Hey Gestalt, We just bought a Sony alpha 100 SLR digital. I also have a 300 lense from the film camera and polarising lens to go on it. Perfect for windsurfing shoots. The continuous sport mode is very fast and it hold over 400shots on highest quality setting(2gb card). I'll bring it and a tripod to the next meet at redcliffe and you can take it for a drive if you like. That shot you took at bribie of Haggar was quite good I thought. Great lighting.

The main reason I want a SLR as opposed to a P&S camera are the much faster Auto focus, the much better burst mode (3-6fps as opposed to P&S which are generally 2-3fps) and the abillity to use longer lenses. P&S are good but SLR's are better.

Lanky,

I have an old Canon EOS 300D (way cheaper than 30D but still takes excellent photo @ 8 mega pixel)and it takes great windsurfer shots off the beach with a 300mm lens especially if you use a polarising filter (cuts the glare). The auto focus can be run using the servo function which means you can pick a sail and follow them and the camera automatically keeps them in focus. The 300D has been superseded by the 400D which I think is now 10 megapixel. Only problem is the cost of a water proof housing.

I have just bought a IXUS 800 and waterproof housing for in water shots as the cost of new camera and housing was less than the cost of the SLR housing. Can't wait to try it out at Cocos later this month. Challenge now is to build a mast mount. It will take video as well.

I bought the Olympus Mju770sw underwater camera about a month ago for windsurfing, snorkelling and snowboarding. The plan is to take it onto the water and take photos whilst sat on my board. it seems pretty good and i have uploaded some shots of a shark at Shelly beach (the lighting was terrible and it was 10 metres away) and a photo of Townie on the surface that shows how good the close up detail is.

It also records 2 hours of good quality video!!

www.seabreeze.com.au/gallery/gallery.asp?imageid=5048&shownew=on
www.seabreeze.com.au/gallery/gallery.asp?imageid=5049&shownew=on

lense filters.

i was curious as to what people are using on their lenses.

what works best for windsurfing.

UV filter
Polarising filter
graduated grey filter.

i am curious about the graduated grey filters because in my shots the sky is over exposed and the water under exposed. but i will probably do this in photoshop.

quote:

---

UV filter
Polarising filter
graduated grey filter.

---

I would ALWAYS use a UV filter on a lens. ALWAYS! To replace a good quality hoya filter costs $100, to replace a good quality lens wrecked by fine sand and spray would cost at least a couple of grand.

Re shooting with polarisers this really depends on a number of factors. If you shoot say midday in WA a polarizer does wonders. If you shoot late afternoon a polarizer is most likely going to confuse your cameras auto white balance and produce some unpredictable color ranges.

If you shooting on a gray and overcast day can still produce some nice shots as long as the shots are well exposed. This will allow you to crank the contrast to bring back some vibrance. Don't expect to do this with images produced by a consumer camera. There is a reason why Canons 1D range cameras generally produce neutral looking photos straight out of camera. This will preserve maximum dynamic range and will allow for most tweaking in post production.

quote:

---

in my shots the sky is over exposed and the water under exposed.

---

If you are shooting into the light even the best filter won't help you with this problem. The difference in light between darkest and lightest area in you image would be between 4 and 6 stops which currently no camera that I know off can resolve. You only choice in that case is to shoot the subject in a 45 degree angle if shooting from the beach... at the end of the day it all depends on what your intendet look for the final image is.

Don't expect to produce great shots like you see in overseas magazines simply by having you camera in "dummy" mode and standing stationary on the beach.

here some samples of shots taken mid afternoon - no polarizer





FYI, all photos shot with Canon 1d Mark II + 500mm F4 lens

i have done some searching online and come across a polarizing effect that can be done in photoshop.

i tried it on a few photos and got good results.

of course a camera filter would be better but this is good for post production.

www.photoshoptutorials.ws/other-tutorials/photography-tutorials/polarizing-filter/

raw is better i would think.

i work with some outstanding architectural photographers and raw is all they will use.

i'm not sure if that's on the money haircut.

tiff would give you a slow down but raw is not supposed to affect the camera speed.

i think?

btw - u coming to wello tomorrow?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gestalt

i have done some searching online and come across a polarizing effect that can be done in photoshop.

---

Using a polarizing filter isn't the same as using a polarizing photoshop effect. First and foremost a polarizer will take out light reflected by water. If you shoot without a polarizer the image will simply not have information in first place. No Photoshop filter can fix this.

To my knowledge the Photoshop polarizing filter primarily adjusts contrast and blances out the overall image increasing shadow detail.

another thing, and i know it is a case of how long is a piece of string, but.

on average what usual shutter speed do you use? is it better to speed up the shutter speed and get slightly darker prints which have better focus. then adjust levels post production?

found another link, not much tech stuff but interesting for setting stuff up.
http://www.boards.co.uk/articles/index.asp?ID_A=217&article_type=59

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gestalt
on average what usual shutter speed do you use? is it better to speed up the shutter speed and get slightly darker prints which have better focus. then adjust levels post production?

---

??? I don't quite follow. You would be shooting either with aperature or shutter priority. The camera would then compensate automatically. The aim really is to get the right exposure straight out of camera.

Underexposing in my experience only works if you use low ISO numbers and a low noise camera. Otherwise dark areas will get too noisy for my taste.

I assume you asked the question because as a rule of thumb underexposing (dark areas can mostly be safed) is better then overexposing (blown highlights can't be save). Ideally try and get the exposure corret within 0.5 stop.

This will be difficult if your camera doesn't have center weight or spot meter build in. Which most point and shoots don't and only some DSLRs do.

great choice imho and get a good qual lens to go with it when u can

btw - how much pocket money you getting a week or are you 16 like i'm 21?