Posted by: Kevin [x] - (24.118.65.---)
Date: January 21, 2005 09:53PM
Does anybody on this site post their own panoramic/landscape photos?

I would like to chat about the best quality 35mm camera to use for such photos. Unfortunately weight is an issue, I am planning a thru hike of the contintenal divide trail and I would like to keep it light.

Thanks.
Posted by: Bob [x] - (24.118.65.---)
Date: January 22, 2005 07:32AM
What type camera do you use ie. Traditional or Digital?
Posted by: Kevin [x] - (24.118.65.---)
Date: January 22, 2005 03:28PM
Bob,

Because of the remote locations along the trip and the need to recharge batteries often (if I used digital) I would like to stick with using traditional 35mm film.
Posted by: GAK67 [x] - (24.118.65.---)
Date: January 23, 2005 03:11PM
From my experience, Nikon have good optics (lenses, etc). If you are hiking with a good quality camera make sure you have a good carry case for both impact protection and water protection. There is often a lot of condensation in packs and tents. Canon have a reputation for being quite light, but possibly not quite as robust. The problem with using a 35mm camera for panoramic shots is that the negative becomes so small that blowing them up to a decent size makes them grainy.
Posted by: Kevin [x] - (24.118.65.---)
Date: January 23, 2005 09:42PM
GAK67:
What are other options for film besides 35mm? A couple of the pictures I posted here are grainy as hell, that's because the fools at the film developers actually scan the hardcopy pictures to make digital copies. Wouldn't an enlargement of a 35mm negative yeild analagous clarity to the original negative?

Just trying to learn a little. I apperciate the feedback.
Posted by: GAK67 [x] - (24.118.65.---)
Date: January 23, 2005 10:01PM
Medium format is the next option up. You can get cameras that are specifically designed to take panoramic photos, but generally only professional landscape photographers use them. Other cameras get the same effect by using the available width of the transperancy (negative or slide) and narrowing the top and bottom, effectively making the image smaller than it would be in non panoramic mode. Generally a 35mm transperancy can be blown up to around 24in x 16in before they start to get grainy (but it can depend on the ISO rating and quality of the film) A panoramic shot would probaly start to look grainy above a 10 x 8 equivalent enlargement. Medium format cameras use a negative that is either 6cm x 4.5cm, 6cm x 6cm, or 6cm x 7cm. These are significantly larger than a standard 35mm and can therefore by enlarged more. Unfortunately, the cameras are bigger and therefore heavier, and also significantly more expensive.

If you are getting grainy scans of your photos, take them somewhere else to be done. Most photo labs these days actually digitise the image from the negative and print from that anyway, so it is usually cheaper to get the image in digital format when first developed and printed. I have had scans done of negatives and of hardcopy photos, both with great resolution. Find a lab that takes some pride in their work and with some update technology.
Posted by: Kevin [x] - (24.118.65.---)
Date: January 25, 2005 03:27PM
GAK67:

If I stick with the 35mm, are there any better options besides 100speed film?
Posted by: Kevin [x] - (24.118.65.---)
Date: January 25, 2005 03:28PM
Bob:

I assume that you have suggestions for digital cameras? If you do please enlighten me.

Best Regards
Posted by: GAK67 [x] - (24.118.65.---)
Date: January 25, 2005 03:59PM
Kevin

I actually prefer to use 200 speed film as it has a wider range of uses and there is no noticable change in grainy-ness. If all your photos are going to be taken in bright sunlight you could try a 50 speed, but anything not really bright will mean a long shutter speed. Stick with a good quality film - it is worth paying the extra.

Also, given that the best light for landscape photos is when the sun is low in the sky, a tripod is going to be useful. It will of course add to the weight, but modern alloy ones are not too heavy.
Posted by: Kevin [x] - (24.118.65.---)
Date: January 25, 2005 04:08PM
Thanks GAK67.
Posted by: Bob [x] - (24.118.65.---)
Date: January 25, 2005 05:00PM
Digital cameras? Well I do use traditional style cameras as well, however right now I use a Nikon D70. It's a digital SLR which cost around 800 pounds. I find it quite versatile but only if you buy more lenses for macro and landscape shots which is an added cost (the camera initially comes with a lense which does neither only good for portraits or general shots really). The picture quality is very good when you use the highest quality of shot. The camera doesn't compress the images into jpeg's at it's highest quality so you don't lose any image quality in compression. With a 1GB flashcard you can take around 80 shots at the very highest quality or at lower levels it is 1000's. Battery performance seems to be much better than most other digital SLR's I have used in the past. I have gone serveral days shooting without the need for charging although there is always the danger of leaving the camera on and letting the batteries die sad smiley. If you want to see the quality I will try and see if I can post some of my pics on here. I find the weight is pretty good (that's with a tripod on my back). I wouldn't suggest you buy a digital camera of any type until you look into it thoroughly though, especially if you hope to get the images printed. Image quality and battery power vary greatly between manufacturers as well.
Posted by: Kevin [x] - (24.118.65.---)
Date: January 25, 2005 09:49PM
Thanks Bob, I appreciate the input.
Your Name: 
Your Email: 
Subject: 
Message: