Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Digital Cameras for Gun Writers

Could you guys that know about this sort of thing suggest a digital camera that would produce photos suitable for publication? Is a really expensive camera required? Many years ago, I did some gun/outdoor writing and in those days you could submit B & W photos. I am retired now and may try to do a little writing again. I have a cheap digital, but figure I need something a lot better. If the writing does not work out I can still use a better camera.

I'm no gun writer, but I believe the magazines want photos taken with cameras of at least 6.0 Mega Pixels.

� Don't settle for fewer than six megapixels.

� Prefer one with macro capability.

I have two digital cameras, now � both quite expensive. A suitable one is going to cost you big bucks, even at discount prices.

Don't assume that you have to have a digital camera. You can buy, say, a 35mm Canon A-1 SLR (wanna buy one of mine?) for a lot less money and use it for years for less than you'll have to pay for the body alone of a comparable digital camera. Digitals of equal quality (a) take a lot of accessories, all expensive, (b) take quite a bit of getting used-to, and (c) eat batteries about as fast as you munch pretzels.

For just a little extra, the finishing lab that soups your film can also scan your pix onto a photo CD if you need digital pix.

That's why I'm not about to consider parting with both of my Canons. And I'll probably keep my other cameras, too. I have quite a few, and it'd be hard to decide which of these to offer for sale or auction.

Digital is the latest word, probably not the last word, and certainly not the only word. The digitals offer a lot of features (too many for easy mastery of the cameras), but even the best ones require extra accessories to do everything that my Canons do so easily.

.

I'm no writer, but the Nikon D50 is a decent body that's reasonable in cost (under $600). Uses glass from the current Nikon system which is a real plus. Rechargeable LiIon battery, shoots RAW format, and is about the same size as Nikon's N80. Takes some nice images. Buy the Nikon 28-105 D ($300), shoots 1/2 life size in macro and covers 95% of the focal lengths most of us use.

Out for less than a thousand and don't have to pay for film processing again, it's a bargain.

When I first went digital, I started with a Nikon 5700. I still use it for macros because it takes very good ones. It's 5.0 MP, and with that type of resolution, most magazines should be able to make a sharp 1/2 page photo.
I'm now using a Canon Digital Rebel w/ 6.3 MP for the bulk of my photos. Most magazines can reproduce a sharp, full page image with it. Magazines with good art departments know how to interpolate RAW images to get sharp spreads. Make sure you get a camera that will shoot RAW format because that is how the most data is collected.
Personally, I'm sticking with this combo until digital changes significantly, though I might add a small point-and-shoot of at least 6.0 MP for when all I have is a fanny pack to carry things. I also think we're not far from a point when magazines stop accepting film unless it's an historical image. Ken's right about having the ones who soup your film do the scanning if you go that route. You simply can't make a decent scan from a slide without professional equipment that would cost much more than a good digital SLR.

My dad is a retired professional photographer, and he has a Kodak with 10:1 zoom Schneider optics that he just loves. He picked it up new for about $300.... 5 Mpixel

Most of my stuff for publication is shot with a 3 magapixel camera. It's a compact camera, so it's easy to carry in the field, and that's important.

A 4"x6" magazine image only contains about half a megapixel, so any additional resolution in the camera is lost in publication. However, 99.9% of your pictures aren't going to be published, so you're going to want something in the 5-6 megapixel range if you ever want to make something 8x10-ish... and you will. If you land the cover shot for the magazine, you will definitely need the extra pixels.

My pick: Canon S80

MtnHtr

I am not a writer, but I would think that any 6MP or more digital SLR camera with the proper lens should be sufficient. For example, you can take great pictures with a 6MP Nikon D70, or the similarly priced 8MP Canon Rebel XT. These cameras cost nearly $1,000 with the kit lens (28-55mm or so zoom lens). Depending on what type of pictures you will be taking, you may have to buy a couple of extra lenses, but the kit lens should be sufficient for landscapes pictures as well as taking pictures indoors, family pictures, macro (but not super macro), etc. You will probably use this lens 99% of the time.

You can always pay more and order the camera with other than the "kit" lens, but you will have to pay more since the specialized lenses are much more expensive. Something else: Canon offer cash rebates for their cameras and lenses (not the kit lens). The cash rebates range from $75.00 for a camera to much less per lens (depending on the lens), but you can get a triple rebate (one for the camera, and two more per each lens in-you buy two). This deal is similar to those "the more you buy the more you save" deals, of course. But it works for those who have no choice but to buy more than one item.

You will also need to buy photo editing software such as Adobe CS2, Elements, etc. If you can get a school discount (faculty, staff, student) you will pay half the price. You may also want to add a color printer.

Have been shooting magazine photos for a couple of decades (B&W and transparencies (2 1/4 and 4x5) and film most of my life, the switch to digital presents a brand new experience with a whole lot of transition.
I made a great study of this compact digital notion recently. Have been using a Nikon D100 for studio work for about 18 months but wanted a more portable camera as the size of the Nikon cost me a lot of photos hunting in Africa.
I talked with both JB and Ron Spomer (Ron shoots all digital), neither suggested any specific camera. Both said a minimum of 6 MP (8MP better) for full page or double truck usage. The combined advise led me to a Pentax Optio 750Z with 7 MP, a 5x optical zoom and enough other features to baffle me.
I am very pleased with the camera although I will need a larger "card" as I can only get a few images in the raw format.
A few things to consider: size, the tiny camera are very difficult to hold still in low light conditions; Shutter delay, hard to explain but the least is the best; zoom is very important for formatting and any wildlife imaging; size of viewing screen; extra cards rather than one huge card so all of your images are not on one that could get screwed up or lost on a trip: battery charger, should come with one; tripod mounting, some of the small ones don't have it and I consider it essential.
The best advise Spomer gave me was to forget about brand names and reseach the features you want. Having been a big fan of both Nikon and Canon I was headed in that direction but simply couldn't find the items I wanted. Did my research through websites with consumer evaluations, shopped for features at B&H who have them all then purchased at butterfly.com who had the best price and I had the camera two days later.
This Pentax was the best for waht I wanted, cost about $300 and I'm pleased as punch. Here's a snap shot I made yesterday for posting on another board.

Shot off a tripod in low light, flash off, blanks with finish on them are very difficult because of glare. I still love the Nikon for the studio and still shoot covers with a 4x5. Have both 60mm Micro and 28-70 for Nikon. I shot a Canon Rebel for years and for combined studio/field use this would be an excelent choice.
Hope John checks in on this one.
A field shot in Glacier NP, hand held, all auto.

An 8.5"x11" image at 135 dots per inch (typical magazine resolution) contains only 1.7 Mpixels.

I am neither a writer or a photographer but ame part owner of a large professional lab.. I hate digital because we have tied up $3,000,000 in new equipment in the last 2 years. Aaron Pass, a friend of mine told me that there was only 1 lab in Atlanta that still processed film. If any of you want a few million dollars of used silver tech equipment for scrap value let me know, I'd probably throw in a 1st generation scanner or 2.

I still use slide films, but i have to mail them to NJ for developing and mounting. Worst of all, I have to wait a couple of weeks just to see how the pictures look, and it costs me a fortune. For that reason alone I have switched to digital.

Now, there are a couple of problems with with digital SLR cameras I can think of:

1. The battery stops working in a short period of time when shooting in cold weather
2. They are not as moisture or dust tight as film SLR's cameras

One can use an external battery pack holder (holds two batteries), and that will extend the shooting session a little, or one can keep a couple of extra batteries warm in the shirt pocket under the coat. Once the cold battery warms, it works just fine, but as long as it's too cold it just stops working. Now, if one can switch to manual focusing, that also extends the shooting session. It seems that the battery has to work real hard to focus an extremely cold lens.

If dust gets inside, it will create small spots on the filter in front of the sensor. To remove dust from this filter one must use specific brushes designed for this task, or send it to the manufacturer or a shop for cleaning. One can do the work, but the brushes are not cheap. Amazon has some of the sensor-cleaning brushes, from $15.00 or so to over $100.00.

Denton, the magazines I work with require 300 DPI. And by the way, I'm sending a lot of my images via email, one less hassle. I love film, but it's keep up or get left behind. Much to my regret, I've all but retired B&W.

Just saw the press release from Nikon, only the F6 and FM10 left in the line-up.

I'm no gunwriter, but I am an avid hobbiest photographer. It was painful for me to part with my F5 and FM2 film bodies, when I converted to digital; but after using my D70 SLR and Canaon S70 point & shoot....I have no real regrets. Oh, I get a little nostalgic, and miss the FM2 once in a while, but overal the digital stuff is pretty damn nice.

With the world getting "greener" every day, I think that film, like lead shot, and 2-stroke motors, will become a thing of the past, so I may as well move on.

Jeff

That's a pretty standard requirement for an input file... but once the printing plates are made, all resolution better than 1.7 Mpixel for a full A4 page is lost. At 300 DPI, a 5x7 is.... 3 Mpixels.

You have to have a lot of pixels to match the resolution of wet film, but not to match the resolution of typical printing processes.

If I were buying a new camera, I'd probably opt for something in the 5+ Mpixel range, simply because I would want that for my non-publication pictures. But for publication, the real resolution requirement isn't as great.

How do you submit your digital pictures for publication? I assume you can email them, but in what format ?

Regards,

Pete

Denton,

The other advantage of using a high megapixel camera is that a section of the picture can be cropped/enlarged and still offer enough resolution for publication.

I realise that idealy that the picture should be composed correctly when it was taken, but that is not always possible or perhaps not desirable..

Regards,

Pete

Excellent point.

I went through all the girations and asked Spomer and Barsness and finally setteled on a Sony W-1 5 meg. I love the size, weight and speed and the double page spread I did on the 458 Lott in Rifle magazine a couple issues ago was with it so you can see the quality is fine for magazines.