Camera's used for GCA photo posts

[Thomas Dai]

There are regularly terrific photos included within posts on GCA.

I'd be interested to know the general specs of the cameras used to take them - how many pixels, what power zooms, etc, etc - not masses of techno info though, I'm a golf fan first and foremost rather than a wannabe f-stop or shutter speed expert!

Any photo tips appreciated, including how to post photos on GCA.

All the best.

[Frank M]

Thomas, any camera will do, especially if you're not looking to get really detailed in terms of spec.

I wouldn't go too crazy unless you are looking to get paid for your photos. If you have a decent point and shoot that works.


Photography is all about composition. Golf photography is conducive to landscape/widescreen photography so that's what I like. I have very rarely ever used any sort of zoom unless I am trying to get a very specific shot, which I am guessing you probably don't need.   

[Phil McDade]

Thomas:

Some suggestions and review sites here in this thread:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40752.0.html

[Gib_Papazian]

Thomas,

There is also a bit of post-production manipulation, not to mention the importance of picking just the right time of day to nail a shot.

I use Canon 5D Mark III (full frame) and 60D cameras with L-Lenses as follows, depending on what I'm trying to accomplish:

16-35mm
24-70mm
100mm (fixed)
50mm (fixed)

The factory recommendation is to shoot ISO in 320 (native) increments, but that was recently debunked by a series of camera tests. Obviously, the lower the ISO, the higher the resolution, but I cannot see much difference between 100 and 320 on the 60D. In other words, just because you set the camera to ISO 64 does not mean you'll get the equivalent of Kodak Kodachrome.

Depending on shutter speed, try to shoot between f5.6 and f11 - this seems to be the sweet spot on most modern digital cameras. Once you get to f16 and above, the top foot-candle readings tend to explode.

The 5D Mark III is freaky at low light levels - such as just before sunset. Meter readings below 10 foot-candles on the 5D defy the normal 100 ISO, 100 foot-candles, f2.8 equation calculations because at the bottom of the scale, the camera seems to magically pull extra light onto the sensor without much degradation. You'll be shocked at the elasticity of the resolution when you push it a bit in post.

I've obviously shot quite a bit using Zeiss cinema lenses and the effect at the bottom of the scale is actually magnified - although for still photography I recommend obtaining L-lenses (or their equivalent in Nikon or Leica or whatever) as there is no substitute for excellent glass. Personally, I obtain a little better results by turning the zooms all the way up or down, but I was trained by crabby old men who believed "hard" lenses are the way to go.

The regular i-Photo works very well for landscapes, but if you want to really polish up your shots, I use Aperture. I'm sure the PC users will have some recommendations of equally good (or better) programs. I am a recovering PC user and no longer touch Microsoft products to keep my tenuous grip on sanity intact.

      

    

[Mark Saltzman]

Thomas,

Honestly, any camera will do, especially if you're not looking to get really detailed in terms of spec.

I wouldn't go too crazy unless you are looking to get paid for your photos. If you have a decent point and shoot...use it! Photography is all about composition. Golf photography is conducive to landscape/widescreen photography so that's what I like. I have very rarely ever used any sort of zoom unless I am trying to get a very specific shot which I am guessing you probably don't need.   

Not zooming in is absolutely fatal if trying to accurately represent a course as the eye sees it. Unzoomed shots produce a distorted view of a hole as way tighter and longer than it actually is. I post all my photos  almost all the way zoomed in. But I fear I may well be misinterpreting what Frank is saying here.

Brian, I'm with you, most pictures are zoomed to some extent except for photos near the green.

[Gib_Papazian]

It all depends on whether you're trying to accurately illustrate the architecture of the hole - or create something artistic.

Yes, you can strive for both, but which is the priority determines the photographer's approach. When we have our GCA photography contest, everyone strives for art.   

[Sean_A]

Thomas

Unless you are a professional or very serious amateur, I wouldn't spend a lot on a camera.  Most of the quality of a pic is about light anyway and for most of us that is down to luck.  I use a Samsung ES71; 12ish MP and 5x zoom.  It does the job and I NEVER alter the pix once taken. Sure, this means one is limited when working against sun, but to be honest, it often takes several trips around a course to get a good set of pix. 

Ciao

[Gib_Papazian]

Rule #1. Do not try to take serious pictures while playing.

Sean, taking consistently excellent photos is not luck, it is skill - and a thorough understanding of optics, depth and layers of light. Absent that understanding your are right though, it comes down to luck.

Thomas wants to take "terrific photos," which requires some patience and experimentation. 

 

[Mike Nuzzo]

Aim any camera perpendicular to the sunlight
The lower the sun the better
Practice

[Sean_A]

Rule #1. Do not try to take serious pictures while playing.

Sean, taking consistently excellent photos is not luck, it is skill - and a thorough understanding of optics, depth and layers of light. Absent that understanding your are right though, it comes down to luck.

Thomas wants to take "terrific photos," which requires some patience and experimentation. 

 

Getting the light is a matter of luck. 

If a guy is walking about a course with camera in hand rather sticks, in my book that constitutes a professional or one with a serious hobby.  This sort of stuff is beyond my interest and I freely admit to having no knowledge of the subject at that level.  As the pix Thomas cites as terrific are in the main taken by guys swinging sticks, I had the impression he was looking for a good point and shoot to take casual pix, but I could be mistaken.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Gents,

Many thanks for all your advice and for the link to the older thread which my searching hadn't found.

As it's more the casual point and shoot end of the market I'm looking at I'll probably stick with my present camera, which might allow me to use the £$£$ to maybe get myself a new driver.http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif

All the best.

[Frank M]

There are too many factors at play when referring to trying to represent accurately what the human eye sees. That's why there is so much contrasting opinion out there. Of course you need zoom for specific types of shots, but I don't use zoom, I switch lenses. Every eye is different, but 50mm+ is considered to be a focal length much narrower than the human eye.

[jonathan_becker]

Thomas,

I used a Sony DSC RX-100 for my shots in Australia.

Like others have said, there's a whole process of good light, skill, and knowing how to work your rig to get great shots.  ALL of my shots come while I'm actually playing and I just try to get the shot well framed on the go.  When you're playing, walking, and conversing with your playing partners throughout the round, any good shots that come out of those 18 holes are pretty much luck.  There's isn't enough time out there to make the shot perfect.