Easy to do. Also, more zoom = way, way more fun. They seem to be making newer, less point-and-shoot but not quite professional cameras that start at 5x and go all the way up to mine at 10x. (Plus digital up to 40x! But seriously sucky quality on the digital, so I don't use it. But it's there if I want it.)
some aperture variety (weirdly, it's hard to get anything above f4 or so - but, but, landscapes! Meh! So I want at least f8, if I can get it. Can you get lens attachments that give you more depth of field?)
Really? When I was looking at cameras, they all came with at least f8. I think even the Canon A95 did. Weirdly, mine will only go up to f8 in manual or aperture-priority mode, but when I leave it on program or auto, I've seen it go up to f11. I totally don't get it. And I think aperture has to do with the focal length inside the lens, so probably there aren't DOF attachments.
um, the A95 had that nifty tilty flippy lcd screen that looked infinitely useful
That could have its uses.
I'd really like to get a camera that uses CF cards, because I have like 6 of them already,
Good point. I went with Olympus partially because it uses the cards I already have.
ditto on the AA batteries (besides, it's easy to find emergency replacements when they die)
That's good, too, but probably not as important as the cards.
lots of manual options, like shutter speed/aperture and exposure, a video function, and I like the panorama function... see, I'm not picky at all....
I should try out my panorama function one day. Hmmm. You know, I think there are some Nikons out there that you would like. I think they use CF cards, and they have all the features you want. The pictures at the digital camera review site aren't bad, either, although I think they tended to blow out the highlights more than I like. But then, most cameras do, even the Canons. The one I have now hardly ever does that. Anyway, maybe take a look at Nikon. I know Valerie has one that she's been using for a while now, over two years, I believe.
Yeah, I ran into the same problem. Polarizer helps a bit, as do composing tricks, but an nd filter is definitely next on my wish list once I get a good camera.
They're relatively cheap, aren't they? I think I saw one online for $10 or so that I might have to buy. Ooooh...
Yeah, a lot of times it doesn't change much, because the camera automatically adjusts the exposure to compensate for the extra darkness. But I do notice a difference when I use it on water with glare (less sparklies, darker water)
I tried it with water in the zoo, but I'm not sure if it was the polarizer or just changing positions that made the pictures better. It might have been a bit of both. And it seemed to make a difference shooting through glass when the glass was in shadow, but not when it was sunny. And it was just painful in the aquariums...it made the shutter speed to slow to handhold. *grump*
or with big patches of sky (they're definitely bluer)
I have noticed that. Clouds show up more, too. But it only works around sunrise/sunset, really. I guess I just hadn't noticed that the sky pretty much is white for a lot of the day here.
And sometimes it just subtly deepens the colors a bit all over.
My mother said that they work the very best on a big golden maple in fall. oh wait, what does Kenyon have ten billion of? Yeeeees...
And this is just my personal preference, but I like slightly deeper, darker pictures, so I tend to crank down the exposure 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop. That helps with bright skies and stuff, although you have to be careful you don't get things too dark.
I think part of my problem is that I'm attracted to shots with big contrast between the sky and the ground, leading to exposure issues. Argh.
Oh, and the Royal Mail seems to have eaten one of my photography books. Hmph. Maybe it'll still show up...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-08-16 11:14 pm (UTC)Easy to do. Also, more zoom = way, way more fun. They seem to be making newer, less point-and-shoot but not quite professional cameras that start at 5x and go all the way up to mine at 10x. (Plus digital up to 40x! But seriously sucky quality on the digital, so I don't use it. But it's there if I want it.)
some aperture variety (weirdly, it's hard to get anything above f4 or so - but, but, landscapes! Meh! So I want at least f8, if I can get it. Can you get lens attachments that give you more depth of field?)
Really? When I was looking at cameras, they all came with at least f8. I think even the Canon A95 did. Weirdly, mine will only go up to f8 in manual or aperture-priority mode, but when I leave it on program or auto, I've seen it go up to f11. I totally don't get it. And I think aperture has to do with the focal length inside the lens, so probably there aren't DOF attachments.
um, the A95 had that nifty tilty flippy lcd screen that looked infinitely useful
That could have its uses.
I'd really like to get a camera that uses CF cards, because I have like 6 of them already,
Good point. I went with Olympus partially because it uses the cards I already have.
ditto on the AA batteries (besides, it's easy to find emergency replacements when they die)
That's good, too, but probably not as important as the cards.
lots of manual options, like shutter speed/aperture and exposure, a video function, and I like the panorama function... see, I'm not picky at all....
I should try out my panorama function one day. Hmmm. You know, I think there are some Nikons out there that you would like. I think they use CF cards, and they have all the features you want. The pictures at the digital camera review site aren't bad, either, although I think they tended to blow out the highlights more than I like. But then, most cameras do, even the Canons. The one I have now hardly ever does that. Anyway, maybe take a look at Nikon. I know Valerie has one that she's been using for a while now, over two years, I believe.
Yeah, I ran into the same problem. Polarizer helps a bit, as do composing tricks, but an nd filter is definitely next on my wish list once I get a good camera.
They're relatively cheap, aren't they? I think I saw one online for $10 or so that I might have to buy. Ooooh...
Yeah, a lot of times it doesn't change much, because the camera automatically adjusts the exposure to compensate for the extra darkness. But I do notice a difference when I use it on water with glare (less sparklies, darker water)
I tried it with water in the zoo, but I'm not sure if it was the polarizer or just changing positions that made the pictures better. It might have been a bit of both. And it seemed to make a difference shooting through glass when the glass was in shadow, but not when it was sunny. And it was just painful in the aquariums...it made the shutter speed to slow to handhold. *grump*
or with big patches of sky (they're definitely bluer)
I have noticed that. Clouds show up more, too. But it only works around sunrise/sunset, really. I guess I just hadn't noticed that the sky pretty much is white for a lot of the day here.
And sometimes it just subtly deepens the colors a bit all over.
My mother said that they work the very best on a big golden maple in fall. oh wait, what does Kenyon have ten billion of? Yeeeees...
And this is just my personal preference, but I like slightly deeper, darker pictures, so I tend to crank down the exposure 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop. That helps with bright skies and stuff, although you have to be careful you don't get things too dark.
I think part of my problem is that I'm attracted to shots with big contrast between the sky and the ground, leading to exposure issues. Argh.
Oh, and the Royal Mail seems to have eaten one of my photography books. Hmph. Maybe it'll still show up...
*sticks tongue out at Royal Mail*