Zach Matthews
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hahaha, hey Tom, I don’t know where you got your information about Northwest Fly Fishing but I’ve met Steve Probasco and while he’d no doubt be flattered, I doubt he would make any claims to being “higher end” than American Angler and Fly Fisherman.
I agree, it is a great movie. The similarity between Joe McCarthy and Ted Kennedy is uncanny.
Hahahah.
JustFishing-
Polarized filters are available for the fixed-lens point and shoots, which I don’t recommend. (See below).
Yes, you can hold sunglasses in front of a point and shoot, although it is pretty difficult to pull off and requires color correction later. I am including this primarily as an explanation of how some of the shots the audience sees in magazines are taken. The DSLR market is also rapidly growing and many of these guys may have one.
When by yourself, bring a mini-tripod ($5 at Wal-Mart). If your camera offers a remote control feature, get one, they make everything much easier. For fish shots, set the camera on the tripod on the ground, turn on the flash, turn on the timer, and take three or four pictures to up your chances for a good one. I took the picture of me with the carp that ran in the Fall issue of American Angler in this manner. I “shotgunned” the fish, looking down its body into the camera, and it made a great shot.
I am going to reprint the following on the photography board.
Why Not Fixed Lens Point and Shoots?
Fixed lens point and shoots are a direct result of “megapixel marketing.” Generally speaking they are almost as big as a DSLR, and cost almost as much. Also, generally speaking they have a slightly higher megapixel count. Fixed Lens Point and Shoots resemble regular box-shaped point and shoots with a large lens barrel protruding from one side. You can tell them by their high price tag.
What is good about them?
1. There is no reflex mirror to jump out of the way, so you can see the picture on the back of the camera in the electronic viewfinder.
2. Due to the lack of a mirror, they can record video.
3. They have a higher megapixel count on average.
4. They require less technical expertise to use. (Well, that’s the perception).
What is NOT good about them?
1. A lot. The lack of the mirror is not a positive feature. Battery life on a DLSR can be measured in days, whereas when composing through the electronic viewfinder on a Fixed Lens P/S, it can be measured in minutes.
2. The lack of a mirror means you must either look through an *offset* mini-viewfinder, which doesn’t see the same image the camera does, or run the risk of being unable to compose due to bright light wiping out the LCD screen (though they are getting better at this).
3. The Megapixel Myth. (See Below).
4. In order to achieve the higher megapixel count, these cameras feature a smaller CCD chip, the “digital film” that records light. Smaller CCDs lack the light-gathering abilities of the APS-sized chips in DSLRs, which are themselves not quite as large as the 35mm-sized chips in pro cameras like the Nikon D2H and traditional 35mm film cameras.
(There is an ongoing debate in the pro world whether a 35-mm sized chip is worth going for or not. Smaller chips allow much smaller and lighter lenses. Nikon’s current pro camera, the D2x, uses the APS-sized chip.)
A 4cm by 5cm film camera (known as a “4×5”) will outperform a 35mm film camera by miles and miles, and the same analogy holds for the DSLR to Fixed-Lens PS cameras (though the differences are not as great).
The Megapixel Myth
All of this got started back in the early days of digital cameras, when the difference between a 1.0 megapixel camera and a 2.0 megapixel camera was very great. One to two is a *doubling* of the total pixels available, thus a very great improvement. However, we have hit a point of diminishing returns today. My D70 has a six megapixel chip. It records an image that is 3,008 pixels by 2,000 pixels. Modern magazines print images in 300 dots-per-inch or dpi. To convert that number into a physical size, you only need to divide by 300. The D70 will thus record an image that is (3,008 / 300 =) 10.03 X (2,000 / 300 = ) 6.67 inches. A ten by seven-ish image is close enough to the eleven by eight and half size of most modern print magazines (notably excepting National Geographic) to print *one full page*.
Now compare that image size to the new Nikon D200, a very nice pro camera that is built on a scale similar to the D70 (they are baiting me.)
The D200 makes 3,872 x 2,592 pixel images. Let’s do the math. (3,872 / 300 =) 12.9″ X (2,592 / 300 =) 8.6″.
Ok. Now think about this (I am trying to remember eight grade algebra myself). We are looking at a 6 to 10 megapixel jump between these two cameras.
The first camera, the D70, made a ten by seven-ish inch image.
The second camera, the D200, made a thirteen by eight and a half inch image.
On the shelf, if you saw a six megapixel camera and a ten megapixel camera, you would say, “Hey, ten’s almost twice as big as six, right? I’ll go with that one.” That’s the natural thing to do. That’s what the manufacturers want you to do.
But in reality, you would only be making an image with the ten-megapixel camera that is 30% longer on a side (13/10 = 1.3 and 8.5/6.7 = 1.27)! You’re only getting about a third of the benefit you thought you were by getting the higher megapixel camera.
How is this possible? Well, it all comes down to how megapixels are computed: by area!
The math to get a megapixel is real simple. Multiply the long side pixels by the short side pixels and then divide by one million (a MEGApixel).
So, 3,008 X 2000 = 6,176,000 / 1,000,000 = 6.176 Megapixels! (This is the D70).
And, 3,872 x 2,592 = 10,036,224 /1,000,000 = 10.04 Megapixels! (This is the D200.)
BUT! If you read nothing else, read this, because this is the kicker:
A thirteen by eight and a half inch image is *still only enough for a one-page spread*. If you want to get all the way up to a two-page spread you’d need resolution equal to the inches (17) by the desired pixels-per-inch (300), on each side. So 17 X 300 = 5,100 on the long side and 11 X 300 = 3,300 on the short side. That’s 16,830,000 total pixels, which as we now now, we divide by one million to get a 16.8 megapixel camera! That’s what you need to make a full double-page spread, with no cropping, right out of the camera (and more would be better to be able to adjust images).
Ladies and gentlemen we are a long way from a sixteen megapixel consumer camera right now. As I demonstrated, anything in the six to ten megapixel category will make a full-page magazine spread. Even a four megapixel camera will blow up to an 8 X 10 image that the average person couldn’t distinguish from film.
So to get back around to the original point, why not a fixed lens point and shoot? Because the extra megapixels mean effectively nothing, but when the light-sensors are crammed on a smaller chip, they don’t gather as much light, so the *bigger* images you get *will not look as good* as the smaller ones coming out of a DSLR.
I don’t expect the fixed lens P/S cameras to stay on the market more than a few more years. When a 16 megapixel consumer DSLR becomes available (at this rate, by about 2010), I think almost everyone will be using them for everything from snapshots at soccer games to print magazine work. The DSLR is in many ways the best camera ever invented and they are what people know. The point and shoot will always have a place as a vest-pocket camera, but I think you can safely skip the Fixed Lens P/S.
My head hurts.
ZachHey JF-
I am not familiar with that rod but if he’s got a break rate like that you might look at TFO.
Put the url address between the tags you are provided when you hit the ‘add image’ button above the post window.
Zach
JustFishing-
Host it somewhere that is open, like myfishingpictures.com, or http://www.villagephotos.com, or if you can’t make that work email it to me.
Zach
Hey guys-
If you are interested in seeing the slide show, (without my elucidating comments, naturally ::)), look here:
http://www.itinerantangler.com/temp/TUPresentation.html
Zach
Hey JustFishing-
Nice to have you. I have thought along those lines myself, and the way I see it you could go two routes, both feasible. If you could get your hands on a historic home, you could turn part of the house into a flyshop (though I wouldn’t divide them by floors) and part into an eatery. Personally I would want to visit either a coffeeshop style place, perhaps with a general-interest books section (for the ladies and non-fishing husbands/buddies), some comfortable furniture, and the ability to make cold sandwiches.
The other option is to apply for a liquor license and make an upscale club-style atmosphere with leather chairs, cigars and pipe tobacco for sale, and perhaps some cards and pool tables.
I’d visit either one, and if it had a friendly, knowledgeable owner, I’d probably drop some dough too.
Zach
Hey Paul-
When they come up with one of those you can rest assured I will be among the first to try it, but I don’t know of such a thing yet.
Best,
Zach