Jump to content

Which Camera

glennk

By glennk
in Photography

 Share

Recommended Posts

Bobj Member

Bobj

Posted
Posted
Thanks guys. After a lot of research on the net I have opted for one like poldark mentions. A Panasonic lumix with 12 times optical zoom. Im chuffed to bits with it and it didnt cost too much either

Well done, mate. If you haven't already done so, upgrade the SD card to at least 512 MB.

ocker-anim.gifROO.gif

 

 

Cheers, Bobj.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
barry luxton Member

barry luxton

Posted
Posted

Not being funny but who would take a posh slr camera onto a boat to take a photo? When i take my cheap as chips digi aboard i'm always mindfull that i might get salt water in it. Are the slr's waterproof or salt water resistant?

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westie Member

Westie

Posted
Posted
Not being funny but who would take a posh slr camera onto a boat to take a photo? When i take my cheap as chips digi aboard i'm always mindfull that i might get salt water in it. Are the slr's waterproof or salt water resistant?

 

No siree. IMHO, 'aint nothing that likes to eat a camera more than salty sea spray. Some cameras are a little more weather proofed than others, but even so, nowhere near enough proofing to put up with the briny. It's not like you can give your camera a quick rinse under the tap like your reels. :)

Westie.

 

If you're being chased by a police dog, try not to go through a tunnel, then on to a little seesaw, then jump through a hoop of fire. They're trained for that.

 

Visit My Photo Gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites
barry luxton Member

barry luxton

Posted
Posted
No siree. IMHO, 'aint nothing that likes to eat a camera more than salty sea spray. Some cameras are a little more weather proofed than others, but even so, nowhere near enough proofing to put up with the briny. It's not like you can give your camera a quick rinse under the tap like your reels. :)

 

Few years ago i bought a decent olympus digi, got the largest sd card avalible took it boat fishing alright. As i got over the harbour wall with it in me top pocket, plop into the harbour it went. It floated in it's protective cloth cover time enough to get it out. The skipper just laughed at me and still reminds me of it. :D

 

When i take a fishy photo aboard i am concerned that the salty fingers will do the worst, that is why i asked the question.

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobj Member

Bobj

Posted
Posted

Most of the digi camera bodies are made from toughened poly-carbonate. I have been using my Panasonic DMC-FZ7 off the rocks for over 18 months and it is still in good nick.

ocker-anim.gifROO.gif

 

 

Cheers, Bobj.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter Sharpe Member

Peter Sharpe

Posted
Posted
Hi Snatcher, I'm biased to Nikon, however their kit lenses are top notch, always do well in reviews. You will have a job to beat this:

 

http://www.camerabox.co.uk/product1.asp?Pr...;ProductID=1225

 

Only IMHO :rolleyes: of course.

 

SW

 

According to this http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm the D40X has no advantages over the D40. I have never used a Canon, but I do find that the Nikon D70 doesn't produce very bright and accurate colours at all. They always have a brownish tint that needs to be corrected afterwards.

English as tuppence, changing yet changeless as canal water, nestling in green nowhere, armoured and effete, bold flag-bearer, lotus-fed Miss Havishambling, opsimath and eremite, feudal, still reactionary, Rawlinson End.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sutton Warrior Member

Sutton Warrior

Posted
Posted
According to this http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm the D40X has no advantages over the D40. I have never used a Canon, but I do find that the Nikon D70 doesn't produce very bright and accurate colours at all. They always have a brownish tint that needs to be corrected afterwards.

 

I used to have 'dull colour' problem with my D70s, cured to a degree by +0.3 exposure compensation, and re calibrating my computer screen!

 

Discovered the screen problem when I up graded to a D80, every thing is bright and dandy, now I need sun glasses B)

 

 

SW

Link to comment
Share on other sites
poledark Member

poledark

Posted
Posted (edited)

Intresting comments re "dull" images. I have just finished reading a quite long topic on Bird Forum, and there was a lot of debate (fortunately polite) between a couple of digiscopers,about the relative brightness of the posted images.

 

The poster of the "dark" images insisted his were ok on his monitor and so everyone else needed to calibrate their monitors.

 

He was using auto correct in PS and they showed very little correction needed.

 

I thought his pics were dark (very dark) and when some other posters joined in (I stayed out of it :) ) he advised us to use a link to check our monitors..so we did....and ours were OK.

 

Now, up to this point he had maintained that all he ever did was crop/or resize...no other adjustments, but under the weight of critisism about his dark images he suddenly admitted that he "adjusted them to look right on his monitor", and that he had calibrated his monitor!

 

Needless to say, his monitor was way to bright, and his "untouched" images sudenly began to appear bright and washed out :)

 

Good read though :) :)

 

Simple monitor check.. http://www.photofriday.com/calibrate.php

 

Turns out

Edited by poledark

"When through the woods and forest glades I wanderAnd hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees;When I look down from lofty mountain grandeur,And hear the brook, and feel the breeze;and see the waves crash on the shore,Then sings my soul..................

for all you Spodders. https://youtu.be/XYxsY-FbSic

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sutton Warrior Member

Sutton Warrior

Posted
Posted
Intresting comments re "dull" images. I have just finished reading a quite long topic on Bird Forum, and there was a lot of debate (fortunately polite) between a couple of digiscopers,about the relative brightness of the posted images.

 

The poster of the "dark" images insisted his were ok on his monitor and so everyone else needed to calibrate their monitors.

 

He was using auto correct in PS and they showed very little correction needed.

 

I thought his pics were dark (very dark) and when some other posters joined in (I stayed out of it :) ) he advised us to use a link to check our monitors..so we did....and ours were OK.

 

Now, up to this point he had maintained that all he ever did was crop/or resize...no other adjustments, but under the weight of critisism about his dark images he suddenly admitted that he "adjusted them to look right on his monitor", and that he had calibrated his monitor!

 

Needless to say, his monitor was way to bright, and his "untouched" images sudenly began to appear bright and washed out :)

 

Good read though :) :)

 

Simple monitor check.. http://www.photofriday.com/calibrate.php

 

 

 

 

Turns out

 

 

Interesting that Den, I have just rechecked mine with your link, its spot on. The calibration menu on my screen has number reference (1-100). Resetting it to the old numbers, I was able to determine that it was the back light setting which was way out originally, giving a grey/brow, 'school boys neck' tinge :D instead of white. Great setting when word processing, but not for photos.

 

SW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.

  I accept