Camera's

[esox lucius]

I am am wanting to get better pictures of the fish I catch, as I only get the one chance as I firmly believe in catch-&-release, therefore my question is what is better, Digital Camera or 35 Camera? My fishing includes all types of weather, as well as night and day light pictures.

[Westie]

I am am wanting to get better pictures of the fish I catch, as I only get the one chance as I firmly believe in catch-&-release, therefore my question is what is better, Digital Camera or 35 Camera? My fishing includes all types of weather, as well as night and day light pictures.

 

I would say, IMHO, digital for the pure reason that if you don't quite get the exposure right, or you are taking pictures in difficult light conditions, you can rectify it fairly simply in most photo processing software and save what would otherwise be an unusable picture taken on film.

[Steve Burke]

Firstly, welcome to the forum!

 

No contest as far as I'm concerned - digital every time.

 

This is because you can quickly see if you've got the shot right before returning the fish. As you say, you only get one chance.

 

I remember going into Boots to pick up some 35mm pics. The dolly bird behind the counter said, "I'm sorry sir, but we've lost your film. But don't worry, here's a free film to take the pictures again"! That film contained a then personal best!

 

If you're worried about the difference in quality, don't be. Digitals have improved no end in the last few years, and only real enthusiasts are likely to notice any difference - if indeed they can!

[esox lucius]

Firstly, welcome to the forum!

 

No contest as far as I'm concerned - digital every time.

 

This is because you can quickly see if you've got the shot right before returning the fish. As you say, you only get one chance.

 

I remember going into Boots to pick up some 35mm pics. The dolly bird behind the counter said, "I'm sorry sir, but we've lost your film. But don't worry, here's a free film to take the pictures again"! That film contained a then personal best!

 

If you're worried about the difference in quality, don't be. Digitals have improved no end in the last few years, and only real enthusiasts are likely to notice any difference - if indeed they can!

 

 

What do you chaps recommend then? I got me about £500 for a reasonable one, any suggestions.

[Newt]

Do you plan to make extensive use of it for other than angling photos?

 

I have a Canon Powershot A610 that serves me well and that wasn't very expensive. It is several years old and they have a newer version but unless I wanted to do really close-up (macro) photos, I would not need a more expensive camera. This one is great in point-and-shoot mode and will do well with either timer or remote trigger if I want me in the photo as well as the fish.

 

One of the current "A" series might be what you want.

 

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...fcategoryid=113

[MrWiggly]

Hi EL ... and welcome aboard !!

 

As already suggested, digital is the way to go in this situation. If you are using it for mainly "fishing trophies" I would suggest a small compact type that will fit easily into your basket/bag, and be able to take good close-up shots as well as the odd scenic view.

 

A compact zoom , with on-board flash,would nicely fit the bill, and need not cost you a fortune.

 

Some very nice compacts out there .. Already mentioned are Canon, but Fuji also make some excellent small cameras in the 6MP range. Have a look round the market and compare prices, specs etc.

 

No need to spend your whole £500 .. I would say that you can pick up a nice little compact in the £150-£200 range, possibly even cheaper on EBay!! One with a self-timer, say 10 seconds, would let you get into position before the shutter fires.

 

Get an adaptor to fit into a bank stick so you can screw the camera onto it, set your focus up, and away you go !!

 

Don't forget to send those pics in when you get them sorted !!

 

Wiggly.

Edited August 6, 2007 by MrWiggly

[n4lly]

I am am wanting to get better pictures of the fish I catch, as I only get the one chance as I firmly believe in catch-&-release, therefore my question is what is better, Digital Camera or 35 Camera? My fishing includes all types of weather, as well as night and day light pictures.

 

 

 

Fuji M603 off ebay for 50-100 max for an pristine example

 

Example from lowest setting

 

 

 

Night time...

 

 

Edited August 6, 2007 by n4lly

[Sharkbyte]

Hi esox

 

Definitely consider going for a Digital SLR, if you have a monkey burning a hole in your pocket.

 

There's some great offerings out there from the likes of Canon and Nikon etc. Awesome picture quality with the ability to upgrade your kit, instead of just replacing it.

 

1st step up from a standard outfit, has to be a quality external flash (Christmas is coming ). If like me, many of your shots are in low / no light / or you need fill in flash, you will be blown away by the difference these make to your trophy shots. You will not look back.

 

Some people assume SLR's are too complicated, too many buttons etc. I personally find the opposite, the SLR with a little practice, performs even the most tricky nocturnal shot quickly and faultlessly. My girlfriends compact on the other hand (apparently a decent one) is a bloody nightmare for getting the correct depth of field, flash exposure, white balance, avoiding red eye etc. in anything but reasonably favourable conditions. I always end up fiddling, trying to improve matters.

 

At the end of the day, it's your money, so the choice is yours. Maybe get along to a Jessops or somewhere and handle a few models to see what suits best. Don't buy anything, ignore the sales patter, come back and tell us what caught your eye. I'm sure people can offer more advice, once you've narrowed it down a little

 

Edited August 7, 2007 by Sharkbyte

[Steve Burke]

I agree - there's no need to spend anywhere near £500 if you want a camera just for fishing shots. In fact, at the risk of offending the real photo enthusiasts, you'd probably actually do better for fishing with a less expensive model! This is partly because a lot of what you're paying for with the more expensive cameras is extra versatility. In particular, at that price you'd be into digital SLRs.

 

However for fishing shots SLRs have disadvantages. Firstly, they're bigger and bulkier, even without taking into account extra lenses. And when I go fishing I've enough to carry anyway!

 

Secondly, no SLR I'm aware of has a revolving screen. This makes self-portraits a doddle as you can immediately see that you're in the picture. I didn't think that this was so vital until I bought a camera with the facility. Now it's a feature that I'd never be without. It also means that it's much quicker and easier to get the camera set-up - particularly useful if you're moving from swim to swim. Even when static it's means that you can easily get just you and the fish in the picture without anything else, so avoiding the need for any cropping. Additionally a revolving screen makes close ups much easier, is also useful for taking pics over the heads of crowds, and I find it great for candid shots of my granddaughter.

 

Some of Canon's Powershot compact range also have a custom self-timer. This can be set for a delay of from 2 to 30 seconds, and can additionally be set to take from 1 to 10 shots without you having to return to the camera. By using the flash (that I'd recommend anyway for trophy shots, even in daylight) you have a few seconds between shots to change position. The extra shots also mean that you're much more likely to get a good one amongst them, for instance avoiding pictures of you blinking! I find this system much better than the remote releases and air releases I've used in the past.

 

Having the revolving screen and the custom self-timer isn't just more convenient. It also means that the fish can be returned to the water in a shorter time - probably the most important factor of all. My motto is that I'd rather lose a photo than a fish!

 

Another feature to look for is "focus assist". This helps focussing in poor light. The better models, including the Canon Powershot range, will even focus in complete darkness up to at least the range needed for trophy shots.

 

For fishing, my choice would therefore be one of the Canon Powershot range. To get all 3 of the features mentioned above you can buy either a model with 4x zoom or one with 12x zoom.

 

The former are smaller and lighter and may be all you need for fishing. I use the latter as I like to take wildlife photos too. It has image stabilisation to avoid camera shake when not using a tripod. This allows hand held shots at about a quarter of the shutter speed you'd normally be able to use, and is also useful for low light shots without flash.

 

Unfortunately it seems as though the 4x zoom models just announced don't have the revolving screen (Canon call this Vari-Angle). However the A630 and the A640 both have all the features mentioned above and are still available.

 

One advantage is that these slightly older models are often heavilly discounted - despite being very little different to the latest ones! For instance going to price comparison site Pricerunner at http://www.pricerunner.co.uk/cl/29/Digital...aved_products=0 the 8 megapixel A630 can be had for only £125. The 10 megapixel A640 is £189.

 

The latest in the 12x zoom Powershot range is the 8 megapixel S5IS for £320. However you can get a real bargain with the 6 megapixel S3IS at just £187.89! (There never was an S4IS, at least not in the UK.)

 

By the way, the number of megapixels isn't the most important factor in choosing a camera. Indeed, all other components being equal, the camera with less megapixels is actually likely to have better image quality, especially in low light when you're using a high ASA setting! The number of megapixels purely tells you how much you can blow the pictures up. 6 megapixels is fine for 10inch by 8 inch prints, even if you're a pro. In practice I don't notice any drop in quality with my 5 megapixel camera on A4 prints (11.7ins x 8.3ins). Having said that the extra megapixels are handy if you do a lot of cropping of the outside parts of pictures.

 

Of course, if you're going to use the camera for a lot of other photographic tasks you may want to consider an SLR. However it won't have the advantages mentioned above, and it'll be much heavier and bulkier. Nor as far as I know will it be able to take movies.

 

So one solution may be to buy a compact such as a Canon Powershot for fishing, plus a digital SLR if you're really into other types of photography.

 

However everyone's needs are different, and so there's no "right" answer. For me the ideal choice was a 12x zoom Canon Powershot. I've got the earlier 5 megapixel S2IS and I'm extremely pleased with it.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Steve Burke

[MrWiggly]

There you go EL ... Plenty of info there for you to look at !!

 

Excellent response !!

 

Wiggly.