Hi all I am investing in a new digital camera and was wondering what you all use? I am torn between the Nikon d70 or the Canon digital rebel. Both cameras are great I ahve heard but I want to catch airplanes in flight and clear pictures while they are flying. If you have any info or use these two cameras please give me a shout and let me know what you think of them. Thanks and hope to get some good reliable info. Thanks

They are both good camera brands.

For what you want to do I suggest a MINIMUM of a 4 megapixel camera and a high OPTICAL zoom. You would probably be best served with a minimum of a 6X optical. When you zoom in OPTICALY, the number of megapixels remains the same. All the digital zoom does is crop the picture (read this as pixels) while it is in the camera - it is not "getting you closer " to what you are photographing. The number of pixels in a digital zoom are less than an optical zoom and clarity frequently suffers in enlargements.

Thanks campy , what camera do you own and shoot with?

I know someone that recently got a digital rebel and it verry pleased with it. I dont know the spacifics tho.

Both are equally good kits. I think the D70 lens is a little better but haven't used the Canon's so take that with a grain of salt. To catch fast moving objects you're going to want to invest in your first piece of big $$$ glass. On the Nikon side, that would be a 70-200 AFS VR zoom. Super fast (aperture and focus speed) and with the 1.5 crop factor, you're shooting equal to 300mm. Canon has an equivalent lens and is just as good. If you're in that price range you could also buy a Nikon D2H really cheap as the D2Hs has been released. I think it's at half it's original price. It's only 4MP, but man it's fast. I use one as my backup camera and like it a lot (along with a D70, third back up lol).

Shaun Bell

Well, what I've read so far from the others,--- they're all right-on with their suggestions. They'll both do what you have specified them to be doing. All in all, it's up to you. I will make one minor adjustment to one comment - and that is in regard to the MP that you need. I believe I read that you will need at least 4MP -- true enough. However, if you want to be doing any "critical" printing that requires DETAIL in the BLACK areas, I would go to 5 MP- maybe even 6MP. If not then 4MP will be absolutely enough.

Best of luck to you


marwen

At the present time I can not afford to upgrade, however, I am using an Olympus C-700. This is a 2.1 megapixel camera with a 10X optical and a 3X digital zoom.

I can get superb 5x7 prints and slightly above average 8x10 with this camera. As I said, I would like to upgrade, however, everything I have seen (so far) has either not had a decent optical zoom (6x or more) or is out of my price range. The majority of my shots are long range so I do need the optical so I have "something" left after cropping.

Since I am not an "avid" photographer, I can not justify the high cost of what meets my "needs" to my wife.

Hi Campy:

Here is three to four suggestions for you.

1) with a 2.1MP camera, "shoot in a really bright day." "That will help considerably."
2) the SONY CYBERSHOT F505 - has a 10X Precision Digital Zoom. New (1998-99),
it ran over $1000 US dollars. The use of the magnifier really produces a "sharp" image. Try to find a used one. My guess is that they will be within most everyones price range.

I have one and I used it professionally for more than three years before I bought newer versions of the same camera. The count on mine is about 12,500. I have had VERY little problems with it other than printing the blacks. YES. You will get a nice sharp, clean black, but --- if the light source is not REALLY good, it will produce some very bad results.

I say that because, when I customer says to me, "how come the blacks are so BLACK?" 0r else, it will go the other way, on a grey looking day, the blacks look okay onscreen, but trust me, if you have a lot of black area, it will look very splotchy.

& 3) when you shoot with that 2.1 - using the center portion of the lens ( from about 5X and up - the image will look much sharper than when it is back out at zero X

You mention that you "superb" 5" x 7" and 8" x 10" prints. Yes! You will!
To some, an 8" x 10" is large - to the average photographer - even an avid photographer, taking a sheet of 8" x 10" out of the box to print on, is kind of like the average consumer seeing a small 4" x 5". Notice, I said 4" x 5" - not 4" x 6" ---- As a "darkroom processing photographer, ( LOL -- back in the days when) you get four 4" x 5" prints from an 8" x 10" sheet of paper.

Printing a 4' x 6" simply wastes a good portion of the paper. Actually, the popularity of the 4" x 6" came prevalent when 35mm film started producing a good quality print. Back in the 50's and 60's you could buy stuff like (B/W film) Plus X and TRI X film. The PLUS X had a slower speed than the TRI X did (100 ASA compared to 400 ASA) Unless you wanted to produce a GRAINY print deliberately, you stayed away from the FASTER film. I would only use it in a room when I didn't have a flash or else good light. The 35mm format is the same layout as a 4" x6". Consequently, only the Pros still use 4" x 5" sizes.

Anyway, Ted - I would, in all sense of the word, give the though of buying a used DIGITAL like I mentioned. I used the heck out of mine. Anout the only thing I did't like about that camera was the 2.1 issue and the battey will only take a charge for about two years. and that was probably because I used it constantly, until I got a newer one.

One more thing, even though the battery will go on and record your image, you WILL get (again) better results if you run off the AC adapter. At the field, I simply use the DC INVERTER for the car and a long extention cord. Laugh if you will, but results is what I was after.

have a good one


Marshall

Thanks for the info all. I just went to Best Buy where I work and plunked down the $$ for the Nikon d70. I figured the extra shutter speed 1/8000 is twice as fast as the rebels 1/4000 and this would help for "in flight" pics. Thanks again and I will look into the 70-200 AFS VR zoom lens.

"And i thought it would be a inexpensive relaxing hobby....... "? LOL! Oh no, you've been bit by a really bad habit. They should have a 12 step program for this hobby. Ah, forget the 70-200. Check out the Nikon 200-400 AFS VR and the new 1.7 teleconverter, that's some sweet glass.


Shaun Bell

Well, unless I have missed something in my background in photography, I really don't think that going to 1/8000 of a second shutter speed will help you any more than the 1/4000 sec. The ONLY way that a FAST shutter speed is 100% effective is when a moving object is crossing parallel to the focal plane. In other words, if your plane is coming straight at you or even at , say, a 45Ëš angle, the recorded motion is registered as VERY little. It is when your plane(s) crosses directly in front of you that the movement can be registered as a blur.

I have had cameras that only have a 1/500 sec, or maybe 1/1000 that have done just as we are discussing here and no movement at all is recorded. Another factor you will have to figure into the equation is the distance from the camera lens to the subject being photographed. The CLOSER you are to your focus, the faster it will need or have the requirement of a FAST shutter speed! On the opposite end of the scale, is that if your plane is a good distance from you, you really don't need much more than 1/500 of a sec. Especially if you are HAND-HOLDING, your camera.

Just off-topic a little. ---- try this. Take a shot of your plane -- handheld. Make sure that it is about 10 - 12 feet away and set it on an AUTOMATIC EXPOSURE.. Now, put the camera on a tripod, take a second shot of that same image. Now throw them into you computer - open up in photoshop. Keep on making each image getting bigger. OBSERVE when you see the difference in SHARPNESS. I think you will be surprised.

There is significant movement when handheld, especially with a digital camera. Even more-so with a lower MP camera

Personally, I think the camera manufacturers have gone to these extremes with shutter speeds - only to keep up with one another.

I back up all of what I am saying with the past 45 years and hundreds of thousands of shots I have taken. There are not too many that are exceptional, mostly - saleable! and that's what pays the bills.

I hope that helps out a little bit.

Keep one other thing in mind though, a "FROZEN" still image, may not always be the best end result. Try to slow the shutter speed down to 1/30 sec. and PAN WITH your subject as it crosses in front of you. Hopefully, you will have matched the movement speed, and now, all of the background is in motion. Deliberatley!




marwen
moderator - RCU DIGITAL Forum