KFR: Digital SLR Cameras

KerryS

Ignored Member
#16
Absolutely!

Adobe PhotoShop CS3 Extended = $1,000<

CPU with fast chip, 4GB RAM+, big-ass hard drive, and dedicated graphics card = $2,000<

High fidelity monitor and calibration software/hardware = $1,500<

Epson Stylus Photo R800 6 ink printer = $650< (Ink cartridges = $15 each)

Ability to manipulate your own images for fun and profit = Priceless.

K
18 foot river sled = $15,000.00
4 wheel drive tow vehicle = $35,000.00
12 foot lake boat & motor = $1000.00
Pontoon boat = $900.00
12 or more spey rods @ $300-800.00 each
12 or more reels @ $150-800.00 each
Another 12 or more single handed rods and reels $150.00 and up each
Waders = $400.00
2 pair boots (studded & non-studded) @ $100.00 ea.
Rain coat = $300.00
misc. = $500.00 to $1000.00
Fly tying = another $2000.00 to $3000.00

I got a lot of camera equipment to buy.:p
 
#17
Yeah, the one nice thing about photography gear prices is that they will make your flyfishing purchases not seem nearly so bad in comparison.
haha, i don't plan on getting THAT into it. It's more something to complement my outdoor activities, and to get better shots of the things i see/do out in them. i've seen a lot of amazing scenery and stuff that i was completely unable to capture with a point and shoot.

thanks for the advice guys!
 

Jay Allyn

The Poor-Student Fly Fisher
#19
I own the Canon 350D (that's the Rebel XT, 8mp). I personally wouldn't buy the original Rebel (the 300D). It's much slower, more bulky, and a bit harder to use. Keep in mind that the kit lens that comes with these cameras sucks too and while it does take pictures, if you want to do it efficiently you will need another lens....or two or three. It's kind of like owning different fly rods in a sense. So plan on quite a few hundred dollars more (if not over a thousand) on better lenses.

On that note. I own some nice camera equipment and love to take pictures (I hope to do it for a living sometime). But I hardly ever take it fishing with me. It's too big and bulky and worth too much money to risk dipping it in the water. I find myself usually leaving it in the trunk of my car.
 

dryflylarry

"Chasing Riseforms"
#20
Ev,
while digital SLRs are very nice to have, they can be incredibly difficult to use on river, particularly when photographing fish in a timely manner. Unless you are going to use the "auto" mode, or you are a very experienced photographer who can think of lighting, aperture, etc. without having to think, you're going to end up having that fish waiting around too long before you're set. Going with "auto" mode is the way to go, and you don't need a true digital SLR to do that.
Check out the pseudo digital SLRs like the Fujifilm Finepix S5200 (I have this one, going to step it up soon) and the Sony Cybershot DSC-H7. Both are under $350.
These cameras are half the price, weight, and size of a true digital SLR, so they are easier to carry in a small pack.
Hope this helps.
I've got the FujiFinePix A800 and it is great for quick fishing shots. What I like best is it focuses very quickly (better than most others I checked out-my Son has a Nikon Coolpix which is junk!) , is 8.3 megapixel, and get mine for $149! If you drop it in the water, it's not too big of loss... Try this for an investment before you spend the big bucks!
 

LD

Active Member
#21
iagree Words to live by.

Let's take this simple test:

What's a megapixel?

How will having more of them make your pictures better?


K
After recently upgrading our camera from a 2.4 to 7.1 mp (cannon as 710, perfect for wath we do), we did notice better pictures. But the other thing we noticed is mp eats hard drive space at an alarming rate.
 

Chris Puma

hates waking up early
#22
Absolutely!

Adobe PhotoShop CS3 Extended = $1,000<

CPU with fast chip, 4GB RAM+, big-ass hard drive, and dedicated graphics card = $2,000<

High fidelity monitor and calibration software/hardware = $1,500<

Epson Stylus Photo R800 6 ink printer = $650< (Ink cartridges = $15 each)

Ability to manipulate your own images for fun and profit = Priceless.

K

smart people don't pay for adobe products and certainly don't spend 2k on their computers.

link removed.

have fun.
 
#23
If you drop it in the water, it's not too big of loss...
For that reason I ended up with a Pentax Optio W Series for fishing. Easy to use and the image quality is pretty good. You can pick up one of the older models at a reasonable price. I pretty much keep mine in my pocket and take it with me most everywhere.

I'm in the same process and may ultimately end up with the Nikon D40. Not for fish necessarily but for scenery, kids, etc... MP's are over rated. The camera that died (due to "water exposure":rofl:) was a Cannon 2MP point and shoot. Took incredible pix. The 'prosumer' class are probably what you are in the market for, but, buy it from a shop where you can get the extended 'no questions asked' warranty. Water exposure happens!
 

Jay Allyn

The Poor-Student Fly Fisher
#24
smart people don't pay for adobe products and certainly don't spend 2k on their computers.

link removed
(secret torrent website)

have fun.

Ahh...but a smarter person would buy a legit version of Photoshop or any software if they where using it for business purposes and making a profit. But then again not everybody will do this.
 
#26
After recently upgrading our camera from a 2.4 to 7.1 mp (cannon as 710, perfect for wath we do), we did notice better pictures. But the other thing we noticed is mp eats hard drive space at an alarming rate.
When you're comparing 2.4 to 7.1 you will indeed see a difference. I remember going from 3.0 to 7.1, and it was indeed noticable. But from my 7.1 to my 10.2 DSLR, the difference is negligible. The difference comes in my ability to use the right lens for the job with the DSLR.

I'm not a photography expert, so don't everyone jump on me all at one time, but I have read in many places that 6.0 mp is considered to be on the same level of resolution as film. Meaning, if you want to have a picture blown up to 8x10, you'll see pixelation with a 2.4 mp camera, whereas you won't with 6.0 and above.

The other thing people often forget is that all mp's aren't the same size. The digital sensor on various cameras are of different sizes, and aspect ratios. Take two 10 mp cameras, one with a larger sensor, and it's mp's will be larger than in the camera with the smaller sensor, yet they're both 10.0 mp cameras.

Again all you photo pros, don't crucify me all at once. I'm just relaying what I've read in the photo rags. :ray1:
 

Kent Lufkin

Remember when you could remember everything?
#27
i still saved you a hell of a lot of money with newegg! :)
Clearly you haven't been paid a visit by the software piracy police. A good friend just had to cough up $42K (yep, $42,000) in fines for using pirated versions of Adobe software in his design studio.

You may think you're somehow above the law, but believe me pal, when you've gotta take an unwanted second mortgage on your home you'll look back on this post and wish you hadn't been such a smart ass.

K
 

Josh

dead in the water
#28
I have read in many places that 6.0 mp is considered to be on the same level of resolution as film.
This is one of those statistics that is very hard to actually prove. As it's really up to each person to decided if the photo from camera A is better than the photo from camera B. I will say that for 90% of the people shooting photos, a camera between 6-10mp is going to be just fine.

The other thing people often forget is that all mp's aren't the same size. The digital sensor on various cameras are of different sizes, and aspect ratios. Take two 10 mp cameras, one with a larger sensor, and it's mp's will be larger than in the camera with the smaller sensor, yet they're both 10.0 mp cameras.
You have worded this a bit wrong, but the basic idea is correct...and very important. A 10mp sensor chip that is the size of your fingernail has it's imaging pixels crammed together in a much smaller space than a sensor chip that is the same size as a 35mm frame of film. When crammed onto a tiny sensor, the resulting image is not going to be as high quality.
 

Chris Puma

hates waking up early
#29
Clearly you haven't been paid a visit by the software piracy police. A good friend just had to cough up $42K (yep, $42,000) in fines for using pirated versions of Adobe software in his design studio.

You may think you're somehow above the law, but believe me pal, when you've gotta take an unwanted second mortgage on your home you'll look back on this post and wish you hadn't been such a smart ass.

K
good thing i don't have illegally licensed copies of adobe! :thumb:

you're risking it if you're using illegal copies for business purposes. sucks for your friend but it's a common know fact.
 

Latest posts