The Science of Pictures

[Acme]

As long as a 'point and shoot' has manual aperture and exposure control over-ride, all basic creative options are available...the only difference is the photographer has to use his own brain and not the camera's.

 

...

I wouldn't classify such an adjustable camera as 'point and shoot', but of course it's a subjective call as I intimated.

you ain't making me give up my slrs!

so it is established under public opinion that the best starter camera will be point and shoot.

with a tripod

and a good reference book

i still want a good camera bag to put things in.

As I say above, the camera choice is subjective, but having the ability to make basic adjustments is part-and-parcel of photography in my humble opinion.

 

Agreed that as equipment accumulates a bag of some sort is desirable.

 

These days most of my photography is of wildflowers with an eye toward identification and I have replaced photography books with plant ID books. I did invest in a dedicated camera bag suited to field use, but I'm pretty hard on tripods and go for inexpensive models in the $25 range. Again, thrift stores are good places for the thrifty, as well as finding older cameras such as the twin lens reflex style you pine for. Of course you still need to find a film source and a lab to do the processing.

 

A moment of silence for the passing of the last Kodachrome lab.

[CharonY]

I wouldn't classify such an adjustable camera as 'point and shoot', but of course it's a subjective call as I intimated.

 

As I say above, the camera choice is subjective, but having the ability to make basic adjustments is part-and-parcel of photography in my humble opinion.

 

 

 

Many cameras that are designated as point and shoots do have manual options. The main differences tend to be interchangeable lenses, number of controls (i.e. buttons), body size, sensor size.

There now fewer pure automatic P&S as hardly anyone is buying them. Instead there are now high-end cameras with (usually, but not always) smaller sensors in a small body. The Ricoh GR and Sony RX series are good examples thereof, but they can easily cost above 400 or 500 USD. But even the cheaper ones often have ample controls (though with very small sensors aperture sometimes becomes slightly pointless in terms of DOF control) and raw output.

The thing is that there are also cheap interchangeable lens cameras in the $200-400 segment that make purely automatic P&S quite useless. And for the cheaper segments usually cell phones (such as the iphone) have basically replaced them.

 

In addition, mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses have caught up and in some cases surpassed DSLRs (though they would not be counted as point and shooters). The Sony A7 series is basically an interchangeable system in a relatively compact body but with a ~35mm size sensor.

 

 

 

so it is established under public opinion that the best starter camera will be point and shoot.

 

If it comes to starting shooting I tend to recommend gear based on what you want to do. If you want to stay casual and never upgrade and need something unobtrusive (e.g. for social events) something like the Ricoh is perfect. Great image quality, very small and has all the controls to take superb photos. Want to step up in dark areas? The Sony RX 1 is essentially a full frame camera in a compact body.

 

If you wan to have interchangeable lenses and want to upgrade, there are again numerous things to try out. Do you love to shoot with liveview? Go mirroless (micro four third, Sony E mount, Fuji). Prefer optical viewfinders only? Canon/Pentax/Nikon.

 

Want to have the option for lightweight gear (body and lenses)? Mirroless.. and so on.

There is, in my mind not a perfect starting gear, but they are all different tools for different situations. You would buy canvas and brushes depending on what you want to paint, not because one is a beginner/advanced gear.

 

 

 

A person seriously desiring to improve their photography would learn quite a bit about the thought and process of visualisation and subsequent image capture from reading Ansel Adams' The Negative.

 

I agree completely. Also take a look at Cartier-Bresson. The photos are often technically less then perfect. However the composition and the capturing of the moment... brilliant.

[Acme]

A few cotton swabs are useful in the camera bag. Use them alone or with lens paper to get into nooks & crannies and keep skin oils out of the mix.

[davidivad]

@CharonY

 

thank you for the variety of camera selection as i am not completely current with all the latest cameras. 200-400 seems like a fair price.

i will of course stick with my Nikons for lens interchangeability. that's my brush of taste.

another suggestion i would make might be a magazine subscription to the likes of Shutterbug or such. you can take the "idea" with you in your bag.

it's a great way to stay in the mix.

[CharonY]

As generic gear an airblower (if you got interchangeable lenses) and a lenspen are great.

 

Edit: part of my kit does include micro four third mirrorless cameras. One of the reason is that I got a bunch of old manual lenses including some from Nikon and Kironfrom the 60s-80s which are gorgeous. The nice thing with the mirrorless is that I could just add an adapter and use them with that. The EVF made metering and focusing much easier, too.

Edited April 8, 2014 by CharonY

[davidivad]

i will stick with the advantages of an slr on this one.

here is an instance where you must make a trade.

my suggestion is that if you have the funds for a slr then you will thank yourself later for buying one.

maybe we need to define for the future reader how to decide what is best for them.

in the end i think it all boils down to how much you are going to use the camera.

 

am i going to be taking pictures for other people?

will this be a week end camera or will i use it every day?

what am i taking pictures of? (do i need precision equipment for my subject?)

how accurately must i see the picture before i take the picture?

 

in the end the main question you must ask yourself is how serious am i about photography?

if you are serious get an slr.

if you are just taking pictures, you can cut the costs of a purchase significantly.

just remember that quality has value and therefore is more expensive.

another advantage of slrs is durability.

most current electronics is designed around the amount of use the product will get.

if it is aimed at the average consumer, you can bet that it will not last as long.

another consideration is resale. if you buy the latest and greatest consumer level camera, then it will be worth nothing when you got to upgrade. this is because the development cycle is fast to meet the latest demands of the user.

5 megapixels is 10 megapixels and additional features six months from now.

when you enter the arena beyond novice grade, you often find used equipment that offers what consumer grade can't. quality.

i can be quoted on saying "buy a better camera" when a novice has learned the basics and wants to know how to best improve their skills.

there are tons of people out there working the best buy. do not be trapped by the consumer level system.

[StringJunky]

... do not be trapped by the consumer level system.

 

Where there's a will there's a way ...regardless of what one has in one's hands. Expensive systems give you sharpness and resolution but that may not be important. Equipment and utility restrictions force one to think in ways that having everything may not ....necessity can be the mother of invention and lead one down creative paths one may not otherwise consider. When you cut through the crap, all a camera is is a box with a piece of embedded glass where one can govern the duration and intensity of an exposure ...and that's it. The rest is just for ease and convenience.

 

If one is interested in photography as art the camera is no more than a means to an end and the quality of one does not define whether one can do art with it or not. The point I'm trying to make is that the only limit is oneself and not one's equipment. Poverty has taught me much .

 

Edited April 8, 2014 by StringJunky

[Acme]

... The point I'm trying to make is that the only limit is oneself and not one's equipment. Poverty has taught me much .

This is simply not true. If you have a 'simple' camera with no time-exposure function then you can't use it to take time exposures. I have in mind not only general low-light conditions, but astrophotography as in capturing meteors or star traces. Notwithstanding that one can make an inexpensive pin-hole camera, but then that has no lens and further discounts your over-simplification.

 

Another capability lacking in most newer cameras is the ability to take multiple exposures on a single frame, although in the development of cameras this was considered an improvement. So Charon, am I mistaken in this? What modern cameras do you recommend if a photographer wants to use either of these techniques? (Granted a multiple exposure effect can be accomplished in editing software.)

[davidivad]

my argument is not that you can't take a great picture. indeed, some of the best pictures in the world have been "snap shots."

if you want to improve your odds though, better tools are hard to beat.

i enjoy sketches to which are only drawn with a few very simple tools. but man can they be gorgeous.

you can build an entire house with a hammer bet a nail gun can be a better tool.

 

i too am below that line of monetary means (life can be cruel). i would have to sell my "brushes" to get more paint right now.

i will not!

make the best decision you can but consider the lure of savings in weight of the "gold".

 

i would like to engage the old engine of argument with what an astronomer might be interested in for a gear bag.

[Acme]

...

i would like to engage the old engine of argument with what an astronomer might be interested in for a gear bag.

I am at best an amateur astronomer, so I'll give you an at-best amateur opinion. All depending on the specifics of the area of astronomy and ancillary equipment such as a telescope.

 

1) A camera with time exposure function as I already mentioned. I also mentioned this in regard to capturing meteors and it was to this end that I chose my current camera. It's a Sony handi-cam with a hard drive having a 10 hour continuous recording capacity and I set it on a tripod & leave it run all night. Then I review the recording fast-forward to look for meteors and trim them out if I get them. From the short captures I can then take individual frames and save as stills.

 

2) A camera with interchangeable lenses and a T-mount. This allows attaching the camera to the telescope with no lens, i.e. the telescope becomes the lens.

 

3) Solar filters for observing the Sun. Having a digital screen viewer camera for Sun observations is quite handy as there is no danger in pointing it directly at the Sun and observing the framing real-time.

 

That's all that comes to mind at the moment.

[CharonY]

One point that I would like to make is that if you want to really spend money in photography, you should know that you do not spend the money on the body, but rather on the lenses. Things like sharpness are essentially lens dependent and some high-end non-changeable cameras have better image quality than DSLR counterparts since they are able to create a lens that is just perfect for the sensor being used.

 

Camera bodies are a bit secondary except for certain conditions. For example a full or medium frame theoretically give you the widest options in terms of noise and so on. However they are heavy and require large and heavy lenses. If you want to take studio photos, it is not an issue at all. I would like to see you using a huge Hasselblad during a hike, though. The best camera is the one that you have with you.

 

 

This is simply not true. If you have a 'simple' camera with no time-exposure function then you can't use it to take time exposures. I have in mind not only general low-light conditions, but astrophotography as in capturing meteors or star traces. Notwithstanding that one can make an inexpensive pin-hole camera, but then that has no lens and further discounts your over-simplification.

Another capability lacking in most newer cameras is the ability to take multiple exposures on a single frame, although in the development of cameras this was considered an improvement. So Charon, am I mistaken in this? What modern cameras do you recommend if a photographer wants to use either of these techniques? (Granted a multiple exposure effect can be accomplished in editing software.)

 

All modern cameras can do at least 1min exposures. For very long ones most cameras (except some very compact bodies) have access for remote shutters that let you set the length via bulb mode. Some compact bodies that do not have a port still allow control via wireless or infrared. With regards to multiple in-camera exposures, it depends on the camera a bit. Even modern DSLRs do not have it (especially entry-level, such as the Canon T3i) though others may (5D or Nikon D7000). Among the interchangeable mirrorless most of the recent crop have it. That being said, in most cases it is just a digital overlaying of imaging, not different than doing it in postproduction, as you mentioned).

 

So the features are pretty easily fulfilled, but if your actual question is what specific camera I would recommend, well that depends. If you do astrophotography where you already have a lot of gear to carry around, getting a full-frame for better light collection probably would not hurt much in terms of weight. But then you also have the mirrorless Sony A7 full frames that may be of interest.

 

That being said some cameras such as the Olympus E-m10 and e-m1 have a live update during bulb exposure. I.e. you can see how the image (star trails etc.) forms during exposure and stop at the best point. While they may require higher Iso and be noisier than with a larger sensor camera, in some situations it can be useful for creating specific images more easily.

 

Photography has come to a point that even at modest expenses the quality tends not to be a too limiting factor for everyday photography. In fact, looking at many well composed images (even astrophotography) it is usually hard to distinguish with which camera it has been taken, once we hit a certain price point (which is not terribly high).

 

 

 

 

in the end the main question you must ask yourself is how serious am i about photography?
if you are serious get an slr.

I disagree completely. Just because it has mirror it is not necessarily the best camera for the job. Mirrorless are quite viable systems that certainly surpass entry-level DSLR quality and are used in commercial settings. And there are serious Leica photographers around that paid a lot of money for their system...

 

Again there are certain tools for different situations and lens/camera combos are not different. Even with a single brand and same sensor size, there are marked differences between the lines, usually in terms of ergonomics (buttons) and certain features (e.g. AF speed). There is no perfect tool for all situations. However, in many cases the capabilities of the camera surpasses the abilities of the casual photographer.

[davidivad]

@CharonY

 

I love your responses as your arguments contain important information that is crucial in making a purchase decision.

i think it is important for the readers to know how your requirements have impacted your purchases.

specificly, what uses have determined your purchase response?

 

my first camera was a Nikon. i bought another Nikon with a motor drive later because i could save on lenses of high quality but jumped too far ahead of the game on features. it would have been more cost effective if i had went one model below my purchase.

what was your most recent purchase and what have you not liked about it?

this, i believe, will influence better questions about the decision process and what to expect from a purchase.

 

on the side of astronomy, i think that colored filters are a must. you can take time exposures of the desired color and combine them.

this allows you to bring out details you would otherwise not see.

[CharonY]

The last DSLR I had was the Nikon 7000. It is a capable camera but the issue I had was flexibility. In social situations I do not want to be "that guy" with the huge camera. If I need to take a flight the lens bag was quite significant in size and during hikes I found it a bit awkward. In the bag it was too slow to get out when I found an interesting animal. Using certain types of shoulder straps or fanny pack style packs made it easier, but especially with the necessary long lenses it was still a bit heavy, especially if you have to carry additional gear and water.

 

At some point I looked at the MFT offerings from Olympus and Panasonic and fount the niche for me. If I want to have a small camera for a social event, I put a pancake lens on the Olympus PM2 and it just looks like a simple point and shoot (though the picture quality outshines entry-level Canons). What I dislike about that small camera is the lack of external controls. However, for that I got me another MFT body that has more controls (Panasonic) and quite frankly, I have been quite happy with the Olympus/Panasonic lens selection.

 

What do I dislike? Mostly that these (older) cameras I have still are not ideal when it comes to continuous AF. I am looking at the Sony A6000, however, as the initial results look quite promising and the camera is not too expensive (though I will wait until the price comes down). Another thing that I dislike is that many of the high-end MFT lenses are quite expensive. But then the same could be said for Canikon. And that is about it. However, I have informed myself quite a bit before I took the jump so I had little to be disappointed about.

I think the same is not the case if someone just bought (SLR/DSLR/Mirrorless/Full-frame/Aps-C/whatever) because someone said something like "take Canon, cause all pros use it".

Obviously, the more you know what you want to do, the better your buying choice will be.

 

Most people I know do not use color filters of any sort on their astro shoots.

[davidivad]

for me, astro shoots take time unless you are just shooting stars.

almost anything beyond that can be complimented with a filter.

http://alpo-astronomy.org/mars/articles/FILTERS1.HTM

 

when i first looked through a telescope, i was amazed at the difference between what i saw and what was in the pictures of magazines. for a start only a few objects were that colorful. take andromeda (M31) for instance, you can tell it is a galaxy but it shows little color or definition. filters! can't get that planet to amount to anything but a boring blur with little color? filters again.

 

you would be amazed at the number of shots that go into some pictures by the time you add up all of the exposures.

right now mars is in the limelight and wouldn't you know i need a new telescope (child catastrophe).

one suggestion that comes to mind right now is temperature changes within your equipment.

i usually set up my telescope and let it set for a while to come into equilibrium with the air temp. there is nothing worse than realizing that your pictures are foggy.

Edited April 9, 2014 by davidivad

[CharonY]

Well, when it comes to astro shoots the people I know (incidentally almost all being physicists, though not all of them astrophysicists...) either use a DSLR without filters or CCDs with filters.

 

When it comes to DSLRs they already have filters built-in that may filter out wavelengths that you actually want to capture from the stars..

Some have therefore their IR filters removed (or exchanged to an IR filter with transparency to H-alpha). That greatly improves image quality as you get more signal. The only filter they may use in addition tend to be broadband filters to minimize light pollution. That, in turn allows you to increase exposure time (assuming you have a tracking mount) without overexposing it rapidly (i.e. increase signal to noise ratio).

However, if you are using film instead of a digital sensor, use of filters may be more important.

 

I am not doing astrophotography myself, but I would imagine (and am being told) that the singal to noise ratio is the crucial bit as the rest can be changed quite easily in post.

Edited April 10, 2014 by CharonY

[davidivad]

that would be the difference.

i use film. old habits die hard.

 

perhaps you might wish to shed light for me on the post processing.

i use the gimp. am i going to have to resort to Photoshop here?

what kind of process goes on at this stage?

[StringJunky]

...I am not doing astrophotography myself, but I would imagine (and am being told) that the singal to noise ratio is the crucial bit as the rest can be changed quite easily in post.

Yes, your post prompted to have a Google and it seems the SNR sets the starting baseline for overall range of contrast ...the lower you can get the noise the wider the contrast. and sensitivity. I found this article on image noise quite educative. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise.htm

[CharonY]

that would be the difference.

i use film. old habits die hard.

 

perhaps you might wish to shed light for me on the post processing.

i use the gimp. am i going to have to resort to Photoshop here?

what kind of process goes on at this stage?

 

With film it is a different process and I would agree, color filters would be quite helpful. Also on film you do not have the issue that layers on top of sensors filter out certain wavelengths (though one probably can also optimize by selecting the right film).

For post pretty much everything would go that would let you color grade your image. I do not have photoshop, but in many freewares (including gimp) you can e.g. adjust white balance (or otherwise essentially change the LUT). These things have pretty much made (for the most part) color filters obsolete in digital photography as you can either directly tell the camera or later in post what measured RGB value corresponds to what color.

For example, using a blue filter gives you a particular cast that you can emulate by shifting the whole color table towards blue. Using an actual filter could (depending on the properties of the glass and coating) limit the light hitting your sensor.

 

The best and cleanest images I have seen (aside from specialized CCDs) were from cameras with removed IR filters (or they may have exchanged from bandpass filters allowing H-alpha to go through, forgot to ask).

 

But again, this is not really my area of interest and expertise.

Edited April 10, 2014 by CharonY

[davidivad]

none the less, you have shown what the differences are.

thank you for your contributions.

what of high speed photography?

it is a great tool for taking events apart and seeing the physics involved.

i bring this up because you see many slow motion catches on tv and the web.

[CharonY]

Well there is a difference between high-speed photography and videography. Freezing motion can be done either by high shutter speed or utilizing the speed of strobe flash. Shutter speeds of modern cameras are usually between 2000-8000th of a second. Flash guns can be about 1/620000.

 

In set ups where you can precisely trigger your camera these are roughly the speed limitations you are dealing with. And in research settings you would be better of using specialized equipment rather than a camera. Often times you need to track an event which means more than single frame. CCDs and CMOS that do not use mechanical shutters can take pictures at rates of 400k fps or higher, which makes them much more suitable for these types of tasks.

 

However, if you need only a single frame when you want to freeze motion of say of wildlife things are a bit easier. There is lens selection, body speed and burst rate (as you may want to take a lot of pictures and hope you get a perfect one) to be taken into consideration.

 

Usually this is the realm of specialized sports cameras. For example, even the high-end Canon and Nikon full-frame such as the Canon 5D MkIII or Nikon D800 only go to 6fps. The older Nikon D4 however, is their sports line and goes up to 11 fps. As you can see, again the case of specialized equipment.

 

It is somewhat interesting to see that some new technologies (e.g. removing the mirror) has apparent benefits for the burst rate. For example the high-end Olympus mirrorless (which roughly costs 1/5 or 1/4 of the D4) has a burst rate of 10 fps, although it is not really marketed towards sports photography. One newcomer, the Sony A6000 mirrorless with is quite moderate in price (~600$) even goes up to 11fps (though not with continuous tracking), which is quite astonishing if you look at the size of that little thing.

 

And I realized that I am a geek.

Edited April 10, 2014 by CharonY

[Acme]

...

And I realized that I am a geek.

IRTIAAG Geek on brother.

 

So today I was given/borrowed a 'new' digital camera. From what I can tell it's about 10 years old. I found an on-line manual and as luck has it the 256mb storage card fits a slot in my lappy so I don't need the drivers. Good thing because they aren't freely available that I could find. Even with the driver, Windows apparently still won't treat it like an external drive.

The camera is a Conrad 5345z. At 5mp it's a sight better than the 1mp images I was getting with the still function of my handy-cam. Gave it a test run on some flowers already and I'm loving it. Look out now boys & girls!!

 

Here's a review page: >> http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/concord/eye-q-5345z/concord-eye-q-5345z-review.html

 

Edit: A 'picture' is worth 10³ words.

 

Edited April 11, 2014 by Acme

[davidivad]

@charonY

you are awesome.

 

the idea of using a flash to overcome the limitations of your camera has loud potential. you are such a geek drive on!

this shows that while readers may not be able to afford the expense of a high speed camera, they still have options.

while this is clearly not something you can do in a sports arena, it may have other uses.

i have used this technique with film.

if and what possibilities doe this present for a digital photographer?

what is the digital equivalent of using the flash to overcome the limitations of the camera or is this only effective for film?

give me some more geek!

 

@Acme

 

i wish people just gave me cameras....

the ones that approach me expect top price!

i guess i give the impression that i am running a store.

do you have anything you would like to mention in regards to high speed photography?

i would like to try to cover the subject a bit more.

any contributions on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

and since i know you like photography, any fresh perspective would be useful.

[Acme]

...

@Acme

 

i wish people just gave me cameras....

the ones that approach me expect top price!

i guess i give the impression that i am running a store.

I wish I could claim some special charm or good looks, but I have neither. It boils down to enthusiasm minus money plus blind luck. Chaos favors the prepared imagination.

 

do you have anything you would like to mention in regards to high speed photography?

i would like to try to cover the subject a bit more.

any contributions on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

and since i know you like photography, any fresh perspective would be useful.

I don't think I can add much over Charon's explication. While he wasn't explicit on the strobe use I could see setting up in a darkened situation, locking the shutter open as for a time exposure, and then firing the strobe at the target. Even so this is pretty limited in its application and gives a multiple exposure.

 

This outfit not only sells, but rents high-speed video cameras, and if one had a special project then renting makes sense. >> http://www.mctcameras.com/

 

Following up on a theme above, there is the matter of photographers building apparatus and settings for special purposes. Back in my film days I was interested in creating a photographic illustration of the principle of total internal reflection in a water stream. Step 1 was building a so-called 'fairy fountain' to accomplish the light caught in a water stream. (Glass 1 gallon jug with small hole drilled 1/3 the way up & all painted black except for a clear aperture opposite the hole.)

 

That done and a few photos taken I found the composition rather boring so decided to make a multiple exposure using different orientations. To that end I built a tripod mounted platform that allowed me to rotate the camera 360º around the lens axis. (you will see in the result I was a little off in the centering.)

 

So in a darkened room with the camera on the Bulb setting, I used a cable release to lock the shutter open but kept the lens cap on. I then activated the fountain and successively removed the lens cap a few seconds, put it back on, rotated the jig a ways, removed the cap, put the cap back on, and so on 'til I completed a full rotation. I made a number of shots using different filters, timings, and numbers of exposures in a rotation.

 

While I lost all the negatives in a fire, I had one 8x10 print pressed in a book and was able to scan it. Picture in science or science in picture?

 

Edited April 11, 2014 by Acme

[CharonY]

For the use of strobes, you would need a situation where the strobe is much stronger than any other light source. You would generally not shoot in bulb mode, but instead trigger normally and set the shutter to the highest flash sync speed (usually between 1/160-1/1320, though there is also the option of using high speed sync, which relies on the flash). The reason here is that by having the fastest shutter speed you reduce ambient light further. Then you would take a pic normally but only the time exposed by the strobe would be visible. For many high-speed situations you will want to trigger the camera using something that links it to what you want to image, instead of relying on your reflexes.

For that you can couple an external trigger e.g. with a laser detector (that triggers when the object passes through a defined area) or use an acoustic trigger for loud things (say, exploding balloons).

[davidivad]

@Acme

 

thank you for the pic. to me it is an expression of your love of science.

 

@CharonY

 

i love asking you questions. you always have an informative answer which is what the topic needs so please allow me to pick your brain about cityscapes.

do you adjust alignment in post process for buildings or would you recommend a billows device?

 

sorry about the short post. i have a bit of business to get out of the way. the next one will be more entertaining.

Edited April 12, 2014 by davidivad