Photography

Unless you're a serious photographer, your best bet is 35mm cameras.  If you're simply interested in getting an image on paper, just go with a disposable - no fuss, no muss.  The majority of people will tote along a little point-and-shoot, which if nothing else is nice and light.  However, if you're looking for better photo quality and interchangeable lenses then you'll want to consider an SLR.  This genre of camera offers the greatest flexibility in terms of options.  The most obvious is interchangeable lenses, but SLRs are capable of much more:  auto-focus, multimode metering, aperture/shutter priority and scene modes, depth-of-field preview, multiple exposures, bracket exposures, timed exposures, high-speed motor drives, very-slow to very-fast shutter speeds, data backs, high-speed flash sync, dedicated external flashes, and interchangeable focus screens, to name a few.  Many of these features are standard in an SLR these days, but the more esoteric ones are available only in the higher end cameras.  Keep in mind it is very easy to get carried away with all the extras – you’re paying for these so unless you can foresee a need for them you’re better off just keeping things simple and the cost down.  For example, why would you need the capability to shoot at 5 frames per second if you’re shooting mountains?

The price of film cameras has dropped in recent years as consumers migrate over to digital.  If you search eBay you’ll routinely find quality manual SLRs for less than $100.  Non-zoom, manual focus lenses are also very affordable.  Keep in mind that the older all-metal construction SLRs are heavy.  This may not be of great consequence in day to day photography but you’ll dread all the weight in your backpack.  Used auto-focus cameras run in the $200-$300 range.  If you insist on new, all the major SLR manufactures like Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta have entry-level cameras ringing in at the $300-$500 mark.  There’s plenty of plastic in these models so the weight factor is good.  Just keep in mind these cameras are not built to be banged around – so keep them away from your ice axe!

If you’re into medium format consider the Mamiya 7 or Fuji GA645Zi.  The Mamiya is a favorite amongst outdoor photographers – reasonably light and has interchangeable lenses.  Price with a starter lens is about $4,000.  The Fuji is an interesting camera:  This is the medium format equivalent of a point-and-shoot.  For just under $3,000, it comes with auto-focus, auto-exposure, auto-film load/rewind, pop-up flash, and a zoom lens.  It is also one of the lightest medium format cameras on the market.  6x4.5 purists will surely shun such a corruption of their sacred realm.

In the late 90’s companies were pushing the APS format.  These cameras use a different film size which is two-thirds of the 35mm frame.  The smaller film size allowed the cameras to be smaller (and thus also lighter).  There were many innovative features in APS cameras.  One that was especially attractive to outdoor photographers was the panoramic mode, which took double-frame wide pictures.  However, despite the improvements made in film resolution the stunted format could not compete (in terms of print quality) with 35mm, plus photo labs were slow to adapt the new format so processing costs were some 30% higher than 35mm.  There are still a few APS cameras made but this is a dying breed.

Incidentally, always bring along an extra set of batteries for your camera.  Everything may seem fine the night before, but when you're up at higher elevations, the lower temperature will reduce battery efficiency considerably.

This breed of equipment has evolved quite a bit over the years.  If your application is web publishing a digital camera is the only way to go.  I'd recommend going with a model that has a minimum of four mega-pixels of resolution.  The cost of this equipment goes up rapidly with resolution.  Three mega-pixels is pretty much entry level these days.  Lower pixel count cameras typically appear in the form of web-cams.  Kodak, HP, Canon, Nikon, Konica-Minolta, Sony, Fuji, Casio, and Olympus are just a few manufacturers of digital cameras.  As an alternative, you may want to consider digital video cameras.  All major DV camcorder brands have models that will do digital stills with 1-2 mega-pixel resolution.  As a twist, most digital cameras also have video modes that can capture from 10-second clips to hour-long segments.  Suffice to say though, that these cross-functional devices provide only marginally acceptable results when used as “something else”.  It’s best to stick with a digital camera for stills and video cameras for motion/sound.

I’ll defer the digital camera lens discussion to subsequent sections.  First I want to go over a few of the features found only in the digital world.

The best part about digital cameras is that you can see the picture you’ve taken immediately.  You don’t have to worry whether you’ve composed the scene properly or if someone blinked during the shot.  If the picture doesn’t turn out as expected, you can simply delete it and take another.  You can do this on the fly, or if you have enough memory you can just keep shooting and worry about purging the bad pictures later.  Since there’s no film involved, you won’t have to worry about running out.  If from you want to switch between color and black-and-white in the film world you either have to take a second camera, or you’ll have to sacrifice unused frames in the roll that’s still in the camera.  Most digital cameras allow you change between color and black-and-white (and other creative shades) by simply changing a menu selection.

When it comes to physical attributes, digital cameras are generally smaller than their film counterparts.  This is because there’s no need to put in a drive motor or make room for the film transport mechanism.  Digital camera size is determined mainly by the battery, LCD screen, and lens.

Quality prints is a big plus with digital cameras.  First of all, even if the color, brightness, and composition are not quite right you can easily fix them using photo editing software.  Once you’re happy with the results you can make one or a thousand prints from any digital photo lab and they’ll all be the same (assuming they calibrate their equipment properly).  With no film involved you’ll never see dust and scratch marks on your prints.  Also, you can choose which pictures to print.  Unlike film where you always have to get either a proof sheet or a first set of prints, you can select just the photos that you want to frame or send to other people.  No more shoe boxes full of old pictures!

There are a couple of drawbacks with digital cameras.  Power is typically the biggest concern.  The LCD display is a battery hog, as is the flash.  If you’re going to be shooting pictures all day long it’s prudent to have a spare set of batteries.  You’ll also need to have memory cards with enough capacity to save the pictures until you can download them to a computer.  This second point of course means you also have to own a computer.  For those who like making posters 16x20 and larger you’ll find that even with an 8 mega-pixel camera you just can’t get the same sharpness as film.  To compete, you’ll have to go with the pricier 12 mega-pixel SLR’s.

Publishing pictures on the web with a digital camera is a tremendous time-saver.  With a film camera, you have to first use up the roll before taking it in for processing.  Then you have to scan the negatives, touch up the blemishes, correct the color, and finally upload the file.  With a digital camera, all you have to do is download the files onto your computer and publish it to the web.  Kodak recently released a digital camera with wireless capability that allows you to upload pictures right from the camera to the web without cables or even a computer.  Talk about convenience!

There is little debate that single focal length (non-zoom) lenses will outperform the zooms. However a major point of consideration is how much gear you want to lug with you in your backpack.  For scenery a 28-80mm or 35-80mm zoom is a good choice.  The newer lenses will also allow you to focus quite close to the subject, if you like taking close-ups.  For getting those sweeping panoramas, you may want to consider bringing along a 20 or 24mm.  The focal lengths mentioned above refer to the 35mm film format.  The lenses that come with digital SLR’s have focal lengths are about two-thirds smaller.  The reason for this is because the CCD or CMOS array in a digital SLR is typically only two-thirds the size of a 35mm film frame, so to get the same angular coverage the lenses mush have a shorter focal length.  A 16mm focal length in a digital SLR is equivalent to 24mm in a film SLR.  This raises an interesting point:  Most people who own a 35mm film SLR think that they can migrate to a digital SLR and re-use their existing collection of lenses.  Well, this only partially true.  Yes, you can mount your existing lenses onto a new digital, but you’ll be saddened by the fact that all the focal lengths are shifted upwards by a factor of 1.33.  The really high-end digital SLR’s have CCD’s that are full-frame (same size as 35mm film) and will therefore allow you to use your existing lenses without compensation, but this comes at a premium - $10,000 and up as of this writing.

In the digital camera world, you’ll see two terms mentioned:  Digital and Optical zoom.  Most low-end digitals will have only a fixed focal length lens and no optical zoom.  However, all digital cameras will boast some degree of digital zoom.  The digital zoom concept is strictly a marketing feature.  All it does is fatten the pixels in your photo.  It does nothing to improve detail.  If you cannot distinguish the letter ‘A’ from the letter ‘R’ at 50 feet then digital zoom won’t help you.  You’ll simply see a bigger version of the blurry image.  An optical zoom on the other hand will give you better clarity and resolve details on distant objects.

If you are buying even a moderate a point-and-shoot digital chances are it’ll come with a zoom.  A 3x zoom in this case is fairly standard.  A 4x or even 12x zoom is available as long as you’re willing to bear the cost.  For scenic photography you’ll be more interested in the wide angle end of the zoom, so look for this when considering your purchase.  As mentioned before, CCD arrays in digital cameras are smaller than 35mm film, so the focal lengths quoted for digital cameras will appear quite strange (small) compared to 35mm film cameras.  The low end of a digital camera’s zoom will be equivalent to ~35mm focal length in the 35mm film world.  There are only a few cameras where the wide angle end is in the 28mm range.  Some digital cameras have adapters which allow you mount dedicated wide angle or telephoto attachments.  The accessory wide angle lens has about a 0.7x magnification, so for a 35mm focal length it will reduce it to 24mm.  You’ll give up some sharpness and contrast with accessory lenses.

Perspective

Film-Photography

Digital Photography

And That's My Final Answer:

For the longest time my workhorse was a Minolta XG-M.  This older all-metal camera was certainly rugged and reliable, but it was also heavy.  Over time I accumulated 8 different lenses of various focal lengths, but I quickly realized taking all (or even some) of these lenses with me up the mountain was a tiresome routine.  In the end I took just one lens with me – a 35-135mm zoom.  In 2000 I shelled out $525 for a new Canon RebelG with a 35-80mm zoom lens.  The lens came with the camera as a kit so I had little choice, as I would have preferred a lower focal length at the wide angle end.  The camera and lens weighed just over 18 oz., and the auto-program exposure modes were well-suited to scenic photography.  As an eyeglass wearer I was also very pleased with the auto-focus consistency.

The new camera made picture taking easier, but my frustration with poor photo processing continued.  Beyond the pink clouds and brown shadows, the commercial labs do a lot of damage to your negatives.  Sure, you don’t see the scratches and fingerprints on your 4x6’s when you pick them up.  This is because the damage occurs after the first set of prints is made.  Next time you’re standing in line at the lab’s counter watch what the “technicians” are doing:  The film is developed and is moved to the station where the entire strip is fed through an automated printing machine.  The film is then stapled or clipped to the order envelope and hung on a rack until the prints are done.  Once the prints are collected, they are stuffed back into the order envelop.  The package is then taken over to a table where the film is cut into shorter strips of 4 frames and inserted into plastic sleeves.  It is at this point that the film gets all scratched up.  You’ll frequently see the technician handle the film with bare hands.  Little to no care is taken on what surface the film is touching or sliding over.  The film is cut with scissors and hastily pushed into plastic sleeves, often with the fingers coming into full contact with the frames.  On more than one occasion I’ve even received developing back where the film is cut across the frame!  If you ever get 8x10 or larger enlargements at a later date you’ll surely see all the blemishes on your precious negatives.  If you shoot slides you are at least somewhat shielded from all this grief, but getting prints from slides is expensive, and the color reproduction is only so-so.

Assuming you have the space and plumbing in your basement to set up a darkroom, the biggest nuisance is that color processing chemistry has limited shelf-life, and differs from batch to batch (so does the paper, for that matter).  This implies you have to plan darkroom weekends where you lock yourself away making prints until you're overcome by nauseous fumes (odorless chemistry is now available at extra cost).  Nevertheless, If you make frequent enlargements beyond 8x10s then a photographic darkroom will give the best results.  The start-up cost including an enlarger is around $3,000.  Hopefully your negatives are pristine, because retouching film or prints will be even more onerous than a digital image.

Several years ago I decided that the best bet was to go with a digital darkroom.  I continued to shoot film, but I bought a Minolta Scan Speed film scanner capable of 2820 DPI.  Extrapolated to an 8x12 print, you're looking at 320 DPI at the output end.  When you compare scans from negatives and prints the difference is astonishing.  Also, because prints are often poorly made the negative scans contain more detail.  For prints I chose the 6-color Epson Photo 750.  The idea here is that I only need to develop the film.  I scan and print the frames that I like.

The first challenge I faced with this setup was the original negative scan.  Dealing with the scratches was excruciating.  Software filters in PhotoShop do a very poor job.  On particularly bad frames it took me 1 to 1.5 hours to touch up each picture with software.  Of course once this is done I never have to do it again; I can make a thousand prints and have the same results every time.  At the time only professional or prosumer ($2,000+) scanners came with a feature called Digital ICE, which automated the scratch removal process via a unique combination of infrared scanning and software.  However, for whatever reason Digital ICE does not work with Kodachrome or black-and-white.  More recently, Digital ICE³ is bundled with more consumer-level scanners.  Digital ICE³ is a suite of 3 software applications – Digital ICE, Digital GEM, and Digital ROC.  Digital GEM “softens” grain and Digital ROC helps restore color balance/saturation.

The second annoyance I encountered was that inkjet paper manufacturers are fixated on the the 8.5x11 size.  This means that you have to crop your pictures down to 8x10's, even though the 2:3 ratio of your 35mm negative scales to 8x12.  I had to buy inkjet paper in 8.5-inch wide rolls (mail-ordered from the US) to get my 8x12's.  The alternative was to chop up expensive sheets of 11x17 paper.  I also said earlier that papers have to be matched to inks.  Since the paper I used was non-Epson the color and resolution suffered somewhat.  For the purposes of side-by-side comparison I made 8x12 prints using all 3 processes:  Directly printed on my inkjet printer; London Drug's digital imaging, and photographic enlargement.  If I showed you only the inkjet print you'd say it’s pretty good, but one look at the photographic print and you’ll want to throw away all the others.  The most remarkable difference is in the sharpness.  I ran several tests on my scanner and I'm convinced that the unit is working properly.  What this means is that even at 2820 DPI the scanner is not picking up all the details from the film.  I can scan down to the grain level of 100 ASA film, but the grain is not sharp.  Today’s film scanners are capable of 4000 DPI and goes from ~$1,500 and up.  They have excellent dynamic range and are very fast.  Just make sure you buy one with Digital ICE, otherwise at 4000 DPI you’ll have a lot of touching up to do.

Today’s printers are also a lot better in terms of color gamut.  My Epson 750 cost me $375 and the heads were completely clogged up after a lengthy period of disuse.  Unable to clean the heads I was forced to throw out the printer as the cost of repair far exceeded the cost of newer and more capable printers.  I bought an HP7260 photo printer for $100.  I avoided the Epson as they continue to use the same print head design.  Canon and Lexmark printers were also off the list because their inks are still prone to fading (Canon will soon release archival quality inks to North America).

With prices for digital camera technology dropping so quickly I knew it was only a matter of time that I made the leap.  That switch came in July 2004 when I bought my Kodak DX7630.  This is a six mega-pixel camera with a 3x optical zoom lens.  It cost me $520 which coincidentally is within $5 of what I paid for my Canon RebelG SLR 4 year earlier.  If you factor in inflation the RebelG in 2004 is probably worth about $570 in today’s dollars (I saw Walmart clearing out the bodies for $95 US when I was in Florida last year – ouch!).  So, how does my Kodak stack up against the Canon SLR?  Well, it is more compact and lighter than my SLR, weighing in at ~10 oz with battery installed.  The optics is not as nice as the Canon, and in 8x10 prints the difference is noticeable (forget the Kodak propaganda in their website about being able to make 20x30 prints).  Focus is sharp but the auto-focus makes mistakes under some scene/lighting conditions; the lack of manual focus is therefore a bit of a set back.  It has no external flash connections and the built-in flash pretty much bags out at ~12 ft.  In spite of the shortcomings I consider the Kodak a good “transition” camera for the next few years as the cost of the new technology comes down (as of this writing the Kodak DX7630 can be had for about $340).

I find the digital camera very handy.  Because it has very few moving parts I’m not as worried about getting it banged up.  I have a 512M memory card so I can keep snapping away without worrying about how many frames I have left.  The Kodak is also quite good on power consumption and I’ve never exhausted my battery throughout the day (even though I keep a fully charged spare on hand).  One thing that’s a little annoying is the LCD display, as it does get washed out in bright sunlight.  Composing pictures the “traditional” way through the viewfinder is bothersome because it is very small (in comparison to SLR’s).

With my digital camera I get more “keepers”.  Since I can see/review each photo taken, I can recompose/retake the picture if required.  With film I never really know what I’ve got until I get it back from the lab.  I know the real photography buffs will scoff at me for being too lazy to set up each shot properly, but when I’m huffing up scree slopes I have no desire to mount up a tripod with a shutter release, bring out a light meter, and adjust the sun’s angle to get the perfect picture.  With film I’m only happy with about 20-30% of the pictures on each roll.  With digital I’m usually pleased with 90% of the shots.

By far the one thing I really like about the camera is that I can publish the pictures into the web the same day after I return from my hike.  I no longer have to deal with photo labs and poor quality.  No more damaged negatives.  No more scanning or filing negatives.

Throughout this website are photos taken using film and digital.  Mt. MacGillivray was shot using both film and digital; subsequent hikes are all digital.  Obviously, between the two formats at 200x300 resolution you can’t tell the difference, and I’d doubt you can see any difference in the photo gallery’s 800x600 shots, either.  This suits me fine.  I switched to digital because I wanted the convenience without sacrificing quality.  The cost of convenience in this case is ~$650 for a new camera, memory card, and spare battery.  In the mean time, I have a Canon RebelG for sale to anyone who doesn’t need the convenience…

Back