What digital camera takes good

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I can get the ball shape, I just haven't managed one yet with those beautiful shafts of light!!!

softcoral1%20(done).jpg


280704%20044.jpg
 
Thats the spirit! I might even a try a "star" filter, it works well on night scenes and candlelight. Then it just maybe due to a the wave action thats just right.

Sidenote: I notice you are using an DSLR, is it true that you must look through the camera's eyepiece(viewfinder) to take the shot and the LCD display is only to review the picture after the shot has been taken? Meaning that you cannot use the LCD before you take the shot like the point and shoots. If true, are the DSLR eyepiece removable? And do they make Action or Speedfinders (large viewinders) for the DSLRs like the film SLRs?

Thanks
 
It's a matter of technique and filter/lenses not camera... and of course a good photographer would help a lot.

StingRob



caymaniac:
What digital camera SLR or otherwise takes good sunballs, I like wide angle composition with the sun in the background. Most pix that I've seen make the sun look ridiculous.

Thanks,
caymaniac :crafty:
 
s****enstein:
When I bring my negative (or slide) to the photo lab to get a print, the negative is scanned digitally and the sunburst sometimes ends up looking like it has "rings" .
These are the "rings" I mean, although they are nowhere near as obvious as some of mine and don't always look bad. Maybe they are there sometimes on the original slide, but I've only ever seen them when the picture is scanned to digital. Sorry to mess with your picture by the way.
 
s****enstein:
When I bring my negative (or slide) to the photo lab to get a print, the negative is scanned digitally and the sunburst sometimes ends up looking like it has "rings" .
These are the "rings" I mean, although they are nowhere near as obvious as some of mine and don't always look bad. Maybe they are there sometimes on the original slide, but I've only ever seen them when the picture is scanned to digital. Sorry to mess with your picture by the way.
 
s****enstein:
I think people are having trouble understanding that the subject of your post is about the inherent problem with many digital cameras and contrast. -Not "which expensive camera will make up for my lack of talent".

Digital camera's have as good or better exposure lattitude vs. Slide film. Digital camera's are capable of plenty of contrast. IMO the D1x is a BETTER shooting camera then any but the best of slide flims (velvia is my favorite) and as one can view histrogram and composition immediatley, the digital advantage is HUGE.

I guess if people want to compare a 35mm film camera shooting velvia with a 5050, it's not really a valid comparison. The glass in the OLY is just not as good as the better SLR glass, and the size of the sensor is seriously small compared to DSLR's (like about 25% of the size). With that small sensor, big zoom, and lower end optics, comparing a 5050 is just not a fair comparison to a 35mm SLR. I'm not saying the 5050 is a poor shooting camera, I've certainly seen some really nice work with it, but it has some seriously limitations compared to an SLR.

Compare a D70, or a 20D to a film based SLR. I've certainly seen some VERY good work from Steven Frink shooting Canon DSLR's UW.

IMO the best shooting camera's out there for the price are the D70 (sub 1K) and the 20D (sub 2K).

Unfortunately housinging for these beasts run in the $1500-2000 range. Kinda makes one sick that the housing for the camera runs MORE than the very complex body, and more than a good strobe as well...

Ron
 
chippy:
I can get the ball shape, I just haven't managed one yet with those beautiful shafts of light!!!


I'm not an UW photographer... yet... but I do know a couple things about photography...

The star effect that you are calling "shafts of light" is generally produced by one of two methods.... Stop down to full (biggest number, smallest aperture), or use a filter (like a Cokin Star filter).

I've read little to nothing on using filters UW, but I'm not sure why one could not.

If I could jump in and TRY these techniques to see how they work UW I would in a heartbeat. Unfortunately I can not, but maybe you can!!

Ron
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom