Better Ski Camera?

[John Mason]

Having a good summer/fall?

Yes - no raw mode - but - this is just the ski camera. My 1DsMkII with the 100-400IS lens would be quite a thing to carry under my coat!

Doing any camps this year?

I'm not sure why so many other manufacturers don't zoom at the same time. Some of them also don't track the focus well even when they don't zoom. The S2 does both well.

[Max]

>>And I am 100% with John, using camcorders to capture skiing footage is a pain in the aft area, and using digital camera make it so much easier.


I use a camcorder (Canon Elura) and find it to be easy to carry and use. Even dumping to the PC via firewire works fine.

[piggyslayer]

Hi John,

>> 100-400IS
Is it an L?
I do not have a lens that long! More interested in wide angle, 200mm on the tele-end suffices for my needs.

No plans for next winter at all. The only plan is to take things easy this winter.
Very busy summer and still quite busy fall. I did not even have much time for carvers (I did go out to skate only 3 times this year!).

More on cameras:
I have considered the tiny Fuji F10 as my small take anywhere (including ski slope) camera. Good movie mode, good picture quality (including low light conditions for apr?s skiing!), CONS: yes no zooming when recording a movie, a small 36-108mm zoom, no raw format as well. I am debating to wait a bit longer maybe for Fuji E900 to get the raw picture mode in my pocket camera.

S2 seemed to be too bulky for the ski slope. And as you know, my ski jacket already waits a ton.

About the cameras: the to be released Fuji S5200, S9000/S95000 models can be a real competitor to S2 likes (all have raw mode, good movie modes, supposed to be excellent with high ISO- almost like our SLRs) and nice zoom range. I believe will not have Image Stabilization though and not clear if zoom will work when in movie mode.

MAX:
Sorry for making a political statement I have not intended. We all have our camera workflows we like.
Here is what I like to do:
I take SD/CF card out of my camera, I put it into my computer card reader and I have the file on the computer!
Cannot be faster or easier than that, at least with short clicks. With photos there is raw processing, photoshop, and things take a bit longer if I want a nice picture...

I never, ever connect my camera to the PC with any USB/Firewire things - to much trouble, not to mention replaying the movie to move it from a tape to a disk over firewire connection. I dont like editing movies so I try not do this type of stuff.

Robert

[RadRab]

Bs"D
Just wanted to report in that I did buy the Canon Powershot S2 IS, and my wife has taken fine practice movies of me on my Carvers. Thanks for the good advise.
BTW, if I had any doubts left, they were perged when I attempted to buy the camera. I had to go to 7 (!) stores in NYC before finding one in stock! Everybody said that it was the hottest camera on the market and they couldn't keep up with the demand.

[Max]

It sure looks like a nice camera. But its so darn big! No way could I keep that in my pocket all day.

[John Mason]

This article has a shot of the S2 in a persons hand. It's much smaller than it looks. Considering it's optical zoom range it's really quite amazing it's so small.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon ... ndex.shtml

[Mr. T]

I just purchased this camera and also purchased the wide angle and zoom lenses which will give me a 26mm -632mm range. I am one of those individuals not interested in what happens in the 35mm -100mm range. When you add the extra lenses it is no longer that cheap. 5 megapixel is good enough, I am sure it is not going to be outstanding. However, movies are shot at much lower quality, usually VGA (rougly 1 Megapixel) or SuperVGA. Otherwise you would not fit many seconds of movies if they were shot at 5 Megapixel or higher.

Soon you will have the new Sony Cybeshot DSC R1 (that replaces the DSC F828) at 10.3 Megapixel hitting the market (November 30th is the release day), but it comes with a disappointing 24mm -120mm lens and the issue with movies has not been really improved, unfortunately.

I still have not found a camera either SLR, Digital SLR or Digital that totally satisfies me. Pictures of skiing are tricky because of the high level of white around you and the need to stabilize the image while shooting someone moving far away to control more of their run or to shoot pictures of extreme skiers. I really want to see how the Powershot 2 IS works at 632mm. I am hopeful, but I have been disappointed before and I will not believe until I see it with my own eyes.

So far there is only one lens that really satisfies me for pictures of skiers in action: Canon 400mm F2.8. Amazing tool as it is its price as well (at about $10,000) without considering the weight and the absolute need for a tripod. After you have used this lens, it is not easy to be satisfied with anything else.

[Guest]

This article has a shot of the S2 in a persons hand. It's much smaller than it looks. Considering it's optical zoom range it's really quite amazing it's so small.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon ... ndex.shtml

I'm going to have to disagree on this point. I think its as big as it looks! And the article you linked seems to agree.

"As I said, the S2 is bigger, bulkier, and heavier than the camera it replaces. As ultra zooms go it's a little larger than average."

It looks like a great camera, but at 4x3x3 its too big to fit in any of my pockets in a comfortable manner. And for me this is very important. I want a camera that I take all of the time.

[piggyslayer]

Thinking of what MrT wrote?
An interesting topic on its own: how to take best still pictures of skiers.

I think, if digital, you got to go RAW to avoid color banding of whites (you have higher color range with RAW especially in highlights-like snow).
Some special software work flow for RAW conversion would be important. Probably custom tonal curve ? you want more contrast in highlights (snow) and shades (your jacket) and probably not much in-between. Maybe lighten shadows, darken highlights a bit.
I would be interested in learning what other people do/think.
(FYI S2 does not have RAW mode, you are stuck with JPEG).

PS for MrT. Maybe Sigma APO 80 - 400 mm F4.5 - 5.6 ES OS runs for about $1K (OS stands for image stabilization in Sigma) weights about 4 lb and is big but not bigger than Canon and cheeeeper. On a typical DSLR with 1.6 crop this will be 640mm! If you are OK with Sigma and their history of compatibility problems this maybe a good ?big and heavy? lens. I am not sure if it is weather sealed and that may be important too.
For snow you will not need low Fs anyway, unless using 1.4x or 2x converter to get even more TELE. I do not have this lens (I am not really into tele) but I have seen good reviews about it.


PS2. I ended up buying S2 for my father (he loves it). The think I do not like about it is the lens cap, it is a pain in the a?ft area.

PS3. I am with John, the camera seems small. Well maybe since I am comparing it to my Rebel XT.

[John Mason]

Depends on the camera. I have the olympus E1 and the canon 1dsmkII and they both have raw modes as does your rebel XT.

In the 1dsmkII for example, you've got an exposure slider that will recover 2 stops of information that if you shoot jpeg you don't get. This can be a life saver on a missed or tricky shot.

Shooting snow, though, with most cameras even without raw, if you just exposure compensate a stop (most cameras will try to render the snow to 18% gray which will make the shot too dark) the shot will turn out fine.

If you don't have changing cloud conditions you can just determine exposure off the back of your hand then set the camera - even a tiny one like an SD400 - to the reading off the back of your hand and you'll be pretty much right on.

Piggy - going to the all mountain camp this year? Oh - 196 pounds as of this morning - thats 14 pounds down since race camp!!

Should be in the 180's by instructor camp.

[Guest]

Good news: the 650mm lens is something few cameras would allow you to have (in particular if weight is an issue).
Bad news: the Powershot S2 does not support RAW or TIFF mode.

I knew that, but I wanted to have a lense in the 400mm range + and this camera has an image stabilizer built in which is necessary when shooting with these big zooms. Not an option with SLR without a tripod which makes for tough skiing when you have to carry one on your back.

[RadRab]

Bs"D
Can any of you photography buffs tell me if it is possible to extract from a movie (taken with the Canon S2 IS) a still picture, and if so how.
I am not referring to taking a snapshot in the middle of recording, but after a movie is already completed, can you isolate a position - like when using the pause control during playback - and "cut it out" as an indedpendent still?
Thanks.

[John Mason]

The free movie maker software that was part of service pack 2 for XP from microsoft does this.

Just search the help for 'picture' and open up the 'taking picture' section and it tells how to do it.

On an AVI file like the S2 takes, these are really just a series of complete JPEG pics. That's why they compress so well with Divx and also why they are pretty large movies in their native format. I would speculate that the individual frames would be pretty good for a movie capture. Certainly enough for Diana to make mince meat of any of us with the V1 software!

[RadRab]

Bs"D
Thanks John.
Now, sorry for the 19th century question, but is service pack 2 for XP not part of XP? Is this something that has to be purchased seperately?
Because I did read the Help in Windows, and it did speak about using "alt-print screen", but it didn't work.
Thanks.

[Hobbit]

The XP Service Pack 2 is freely downloadable.
You have to have a legal licensed copy of Windows installed (the software will check for this pre-condition )
Just go to ?Start? and choose ?Windows Update? and you?ll get it after following through the dialogs.
Got to have a fast connection though or you?ll suffer .