Digital Camera Dilemma - Depth of field - NOT

[Anne Kilmer]

"Guy Van de Poel & A. Kalus" wrote:
> 
> A bit late, but I'm interested in the following:
> (sent to personal address instead of the list, for which my excuses)
> 
> I know next to nothing about digital camaras, and only a little about SLRs.
> What you discussed here is true for pictures where your subject is not going
> to move. In the field, a faster film (200 ASA or even 400) will give you an
> advantage because the butterfly will not have to stay immobile for that
> long. I have too many pictures of nice flowers, where a skipper was sitting
> the moment I pressed the button. How well do CCDs compared to film?
> 
> Guy.
> 
> Anne, thank you you stopped praying, the sun finally came back this morning.
> Yesterday I thought I had seen Noah, who had just started loading ...
> 
> 
Guaranteed, your butterfly will have left before your digital camera
deigns to take the picture. Probably it would be quicker if you use
manual rather than automatic ... as it is, apparently the machine says
three Hail Marys before it gets around to taking the picture. 
Pictures of dead things, landscapes and cooperative people work just
fine. 
It is, however, easy to throw away the bad pictures. 
I never did get good pictures of our pine martens, while John, with the
video camera, got miles and miles of really nice film. Perhaps a digital
videocamera is the way to go? 
Or perhaps you should coat them posies with tanglefoot. ;-)
Anne Kilmer
South Florida

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl