I like this camera. I’m curious to what they’ll use for storage.

http://world.casio.com/ngdc/en/index.html
http://www.casio.com/news/content/2BCDCEB5...4-67B371510603/

I would say a SD card, But it would need to be a big one lol maybe starting with a 4gb one I would say.

60 fps at 6mpx?? That really does demand a powerful image processor and storage. QUestion is is todays SD card would be enough.

I doubt a 4gb would be big enough. They will need to design new cards, probably starting at 10 gb.

60 images per second? Whoa!

I think Sony actually unveiled this technology in February.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07021801...ghspeedcmos.asp

DPreview link- a good place to watch....

Sweet. As long we're dreamin', I wonder how it would do married to a 13" Meade Reflector telescope for long distance telephoto observations.

I see that… did Sony hand off the technology, and Casio ran with it??? Why would Casio have such a paralleled technology? Doesn’t make much sense.

Could be that Sony has a technology that is ripe , but is before it’s time. The problem is data storage. With a 6 meg cam at 60fps, that’s somewhere around 120 megs a second / 7 gigs a minute. You’re gonna be carrying a lot of 8GB SD cards with you. There are 16GB cards out there, but at $150 a pop??? That price could go down though as soon as the 32GB cards come out. But with a camera suckin up gigs like that, Sony or Casio is gonna have to remedy the storage problem. One thing they could do is a array of SD cards like Panasonic did with their PS2 cards or even what Red One camera did with Red Ram.

On another thread in this sub-forum, discussing the 13.4Gxp camera, it's a safe bet that this won't be showing up on Best Buy shelves in the coming decade. But, if you're struggling over finding the best resolution on the market these days, try your hand at the Hasselblad H3DII series:

http://www.camera-catalog.com/digitalcamer...d_h3dii-39_body

You could probably go to Hasselblad's web site, but last I recall it was rife with Flash (pun not intended). In short, Hasselblad medium-format camera bodies are modular, and parts well beyond the lenses can be interchanged (such as film back vs. digital back, and so on). Modified Hasselblads were what NASA used during the Apollo missions, if I recall correctly.

If you're willing to, ahem, invest in the high end DSLR model here, you can get true 39-megapixel resolution, but at that price, it'll set you back about the price of a nicely equipped Mercedes B-class, or about $34K. Lenses not included. In other words, if you have to ask . . .

Ouch. But imagine the resolving possibilities from field photography at 39Mxp! But suddenly, alas, photo analysis might not be as engrossing, given fewer blobsquatch incidents per shot. :) And hate to say it, but it won't make shots look better if the person using it can't shoot decently.

* * *

On a semi-related note: back in 1997, the high-end digital cameras (well actually, digital backs for Hasselblads made by Phase One) were capable of about 6.0 megapixels of resolution, typical for today's point-and-shoot models (which are often configured at 6.3Mxp). Whether this means the point-and-shoot models in 2017 will be 39Mxp is unknown. Then again, at this rate of development, the high-end models might be somewhere around 250Mxp (6.3 x 6.3 == 39.69 x 6.3 == 250.047).

Thoughts?

I think high resolution photography and videography holds a lot of promise in field research. We recognize that the creatures we seek are smart, aware, cryptic and possess superior senses of smell and are nocturnal. That we can't get close to 'em on purpose shouldn't be a surprise...just think about the invisible signals we send out though our smells and sounds. Of course we think we're being discrete but our senses are so weak...funny, but our powerfull minds won't let us realize how limited they are.
But what will a 6 or 13 megapixel camera do without the light gathering ability of a big piece of glass? A good sized reflecting telescope, not normally turned onto its side for terrestrial viewing since the image is inverted in astronomical instruments, can, under good contions, resolve images at great distances...miles of distance. Immagine that tied-into a standard equipment positioning system that can automatically return to a selected position from a long list of other coordinates similarly staked-out because they are likely places for BF to be (high passes, meadows, water sources, aggregations of prey), take a picture and allow the researcher to compare it to a previous pic and see if there's been any change. These techniques are what amateur planet hunters are doing from their back yards all over the world where viewing conditions allow, and they are making incredible strides in a field of observational science that at one time was simply unavailable to amateurs using sophisticated technology that up until recently wasn't even available to big dollar research projects.
Oh...and it could all be done remotely from a single position chosen for its long views into remote habitat and, hopefully, good viewing conditions.

You're exactly right, and it was something I didn't mention previously. In the 6.0Mpx camera from 1997 (the Hasselblad with Phase One back), the camera was medium-format. This has a markedly bigger capture area and lens than a 35mm SLR or even a dinky little 6.3Mpx point-and-shoot (which isn't so dinky anymore, since those 6.3Mpx crams those pixels into a tighter CCD than those a decade ago).

Optics are crucial, in that it's not just quality of the glass, but the amount of light it can grab, anti-glare coating, and so on. The trouble is that megapixels are just that; they can't really substitute a good lens. This is why I hope aftermarket digital-back makers start looking to obsolete film cameras and make aftermarket parts to retrofit a lot of perfectly serviceable (even outstanding) camera bodies with digital backs. That way, one can pick up an old, medium-format body on the affordable and spend the money on a digital back and lenses. Thing is, the cost for lenses and even bodies still keeps the pricing out of reach for casual users.

The other, mostly unrelated thing I was thinking about, with regard to imaging, was something in a report from WI I once read. A guy was walking on a dirt road built atop an embankment and caught his eye on a sasquatch parallel to him in the bush. Instead of looking at the sasquatch, he kept looking forward and used his peripheral vision to keep up with his "stalker". The treed area ended at a field, and this was where the sasquatch ended his following.

This will likely sound outlandish, far-fetched, and even silly: on the point-and-shoot digital camera model I have (as with many others), one can port out the video feed from the LCD on the camera to an external source and view things in real time. Now that LCD "glasses" are available, I wonder if it's worth experimenting with a bit of psychological play: with glasses on, connected to camera, it enables one to "see" in directions your head isn't turned. Ideally, you'd want to remain stationary, but should one have a "stalker" in the trees, you can appear to be "looking" in one direction. This might catch a subject off guard just long enough to allow a scan-and-shoot of directions that otherwise would betray your vision and give them enough time to freeze, hide, or whatnot. It sounds altogether gimmicky, but it might be worth the experimentation nevertheless if someone had access to such a setup.

Alot of cameras like this atleast similar in function...are mostly used for product photography. Not sure how something like this would work in the field. I work at an auction company and cameras like these must be tethered by fire-wire to the computer cause they cannot use a card big enough to do the job. Nice camera though!!

On a tripod you could stack images, multipling the light input. A fast enough camera could do this hand held with medium telephoto lenses as well. There are several software packages out there for astronomy that can stack the images for ya. BTW my Canon 5D 12.8megpix camera has 36 meg jpegs and 56 meg raw files. It can make both on the fly from one exposure and fills a 4 gig card with 258 pictures. This can be different though depending on how much dark and light areas there are in a particular scene.

Yeah, exactly. The first Hasselblad/Mamiya/Pentax medium formats I personally saw used were back when I contracted for advertising and marcomm agencies, typically in a dedicated photography room. Then I met a friend who shot field photography with a Pentax 645 medium format. The body was definitely heavy and solidly built, but not wholly unwieldy. It was the kind of camera that could be multiply useful if some prowler came up at night to try to mug or rape somebody: the victim could swing and strike the perp with that, watch him hit the ground bleeding and passed out, and then the victim could pop open the lens cap and take all the pictures needed.

Also, the first and only digital-back cameras I ever saw in use were also at these same places. In 1998, I saw the Kodak-Nikon DCS setup for the first time (can't remember if it was an F-801 or F4 body). That was clearly too cumbersome and designed for stationary studio use. Later, I saw a couple of the Phase Ones in use (and even got to work with finishing the images for production, which gives one a good idea of what those digital backs were capable of -- in 1998 and 1999, of course).



Huh, really? I wasn't aware of stacking in this capacity. I think the only time I've heard about photographic stacking was when it related to astrophotography. Which would make sense since, most objects wouldn't move after, say, a triple-exposure of the same spot, each with the bulb left open for a few minutes.

With field photography, I'm not sure how this might be of utility, certainly not with candid, moment-of-opportunity shooting. The nearest analogue as it applies to this area are when a mounted trailcam can take a reference photo (by the owner) during the daytime, while stacking it as a layer in Photoshop against another photo of interest. Then you have the whole compare-and-contrast, or even the option of some subtractive editing to see what remains.

I'm a little envious to hear that your camera can produce RAW images. I think this is what I regard as the quiet feature difference between the new consumer-only, point-and-shoot models (like the one I'm living with) and prosumer/professional models. For sake of working with the most accurate data, RAW for this kind of research would at least assure that altering of pixels through compression won't occur, possibly limiting the degree of blobsquatching in limited instances.

I sold my film SLR setup (my beloved Nikon F-801) to afford applying for university a couple of years ago, and ever since I've been without anything in that sense. For now, until I graduate, I'm using a Fujifilm FinePix F20, which does allow for one quite pleasant quality: kept in a Crumpler pouch, I can pretty take it with me everywhere I go, which allows for spontaneous shots (and no more of being in the moment and thinking, "Damn, if only I had a came . . ." to now add, ". . . oh, wait, I do!" But alas, it's jpeg-only, and this becomes apparent when zooming a highest-setting image to 100% or higher. It produces a peculiar mottling pattern that really looks strange. It also has limited video capability, which from time to time is kinda handy to have.

My Nikon D80 can do this too, although I have not actually used the feature yet. I have a professional photographer friend who also uses the Nikon D80, and when he does an important job he always shoots both RAW and jpeg. Like you said, it makes two files from one image.

I think most of the high end digital SLRs do this now.

I think that ability to stack photos is a very good stategty for longer term monitoring from a well placed platform and I can imagine that it would make any parity violations due to the movements in the individual frames immediately aparent. I can also imagine a large inventory of promising locations (clearings, water sources, passes through which likely trails travel) where snap shots could be takes over a long period from a distance greater than we imagine the BF possesses when it comes to sensing proximity of an identifiable threat.
I favor this long distance approach because the encouter reports that I've read over the years seem to indicate that by the time we're close enough to actually see the creature with out naked (and despite our own belief to the contrary) easily fooled eyes, they are already aware of us and are taking measures to elude us. Game cams are OK, but I don't take as a fact the idea that we can consistently bring the creatures to us via bait or some kind of lure. The ability to do this seems less than just sporadic and suggests to me that it has to do more with luck or with conditions we don't currently understand.

accozzaglia is exactly right. That's why I chuckle when I see some of these point and shoot cameras with dinky lenses the size of a dime. 10 MGP is great, but if the lens is just a modified pinhole, what's the point?

I'm thinking my next camera might just be an old used Hasselblad 500c with an 80mm Planar lens. If I can get one for cheap, already slightly beat up but in good working condition, why not take it out to the woods? These cameras are totally manual, so you just take a reading with a meter if you have time and then bracket your apertures or shutter speed if the light changes a bit.

The only problem is that you need a 24 back if you can get one. 12 exposures just isn't very many. If I had any extra money at all I would bid on this one on eBay. So far it looks like someone is going to get a good deal.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=013

Oh well, more will come along.

I think the newtonian type of reflector is a bit ungainly. Something more like a Maksutov or Schmidt-Cassegrain 'scope would be far more convenient. In fact I think there are a few models of Maksutov type "spotting" scopes that are highly favoured for wildlife photography. This would be due to lighter weight and shorter length than conventional "long" lenses, and better light gathering ability.

By the way, I'd be real interested in any "general purpose" digital backs that turn up for 35mm SLRs, I've got 3 okayish bodies here that I could use one with.

I've been hoping to stretch for an S series Canon megazoom type. DSLRs are just a bit too spendy still, and I would rather have something lighter and more compact. I figure 10-12x is all the lens that is practical handheld really, and don't wanna lug some 400mm jobbie on an SLR.

I agree that's what's really holding up digi's that are fast enough for getting the most and best quality shots out of a brief encounter is the storage speed problem. Be interesting to see what that Casio's solution is for that.

Meanwhile on the making the most of what I've got front, I've got this crappy "sunplus" fixed focus PMP type thing, which I thought when I bought it had AV input capability, which I thought would let me use it with an old camcorder with decent optics. However, it turned out not to do that. While camping I messed around with shooting it through a pair of 10x30 binoculars.... and was pleasantly surprised by the results considering. Lots of vignetting through that small lens of course. So now I'm figuring out how to put a big lens on it. Got two possibilities... got a 45mm diameter mil-surplus lens from a tank rangefinder, and a big 60mm lens, not sure what it's from, possibly a projector.. I'm gonna try strapping it to either of those and seeing what it's like. Hopefully practise on deer and squirrels. Also considering trying a ground glass screen and mirror arrangement, to allow "shoot from the hip" type operation.

Hi. For my first post in months, I want to bump this topic and nudge it over from where we took it previously.

Since this thread last expired, my situation with imaging changed a bit. Where before I had only the digital point-and-shoot at my disposal, I was practically given a Nikon F-801s by a friend who bought it on craigslist (for the lenses only, since he has an F90x body). I've begun using this in earnest, and lately, with nothing but Kodachrome 64 and 200. Yeah, you read that correctly: it's still being made and processed, although not in all film sizes (e.g., 120 medium Kodachrome PKR64 is not processed anywhere any longer).

In a kind of retrenchment against digital imaging, I scrounged up enough in December to buy a used Pentax 645 body (with two lenses). The move came after running into a guy in downtown here who was shooting with a Mamiya 67 rangefinder. He was a career photographer on a work break from Amsterdam, and so we spent a few minutes talking about digital's tsunami over the film domain. I added how I'd always wanted to shoot medium format, but couldn't afford to. He stopped me: "See, you might be surprised. The high-end medium format photographers moved up to PhaseOne digital backs, while the more casual users abandoned medium for DSLRs. You might find some really affordable cameras on eBay these days."

He was right. I basically found a mint, practically never-used setup which, all told, cost about 1/4th what it would have had I gone up to the local pro camera shop and bought it all used from their stock. At their sale price.

So I've ventured into film just as most are fleeing from it. After selling my old F-801, all I can say is it feels so good to be back. From a practical angle, I think I understand why film is on the way out. The learning curve with digital imaging is so much lower, because the results are instant (if not a bit tiny on those LCD displays) and cheap if mistakes are made (Delete? OK).

The downside to digital imaging, of course, is that it can make the user a bit lazier in thinking ahead to how an image will be composed (e.g., the risk is lower, as is the cost, compared to the commitment of depressing the shutter on a film frame). It also means that minute details in an image might be missed as the user rushes to delete what is assumed to be a bad shot. Technically speaking, this means a valuable detail missed by the user at the time of an imaging event might yield something valuable later, while aesthetically speaking, a "bleh shot" might on a bigger screen look really impressive. As a consequence, even with automatic settings, one can "out-dumb" this digital technology to produce an image of questionable value, while missing out on caught opportunities that were otherwise erased. By contrast, this "thinking ahead" bit necessary for film imaging challenges the user to think about ambient lighting, lens capability, and even speedlight capabilities.

Which is where this ties into field photography. It seems like a refrain to read about the enthusiasm of jumping out there with digital SLR in hand with hopes of "bagging a 'squatch". I am compelled to ask rhetorically how much forethought goes into this, how much prior experience with imaging goes into these expeditions, and how much credence is given to digital RAW/TIFF source material over chemical emulsion. The resolving capability of a 120/220 film, with good lenses in an SLR or TLR (twin-lens reflex), still has a lot of punch over even the best Nikon D3-type digital SLR body. Granta, the turnaround time for processing slows immediacy, but the quality of a medium format image digitized by a drum scanner would enable the kind of imaging definition each of us are hoping for with digital cameras out in the field.

Ultimately, it can't be a digital (a pixellated enlargement) or analogue video blobsquatch (e.g., Freeman 1994) that will help us resolve these details which we need for further understanding. Unfortunately, the chances for someone to be out there in a provincial or national forest with an old TLR (which are now incredibly cheap on eBay), an old 6x6 Hasselblad / Bronica or, best yet, an easy to use rangefinder 67 (like the one that guy from Amsterdam had) is fairly low. Come to think of it, the rangefinder would be the easiest and least cumbersome to use -- maybe even the lightest, too. If there was a compelling argument that film still has a place in the hands of at least one person within every sasquatch expedition, I think it comes from the sheer quality realizable from a large film emulsion source.

For folks trying to wrap their mind around this, think about Patterson-Gimlin. The motion film used was Super-8 Kodachrome II. This means the wider dimension of the film image was 8mm. Blown up, the images obviously are grainy, even though Kodachrome is technically some of the best film ever engineered. Contrast this to even something as "low end" as the Pentax 645, which offers a wider dimension: 60mm. A 67 rangefinder is far better: 70mm (with a height of 60mm!). At these sizes, the film surface area approaches and even surpasses the size of a business card (versus a thumbnail as with 8mm film stock). Even fine-grain 35mm colour transparency film (like Kodachrome 64 or Velvia 50), while "slow", still offers incredible details which digital imaging engineers are still trying to match (and are getting closer with "full-frame" CCDs like in the above-noted Nikon D3).

I guess the conclusion I want to leave this with is that we would be remiss is we stopped considering film photography for field research, in conjunction to emerging digital imaging technologies (which are certainly exciting to talk about and even use). Ultimately, if it's research-quality imaging we want, film might still have a place in this discussion. And for cold-weather conditions, as I learnt from the unusually colder and snowy February and March we had in this area, a manual (or semi-manual) film camera will hold up better than even the best digital camera batteries (unless, of course, the batteries are in one of those cumbersome, wired external battery packs and tucked away in a heat pack).

Anyway, thanks for reading.

pssssst... 16mm not Super-8

Doh! Was it really? They had a much nicer setup than I previously thought. Well then, two thumbnails, side by side, of film surface area.