Home | Community | Message Board

Original Seeds Store
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2981404 - 08/09/04 11:51 AM (19 years, 5 months ago)

one of the options you should look for is screw threads on the lense, it allows them to accept filters for macro shots... and you can get closer with out the blur


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,670
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2981640 - 08/09/04 12:54 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Leablas said:
Quote:

koraks said:
Very informative post




Wow, I feel like I know a little about cameras now :smile:.




Nope, you ain't seen nothin' yet :laugh: But it's a good feeling huh? :smile:
Nah, just kidding. But it is some information you'll not very likely hear in the shops. Shops like to sell and more often than not, the truth don't sell. Simple.

Quote:

So, it seems that my ideal camera would include decent optical zoom, around 5Mpix(to save on price), and would hopefully include a 'Raynox' lens for increased macro capabilities.



5Mpix is great, 3Mpix is perfect in 99% of the cases. If you can get a deal on a decent 3Mpix camera, don't discard it because of the 2Mpix. It's not that much of a difference really.
As for the screw-on lenses (as Raynox makes them; I use a Sigma myself which I actually stumbled upon :laugh: ): be sure to buy a camera that can take standard (screw) filters. Macro lenses like Raynox' screw onto your lens like normal filters (like UV and polarization filters).

Quote:

I'm still a little blurry on the pixel part. When the reviews note:
"x million effective pixels
y million sensor photo detectors"
Are we looking for the most sensor:least pixel ratio? Or kind of an even ratio?



There's a little article on DPreview that covers your question. I really can't explain it any better than Bockaert does on DPreview.com. You should check the other entries in the DPreview glossary as well, as they provide comprehensive information that could help you objectively judge information in ads and provided by shopkeepers.

Quote:

Edit: It seems the best type of camera for me would be some type of SLR. But loaded with all of the other extras, they become too expensive :frown:



That depends on it. If you're determined to go (or stay) digital, then a dSLR is gonna cost ya. Simple. If, however, you decide to go analog, you could pick up some perfect bodies and lenses on Ebay for example. You can get a decent analog SLR setup for about $ 500 including a slide scanner like the Minolta Scan Dual IV i use myself. With this setup (including the scanner) you can get digital images of higher quality than most compact digital camera (maybe a camera like the F717 comes close) and some dSLR's. I found that the image quality of my setup comes really close to the images you get from a decent dSLR like the Canon Rebel or the Nikon D70. You'll surpass the quality of the once popular Canon D30 by a long shot. But apart from the digital image, you'll have an analog original (preferably on slide film) that surpasses the quality of even professional 35mm dSLR's by far! Yes, that's right, a 35mm slide still contains more image information (both resolution- and colourwise) than the images professional photographers get from their expensive Canon 1DMIIs.
The only question remains: are you prepared to invest the extra time of scanning your slides (or negatives, but I prefer slides)?

Oh, one last link for you: Ken Rockwell's site. Rockwell is a professional photographer with shitloads of experience, as well with digital imaging as with analog photography. Moreover, he provides practical, comprehensive, down-to-earth (but usually heavily biased) information on various subjects (analog vs. digital, film choice, scanners, digital cameras, camera choice, lenses etc.) Go take a look.

Quote:

Mad_Hatter2004 said:

For your first camera go with either Nikon or Cannon...they ARE the camera people.And with cannon the possibilitys are endless.You can buy different lenses and filters and they aren't that expensive!



Nikon and Canon (1 n please, they make cameras, not heavy artillery :wink: ) both make some very nifty cameras. But they both make some crappy equipment as well and in addition, there are many other manufacturers that make high-quality equipment. You've seen I've already mentioned Sony a couple of times. This is not because I'm a salesman for Sony (which I am not and will very likely never be), but just because they make some pretty amazing digital cameras. In the ? 500 - ? 800 range, the F717 is still the absolute winner IMO. Personally, I don't think there's either a Canon or a Nikon camera that can pose a serious threat to the F717, neither can the F828 IMO. And Sony isn't the only manufacturer of very decent digicams, their are many, many others!

What am I trying to say here? Well, don't limit yourself to Nikon and Canon. Yes, they are popular and yes, they have a shitload of experience in photography, but don't forget that digital photography is still a relatively new and unexplored terrain so every manufacturer has about the same chances. Four years ago, when I first held a decent Sony digicam (the first one equipped with a Carl Zeiss lens), I was very sceptical about its performance. I grew wiser very, very quickly...


Edited by koraks (08/09/04 01:05 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGGreatOne234
Stranger
Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 8,946
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2981690 - 08/09/04 01:10 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

i have a Sony Digital Mavica MVC-FD73

it's kinda old-school, got it 5 years ago, it uses floppy disks and stores about a dozen photos on each disk.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLeablas
Newbie
Registered: 08/07/04
Posts: 28
Loc: Florida, USA
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: koraks]
    #2981782 - 08/09/04 01:36 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Don't limit yourself to Nikon and Canon.




As someone getting his first camera, I'm thinking something inexpensive like the Nikon Coolpix 3100 would do well. Any objections? Things like autofocus are neccesary because knowing myself, it would take forever to get a decent focus. Though some cameras seem to lack accuracy when auto-focus is involved, does this just depend on the camera? Or is it a combo of setting/photographer/angle/etc.?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleUna
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2982287 - 08/09/04 03:26 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

I can vote for our Nikon Coolpix 5400. It has an awesome macro function that lets you take crystal sharp images up to 1 cm from the lense!


--------------------
www.911blogger.com


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinearray
diehard confederate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 2,539
Loc: ya moms trailer park
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Una]
    #2982943 - 08/09/04 06:05 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Dont forget to get a strap or some type of case that can secure the camera to you as you are out in the fields looking... I get too paranoid about taking my cameras out because where i go, i have to jump over creeks, climb trees to get past thick brush and im always near mud/swamp. Another danger is unexpected showers. I dont care though i always go out IN the rain looking, i cant wait till it dries to go for a hike. I might want a newer dig cam too, cause my old one takes horrible pics in low light so when i bring some shrooms back i can never get a good photo. It only takes quality pics under the light of the sun and there arent too many settings to change.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLeablas
Newbie
Registered: 08/07/04
Posts: 28
Loc: Florida, USA
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: array]
    #2983470 - 08/09/04 08:44 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Good call on that. I was thinking about getting the package they offer that has extra batterys, a charger, a strap, and a lens cleaner. Though I've been reading that it's best to go for a certain type of battery? You can bet I also have no clue about todays batterys  :smirk:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleangryshroom
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/18/01
Posts: 7,264
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2983637 - 08/09/04 09:33 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Some of my favorite MACRO shots with my DSC F717.

*NOTE* These are the low res images. The ones which come straight from the camera are much better quality:













Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,670
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2984507 - 08/10/04 01:33 AM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Leablas said:
Quote:

Don't limit yourself to Nikon and Canon.




As someone getting his first camera, I'm thinking something inexpensive like the Nikon Coolpix 3100 would do well. Any objections?



No, not at all, this Nikon might be a perfect choice. I was just trying to say that apart from Nikon and Canon, there are more manufacturers that make products that are absolutely worthwile. But that goes for Nikon and Canon as well!

Quote:

Things like autofocus are neccesary because knowing myself, it would take forever to get a decent focus.



AF performace is always an issue with compact cameras. Usually, the AF systems in compact cameras work perfectly, but the photographer doesn't know how to use it properly, resulting in snapshots of blurry people with a sharp background for example.

Quote:

Though some cameras seem to lack accuracy when auto-focus is involved, does this just depend on the camera? Or is it a combo of setting/photographer/angle/etc.?



AF performance depends on the quality of the AF system (obviously), but also on some other factors. In low light condition (at night and indoors), many AF systems fail and it's not possible to get a good focus. The more expensive cameras (like the F717 and F828) have laser focus assists and many dSLR's (like the Nikon D70) have little AF assist lightbulbs (small white light) to correct this problem. Another solution is manual focus ofcourse; in low-light conditions you could switch to manual focus if it appears to be impossible to get a correct focus. But not all digital compact cameras support manual focus and if they do, it's often not very accurate due to the ergonomics of the MF-method (this is a well-known issue with the F717).

Then there's the (supposed) problem of backfocus and frontfocus. It appears that some cameras (both digital and analog) do not focus spot-on. This means that if you focus on a subject, the camera may actually focus on a point some distance in front of or to the back of your actual subject. I've seen many test results and performed some tests myself, as there has been quite some discussion about this issue. I found that most cameras indeed exhibit front- or back-focus to some extent, but in 99% of the cases there is no real problem. In those cases, front- or back-focus is a couple of mms (maybe a tenth or two tenths of an inch) which is a perfectly normal aberration and absolutely nothing that would seriously affect the quality of your photographs. So forget about it. Your AF system will work perfectly as long as there's enough light available and you know how to use the AF properly.

Personally, I use manual focus in 99% of the cases. The camera I use most (a 35mm Mamiya ZM) doesn't even support AF, but also on my Canon EOS1000F I almost never use AF. This is mainly because I want to have control over the focus process which is especially important if you work at larger apertures (lower f numbers like f/4) which translates in a small depth of field. In such a case, you want your focus to be spot-on as there's little margin for error.

For the (rare) occasions that I do use AF, I took the time to practice with the AF system to find out how I can use it as effectively as possible. It appeared that the AF system on my EOS1000F is depended on two important factors:
1. Available light; like all AF systems it needs enough light to operate. I found that the EOS1000F needs perhaps a little less light than some modern digital compact cameras, but maybe a little more than some newer dSLRs.
2. Edges; an AF system actually focuses on an edge. A perfectly smooth plane (like a sheet of glass) has too little structure for an AF system to 'lock'. I found that the EOS1000F needs vertical edges in particular for the AF to lock.
This is stuff you find out if you test your AF system consciously and it really helps employing your camera's AF in an efficient way.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNNY
Z?

Registered: 07/17/04
Posts: 120
Loc: USA
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2984631 - 08/10/04 02:09 AM (19 years, 5 months ago)

if you're going to be using it to ID mushrooms some of the more important things you can have is an optical zoom instead of digital, a decent resolution -- as was mentioned, more megapixels isnt always better. you can find plenty of reviews that will demonstrate and compare picture quality for you. and a macro zoom function will probably come in handy as well.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs.asp is a good place to start looking, besides asking around of course.

i personaly have a Minolta Dimage, but thats a higher end camera than you would need. i used to have an olympus camedia 3040, it was a great camera, though at the time it was still a bit more expensive than you'd need to go -- 600$. its probably lower priced by now though, and of course there are models lower than that. both olympus and minolta are good companies to look at.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,670
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2984686 - 08/10/04 02:29 AM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Leablas said:
Though I've been reading that it's best to go for a certain type of battery? You can bet I also have no clue about todays batterys  :smirk:



Most modern digicams come with a device-specific, rechargeable battery. There are two technologies that are used for these batteries:
1. Lithium Ion (LiIon)
2. Nickel Hydride (NiMH)
(In the beginning of the rechargeable-battery era, NiCd (Nickel Cadmium) was widely used. Both LiIon and NiMH offer much better performance in this application thouh, so virtually no-one uses NiCd in cameras anymore.)

LiIon batteries are more expensive than NiMHs but they contain more energy per weight unit than NiMHs, so in that respect, LiIon is better. There's another factor though, which is called the 'memory effect'. This effect becomes apperent if you recharge a rechargeable battery that hasn't been sufficiently drained yet. The battery will recharge, but the next time you use it, you may notice that it lasts less long than back when it was just new and you'll have to recharge earlier than you'd expected. This eventually happens with all rechargeable batteries (including LiIon and NiMH!), but the old NiCds where notorious for this effect. Both NiMH and LiIon are said by some to not show this memory effect. This is not true, though it is much, much less apparent than with NiCd batteries. I found that NiMH and LiIon are about comparable regarding the memory effect. LiIon is said to perform much better than NiMH in terms of the memory effect, but I haven't been able to verify this in practice. On the contrary, I suspect that LiIon batteries are actually more prone to the memory effect than NiMH batteries. Studies have been performed to investigate this, and  indeed NiMH appears to perform better than LiIon in many cases.

All this talk about batteries is not very interesting though, in terms of choosing a camera. Choose the camera you'd like to use and you'll automatically see what kind of battery it comes with. If it's a NiMH battery, that's allright. If it's a LiIon battery, that's fine too. If it's a NiCd battery, you just dug up a camera from the stone age and should go looking for another one as this one is clearly outdated, and I mean not only the battery.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOOISI
Suburbanaut
I'm a teapot User Gallery

Registered: 03/21/04
Posts: 2,394
Loc: SA
Last seen: 5 days, 18 hours
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2984713 - 08/10/04 02:45 AM (19 years, 5 months ago)

i dont have a camera but i use someone elses. Its a Sony DSC-P51 2.0 Megapixels, for shots i took check the Australia and New Zealand Actives *sticky*. Theyre nothing compared to gumbys but id say enough for an ID. BTW gumby you could probably do poster printouts (A1 or A2) with 8 Megapixels! AngryShroomer you got some nice pics to, especially the scorpion, the pod and the subalts


--------------------
Subaeruginosa Guide

Bless the Lord, O my soul O my soul Worship His holy name.


Edited by OOISI (08/10/04 02:53 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebaltazar
Quiet dreamer

Registered: 02/23/04
Posts: 746
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: OOISI]
    #2985347 - 08/10/04 09:46 AM (19 years, 5 months ago)

I use a Olympus and im very satisfied with it ... Optical zoom 3x, digital 4x, 4.0 megapixels, many options, and my favorite night shot and movie function ( .MOV ) ...

Only bad thing about this camera is that it doesn't have macro, this function is many time usefull for shroom hunters/cultivators :frown: But i mostly then take large resolution pics and zoom in from distance and it turns out ok ...


Edited by baltazar (06/20/11 05:44 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLeablas
Newbie
Registered: 08/07/04
Posts: 28
Loc: Florida, USA
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: koraks]
    #2986064 - 08/10/04 01:21 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

What are your thoughts on the price range? Would it be worthwhile to invest the extra 50-100 bucks for a new camera? Or are refurbished just fine? It would seem since refurb'd ones are half price there has to be something up with them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinearray
diehard confederate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 2,539
Loc: ya moms trailer park
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2986192 - 08/10/04 01:46 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

I would say that refurbished is the way to go if you want to save money. Some of them even have limited warranties. I've bought refurbished electronics and i havent had any problems with them (knock on wood). But worst case, you could get refunded if something goes wrong with a used cam. I would rather get a good cam refurbished and cheap as opposed to a new one that isnt exactly the quality i wanted. It's a tradeoff, either way.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecsuidae
newbie
Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 45
Last seen: 18 years, 10 months
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: array]
    #2988426 - 08/10/04 08:51 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Having just bought my camera last week, I thought I'd post.

I decided on the Minolta Dimage Z2, a 4Mpixel camera with 10x optical and 4x digital zoom. I was attracted by the good macro capabilities (including a 'supermacro' mode) and the 640x480@30fps video with sound capability (800x600@15fps).

I'm a little disappointed with the apature range, which is about 2.something to 8. I can't do long exposures in bright light, which just seems inexcusable for a digital camera.

I'm quite happy with it. I got it partially with the intention of using it to learn what I will need in a couple of years when I outgrow this one, if that ever happens.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,670
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: csuidae]
    #2989382 - 08/11/04 01:31 AM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

csuidae said:
I'm a little disappointed with the apature range, which is about 2.something to 8. I can't do long exposures in bright light, which just seems inexcusable for a digital camera.




Why would you want to do long exposures when there's ample light? If you have enought light, you don't need long exposures which is actually benificial! Long exposures mean motion blur and heavy noise (especially on digital compact cameras). I just can't think of a good reason for making long exposures when you don't need to...

The Z2 is a fine camera btw, the only drawback (IMO) is that the lens shows some some purple fringing (chromatic aberration).


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGumby
Fishnologist
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/13/01
Posts: 26,656
Trusted Identifier
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: koraks]
    #2992962 - 08/11/04 07:56 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

koraks said:
Why would you want to do long exposures when there's ample light?




Think pictures of water falls and creeks... ample lighting but you still want that smooth blurred water look.


I too am disappointed in the aperture range on my camera. Same as csiudae, 2.2 to 8. My last camera did up to 16. My current camera does up to a 30 second exposure, which is better than the last camera(15s). It also came with a flower hood, so that might help out with the lack of aperture settings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenofind_um
Explorer ofEarth
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 933
Loc: At work, at school, at my...
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: csuidae]
    #2992989 - 08/11/04 08:02 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Looks nice thanks for the
reference thread... Nofindum...


--------------------
My hunting partner is gone, I miss her so!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecsuidae
newbie
Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 45
Last seen: 18 years, 10 months
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Gumby]
    #2994155 - 08/12/04 12:28 AM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Gumby said:
Think pictures of water falls and creeks... ample lighting but you still want that smooth blurred water look.





Yup, exactly. I was at the lake the other day wishing I could get some long exposures of the waves in some places, but in full sun there is just no way I can do it with the camera. The only thing I could think of would be to put the camera in movie mode and then post process the images to merge them together with the exposure settings I want. Seems like something that ought to be built into the camera.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* looking for experianced mushroom hunter in OR lezbideshiac 1,376 2 09/22/01 09:56 PM
by Dunehound
* newbie mushroom hunter in california Anonymous 1,551 2 06/29/02 06:20 AM
by Anonymous
* Western Washington Mushroom Hunters! Nirvhead 9,230 18 09/27/05 12:21 AM
by shroomr4life
* Re: Photos From A Clueless Mushroom Hunter GGreatOne234 2,988 8 01/15/00 02:32 PM
by GGreatOne234
* ATTN: WA mushroom hunters! debbii077 1,601 5 10/29/01 11:51 AM
by debbii077
* Re: Questions for mushroom hunters Psylosymon 4,816 4 12/05/99 04:53 PM
by AIRDOG
* British Mushroom Hunters The_Clash_UK 913 1 08/18/02 05:50 AM
by ToxicMan
* News Clipping--Treasure Coast Mushrooms Sturn-up GGreatOne234 9,813 11 07/28/01 06:32 PM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: ToxicMan, inski, Alan Rockefeller, Duggstar, TimmiT, Anglerfish, Tmethyl, Lucis, Doc9151, Land Trout
7,857 topic views. 1 members, 25 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 13 queries.