Adk_dib
New member
I'm want to buy a digital camera. Is a 3mpix camera good enough to capture the "views from the top", or should I get a 4mpix?
digital camera question
- Thread starter Adk_dib
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
SteveHiker
New member
I have a 3.3M that is about 4 years old. It takes excellent pictures from the summits. Well, sometimes. I think the quality of the picture has more to do with the photographer (and weather) than the technology.
Since you only get 150x150 on here, you can't really tell how good the photo to the left is. Note that it is of me, so I didn't shoot it, which is probably why it came out so well.
Since you only get 150x150 on here, you can't really tell how good the photo to the left is. Note that it is of me, so I didn't shoot it, which is probably why it came out so well.
ken
Member
the digital cameras are nice - i have a 3.2 megapixel sony (much better than my old floppy disk .8 megapixel) - it takes good pictures - more pixels would be better (but the more pixels, the more information, the bigger your files, the less pictures of the same size will fit on your memory stick) - if you want to do 8x10 prints 3.2 megapixels is good - if you want to crop them and blow them up 4 or more megapixels is better - - - - the best part about the digital pictures is the editing software, it makes up for a bad photographer (adobe is very good but it doesn't have a lot of "buttons", i like photoimpact since it is easier/quicker to use) - after you take your pictures you will now be able to adjust the brightness and contrast, adjust the colors, darken the washed out sky, lighten the dark shadows on mountains, take people that you don't know out of the pictures and all kinds of neat things (but a blurry picture is something that you cant fix, you still have to stay still for a few seconds on a cloudy day).
Last edited:
David Metsky
Well-known member
More important than MP size is camera image quality. A good lens, with good software and features is far more important than image size.Adk_dib said:
If you are mainly concerned with images online then 3-4 MP is fine. This will allow for excellent image size (assuming a good quality camera) and ability to crop, plus enough pixels for an 8x10 print. Consider an ultrazoom (8-12x) if you want wildlife photos and are willing to carry a larger camera body around.
Check the reviews on DCResource and DPReview before any purchase.
-dave-
forestgnome
New member
tripod and polarizer
No matter what resolution your camera has, there are two very important items that will be of tremendous help: a tripod and a polarizer.
A cheap, lightweight tripod will steady the camera, allowing you to use your slowest ISO camera setting which will yield the sharpest image. A $10.00, 1 lb. tripod will do the trick. Get one that has a hook at the bottom of the center post. When shooting, put a rock in a plastic bag and hang it on the hook. This will make your lightweight tripod heavier, therefore more stable. Use the Delayed Shutter Button on the camera ( the thing that lets you push the shutter button then run over and be in the picture). This is helpfull because your finger is not on the camera when the picture is taken, further steadying the camera.
The other important item is the polarizing filter. This is what keeps that blue sky blue, and reduces or eliminates glare. Also, if you want to capture a rainbow the polarizer is a must.
Happy Trails,
Forestnome
No matter what resolution your camera has, there are two very important items that will be of tremendous help: a tripod and a polarizer.
A cheap, lightweight tripod will steady the camera, allowing you to use your slowest ISO camera setting which will yield the sharpest image. A $10.00, 1 lb. tripod will do the trick. Get one that has a hook at the bottom of the center post. When shooting, put a rock in a plastic bag and hang it on the hook. This will make your lightweight tripod heavier, therefore more stable. Use the Delayed Shutter Button on the camera ( the thing that lets you push the shutter button then run over and be in the picture). This is helpfull because your finger is not on the camera when the picture is taken, further steadying the camera.
The other important item is the polarizing filter. This is what keeps that blue sky blue, and reduces or eliminates glare. Also, if you want to capture a rainbow the polarizer is a must.
Happy Trails,
Forestnome
afka_bob
New member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 302
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with most of what has been said here, MPs are not as important as other features, any decent 2MP+ will get you good 5x7s.
The polarizer is a good thing to have for sunny, blue-sky summit shots. You will probably need a lens adapter for it , so ask about that at the store or do some online research about what is available for a particular model – some 3rd party makers might have a better product or deal than the OEM.
A tripod might not be so important to you. Anytime I can trim a pound from my pack, I do, and you can almost always find a place to set your camera for a picture with you in it or a long night exposure: a friendly passing hiker, a rock, your pack, whatever. There are also handy mini-tripods that weigh a couple of ounces and set low to the ground or attach to a tree branch or ski pole with a Velcro strap.
Here’s what I look for:
Image quality – a good store should let you take a picture on your own card or burn it to a cd for you and you can print it or (my favorite) have it printed on photo paper. If you like how the prints look, it has good image quality.
Batteries – I look for AAs, not some proprietary Li-ion brick. AA NiMH batteries are increasing in capacity at an astonishing rate, cheaper than a proprietary, more (and cheaper) recharger options, same batteries that my flashlights take, AA alkalines work in a pinch.
Storage media – Compact Flash is the best deal for the money. My last 3 cameras have been CF, so I can use the same cards across the board.
Ease of use – if it is hard to set it for the pictures you want in the backyard, it will probably be much harder to get the settings right in the wilderness and weather.
Weatherproof – its really nice if you can use it in fog, rain, or snow w/o worry. Digital cameras are a lot more sensitive to dampness and water than their film ancestors. Some cameras are built weatherproof (Olympus Stylus series) or you might even want to get a dive housing (heavy, but not just weatherproof, its waterproof and condensation will never be a problem). A plastic bag can work, too.
The cameras you like probably won’t have each and every feature you want, so you’ll probably have to make a compromise. Think about what really matters for most of your pictures (or the most important pictures) you will take, and go from there.
All of the major names have excellent cameras that will give you great pictures, so don’t worry that you didn’t get the absolute-very-best-latest-whiz-bang camera. Even if you did, next month another one will be better – just get one and have fun because the camera you have takes way better pictures than the camera you are waiting for.
This is a subject I have devoted a lot of time to researching, and if anyone wanted to send a private message or email about this (questions, comments, or stuff I should know), I’d be delighted to talk about it.
The polarizer is a good thing to have for sunny, blue-sky summit shots. You will probably need a lens adapter for it , so ask about that at the store or do some online research about what is available for a particular model – some 3rd party makers might have a better product or deal than the OEM.
A tripod might not be so important to you. Anytime I can trim a pound from my pack, I do, and you can almost always find a place to set your camera for a picture with you in it or a long night exposure: a friendly passing hiker, a rock, your pack, whatever. There are also handy mini-tripods that weigh a couple of ounces and set low to the ground or attach to a tree branch or ski pole with a Velcro strap.
Here’s what I look for:
Image quality – a good store should let you take a picture on your own card or burn it to a cd for you and you can print it or (my favorite) have it printed on photo paper. If you like how the prints look, it has good image quality.
Batteries – I look for AAs, not some proprietary Li-ion brick. AA NiMH batteries are increasing in capacity at an astonishing rate, cheaper than a proprietary, more (and cheaper) recharger options, same batteries that my flashlights take, AA alkalines work in a pinch.
Storage media – Compact Flash is the best deal for the money. My last 3 cameras have been CF, so I can use the same cards across the board.
Ease of use – if it is hard to set it for the pictures you want in the backyard, it will probably be much harder to get the settings right in the wilderness and weather.
Weatherproof – its really nice if you can use it in fog, rain, or snow w/o worry. Digital cameras are a lot more sensitive to dampness and water than their film ancestors. Some cameras are built weatherproof (Olympus Stylus series) or you might even want to get a dive housing (heavy, but not just weatherproof, its waterproof and condensation will never be a problem). A plastic bag can work, too.
The cameras you like probably won’t have each and every feature you want, so you’ll probably have to make a compromise. Think about what really matters for most of your pictures (or the most important pictures) you will take, and go from there.
All of the major names have excellent cameras that will give you great pictures, so don’t worry that you didn’t get the absolute-very-best-latest-whiz-bang camera. Even if you did, next month another one will be better – just get one and have fun because the camera you have takes way better pictures than the camera you are waiting for.
This is a subject I have devoted a lot of time to researching, and if anyone wanted to send a private message or email about this (questions, comments, or stuff I should know), I’d be delighted to talk about it.
Last edited:
arghman
New member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,352
- Reaction score
- 153
I agree w/ most of what other people here have said. Megapixels aren't the holy grail--I'd never buy a camera with < 3 megapixels but more than that isn't useful unless you're going to print large pictures. Lens quality / image quality are more important.
If this is your first digital camera, my suggestion is do some research (dpreview and dcresource and steves-digicams are good sites) but get a lower-priced basic name-brand camera, upgrade to a better one later after you are more familiar with the pluses/minuses. Anytime I've ever bought a new type of electronic gadget (camera, GPS, mp3 player, etc.), the first one is always a "learner", then after I've used it for a while I know what to look for in my next purchase, and the technology will be better and cheaper by then.
re: tripod -- my hiking stick has a cork top that you can unscrew & it becomes a monopod. Not as stable as a tripod but it has helped a number of times. (not freestanding obviously)
Think ahead what you want for zoom, because unless you buy a digital SLR ($$$$), you're getting a permanent lens... although with some cameras it is possible to attach additional lenses for zoom/wideangle/macro correction.
I take lots of closeups of alpine plants & my current camera (Kodak DC4800, discontinued, it's not great anyway) drives me up the wall because it doesn't focus well on near objects & it doesn't have manual focus. Can't understand why all digital cameras don't offer a manual focus -- they have the motor inside to move the lens, why can't they put it under software/user control?
If this is your first digital camera, my suggestion is do some research (dpreview and dcresource and steves-digicams are good sites) but get a lower-priced basic name-brand camera, upgrade to a better one later after you are more familiar with the pluses/minuses. Anytime I've ever bought a new type of electronic gadget (camera, GPS, mp3 player, etc.), the first one is always a "learner", then after I've used it for a while I know what to look for in my next purchase, and the technology will be better and cheaper by then.
re: tripod -- my hiking stick has a cork top that you can unscrew & it becomes a monopod. Not as stable as a tripod but it has helped a number of times. (not freestanding obviously)
Think ahead what you want for zoom, because unless you buy a digital SLR ($$$$), you're getting a permanent lens... although with some cameras it is possible to attach additional lenses for zoom/wideangle/macro correction.
I take lots of closeups of alpine plants & my current camera (Kodak DC4800, discontinued, it's not great anyway) drives me up the wall because it doesn't focus well on near objects & it doesn't have manual focus. Can't understand why all digital cameras don't offer a manual focus -- they have the motor inside to move the lens, why can't they put it under software/user control?
This is a mixed bag. AAs are great for cost/replaceability but the performance is much better with proprietary lithiums. Batteries are ***NOT*** increasing in capacity at an astonishing rate. The battery chemistries in use now have been around for many years, they're making slight optimizations but unlike silicon where every year they cram more memory & processing power into the same area, with batteries the manufacturers have neared an asymptotic maximum for energy density. They *are* improving power density (important for driving larger motors, don't think it matters that much for cameras unless they are power hogs) though don't look for miraculous breakthroughs there. Anyway, lithium has a big advantage over NiMH in energy capacity, dictated by the chemistry itself. The other reason proprietary batteries hold more is that you're taking a given volume and filling it nearly completely (except for the surface) with energy storage. With AA's, you have air space between the batteries, plus a higher surface-to-volume ratio, so you're wasting more of the camera space on the "skins" of the AA cells. The big down side to the proprietary ones is their cost/availability/charger though. I panicked when my camera got discontinued because the proprietary batteries disappeared too. But there are 3rd party battery manufacturers.afka_bob said:
David Metsky
Well-known member
I agree with nearly all of agfa_bob's thoughts. I too like AAs but if you want an ultracompact (which I do for skiing and around town) you'll probably have to go with Li-ion proprietary batteries. Otherwise I'd try and stick with NiMH AAs.
Memory cards do vary in price, but I wouldn't make it a major deciding factor if the camera you want uses a different format. My current camera has SmartMedia (a format that has died) so any camera I buy now will require new cards. The main ones are CompactFlash, SD, xD, and Sony MemoryStick. Of them the MS and xD are most expensive and used by fewest manufacturers. CF and SD are pretty similar in price, SD being smaller in size, CF allowing for larger cards. But with a 1 Gig SD card down to $70 and prices dropping, I don't think it's a big factor.
It used to be that digital camera movies were basically a toy feature. Now some cameras (especially the new Canons) are producing very high quality movies. They take up a huge amount of memory, and they still aren't a replacement for a video camera, but nice for things like skiing, etc.
One feature to look for in a camera is an AutoFocus illuminator lamp. Most have them these days but a few still don't. This is what helps the camera focus in low light situations, I wouldn't buy a camera without one.
Tripods are great, but for most shots you won't need one. I keep my camera either in my pocket or on my hipbelt, so a tripod would stay in my pack all the time. I do own several, but I rarely carry one with my while hiking. If you get an ultrazoom camera, consider one with IS (image stabilization) which will allow you to shoot in lower light and keep the image sharp.
Some questions to ask yourself before deciding on a camera:
If you buy a Canon, Olympus, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Minolta, or Panonsonic you won't have a bad camera. It may not be perfect or the exact right camera for you, but you'll get a quality product. Right now, I'd lean towards the Canon SD200/300 for ultracompact, Panasonic FZ20 or Canon IS for ultrazoom, Oly 410 for weatherproof compact, but there are others that deliver similar goods.
-dave-
Memory cards do vary in price, but I wouldn't make it a major deciding factor if the camera you want uses a different format. My current camera has SmartMedia (a format that has died) so any camera I buy now will require new cards. The main ones are CompactFlash, SD, xD, and Sony MemoryStick. Of them the MS and xD are most expensive and used by fewest manufacturers. CF and SD are pretty similar in price, SD being smaller in size, CF allowing for larger cards. But with a 1 Gig SD card down to $70 and prices dropping, I don't think it's a big factor.
It used to be that digital camera movies were basically a toy feature. Now some cameras (especially the new Canons) are producing very high quality movies. They take up a huge amount of memory, and they still aren't a replacement for a video camera, but nice for things like skiing, etc.
One feature to look for in a camera is an AutoFocus illuminator lamp. Most have them these days but a few still don't. This is what helps the camera focus in low light situations, I wouldn't buy a camera without one.
Tripods are great, but for most shots you won't need one. I keep my camera either in my pocket or on my hipbelt, so a tripod would stay in my pack all the time. I do own several, but I rarely carry one with my while hiking. If you get an ultrazoom camera, consider one with IS (image stabilization) which will allow you to shoot in lower light and keep the image sharp.
Some questions to ask yourself before deciding on a camera:
- What am I going to use this camera for? (hiking, around town, kids, sports, snapshots, art photograph)
- What am I going to do with the images? (web use, email, 4x6 prints, 8x10s, larger)
- How big a camera do I want to carry? (ultracompact - think altoids tin, compact, larger, dSLR)
- What features do I want? (movie mode, straight to printer, manual controls, point and shoot)
- How much am I willing to spend? (include cost of batteries, charger, and extra memory cards)
If you buy a Canon, Olympus, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Minolta, or Panonsonic you won't have a bad camera. It may not be perfect or the exact right camera for you, but you'll get a quality product. Right now, I'd lean towards the Canon SD200/300 for ultracompact, Panasonic FZ20 or Canon IS for ultrazoom, Oly 410 for weatherproof compact, but there are others that deliver similar goods.
-dave-
afka_bob
New member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 302
- Reaction score
- 0
arghman said:
Well, two years ago, 1600 or 1700 mAh AA NiMH were hot stuff, now 2300 or 2500 mAh are now available. I guess silicon is more astonishing, and if you want to talk about silicon instead of batteries, well, OK I was talking about batteries that have increased in capacity by about 50%.
Perhaps I am too-easily astonished. Can I use a different word? How about "impressive"? Or "substantial"?
Now lets put battery power in a big-picture context:
Does your head lamp run off of the same batteries as your camera?
How many different kinds of batteries do you have to carry hiking, or just on a long-weekend?
How much weight could you save on a longer trip by only carrying one type of battery that powers your camera, flashlight, GPS, Walkman, and audio recorder, and only one charger that works in North America/Europe/South America/Asia power and your car's cirgarette lighter?
I generally don't have to change batteries for a weekend trip when I take maybe 300 pictures. If my NiMH AAs are deficient compared to Li-ions, they haven't been a problem in real-world use.
Also, Li-ions generally die (lose the ability to hold a charge) within 3 years of manufacture, whether you use them or not. I haven't lost any AA NiMHs in the four and a half years I've been using them.
How about when you are 2 days from the end of the trail and your much-better Li-ions are dead. Are they still much better than the spare alkalines AAs for your headlamp (or the AAs you bum from somebody in a shelter) that you can pop into your camera and take another 50 or 60 pictures?
The Li-ions are really good, but the versatility of AA power has saved my bacon more than once and certainly simplified my life, at least the battery-powered parts of it.
That said, I wouldn't NOT get a camera because it took Li-ions, but I DO look for AA first, all other things being equal.
professor
New member
While conventional wisdom says that you mainly need more megapixels if you are doing large enlargements, also bear in mind that it will also allow you to use your digital zoom more indiscriminately.
David Metsky
Well-known member
Personally, I do all that in PhotoShop rather than in the camera. Digital zoom isn't worthless like it used to be, but there are rarely reasons to use it, IMO.professor said:
-dave-
professor
New member
Actually - the advent of little "snapshot printers" which allow less computer savvy (or busy, or lazy!) people to print directly from their camera, bypassing the computer and photoshop can make the digital zoom worthwhile for composing.
Papa Bear
New member
Not much gain
If you go from 2 to 4 megapixels, you are doubling the pixels per unit area which is equivalent a zoom ration of only about 1.4.
Going from 3 to 4 megapixels yields an equivalent zoom ratio of only about 1.15.
Pretty meager.
Pb
Although more megpixels will allow some gain from digital zoom, it's surprisingly little.professor said:
If you go from 2 to 4 megapixels, you are doubling the pixels per unit area which is equivalent a zoom ration of only about 1.4.
Going from 3 to 4 megapixels yields an equivalent zoom ratio of only about 1.15.
Pretty meager.
Pb
I had to select a camera with "proprietary" Li-Ion batteries for underwater work. I was hesistant because AA's are superior for never running out of batteries, but then I found there were a large number of battery suppliers that make interchangeable Li-Ion equivalents for 1/2 to 1/3 of the cost that the camera manufacturer wants for his batteries.
Check for these batteries on the Internet for the camera you are thinking of buying.
Finally, prices are really dropping and I would not be surprised if they fall lower after Christmas. Take a look at www.techbargains.com for hot deals.
Check for these batteries on the Internet for the camera you are thinking of buying.
Finally, prices are really dropping and I would not be surprised if they fall lower after Christmas. Take a look at www.techbargains.com for hot deals.
David Metsky
Well-known member
The camera I'm buying this year (Canon SD300) has a brand new battery format. I'm hoping the knock offs arrive soon.
-dave-
-dave-
Warren
Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 775
- Reaction score
- 21
Lot's of good info here. On the topic of what to look for I will add, look at the macro function. Some camera will be muhc better, more flexible in this regard.
David Metsky
Well-known member
The Nikons in particular are noted for their excellent very close macro mode. I've been happy with macro on most Olys and Canons for what it's worth, but I don't try to fill up the image with a bumblebee.Warren said:
-dave-
Gris
New member
Lens is most important. Also try to get some optical zoom, at least 3-4x, preferrably 6-10x. Finally, unless you have a very steady hand, get one with a gyro (stabilization). I have an old Olympus 2100UZ two MP with a 10x or is it 12x, optical zoom and stablization - it takes outstanding pics. Ya can't go wrong with Olympus or Cannon digitial IMO. The cannon 6.0 dig rebel rocks (but is a heavy camera). 
forestgnome
New member
Check out www.mountwashington.org (Photo Journal, Patrick LaFreniere) for pictures I have taken with a Digital Canon Rebel. Any pictures from July to the present are with this camera.
I agree with Dave M. about the Image Stabalizer(IS). In the Photo Journal, in October (www.mountwashington.org), you'll see a bear that I captured with this lens, set at 300mm. It would be impossible to take a shot at 300mm without a tripod or IS. This one shot has already generated more revenue than the $425.00 price tag! The IS is NOT BS!!!
I may be coming from a relatively serious perspective, but I'm passionate about capturing the magic of the forest. To me, 1.5 lb. of tripod is of no consequence, especially since my weekly 12ish mile hike is my major source of aerobic exercise. If you want a serious result, I recommend a tripod and the slowest ISO your camera has.
Arghman's point about the monopod is well taken. This is my next equipment purchase. My hunch is that it will provide enough stability, except for nightime stuff which is a great passion of mine, auroras, planets, Moon, etc.
I prefer hiking with one pole, so if this can do the job of the tripod I'll go with it.
Happy Trails,
Forestnome
Fresh Snow!!! Yes!!!
I agree with Dave M. about the Image Stabalizer(IS). In the Photo Journal, in October (www.mountwashington.org), you'll see a bear that I captured with this lens, set at 300mm. It would be impossible to take a shot at 300mm without a tripod or IS. This one shot has already generated more revenue than the $425.00 price tag! The IS is NOT BS!!!
I may be coming from a relatively serious perspective, but I'm passionate about capturing the magic of the forest. To me, 1.5 lb. of tripod is of no consequence, especially since my weekly 12ish mile hike is my major source of aerobic exercise. If you want a serious result, I recommend a tripod and the slowest ISO your camera has.
Arghman's point about the monopod is well taken. This is my next equipment purchase. My hunch is that it will provide enough stability, except for nightime stuff which is a great passion of mine, auroras, planets, Moon, etc.
I prefer hiking with one pole, so if this can do the job of the tripod I'll go with it.
Happy Trails,
Forestnome
Fresh Snow!!! Yes!!!
prino
New member
Thanks for all the great info everyone. I'm in the market for a digital and I've learnt more about the subject in the last 10 minutes than I thought possible.
What a great resource!
-Phil
What a great resource!
-Phil
