After 35 years of avid emulsion-based photography, I'm about to take a serious digital plunge, something better than Webcam & camera-phone resolution. Trolling for suggestions, looking for a commercial camera that fills a similar niche to the classic 35mm SLR that I am used to. I want to use it for some astro-photography as well as terrestrial, family snapshots, etc. I suspect there will be some good deals after Christmas. I don't want to break the bank, can we keep it under say, $700? Suggestions? Thanks in advance. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Chuck Nikon D80 and The Canon Rebel seem to fit the bill, I don't know current costs or who has a deal but I'll check that out. Check eBay and as for a lens (general purpose) I'm using an 18-135mm (28-200mm equiv) More astro software seems geared towards the Canon line, just don't like the plastic body of the Rebel. Apples and oranges ........................... Bueno Suerte Rob
Chuck, I have the Canon Digital Rebel (one of those that Rob mentioned). I bought the camera a little bit before a model change. Mine's 8 megapixels: the current model is 10. That's not enough of a difference to be easily noticeable, but they did add new hardware to clean the sensor. I bought mine through Amazon and got some of the accessories through their partner vendors. Amazon's prices were the best I found for non gray-market goods. You'll have the option of buying the camera body separately, or buying it with a kit lens. I bought the camera body and then picked up the USM-II 28-105mm lens. You could compare the kit lens to the general plossl that gets tossed in with a scope. The USM that I bought is a very good mid-quality lens. There's another very high quality series that goes for a chunk more money. I lust, but cannot currently justify the expenditure. Counting extra battery, camera case and a couple of 2-Gig compact flash cards, I got in for a smidgen under $1000. At the time, there was a rebate (now gone) that returned $100 of that. I'm not sure that you'll beat that by much, once you've added in the basic accessories you'll need. Olympus has a couple of DSLRs for a few bucks less, but the images don't compare to the Canon. One of the things you have to account for is the fact you'll need high-speed compact flash cards. These are faster (and pricier) than the garden variety CF and you'll appreciate the speed. A DSLR dumps a lot of data for each image (RAW images on mine typically run 5-6 megabytes), and a fast card will help you get ready for the next shot. My camera will shoot the first 3 shots in about 1 sec--after that, it's about a shot a second. The higher-end DSLRs will shoot a lot faster than that. Rob points out the fact that the camera body is a bit on the small side. I've seen some reviewers complain about that, but I've got larger-than-average hands and it's not a problem for me. The button layout is reasonably sensible, and you can get a shot set up within a couple of seconds once you learn the layout. DSLRs are really cool. You can shoot in the RAW format which captures nearly all of the sensor data (more than the TIFF or JPEG formats can carry), so you've got multiple opportunities to work with a shot long after you've taken it. Rob's given me some helpful tips in that regard. If you've got the bandwidth, contact me offline and I'll send you some shots I've taken with mine. Michael On Dec 17, 2006, at 9:47 PM, Chuck Hards wrote:
After 35 years of avid emulsion-based photography, I'm about to take a serious digital plunge, something better than Webcam & camera-phone resolution. Trolling for suggestions, looking for a commercial camera that fills a similar niche to the classic 35mm SLR that I am used to. I want to use it for some astro-photography as well as terrestrial, family snapshots, etc. I suspect there will be some good deals after Christmas. I don't want to break the bank, can we keep it under say, $700?
Suggestions? Thanks in advance.
I've sent some images to Chuck, but there are probably a few more things worth saying publicly for folks considering the transition. I don't offer this as any sort of expert, but as someone whose experience is still fresh. An important thing to keep in mind is that you're not through spending money after buying the camera. Image-processing software will quickly become desirable. All of the DSLRs I'm aware of will offer you the choice of shooting in JPEGs or RAW (the Canons let you shoot both formats simultaneously). When you shoot JPEGs, the camera's own image processor will choose how to process the image. This includes white balance, sharpening, saturation, contrast, etc. This is very helpful for snapshots, instant viewing and all that. The Canon's processor is very good. My wife has a point-and-shoot Nikon with an excellent processor (although the skies lean a little too far into cyan). But there's always a lot more that's been captured by the camera that you'll eventually want to get out. That's where the image processing software comes in. There are several choices, but the gold standard is probably Photoshop. I've been working with the full version of Photoshop for about a year and have barely scratched the surface. My daughter uses it for her professional work in web design and uses completely different parts of it. It's a huge program and it costs around $400-$500. There's an entry-level version called "Elements" which usually gets thrown in when you buy a scanner or a camera. The good news is that it's a very good program in its own right AND its files are compatible with full Photoshop. I happily used Elements for a couple of years before I graduated. You also have to face the fact that Photoshop is a resource hog. If you've got a $450 Dell Dinkbox laptop, don't even bother. You'll need fast processor(s), lots of memory, lots of disk space. A good color-calibrated monitor is also important. But my oh my, can you pull some beautiful things our of those shots. Michael
Am I going to be spending a lot of time at the computer? That could be a deal-killer for me. Say I shoot 50 or a 100 shots, the equivalent of a few rolls of 35mm film. How long will I be at the keyboard, processing these images? --- Michael Carnes <MichaelCarnes@earthlink.net> wrote:
I've sent some images to Chuck, but there are probably a few more things worth saying publicly for folks considering the transition. I don't offer this as any sort of expert, but as someone whose experience is still fresh.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I bought a Nikon D70 a couple of years ago - my first digital camera. I have to say that the one thing I really hate is having to sit at the computer to process images. I've found, however, that if I shoot both RAW and JPG formats simultaneously (the D70 also allows this) I can review the images and only bother to further process the very best. For family snapshots or typical tourist-type photos, I just print the jpegs with little or no processing. With film, I usually only had two or three keepers per roll, so the ratio is still about the same. I've never tried having my images printed at one-hour photo labs. Anyone else have experience in that regard? Chuck, you should be able to see immediately which pics are worth processing and which you can toss. I've spent as much as 30 minutes processing a single image, and as little time as simply changing the contrast, maybe a one-minute task. As I said, having to process at the computer is my least favorite part of digital photography. However, if you consider the comparable time it would take in the darkroom, digital imagery is the clear winner. Good luck. Oh, and don't forget to call Bill Cowles at Inkley's for his advice. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 9:36 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Digital camera Am I going to be spending a lot of time at the computer? That could be a deal-killer for me. Say I shoot 50 or a 100 shots, the equivalent of a few rolls of 35mm film. How long will I be at the keyboard, processing these images? --- Michael Carnes <MichaelCarnes@earthlink.net> wrote:
I've sent some images to Chuck, but there are probably a few more things worth saying publicly for folks considering the transition. I don't offer this as any sort of expert, but as someone whose experience is still fresh.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________
In a former life, I was a custom printer and dark-room technician- for 5 years, so I know well what is involved in that end of emulsion-based photography. But for the past 20 years, I've paid a lab a few dollars to "do the dirty work" for me. ;) I have to say that while I am not opposed to a computer and software upgrade, I just don't have the free time available to spend futzing with digital images, from what I'm hearing. This is much more time-intensive than conventional photography, assuming one isn't developing their own film and making their own prints. I'd soon have a lifetime's worth of raw images that I could just never get free to work on. I may have to re-think this. What little free time I have is already spoken-for. I'm usually looking for ways to spend less time at the keyboard/monitor. I had hoped that a higher-end camera would equate to less time spent processing. --- Kim <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
I've spent as much as 30 minutes processing a single image, and as little time as simply changing the contrast, maybe a one-minute task. As I said, having to process at the computer is my least favorite part of digital photography. However, if you consider the comparable time it would take in the darkroom, digital imagery is the clear winner.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
The amount of time you spend is entirely up to you--theoretically at least. If you're looking for minimal editing time, then I think you'd use the built-in image processor of the camera and shoot JPEGs. You'd still get the benefit of superior optics and the larger sensor with its better signal-to-noise ratio. I can shoot up to ISO-400 before I notice any objectionable noise--try that with a point and shoot. And things still look pretty decent if I have to go to 800. The problem comes when you being to take a more discriminating look at the images. You'll see highlights that need taming, areas of low exposure, white balances that are off--the list goes on forever. I guarantee you that Rob takes less time per image in Photoshop than I do. He has the benefit of being a professional and knowing what he's doing. As for me, a knockoff image takes me a couple of minutes. But if I think the basic composition is good and I haven't blown out the highlights, 20-30 minutes or even more isn't out of the realm of possibility. If it's an HDR (stacked) shot or a panorama, say bye- bye to the evening. But I think individual mileage will vary. For me it's a hobby, but one that's become more serious. There's a lot of art in my house and I tend to look pretty closely at this sort of stuff. The beauty of a good camera is that you can enjoy the images right away and then go back and edit them when you're old and crotchety. MC On Dec 18, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Chuck Hards wrote:
Am I going to be spending a lot of time at the computer? That could be a deal-killer for me.
Say I shoot 50 or a 100 shots, the equivalent of a few rolls of 35mm film.
How long will I be at the keyboard, processing these images?
Heck, I've got half of those specifications already. ;) --- Michael Carnes <MichaelCarnes@earthlink.net> wrote:
The beauty of a good camera is that you can enjoy the images right away and then go back and edit them when you're old and crotchety.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Michael You are right, the image processing software is the 'other half' of the camera and a good fast computer w/ ample memory really does help. As for image purity, I've seen that the Macs are much better for color and detail. I use an iMac 20" model w/ 2 GB of ram, it helps and of course Photoshop CS2 (CS3 is in public beta testing) for for most of my commercial work and getting to the point of being able to use it all to produce a good astro image takes some time too. But it's a great way to enjoy life and see the roses. I'd ask Tyler for help in imaging, he's really good and has command of the software and understanding of what's needed. Aloha Rob
For what it's worth, I use a dual G5 Mac with a couple of gig of RAM. My monitor is a 19" NEC CRT that I run at 1600x1200. I still prefer CRTs for images because of their high contrast, but LCDs are getting better all the time. Maybe by the time this monitor croaks I'll have a nice LCD. I think the advantage to the Mac is that color calibration is an essential part of the system, so once you've calibrated the monitor your colors stay true (at least as far as the gamuts overlap) all the way through printing. I didn't mention printing. If you actually want to print your images, you'll want to take care of that part of it. Most reasonable quality inkjets will do a pretty good job as long as you use high quality glossy paper. The problem is that dye based inks (such as my older Epson model) will fade after a year or so. My wife has an Epson pigment-based printer that gives nicely saturated images with much more stable color. Of course as anyone with an inkjet knows, filling the blasted thing up with ink costs nearly as much as the printer did in the first place. Still a lot cheaper than keeping a sports car on the road.
You are right, the image processing software is the 'other half' of the camera and a good fast computer w/ ample memory really does help. As for image purity, I've seen that the Macs are much better for color and detail. I use an iMac 20" model w/ 2 GB of ram, it helps and of course Photoshop CS2 (CS3 is in public beta testing) for for most of my commercial work and getting to the point of being able to use it all to produce a good astro image takes some time too. But it's a great way to enjoy life and see the roses.
You're going digital and I'm still trying to figure out how to shoot and process Daguerreotypes... I really like my D-70. As much as I hate to admit it (with one foot still in the 20th century) I really like digital. Have only used it for ground shots so far and those take little (and usually no) processing. And putting them on the hard drive is just a matter of plugging a cable from the back of the computer into the camera and a file containing all of the images magically appears on the desktop. Then click, drag, drop and that's it. pw p.s. Everyone think warm thoughts. I'm about to open my observatory and chase a few asteroids. On 17 Dec 2006, at 21:47, Chuck Hards wrote:
After 35 years of avid emulsion-based photography, I'm about to take a serious digital plunge, something better than Webcam & camera-phone resolution. Trolling for suggestions, looking for a commercial camera that fills a similar niche to the classic 35mm SLR that I am used to. I want to use it for some astro-photography as well as terrestrial, family snapshots, etc. I suspect there will be some good deals after Christmas. I don't want to break the bank, can we keep it under say, $700?
One thing I highly suggest is a USB 2.0 card reader for memory cards. The readers download way faster and easier than from a camera. Just my 2ยข again aloha Rob
participants (5)
-
Chuck Hards -
Kim -
Michael Carnes -
Patrick Wiggins -
Rob Ratkowski Photography