Is it the camera or the photographer?

[Kim]

We all enjoy spectacular palm photos, but how do you get that great shot?  In Wal's thread about palm fruits, all the photos are interesting, but some have greater clarity, and one makes the fruit look positively luminous.  You recall the great photos from last year that went into the calendar?  Was it the equipment, the subject, or the photographer that made those photos special?

Yes, I'm looking for a new digital camera, and I'm soliciting your opinions.  What do you love about your camera?  What could be better?  Which features are most important to you?

I'll be using it to photograph palms, other plants, and wildlife -- including people!  Macro is a must, and I'm curious about panorama shots as well.  Do any of you have the stabilizing feature and is it worth the extra $?  Looking forward to your input.

Thanks,

Kim

[Fouquieria]

I think its the photographer.  A lot of it comes with experience.  The more one takes pictures, the better one gets.  Admittedly, some seem to have a better "prevision" ability.  They seem to know what they want, and how to get it.

I have an old digital.  I wish it had better macro ability especially.  I also love panorama shots.  Years ago I got a 20mm wide angle for my old Pentax.  That ended up being my favorite lens.  I went with a group of 20+ people to Lake Powell years ago and I was the only one to get a shot of everyone standing under Rainbow Bridge...with the Bridge included in the shot!

Sorry, I'm not up on the new digitals to give a recommendation Kim.

-Ron-

[gavilan1]

Ask a photographer, and he or she will tell you that a photographer does not take pictures.  He or she makes images (pictures), and much consideration goes into a well-made image.  Lighting of the subject and the surrounding environment (background), aperture (background in focus, or a blur), shutter speed (water cascading down a stream as a white blur, or a flash freeze frame suspending drops in air), subject matter, and so on.  Lately (in the past 30 years) filters that artificially alter images have become used to the point of abuse (that image in the travel magazine or on TV of a Hawaiian beach on a beautiful sunny day, but somehow the sky turns into a graduated red hue from a certain horizontal axis in the image, implying some sort of a sunset, even thought it's noon, when it should be all deep blue - that's a smoke or graduated color filter - not my cup of tea).  Most great images don't rely on such "gimmicks" to make a "something" image out of a "nothing" image.   One filter that deserves more use is a polarizing filter.  Remember that Hawaiian beach scene where the water and sky are deep, pure hues of blue and the clouds are fluffy, white balls of cotton?  Thank a polarizer.  That image of a fish seen from above the pond might have been lost in a reflection of the sky or canopy if a polarizer had not eliminated the unwanted reflection.  Just rotate the filter to the desired effect.  Then you'll obtain those deep green hues in your fronds.  Too much of a subject to discuss here.  Sorry for running on.

[DoomsDave]

I concur with Kim, and also await opinions for the same reasons.

For what it's worth, I note that my old camera can take great pictures, but it lacks a telephoto lens for those close-up shots, into yards, up into crowns, etc.

I also want to stick to cameras that take standard, i.e., AA, C or D batteries instead of proprietary ones.

All thoughts appreciated . . . . .

dave

[Jose]

To make life easy, Pick a brand, 6 pixels or better with macro, large memory card. Most important don`t spend anything over $250 it will come with all the bells and whistles. They all basically take the same photo unless your a Professional photographer.

[richtrav]

Mostly it's the photographer, but if you don't mind the larger size (and usually larger price) the slr cameras with changeable lenses will give you better image quality, especially if your available light is not always good. They also capture more details in the shadows and light areas. If you have an "easy" subject where the lighting is just right then most cameras will do a good job. And don't get caught up in the megapixel race, I'd much rather use an older 6 megapixel slr than a new 10 megapixel compact model anyday (having said that I used to get pretty good pictures with an old 5 megapixel compact Olympus 5050, but it had a fast lens). Knowing how to use Photoshop also helps a great deal

[corkycory]

Awww I spent a few weeks of my life at the film of arts place down in balboa park, i should know this stuff.  Spent alot of time working on those bulky SLR cameras and learning how to use them . ughh  

Even though all the hype is about digital n stuff now but with film ( and possibly with digital idk) you can take it to a photo place and they will balance out the picture and it really helps out on the color.

[deezpalms]

I really love my new camera that cost me $250.00. It's a Kodak Z1275 with 12 mega pixels!! & 5 x optical zoom. A great camera at a very fair price. It has macro, image stabilization & panorama stitch which makes it very easy to take 2 or 3 pictures and "stitch" them together to make one panoramic image. I'd say if you want to take pictures of palms you will need at least a 5x optical zoom to get close. Here's a link to my camera ~ http://kodak.com/eknec....d=12166

[PALM MOD]

Kim,

Of course both the photographer and the camera are important.

However, when viewing/posting photos here on the Forum there is an over riding consideration. That is, the manner in which they are re-sized in order to be posted. A high quality pic can be destroyed trying to post it on this Forum. The options here are extremely limited as to how they can be displayed. And when using a hosting service, there are still many variables that come into play that have a much larger bearing on the quality of the final image than the camera or photographer.

[osideterry]

This might be too technical for some, but I have a simple way of keeping my images small enough for attaching in posts. If you have any photo-editing software at all, make the image 720x540 pixels (10"x7.5" at 72dpi) and save at medium jpeg quality/compression. It should be between 70-100k depending on the image. I shoot for 85k to be safe.

Save/rename the above as a new file so as not to write over your original. it will be fine for viewing here, but is way to low res for photo prints.

[Peter]

Why it's the photographer of course Kim :-)   I think one valuable tip which will improve your photographs in the garden is to shoot when it is overcast(which should be no problem for  you on the coast).  The soft light is ideal, especially for detail shots, as there are no harsh shadows and contrasty light.  The only thing you must watch is camera movement, as your shutter speeds will be slower and the camera will be susceptible to shake.

[sonoranfans]

(Kim @ Aug. 08 2007,14:13)

QUOTE

We all enjoy spectacular palm photos, but how do you get that great shot?  In Wal's thread about palm fruits, all the photos are interesting, but some have greater clarity, and one makes the fruit look positively luminous.  You recall the great photos from last year that went into the calendar?  Was it the equipment, the subject, or the photographer that made those photos special?

Yes, I'm looking for a new digital camera, and I'm soliciting your opinions.  What do you love about your camera?  What could be better?  Which features are most important to you?

I'll be using it to photograph palms, other plants, and wildlife -- including people!  Macro is a must, and I'm curious about panorama shots as well.  Do any of you have the stabilizing feature and is it worth the extra $?  Looking forward to your input.

Thanks,

Kim

because the posts here are low resolution, its not the camera at all.  One of my challenges is to get the right lighting, especially a problem in arizona with the intense sun at low angles at the edges of the day, and alot of glare the rest of the time.  Low cloud cover can be a problem with all the ambient light scattered around.  I would focus on studying lighting and taking lots of pics(there will be alot of bad ones).

[metalfan]

If I am lucky enough to get a really good shot, I attribute it to my TRIPOD not my camera! Couldn't live without it, I have a very unsteady hand

[Matt in SD]

Hi Kim,

I bought a new digitical cam earlier this year (canon powershot G7) so I have thought about this alot as well.  If you want an SLR, then you want an SLR and I haven't researched that  yet, but if you want a point and shoot there are some features that can be pretty important.

A couple basic things are that the megapixel number is not very well correlated with image quality. So don't pay more for a higher megapixel number based only on that feature.   You already mentioned macro, which is real important in my mind.  The Canon I got will focus to 1/2", you can almost press the lens against the subject...very cool.  And then there are overall features.  The more expensive cameras will have tons of features you don't need, but they may also have some you will use that you can't get on a cheaper camera (like fancy flash settings, ISO adjustment, preset color balance settings that actually work, image stabilization that actually works...I use all of these on my camera).

One thing no one has mentioned here that is a real critical feature for digital cameras in my mind is the ability to take photos in less than perfect light without a flash.  None of the point and shoots will do this nearly as well as an SLR, but the cheaper point and shoots really suck while the more expensive ones are OK.  As far as the reviews go, the Fuji's are hands down the best at low light photos (most sensitive CCD), but their overall image quality in good light is not so hot.  I chose the Canon because it had a good balance.  It also has a dial right on top that you can adjust to set the CCD sensitivity, and I use this all the time.

And then there's just overall build quality.  I've found the higher end Canon's to be very good.  I had a Powershot S50 for three years and I gave it to my son and it's still 100% functional (my 6 year old son has been using it for 8 months now).  I actually dropped the thing hard enough to warp the main housing (i.e. bend metal) but it didn't affect any functionality.   Unless something changes, I'll probably never buy a non-Canon camera.

One other camera that I've heard a lot of people really like is the Pentax Optio, the one that is waterproof.  My Dad is a serious photographer and he uses it when he doesn't want to lug around his SLR, and it's cheap.  It's a good camera for rainy places for sure.

Matt

Matt

[Scott]

I'm certain it's the photographer.

Paul Denton gets amazing photos, so at Quail Gardens, I asked him what kind of camera he uses..... it turns out it's the same as mine. Yet the photos I take aren't nearly as good.

Yep, it's the photog.... no doubt.

Dave - 12 Mega Pixels ... Wow, that'll show every pore

I just got my new Canon XH-A1 Professional HD camcorder. I can't wait to film a PRA

[glbower]

As a professional journalist and photographer, I used several compact digitals through the years before moving up to a Nikon SLR. I wouldn't trade it for all the compacts in the world. The reason: when you press its shutter button, the processor is big enough to do the calculations immediately and take the photo. With the smaller cameras I have used, you press the shutter and wait, and then wait some more. This may not be a problem if you're just shooting plants, but if you shoot things that move it can drive you crazy.

[Matt in SD]

glbower,

I hated this about the digital point and shoots as well.  But the new ones are definitely much better.  Some brands are better than others (again I think Fujii is the fastest), but without flash most are in the 1/100ths of a second range.  With flash on it's a different story though still.

By the way, this site Digital Photography Review is very good.  They have test shots for all the reviews and hard numbers on lag times, actual resolution (higher megapixels does not always lead to higher effective resolution) etc...

Matt

[RadPalms]

As far as the reviews go, the Fuji's are hands down the best at low light photos (most sensitive CCD), but their overall image quality in good light is not so hot.............I submitted a picture using my Fuji FinePic S 7000 to a contest last month and it is being put into a publication called Endless Journeys.......I think it's the person taking the image that makes the image.  It's just knowing the capabilities of the camera your using..

[Palmarum]

I believe it is a combination of both. You should use the equipment you are comfortable with, and know it as best as you can. I grew up with photography, and began with SLR cameras so that is what I was used to. Get the level of equipment you need to capture the photos you want. Many cameras can easily take a detailed photo of an unmoving object with a great deal of light. I love to experiment with photography, so I enjoy the spread of features on my Nikon D70s, and with my lenses. What makes a great photo is in the eye of the beholder. For my action photography, I might take 30 photos in a row, 3 per second, and end up only keeping one. This is only a scant amount of ideas that are involved in photography, there is always something new.

- With a fast shutter speed, and a variable aperture, you can 'stop' action as you could see it. A shutter speed of 1/800 was used in this photo to capture the paintball in motion as well as the muzzle flash. The haze was caused by shooting through shadecloth. Forum member Travis Searle (Paintball Guy) in action.

- Add a tripod and a real slow shutter speed, you can capture a stream of effects. These fireworks were being fired off rapidly, but if you can choose when to open the shutter then to close it, you pick what part of them to photograph. This was taken at 1/2 second shutter speed.

- If you do the same with an even slower speed, you get an even longer detail. This photo was taken at 2 second shutter speed.

- Interchangable zoom lenses come in handy when you want to keep your distance, or you have no choice. This iguana shot was taken with a Nikkor 70-300mm f4-f5.6 G AF lens. If you might need to take photos like this, then plan ahead on what format and equipment you might need.

Ryan

[gavilan1]

Ryan, my F3HPs bow to you.  The reptile eye image is *exceptionally* good.  Nat. Geo quality, IMHO.  I used to shoot for AP in LA, and freelanced for Newsweek, local print media, and a few Lantana area fishwrapping tabloids back in the '80s.  Very nice images!

[Kris]

Dear Kim  

you are very smart person,unlike me i asked this question after buying a camera.going by adds posted in the net and

high rating given by photography magazine.but i was unable to check it since it was bought by my buddy working in the U.S

he just did what i instructed him to do.but the canon s 3is

powershot camera has lots of minor glitches.and macro & super macro goes blurr.i really repent having just believed

what the adds of that equipement stated.

But if cost or pricing is not a criterian i will inisist buy a DSLR

camera with a large & quick appreture and provisions for interchangable lenses.since it will give you an ablity to

shoot landscapes & Potraits with different lens and macros,

fish eye and telephoto with their respective lens.

few years back i used the canon EOS with film loading type

results are fentastic.now the EOS is avaliable in DSLR type

is even better.

but even give Nikon D40x a try before making a final descission.my friends here use it and here still photographers also recomand that to me.but i like the looks of my canon.but the stills are pathetic.and takes lot of time to auto focous an object.

and to memory card the bigger and the faster the better..

brands like kingston,lexar,transend,scandisk have high speed models ranging from 133x to 150x.and to my knowledge the 150x of transend seems to cost less.and 2

GB memory is a must for that 2000x above resolutions.

batteries 4 AA sized rechargable battery will be economical in the long run.so see to it that the camera has that provision too.

And as for the resolution goes if you are budget conscious

then 6 mega pexil will do but looking for some hi-end stuff

then 10.2 mega pexil is the way to go.as the saying goes

the bigger the better.

and rugged built quality_canon & nikon has that fit and finish

and i will not buy any camera out of this 2 brand.unless its a

hassibald with carl zeiss lens.(that is my dream machine).

and after reading all what i said if you still feel confused,look no further ask our friend Ryan(Palmarum) he is a Pro.

And by the way i forgot one thing ask the dealer wheather

that camera will also shoot images in Raw mode.and the

regular mode of Jpeg format.all true photographers love this mode and its believed that the image size will be 3 to 4

times more dense than shooting using the jpeg format.

and you can buy lenes every new year while their is sale.

but i will tell you to go for a DSLR machine.it very easy to

service too.but when you move around with the machine

people can mistake you for a photo journilist...

Hope its of some use to you,

Love,

Kris  

[glbower]

"... when you move around with the machine

people can mistake you for a photo journilist."

This statement is right on, Kris. I work for a newspaper. When I arrived to take photos with a compact, nobody paid me any attention. People got in my way and ruined my shots. I show up with my Nikon D70, and they think I'm a pro and make way.

[Davidl]

Photographer and the camera are important. Canon Rebel 8 megapixel

[Kamipalms]

Heres a shot I've posted once before.

Camera is a an off the shelf  Olympus 5 Megapixel

[Neofolis]

Something I really miss with my camera is a wide angle lens.  I decided to opt for good zoom capability, 10x optical with image stabilizing, but despite the software using the zoom on long range will decrease the quality of the photo no matter how steady you are.  I think a wide angle, i.e. something lower than 35mm equivalent is essential for palm photography, because there are often occasions where you can't get as far as you would like from the subject without obscuring it and the wide angle lens will help you get more into the shot at a shorter distance.

How many times do we see Bo and others have to post photos of parts of palms, because they can't get the whole palm in the shot.  Admittedly a wide angle lens is unlikely to overcome this totally in most situations, but at least you would be able to get more of the palm into each shot.  When I visit Kew and take photos in The Palm House and The Temperate House, it's a real struggle to get decent shots of anything even vaguely large and I usually don't, because I just can't get far enough away.

The equipment is important.  I would defy anyone to get consistently good photos with the camera on my old phone, for example, but knowledge and experience is more important for consistently high quality photos.  I just seem to do everything in point and click mode, but I'm sure if I took the time to learn about the various functions on my camera and learnt a bit about composition, I could achieve far better results.

[Kris]

Dear Kim  

one thing i missed to add is see to it you buy an external flash

too.be it digital or DSLR.while for digital it comes in cordless from while for a DSLR Camera it would easily have a hot shoe.

but the latest canon S 5 IS is a ditgial camera but it has a hot

shoe too !

and that external flash unit should have a tilt and auto setting

for bounch lighting effect.

And Another thing i forgot to mention is you can also ask peter

about the configuration and i think he would shed more light on digital cameras.

And dear Ryan that still of the paint ball shot out was it manual or was it mike(sound)activated.that still and the crocodile stills are mind blowing while the other stills posted

i have seen in our photography posts(Palapa coloum).

Great work !

And dear Kami(Jason) fentastic still and i love it.i could see the hair folicles of the dragons foot..i can just dream to have a shot like that with my lenses !

Love,

Kris  

[Kim]

Thanks to each and every one for your comments, recommendations, and startling photos!  It did seem this would be a subject of interest to many on the board.  I see there are many variables to consider and weigh before making the final decision.

Please continue the discussion!  

Kim

[Palmarum]

Neofolis · Posted on Aug. 10 2007,10:16

Something I really miss with my camera is a wide angle lens.  I decided to opt for good zoom capability, 10x optical with image stabilizing, but despite the software using the zoom on long range will decrease the quality of the photo no matter how steady you are.  I think a wide angle, i.e. something lower than 35mm equivalent is essential for palm photography, because there are often occasions where you can't get as far as you would like from the subject without obscuring it and the wide angle lens will help you get more into the shot at a shorter distance.

How many times do we see Bo and others have to post photos of parts of palms, because they can't get the whole palm in the shot.  Admittedly a wide angle lens is unlikely to overcome this totally in most situations, but at least you would be able to get more of the palm into each shot.  When I visit Kew and take photos in The Palm House and The Temperate House, it's a real struggle to get decent shots of anything even vaguely large and I usually don't, because I just can't get far enough away.

Wide angle is so essential to photographing palms and plants in general. I have a 18-75mm ED IF AF lens that I use very often, and the majority of the photos are taken at 18mm. With that angle, I can stand a few feet from a trunking palm and get the whole thing in one photo. I would even want a 16mm or 14mm wide-angle lens to do an even better job of it, but they get expensive, which most lenses do. When you get into even wider-angle lenses, they become Fish-eye oriented. These lenses would be interesting to use, but would have the distortion. On a side note about lenses, buy the standard lenses for your camera brand. Off brand lenses may be cheaper, and give somewhat simular results, but they do not retain their value as standard lenses do. If kept in great shape, old lenses can be sold for as much as they were paid for, even decades later.

krisachar · Posted on Aug. 10 2007,10:55

And dear Ryan that still of the paint ball shot out was it manual or was it mike(sound)activated.that still and the crocodile stills are mind blowing while the other stills posted

i have seen in our photography posts(Palapa coloum).

The outbound paintball shot in the photo was captured manually, with continuous shooting. The crocodile was actually just a green iguana.

Ryan

[Matt in SD]

Good point about wide angle Ryan.  I really wish I had one, and really there are no point shoots with good wide angle capability.  I could get an add on lens for my Canon, but it's still not very wide.  For palm and landscape shots, a wide angle is really key.

One of my points above about the Fujii photo quality was a bit overstated (as radpalms pointed out).  I should have just said they didn't rate as high in overall quality as some other cameras (higher end Canons in particular).  After reading all the reviews, I had a hard choice between the Canon or Fujii point and shoots, they're both really good.  These days, I think in the right conditions, a good photographer could take an "award winning" shot with any digitical camera over ~$150.  But some cameras will get great shots over a wider range of conditions than others.

Matt

[osideterry]

I HAD to have a real wide angle option. I bought a Fujifilm Finepix S6000. It's range is 28-300mm (SLR equivalent). It's also very SLR-like for a bridge camera, and I'm real happy with it. $300 through Amazon.com.

[bgl]

Interesting topic! I bought my first Nikon camera with motordrive almost 40 years ago (but was into airplane photography at the time!), and have always been interested in photography. For all the photos I have posted over the last year and a half I used a Fuji S5000 camera, which is very nice, but not at the Nikon level. However, received a Nikon D80 as a Father's Day present from our son, and I just acquired a Nikkor 18-70 mm lens a couple of weeks ago, so from now on, I'll be using this for most, if not all, the photos I'll be posting on the Forum.

And Ryan's photos are certainly spectacular. I remember all the photos he took during the IPS Biennial in DR. It was like having our own professional photograger!

I definitely agree with two things he said: 1) it's a combination of equipment and photographer, and 2) take many photos, and select the best one(s). Especially now with digital photography this is so easy (and at no extra cost!). Many people tend to take just one or two photos of a particular subject. If they don't turn out OK, well, usually it'll be too late to correct that! Professional photographers take as many photos as they can, and then a few of those are bound to be great!

[Guest Lucinda]

There's no question that a talented photographer with an eye for a story can take excellent pictures with even a cheap camera. I like photography almost as much as I like palms and with the help of Photoshop, have managed a few that ended up in frames on the wall. That said, I am partial to Sonys and have had a few models that did well for me. However, a camera is no good if it isn't with you all the time. A backpack full of lenses is too cumbersome ... and Florida's heat is sure death on any photographic equipment left sweltering in a car.

So I stay with models that fit in my (big) purse. My favorite was the Sony H-1. Unfortunately it drowned during a white water rafting episode in Costa Rica. So I replaced it in San Jose with the Sony H-5. Both cameras are full featured in that you can point and shoot if you like, or switch to manual mode with full control. The lens, made by Zeiss, is excellent. The camera weighs about half a pound, runs for days on two rechargeable batteries and unlike the dinky little shirt pocket point/shoots, is solid enough to remain steady in your hand and looks like a serious camera when hanging around your neck. Wide angle lenses area available.

Downside: it certainly isn't as quick off the mark as a DSLR and getting a decent shot indoors where it's dark, such as a concert, is challenging, indeed.

On the other hand, this camera goes with me everywhere.

Both H-1 and H-5 have been replaced with the H-7 and H-9, which don't appear to be as good as their predecessors. However, I believe you can still get the H-5 very reasonably.

Regardless of brand, I have found that the small camera that's with me when I need it is far better than the heavy equipment sitting at home.

[Neofolis]

I think big and bulky equipment is less of an issue, if you have a backup for everyday use.  My new phone Nokia N95 has a 5 megapixel camera with a Zeiss lens and is surprisingly good and I always have my phone on me wherever I go.  When I am going somewhere to specifically take photos, I make allowances for the extra bulk of taking my proper camera with me.  That said, my camera is not particularly high end, but I think the strategy would work well with bulkier equipment than mine.

[Palmarum]

bgl · Posted on Aug. 10 2007,18:13

...Especially now with digital photography this is so easy (and at no extra cost!). Many people tend to take just one or two photos of a particular subject. If they don't turn out OK, well, usually it'll be too late to correct that! Professional photographers take as many photos as they can, and then a few of those are bound to be great!

Shoot first ask questions later. When I made the transistion from film SLR to DSLR, I had to work on not being 'gun shy'. I was in the habit of saving film, and waited for the shot as best I could. Eventually I got out of that mode. One example I could state happened a few weekends ago, I photographed a birthday / paintball match including about 14 people. From 9 am to near 5 pm I took a little over 1,100 photos, but afterwards only kept half of them.

Ryan

[Gileno Machado]

I've always liked Photography, long before being particularly interested in palms. My dad had an old Leica and since very young I was allowed to play often with it. Around the age of 12 I was given my own robust Olympus trip 35 viewfinder model and a few years later, after a 6 months class of Photography, I bought my first Canon SLR and became more or less loyal to this brand up until the digital age.

I feel very comfortable to use wide angle lenses and always loved the effect, even close to the distortion point sometimes, but a quick and handy (non interchangeable) powerful zoom capability in my case is essential because I don't enjoy photoshop polish and lapidation so much and prefer to establish the composition with the help of the telephoto. I've used Minolta Z series with many different filters and lenses sometimes and now my son brought me as a gift from the States a nice small Fuji finepix S700 7.1 megapixel. Although not a professional model, it is very light and practical to take around and has been performing pretty well for the daily needs.

[Kris]

Dear Ryan  

Thanks for the info.

And Dear Gileano that's a nice shot.

And me being budget conscious went for digital camera,but my

mind is after a DSLR camera with provision for interchangable

lens..i am planning to gift my canon to my younger brother and go in for a Nikon D40X which happens to be the lowest priced DSLR of the Nikon range !since iam totally fed up with my canon at the moment.

And the feed back from memebers seems to be very useful to all of us.

love,

Kris  

[Kris]

Some useful site links which i visit often :-

http://www.dpreview.com/

http://www.tipa.com/awa_2007.lasso

Love,

Kris  

[Kris]

Now let's see on the topic called Filters...

most of the filters are all threaded type made specifically for the DSLR type of camera's.the basic filters are the I.R Filters

like 87 to 89 B.as for my knowledge i have not seen much filters manufacutered for the regular digital camera's especially the small pocket sized digital cameras.

And there are the diffifusion filters.and if you have read most of the post you would have found ryan mention in one of the

thread that he wanted to take the stills of fishes in the water

but as he did not carry the required filters for it could not take the snap.so there are filters that make the object shine or in some case colour filters do give very warn kind of feel to stills taken near the sea shore,snow peaks,& portraits...

Love,

Kris  

[Kris]

Few useful links...

for Nikon :

http://www.nikonusa.com/templat....r=25424

for Canon :

http://www.usa.canon.com/consume....d=15207

Love,

Kris  

[Neofolis]

I saw that Kris mentioned batteries, so here are my thoughts.  I decided to go for a bespoke rechargeable battery for a few reasons.  The appeal of AA batteries is that when you are on holiday or for whatever reason the batteries run out, you can buy new ones almost anywhere.  The reason I went for a bespoke battery is much greater length of use on one charge.  This may be less of an issue now, with rechargeable AA's improving all the time, but my bespoke battery lasts for about 300 photos without flash on the highest quality settings and I have three spare batteries, so I can take up to 1200 photos before needing to recharge.  Often AA's will only give about 100 photos on one charge or at least that was normal when I bought the camera, which means carrying many more batteries and changing them that much more often.  I will often take 300-400+ photos during a single outing and only having to change the battery once in that time, is quite convenient.  Also my batteries charge in about 60-90minutes from flat, so charging all four can be done in an evening.  Again at the time I bought the camera, rechargeable AA's took substantially longer, although there is the advantage that you can charge several at once with a large charger.

My final advantage of bespoke batteries is that, living in a busy house with three kids, I know that no-one else will be using my batteries for other things, which could be a nuisance with AA's if I went to use the batteries, which I had charged, only to find them flat.