Capturing Wildlife

[tjsnaps]

Keoeeit wrote:

tjsnaps wrote:

More importantly, trolls shouldn't be replying to posts they don't comprehend to try to discount the comments.

Raise the temperature of any CCD or CMOS chip and you will get more noise in the image. Painting a camera body black will increase the amount of thermal radiation absorbed by the camera from its surrounding environment as well as insulate it from dissipating that heat. This isn't a deeply held electronics secret. Nearly everyone on earth with the least bit of experience knows this. Commonly referred to as "thermal noise" in imaging fields. Why do you think astro-photographers use Peltier Junction, water-cooled, or even liquid-nitrogen cooled heat-sinks to try to cool their CCD chips for long exposures?

Then again, an even more important question -- Why am I bothering to entertain the trolls just to show them and everyone for the royal fools that they are?

I don't think this is a problem in most air conitioned studios. And studio photographrs are the only ones concerned about having black cameras. But you might know that if you bothered to learn about photography and stropped reading techno crap

[Gozinta]

Keoeeit wrote:

It's fun watching how much the DSLR trolls will rant and rant and rant about how their photos MUST be better because they wasted all that money to get them. :-)

A person's level of insecurity is directly proportional to how much they need to convince another. By the DSLR-troll posts here, their level of insecurity on if they chose the right camera design is loud and clear.

Keep trying!

NONE of your DSLR photos are better than what I can get with a decent P&S camera. Simple fact, no brag, just FACT.

Have fun trying to convince all the others to buy into last-century's DSLR technology, especially those like me that can also see a total fool with eyes of their own.

(I bet these "pros" are even going to try to tell everyone why a black camera body is better. When it's 100% true that black camera bodies cause more thermal noise in a digital camera. Black being better is another LIE that "pro" fools tell one another and they all pass it off like it's gospel. Just like they go on and on about DSLRs. Showing EVERYONE on earth what blind chumps they really are. LOL!! )

I'm not going to get involved in these silly arguements about what type of camera is better, but Iwill sayyou sure talk a lot of bull, brag about what you can do, but have yet to show anyone any quality shotsand then have the audacity tocall people names. That just ain't right and I don't understand why the flaming coming from you is being tolerated on this forum. You are bringing this place down and then have the nerve to call others trolls. How dare you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bennigan]

Keoeeit wrote:

(I bet these "pros" are even going to try to tell everyone why a black camera body is better. When it's 100% true that black camera bodies cause more thermal noise in a digital camera. Black being better is another LIE that "pro" fools tell one another and they all pass it off like it's gospel. Just like they go on and on about DSLRs. Showing EVERYONE on earth what blind chumps they really are. LOL!! )

I'm not sure why you brought up the topic of black cameras, butblack is better for shooting wildlife. The reason is not highly technical. It is simplybecause blackdoesn't reflect sunlight like a silver camera can. Black cameras are simply less likely to cause distractions to wildlife. It's the same reason you never seedeer hunters who use handguns purchase a silver version of a handgunfor hunting. The reflections aren't very visible to us weak eyed humans but to an animal in the woods it's like sending up a signal flare.

[Bennigan]

tjsnaps wrote: I'm not going to argue with that other than to say from what I have seen the deference in quality is negligible depending on the cameras. A large part of the IQ discussion is based on high ISO ratings. For some that would be extremely important. For me…in 30 years I have shot exactly 4 rolls of 800 speed film. So it's not a deal maker or breaker.

There are huge differencesin results not only between camera types,but even amonstDSLRs and then among different lenses.Of course you can take great pictures with a digicam. Ihave even taken great pictures with my camcorder, which has 4 MP capability. Hell, under the right conditions I can take great pictures with mycellphone. Try making phonecalls from any digicam or DSLR... "can you hear me now?"

tjsnaps wrote: Olympus and now Canon have DSLR's with liveview. And I'll bet we see a lot more cameras with it pop up. Why?? Because it does not oops. It is a very valuable tool for composing images especially if the LCD is flexible. Not everyone shoots sports and wild life exclusively. Give it a few years the optical viewfinder will disappear on many of these cameras. As with any knew technology the problem is not quality it's convincing the die hards . I still know people who say if you are serious about photography you need a film camera.

I think the Olympus and the Panasonic have some crossbreeding going on so that is the reason they both have a live preview. I don't know about the optical viewfinders disappearing but I do know manypeople who purchase digicams like idea of an optical viewfinder in addition to the LCD. I purchased a camera that had an LCD and an EVF and hated it. I thinks it's fair to say that having the best of both worldsis the best option. An optical viewfinder dosesn't black out between shots and provides a much better and brighter view. Of course an optical viewfinder doesn't allow us to see how the image will be captured.

tjsnaps wrote: I've seen more than one pro shooting with digicams recently. Including a local photojournalist who's been doing it for years. I'd say it would depend on what those "needs" were.

I don't think anyone believes that a pro will never use anything less than a DSLR, but I don't think you will see one using a digicamexclusively.

tjsnaps wrote: I'm not knocking DSLR's I'm just saying that they are not absolutely necessary to produce quality results.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that a DSLR is always required, but I also think it's unrealistic for anyone to suggest that they can always get just as good results with a camera that has limitations in sensor and lens design. For some people, the most basic camera will give them satifactory results. In fact, some people wouldn't know what to look for in a quality picture. Not everyone has an eye for photography or even understands that it is an art form. Some people never crop or print anything large... some people never print at all. If you mostly view pictures on a computer and take mostly family photosalmost anything will do. High ISO is not always required but if you don't have it when you need it, then there are shots youcannot take without changing the ambient conditions or simply cannot take at all. The same theory applies to fast lenses.

tjsnaps wrote: I find it a little irritating that every time a person has a question on this web site someone always jumps in with you need a DSLR. Which is not helpful in most cases. And often just bad advice. The answer is not always spending more money.

I find it irrating also and some people should never buy a DSLR. Some people should also never give advice but I see that happen on forums all the time. You don't always have to spend more money to get a DSLR these days. Iactually purchased a brand new DSLRs with a 28-300mm lensfor apx. 100 dollars more than I would have paid for 12X digicam.

[fldspringer]

Keoeeit wrote:

Raise the temperature of any CCD or CMOS chip and you will get more noise in the image. Painting a camera body black will increase the amount of thermal radiation absorbed by the camera from its surrounding environment as well as insulate it from dissipating that heat. This isn't a deeply held electronics secret. Nearly everyone on earth with the least bit of experience knows this. Commonly referred to as "thermal noise" in imaging fields. Why do you think astro-photographers use Peltier Junction, water-cooled, or even liquid-nitrogen cooled heat-sinks to try to cool their CCD chips for long exposures?

You are absolutely correct about the black camera absorbing heat faster.

You are absolutely INCORRECT about it insulating and keeping heat inside. Black absorbs heat faster and it releases heat faster.

Now to the sensor temperature part. What sensor is going to be warmer. A DSLR sensor thatis in stand-by mode until the fraction of a second the exposure requires of it, or the digicam which is functioning full time providing data for the EVF and a back-lit LCD. Olympus had to address this to try to get live view functional on their E410/E510 DSLR cameras.

[JohnG]

tjsnaps wrote:

I'm not going to argue with that other than to say from what I have seen the deference in quality is negligible depending on the cameras. A large part of the IQ discussion is based on high ISO ratings. For some that would be extremely important. For me…in 30 years I have shot exactly 4 rolls of 800 speed film. So it's not a deal maker or breaker.

"The only camera that came anywhere near DSLR image quality because it had a large sensor was way to expensive and is no longer made (Sony R1). Besides, it's zoom range was limited."

Give it a few years the optical viewfinder will disappear on many of these cameras. As with any knew technology the problem is not quality it's convincing the die hards . I still know people who say if you are serious about photography you need a film camera.


I'm not knocking DSLR's I'm just saying that they are not absolutely necessary to produce quality results. I find it a little irritating that every time a person has a question on this web site someone always jumps in with you need a DSLR.

I think if you read some of the posts again you'll see the argument that quality is difficult to tell from web sized images. The quality difference shows when you need higher dynamic range, focus tracking, shallow DOF (for non macro shots) and low light. In good light with stationary subjects, many digicams produce excellent results

As for optical viewfinders going away - we're a ways away from that. The current technology level isn't yet good enough to replace them - you don't have the quality yet and more important there is still latency. I think they'll get to the point where you have both.

As for the last comment - it's unfortunate some people are like that. I agree DSLRs are not the right solution for everyone. But there are certain areas like low light, sports and wildlife where the difference is significant - especially in prints. The key is to match the camera to the original poster's needs. In a few instances, yes a DSLR is required to get quality results (on a large scale). But for the vast majority of camera buyers it absolutely isn't necessary.

[tjsnaps]

Well I just bought a used DSLR as my first digital (a D50) I was a little leary of buying used but I couldn't afford even a digicam new. And used the good digicams are going for more than the DSLR's I will regret not having a LCD to compose with (I use the waist level finder on my F quite a bit) But I did want the ability to achieve a shallow DOF and it would seem a shame to let all this glass I have sitting here go to waist.

[moses]

s3 is black by the way

[polarwasp]

I am sorry to come in that heated debate.

I am just an amateur (not even a good one) who finds the photograph posted by John and Eric amazing and I must say of better quality than the P&S. Well, yes, that is a thing I think I do not too bad... enjoy over people's photos !!

But that is not my point, I pick up athree sentences from Keoeeitwhich are not really aligned with the polite, nice atmosphere this forum has normally (I read it much more often than I post)... so

And thus endeth my participation answering to a low-life dSLR troll.

That's it, I'm done trying to educate the clueless who are only crying on why they spent and wasted so much of their money.

You fools just don't get it do you? I would NEVER own a DSLR because its very design limits what it can do. Not so a P&S camera that is 100% digital. Depend on and hope for last century's mirror-slapping, slow syncing, mechanical shutter, vibration inducing, noise-making, feature limiting, limited-life mechanical technology to get better. It's NEVER EVER going to beat a good P&S camera.

I selected the last quote because as a troll mechanical engineer I love what is mechanical. It is robust, safe, reliable and can be repaired with a bit of good will.


EDIT : it seems I missed a few posts when I wrote this, but I don't think it changes anything to what I wanted to say.

[JimC]

What an interesting thread. Some of the posts would make good examples of how not to behave in public forums.

If you have an opposing point of view, debate the merits of your point of view, without resorting to name calling and personal attacks. Otherwise, don't post here at all.

Let's keep the discussion civil.

Jim C.