Go Back  Fodor's Travel Talk Forums > Destinations > Africa & the Middle East
Reload this Page > Digital cameras you are considering for upcoming safari???

Digital cameras you are considering for upcoming safari???

Reply

Feb 7th, 2005, 11:03 AM
  #21
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 51
I'm with Ericka for the non-SLR variety - I'm never a big fan of lugging heavy equipment around. I haven't tried the FZ20 out in the field yet, but I did try it at the store. One thing that this camera has (and most top end lenses that you would buy) is image stabilization. It's not magic, especially at 12x zoom, but still pretty impressive. I was able to take good photos at the 12x zoom in relatively low lighting conditions and very good shots in decent lighting conditions. This is just holding the camera in my hand and not using any kind of support. These were taken using the manual focus option which is pretty neat on this camera - it zooms in on the middle of your frame so that you can focus more clearly.

I haven't tried out the Nikon Coolpix 8800, but that is 8 MP and 10x zoom (you would get equivalent shots to the 12x zoom if you crop the photos). I think the lens on the FZ20 is much better (made by Leica), but the 8800 gets you the 8 MP if that's what you want. It also supposedly has a much better viewfinder.

One thing to keep in mind for non-SLR varieties is the start-up time. This frustrates me enormously on digital cameras as you may have experienced already. The reviews on the www.dpreview.com site mentioned earlier should contain this information. Good luck!
ozwild is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 9th, 2005, 02:12 AM
  #22
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,182
Hi Rocco

OK here are some thoughts, in no particular order, responding to some of the stuff in this thread.

What are the key issues?

Can you tell me what the key issues for you with your existing camera were? Was it lack of zoom range, lack of quality, speed of taking the picture (and being ready to take the next one), noise when taking the picture, lack of control of things such as aperture or shutter speed, battery life or something else? That will help point you in the right direction for you.

How often do I usually change lenses?

You ask how often I needed to change lenses. It varied depending on where we were. For example, in Kenya in April 2004 (where I took the DSWF charity prints) we were often so close to the animals that I would be working with my wider zoom which covers 28mm to 135mm. I did also need to use my longer zoom (100mm to 300mm). The question of switching lenses was moot for this trip as I took both my (film) SLR bodies and put one lens on each. So all I had to do was reach down into the open bag by my feet and change one camera for the other.

When working with the Nikon D70 I did need to change lenses because I don't have two bodies to play with. I don't find changing lenses difficult and it only takes moments BUT it's worth noting that it's at this stage that dust can so easily get into the camera. Dust spots on a digital sensor are a nightmare and not easy to clean. You need to read up before attempting to clean them yourself, even with a specialist cleaning kit.

SLR systems

The good thing about buying into an SLR system is that you can upgrade easily. So we've just bought the Canon body plus two lenses. If in a year's time we realise we want to upgrade a lense we can do so and use it on our existing body. If in two year's time we decide to upgrade the body it will work with our existing lenses. I have been using SLRs since the early '80s but when we first went digital we decided not to go for a DSLR as it was too expensive. It didn't take long to realise how frustrating I found the limitations though I was coming from a long-time SLR user's perspective. The bad thing about an SLR system is that it is definitely heavier, more bulky and more fiddly to use even if used mostly on fully automatic (because of lens changing and so on).

Incidentally you'll often hear the terms consumer cameras (which tend to be models offering least control, professional cameras which are out of reach for cost reasons to most of us and prosumer cameras which are designed to emulate the professional ones as best they can for lower prices).
What SLR lenses can/ should one buy?

As I mentioned, you could get around this to an extent by buying a lens with a range such as 28-300. These do exist. However the quality of these will not be as high as the quality of lenses with less extreme wide angle plus zoom ranges.

If you do go for an SLR you need to think about which lenses to buy and that depends on what you want. I'll talk below about aperture and speed and so on but basically, it's a good thing to have a lens capable of offering a wide aperture. (Wide = lower number e.g. f1.8). This is often referred to as a fast lens and allows you to shoot in lower light situations. Then you have the decision about whether or not you want Image Stabilisation. Not a cheap technology but it often gives you an additional stop or two of leeway (will talk about stops more later as well). On top of that most camera and lens manufacturers have their standard consumer ranges and then their professional ranges. For example, Canon's lenses come cheap and cheerful non USM (USM = faster silent lens motor system not Image Stabilisation which is simply called IS), the mid range with USM and then there is the L glass series which are their expensive stuff. Image Stabilisation is available on both L glass and non L glass lenses.

In all honesty, even if you do go to DSLR, it would not make sense for you to opt for L glass at this point, in my opinion. I haven't gone that route myself either. I just don't think either of our photography is at a level to justify it. Incidentally, serious photographers often recommend "prime" lenses as these do offer better quality than zoom lenses. Of course this means you can't zoom in or out and this is absolutely not ideal for wildlife photography. I have never felt that my lens quality has let me down and am not willing to sacrifice the compositional flexibility a zoom lens gives me for the quality improvement from a prime lens.

Teleconverters for SLR camera systems are great but do remember that they will cut out light and will reduce the "speed" of the main lens. A 1.4 convertor will usually cut out one stop of light (see below) and a 2 times convertor usually cuts out two stops or more. This makes it harder to achieve faster shutter speeds (because it takes longer for the required light to get in) and you need even faster speeds than normal because the higher the zoom the harder it is to hold the camera steady enough.

Non SLR cameras

Your other option if zoom is the main issue is simply to choose one of the cameras often described as "SLR-like" with an impressive inbuilt zoom range. Advantage = no lens changes but all the flexibility in terms of features as an SLR. Disadvantage = no upgrade path. If you later decide you want different lens or body elements you have to get a whole new camera. Of course they are a LOT cheaper. Two examples that I found which have 5 megapixels and an impressive zoom range are Panasonic DMC-FZ20 and Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5. These also give you some control of things such as aperture and shutter and manual focus etc. Note I don't know either camera so I'm not recommending them, just throwing them into the mix.

ISO on digital cameras

On either an SLR or an SLR-like digital (infact even on more basic models), you can, as Sundowner mentions, change the ISO number. As with film, the lower the ISO setting the better quality (less noise, which is sort of like grain) you will achieve. Whenever the light levels fall and your current ISO setting restricts the camera to giving you shutter speeds that are too slow to avoid camera shake and the resulting blur, you simply bump the ISO up and you can then use a higher shutter speed. The advantage over film is that it's so easy to change this shot by shot as the light changes. The trick is not to forget you are on 1600 ISO and to always change back to the lowest that will work for the light in order to record the best detail/ least noise.

Focal Range factor

People talk about the crop factor of 1.5/ 1.6 for most prosumer DSLRs. I just thought I'd clarify that further. Basically the way we refer to lenses as 28mm or 200mm or 400mm is based on 35mm film cameras. All 35mm SLR cameras are designed to provide the same distance between lens and the film plane itself so that the lenses have the same focal length. Because the sensors for prosumer DSLRs are 1.5 or 1.6 times smaller than a frame of 35mm film but the distance between the lens and the sensor is the same as the distance between lens and film the focal range of that same lens is different. It's focusing the light onto a smaller sized area.

If we were even able to fit a 35mm lens onto a medium or large format camera (as still used by some professional photographers) we'd find the focal ranges completely different again. Not that we could or would, of course.

Lenses are commonly still sold referring to the focal length by the old 35mm film standards. So a lens that would give a range of 28mm to 100mm on a 35mm will actually give the effect of 45mm to 160mm on a small sensored digital. To get the effect of 28mm to 100mm one has to buy a lens that's about 18mm to 63mm. Incidentally, one can now buy DSLRS with "full size sensors" which are basically the size of 35mm film but these are usually the really expensive professional ones.

Personally I really do want the wider angle (28mm equivalent) so it's important to me to have a lens on a DSLR that goes as wide as 18mm.

Filters

Whilst I can totally see photoholic's POV regarding UV filters I don't follow that path myself. Buying a decent UV filter should not make much difference to image quality but will protect my expensive lens from dust, dirt, scratches and so on, all of which have a much more serious impact on my images.

I'd also invest in a circular polarising filter for occasional use but can talk more about that another time IF you opt to go the SLR route.

Other Stuff

The next thing I thought I'd talk about was the issue that you raised of getting the background nice and blurred. That's called shallow depth of field and is all related to aperture.

Here's some information I put together a while back to explain the concept to a friend:

What is Aperture?

Inside a camera lens is a mechanism called a diaphragm, consisting of a set of curved blades. The blades form a rounded hole called the aperture. This is like the pupil in your eye, which expands or contracts when the light changes. So too can the aperture expand or contract at your command.

This is done to vary the amount of light that gets through the lens and onto your film/ sensor.

The other way of varying the amount of light that hits your film/ sensor is shutter speed - a 1/30th of a second exposure obviously lets in a lot more light than a 1/400th of a second exposure.

Together, the combination of shutter speed and aperture control your exposure.

Any given film type requires a certain amount of light to accurately record the scene so the actual aperture and shutter speed settings used vary hugely depending on the ambient or man-made light of the scene being photographed. For a digital camera the ISO setting works the same way. A certain amount of light is needed for low ISO/ highest quality images; less is needed for high ISO/ lower quality images.

When using the camera in fully automatic mode the exposure needed is calculated by the on-board light meter and the camera selects an appropriate combination of aperture and shutter speed. You can also use it in manual or priority modes to select these yourself.

For example, let's say my camera suggests an aperture of f11 and a shutter speed of 1/125th of a second.

I can change it manually to half the aperture and double the shutter speed and the overall exposure will be the same - but there will be a difference in my finished photograph.

What you need to know in order to make aperture and shutter speed decisions

High shutter speeds will freeze motion - using these tends to mean you have to go for wider apertures (f2.8, f4) to let in more light.

Slower shutter speeds will allow you to capture motion - popular when photographing flowing water for example - you’d need a narrow aperture (f22 etc) to compensate for the slow shutter speed.

Wider apertures result in shallow depth of field - see below for DOF explanation - great when you want, say, an animal in sharp focus, but the grasses and bushes in front of and behind it out of focus.

Narrow apertures result in greater depth of field - where more of the picture from front to back is in focus.

Also worth knowing is that the higher the zoom the lower the depth of field too. Using a zoom also compresses distances between objects.

You have to weight up what you want and make the decisions accordingly. You will seldom be able to have both high shutter speed and narrow apertures (to freeze motion and blur background) because that won't let enough light in to the film/ sensor.

Camera modes

Most modern SLRs have 4 modes - fully manual, fully automatic and then Aperture priority and Shutter priority. Aperture priority means you select an aperture and the camera works out, using the light meter, what shutter speed it needs to use in order to expose correctly. It will alert you when you’ve selected an aperture which it simply can’t use because there is just too much or too little light.

Shutter Priority means you select a speed and the camera works out the appropriate aperture to expose correctly, according to it's light meter.

Make sure to be aware of what shutter speed it selects if you use Aperture priority because too slow a speed cannot easily be hand held without camera shake.

What is DOF?

A lens can only bring objects at a single distance from the camera into critically sharp focus (at a time). But if you look at photographs, you can see a considerable area of the scene (from near to far) that appears sharp. Even though theoretically only one narrow plane is critically sharp, other parts of the scene in front of and behind that plane appear acceptably sharp to the human eye. Objects become less and less sharp the farther they are from the plane of critical focus. Eventually they become so out of focus that they no longer appear sharp at all. The area in which everything looks sharp is called the depth of field. Where this is only a small area infront of and behind the focal plane it is said that the depth of field is shallow. Where this area is larger it is said that the depth of field is deep/ great.

One can vastly change the image one captures by making a deliberate choice regarding depth of field.

For example, by selecting a wide aperture and focusing on an object in the foreground I know that the object itself, plus a narrow area infront of and behind it will be in focus but that everything else in the further background will be increasingly out of focus. Alternatively I could choose that same wide aperture but focus on something in the background. Then my foreground will not be in my focal plane and will be blurred but my background object will be sharp.

Or I can choose a narrow aperture to deliberately ensure that as much as possible of my scene, from foreground to background, is in focus.

If blurring or freezing motion is my motivator I'll make choices about the shutter speed instead and give less attention to aperture/ depth of field.

Many modern cameras now have shortcut predefined modes that offer a quick way of switching into these modes. An icon of a flower or a face is usually used to refer to wide aperture/ shallow depth of field settings. An icon of a person running refers to high shutter speed settings. An icon of a mountain often refers to a setting which provides a deep depth of field providing focus from foreground through to distant background.

Some Rules For Composition

There are many rules in photography and all are there to be broken. BUT you can't (successfully) break them without first understanding why they work in so many cases and how to use them well. What are those rules (in my own words, others may describe them differently).

Rule of Thirds

Don't simply position the subject in the centre of the frame. This is _usually_ a very static composition and doesn't suit many subjects, though it works very well for some. Using the rule of thirds means visually dividing the frame up into three equal horizonal slices and three equal vertical slices. Those 4 invisible lines have intersection points. Positioning the main subject on those points or along one of the lines can often strengthen a shot.

Likewise there is nothing attractive about a horizon that neatly divides the image in two. Put that horizon line onto one of the two horizonal lines. If the sky is more interesting, include two thirds sky to one third ground. If the ground has more interest swap that. And sometimes, if the sky is absolutely so boring that you really don't want much at all, ignore the rule and slap that horizon RIGHT up near the top of the image.

Avoid Extraneous Background Details

Too many shots are ruined by what is behind the main subject. If there is something distracting in the background try and change your viewpoint so that it's no longer a problem. If you can't move left and right can you stand taller or crouch low into the ground for a changed viewpoint?

Zoom in close to focus on the subject and reduce the impact of that distracting background. Using a higher zoom also decreases Depth of Field which will help throw the background out of focus.

To manually select for a shallow Depth of Field (and throw the background out of focus) select a lower f stop number (wider aperture).

f2 is a low fstop number and gives a wide open aperture. Many cameras/ lenses are not able to provide such a wide aperture so you might find your widest setting is f4.5 or f5.6 or above.

Consider Orientation

Rotate your camera if the subject suits portrait orientation better than it suits landscape. Mix it up a little and take a few shots of each subject in each orientation and at different focal lengths.

Leading & Parallel Lines

Are there any paths or other lines which could be used to lead your viewer into the picture? Are there repetitive lines which might add interest and depth?

Framing

Can you frame the main subject with an arching tree branch or an open archway or some other foreground object? Framing can really draw a viewing into an image and provide a sense of the location.

Lighting

In most cases the golden angled light of early morning and late afternoon is far more flattering than the harsh, flat light of midday. Shadows at midday are also much blacker and often stand out more strongly than the subject itself. For static subjects consider leaving that shot till later in the day if the light isn't right. For animals that may disappear, take what you can when you can.

Do pay attention to shadow. We tend not to notice it when looking in real life but if an animal's face is in dark shadow the image really won't work very well. It's great if you can get eye contact and a little highlight reflection in the eyes too.

Contrast

How well does the subject stand out from the background? If they don't stand out well in colour would they stand out better in black and white? You can easily convert digital images to black and white later on. Look for differences in colour, tone and texture to separate areas/ elements of the picture.


Kavey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 9th, 2005, 02:24 AM
  #23
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,182
Correction:

This sentence You have to weight up what you want and make the decisions accordingly. You will seldom be able to have both high shutter speed and narrow apertures (to freeze motion and blur background) because that won't let enough light in to the film/ sensor.

should read

You have to weight up what you want and make the decisions accordingly. You will seldom be able to have both high shutter speed and narrow apertures (to freeze motion and have a deep depth of field too) because that won't let enough light in to the film/ sensor.
Kavey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 9th, 2005, 03:22 AM
  #24
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 32
Kavey,

Wow, what an informative response. My only comment would be regarding L glass. I dont know whether you have tried a one of these lens. I would recommend you hire one for a safari or a shoot. I think you would really notice a big difference. With IS you will have more keepers and overall picture quality is superior. Ofcourse, im not suggesting getting a 400/2.8, i dont think many of us have $5000 to spend on a lens. Though some of the zooms are worth a look. As you are in the UK, www.warehouseexpress.com is a good company to deal with. If not, B&H in New york is the way forward!
photoholic is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 9th, 2005, 03:34 AM
  #25
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,182
I have indeed tried L glass lenses and they are certainly nice pieces of equipment. But I think for someone only just getting into the SLR market it's just not worth going straight to L glass unless one has serious money to burn or one is seriously skilled already.

Regarding IS I agree fully - I have an increasingly unsteady hand so IS is hopefully going to be a godsend to me. We couldn't afford the Nikon versions (VR = Vibration Reduction, which is how they refer to it) but we did opt for a 75-300mm USM IS lens for the 20D. Not L glass but that was just prohibitive! We'll see how we find it!

Kavey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 9th, 2005, 03:35 AM
  #26
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,182
PS We are indeed in UK and have dealt somewhat with warehouseexpress. They came up with best prices for the 20D and IS lens but Jessops were willing to match their price so we bought those items from Jessops.

Jessops don't have any Sigma 18-125 lenses in stock so we bought that plus some additional accessories from warehouseexpress.
Kavey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 9th, 2005, 05:44 AM
  #27
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,553
Kavey,

Thank you for the comprehensive response. I have not yet read it, but I am printing it out and will take my time reading it.

From what I have seen, unless I do DSLR, then it is not going to get much better than what I already have with my Sony F707 Cybershot, and that is just not acceptable.

My next trip was not an afterthought that I spent a little extra cash on, but instead is honestly the biggest trip of my lifetime, in terms of expense, planning, etc. I mean when I am through with this trip, if so desired, I want to self-publish my own book with the photographs taken on this trip, so it is definitely time to upgrade to a DLSR (are DSLR and SLR one and the same?).
Roccco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 9th, 2005, 06:26 AM
  #28
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,182
You're welcome! Pete couldn't believe I was investing quite so much time on a single response to a web forum! (I'm meant to be working from home today and have to admit to not getting as much done as I ought to have).

SLR = Single Lens Reflex

DSLR = Digital Single Lens Reflex

What is a single lens reflex camera then?

Basically, if you look at your basic point and shoot, the lens is fixed onto the front in a position that allows the light through onto the film/ sensor. In order to compose the image the photographer looks through a viewfinder that's just a hole in the camera. Because of the small size of the camera itself it works fine but there is a slight difference between what he sees through the viewfinder and what the lens takes through onto the film/ sensor.

In a single lens reflex camera clever use of mirrors allows the viewfinder to look directly through the main camera lens. That means the photographer sees exactly what the film/ sensor will record. During the brief instant when the photograph is being taken the mirror flips up and out of the way in order to let the image from the lens go through to the film/ sensor instead of being redirected up to the viewfinder. It's why you can't see the scene for that instant the image is being taken.

So actually, the term doesn't refer to the fact that lenses are interchangeable at all, although, of course, they are on the SLR models we all use and discuss.
Kavey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 9th, 2005, 06:33 AM
  #29
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,182
In terms of comparing your current camera to other non SLR models, look at this for an example:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/comp...cfz20&show=all

You'll see that the Panasonic gives you a vastly greater optical zoom (equivalent of 36mm to 432mm!!!) as well as faster top shutter speed - most other features such as aperture/ shutter priority, maximum resolution, metering modes and so on are equivalent on both.

I am very much a fan of my SLR but I would not deny that it's more bulky/ weighty and time hungry (in terms of changing accessories and learning time) than many non SLRs.
Kavey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 9th, 2005, 08:18 AM
  #30
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 78
roccco

I own the panasonic with the 12x xoom, I purchased it to take on safari and the pictures came out great. withe a 12x zoom you can really get close to the action. It was rather funny, because on the game drive the guy sitting behind me had this huge camera and was kind of showing it off and saying what a great zoom it had. to make a long story short when he saw that my camera was a third of the size and still had a greater zoom capability he decided to play around with my camera. by the end of the trip he was sold, and said when he returns to the us he is going to buy my camera. I would advise purchasing the camera about 2 -3 months before you leave so you can play around with it so by the time you are in africa you know all the features of the camera.
mhron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 9th, 2005, 09:48 AM
  #31
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 682
Mhron,

This is great news. Do you have any tips for using the Panasonic on safari - for those of us planning to purchase it.
Ericka is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 10th, 2005, 03:06 PM
  #32
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 32
Mhon

Although your zoom maybe 400mm, this is small considering i can easily get over 800mm with a TC. Roccco, i think you are right. There would be no point changing to another non-SLR as your current camera is as good as it gets. If you read though Kavey's summary, im pretty sure she mentions the 'sunny 16' rule. THis automatically makes the SLR superior. Both the panansonic and Sony are restricted to F8, which does not give a lot a large DOF. This means, in a normal shooting situation(sunny 16), the SLR will produce a photo with more in focus. So, the a couple rather one elephant will look sharp for example.
photoholic is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 14th, 2005, 10:09 AM
  #33
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,553
Okay, would a Canon D20 be sufficient for taking pictures worthy of publishing in a book???

I would seriously like to self-publish a photography book focusing on Zambia, with any proceeds going to conservation efforts. Hopefully 14 nights worth of safari in high season would provide sufficient material, but if not, I would include a visit next year to Liuwa Plains (2nd largest Wildebeest Migration in Africa), Kasanka (largest bat migration in the world, with 5 million+ within a few acres), and Kafue National Park.

Hopefully by being a marginal writer, a marginal photographer, and a better than average editor, it will be enough to put together a professional looking book.

If not a Canon D20, what else should I consider in the price range not exceeding $2,500 with all accessories???

Thanks.
Roccco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 14th, 2005, 10:42 AM
  #34
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,182
Depends what kind of book. A canon 20D is certainly an excellent camera (we bought one ourselves a couple of weeks ago) but if the book is the same size as a regular magazine you should find that a camera with 5-6 megapixel resolution is enough for full size page images in your book.

Especially given the excellence of software such as Genuine Fractals which interpolates a 5 megapixel image up to a larger size with very little loss in quality.

Every review I've seen of cameras UNDER £1000 (UK) lists the Nikon D70 as the best of those. For best overall prosumer DSLR the Canon 20D definitely wins over the D70 but of course costs more.

Advantage with Canon = proliferation of lenses available and lower cost of those.

With an SLR it's all about making sure you have the right lens combination, not just the body.
Kavey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 14th, 2005, 10:42 AM
  #35
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,481
Roccco - are you wanting to get a DSLR? The Canon 10D is a 6.1 megapixel camera that I used in 2003 and 2004 in SA. It's a great camera. The 20D is the replacement of the 10D. If you are interested in keeping the cost down there are a couple of used ones for sale at naturescapes.net in the classified section. (The moderaters of the classified section may be able to vouch for the sellers.)


The camera and a lens (or two), an extra battery, a couple of 1 gig CF cards, and a portable hard drive (or laptop) and you are in business.
I do not hesitate to recommend that camera. I still have one 10D as well as a 20D.
sundowner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 14th, 2005, 10:57 AM
  #36
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,182
Sundowner, we very almost went for the Canon 10D but we definitely wanted a new one with warranty and, in the UK, they just weren't dropping the prices to what we felt was reasonable (given the release of the 8megapixel 20D) so we opted for that one.

If there are new ones still available in the US it's definitely a good option for someone starting in the DSLR market.

So too is Nikon and I'm happy with ours, but we felt that, on balance, a Canon offered us a better overall future upgrade path so we decided our second one (can't have just one, we fight over it) would be a Canon so we could really compare them.
Kavey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 14th, 2005, 01:16 PM
  #37
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 32
Roccco,

The 20D is good enough to publish IMHO, though NAtional Geographic still mainly use slides! My only comment would be about your ability to take those shots. Like me, you may get a good DSLR, have some L lens, but it takes years to get to reach the level of top photographers. It certainly is not a case of point and shoot anymore.

We are talking about sitting for hours in one location looking for that shot. No post processing will improve pictures by that much. I feel that when it is applied, you can sense that the picture is faked somehow. I am not claiming to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination. After shooting for 6 years am only just beginning to to have pictures i am happy with. Be prepared to cart alot of equipment with you too. I know a number of people from my local photo group who have to go solo the whole way. A private charter to take all their equipment, private game drive vehicles for they stay on location etc. It all adds, so be prepared to pay out if you really want that photographic experience.

Thats not meant to put you off, the more people taking photographs etc the better. Increases the competition for competitions such as these. Go for it

http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/wildwin/2004/?src=hp_ad
photoholic is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 14th, 2005, 01:37 PM
  #38
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 32
PS

If you search the site, like this link, a number of photographers give their advice, videos in media player.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/darwincentre/li...ve/images.html

Search Richard Du Toit for a good one on Southern Africa
photoholic is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 14th, 2005, 01:45 PM
  #39
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,481
Speaking of National Geographic - They have appointed a new editor-in-chief, Chris Johns. Johns has already made changes that he says will help the magazine "move into the digital age of photography" and better "react to the constantly moving marketplace." He has hired former Dallas Morning News director of photography Ken Geiger to build and oversee the magazine's digital workflow. Digital may be the wave of the future! ha ha


Photoholic - you make some good points and I agree that just buying a camera won't make you a professional photographer. But I don't think Roccco is going to quit his day job. I think he just wants to be a better amateur and a DSLR with some good lenses will give him the opportunity to do just that.

sundowner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Feb 14th, 2005, 05:30 PM
  #40
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,553
Okay, will all those who are familiar with the Canon D20, or digital cameras of this kind, please do me a favor and have a look at the following link to this Canon D20?

http://www2.buydig.com/shop/product....u=CNEOS20D1855

Please let me know how much more I may expect to spend on additional lenses, batteries, chargers, and other accessories. I do want to make sure that I have enough memory for at least about 300 - 400 photographs, so if there is an accessory to download the photos so I don't need to go overboard on the memory, please advise.

Thanks for your help.
Roccco is offline  
Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:12 AM.