"James McNangle" <mcnangle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:2ah3c41lrd5ff7k3mvoj162ba7dkeg041r@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Mike Russell <groupsRE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>> What camera do you use?
>>
>>A CoolPix 8700.
>
> I also have a CoolPix 8700, and I like it a lot, but it does have some
> serious
> limitations. The worst is the long inactive period after you press the
> trigger.
> This is a particular disadvantage when you are trying to photograph
> grandchildren.
>
> Next is the counter- intuitive menu system, and the buttons which are
> scattered
> randomly over the camera body in places where you are quite likely to
> press some
> button performing some obscure function without noticing, so that -- as
> has
> happened to me -- you find all your photos are taken at low res, or the
> like,
> when you get home.
>
> It is also a pity that it is impossible to set the focal length and
> extension to
> specific values, and the actual values of these parameters are not
> recorded on
> the photo.
>
> Its greatest virtue is that it is lightweight and compact, takes
excellent
> macro photos without too much effort and is very flexible, so that I can
> get
> excellent photos in nearly every case. It is also relatively compact
and
> inconspicuous, so that I can toss it over my shoulder when we are
> travelling
> without feeling that anybody is going to bother trying to steal it.
> (Which is
> probably also why it is currently in the repair shop with an erratic on-
> off
> switch.)
>
> I am interested in extreme close-up work, and recently bought a Canon
> EOS400d
> with EFS 17-85mm, EFS 60mm macro, and super macro lenses. This feels a
> much
> nicer camera to use, but I was very disappointed to find that using the
> camera
> handheld to photograph flowers I can generally get better results with
the
> Nikon, and even for scenery it does not appear to be as sharp. I
suspect
> I must
> be doing something stupid, but I haven't managed to work out what.
Is that with the 17-85? I hate to say it but some copies can be really
bad,
I had a copy and I also borrowed a copy once and I'll probably never use
it
again. The 28-135 IS isn't as bad. With your flower shots are you
stopping
it down at all? I'd love to get my hands on some of those macro lenses,
the
wishlist is so long though lol.
> With its greater weight and decreased flexibility the Canon is much less
> suitable for fieldwork, and I don't think I would even consider it for
> travelling. (Over 40 years ago I had a Hasselblad 500c, and
accessories,
> and
> eventually gave up photography for a number of years, when I found I
could
> no
> longer lug the kit around.)
>
> I find the LCD screens on digital cameras essentially useless for
outdoor
> work,
> and don't really know if my photos are any good until I can display them
> on my
> computer's hi-res LCD screen. Age is probably a contributing factor,
but
> I
> suspect that any photographer wanting to critically *****s their work
> would have
> the same problem.
I good trick is to turn the brightness to max when outdoors but don't
forget
to turn it back down when you get inside or it could throw you off...the
best way to judge is to have the picture display along with the histogram.
If you can read what the histogram is telling you then you'll know if
anything is drastically wrong.
>
> You can see some examples of my work at
> http://www.corybas.com/New_page.php
>
>
> James McNangle
Nice pictures and happy shooting.
|
