For on the water shots, I use an outdated 2.0 Mpixel Olympus D-520 Zoom, which is not waterproof at all. But, it is probably pretty worthless now if I were to sell it, so I don't worry about dropping it in the drink. Yet, at 2 megapixels, the snapshot quality is pretty good for sharing photos with others electronically. No way are the shots magazine quality, but I get a lot of shots others with more valuable cameras miss, because mine is always ready for use. The trick is that I keep it in a Pelican MicroCase 1020 lanyarded to the deck of my sea kayak. This case is small, completely waterproof, and flips open easily for use of the camera. I get my shot, restore the camera to the case, shut it, slap the case back under a bungie and keep on paddling. If I need to reposition to get a better shot, the 1020 stays open and the camera's wrist sling goes between my teeth while I regroup, leaving both hands free to manage the paddle, etc. Then I drop the paddle (it's on a leash) to get another shot, and stuff the camera away. If the camera dies, then I'll think about investing in a waterproof one ... but my technique won't change, because I'll still need to have an on the deck storage box, so the camera will still be instantly available. [I also own a Pentax Zoom90 WR, which goes on trips equipped with slide film, but I don't think anybody who does serious photography would regard this camera as capable of decent images: the lens just is not that good. I use it when I want direct slide images, for shots where the light values are extreme.] -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
For those of you with digital point-and shoots, how high an ISO setting do you typically use? I've heard that the P&S cameras aren't as usable at high sensitivities as the digital SLRs. On our last long trip (Silver Islet to Rossport on Lake Superior) my wife and I used three cameras: my Nikon D70 for onshore use, my Nikonos V loaded with Sensia 100 slide film for on-water use, and my wife's Pentax IQ 105WR loaded with an ISO 400 negative film for general use. I scanned the slides and negatives to put together with the digital pictures for a digital slide show we're giving at REI Bloomington in the Twin Cities next Monday. It certainly was interesting, not to say frustrating, trying to get the same color balance out of those three very different sources. It also gave me a better appreciation for my D70, whose photos became the standard to which I attempted to match the other photos. The ISO 400 negative film was worst, both for color-matching and for grain. Now my wife wants a digital camera. I must say that the Optio WP looks like it might be a good choice for a kayaker. Chuck Holst *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I also shoot the D70 when on dry ground - but a point and shoot digital on the water. Simply, (as you probably do) I use the lowest ISO setting I can possibly use. You are correct that the P&S do not handle higher sensitivities worth a dang. On the D70, you can crank it up well over 800 if necessary and still have passable image quality. Also, be aware that the ISO values are very different. The bottom end on the Nikon CP8700 is "50" but the bottom end on the D70 is "200". I can say from owning one that the 8700 can't go much over "100" without starting to really look bad in my opinion. So 200 on the D70 is not the same as 200 on a P&S. Not sure that helps you much. Seems to me that Photoshop has a image balancing filter or feature - load in an image and it will adjust subsequent images to "match". Haven't used it but might be useful for your task at hand. K Who just today dropped his D70 for the first time...on carpet...but still the sickening 'crack' when it hit still makes my blood run cold....everything appears to be functioning but oh my. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Friday 15 April 2005 20.01, Keith wrote: > I also shoot the D70 when on dry ground - but a point and shoot digital on > the water. Simply, (as you probably do) I use the lowest ISO setting I can > possibly use. You are correct that the P&S do not handle higher > sensitivities worth a dang. On the D70, you can crank it up well over 800 > if necessary and still have passable image quality. Also, be aware that > the ISO values are very different. The bottom end on the Nikon CP8700 is > "50" but the bottom end on the D70 is "200". I can say from owning one > that the 8700 can't go much over "100" without starting to really look bad > in my opinion. So 200 on the D70 is not the same as 200 on a P&S. That's my experience, too! > Not sure that helps you much. Seems to me that Photoshop has a image > balancing filter or feature - load in an image and it will adjust > subsequent images to "match". Haven't used it but might be useful for your > task at hand. "Levels" works best - drag the right arrow till the graph starts (no graph height means no info in the picture around the top settings). But you have to under-expose a little to get the best high lights, so to speak ._)! Washout in the light areas is nasty, remember that! Tord ------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Friday 15 April 2005 19.30, you wrote: > For those of you with digital point-and shoots, how high an ISO setting do > you typically use? I've heard that the P&S cameras aren't as usable at > high sensitivities as the digital SLRs. My Konica KD-500Z has just one setting, and that is not very high (I would guess 160), and I have not found that a problem outdoors. See www.foldingkayaks.org/gallery/tord I underexpose a step and a half, to prevent white areas from washing out. Then I reset the exposure range using GIMP 2.2, Photoshop 7.0, Photoshop Elements, or similar, using the levels function (not autolevels, please). My Olympus C-8080WZ is much trickier to get a good result from, and its colours are not as true, but indoors it is a much more capable camera, and at night as well. So for daylight photography, even at sunset a single speed is OK and usually produces much less noise than a camera with 25-400 range. But at low level, with noise reduction on the C-8080 is amazing! Tord *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On 15 Apr 2005 at 12:30, cholst_at_bitstream.net wrote: > D70, whose photos became the standard to > which I attempted to match the other photos. Anyone who holds a Nikon SLR as a standard for comparison for lesser cameras deserves to be disappointed. :-) Having compared my Minolta and Canon SLR output to other cameras for several decades, I know better than to expect anything to match Nikon. Their lenses seem to make all the difference. I only wish I was smart enough to admit that to myself years ago (i.e before spending all that money on Minoltas and Canons). Mike PS - I'll make no claims about Nikons of the point-and-shoot or digital P&S persuasion. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
In this case, anyway, I was speaking of color balance. The colors from the D70, when the white balance was set correctly, just seemed so much more accurate than the colors from the scanned slides and negatives, which took a fair bit of tweaking. Also, the scans from the ISO 400 negatives showed quite a bit more grain than the pictures from the D70 taken at ISO 400. In fact, they most closely resembled the noise in the D70 pictures taken at ISO 1600. Chuck Holst > On 15 Apr 2005 at 12:30, cholst_at_bitstream.net wrote: > >> D70, whose photos became the standard to >> which I attempted to match the other photos. > > Anyone who holds a Nikon SLR as a standard for comparison for lesser > cameras deserves to be disappointed. :-) > > Having compared my Minolta and Canon SLR output to other cameras for > several decades, I know better than to expect anything to match > Nikon. Their lenses seem to make all the difference. I only wish I > was smart enough to admit that to myself years ago (i.e before > spending all that money on Minoltas and Canons). > > Mike *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Tuesday 19 April 2005 19.23, you wrote: > In this case, anyway, I was speaking of color balance. The colors from the > D70, when the white balance was set correctly, just seemed so much more > accurate than the colors from the scanned slides and negatives, which took > a fair bit of tweaking. Also, the scans from the ISO 400 negatives showed > quite a bit more grain than the pictures from the D70 taken at ISO 400. In > fact, they most closely resembled the noise in the D70 pictures taken at > ISO 1600. Yeah, a nice camera! Better than my Olympus C-8080, by a wide margin, even if they cost about the same! Tord *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Now if only Nikon would come out with a digital version of the Nikonos -- with a DSLR-quality sensor, of course. I'd buy the new one and sell my old Nikonos V in an instant. Chuck Holst *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 19.56, you wrote: > Now if only Nikon would come out with a digital version of the Nikonos -- > with a DSLR-quality sensor, of course. I'd buy the new one and sell my old > Nikonos V in an instant. Hear, hear! Mr Nikon, are you listening??? Tord *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:41 PDT