Home | Community | Message Board

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

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
OfflineLeablas
Newbie
Registered: 08/07/04
Posts: 28
Loc: Florida, USA
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Ideal camera for mushroom hunters?
    #2978547 - 08/08/04 02:34 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Just like the title says, I was wondering if you guys could share some ideas on what to look for in a good camera. I've recently started shroom hunting as a hobby and doing I.D's without pictures doesn't work too well(ie:my last post), so I've decided to start saving up for a decent digital camera. Feel free to post your own model name/price too if you have your own. Thanks :smile:


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: Leablas]
    #2978734 - 08/08/04 04:03 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

I've got a Sony CyberShot F828 and I bought it for $793 but it goes for about $999 at most places. It's an 8 mega pixel camera, has night vision, a laser based focus system(for focusing in complete darkness), 7x optical zoom and 7x digital zoom.

The main thing you're concerned with when photographing mushrooms would be the camera's macro abilities... the abilities to take pictures close up.

The Fuji FinePix S602z can focus at 1cm from the object. It's an excellent camera for mushroom hunters... Although it might be a bit overkill for your average user.

Check out http://www.steves-digicams.com/ for camera reviews.

Here's some pictures I took with my camera: http://www.impakt.net/~tyler/


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGatorB
Stranger
Registered: 07/30/04
Posts: 233
Loc: Southeast Tennessee
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2978867 - 08/08/04 05:09 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

I have an Olympus C-750 Ultra Zoom (10x optical, 40x digital) and its macro abilities are outstanding. With the right lighting, it can focus on an object while nearly touching it. 4 megapixel, outstanding quality and creative control, $500-600.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleangryshroom
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/18/01
Posts: 7,264
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Gumby]
    #2978887 - 08/08/04 05:16 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Ive got the older version of Gumby's sony: DSC-F717. I love it. Takes some great pictures.


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: Gumby]
    #2979043 - 08/08/04 06:24 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Those are some kickass pictures gumby. I wish I had $1000 to throw down on a camera, but unfortunately I think I will end up in the $300-400 range. It would seem that the best company for these kind of things would be Sony? Or are there some good companys out there that aren't widely known?

Quick Edit: Gator, whats the difference between Optical/Digital zoom? If it helps, I plan on using my future camera mostly on macro shots(shrooms and herbs) :smile:


Edited by Leablas (08/08/04 06:25 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleangryshroom
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/18/01
Posts: 7,264
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2979146 - 08/08/04 07:26 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Optical zoom is much clearer than digital. Digital is basically just zooming into the picture artifically.

You want the most optical you can find.


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: Leablas]
    #2979233 - 08/08/04 08:00 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

My favorite brand names:

Sony
Fuji
Cannon
Nikon


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: Gumby]
    #2979370 - 08/08/04 08:53 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Thanks Gumby! Off I go to compare/contrast hundreds of cameras!

P.S: Does it help to close my threads after I get what I'm looking for? Or would it be a something-to-keep-for-others-to-see kind of thing(and does the same go for I.D threads?).

Edit: Well unless I'm missing the option somewhere I'm guessing that I am unable to close my threads, nevermind then :smile:.


Edited by Leablas (08/08/04 09:01 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 19 days, 20 hours
Trusted Identifier
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2979407 - 08/08/04 09:07 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

If you are on a relatively tight budget, I would recommend the Canon Powershot A80 .

A good website for reviews is www.dpreview.com .


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGatorB
Stranger
Registered: 07/30/04
Posts: 233
Loc: Southeast Tennessee
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2979580 - 08/08/04 10:08 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

My ideal camera? Sony Cybershot, with all the fixin's. Or a Rebel.


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: Anno]
    #2979708 - 08/08/04 10:49 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Anno said:
The Canon Powershot A80 .




I was comparing this and the A75:
A80:
3.9 million effective pixels
4.1 million sensor photo detectors
38 mm - 114 mm (3x) zoom lens
$330

A75:
3.1 million effective pixels
3.3 million sensor photo detectors
35 mm - 105 mm (3x) zoom lens
$200

Does that difference in amount of pixels really increase sharpness enough to cost another $100? Then again, cameras are usually something you want quality from...Since they (hopefully) last long.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGatorB
Stranger
Registered: 07/30/04
Posts: 233
Loc: Southeast Tennessee
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2979778 - 08/08/04 11:15 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Be careful when selecting a camera based on megapixels. It's not how many... it's the quality of the pixels. Make sure you do research before you buy to see what others say about the camera. Use the links given here, and a lot of consumer reviews are at Amazon.com.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespores
haploid
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/18/99
Posts: 2,486
Loc: Washington
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2979813 - 08/08/04 11:25 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

I've had a Powershot A60(2 MP) for about a year, check my past posts for lots of pics with it. it's pretty nice, it doesn't focus or do macros as well as some other cameras I've used, but once you figure out how to use it you can get some pretty nice pics. Haven't used any of the newer ones, maybe they don't have the same problem...

DH


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePinback
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/02
Posts: 836
Loc: Europe
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2979831 - 08/08/04 11:31 PM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Another difference between the A75 and A80 is that the A80 has a smaller, but swiveling LCD.


I am very satisfied with my A80.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,670
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2980207 - 08/09/04 01:30 AM (19 years, 5 months ago)

You can either drive down to the local mall and pick up a camera or spend months going through information and reviews and then buying your new cam. As for myself, I guess I'm one of those people endlessly reading through forums and whatnot to find any information on a particular camera or technology. The bottomline is, however, that the photographer takes the photograph, and not the camera. A good photographer will take stunning pictures with a crappy cam, while a lousy photographer will only get worthless snapshots from his Canon 1D-II.

Nevertheless, there are of course things you should account for choosing a new camera. As you will be photographing mushrooms, a decent macro capability would come in handy. Luckily, most (if not all) of the decent (> $ 300) digital compact cameras (like the Canon A80, Sony DSC-V/W1, Sony F717 etc.) provide a very reasonable macro functionality.

Quote:

Leablas said:
Those are some kickass pictures gumby. I wish I had $1000 to throw down on a camera, but unfortunately I think I will end up in the $300-400 range. It would seem that the best company for these kind of things would be Sony?



Sony makes some very nice cameras, yes. The F717 is a totally kickass product which is absolutely capable of producing beatiful macros. The F828 isn't much of an improvement in comparison with the F717, as Sony crammed 8Mpix on a sensor the same physical size as the sensor in the F717, resulting in much noisier images than those from the F717.

This brings me to another point: more megapixels is not better! All digital compact cameras (the F717 and F828 are still essentially compact cameras!) use tiny CCD or CMOS sensors. As many consumers think that a camera is better if it has more megapixels, sensor producers are tempted to cram as many pixels on a sensor as possible, resulting in the tiny 8Mpix sensors we see today in the Sony F828 and Canond Pro1. A nasty drawback of this megapixel-race is that due to the physical size of the sensor and the humongous number of pixels, every single pixel doesn't receive that much light to convert into an electric signal. More amplification is needed to rework the signal from the sensor into a signal that can be used in the camera logic and, as you mich suspect, signal amplification means loss of quality. That's why the ultra modern (and ultra expensive) 8Mpix sensors of today have much higher noise levels than the older 5Mpix and 3Mpix sensors.

You won't need 8Mpix unless you're going to make poster-sized prints of your photographs. And even then you can get acceptable results from a 5Mpix camera. Don't spend money on megapixels. Spend money on decent optics.

[Note: the story is somewhat different for dSLRs (like the Canon Rebel, EOS 10D, Sigma SD10, Nikon D70 etc.) as dSLRs use much bigger sensors than compact cameras. This enables cameras like the new EOS 1D-MII to produce virtually noiseless 10Mpix images even on higher ISO rates. But I assume you don't have the cash for a dSLR, so I'll not go into this matter much deeper.]

Quote:

Quick Edit: Gator, whats the difference between Optical/Digital zoom? If it helps, I plan on using my future camera mostly on macro shots(shrooms and herbs) :smile:



Optical zoom means zoom accomplished by the zoomlens on your camera. The lens projects a magnified picture on the image sensor, so the quality of the magnified picture relies on the quality of the lens.
Digital zoom however takes a non-magnified image from the camera's image sensor and extracts the middle part (e.g. 1/4 of the total surface) of the picture and interpolates this image until to a larger version, so you'll end up with a 3Mpix or 5Mpix (depending on your camera) 'magnified' picture.
Digital zoom offers much less quality than optical zoom because digital zoom doesn't add information. It takes a picture of inferior quality and 'stretches' it to a larger size so you the user thinks he gets an image of better quality.

Do not choose a camera because of its digital zoom; you can always crop a picture in Photoshop and enlarge it, as this is exactly what digital zoom does. No-one I know uses digital zoom. Digital zoom is for selling cameras, it has nothing to do with photography.

Hey, read on, I'm not finished yet!! :smile:

Last, I'd like to say something about macro. As you will use your camera primarily for macro photography, it might come in handy to know one or two things about it in terms of choosing equipment.
AS I said, most decent digicams offer macro functionality. You can expect the technical quality (i.e. in terms of resolution, sharpness, colour accuracy) of your macro photo to be better on a more expensive camera. Expensive cameras (like the F717) employ better lenses than the cheaper models and better lenses means better pictures. But it is still possible that your camera just isn't technically capable of producing the image you want. For example, very tiny plants and insects (and mushrooms of course!) may be too small to capture even in macro mode. If you find yourself photographing smaller subjects than your camera really allows, you can consider buying a macro/tele-conversion lens. Raynox is one of the most popular makers of these lenses. A macro-conversion lens allows you to get even closer to your subject and essentially make larger pictures of smaller subjects than your camera was capable of without the extra lens.

That's about all I'm going to tell you right now. There's a lot more you could learn, but the essentials you can find in the text above. If you're interested in more information on photography, just drop me an email (rsmals &at& albi $dot$ nl).

And don't forget: spending more $$$ doesn't essentially improve the quality of your photos. I use a 20-year old analog SLR myself and I use a $ 300 slidescanner to scan my pictures. For my complete setup (SLR body, tripod, a shitload of lenses, scanner etc.) I didn't pay more than $ 600. If I had chosen for the same quality in digital, I had have to spend about ten times as much. Still, my photographs wouldn't have been any better...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebutterflydawn
lucid dreamer
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/25/04
Posts: 1,902
Loc: lost at sea
Last seen: 4 days, 14 hours
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Gumby]
    #2980493 - 08/09/04 04:05 AM (19 years, 5 months ago)

i've checked the photos
really nice cam
:thumbup:


--------------------
lucidal expansion


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]
    #2980884 - 08/09/04 09:09 AM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

koraks said:
Very informative post




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

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.

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?

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:


Edited by Leablas (08/09/04 10:12 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMad_Hatter2004
Surfista Amigo
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/19/04
Posts: 2,298
Loc: Somewhere in teh Northern... Flag
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: Leablas]
    #2981109 - 08/09/04 10:36 AM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Leablas said:
Just like the title says, I was wondering if you guys could share some ideas on what to look for in a good camera. I've recently started shroom hunting as a hobby and doing I.D's without pictures doesn't work too well(ie:my last post), so I've decided to start saving up for a decent digital camera. Feel free to post your own model name/price too if you have your own. Thanks :smile:




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!

If you decide cannon,start out with the 2.1 megapixel 3x Optical zoom,7x digital zoom.I used this camera when I had my surf report website up and I took pics of the surf every morning and afternoon to post on myb site.

Nikon.Go with the 3100 coolpix.

A few pics from my cannon I had when I ran my website:







Extras: Filter Print Post Top
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: Gumby]
    #2981348 - 08/09/04 11:34 AM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Gumby said:
I've got a Sony CyberShot F828 and I bought it for $793 but it goes for about $999 at most places.




you got a deal and you have a great camera... because there are are filters and stuff available it has tremendous flexability...

a few photos as well... the quality is reduced a little because of the image hosting... they reduced them from a 3mb file...







these are dont with night shot and sepia on with a 1000nm IR filter



this is my garden coyote


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: Mad_Hatter2004]
    #2981353 - 08/09/04 11:35 AM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Wow, the Nikon Coolpix 3100 seems absolutely perfect. Avaliable for $150(wow!), Image quality seems very nice, and I like the design/zoom capabilities. Thanks for the suggestion! :cool:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
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
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,670
Re: Ideal camera for mushroom hunters? [Re: csuidae]
    #2994197 - 08/12/04 12:44 AM (19 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

csuidae said:
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.



Well, there are filters to reduce the amount of light falling into the lens. That way you can force long exposures while still shooting at f/8 in full sunlight.
The reason why some digital compact cameras don't go beyond f/8 is because due to the tiny sensors used, the depth of field will be extremely large even on larger apertures. So it's reasoned by manufacturers that you don't need f/16 or f/32. Yes, it's a poor excuse, but now you see why, for most applications, I prefer an analog SLR over a digicam (apart from image quality).


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

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


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 13 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 0.035 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.