OT: wide angle landscape photography with digital
The Reids
digital yet. I mainly do wide angle shots with my favourite
lenses 17mm and 24-50 zoom, along with a telephoto that rarely
comes out of the bag.
My snap conclusion after a hours browsing is that without
spending at minimum a couple of thousand pounds there is nothing
to equal my film setup because most are not "full frame" so even
the widest lenses are "downgraded" to about 28mm at best?
There are full frames at about 5000 + lenses, but that more than
I have spent on photography in my whole life, that's a car or
trip to NZ money!
I asked on a photo group, but to be honest, there seem to be more
serious photographers here than there.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Graeme Cogger
walker.co.uk says...
> Just bought a raft of mags to see if its time to switch to
> digital yet. I mainly do wide angle shots with my favourite
> lenses 17mm and 24-50 zoom, along with a telephoto that rarely
> comes out of the bag.
>
> My snap conclusion after a hours browsing is that without
> spending at minimum a couple of thousand pounds there is nothing
> to equal my film setup because most are not "full frame" so even
> the widest lenses are "downgraded" to about 28mm at best?
> There are full frames at about 5000 + lenses, but that more than
> I have spent on photography in my whole life, that's a car or
> trip to NZ money!
>
> I asked on a photo group, but to be honest, there seem to be more
> serious photographers here than there.
>
lens an EF-S 10-22 lens. That's about £650 for the camera kit if you
shop around, and £560 for the lens.
If you really want to cut costs, try getting a 300D + kit lens (£450)
and the 10-22 (£520) from 7dayshop. That would come to £970.
Cheaper still, get the 300D kit from 7dayshop with the Sigma 12-24 lens
for a grand total of £880. Alternatively, get the 300D kit and the new
Tamron 11-18 lens (£400 from various places).
The final option would give you an effective 18-88mm setup for £850.
Still not cheap, but maybe look for a second hand 300D? There should be
plenty around at the moment.
Graham Dean
£2700 ish I think.
Graham
"The Reids" <don...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7i20511pd3hpritu8...@4ax.com...
David
I'm currently using a Nikon D70 which I've had for a year and I'm
very impressed with it.
My understanding is that manufacturers have bought out lenses now to combat
the problem you are talking about.
See Nikon page
http://www.europe-nikon.com/details.aspx?countryid=20&languageid=22&prodId=400&catId=117
Gives an equivalent for digital of 18-36 mm I believe.
You can get the lens for around £730 or the equivalent Sigma lens for about
£500. A D70 body is about £530 now, or a D100
around £700, so it could probably be done for just over £1000. Possibly
cheaper options, this is just one I happen to know (hopefully!) about.
David
"The Reids" <don...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7i20511pd3hpritu8...@4ax.com...
David
P.S.
May not work with the D70 - may have to be a D100
David
"David" <penni...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d2p82m$dj5$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
David
years.
http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/19866.html?cprose=4-30
"The Reids" <don...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7i20511pd3hpritu8...@4ax.com...
The Reids
> That's about =A3650 for the camera kit if you=20
>shop around, and =A3560 for the lens.
Whoooahh £7200. It all seems rather expensive to me, I know my
kits old, but I never parted with more than a couple of hundred
at a time for stuff, perhaps I'm getting old and have lost track
of prices!
The Reids
>Gives an equivalent for digital of 18-36 mm I believe.
>
>You can get the lens for around £730 or the equivalent Sigma lens for about
>£500. A D70 body is about £530 now,
that's not so bad.
Graeme Cogger
walker.co.uk says...
> Following up to Graeme Cogger
>
> > That's about =A3650 for the camera kit if you=20
> >shop around, and =A3560 for the lens.
>
> Whoooahh £7200. It all seems rather expensive to me, I know my
> kits old, but I never parted with more than a couple of hundred
> at a time for stuff, perhaps I'm getting old and have lost track
> of prices!
>
noticed that from some other posts also.
John Laird
wrote:
>Following up to Graeme Cogger
>
>> That's about =A3650 for the camera kit if you=20
>>shop around, and =A3560 for the lens.
>
>Whoooahh £7200. It all seems rather expensive to me, I know my
>kits old, but I never parted with more than a couple of hundred
>at a time for stuff, perhaps I'm getting old and have lost track
>of prices!
Some newsreaders/servers won't pass the 8-bit character for the pound sign
and may show you =A3 instead. So those prices are 650 gbp for the kit and
lens, not 3650 !
I think I would quite like a digital SLR myself, and now that the 300D can
be had for 499 squid, bodes well for the future. However, the alternative
format being proposed by Olympus and others may turn out to be more
affordable in the long run, as it uses a sensor size between existing
digicams and full 35mm, permitting more compact (and hopefully cheaper)
cameras and lenses in the future.
--
No wanna work. Wanna bang on keyboard.
Mail john rather than nospam...
Keith
>
> I think I would quite like a digital SLR myself, and now that the 300D can
> be had for 499 squid, bodes well for the future. However, the alternative
> format being proposed by Olympus and others may turn out to be more
> affordable in the long run, as it uses a sensor size between existing
> digicams and full 35mm, permitting more compact (and hopefully cheaper)
> cameras and lenses in the future.
... and as the original poster was asking about wide lenses - Olympus
now have about the best wide lens for digital SLRs - a 7-14mm zoom,
which equates to 14-28mm in the 35mm terms, very expensive though...
£1200! - but you get what you pay for IMHO.
Graham Seed
"The Reids" <don...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote
......5000 + lenses.... or
> trip to NZ money!
>
Should be able to do NZ for seriously less than that. The flights are the
worse bit after that it doesn't cost much at all.
Graham
The Reids
>Some newsreaders/servers won't pass the 8-bit character for the pound sign
>and may show you =A3 instead. So those prices are 650 gbp for the kit and
>lens, not 3650 !
Ah, somewhat more competitive!
The Reids
>I know you are a Pentax user Mike, so if you want to keep your tele
>you are going to be looking at the *ist DS for about 630 body only or
>700 with the 18-55 (equivalent to a 28-85 on a 35mm body). To get your
>17mm wide coverage back you would have to get the Sigma 12-24
>(eqivalent to 19-38) for about 450. That means under 1200 to spend.
that's not so bad, is it. Do you know if my K mount lenses work
on the digital body?
Chris Loffredo
> Just bought a raft of mags to see if its time to switch to
> digital yet. I mainly do wide angle shots with my favourite
> lenses 17mm and 24-50 zoom, along with a telephoto that rarely
> comes out of the bag.
>
> My snap conclusion after a hours browsing is that without
> spending at minimum a couple of thousand pounds there is nothing
> to equal my film setup because most are not "full frame" so even
> the widest lenses are "downgraded" to about 28mm at best?
> There are full frames at about 5000 + lenses, but that more than
> I have spent on photography in my whole life, that's a car or
> trip to NZ money!
>
> I asked on a photo group, but to be honest, there seem to be more
> serious photographers here than there.
A few things to keep in mind:
A zoom which will deliver 17mm equivalent on a digital probably won't be
a good as your current prime lens. A 14mm prime is very expensive.
You'll need to invest in extra memory (& backup cards), accumulators,
backup media. Maybe also a newer computer.
If you don't backup regularly, a strange clicking sound from your hard
drive could mean losing your images. PERMANENTLY!
Digital and modern auto-everything cameras are totally battery
dependant, which means extra weight and possible problems in cold weather.
This is my own very opinionated view of course.
My own mountain kit is a very robust rangefinder which weighs 1080 grams
together with 21mm, 35mm & 90mm lenses. 1270 grams if I also add the 15mm.
Also, no zoom can compare to those lenses quality-wise.
Chris
The Reids
>If you don't backup regularly, a strange clicking sound from your hard
>drive could mean losing your images. PERMANENTLY!
I already know of several people who have lost large numbers of
photos by not backing up.
>Digital and modern auto-everything cameras are totally battery
>dependant, which means extra weight and possible problems in cold weather.
From the point of view of landscape, modern cameras are overkill,
I don't need auto focus or auto anything and changing batteries
is as bad as changing film. I think digital has probably been
oversold, it has advantages but it seems to me the camera market
is dominated by people buying on features, while those who
actually use the cameras a lot are a minority, who are swamped by
the buying power of the undiscerning majority.
Chris Loffredo
> From the point of view of landscape, modern cameras are overkill,
> I don't need auto focus or auto anything and changing batteries
> is as bad as changing film.
Totally agree, though to be fair, film does weigh in at 26 grams each
(in plastic case)...
: )
Phil Cook
>Following up to Phil Cook
>
>>I know you are a Pentax user Mike, so if you want to keep your tele
>>you are going to be looking at the *ist DS for about 630 body only or
>>700 with the 18-55 (equivalent to a 28-85 on a 35mm body). To get your
>>17mm wide coverage back you would have to get the Sigma 12-24
>>(eqivalent to 19-38) for about 450. That means under 1200 to spend.
>
>that's not so bad, is it. Do you know if my K mount lenses work
>on the digital body?
Yes.
This is from the Pentax FAQ
http://www.pentax.co.uk/photographic/faq_lenses.html
Will my old Pentax lenses work on my new Pentax SLR?
Yes they will, but there are some limitations. See below for general
advice. If you wish to check specifically, contact us with your lens
and body combination and we'll tell you about all the functions
available.
M lens1975 to 1983 approx.
No AF, Power zoom, Program modes, Shutter Priority, Multi-segment
metering
A lens1983 to 1987 approx.
No AF, Power Zoom
F lens1987 to date
No Power zoom
FA lens1991 to date
no loss of function.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Phil Cook
The battery in my KM A2 will last for several film's worth of shots
and doesn't weigh much more than a few rolls of film. A 1Gb memory
card weighs even less and will carry more than eighty RAW files, takes
up less space than film and is imune to X-rays, worth bearing in mind
if you travel abroad.
The Reids
>Will my old Pentax lenses work on my new Pentax SLR?
>Yes they will, but there are some limitations.
you should be a camera salesman! I'm quite tempted now. Sigma
12-24 + my existing 24-50 covers everything I generally use and
my 70-210 becomes pretty long. Or I could just start again with
Cannon.
I just inherited some money, its beginning to burn a hole in my
pocket now!!! My neighbours was in a similar boat and now has a
double overhead cam 4 cylinder 170mph Susuki on the drive, mid
life crisis or men never grow up?
There again, things will only get cheaper.
Phil Cook
>Following up to Phil Cook
>
>>Will my old Pentax lenses work on my new Pentax SLR?
>>Yes they will, but there are some limitations.
>
>you should be a camera salesman! I'm quite tempted now. Sigma
>12-24 + my existing 24-50 covers everything I generally use and
>my 70-210 becomes pretty long. Or I could just start again with
>Cannon.
That's the thing isn't it? Which is the better lens Canon or Sigma?
The recieved wisdom is that Canon make the better sensor.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistds/page16.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-rebel.shtml
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos350d/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/xt-350d.shtml
>I just inherited some money, its beginning to burn a hole in my
>pocket now!!! My neighbours was in a similar boat and now has a
>double overhead cam 4 cylinder 170mph Susuki on the drive, mid
>life crisis or men never grow up?
He might not get to live to grow up any more. >:-)
>There again, things will only get cheaper.
If it was me I'd wait a little for the initial sales period of the
350D to die down and then buy the body with the kit lens (18-55) and
the 10-22.
The Reids
>The quality is nearly there but not quite - I've just moved and got 20D and
>associated lenses and think I would have been better off waiting for the
>next generation as it's still not quite as good as my 35mm gear.
this is the thing isn't it, its all going to be better in a years
time.
Andy Champ
The Reids wrote:
<snip>
> I just inherited some money, its beginning to burn a hole in my
> pocket now!!! My neighbours was in a similar boat and now has a
> double overhead cam 4 cylinder 170mph Susuki on the drive, mid
> life crisis or men never grow up?
Hope he's careful. "born again bikers" don't have a particularly good
accident record, he wouldn't want to be passing the inheritance along
quite yet. (my "mid life crisis" has 4 wheels and enough room for my
wife and a suitcase... but not the kids)
Andy.
W. D. Grey
<gco...@bigSPAMfoot.com> writes
>Hmm... don't know why my pound signs are coming out as "=A3". I've
>noticed that from some other posts also.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk
W. D. Grey
<venus...@chris-street.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:31:31 +0100, The Reids wrote:
>
>> Just bought a raft of mags to see if its time to switch to
>> digital yet. I mainly do wide angle shots with my favourite
>> lenses 17mm and 24-50 zoom, along with a telephoto that rarely
>> comes out of the bag.
>>
>> My snap conclusion after a hours browsing is that without
>> spending at minimum a couple of thousand pounds there is nothing
>> to equal my film setup because most are not "full frame" so even
>> the widest lenses are "downgraded" to about 28mm at best?
>
>Sigma 12-24. These are effectivly the same as a 16mm wide angle on a 35mm
>frame. Nikon also have a superwide but I've less experience of their
>camera's.
>
>They are generally around the £450-500 mark for the lens - match that to a
>10D or a 20D body and you are coming in at under £1500. Digital is always
>going to be more expensive of gear than film but cheaper on running costs.
>The quality is nearly there but not quite - I've just moved and got 20D and
>associated lenses and think I would have been better off waiting for the
>next generation as it's still not quite as good as my 35mm gear.
>
>ever need.
Remember Canon's 10 - 22mm is an EF-S lens and will only fit certain
Canon models such as 300D, 20D and maybe the 350D(?)
Chris Loffredo
> I'm quite tempted now. Sigma
> 12-24 + my existing 24-50 covers everything I generally use and
> my 70-210 becomes pretty long. Or I could just start again with
> Cannon.
A word of warning: Sigma lenses are often considered quite dreadful by
users.
Word has it that their "good reputation" is due to the fact that they
place many advertisements and that they send selected examples to the
photo magaszine's lens tests. While the selected examples do quite well,
90% of the actual production has a much lower quality level. But then
there are the lucky ones who do get a lens which is assembled to match
the design specifications...
But at least one anti-Sigma club does exist!
My own experience with a Sigma lens was a zoom which a photo magazine
rated as "super", which I found awful and quickly got rid of.
Apparently this is a typical scenario.
There are also horror stories (mostly concerning older models) about
lenses falling apart in use or being held together by adhesive tape.
My own take on zooms is that they are much less satisfactory than fixed
focal length lenses (but then I may be especially intollerant towards
vignetting, distortion and reflections).
Your choice: Do you want the convenince of quick framing, or do you want
the best possible results in your landscape photos? In landscape, where
seconds aren't vital, the answer is clear (at least to me).
Best wishes with your photos, whatever you choose!
Chris Townsend
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>The Reids wrote:
>
>> I'm quite tempted now. Sigma
>> 12-24 + my existing 24-50 covers everything I generally use and
>> my 70-210 becomes pretty long. Or I could just start again with
>> Cannon.
>
>A word of warning: Sigma lenses are often considered quite dreadful by
>users.
>
>Word has it that their "good reputation" is due to the fact that they
>place many advertisements and that they send selected examples to the
>photo magaszine's lens tests. While the selected examples do quite
>well, 90% of the actual production has a much lower quality level. But
>then there are the lucky ones who do get a lens which is assembled to
>match the design specifications...
>But at least one anti-Sigma club does exist!
>
>My own experience with a Sigma lens was a zoom which a photo magazine
>rated as "super", which I found awful and quickly got rid of.
>Apparently this is a typical scenario.
>There are also horror stories (mostly concerning older models) about
>lenses falling apart in use or being held together by adhesive tape.
How many Sigma lenses fit into the above scenario I don't know but a
Sigma 24-70 has been my main lens for the last five years and gives
excellent results, many of which have been published.
>
>My own take on zooms is that they are much less satisfactory than fixed
>focal length lenses (but then I may be especially intollerant towards
>vignetting, distortion and reflections).
I think this may be true of long range zooms (28-200) but not of good
quality short range ones.
>Your choice: Do you want the convenince of quick framing, or do you
>want the best possible results in your landscape photos? In landscape,
>where seconds aren't vital, the answer is clear (at least to me).
Zooms also have the advantage that you can frame photos from places
where moving to another vantage point is impossible, a not uncommon
situation in the mountains. There is also the weight issue too. One zoom
covers many primes.
>
>Best wishes with your photos, whatever you choose!
>
Seconded.
>
>
>
>
>
Craig Cooke
>
> A word of warning: Sigma lenses are often considered quite dreadful by
> users.
>
Errr, not by this one, I have used Sigma for years, owning 28-200, 28-300,
15-30. No problems whatsoever, in fact the 15-30 is a cracking lens, sorry
to disagree...
I use these lenses on my 10D's and 20D, I also own the Canon 28-135 IS USM
and Canon 17-85 IS USM lens, the Sigma 28-300 isn't the sharpest of lenses,
compared to the Canon's, but you are asking a lot of it ...
I'd recommend the Sigma 15-30 to anyone ...
--
Regards
Craig Cooke
www.storm-imaging.co.uk
Exciting, Fun, Creative and Informal Digital Wedding & Portrait Photography
Phil Cook
>In article <c8KdnTK_XZG...@pipex.net>, Graeme Cogger
><gco...@bigSPAMfoot.com> writes
>>Hmm... don't know why my pound signs are coming out as "=A3". I've
>>noticed that from some other posts also.
> Call 'em squid - we all know what that means :)
I always use quid. I wonder where this squid comes from? I had an
american friend once who called them squid, when everyone else (who
she would have picked the turm up from) said quid.
Peewiglet
<u-r-...@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>I always use quid. I wonder where this squid comes from? I had an
>american friend once who called them squid, when everyone else (who
>she would have picked the turm up from) said quid.
I always assumed that it comes from six quid, iyswim :)
Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
David
except
that most of the figures have worn off! I think its a 22-? but cant
remember.
Still gives good results. Not as sharp as my Nikon lenses, maybe, but you'd
have to
see the results side by side to really see much difference.
"Craig Cooke" <sto...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d2uqoo$d1t$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Ross
<e9t5519i0djp8khfe...@4ax.com>, seen in uk.rec.walking:
> W. D. Grey wrote:
[...]
> > Call 'em squid - we all know what that means :)
>
> I always use quid. I wonder where this squid comes from?
Well, if you have a fiver and a pound coin, you have sick squid, see?
:o)
--
Ross, in Lincoln
Reply-to address will bounce; replace "junk-trap" with "me" for e-mail
W. D. Grey
<junk...@ross-mail.me.uk> writes
>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:31:41 +0100, Phil Cook wrote in
><e9t5519i0djp8khfe...@4ax.com>, seen in uk.rec.walking:
>> W. D. Grey wrote:
>[...]
>> > Call 'em squid - we all know what that means :)
>>
>> I always use quid. I wonder where this squid comes from?
>
>Well, if you have a fiver and a pound coin, you have sick squid, see?
>:o)
>
Innit all daft :-)
W. D. Grey
<u-r-...@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>W. D. Grey wrote:
>
>>In article <c8KdnTK_XZG...@pipex.net>, Graeme Cogger
>><gco...@bigSPAMfoot.com> writes
>>>Hmm... don't know why my pound signs are coming out as "=A3". I've
>>>noticed that from some other posts also.
>> Call 'em squid - we all know what that means :)
>
>I always use quid. I wonder where this squid comes from? I had an
>american friend once who called them squid, when everyone else (who
>she would have picked the turm up from) said quid.
>
I think it was a play on "sick squid" for 6 quid.
The Reids
> double overhead cam 4 cylinder 170mph Susuki on the drive, mid
>> life crisis or men never grow up?
>
>Hope he's careful. "born again bikers" don't have a particularly good
>accident record,
he had a biggish bike already, he'll do OK.
The Reids
>I'd recommend the Sigma 15-30 to anyone ...
Ohhhhh, 15-30, i'm almost wetting myself. 600 UKP, that's the
sort of amount I could spend, stay with film for now?
(We are getting a digital compact to get the feel of digital)
The Reids
>How many Sigma lenses fit into the above scenario I don't know but a
>Sigma 24-70 has been my main lens for the last five years and gives
>excellent results, many of which have been published.
so you're still film?
Tony Buckley
> (We are getting a digital compact to get the feel of digital)
I've just done that...it's taking a little getting used to. You have the
freedom to change more or less every conceivable setting, but looking at the
screen instead of through the viewfinder and the delay between pressing the
button and the shutter doing its stuff takes some getting used to (mind you,
I don't know whether this is the same on low res images, I just bought a big
flash memory card and set things to record high quality images as a
default). And they do eat batteries, so I've bought some weighty
rechargables and a charger that will work in the car as well as a domestic
socket.
That said, the software that automatically stitches images together to make
a panorama is very good, and had me disturbing the neighbours as I expressed
my astonishment at it the first time I tried. You can see the result at
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=26714 if you want to (I'm
still not web-savvy enough to have set up my own pages).
Inevitably, the next step is going to be getting a printer...
T.
The Reids
>You can see the result at
>http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=26714 if you want to (I'm
>still not web-savvy enough to have set up my own pages).
you cant see the joins, can you.
Chris Townsend
<don...@fell-walker.co.uk> writes
>Following up to Chris Townsend
>
>>How many Sigma lenses fit into the above scenario I don't know but a
>>Sigma 24-70 has been my main lens for the last five years and gives
>>excellent results, many of which have been published.
>
>so you're still film?
Both! But moving towards digital for publication work. I've had an EOS
300D with 18-55mm lens for a year now and many digital images have
appeared in print in several magazines, sometimes as double page
spreads. However I am still using my EOS 300 & 24-70 lens. I took both
cameras on a trek in Nepal in October. The feature on this in TGO used
digital images but the slide shows I've given used the slides. I still
think for projection slides look better than digital images.
Craig Cooke
>
> Ohhhhh, 15-30, i'm almost wetting myself. 600 UKP, that's the
> sort of amount I could spend, stay with film for now?
It paid for itself a long time ago :-) (thank goodness) ...
Andy Howell
"Chris Street" <venus...@chris-street.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> There are a number of super wides available such as Canon's 10-22 and the
> Sigma 12-24. These are effectivly the same as a 16mm wide angle on a 35mm
> frame. Nikon also have a superwide but I've less experience of their
> camera's.
The Nikon would appear to be a cracking lens but at a cracking price. The
Sigma is a better budget option although a bit variable across the aperture
range I think.
--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK
To mail simply put back the dots ...
http://www.ecotrend.org.uk/walking/
The Reids
>>so you're still film?
>
>Both! But moving towards digital for publication work. I've had an EOS
>300D with 18-55mm lens for a year now and many digital images have
>appeared in print in several magazines, sometimes as double page
>spreads. However I am still using my EOS 300 & 24-70 lens. I took both
>cameras on a trek in Nepal in October. The feature on this in TGO used
>digital images but the slide shows I've given used the slides. I still
>think for projection slides look better than digital images.
For some reason I hadn't been thinking about doing both. Given I
am bound to mess up with digital at first it makes sense to run
in parallel (with a heavy 'sack!) for a while.
Graham Seed
"Tony Buckley" <a.g.b...@nospam.cclrc.ac.uk> wrote
> That said, the software that automatically stitches images together to
make
> a panorama is very good, and had me disturbing the neighbours as I
expressed
> my astonishment at it the first time I tried. You can see the result at
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=26714 if you want to (I'm
> still not web-savvy enough to have set up my own pages).
>
Not a Nikon is it? We bought one of the Coolpix's at work and the Panorama
software which was included is superb. I am amazed at how it matches
everything (colour etc). I imagine experts could do the same in Photoshop,
but I'm no expert.
Graham
Phil Cook
>>
>> Ohhhhh, 15-30, i'm almost wetting myself. 600 UKP, that's the
>> sort of amount I could spend, stay with film for now?
>
>It paid for itself a long time ago :-) (thank goodness) ...
The fact you no longer have to pay for film and processing is great,
but you do have to splash out on storage. Mind you at very
aproximately one pound per gig that is very cheap.
Andy Howell
"The Reids" <don...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote:
> For some reason I hadn't been thinking about doing both. Given I
> am bound to mess up with digital at first it makes sense to run
> in parallel (with a heavy 'sack!) for a while.
Only if you want a sore back :-)
Andy Howell
"Graham Seed" <g...@m.com> wrote:
> Not a Nikon is it? We bought one of the Coolpix's at work and the Panorama
> software which was included is superb. I am amazed at how it matches
> everything (colour etc). I imagine experts could do the same in Photoshop,
> but I'm no expert.
You can stitch panaromas together in photoshop - a someone has said, make
sure that the images overlap a lot!
Tony Buckley
> Not a Nikon is it? We bought one of the Coolpix's at work and the Panorama
> software which was included is superb. I am amazed at how it matches
> everything (colour etc). I imagine experts could do the same in Photoshop,
> but I'm no expert.
No, it's a Canon. The camera is an A95 but I should imagine the software's
the same on each of their models (or, probably, each of their models around
a price point).
As was mentioned by Andy, making sure the images overlap a lot helps - my
picture of Coppermines valley was made from 6 images - but that's one of the
beauties of digital; provided you've got the memory and the batteries, you
can take as many pictures as you like and then junk the ones that don't
work.
I'll see what else I can do if I'm out on Sunday, provided the weather's
fit; a panorama of Tryfan and the Glyders taken from half way up Pen yr Ole
Wen might be good. And if the weather isn't good, well I might nip round to
Aber falls and play with fast and slow shutter times.
T.
Andy Howell
<a.g.b...@nospam.cclrc.ac.uk> wrote:
> As was mentioned by Andy, making sure the images overlap a lot helps - my
> picture of Coppermines valley was made from 6 images - but that's one of the
> beauties of digital; provided you've got the memory and the batteries, you
> can take as many pictures as you like and then junk the ones that don't
> work.
Sometimes this isn't that easy. In these case make a virtue of the montage,
rather in like Hockney did with his photographs; they can be just as
interesting. Here is one example from Salford - I needed a shot like this
for work and - although it is obviously stitched it works ok.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy-howell/8697499/
> I'll see what else I can do if I'm out on Sunday, provided the weather's
> fit; a panorama of Tryfan and the Glyders taken from half way up Pen yr Ole
> Wen might be good. And if the weather isn't good, well I might nip round to
> Aber falls and play with fast and slow shutter times.
Good luck. I've not had much luck from the other side but the view from Pen
yr Ole wen is so superb! Actually the view is best just below the summit on
the obviously stopping place for lunch!
Chris Townsend
<don...@fell-walker.co.uk> writes
>Following up to Chris Townsend
>
>>>so you're still film?
>>
>>Both! But moving towards digital for publication work. I've had an EOS
>>300D with 18-55mm lens for a year now and many digital images have
>>appeared in print in several magazines, sometimes as double page
>>spreads. However I am still using my EOS 300 & 24-70 lens. I took both
>>cameras on a trek in Nepal in October. The feature on this in TGO used
>>digital images but the slide shows I've given used the slides. I still
>>think for projection slides look better than digital images.
>
>For some reason I hadn't been thinking about doing both. Given I
>am bound to mess up with digital at first it makes sense to run
>in parallel (with a heavy 'sack!) for a while.
I always used to carry two SLRs on most trips anyway so this hasn't put
the weight up much for me. On shorter trips I now just carry the
digital SLR but for any unique trip where photos are important I take
both. I've had cameras break and films scratched or damaged in the past.
Alan Bremner
<a.g.b...@nospam.cclrc.ac.uk> wrote:
>No, it's a Canon. The camera is an A95 but I should imagine the software's
>the same on each of their models (or, probably, each of their models around
>a price point).
PhotoStitch? It came with the Ixus 400 I bought last year for my
foreign trips and gave me some excellent panoramic images from photos
taken on my trip to the eastern Pyrenees. The cynic in me was
sceptical about how good it would be but I was amazed with the
results.
Al
--
[This space intentionally left blank]
The Reids
>I always used to carry two SLRs on most trips anyway so this hasn't put
>the weight up much for me. On shorter trips I now just carry the
>digital SLR but for any unique trip where photos are important I take
>both. I've had cameras break and films scratched or damaged in the past.
I used to carry two bodies and alternate but as i'm not going to
be in trouble if I come back with zero results I got lazy. I
think I will go back to it, now that I seem to be selling the
very occasional shot (due to the exposure of a website and the
inclination of buyers to surf them for (cheap?) material).
Tony Buckley
> PhotoStitch? It came with the Ixus 400 I bought last year for my
> foreign trips and gave me some excellent panoramic images from photos
> taken on my trip to the eastern Pyrenees. The cynic in me was
> sceptical about how good it would be but I was amazed with the
> results.
That's the chap. Really surprisingly good, isn't it?
T.
Craig Cooke
"Phil Cook" <u-r-...@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k5q951t6ob6dsv3si...@4ax.com...
Way OT but for weddings, it was costing me £16.00 per roll for pro
processing at 6" x 9" prints , plus the cost of the film (£3.00 / roll if
bought in bulk), so £19.00 per roll in total, and I used approx 10 rolls per
wedding, total 360 frames.
Now it costs me zero (apart from the initial costs of CF cards) - number of
shots I can take at a wedding now, a gazzillion (I take 3 x 1Gb CF plus 4 x
512 Mb CF - back up to Flashtrax / laptop when the meal is taking place).
Every image now can be colour / B&W / Sepia Toned / Blue Toned / vignetted,
diffused / blurred etc, the options are limitless, I'd never go back to
film, makes no sense at all (for me).
You state 'one pound per gig that is very cheap' - eh ? Get me the name of
that store !
Phil Cook
>"Phil Cook" <u-r-...@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
>> The fact you no longer have to pay for film and processing is great,
>> but you do have to splash out on storage. Mind you at very
>> aproximately one pound per gig that is very cheap.
>
>Way OT but for weddings, it was costing me £16.00 per roll for pro
>processing at 6" x 9" prints , plus the cost of the film (£3.00 / roll if
>bought in bulk), so £19.00 per roll in total, and I used approx 10 rolls per
>wedding, total 360 frames.
35mm slide film was costing me £4 a roll with processing and mounting
by a pro outfit at about £8. So not cheap. I was never in the Paul
Saunders leage in number of shots taken, but could easily use two and
a half rolls per day in the hills.
>
>Now it costs me zero (apart from the initial costs of CF cards) - number of
>shots I can take at a wedding now, a gazzillion (I take 3 x 1Gb CF plus 4 x
>512 Mb CF - back up to Flashtrax / laptop when the meal is taking place).
>Every image now can be colour / B&W / Sepia Toned / Blue Toned / vignetted,
>diffused / blurred etc, the options are limitless, I'd never go back to
>film, makes no sense at all (for me).
>
>You state 'one pound per gig that is very cheap' - eh ? Get me the name of
>that store !
Well a 250 Gig external drive for 140 quid is err... cheap.
But one of these would be better for the peace of mind. Given that it
is not /if/ a HDD will fail but when.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/readynas600.shtml
Craig Cooke
>
> Well a 250 Gig external drive for 140 quid is err... cheap.
>
> But one of these would be better for the peace of mind. Given that it
> is not /if/ a HDD will fail but when.
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/readynas600.shtml
> --
> Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Ah, thought you meant CF cards, yes I bought a Maxtor 250Gb external drive
which I use to back up my files / images to, can't remember how much I paid
Alan Bremner
<a.g.b...@nospam.cclrc.ac.uk> wrote:
>Alan Bremner wrote
>> PhotoStitch?
>That's the chap. Really surprisingly good, isn't it?
Indeed it is. So much so that I've so far been unable to equal its
results with Adobe Elements 3.0. No doubt I could with some further
tweaking of various settings, but PhotoStitch works 'out of the box'
and is very simple to use. Definitely the best part of the software
bundle that came with the camera.
The Reids
>I used to carry two bodies and alternate but as i'm not going to
>be in trouble if I come back with zero results I got lazy. I
>think I will go back to it,
what do people think of this idea?
Analogue bodies are very cheap now.
Canon EOS 300X £230 + Canon EF fit Sigma 15-30
+ my Pentax with its 24-50 and telephoto.
Then when the EOS Ds come down in price or I sell a load of
photos, OK, when it comes down in price, I trade in the Pentax
kit for a EOS 1 D body (full frame).
This way I am back carrying two bodies for redundancy, I switch
to Canon fairly painlessly and I dont compromise with a less than
full frame body.
To dip our toes in digital a compact Canon poweshot S60 for its
28-100 (equiv) lens.
Woodlake
in another place (uk.media.radio.archers). http://www.geograph.co.uk
If you're thinking of adding some of your own, do check that you're
happy with their copyright policy.
I've put on some from an outing to County Sligo last weekend.
http://www.geograph.co.uk/photo/1880
http://www.geograph.co.uk/photo/1885
--
Woodlake
The Reids
>Our local shop has a Pentax *ist DS in at a knockdown price - you could
>always look for one of them and stay with the Pentax system
Its an option, but I think i'm going to make the switch as Pentax
dont seem to have the range of stuff these days, I used to aspire
to the pro body, but its gone! Central to my thinking is not
buying anything not full frame so no lens becomes redundant
later. Unless Canon switch to a different bayonet on future
digitals.
I'm curently looking at Canon 300X + a Canon 28-90 zoom package
for about £200+ then a Sigma wide zoom, probably the 15-30 which
they are happy to say is for film and digital, while the
desirable(?) 12-24 says OK for film but reading betwen the lines
you get the impression its really meant for using just the centre
on a digital.
Andy Howell
"Chris Street" <venus...@chris-street.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Someone mooted a u.r.w photo meet and compare a while back. I think it
> might be a good idea if anyone else is interested.....?
Yeah, I think I would. Am a bit worried about the abuse we will not doubt
receive from our other non-photo friends here :-)
Andy Howell
"Phil Cook" <u-r-...@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Well a 250 Gig external drive for 140 quid is err... cheap.
Yes, there really is not excuse for not getting a good sized hard drive
these days. But it amazing how quickly that you can fill up space!
Chris Townsend
Howell <andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk.?.invalid> writes
>On 8/4/05 2:17 pm, in article dkvc511lhqgdrh79b...@4ax.com,
>"Phil Cook" <u-r-...@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Well a 250 Gig external drive for 140 quid is err... cheap.
>
>Yes, there really is not excuse for not getting a good sized hard drive
>these days. But it amazing how quickly that you can fill up space!
>
>
This is an external hard drive container that plugs into a USB port. You
can then buy standard hard drives, put them in a holder and insert them
in the container where they act as a hard drive. When the hard drive is
full it can be removed and replaced with another one. This is much less
expensive than a series of external hard drives.
Paul J. Keenan
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:02:17 +0100, "Tony Buckley"
> <a.g.b...@nospam.cclrc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>> PhotoStitch?
>
>>That's the chap. Really surprisingly good, isn't it?
>
> Indeed it is.
Actually, it's possible to get even better results with Canon's
PhotoStitch if you do the following :
- Click on the "Show joins"
- Click one of the joins.
- Switch from automatic to manual mode.
- Match up points on the left pic to the corresponding point on the right
- Repeat for about 4 or 5 control points, as wide apart as poss.
- continue as before
and you can end up with panoramas where you _really_ can't see the joins.
I discovered this only recently, and spent a goodly amount amount of time
going back over some panoramas which you could just make out the joins.
The results look 100% better, and it's a snap to do, if just a little more
time-consuming.
--
pjk
W. D. Grey
Howell <andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk.?.invalid> writes
>On 8/4/05 12:31 am, in article 2gxo0ng6rz85.115cnj7jrqjhs$.d...@40tude.net,
>"Chris Street" <venus...@chris-street.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Someone mooted a u.r.w photo meet and compare a while back. I think it
>> might be a good idea if anyone else is interested.....?
>
>Yeah, I think I would. Am a bit worried about the abuse we will not doubt
>receive from our other non-photo friends here :-)
>
Can't see why anyone should object! If they're not interested in
photography then they probably wouldn't want to come anyway.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk
Alan Bremner
<pke...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Actually, it's possible to get even better results with Canon's
>PhotoStitch if you do the following :
[snip]
Nice one Paul, many thanks!
W. D. Grey
<venus...@chris-street.demon.co.uk> writes
>I can see the next discussion being the official Expedition number, is it
>17 the next one, or is this going to be 16(PHOTO) or what...:-)
f16 maybe :-)
W. D. Grey
<venus...@chris-street.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:43:56 +0100, W. D. Grey wrote:
>
>> In article <w3qow1acnerp.1xfysd6y8j3mr$.d...@40tude.net>, Chris Street
>> <venus...@chris-street.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>I can see the next discussion being the official Expedition number, is it
>>>17 the next one, or is this going to be 16(PHOTO) or what...:-)
>>
>>
>> f16 maybe :-)
>
Only because you didn't think of it first Chris :-)
The Reids
>My snap conclusion after a hours browsing is that without
>spending at minimum a couple of thousand pounds there is nothing
>to equal my film setup because most are not "full frame" so even
>the widest lenses are "downgraded" to about 28mm at best?
heres what I did.
Sigma 12-24 zoom. Makes a 1.6 digital body a useable camera at
wide angle end. Makes my film body bizarre!
My telephoto on the digital now acts like an almost 300mm.
So I have film and digital and can cover 12mm to about 300mm with
three lenses by swapping bodies.
Last question, how do you pronounce "*ist" ?
Downside 12-24 + *ist cost £1000+ :-(
Phil Cook
>Following up to The Reids
>
>>My snap conclusion after a hours browsing is that without
>>spending at minimum a couple of thousand pounds there is nothing
>>to equal my film setup because most are not "full frame" so even
>>the widest lenses are "downgraded" to about 28mm at best?
>
>heres what I did.
>Sigma 12-24 zoom. Makes a 1.6 digital body a useable camera at
>wide angle end. Makes my film body bizarre!
>My telephoto on the digital now acts like an almost 300mm.
>So I have film and digital and can cover 12mm to about 300mm with
>three lenses by swapping bodies.
>Last question, how do you pronounce "*ist" ?
Yep bloody stupid name. Try putting it in a search engine :-) I just
call it an ist. One opinion is that you can call it what you like with
the * being a wildcard. So yours could be Landscape Photographist;
Fran if she got one could call it a Snapist. :-)
>Downside 12-24 + *ist cost £1000+ :-(
How much film do you use? £1000 is roughly 100 rolls' worth. Spread
that over about four years before you upgrade the camera and I reckon
you are in the plus column.
The Reids
>Yep bloody stupid name. Try putting it in a search engine :-) I just
>call it an ist. One opinion is that you can call it what you like with
>the * being a wildcard. So yours could be Landscape Photographist;
>Fran if she got one could call it a Snapist. :-)
Clint Eastwood could be Shootist, i'll just be Phist.
>>Downside 12-24 + *ist cost £1000+ :-(
>
>How much film do you use? £1000 is roughly 100 rolls' worth. Spread
>that over about four years before you upgrade the camera and I reckon
>you are in the plus column.
call it £1100 and counting. The UBS link wont work on Win98, all
the card readers also don't work on Win98 so bought XP upgrade.
The upgrade wont work with my hard disk space and possibly my
scanner. Phist off at the moment.
One answer might be to find an old card reader that works with
Win98. But I suppose I will be forced to XP anyway at some other
point.
Phil Cook
>Following up to Phil Cook
>
>>Yep bloody stupid name. Try putting it in a search engine :-) I just
>>call it an ist. One opinion is that you can call it what you like with
>>the * being a wildcard. So yours could be Landscape Photographist;
>>Fran if she got one could call it a Snapist. :-)
>
>Clint Eastwood could be Shootist, i'll just be Phist.
If Clint goes shooting I don't want to know what you are going to be
doing :-)
>
>>>Downside 12-24 + *ist cost £1000+ :-(
>>
>call it £1100 and counting. The UBS link wont work on Win98, all
>the card readers also don't work on Win98 so bought XP upgrade.
>The upgrade wont work with my hard disk space and possibly my
>scanner. Phist off at the moment.
You'd need a bigger HDD anyway to keep all those images on.
>One answer might be to find an old card reader that works with
>Win98. But I suppose I will be forced to XP anyway at some other
>point.
I'm beginning to think so too. I'm on Me at the moment.
The Reids
>call it £1100 and counting. The UBS link wont work on Win98,
good old Maplin, they had card readers for Win98. But the Pentax
sodtware still wont install and the card reader is only getting
partial files for JPEG output. Anyone experienced this?
The Reids
>>call it £1100 and counting. The UBS link wont work on Win98, all
>>the card readers also don't work on Win98 so bought XP upgrade.
>>The upgrade wont work with my hard disk space and possibly my
>>scanner. Phist off at the moment.
>
>You'd need a bigger HDD anyway to keep all those images on.
I already scan everything from slides, if I move all the photos
off I cam load XT.