Digital Camera (Landscapes)

SAAER45

SAAER45

New Member
I am going to Alaska this summer and am in desperate need of a new camera. Seeing as I will be taking mostly landscapes in a considerable distance, I'm looking for a camera good for landscapes. The digital camera I have now, while not cheap, makes landscape look really small. I don't want to break the bank to much, and would appreciate any suggestions...

Thanks,
John
 
I recently got the Panasonic Lumix FZ20. You can usally find it for around $300-400. It's a very high quality 5MP camera, 12x zoom, etc etc. It's not a true SLR, but you can put different lenses on it with an addaptor and all.

Maybe get this camera and a wide angle lens?
 
I can't find a good review on the camera, but I feel almost 100% sure the Panasonic would give better quality. For one, Kodak's are usally slower, and also their lens quality isn't quite at par with the Panasonic's. Also, realise the Pansonic used to be a $600 camera!
 
Well, as long as its a good camera and you have:
1. A tripod
2. A wide angle lense (preferably for landscape, but your choice)
3. Ability to know how to work it.

Then your all set.
That Panasonic is pretty good. Their OIS is a life saver.

Just dont get those tiny pocket ones.. it'll be a waste of ur $.
 
computerhakk said:
1. A tripod
Click to expand...

I've heard that before, but I don't understand the need for it in a digital camera. Is the point of the tripod just to steady the camera, what is the advantage over your hands?

Edit:
The Other One mentioned Panasonic being faster, can you translate these "shutter speed" figures into terms I could understand

Kodak (my original link) Shutter Speed: 8s - 1/1,700s
Panasonic (the second Link) Shutter Speed: 60s - 1/2,000s

What does that mean?
 
Last edited:
Those are just the different speeds the shutter can take pictures at. The panasonic can have up to 60 second exposures while the kodak can only have 8 seconds. The panasonic also beats it in terms of high speeds, at 1/2000's of a second.
 
speedyink said:
Those are just the different speeds the shutter can take pictures at. The panasonic can have up to 60 second exposures while the kodak can only have 8 seconds. The panasonic also beats it in terms of high speeds, at 1/2000's of a second.
Click to expand...

So if the shutter speed is 1/2,000th's of a second, that will in turn mean sharper photos, correct? If that is correct, I get that... But can you go more in depth about the exposures, I don't understand that.
 
Well, resellerratings give the like a 5 out of 10...
It's probably just up to you if you wanna go with them. Newegg has been established for quite a while and their background is probably better than Ibuydigital.

The point of a tripod is because.. let's face it.. if you want crystal clear landscape shots.. you are not going to get quality 10 pictures with just using your hands.. most people in society doesn't really have steady hands when it comes in trying to take great quality pictures.

Depending on the type of scenario you are going to take.. even the slightest movement of pressing down that shutter button a bit too hard will cause the picture to blur completely or a portion of it.

Especially since you said you will be taking landscapes.. it's better to have a great picture than a good picture since you wont be going back or be seeing it for quite some time... and tripods are fairly cheap depending on the one you look into.
 
Like I said, where you buy it is totally up to you.

The package looks pretty good. The lense cleaning kit is a must have if you plan to use it often. The case doesn't even seem if it fit.. 1gb sd cards.. you can find them from like 25-40 bucks depending on sales and if you know where to look.. so it does look like a good deal sorta.. but it's up to you.
 
SAAER45 said:
So if the shutter speed is 1/2,000th's of a second, that will in turn mean sharper photos, correct? If that is correct, I get that... But can you go more in depth about the exposures, I don't understand that.
Click to expand...

Well it means it can allow the light coming from the direction of the landscape for that given period of time to hit the sensor. At bright daylight, you will go low on the shutter speed and at night such as when taking pictures of the moon, you will want a long exposure so that the poor light can fully "draw" the image up in the camera so to say. I hope this makes sense. In the end, not using the correct shutter settings will mean dark/too bright pictures and or some other issues.

The basic problems are OVEREXPOSURE/UNDEREXPOSURE

Overexposure (using a long shutter speed):

overexposure.jpg


Underexposure (using a shutter speed which is too short):

IkeliteCanonETTLturtle1.jpg


JAN :D
 
Last edited:
computerhakk said:
The point of a tripod is because.. let's face it.. if you want crystal clear landscape shots.. you are not going to get quality 10 pictures with just using your hands.. most people in society doesn't really have steady hands when it comes in trying to take great quality pictures.
Click to expand...

i agree and disagree. ONE, tripods are great for taking pictures where you have a longer shutter speed...usually after 1/30 is when a photographer alone loses quality in the image, unless they prop their elbows, hold the camera againts them, etc. even then its only good to about 1/8 of a second. anything after that is tripod material. HOWEVER, i think youre wrong when it comes to the second part. modelling photographers take pictures like that all the time, often times standing ten or fifteen feet away from their subject with zoom magnifications somewhere around 8 or 10x.

if youre only taking pictures of landscapes, its GOOD to have them a little underexposed, because there is SUCH a GREAT DISTANCE between you and the subject, the light must travel a very long distance to reach your camera. you know this simply from experience. if youre ever on the top of a mountain or a hill or something, as things get farther and farther away, they appear hazier and gray. thats just because theyre so far away, and as we all know, what we see when we open our eyes is reflected light.

SO, the main point is this: you wont necessarily need a tripod because (a) the further the subject, the less you have to worry about it becoming blurry from movement, and (b) youre going to be (assumedly) working in moderate to high light settings, which will have you using faster shutter speeds, which then translates into less exposure, which then translates into fuller, darker pictures.

then again, these are just my thoughts and opinions, and as my compostion professor tells me, opinions mean nothing, because everybody has one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top