Digital Photography and Equipment

[whuntley]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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. ]

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.

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. 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) 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]

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.

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

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.

[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]

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

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! ) 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]

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

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".

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*

Loh K L

[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.

ah that means you need a softbox

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