Re: aquarium photography ...

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

On Tue, 2 May 2000, Mike & Diane Wise wrote:

> Raymond,
> 
> I'm interested. Which digital camera has through-the-lens optical
> viewing and interchangeable lenses (not just simple supplementary
> lenses)?

Yes, do tell. :) As far as I knew, this was still in the $10k range!  To
me, Through the Lens viewing and interchangable lenses = SLR (by
definition). That's something nobody's brought up yet -- LCD viewfinders
just don't focus as well as a ground glass/prism!

> I realize that I could enlarge my digital pics with a
> computer, but even better pics could be made using a digital camera
> with a 1:1 macro lens. 

When I enlarge digital pictures, they look silly and pixelated.  Sure, you
can blow up a digital picture by a factor of two, and delude yourself into
thinking it looks OK on a web page if you sit 3 feet back from the monitor
and defocus your eyes.  But most of the manufacturers are already pushing
the physical limits anyway with interpolation...  To get a true 800x600
image, you need 1.4 megapixels.  1024x768 is 2.4 mp.  1600x1200 = 5.8 mp.

> Long focal length lenses mean that I don't have
> to get "in the face" of shy fish and still get a full frame photo.

Yeah, I love my 100mm macro.  Didn't realize how lucky I was at the time I
bought it from the used camera store... at the time I thought "well, I
really wanted a 50mm macro, but they don't get macro lenses often at this
place".  The downsides are that it's two stops down from a 50mm, so I had
to learn how to focus all over again (there's that split image microprism
focusing again... no way could I do that with an LCD screen in available
light!).

> Maybe someone can make a digital back for a 35 mm camera. It would
> make my day.

The closest thing I saw was this company that made a little CCD
thingamagig with electronics that was actually in the shape of a roll of
35mm film, with the CCD hanging out the side.  You pop it in any 35mm
camera, the CCD fits where the film would sit. and voila!  The problem was
that they wanted around $1000 per "roll" of this.

But yeah, a back or body is exactly what I would like too, and I don't
understand why it has to be so expensive.  Theoretically, should be
cheaper than an SLR because there are no moving parts.  I guess it's the
demand level.

So for now, just call me "A-to-D Man".  I'll get back to scanning
negatives, OCR'ing journals, and capturing those old open-reel tapes to
CD. :)

  - Erik

-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@listbox.com.
Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!