What camera do YOU use?

[bloompyle]

I think I'm going to go with the F828. Not spending >$1K on my first good camera just to take laser pictures...

 

[csshih]

I don't have one of these yet but I think this is one of the Coolest innovations in Photography in a while. Not very expensive and I think the potential for Laser photography is huge...
The Lytro Camera


~ LB

I saw a prototype get fried at a LEM. Good times.
They're quirky and IMO not worth the pricing until technology moves along to much much higher resolution sensors.

I want to see laser beams well in my pictures. That's my goal here with this camera..

...fog machine?
that, and any camera that has a manual mode.
Long shutter speeds will be your friend, a tripod too.

 

[Lazerbeak]

I saw a prototype get fried at a LEM. Good times.
They're quirky and IMO not worth the pricing until technology moves along to much much higher resolution sensors.

:thinking: Interesting, thanks for the heads up :beer: I was wondering how these would do with lasers.

Looking forward to some nice shots Bloompyle

~ LB

 

[bloompyle]

Not just seeing the beam, but differentiating the color, and picking up the specs in the beam. I can "see" the beam with my phone camera. I can't take decent quality beamshots with it though . Long exposures are a plus too. The F828 (as aryntha noted) uses an RGBE (emerald) for better differentiation in the green areas. So that's a plus, and it's a decent camera. Getting a tripod as well. Hoping to use the money from some laser sales to get it. Getting rid of these single modes

 

[Livinloud]

Minolta XG-M, takes me a while to get my photos :na:

lens range from 11mm to 500mm

 

[sinner]

nothing fancy, a canon D40 dslr (bit old) but i prefer using a phone cam, usually i take pics from the phone cam because oh well, It's easier and convenient.. and uploading isnt a hassle at all.. I dropbox that sh*t!

 

[Pi R Squared]

I have an old Nikon Coolpix 800, its a few years old but still a great camera. I also use my iPad3 but its too big to carry around much, also have an LG Optimus V but the photos aren't so good, they come out grainy unless your outside in bright light.

Alan

 

[Livinloud]

been wondering if caught the fact i put down my 35mm film camera

 

[Bionic-Badger]

You might want to choose a better camera than that vintage F828. Yeah, it has that RGBE-filter sensor, but consider this: does it have the supporting hardware and software to back it up? For example, that camera is known to have chromatic aberrations and green hue shift (ironic, considering it's supposed to have better color reproduction) and a pretty noisy sensor. Also, that camera is from 2004, which is OLD. Many software improvements have been made that can better exploit the color information in regular Bayer filters. All of these would probably obviate any gains made by that special filter.

Other things to consider about the F828 with respect to your other needs: it has a fixed lens, so you can't swap it out for something better; it also has a relatively small 2/3" sensor -- only slightly larger than a compact's. With a fixed lens you can't take advantage of fast lenses that can capture a lot of light, and with a small sensor, you can't capture as much light in the first place. You're not going to capture "specks" with those low-quality optics unless you have very bright beams. You'd be better served with an inexpensive DSLR from a decent brand as it would have a bigger sensor, better optics, and newer software.

The main benefit I would see in that particular F828 model is that it is dirt cheap on eBay. However, there are much better cameras you can purchase on eBay for about the same price that will do more in all respects (e.g. the Sigma SD14 which I'll describe later). Even so, you shouldn't choose a camera based on a single highlighted feature that appears to be most useful for your application, but is lacking in other key features that would actually make it work well.

There are good reasons why camera companies didn't bother with RGBE-filter sensors, and why Sony never bothered again: they really weren't needed. Those RGBE sensors on the F828 aren't RGB-exponent, where you would have more dynamic range, but rather just another slightly different filter on one of the greens. What more, that extra "emerald" filter isn't to give you more color accuracy, but more to better reproduce what the eye sees. Overall, most photographers didn't see much improvement, it had other more damning artifacts, or the cameras that utilized the system thought that the single feature would override the defects in the camera system.

A side note: "What your eye sees" is another thing you should think about: you're not going to get good chromatic measurement-quality accuracy out of any of these cameras. They're meant to photograph colors and images the way you want to see them. Some may have the ability to distinguish colors better than others, but not much more than your eye can, as that's what they're trying to reproduce. All this means that with any of these cameras, you're only going to get the color reproduction you're seeking if you mess with the settings. In that respect, choose a camera that allows you the most control over your camera, and then bring those images home as RAW files to manipulate into looking the way you want them.

In the end, does the RGBE filter really make much difference? Probably not, and certainly not against the advanced software available in more modern cameras, or even on your desktop with RAW files. The thing is, most of the magic that occurs with Bayer filters is in the processing of those pixels -- with color reproduction a function of the weights applied to the measured values of the pixels on the Bayer array. The idea with the "emerald" is that it may provide additional color information between the blue and green channels, at the expense of some regular green; however, unless you have the software to really extract all the color information from those four pixel sites, you're not going to get much out of the filter. RGBE is an uncommon format, with far less research behind it and less filter processing tweaking. You may find yourself shortchanged in that respect. Also unless you have wavelengths in the region of that extra color channel, it's not going to do much good.

Alternative cameras:

- Nikon or Canon DSLR - Personally, I'd buy a newer Nikon or Canon DSLR and leave it at that. They're excellent cameras, have excellent lens selections, have excellent color reproduction, and have excellent software to back them up. They're also a better investment than these old esoteric cameras with sensors that never caught on because of their faults.

- Sigma SD14 - If you really want better color reproduction, get one of the SD14 DSLRs. They're about $300 on eBay now. The SD14 features the Foveon X3 sensor, which uses three layers of filters to capture light rather than a Bayer filter array to capture light. This results in better color reproduction/range, but lower pixel resolution and other problems. Read about these cameras first before investing in one. One nice thing about these cameras is that they have a decent sized sensor (APS-C size, 20.7mm x 13.8mm instead of 8.8mm x 6.6mm of the Sony), even if the effective resolution is quite low (4.7MP). Still, they're the larger the sensor and the larger the pixels, the more light they capture.

 

[brucemir]

I use my trusty Canon SX-40. Even though it is not a DSLR, I can do anything a DSLR can do, especially when shooting lasers. The only real limitation is a maximum exposure time of 15 seconds. The only time I use exposure times that long is when I photograph my 593.5 6mw and my 589 5mw. When shooting these two lasers together and using the correct exposures, it is easy to see the subtle differences in the colors that this camera can capture if used correctly. I have posted many photos on this forum with those two lasers used in tandem.When shooting lasers that are above 100mw, the exposure times are only a few seconds anyway and I think my camera accuratly records what I see. My shots may have a bit more "noise" in them compared to the DSLR's listed in the above posts,but I think the shots I have posted on this forum capture the beams, and all of the nuances as good as any of the shots I have seen on the forum with cameras that cost much more than my camera. Where ever you go these days you see everybody using DSLR's. Most of the people that have them never take it off the Automatic of Program setting anyway, and have no clue how to use them, but use it as a status symbol. I laugh when I see this. I also think the people on this forum understand how to use these cameras to their full capabilities, and have seen AMAZING shots of all different subjects in the "Post Your Random Pics" post, Obviously the people that can take these types of photos know what it takes to shoot lasers in all their glory.

 

[Bionic-Badger]

Where ever you go these days you see everybody using DSLR's. Most of the people that have them never take it off the Automatic of Program setting anyway, and have no clue how to use them, but use it as a status symbol. I laugh when I see this. I also think the people on this forum understand how to use these cameras to their full capabilities, and have seen AMAZING shots of all different subjects in the "Post Your Random Pics" post, Obviously the people that can take these types of photos know what it takes to shoot lasers in all their glory.

Some people try to use cameras as status symbols, but DSLR cameras aren't status symbols anymore than smartphones these days. For people wanting to get into photography, or just buying a camera, I advise them to buy a camera they will use, rather than try and buy into as many features they think they'll need in the future. A big DSLR is a pain to haul around, and may get better shots, but not if you don't want to bring it where you're going. I tend to see the people with the DSLRs be tourists that take buses to destinations. For them it's not a pain. For someone going hiking, you'll want something smaller unless you don't mind the weight.

For myself, I've got DSLRs (two older ones), and a few nice lenses, but I use my compact more than any of them because it's there when I need it (I also like it more than my phone's camera). Point and shoot is great, and those compacts are getting better and better!

Also don't diss the automatic modes. They often do a good job. While I don't use Automatic mode, the near-automatic Program mode is usually pretty good for most photos. Often the most important thing with regards to your camera is whether you actually "get the shot" not whether you set up all the conditions to do so yourself. You often don't have time to switch through all the settings unless you have things memorized, and even then you have to switch through multiple settings quickly to get to it. That's also why I usually leave Auto-ISO on so that can just take the picture directly without worrying about blur. A photo that is blurry is worthless, no matter how skilled you are in the innerworkings of your camera.

Auto-mode is also probably why there are so many good photos out there: people aren't caring about how their cameras are set up; they're just taking pictures! The fact that cameras are now advanced enough to allow this is real progress!

The manual mode settings are useful. However, I find that I'll use them mostly when I'm not getting the shots I need from the automatic modes (that applies to manual focus too). I'll change the settings for a particular circumstance such as long exposures, or a particular aperture that I switch to manual, but that also means I'm messing with the ISO etc. and doing a whole lot other setup.

 

[bloompyle]

I'll look into all that Bionic. That was an extraordinary 2 part breakdown! +1! I just want a camera, under $400, that I can take good quality, review worthy, photos. Photos that you take a moment to look at and say wow to, rather than just scrolling to the LPM reading and the price. I also want to be able to take that same camera and take it with me to events, or take pictures around the area, snap a quick one of the other if we're out. Just a decent multipurpose camera. Macros aren't necessary persay, I can get a lens set for that later. The biggest thing is a user friendly, easily controlled, camera with good color reproduction and high quality images.

Will definitely browse around and fit this into the end of the month budget. I need to finally get a decent camera around here!

 

[tsk1979]

Thanks guys for liking the photo.
Regarding OPs query, if photographing Laser etc., is the goal, its best to get a full spectrum modified camera. Many entry level 200$ P&S cameras are capable of allowing manual mode. Many like maxmax offer full spectrum converted cameras which are capable of shooting UV/IR and visible. If you want to restrict yourself to just visible spectrum, then you can add a filter in front of lens.
Some links
http://www.lifepixel.com/uv-ir-forensics

Infrared basics for digital photographers

I have dabbled in IR on unmodified cameras, but for laser, a full spectrum is good.

However, if you want to go for a standard camera, then Panasonic FZ-200 is marvelous. F2.8 constant aperture lens and good zoom.

If size is an issue, then Panasonic LX-5. Canon G15 or any other "performance enthusiast compacts" with 1" or 1/1.7" sensor should be good enough.

Cost is also 400-500$

DSLR for laser is not a good idea, because large sensor will mean using apertures of f11-f12 to get everything in focus, and at this aperture diffraction will ensure that image quality suffers, so its better to get a small sensor camera, but not smaller than 1/1.7"
1" is good

 

[jaws2002]

I like to use a panasonic g5 for laser shots. Less DR than my D3100, but seems to show the colors more accurately, at least to the way I see them. Its the camera i usually have with me anyway due to its more light and compact size. G6 has been announces and some of the older g series can be gotten pretty cheap.
@NORBYX - FZ50 is still my favorite camera of all time.

 

[Bionic-Badger]

I'll look into all that Bionic. That was an extraordinary 2 part breakdown! +1! I just want a camera, under $400, that I can take good quality, review worthy, photos. Photos that you take a moment to look at and say wow to, rather than just scrolling to the LPM reading and the price. I also want to be able to take that same camera and take it with me to events, or take pictures around the area, snap a quick one of the other if we're out. Just a decent multipurpose camera. Macros aren't necessary persay, I can get a lens set for that later. The biggest thing is a user friendly, easily controlled, camera with good color reproduction and high quality images.

The most important piece of equipment is behind the camera (you). Learning the camera and how it works will allow you to get fantastic photos with patience. I would buy an inexpensive DSLR, or a used one, and a nice lens with vibration reduction/image stabilization. A Nikon 3200 with kit lens (18-55mm lens with VR) is about $550 on Amazon, which is pretty decent and great to learn. Even an old D40 on eBay is a good starting point, with a VR lens. You can spend the money you save on a nicer lens (which appreciates in value or at least don't depreciate).

In fact, something that's cool is that once you outgrow an old camera you can experiment with making it into an IR camera. I bought an old D200 which I'll eventually be turning into an IR camera.

DSLR for laser is not a good idea, because large sensor will mean using apertures of f11-f12 to get everything in focus, and at this aperture diffraction will ensure that image quality suffers, so its better to get a small sensor camera, but not smaller than 1/1.7"
1" is good

The sensors aren't as diffraction limited as the smaller sensors, and the crop-factor affects the field of view, depth of view, etc. all of which can be produced by the camera with the larger sensor, only with all the extra benefits of having that larger sensor. Unless you're using some sort of fixed focus lens, you'll be able to achieve the same or better results than the small sensor.

 

[tsk1979]

The most important piece of equipment is behind the camera (you). Learning the camera and how it works will allow you to get fantastic photos with patience. I would buy an inexpensive DSLR, or a used one, and a nice lens with vibration reduction/image stabilization. A Nikon 3200 with kit lens (18-55mm lens with VR) is about $550 on Amazon, which is pretty decent and great to learn. Even an old D40 on eBay is a good starting point, with a VR lens. You can spend the money you save on a nicer lens (which appreciates in value or at least don't depreciate).

In fact, something that's cool is that once you outgrow an old camera you can experiment with making it into an IR camera. I bought an old D200 which I'll eventually be turning into an IR camera.



The sensors aren't as diffraction limited as the smaller sensors, and the crop-factor affects the field of view, depth of view, etc. all of which can be produced by the camera with the larger sensor, only with all the extra benefits of having that larger sensor. Unless you're using some sort of fixed focus lens, you'll be able to achieve the same or better results than the small sensor.

Of course large sensor dslrs give better results. But the problem is shallow depth of field. With a small sensor camera, indoor DOF is not much of an issue. As you get closer to your subject narrow DOF may make it difficult to capture everything you need.