the camera in the picture. Its a Vivitar F526. They have one thats an outdoors model for $75, which is what I got. It shoots great pics and is waterproof to 10 meters, and shock resistant.

Honestly I should have saved up and got the Nikon outdoor point and shoot. That thing is rad. But for the pictures I take, this does it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 16:59:27 No.87078 Report

Quoted By: >>87093

>>87057
That's my biggest concern as well, usually I have plenty of time, but a slow camera would have made me miss two bear cubs playing last year.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 17:01:12 No.87080 Report

Quoted By:

For snapshots, any compact camera will do.
I like Canon A series, they're an all-around great package.

For quality photographs, get an Olympus Four-Thirds DSLR. It's a great compromise between image quality and portability. It weighs less than half of a full frame DSLR system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 17:21:46 No.87093 Report

Quoted By:

>>87078
I learned the hard way. The Nikon I had before the Canon was crap. Took forever and the pictures were blurry if you didn't hold the camera ultra still. Later found out it's because that model had chips from Sony that ran too slow.

>>87067
Waterproof,,, That's the downside of my Canon. I have to put it in a waterproof bag for kayaking. Takes a long time to get to the camera. Thought about getting a GoPro for wet times. They take stills but only 5 megapixel and a fixed focal length.. if it matters.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 17:45:53 No.87109 Report

Quoted By: >>87111

nikon coolpix aw100.

Picture quality is not the greatest but it's shockproof, water proof, and has a built in GPS.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 81PqX+ldfjL._SL1500_.jpg, 133KiB, 1500x1034

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 17:46:53 No.87111 Report

Quoted By: >>87381

>>87109
forgot pic

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 18:58:18 No.87166 Report

Quoted By:

I have been carrying a cannon power shot sx110is, and it works for what I need it to do. The pros for me at the time was AA batteries which were more readily available than some others and cheaper and the zoom on it. It is not the end all camera but it works I do plan to upgrade when it needs to be replaced. You might look into the Panasonic Lumix TS4.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_9753.jpg, 4MiB, 3270x4456

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 19:00:55 No.87171 Report

Quoted By: >>87174

canon 60d. If you're going DSLR, spend more on the lenses than the camera. but still spend a lot on the camera. that shit's expensive.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_2752.jpg, 3MiB, 3456x5184

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 19:02:23 No.87173 Report

Quoted By: >>87174

I take photos every time i go /out/. It's a good motivator.

pic related: mt rainier, wa, usa

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 19:07:13 No.87174 Report

Quoted By: >>87197

same guy as
>>87171
>>87173

listen, there are two ways you can go when it comes to outdoor photography. you can get a "shock proof water proof light proof" what ever point and shoot, and get family vacation quality photos, or go with a DSLR with some quality lenses and end up with real art. There are exceptions occasionally, but that photo of the bear you have up there was not taken with any of the cameras talked about in the thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 19:15:29 No.87179 Report

Quoted By:

>>87042
Primarily canon 5dm2, with a 70-200/2.8 LIS and the 24/3.5 TSE. I hate carrying the fucking thing, but I never regret it once I get home and process the photos.

Doing it all again I'd like to ditch the f2.8 for an f4 since it's significantly lighter and smaller, and I rarely shoot at f2.8 anyway. The other things which makes a big difference is getting a carbon tripod. Did it and never looked back.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ResizedImage_1364705932737.jpg, 613KiB, 2000x1500

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 19:43:41 No.87197 Report

Quoted By: >>87201 >>87376

>>87174
I, >>87057 , took this with my pocket Canon.
Was kind of a bitch getting it in and out of the waterproof baggy and missed a couple good shots.

Quick on, ability and the ability to throw it in a pocket are the requirements for me.
I'm sure some photo snob will bash the image quality but someone like me it's plenty fine. Camera is pretty outdated by today's standard too.

>picture taken from my kayak, Canon elph 300 hs powershot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 19:45:38 No.87201 Report

Quoted By:

>>87197
Should ad, If I were really into photography, I'd get the big funny looking one with the lense and wear it around my neck 24/7 like a japanese tourist.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO canon-sx130-is-review.jpg, 91KiB, 530x449

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 22:02:17 No.87361 Report

Quoted By:

My EDC is a Canon SX-130

-compact enough for most activities
-not so expensive that I'll cry if it gets smashed, though ime Canons are pretty sturdy.
-Manual mode, and up to 15 second shutter for long exposures
-firmware can be hacked to shoot RAW and take time lapse sequences
-uses AA batteries
-takes pretty good pictures, I've printed them 12x18 and exhibited them.
-28-336mm equivalent zoom

I also usually bring an Ultrapod II, which I really like:
http://www.industrialrev.com/ultrapod-ii.html

I have a micro 4/3 mirrorless camera (Lumix GF2), it's light and great for day hikes and walking around the city, but the battery doesn't last for trips away from electricity, and I wouldn't want to do anything too risky with it like shoot one handed while mountain biking. Also have a D90 DSLR, which takes great pictures and the battery lasts for weeks, but it's a lot to carry and I'm even less likely to take chances with it. And a cheap little waterproof camera, which is fun but the image quality isn't great and it doesn't have any manual mode.

Protip: buy cameras cheap on closeout when the new models come out, you save a lot of money.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 22:12:24 No.87376 Report

Quoted By:

>>87197
For photos like that, any camera will do (phones are not cameras, of course).
This isn't meant to be insulting, but it's a fact that every modern camera on the market delivers enough image quality if that's the standard you expect and are content with.

Just find one that's small and takes standard batteries.
I prefer 6mp sensors because they match the quality of most lenses built into compact cameras, are sufficient for large prints, and get 2x more light per pixel than a 12mp. But they haven't been made in a long time.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pentax.jpg, 43KiB, 800x473

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 22:16:47 No.87381 Report

Quoted By: >>87385

Got this for christmas, wanted a camera that was trailproof. This one's waterproof, shockproof, coldproof, crushproof, adn has a gps built in, pretty awesome. Honestly, when my parents asked what I wanted, and I said trail proof camera, I was thinking >>87111,
but hey, I'm not complaining. It's pretty good, haven't taken it on trail yet though. :(

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 22:20:08 No.87385 Report

Quoted By: >>87391 >>87399

>>87381
>half inch lens diameter
>16 megapixels

As a physicist working with lenses a lot, I'm WHYing hard whenever I see that.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO LM6G.h5.jpg, 45KiB, 506x325

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 22:25:46 No.87391 Report

Quoted By: >>87402

>>87385

To be fair, without any understanding of the sensor size that number is meaningless. You can presume it's not quality optics or a quality sensor.

I bring pic related and a few rolls of film. Holds in ice, high altitudes, works without any battery charge whatsoever and always a great photo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 22:28:11 No.87399 Report

Quoted By: >>87419

>>87385
I know shit all about cameras and lenses. Takes good pictures though. Care to explain your WHYYYing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 22:30:31 No.87402 Report

Quoted By:

>>87391
That number isn't meaningless.
Pixel count is important for how big your prints can be at a certain DPI value.
Packing more pixels than the customer needs for the prints he's going to make reduces image quality, compared to what could be achieved on that sensor.
For looking at pics on computer screens, which most people do 99% of the time, 3mp are enough.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 22:37:05 No.87419 Report

Quoted By: >>87484 >>87522

>>87399
The sensor records more pixels than a lens of that size can resolve. To simplify the explanation, a single light "point" passing through the lens is divided into more than one pixel. So even with perfect focus, the image which the sensor shows is never sharp.
It's like recording the ~12mp pic that passes through the lense and resizing it to 16 mp, using interpolation.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMGP0052.jpg, 2MiB, 4608x2592

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 23:10:08 No.87484 Report

Quoted By: >>87496 >>87501

>>87419
the images it produces look pretty sharp to me, but I'll take your word on it.

REI Guy

REI Guy Mon 15 Apr 2013 23:19:22 No.87494 Report

Quoted By:

Anon is right, you really don't need a high mega-pixel count unless you intend to blow your photos up to giant gallery size prints.

For most consumer cameras, it's a quality vs. quantity thing. The industry just likes to harp on megapooxels because it's an easily quantifiable thing to wave in front of customers.

(Aside from working at REI, I'm also a photographer and co-own a small production company)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 23:20:38 No.87496 Report

Quoted By:

>>87484

That really isn't sharp at all. In fact, the quality is pretty weak. It's okay if you're happy with it and the quality is good enough for you, but you'd get better and sharper pictures if the sensor had half the resolution.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO test.jpg, 2MiB, 4608x2592

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 23:22:40 No.87501 Report

Quoted By: >>87532 >>87533

>>87484
They are sharpened by software calculations in the camera. But in that pic, I can't see a truly sharp edge anywhere. Granted, it's an effect that doesn't show up unless you look at a 100% size pic on a monitor and look for it, but you could achieve that same quality with a lower-pixel sensor and have less noise at low light to go along with it.

Pic is a 6mp image blown up to your pic's size and resharpened for comparison.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 23:38:57 No.87522 Report

Quoted By: >>87540 >>87572

>>87419
are you telling me they haven't figured out how to compensate and use that as an advantage?
I mean this thing is basically a bunch of iphone cameras linked to together

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHrZgS-Gvi4

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fuji-finepix-s91001.jpg, 234KiB, 1280x1183

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 23:47:04 No.87532 Report

Quoted By:

Of course! Better than sport hunting IMO. I go for wildlife shots and landscapes mostly.
I pack something like this and it was less than 300 and that was a couple years ago. Any more zoom and I would need a tripod which I might get someday. Batteries also last a long time, this one is far better than my previous cannon slr. They are getting better everyday.

>>87501
Whoa, nice pic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 23:50:45 No.87533 Report

Quoted By: >>87543

>>87501
>less noise at low light
All else being equal, but sensor technology has improved a lot and a modern 14MP sensor is less noisy than those old 6s were.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 23:56:24 No.87540 Report

Quoted By: >>87566

>>87522
I'm telling you the resolution of the lens is limited by its size, material and the wavelength of visible light.
Size is limited in a compact camera, if you want higher resolution, buy a bigger camera.
Material is pretty much set by price. Cheap cameras use plastic, most use glass and the top tier ones sometimes use crystal glass.
If you want higher resolution, pay a lot more.
Wavelength can't be changed.

So, yeah. All improvements that can be made at a reasonable price have been made. Progress in the past 10 years has concentrated on better software, but you can't put information in a picture that doesn't reach the sensor to begin with.

The only real advancement I know of started with Fuji's F-60, which can shoot 2x6mp pics simultaneously with different shutter speeds, and creates one pic with higher dynamic range from them. So instead of more pixels you get less over- and underexposed areas in a pic with high contrast.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Apr 2013 23:57:44 No.87543 Report

Quoted By: >>87627

>>87533
My point is that a modern sensor with 6mp would have an even better quality than a modern sensor with 12. Unfortunately, those aren't produced. They would be god-tier for a low-light capable compact camera.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Apr 2013 00:21:45 No.87566 Report

Quoted By:

>>87540
I think you underestimate the cleverness of clever people.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Apr 2013 00:24:10 No.87572 Report

Quoted By:

>>87522
Well, that shit is just scary.

guywithagolf

guywithagolf Tue 16 Apr 2013 01:05:14 No.87608 Report

Quoted By:

>>87042
I bring a D100 (8 Megapixels of fury!) and a 50mm 1.8.
Both are indestructible, both I dont care if I drop down a gorge.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Apr 2013 01:18:53 No.87627 Report

Quoted By:

>>87543
Point taken.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches