I had my mind set on a dslr, but with all the positive comments on point and shoot I’m going to start researching them.
Thanks to all for the responses, and I hope you keep them coming.
Sharkcountry, I see the chart you posted in regards to imager size, but I’m unsure of how that directly applies. Can you explain how it comes into play as far as my finished image? Does it just translate into lower resolution? Thanks
The total image is how large a 35mm negative would be compared to modern digital camera imagers. It is not the actual size.
Imager size tends to factor in to sensitivity. The larger imagers will have much better low light sensitivity compared to a smaller imager with the same pixel count because there’s much more area per pixel. Generally a larger imager will produce a better image, but it’s not always the case. A small imager with a low pixel count can have a very nice image, and a large imager with a real high pixel count may not be as nice.
The imager size also determines how big a len has to be because the lens has to cover the whole imager. The small imagers allow lenses to have the super zoom ratios because the glass doesn’t have to be as large. Back when I started, we used 16mm film for TV work. We used Angenieux lenses with 10x zooms and T2.2 aperatures. You couldn’t find photo lens with a 10X zoom at any cost. When video became protable, we had 2/3" imagers and lenses went up to 20X and more. Today they have superzooms for 2/3" cameras, but you’ll need about $60K or more. My Panasonic micro 4/3" had a 10X zoom with a 28mm wide angle all for about $1300, and that was a big deal for me when I got it. When I looked at converting to a HD video lens, I was looking at about $8000 minimum and I would need to add power and other add-ons to make it work.
One downside of small imagers is that you don’t have the ability to have good selective focus. Images will tend to be in focus from the area up close to the area far away. That’s not an issue for surfing because you are almost always shooting at full telephoto, and focussing out to infinity.
Professionals like the ability to have lots of selection in the sharp area of a shot, so the larger imagers are important. It’s one way to make your eye go to a specific part of an image. There’s a lot of science in lens design and how the light looks when things are in focus or out of focus. Many movie makers choose lenses for their Bokeh, or the way they make the out of focus lights look. There’s also things internal to the lens that will cause light to reflect off of individual elements or the inside of the barrel causing chromatic abberation, or color fringing where the over exposed edges in an image may turn purplish. Lens flares are also affected by designs. You often see manufacturers saying they have Leica lenses or Leica designs. Leica was one of the best lens manufacturers. Check this out. http://petapixel.com/2013/01/18/meanings-and-origins-of-the-trademarks-used-on-leica-lenses/ Zeiss is another famous lens manufacturer.
Canon and Nikon started years ago by copying the old Leica rangefinder cameras, and then came into their own because the product price/quality was hard to beat. Old Leicas will always be the pro collector camera, but they are expensive.
If you want to blow up your photos to poster print size, I’d say get a DSLR, if you just want maybe up to 11x14 or so, a point and shoot is fine. Don’t get too high a pixel count with the point and shoot and you’ll be fine. I think 12 megapixels or less would be fine. I’ll often shoot at 8 megapixels to be able to shoot more images. With my Nikon, I just max it out and get large SD cards. SD cards are cheap and huge by comparison to just a few years ago. Make sure you buy decent brands and fast cards, I get class10-U3 speed cards these days. I think they are up to 256GB but I only have up to 64GB, mostly 32. Get a couple of external USB3 drives and store your images/video on 2 different drives. I’ve had drives fail right after I had moved files to clean up drives and lost images more than once.
Good images need decent light, shoot with the right light angles and time of day and just about any camera will make great images. Under bad light conditions, even a great camera may not get a good image.
I am by no means an expert on photography, but I do know a little, and sharkcountry’s post above strikes me as probably the best advice I’ve yet seen on the topic of what kind of a camera to get and why for land-based surf photography all encapsulated in a single post.
Credit where it’s due -> +1 from me.
What I haven’t seen adressed yet in this thread is advice on how to deal with the long-term bane of a surf-photographer’s equipment: dealing with air-borne salt and sand.
Cheers all and especial props to sharkcountry for the above info.
Salt air/spray is probably going to be an issue for a long time. Anyone who has lived along the beach knows how destructive salt is. Everything you have will get messed up. I like to cover up my camera and only point it out when there’s a set on days when the wind is blowing salt at me. On the big days it’s hard because there’s often a ton of salt spray in the air. If you’re lucky to shoot when it’s offshore then you can have the wind blowing away from you. There rain covers for the more expensive cameras, and a large ziplock bag will do for a point and shoot. Just cut a hole for the lens, and tape it to the edge. I’ve used trash bags for rain covers on my big video rigs for years.
Maybe the newer water tight cameras will last longer, I don’t know. The internal electronics tend to get damaged over time, and that’s a area we can’t see or clean. Dust and sand are also a big problem, but newer cameras have better seals. I had a nice Minolta all in one camera a while ago that was damaged by very high winds. I was shooting at a windfarm and it was so windy we had a hard time keeping the camera still. The wind was blowing dust across us like a sandblaster.
Something I’d like to add. I worked in TV, and corporate video from 1976 till this past May. I’ve always believed in getting the least expensive equipment I can that will do the job. My newspaper friends taught me that in the 70’s. When you use your gear everyday all day, it will wear out, or something will happen and it will be damaged. Replacement costs can be a problem. I’ve used all in one (point and shoot) cameras more than DSLRs because they are so much more affordable. I’ve destroyed at least 3 really nice ones, but in all they probably cost about what one nice DSLR body would have been, and they all had great images, and a nice zoom lens.
For all in one cameras I look at the lens of a camera first. Is it wide enough, does it have a long enough zoom? Then I look at the specs, the pixel count, the image options (photos only, video, HD video), then I go to a review site and research the sample images. I look at the noise and the blacks at high ISO.
I’ve had several cameras people would never had thought of like a Kodak digital that were really nice and only about $350, when others were twice that for the same image quality. I used to like Olympus point and shoot cameras because they made nice digital cameras from way back, but everyone has a nice camera now. I’ve had Nikon, Sony, Kodak, Canon, Olympus, Minolta and Panasonic digital cameras over the years. The Canon was not one of the better ones. These days I like Panasonic’s Lumix line, but now that I have a really nice DSLR, I’ll probably not get another cheap camera. I’d probably get a nice small video camera with a long lens.
I like shooting surfing video more than photos. I like seeing the action in real life versus snaps of time. Probably because my background is in TV and not photos. Sometimes you see these really cool snaps, but when you see the live action, it looks less impressive or they fell right after that shot and missed finishing the wave. I believe that you gotta finish the wave, you ride that thing from beginning to end. Making an over the top move for a camera is so BS to me. Nice sequences would be second to live action. These days I’ll take a cheap waterproof camera with me and shoot video. I have an old Olympus with a 5x zoom, it’s perfect for shooting others. The GoPros are only good for shooting super wide angle, they are made to shoot yourself.
Sharkcountry, thanks again for all the information and advice. My decision has been made to go with a point and shoot camera. Using your selection process of choosing the lens first, my quandary is what length zoom is enough? I can choose anywhere from 16x-83x (2,000mm). More isn’t always better, as there are trade offs in other features as well as price. In your opinion, what length lens is adequate for shooting from the beach in most instances (let’s use a spot like Trestles as an example). Thanks!!
I have no idea of what Trestles is like, I live in Hawaii. Places like Sunset Beach, Ala Moana Park, outside Waikiki, or Shark Country break pretty far from the beach, but 1000mm would be OK. With a 1000mm lens you’ll need good image stabilization and a solid tripod. Sometimes a nice beanbag works well too.
I don’t really look at the 20x, 30x, whatever. You want a certain wide angle and enough telephoto for whatever it is you want to shoot.
I think something that is equal to 1000mm on a 35mm should be enough, if you need the 2000mm then that should be a consideration. I’d also look at what the wide angle is, something around 28mm would be great for other types of photos like landscapes, or groups of people indoors.
Not being familiar with current P&S cameras, Do they now still define optical zoom vs digital zoom in the marketing, or simply say X# of zoom because it it more apt to impress?
Thanks Sharkcountry for the elaboration clarifications and advice.
I am still finding my eagerness to shoot surf photos from a distance limited by my Kit lens’ clarity, and stepping up to A white canon lens is way outside anything remotely considered a budget, and then it is only a Eos t5i camera body with the smaller sensor.
I might very well have been better off with a P&S with a better lens.
Yes, they differentiate in the specs between optical and digital. Amazing how much zoom they can achieve optically, the camera I’m looking at has a 83x optical zoom and is the equivalent of 24mm-2,000mm. Pretty impressive.
The point n shoot I’m using has a 50x optical zoom but for surf pics I never have to go above about 42X. Sounds like you are looking at the Nikon P900 which is an awesome looking camera. Don’t overlook the Canon SX60 which gives you the added benefit of storing pictures in raw format if you’d like. I do think the Nikon has a better lens.
I should add that when shooting pictures at 50X zoom and beyond you actually start picking up atmospheric interfearance. I’ll look for a photo example.
Worth noting is that Sony and Canon both now have cameras with less optical zoom but with a 1" sensor. These cameras aren’t cheap but if I were buying now I would be giving serious consideration to the Sony RX10 III or the Canon G3X. That new Sony is also weatherproof…but comes with a $1500 price tag.
Gold. -> +1
More gold. -> another +1
Hard decision on which camera to buy. The Nikon has the killer zoom, the Canon has RAW, and the Panasonic has the 1" sensor.
Making my decision and getting one this week.
I like to use this site for camera reviews. This is last year’s review of superzooms with the smaller imagers. Nikon scored well. I’m not sure what Panasonic you’re looking at, but the 1" cameras seem to only go to about 400mm or so. You may want more telephoto, or else you’d be cropping or using the digital zoom. One thing I really like is the 4K video those cameras have. I shoot 4k, then edit in 720P and get extra zoom from the image being oversized.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2015-superzoom-camera-roundup
I would not pay a lot more for a 1" sensor that has only half the telephoto of the long lens cameras. For the cost I think the Nikon P900 scores very well. The low light performance is good, so you can turn up the ISO and get higher shutterspeeds. At max telephoto you’ll want to be shooting at 1/500 or so. At least 1/250 or more. For handhelp shots, we used to use a formula that was the length of the lens would be the minimum shutter speed, so 300mm lens would need 1/250 or faster shutter speed to avoid motion blur. If you are using 1000mm or longer it can get tricky. Use the same techniques that marksmen use for breathing for the handheld shots with 300mm or longer.
If you are planning to go to 1" sensors, I’d look at this. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1148513-REG/panasonic_dmc_g7hk_lumix_dmc_g7_mirrorless_micro.html You get a 4/3 imager and a 14-140 equals 28-280 lens. with 2x digital zoom you can get close to 600mm. For another couple hundred you can add a cheap Nikon or Canon 70-300 zoom (with lens adapter) that turns into a 140-600, then if you have to you can use the 2x digital zoom to get to 1200mm. Or you can get a Panasonic 100-300 lens that equals 200-600, but that is another $500. The panasonic lens will allow you to use the optical image stabilization, but then you’re getting into interchangeable lenses and it all starts to get complicated.
1" is about 4 times the size of the 1/2.3" sensor, 4/3" is a little bigger than 1", not quite double. Once you get to 4/3" sensors the next step will be the full size 35mm.
Theres tons of gear and cameras you could go for days about what brand and lens, ext. Im a pro photographer so I use a canon 5dmk3. Hands down is you probably want a DSLR with at least a 300mm lens, zoom is more versatile. A great starter setup in the $2000 or so range would be a used canon 7d and the old version canon 100-400mm IS.
Shot this freehand off the beach with the earlier model (SX50) Canon superzoom.
Great little camera with plenty of Bells & Whistles.