[at-l] Cameras (Kinda Long)

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

At 11:35 AM 8/26/2003 -0400, greyowl@rcn.com wrote:
>I know that we have hashed the topic of cameras out several
>times on the list but I thought that you might want to hear
>my experiences working with disposable cameras and what I
>have learned from a professional photographer and then my
>final decision about what type of camera I am going to carry
>on my future hikes.
>
>My wife and I attend the ATC in NH and while there I took the
>opportunity of going on a number of hikes.  I carried several
>disposable cameras with me.  In the past they have worked
>very well for me, but for some reason one of the cameras did
>not function well.  I was hiking the Zealand Trail to Zealand
>Hut and from there the Ethan Pond Trail (AT) to Crawford
>Notch.  Now I am use to the scenery in PA and I was blown
>away by the views on this trail and shot 27 pictures.  Upon
>developing each picture had a red streak on the right hand
>side of the picture.  It was worse in some pictures than
>others.  I also had a photo disk made so that I could
>digitally manipulate the pictures in PhotoShop.
>
>While working with the digital images I realized the pictures
>where not all that great, they were decidedly worse than the
>prints.  This really hurt as I wanted to put these into a
>power point presentation.  I showed the pictures to the
>professional photographer (Paul) in our building.

I am not a 'professional' photographer, meaning I don't make my living from 
photography, but I have done so in the past. I am something of an 'expert' 
by virtue of 45 years of experience, study and teaching. BTW I plan to do a 
photography workshop at the gathering if anyone is interested.

Many 'pros' are resistant to digital and other advances in photography. You 
can often spot them by their attachment to old mechanical cameras. I am in 
the middle. I still love the old equipment but also recognize what the new 
stuff will do that the old couldn't.

>Paul said
>the quality of the pictures was what one would expect for a
>disposable camera and the digital images were what one would
>expect for a disposable camera or a digital camera!!  I was
>thinking of purchasing a digital camera for the trail but
>Paul recommended not buying one unless I really wanted to do
>so.  I would have been disappointed with the quality of the
>picture as they would not be any better than what I got from
>the disposable cameras.

There are digital cameras that produce can photos which blow away the old 
mechanical camera's results. A Canon 1Ds, for example, can produce a higher 
resolution photo than ISO 100 slide film. Its problem is that it is very 
expensive (lists at $9K for the body only) and it's heavy. A friend who 
owns one (he's richer than I) tells me that with his favorite lens, a 
24-70mm, it tops 4.6#. Not exactly a hikers camera. If you are willing to 
tote even more weight and have an unlimited budget I can point you to some 
medium or large format digital equipment that has even better resolution. 
The point here, however, is that *if you want the highest image quality for 
your dollar* film still beats digital.

FWIW - I suspect that re-scanning the film from your disposable could give 
you better files. I say that because you said the prints were better. 
Although the cheap plastic lenses in disposables don't make for high 
quality negatives, most consumer photo processors doing photo CDs from film 
scan at very low resolution thus compounding the problem. You need to find 
someone to scan your original film at a minimum of 2700 dpi. I'm not saying 
it will be great but they should at least match the quality of your 4X6 
prints and may well be better.


>I mentioned that I had an old Cannon SLR (AE-1) that I had
>purchased back in 1969.  I also told him that it was the
>Japanese version of the camera.  Paul looked at me like I had
>just told him I had a million dollars in gold and I was going
>to give it to him.  One of the real drawbacks of digital
>cameras is the lens system.  They are pretty damn bad.  They
>get away with the lens as they are small in diameter (the SLR
>has a 50mm lens while most digital camera has less than
>20mm.  This results in a fairly narrow depth of view).  Using
>the proper choice of film (not high speed film but film with
>an ASA of 100) one can obtain very high quality picture that
>cannot be achieved by any digital camera on the market
>today.  In addition, using the proper choice of scanning
>conditions I can generate digital images of much higher
>quality than those obtained on most digital cameras on the
>market.

I have to question your pros explanation of diameter of the lens because it 
is not measured in mm. The diameter of the glass (or plastic on cheap 
lenses) is indicated by the maximum f/stop. Digital cameras use shorter 
focal lengths (the mm part) because the CCD or CMOS that records the light 
has a smaller area than standard 35mm film. The same is true for APS. The 
Canon 1Ds is an exception. The CCD on a 1Ds is the same size as 35mm film. 
The light gathering power of the lens is the ratio of the diameter to the 
focal length thus you can have a small diameter lens the same focal length 
as a large diameter lens of that focal length (i.e. 50mm f/8 VS 50mm f1.8). 
Neither set of numbers indicates the quality of the lens.

>So after much thought about my choices for a trail camera I
>decided to use the old Cannon AE-1.  The camera needed some
>repairs and there are not many places that can repair these
>cameras, but I found someone who will fix my camera.  The
>only drawback to the camera is that it is several pounds
>heavier than a digital camera.  I had to decide on my
>priorities and I decided it was more important to me to have
>high quality pictures to share with my friends than it was to
>have my pack a few pounds lighter.  Besides I could always
>find some way to remove and additional pound or two from my
>pack.  According to Shane wearing clothes while hiking is way
>over rated.

The Canon AE-1 is a good camera but as you observe, it is heavy. And 
although the lenses are very good, so are newer lighter lenses. I would 
recommend that you carry an SLR on LD hikes *only* if you intend to take 
advantage of the other capabilities of an SLR meaning, multiple lenses, 
filters, extension tubes, etc. If you are going to use the camera as a 
point and shoot, buy a quality point and shoot camera. They are smaller, 
weigh less and generally less bulky.

I'm still in the process of making up my handouts for the Gathering Grey 
Owl, but I'll forward a copy of the equipment recommendation handout 
separately since the list doesn't accept attachments. I invite everyone to 
come to the workshop.

Saunterer