# General > Member's Lounge > Photography >  Digital Photography and Equipment

## Scott_sg

I agree KL, the photos are not the best, I was using a friends HP R607 which seems ok but I seem to have trouble getting it to focus on what I want. I think it is probably me rather than the camera, I am a bit old fashioned that way and love an SLR with manual focus. But I will be purchasing a Digital camera (moving into the 21st century!) of my own soon, so I will play around with a few to see what I like best. I won't ask for recommendations though, camera wars are as bad as religious wars. Even 20 years ago the Canon - Nikon question was a sure way to start temper tantrums.  :Wink:  

Anyway I hope the post will be helpful to people, there is no right way or wrong way to do these things, and if you ask me how I do it in a years time it will probably be different again, as I take other peoples ideas on board and adjust my own. But it does give some ideas on how to get started, and will hopefully give people having problems a base on which to work. There is nothing more frustrating in the hobby than to have a good hatch and then watch them all disappear in the first few days.

Scott

----------


## Green Baron

> I agree KL, the photos are not the best, I was using a friends HP R607 which seems ok but I seem to have trouble getting it to focus on what I want. I think it is probably me rather than the camera, I am a bit old fashioned that way and love an SLR with manual focus. But I will be purchasing a Digital camera (moving into the 21st century!) of my own soon, so I will play around with a few to see what I like best. I won't ask for recommendations though, camera wars are as bad as religious wars. Even 20 years ago the Canon - Nikon question was a sure way to start temper tantrums.


Scott,
You will not go wrong if you go with either Canon or Nikon. ;-) If you are already using Nikon or Canon, the decison is even easier. The camera to avoid are those ultra thin high megapixels camera. They are expensive, difficult to hold and the images are very noisy. Anything above 3M is more than sufficient for general use.

----------


## Green Baron

Scott,
I meant Canon or Nikon consumer digicam, not DSLR. 
The Canon Powershot A and S series and Nikon CoolPix series are all good consumer digicams.

----------


## whuntley

I respectfully disagree, Gan.

The early coolpix Nikons featured some truly awful lenses. I lusted for one of the 9xx series of swivel bodies, but quickly discovered their hideous lateral chromatic aberation and useless (for fish, children or other pets) shutter lag.

Nikon discovered early that consumers readily tolerated "purple fringing" and other image defects and that crisp focus wasn't demanded as long as colors were over-saturated, contrasty and looked gaudy.

As a result, the pics I took with my DSC D770 Sony were considerably sharper and more free of aberations (at 1.5MP) than the Coolpix 990 at 3.2 MP! I could fool 35mm film experts with 8X10 prints into thinking they were from film. You could never, ever, do that with any early coolpix shot.

A camera is a *system*, and it needs all parts working at near the same level for optimum results. Consumers got caught in a MP-hype marketing trap and were willing to put up with garbage in lenses and software that in no way could match the number of pixels in their sensor.

Carefully check the resolution and noise reports on the review sites, like dpreview.com before choosing any camera. Also check shutter lag unless you really like pics of fish tails.  :Very Happy: 

I went through 3 other digital cameras before finding the Sonys. It wasn't until more modern cameras like my Canon S1 IS came along that 3.2MP cameras could actually make a better pic than those old Sonys. Higher pixel counts are still a big waste if you try to use film-design lenses in a DSLR (they really need telecentric lenses) or if you are not making poster-size prints. 10MP sounds nice, but it is slower, takes more memory, and doesn't do a thing to improve pics to show on a web site.

You can't even use it to crop more, if the lens wasn't providing pixel-level resolution, and very few consumer lenses can actually do that!

Wright
An old medium-format photographer/optical engineer, who still has his 4X5 Speed Graphic!

----------


## whuntley

Yes SIR! Mr. moderator.  :Wink:  

Don't forget, the "G" in RGB is for "green."  :Very Happy: 

Wright

----------


## ruyle

Whew, Wright, that was a close one!
Those thread police guys are a mean bunch. Officer Chen could've written
you a ticket, but instead, is probably writing one for me right now!  :Laughing:  

Bill

----------


## Green Baron

Jian Yang,
Can you split the thread on photography out. 

I have owned 3 Coolpix, 3 Sony and a Canon and I can share with you a bit about my experience with these cameras.

----------


## stormhawk

Here's a ticket for Wright and Bill too.  :Laughing:   :lurking: 

Okay so I've split the photography discussion out into this thread as requested by GanCW. This will be the thread for any photography related issues, be it equipment reviews or how to take great pics of that lightning fast fish.  :Cool: 

Rather than to create a whole new subforum just for photography.. which I am contemplating, lets just stick to this thread for now.  :Beer Time:

----------


## Green Baron

Wright,
I agree that we should not judge a camera by its MP. More pixels could translate to just more noise ! I have photos taken with 1.3MP Sony DSC S30 which are very sharp and clean, much cleaner than some of the current generation of 5MP consumer cameras.

I'll trade a 8MP consumer digicam CCD for the Canon 3MP CMOS sensor anytime !

The quality of a digital image is affected by many factors - the lens, the CCD, the software in the camera, lighting condition and of course the technique and person taking the photo.

I never had problem with purple fringing because I seldom take backlit subjects. Also, unless you plan to print anything bigger than 5R, purple fringing is usually not an issue. The other problem is sometimes we tend to over scrutinise the details when viewing photo on computer. In reality, people usually focus more on the composition and subject than details and sharpness when viewing prints.

The CoolPix series has very good close focusing capability but the flash is useless. I took lots of closeup picture of butterfly egg, caterpillar and butterfly with this camera before I bought a DSLR. 

Shutter lag is always an issue with all consumer digicams, not just the CoolPix. However, once you get used to it, you learn to adapt to it and it is not a big deal. Practice shooting butterfly and you will have no problem shooting fish or children  :Laughing:  

As for Sony, I find the SXX and FXXX series to be very good, much better than the P, W and U series. The F717 is my favorite all purpose camera for shooting nature subjects as well as travel photos.

----------


## hwchoy

much depends on how you intend to use the resulting photographs. many people simply want to capture and image and share it at web size and screen resolution. no problem at all with digicams.

but if you want to view at 100% for all the fine details, then you can never compare a digicam to a proper DSLR, for no other reason than that we are not make apples-to-apples comparison. The sensor on a digicam is a fraction the size of that on a DSLR, while sporting the same pixel-count. the optics on a digicam is never as good, even if they sport the red band, capital L brand, etc vs the number of changeable lens on a DSLR.

I think I am quite qualified to make a statement, having milked the last drop out of a G5 digicam  :Wink:  but is now faced with the hard option of doling the moolahs for a DSLR.  :Confused:

----------


## keehoe

> Wright,
> I agree that we should not judge a camera by its MP. More pixels could translate to just more noise ! I have photos taken with 1.3MP Sony DSC S30 which are very sharp and clean, much cleaner than some of the current generation of 5MP consumer cameras.
> 
> I'll trade a 8MP consumer digicam CCD for the Canon 3MP CMOS sensor anytime !
> 
> The quality of a digital image is affected by many factors - the lens, the CCD, the software in the camera, lighting condition and of course the technique and person taking the photo.
> 
> I never had problem with purple fringing because I seldom take backlit subjects. Also, unless you plan to print anything bigger than 5R, purple fringing is usually not an issue. The other problem is sometimes we tend to over scrutinise the details when viewing photo on computer. In reality, people usually focus more on the composition and subject than details and sharpness when viewing prints.
> 
> ...


Gan, How you take macro photo of butterfly without a SLR tele-macro lense? Wouldn't you frighten the little beauty?

I think a good tripod, 7 to 10k temperature permanant light with slow shuttle speed brings the best picture.

Of course, most importantly a cooperative fish is a must. For that, tele-macro lense works wonder (in theory) as the live subject remain calm and undisturbed. 

Would love to see comments from those who is using this kind of equipment.

----------


## hwchoy

> I think a good tripod, 7 to 10k temperature permanant light with slow shuttle speed brings the best picture.
> 
> Of course, most importantly a cooperative fish is a must. For that, tele-macro lense works wonder (in theory) as the live subject remain calm and undisturbed.


keehoe I don't understand your statement. you mention "permanent light with slow shuttle speed" and then "a cooperative fish".

I know of very few fishes (besides dead ones) that stay still enough to get good picture at low shutter speed (assuming you mean around 1/15s). other than suckers and suck, most other fishes does not stay still plus their gills will be flapping and fins will waving.

----------


## stormhawk

> The CoolPix series has very good close focusing capability but the flash is useless. I took lots of closeup picture of butterfly egg, caterpillar and butterfly with this camera before I bought a DSLR. 
> 
> Shutter lag is always an issue with all consumer digicams, not just the CoolPix. However, once you get used to it, you learn to adapt to it and it is not a big deal. Practice shooting butterfly and you will have no problem shooting fish or children


Gan, well said. The Coolpix series indeed has good close focusing capabilities. I get good results with my macro function on and with double-flash. A single flash, coupled with a dirty glass ends up producing less than desirable photographs.

I've more or less gotten the hang of my Coolpix 3100 and I know how to play around with it enough to get a decent shot most of the time. Haven't tried on butterflies yet..  :Laughing:

----------


## stormhawk

> I know of very few fishes (besides dead ones) that stay still enough to get good picture at low shutter speed (assuming you mean around 1/15s). other than suckers and suck, most other fishes does not stay still plus their gills will be flapping and fins will waving.


I don't know about low shutter speed but most of my killies stay in one position long enough for me too get a decent shot. Fins will naturally wave about, especially the pectorals, but that doesn't pose a problem for me. They just seem to remain still in most shots that come out.  :Laughing:

----------


## hwchoy

> I don't know about low shutter speed but most of my killies stay in one position long enough for me too get a decent shot. Fins will naturally wave about, especially the pectorals, but that doesn't pose a problem for me. They just seem to remain still in most shots that come out.



I thought you use flash right? that will give you at least 1/60s which is good enough to freeze a swimming fish.

1/15s will start to suffer from handshake even.

----------


## stormhawk

I usually use flash because when I don't use it, my shaky hands always cause shaky pictures. You probably have a point there. My 3100 gets decent shots when the flash is on, somehow it makes the CCD work faster? I get focusing faster when flash is on, even in insufficient light.

I don't know the shutter speed for this camera. All I know is the settings are what I followed when I obtained it. Probably factory-set. 

Best part about this camera is that I found it works decently even in total darkness, with only a torchlight for illumination. I use this to capture the shy fishes while they are resting.

----------


## ruyle

Has anyone seen the Sony Cybershot DSC-R1 available in SG? It's a fairly
large camera that is the latest in an impressive line of pro digicams. Has
12MP and a sensor that looks 4 times as large as its predecessor, the 828, 
but retains the manual zoom and focus rings on the lens barrel. It is being 
offered in the US for $995 and has a Carl Zeiss lens. 

It's a few years off, but it's my next upgrade.  :Wink:  

Bill

----------


## stormhawk

I think this model should be available in SG by now. Need to check to confirm.

----------


## Green Baron

> Gan, How you take macro photo of butterfly without a SLR tele-macro lense? Wouldn't you frighten the little beauty?


Kee Hoe,
You will be surprised to learn that when I was using the CoolPix, the camera is usally not more than 10 cm away from the subject !
It is a matter of knowing the subject behaviour, how to approach them and patience.

Now I use DSLR with 90mm macro lens onlt because DSLR gives cleaner picture and the focusing is faster. 





> I think a good tripod, 7 to 10k temperature permanant light with slow shuttle speed brings the best picture.
> 
> Of course, most importantly a cooperative fish is a must. For that, tele-macro lense works wonder (in theory) as the live subject remain calm and undisturbed. 
> 
> Would love to see comments from those who is using this kind of equipment.


When I was breeding caterpillar and using the CoolPix, I use 3 lamps from Ikea to illuminate the subject. The advantage of using 'permanent light' is it is like taking under natural light. WYSIWYG. The disadvantage is it is not as bright as flash light and it can get pretty hot. I assume you can have similar setup taking fishes but you will need much stronger light, e.g MH. it will be easier to just use multiple flashes.

With DSLR and 90mm macro, I usually try to shoot above 1/100s, especially if you are taking the fish in the tank with filter running. Sometimes I turn off the filter when taking photos.

----------


## Green Baron

> Has anyone seen the Sony Cybershot DSC-R1 available in SG? It's a fairly
> large camera that is the latest in an impressive line of pro digicams. Has
> 12MP and a sensor that looks 4 times as large as its predecessor, the 828, 
> but retains the manual zoom and focus rings on the lens barrel. It is being 
> offered in the US for $995 and has a Carl Zeiss lens. 
> 
> It's a few years off, but it's my next upgrade.  
> 
> Bill


Bill,
I have been following the Sony SLR like prosumer range as I used to own a 707, now a 717. The 828 looks nice from the outside but the image is not as clean as the 717. What differentiates the R1 from its competitors is the APS size CMOS sensor. 828 has a 8.8x6.6mm sensor ( 2.7 µm pixel pitch) while R1 has 21.5x14.4mm ( 5.49 µm pixel pitch) CMOS sensor. This translater to much cleaner image and allow you to use higher ISO speed. 

However, for $999 and that size, you might be better off getting a true DSLR from Nikon (D50) or Canon (350D), which provides more options for expansion and a large range lenses and accessories (original and compatible) to choose from.

----------


## whuntley

> Originally Posted by ruyle
> 
> Has anyone seen the Sony Cybershot DSC-R1 available in SG? snip...
> Bill
> 
> 
> Bill, However, for $999 and that size, you might be better off getting a true DSLR from Nikon (D50) or Canon (350D), which provides more options for expansion and a large range lenses and accessories (original and compatible) to choose from.


Hi Gan,

Waving such statements in the face of a true Sony convert is tantamount to trying to sell the benefits of Windoze to a rabid, irrational MAC fanatic! :-) I'm trying to hold Bill back, but it ain't easy! Easy boy! Down, stay!

I fell for Sony back in '99 when the DSC-D770 came out (my 4th digital camera, BTW) but avoided all the 505-on swivel body cameras as too "consumer" to be very good fish cameras. I did pick up several more 770s and three FP3s over the last couple of years. Fixing those junkers has become a hobby.

You must be fair. Compare the $999 DSC-R1 with the cost of just the lenses that will truly do for the DSLRs about what that Zeiss 5X zoom will do. For the same speed (aperture), focal lengths and for decent resolution, you will be into at least two and probably three lenses, each lens will cost as much or more than the R1 total price. Even old fast film lenses might cost almost that much at a fixed 24mm (equiv.) at f 1:2.8.

You weren't bothered by the lateral chromatic of your Coolpix cameras, but I find those errors unacceptable in the extreme. A few folks only know that it is present when they see the "purple fringing" of a back-lighted edge. It is the real but less noticeable impact on *all* peripheral image areas that I definitely refuse to accept. Chromatic aberration (lateral or regular longitudinal) really destroys image quality.

I have learned how to semi-fix the simple lateral chromatic in photoshop, but use of film lens designs on silicon sensors introduces longitudinal and other kinds of serious aberrations that cannot ever be fixed in the digital darkroom. 

There are pitifully few real digital lens designs available for DSLRs, because the industry has not settled on enough of a standard, such as 4/3 or APS, to economically justify development costs of the same variety that were available for 35mm film.

Kodak and Oly are fighting a good fight to introduce real digital lenses, but the cost has basically, so far, killed their market. Canon and Nikon go on relying on the ignorance of most of their customers. Few of those customers understand how poor the performance of old film lenses are in digital cameras, so it is another hype thing, perhaps even worse deceit than the infamous megapixel marketing scams.

The fundamental question for the R1 is "Will a 235K pixel LCD be adequate, with live preview, to replace the complexity of the flopping mirror and allow a good digital lens design to operate in the best possible form?" No lens that stands off from the sensor to clear the flapping mirror or a beamsplitter can ever hope to function as well as the R1 design (assuming Zeiss did it properly -- they often do).

I like the too-dim beamsplitter image in my FP3 far better than the electronic viewfinder in my S1 IS from Canon. I just don't know if the R1 viewfinder will be adequate for making the DOF and other judgements that one can usually do OK in a SLR TTL viewfinder. 

From the viewpoint of someone who has designed zoom lenses, the R! potentially has all the advantage over the DSLR designs, even the DX lenses now being done specifically for digital. Not being close enough to the sensor really sucks.

We'll just have to see how it performs in the market, for Sony certainly has bombed out in the past with very noticeably better camera designs, like the D770 and FP3*. This time I suspect they got the price about right.

Wright
______________________
* aka Oly E-10 et al. Sony sold the basic design to them when they got disgusted with the poor sales and high return rates from ignorant customers.

----------


## Green Baron

Wright,
You are right. Don't think anyone can out-talk you on technicalities. :Laughing:  

I do agree that the R1 is a very good general purpose camera and I would get one myself have I not had the 717. Also once you buy a SLR/DSLR, you will end up spending even more money buying lenses and accessories. It is an expensive hobby.

----------


## keehoe

> Originally Posted by keehoe
> 
> I think a good tripod, 7 to 10k temperature permanant light with slow shuttle speed brings the best picture.
> 
> Of course, most importantly a cooperative fish is a must. For that, tele-macro lense works wonder (in theory) as the live subject remain calm and undisturbed.
> 
> 
> keehoe I don't understand your statement. you mention "permanent light with slow shuttle speed" and then "a cooperative fish".
> 
> I know of very few fishes (besides dead ones) that stay still enough to get good picture at low shutter speed (assuming you mean around 1/15s). other than suckers and suck, most other fishes does not stay still plus their gills will be flapping and fins will waving.


With longer exposure, the colour tends to be richer but that required a very steady hands. So a tripod is a must.

Permanant light, so that the subject will get used to it after sometime and less dashing around. Once they find their comfort zone, the photo session can starts.

Cooperative, some fish tends to be more camera shy. Meaning they will panic when you place the camera near them. You might have to drug them to make them cooprative. (i would try that one of these day with my EXO)

----------


## keehoe

> Originally Posted by keehoe
> 
> Gan, How you take macro photo of butterfly without a SLR tele-macro lense? Wouldn't you frighten the little beauty?
> 
> 
> Kee Hoe,
> You will be surprised to learn that when I was using the CoolPix, the camera is usally not more than 10 cm away from the subject !
> It is a matter of knowing the subject behaviour, how to approach them and patience.
> 
> ...


Yup, depends on what effect i want to achieve. Sometime a put light behind the subject for transluscent look.

Best so far is one on top and one from either side. With house light and computer monitor off so that not much distraction. That brings out the colour of the scale quite nicely. Another reason for that is....... i still need a hand to hold the camera when i shoot. I try not to use flash until the setup is perfect. Because i can take gang shot without the flash. Hence compare the different white compensation setting. Once i am comfortable with the colour. I set camera on tripod, use time delay to shot at fish. (so that i wont shake the camera as i press the button).

Yup it generate a lot of heat, so the session must be short and sweet.

MH light........ I better ask Ron to help me buy some magnesim strip. I think that is very bright when set on fire.

----------


## whuntley

> snip...
> MH light........ I better ask Ron to help me buy some magnesim strip. I think that is very bright when set on fire.


Kee Hoe,

You will drag digital photography, kicking and screaming, right into the 19th Century with such radical ideas.  :Wink:  

One trick the pros use is what is called a "modeling lamp" illuminating their umbrellas or soft boxes, with a slave flash in each location. That lets you see the way the shot will look for framing and focus, but freezes the action with the bright flash when the fish is in position. [You need manual settings to stop the shutter delay required for exposure and focus settings, though, or you will get good sharp caudal shots most of the time.  :Very Happy: ]

I have never felt I could afford proper lighting equipment, so I have wasted tons of money on cameras that were only marginally satisfactory.

I now know that bad policy must change if I am to get the shots I really want. Investing in a good bottle of Windex, a few algae scrubbers, and some serious photo tanks is also called for.  :Rolling Eyes:  

Wright

----------


## keehoe

Wright, i think lighting doesn't have to be expensive. Bringing your fish out door and snap under natural light for example is relatively cheap and the result is fantastic. For better effect, may be can consider use a piece of white paper to reflex some light to the darker side of the subject to take care of the shadow and soften the resulting picture.

The result is more satisfactory then getting a new camera.

----------


## whuntley

> Wright, i think lighting doesn't have to be expensive. Bringing your fish out door and snap under natural light for example is relatively cheap and the result is fantastic. For better effect, may be can consider use a piece of white paper to reflex some light to the darker side of the subject to take care of the shadow and soften the resulting picture.
> 
> The result is more satisfactory then getting a new camera.


Amen brother Kee Hoe, but you are preaching to the choir.  :Very Happy:  I have gotten very nice shots of springfish and pupfish on our Desert Springs Action Committee work trips, usually using Doug Haabersaat's excellent little photo tanks in direct sunlight. There we often have a white hill of zeolite or borax to give the diffuse reflection from one side. Color is usually superior.

Even better would be some white or rough silvered collapsing reflectors to provide a more diffuse illumination, much like a soft box, but at much lower cost. AHA! I have a windshield reflector in my car that is perfect! Your suggestion has triggered a really good result. Thanks.

Bright sunlight also overcomes noise and other limitations of our cheaper cameras and makes their output look really decent. My horned-toad pic in the gallery is a classic example. [The big Sonys (and IMO, the R1) are strictly studio cameras. Like your 717, I usually only carry the Canon S1 IS when hiking or just riding in the car.]

Wright

----------


## Green Baron

Wright,
The Canon S1 IS (and S2) is another very good general purpose camera.
A second hand Sony 7x7 or Canon S1 would be a very good investment to enter into digital photography.

Bill,
I just came from from the Sony showroom. The camera will only be in store in a week or two. However, the recommended retail price is S$2199 (US$1300)  :Shocked:  which I think is a bit too expensive, more expensive than the Nikon D50 and Canon 350D. 

I think US$900 (S$1500) should be the right price range for this camera.

----------


## keehoe

> Originally Posted by keehoe
> 
> Wright, i think lighting doesn't have to be expensive. Bringing your fish out door and snap under natural light for example is relatively cheap and the result is fantastic. For better effect, may be can consider use a piece of white paper to reflex some light to the darker side of the subject to take care of the shadow and soften the resulting picture.
> 
> The result is more satisfactory then getting a new camera.
> 
> 
> Amen brother Kee Hoe, but you are preaching to the choir.  I have gotten very nice shots of springfish and pupfish on our Desert Springs Action Committee work trips, usually using Doug Haabersaat's excellent little photo tanks in direct sunlight. There we often have a white hill of zeolite or borax to give the diffuse reflection from one side. Color is usually superior.
> 
> ...


Wright, i think the reflector for windscreen is perfect for the job. Looks like you have found yourself a studio light equavalent setup. We have something similar to that but used for seaside BBQ for blocking the wind most importantly, it is able to fold into 3 surface facing the subject.

I am still quite happy with my Panasonic FX7. Which cost me around SGD$800 when i bought it. I think with better light setup and a lot of patient it would still produce decent image without the cost of a DSLR.

----------


## stormhawk

> \Bringing your fish out door and snap under natural light for example is relatively cheap and the result is fantastic.


I can testify to this too. Most of the time if I have a chance I'd do a photo-shoot in good sunlight, usually around 10 to 11am SG time on a sunny day. The fishes show excellent colours and I've gotten decent pictures many times. 

True enough, lighting need not be too expensive.  :Laughing:

----------


## hwchoy

that's why I always flash, which is designed to be close to a "stylised" sunlight spectrum.

----------


## Green Baron

> that's why I always flash, which is designed to be close to a "stylised" sunlight spectrum.


Using flash sometimes will produce unnatural colour. 
I know from experience that using flash on butterfly with reflective scales will produce colours which do not look like the real thing.

----------


## hwchoy

> Originally Posted by hwchoy
> 
> that's why I always flash, which is designed to be close to a "stylised" sunlight spectrum.
> 
> 
> Using flash sometimes will produce unnatural colour. 
> I know from experience that using flash on butterfly with reflective scales will produce colours which do not look like the real thing.



ah that means you need a softbox  :Smile: 

its not the colour is incorrect, its the reflectance at the point of view. problem in aquarium if you don't use flash or sunlight, is that the colour will certainly have a yellow or green cast (compared to that viewed under the sun). but then it depends on what you define as "natural".

----------


## ruyle

> Bill, 
> I just came from from the Sony showroom. The camera will only be in store in a week or two. However, the recommended retail price is S$2199 (US$1300)  which I think is a bit too expensive, more expensive than the Nikon D50 and Canon 350D. 
> 
> I think US$900 (S$1500) should be the right price range for this camera.


Gan, over here all the big camera houses are selling it for $999.99 and 
direct from Sony it is $999.95 (you can save a whole 4cents!  :Laughing:  ) I am 
still reserving judgment on a *production* model review but like 
Wright says, I'm a convert and I like the feel of these cams (R1 didn't 
change all that much from its older siblings) so am hoping it comes 
as advertised. I've looked at galleries of R1 pics and they are very 
impressive! 

Bill

----------


## keehoe

> Originally Posted by GanCW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by hwchoy
> 
> ...


Thats why i prefer using FL light with 7k to 12k temperature, full spectrum light for photo taking. It is easier to estimate whats going to be the outcome. 

Flash is good if it doesn't frighten the subject too much.

----------


## hwchoy

actually I find that most cases the fishes aren't that bothered about the actual flash itself. they are more bothered about me mucking about in front of the tank!

----------


## whuntley

That greenish cast is what you get with the typical fluorescents designed to make for easy reading. If you get it in your digital images, you have just not learned the proper way to use the "white balance" function, or your camera is over-simplified. There is little need to change tubes to get good colors, unless you are using film. Even then, FL filters are available to make that light look natural.

Light has many describable properties, like color, brightness, etc. Two important modes are "specular" and "diffuse" and they tend to be opposites.

Sunlight, a distant flash, or any distant near-point source is specular. [Light all coming from the same direction.] The sky, a softbox, or any illuminated white surface, like a wall (e.g., bounce flash), is usually diffuse. [Light appears to arrive at the illuminated object from a wide variety of angles.]

Irridescent reflectors, like butterfly wings or the blues and greens of many killies will look better, on average, with more diffuse lighting. The reds and yellows are often produced by pigment absorption, and are thus less sensitive to the specular-diffuse difference and tend to look about the same in any lighting scheme.

One advantage of outdoor photography is that you can have both specular sunlight and diffuse skylight all at the same time. The result gives what our eyes expect to see and can be quite pleasing in a photograph. Automatic white balance can be pretty good in some cameras, but few really do a great job adjusting from noon to sunset in an eye-pleasing way. That is the primary motivation I have for a semi-permanent studio setup that gives exactly the same results from one fish to the next. I have never done this, and think that I should work on it. No?

I feel this is, more or less, what Tony Terceira and Wayland Lee do to get such consistently-excellent shots of killifish. My pics will probably never be as good as theirs (I'm too impatient, for one thing), but moving in that direction should be an improvement.

Wright

----------


## hwchoy

problem is not too many people go to the extend of doing a custom white balance. first of all many people never ever heard of white balance. worst most people do not even realise their pictures has a colour cast.

----------


## timebomb

> problem is not too many people go to the extend of doing a custom white balance. first of all many people never ever heard of white balance. worst most people do not even realise their pictures has a colour cast.


I must be one those *people*  :Laughing: 

Loh K L

----------


## Green Baron

> Originally Posted by GanCW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by hwchoy
> 
> ...


I have a diffuser box on my flash but the effect is still different from natural light. 
I don't think you can replicate natural light unless you have a studio type strobes and diffusers/reflectors

----------


## hwchoy

> I have a diffuser box on my flash but the effect is still different from natural light. 
> I don't think you can replicate natural light unless you have a studio type strobes and diffusers/reflectors


is the softbox over the tank? the simple way Benny uses it an overhead flash with A4 paper as diffuser.

make no mistake, it is not easy to replicate a natural lighting environment. just see the amount of lighting Amano uses when photographing his tanks. that's one reason to use flash, to replicate a strong and bright "sunlight" type environment for a very brief moment.

end of the day you need to balance perfection with practicality.

----------


## hwchoy

> I must be one those *people* 
> 
> Loh K L



don't be sad. you don't know what you missed until you see what you are missing.  :Smile: 

it was only I calibrated my monitors with a proper calibration device that I realise how far off it used to be.

on the other hand, I have been sensitised to colours and lighting due to my other hobby (stamp collecting).

I was at the 2005 HiFi show last week where Hugo demonstrated their new CD format (LPCD). After hearing their demo system (they weren't demoing the system, but the discs) I went around the show and it was no fun, all the other systems sounded like crap  :Shocked:  compared with what I just heard at the Hugo demo.

----------


## ruyle

> Bill,
> I have been following the Sony SLR like prosumer range as I used to own a 707, now a 717. The 828 looks nice from the outside but the image is not as clean as the 717. What differentiates the R1 from its competitors is the APS size CMOS sensor. 828 has a 8.8x6.6mm sensor ( 2.7 µm pixel pitch) while R1 has 21.5x14.4mm ( 5.49 µm pixel pitch) CMOS sensor. This translater to much cleaner image and allow you to use higher ISO speed. 
> 
> However, for $999 and that size, you might be better off getting a true DSLR from Nikon (D50) or Canon (350D), which provides more options for expansion and a large range lenses and accessories (original and compatible) to choose from.


Gan, the new kid on the block is Nikon's D200 sporting a CCD sensor the
size of the CMOS one in the Sony R1. In December there will be a new
lens 18-200mm that will make this a "go anywhere" camera. The problem
of course, is that it will cost $1700 with the 55-200mm lens. The 18-200mm
will not be offered in the kit, but an add-on  :Sad:  The D200 is also 10.2MP.

Bill

----------


## whuntley

Are you sure about that price, Bill?

I can only find it offered with "body only" for $1700. Is there a kit, somewhere, at that price?

The D200 sensor is still a power-hungry ccd, while the $5000 D2X uses almost the identical CMOS sensor as the Sony R1. It's the low power of CMOS that lets Sony give the live preview in the R1. A ccd would burn out if you tried that. That's why no other DSLR has either live preview or a movie mode.

How much will that 18-200 mm lens cost, and is it designed for the APS format or for 35mm? Does it have IS? I got hooked on IS in my Sony video camera (TRV310) and now I'm really an addict, for tele, with my Canon S1 IS. I quit carrying a tripod on hikes. I wonder if the higher ISO speeds will really compensate for no Image Stabilization?

The R1 reviewers are not optical designers, so they have underplayed the optical advantages of getting rid of the flopping mirror or beamsplitter, and moving the last lens optical element very close to the sensor. This inherently reduces, dramatically, all the off-center aberrations like lateral chromatic, coma and astigmatism. I can't wait to see if the Zeiss lens design in the R1 really takes advantage of that bold design move. If it does, this lens might actually resolve 10 Mp! AFAIK, no 35 mm lens design will even come close in a normal DSLR, spaced way behind a flopping mirror.

If it lives up to expectations, the R1 will be essentially the equivalent of most medium-format film cameras, in the detail it will give. Not too shabby, for under US$1000. That's about what my Zenza Bronica cost way back in the early '60s.  :Very Happy:  I never could afford a second lens for it, and zooms were only a dream for MF cameras.

Wright
Freezing in CA as the weekly storms are now coming in from the gulf of Alaska. I have a huge leaf-raking problem!

----------


## ruyle

> Are you sure about that price, Bill?
> 
> I can only find it offered with "body only" for $1700. Is there a kit, somewhere, at that price?


Nope, I read it wrong, it is $1699 for just the body  :Opps: 

Bill

----------


## whuntley

I looked at that proposed 11.1X zoom lens at:

http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/re.../dslr_EN6.html

It is a real DX lens, designed to work with the APS sensor, and what is more, it has Image Stabilization (called Vibration Reduction by Nikon) that allows a 4-stop-slower shutter speed than normal. WOW!

Unfortunately, I couldn't find a price, but I'd bet that lens is far more expensive than the entire R1 we have been talking about.

The D200 has adopted so many of the D2X features that I bet it, at $1700, kills sales of the $5000 model. [Only the usual yuppies who think expensive must be better will still buy the D2X.]

Fascinating inputs, Bill.

Wright

----------


## ruyle

Wright,
I won't be betting you on the price, I'm pretty sure it'll cost more than the
R1. Have you seen some of the pics taken by this camera? Pretty impressive,
but of course, I liked the R1 gallery, too.  :Wink: 

Bill

----------


## ruyle

> It is a real DX lens, designed to work with the APS sensor, and what is more, it has Image Stabilization (called Vibration Reduction by Nikon) that allows a 4-stop-slower shutter speed than normal. WOW!


Erm, Wright, that is 4-stops faster than normal, according to the article.

With the VR II system this lens has gotta cost a bundle  :Shocked:  but looks
like the holy grail, Wright? It's got your IS.....

Bill

----------


## whuntley

> Originally Posted by whuntley
> 
> It is a real DX lens, designed to work with the APS sensor, and what is more, it has Image Stabilization (called Vibration Reduction by Nikon) that allows a 4-stop-slower shutter speed than normal. WOW!
> 
> 
> Erm, Wright, that is 4-stops faster than normal, according to the article.
> Bill


They are wrong, if that is what they said. IS lets you hand hold at longer exposures than normal, not shorter. Longer is slower, not faster.

You don't need IS if the ISO is several stops higher. The best of all worlds is higher ISO and vibration control.  :Very Happy: 

Wright

----------


## ruyle

Wright, I'm with Gan...I'm not arguing with an optical engineer 'bout nuthin'
when it comes to cameras!  :Laughing:  

The article was probably translated from the original Japanese and somebody
got distracted. :Wink: 

Bill

----------


## RonWill

> The best of all worlds is higher ISO and vibration control.


Wright, shouldn't that be lower ISO/ASA *and* vibration control?? Besides ISO and aperture, generally, so long as the shutter speed is at or faster than the focal length of the lens (eg. 1/50th sec at 50mm), handshakes and vibrations are managable.

----------


## hwchoy

I think he meant higher useable ISO.

----------


## whuntley

I did.

Higher ISO means a faster shutter, so less sensitivity to camera shake.

IS also reduces the problems of shake, but never gets 100% reduction.

Having both will do all you can do to get sharp pics when hand held.

Wright

----------


## benny

> I think I am quite qualified to make a statement, having milked the last drop out of a G5 digicam  but is now faced with the hard option of doling the moolahs for a DSLR.


I must say that Choy has truly mastered his compact digital camera well. Some folks with fancy Digital SLR equipment can't even produce pictures close to those that Choy has shown us. I can't wait to see what Choy will show us with the new Digital SLR!!




> Originally Posted by GanCW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by hwchoy
> 
> ...


I do agree that diffused flash does work well for aquarium photography. And to be honest, I think that using flash produce much more natural looking aquatic photography. It's just a question of getting it right.




> problem is not too many people go to the extend of doing a custom white balance. first of all many people never ever heard of white balance. worst most people do not even realise their pictures has a colour cast.


How true.... and even if they do get around it in their camera, they forgot about their monitor.




> Originally Posted by GanCW
> 
> I have a diffuser box on my flash but the effect is still different from natural light. 
> I don't think you can replicate natural light unless you have a studio type strobes and diffusers/reflectors
> 
> 
> is the softbox over the tank? the simple way Benny uses it an overhead flash with A4 paper as diffuser.
> 
> make no mistake, it is not easy to replicate a natural lighting environment. just see the amount of lighting Amano uses when photographing his tanks. that's one reason to use flash, to replicate a strong and bright "sunlight" type environment for a very brief moment.
> ...


Well I don't use studio type strobes and diffusers/reflectors. Too cumbersome for aquatic photography, especially with small subjects. Managing the resultant reflection alone will kill you.

Here are some examples of subjects shot with diffused flash.

A small and highly reflective tetra, a metallic betta, and an albino corydoras.


  

Click to enlarge as the forum resize the pictures.

Without flash, the metallic sheen of the subjects cannot be captured. And without diffusion, there will be hot spots in the reflective parts of the fishes. To vary the strength of diffusion, I just add or reduce the number of pieces of paper I use. Cheap and good. And since there was no additional light source other than ambient light, the problem with color cast is very much reduced. 

Cheers,

----------


## ruyle

Those are some stunning photos, Benny! Could I ask what camera you
used to take them?

Bill

----------


## hwchoy

> Those are some stunning photos, Benny! Could I ask what camera you
> used to take them?
> 
> Bill


it's not the camera, it is the amount of fanaticism involved.  :Laughing:  

Benny just founded a new terrorist cell, the Al-Camera group. He terrorises people who own digicams and puny flashes.  :Wink:

----------


## ruyle

Heng Wah,
The next time you see him (I'm sure you're in the same cell) could you ask
him what camera he uses?  :Laughing:  

Bill

----------


## hwchoy

> Heng Wah,
> The next time you see him (I'm sure you're in the same cell) could you ask
> him what camera he uses?  
> 
> Bill


I think should be either a 20D or a 1Ds, depending on mood I guess  :Smile:

----------


## ruyle

> I think should be either a 20D or a 1Ds, depending on mood I guess


Like the 3-4 Porsches he has in his garage, which one to drive today...
hummm  :Laughing:  

Those are some nice cams.

Bill

----------


## Green Baron

> I do agree that diffused flash does work well for aquarium photography. And to be honest, I think that using flash produce much more natural looking aquatic photography. It's just a question of getting it right.
> 
> Well I don't use studio type strobes and diffusers/reflectors. Too cumbersome for aquatic photography, especially with small subjects. Managing the resultant reflection alone will kill you.
> 
> Here are some examples of subjects shot with diffused flash.
> 
> A small and highly reflective tetra, a metallic betta, and an albino corydoras.
> 
> Without flash, the metallic sheen of the subjects cannot be captured. And without diffusion, there will be hot spots in the reflective parts of the fishes. To vary the strength of diffusion, I just add or reduce the number of pieces of paper I use. Cheap and good. And since there was no additional light source other than ambient light, the problem with color cast is very much reduced.


Benny,
Those are nice shots. For fish photography, I agree using multiple flash and diffuser is the best setup.

However, this will not work with certain species of butterflies. Ask you buddy Simon Sng who has caught the butterly bug.  :Laughing:

----------


## hwchoy

> Benny,
> Those are nice shots. For fish photography, I agree using multiple flash and diffuser is the best setup.
> 
> However, this will not work with certain species of butterflies. Ask you buddy Simon Sng who has caught the butterly bug.


oh no! now you've done it. he's going to take up butt shooting just to show ya.  :Rolling Eyes:   :Laughing:   :Laughing:   :Laughing:  s

----------


## hwchoy

> Originally Posted by hwchoy
> 
> I think should be either a 20D or a 1Ds, depending on mood I guess 
> 
> 
> Like the 3-4 Porsches he has in his garage, which one to drive today...
> hummm  
> 
> Those are some nice cams.
> ...


oh I haven't told you about his other dilemma: "which flash to use, and how many. should I bother to mount the mickeymouse?"

----------


## stormhawk

The mickeymouse.. hahahha!! That one got me laughing. I know someone mentioned this before.  :Laughing:

----------


## hwchoy

> The mickeymouse.. hahahha!! That one got me laughing. I know someone mentioned this before.



yes a mickeymouse, albeit a kickass one.  :Cool:

----------


## hwchoy

> Originally Posted by hwchoy
> 
> I think should be either a 20D or a 1Ds, depending on mood I guess 
> 
> 
> Like the 3-4 Porsches he has in his garage, which one to drive today...
> hummm  
> 
> Those are some nice cams.
> ...


normally any one of the green or red ones will do, except when he goes out with the L-lenses, then it has got to be the beige one.  :Wink:

----------


## Green Baron

> Bill,
> I just came from from the Sony showroom. The camera will only be in store in a week or two. However, the recommended retail price is S$2199 (US$1300)  which I think is a bit too expensive, more expensive than the Nikon D50 and Canon 350D. 
> 
> I think US$900 (S$1500) should be the right price range for this camera.


Bill,
The R1 has arrived in Singapore and the recommended retail price is S$1699 which is ~US$1K.

----------


## ruyle

> The R1 has arrived in Singapore and the recommended retail price is S$1699 which is ~US$1K.


Gan, that's a little more reasonable. Still haven't seen a review of a
production model camera. And user reviews by consumers....I would be
very hesitant to get one till I could determine they're consistent with
the pre-production model review.

Bill

----------


## benny

> Originally Posted by hwchoy
> 
> I think should be either a 20D or a 1Ds, depending on mood I guess 
> 
> 
> Like the 3-4 Porsches he has in his garage, which one to drive today...
> hummm  
> 
> Those are some nice cams.
> ...


Sad to say Bill, but I can't afford a car. Have to depend on the generosity of my father to lend me his when it's not in use.

As for me, I'm a Canon user and those are taken with my Canon digital SLR camera. However, I'll honestly say that it's not the camera, but the technique that makes a difference (as proved by hwchoy) and it's not the setting, but the setup that makes the difference.

Cheers,

----------


## benny

> Benny,
> Those are nice shots. For fish photography, I agree using multiple flash and diffuser is the best setup.
> 
> However, this will not work with certain species of butterflies. Ask you buddy Simon Sng who has caught the butterly bug.


Well... I beg to differ. Initially, most folks advise against using flash for fish photography and advocated shooting at an angle if you do. That as the defacto advice and technique. With experimentation, we found that it's not true.

It's a question of understanding light, your subject and the shooting conditions. Whilst shooting in the wild pose a challenge to use a soft box (or other diffusion solution) effectively, it is not impossible. It's a question of your willingness to explore the limits beyond the camera.




> oh no! now you've done it. he's going to take up butt shooting just to show ya.     s


Nah....Simon have tried and failed. I'm not the gungho sort to be jungle bashing. Give me a fish challenge and I'll take you on anytime!

Cheers,

----------


## Green Baron

> Well... I beg to differ. Initially, most folks advise against using flash for fish photography and advocated shooting at an angle if you do. That as the defacto advice and technique. With experimentation, we found that it's not true.
> 
> It's a question of understanding light, your subject and the shooting conditions. Whilst shooting in the wild pose a challenge to use a soft box (or other diffusion solution) effectively, it is not impossible. It's a question of your willingness to explore the limits beyond the camera.


Benny,
I agree it is possible if you have the time and space to setup the proper lighting. However, in the wild it is as good as impossible, unless you have a crew carrying diffuser and multiple flashes for you.  :Laughing:

----------


## stormhawk

> Give me a fish challenge and I'll take you on anytime!


Benny, I've got a species for you to photograph. If no females appear I'll take one of the males over for you to photograph. Let me know if you're interested.  :Wink:

----------


## ruyle

Thanks to Wright about some different settings (aperture, shutter speed) and
Jian Yang's Photoshop Windex to get rid of some unwanted spots, this is
the result:


This is a 1.5MP camera. The yellowish cast is from the lighting I use. I still
have yet to use a Vivitar external flash (keep forgetting to get batteries).
Click to make larger.

Bill

----------


## hwchoy

Bill, did you do blurring on some of the parts? like the red bands near the pre dorsal, and around the caudal peduncle? especially the caudal, the peduncle is OOF yet part of caudal lobe is sharp.

----------


## ruyle

Heng Wah,
I checked the unphotoshopped image and those anomalies are there, too.
Pic was taken at f4.76 and shutter speed 1/64, which may be slow enough,
coupled with the onboard flash to cause some blurring here and there. 

This is where it breaks down some not using an external flash. Spot 
metering mode may have helped this, too.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?  :Laughing: 

Bill

----------


## hwchoy

> Heng Wah,
> I checked the unphotoshopped image and those anomalies are there, too.
> Pic was taken at f4.76 and shutter speed 1/64, which may be slow enough,
> coupled with the onboard flash to cause some blurring here and there. 
> 
> This is where it breaks down some not using an external flash. Spot 
> metering mode may have helped this, too.
> 
> Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play? 
> ...


mmm one thing I learned from portrait photographers, no matter what the posture, the eyes of the subject must be sharp to give life to the composition. In this case I can see the eyes are in focus, pretty good.

since you are doing photoshop, why not do the necessary colour correction to take care of the yellow cast?

----------


## ruyle

Heng Wah,
I sent it back to Jian Yang to see what he could do with it, since Photoshop
is what was used originally. I have PSP9, I could try it with that, too. The
different settings and image processing is a learning curve that I haven't
quite "crested" yet.  :Laughing:  These fish are very active (moto perpetuo) and
not the easiest subject to capture. I didn't use a tripod, with their move-
ment back and forth in the tank, would render it useless. Will be trying
the external flash attached to the cam, since I don't have a hotshoe adaptor
to attach to the tripod directly.  :Wink:  

Bill

----------


## hwchoy

do not use tripod with small fish. handheld (heck I even manual pre-focus) at better than 1/60s will do fine. if you have flash, try to shoot at your smallest aperture to increase DOF.

----------


## stormhawk

Bill wanted to keep the colours the way they are. With auto-balance the yellow cast would have been taken of.  :Very Happy:

----------


## ruyle

> do not use tripod with small fish. handheld (heck I even manual pre-focus) at better than 1/60s will do fine. if you have flash, try to shoot at your smallest aperture to increase DOF.


I agree about the tripod, unless you have designated studio room to have
this stuff handy, it's generally a mad dash to get the camera to take a
pic when they're in the front glass. This is especially true of the secretive
Mundemba!  :Laughing:  HW, thanks for the tips on aperture. This photo was 
taken at f4.74, 1/64, spot metering, internal flash, everything was manually selected.

I'll be pasting up Jian Yang's latest effort in Photo Shop when I get home
from work.

Jian Yang, yeah, big mistake keeping the original colors!  :Laughing:  

Bill

----------


## ruyle

I want to thank Jian Yang for hitting the autobalance button!  :Laughing:  




Jian Yang, you really saved this one, thanks much!  :Very Happy:  

Bill

----------


## ruyle

> As for me, I'm a Canon user and those are taken with my Canon digital SLR camera. However, I'll honestly say that it's not the camera, but the technique that makes a difference (as proved by hwchoy) and it's not the setting, but the setup that makes the difference.
> 
> Cheers,


Benny, thanks to your recommendation on the Canon 100mm f/2.8 nonUSM
macro, I will be receiving one in about a week. I was lucky to find this on
ebay, as most all offerings are for the USM model. Can't wait to try this on
my Canon D30. :Wink: 

Thanks again,

Bill

----------


## hwchoy

Bill, its a darn good lens. you will enjoy it. btw this lens has a sweet spot around _f_/8 to _f_/13 which is reasonably good for fishes about an inch or two.

----------


## ruyle

> Bill, its a darn good lens. you will enjoy it. btw this lens has a sweet spot around _f_/8 to _f_/13 which is reasonably good for fishes about an inch or two.


Heng Wah, can't wait to start using this lens. I've seen some pics from this
lens on a few sites, quite stunning sharpness! And the best bokeh there is...

Bill

----------


## Blessedsilence

After going through this thread I have to agree that the setup is what makes the photograph. I usually set up my tripod in front of my tank and wait for some photos, or I will make a smaller "photograph" setup where I make it so the fish in that particular tank can only go into a certain area and let them calm down to get their normal colors back. This works when I just want to show the male of any of my killies, that and it hides the rest of my tank.

I currently use the Canon EOS 20D with a flash attached to my hotshoe, I have a reflector above the tank and have my flash bounce off of that and back onto the fish in the tank so I can get a head on shot with a flash, what I can say it is much easier to take photographs of models then it is of fish, they just dont seem to do what you want no matter how much you plead or offer up some tasty treat.

----------


## ruyle

Ray, the 20D is a super nice camera! One of the co-owners of Aquatic
Photography Forum shoots with this cam along with some other forumers,
and the pics are incredible! Love to see some of your work  :Smile:  

Bill

----------

