Lightning Photography Camera's Without the Pro Price

[Gerrit Gulden]

I thought I would start this thread to see what others Use as far as Digital Camera's go. My problem is that I cannot afford a Digital SLR Camera. The latest addition to my Arsenal is a Kodak Easy Share (Z730) camera, shockingly I found a 64 second exposure option with this camera and I have captured some amazing shots. I also have the 30, 15,10,5 etc exposure options as well.

I was wondering what you use as far as NON SLR digital camera's go. Of course In the future I will buy SLR cause obviously thats the best bet. But for now since my next purchase option ranges from 250.00 to 350.00 Id like to hear about your NON SLR camera's that get the job done.

thanks...

-gerrit

 

[Tony Laubach]

Canon S2 IS served me well last year... only did a 15 second exposure, but I got some good single-bolt shots!

I also shot lightning with a Canon A85 before; again, 15 seconds, but worked.

I bought, but never used, the Kodak Z730. I bought it cause it had a 64 second exposure setting. I never got a chance to test it as I bought the Nikon D70s before the season started. As a result, I sold the Kodak before I had a chance to test it on lightning. My concern with the Kodak was noise levels, so again, no chance to see that in action.

I imagine any type of camera with an extended exposure of some type will suit you well. I missed the cable release method of the older cameras and find the biggest thing with shooting lightning with PnS type cameras is you're really not photographing lightning, just "shooting" it.

 

[Jason Boggs]

Before I got my first SLR a couple of months ago, I previously used a Sony F717. This is a very nice camera and it served my needs very well for lightning shots with only a 30 second exposure. When I bought it back in 2003 it cost me a grand. I'm sure one could find this camera for a good price somewhere. I purchased an SLR (Canon 400D) this year and the Sony will be used as a backup camera.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Alternately, you could shoot film. Film bodies are quite a bit less expensive, as are the lenses if you get one of the old manual focus bodies. Pop in some Velvia or Provia and there you go!

 

[Jayson Prentice]

I used to have a Sony Cybershot, great quality camera for the prices and mine came with up to 30 seconds exposure on it. You can check into those if you would like to as well... I got some amazing lightning with it, all of the lightning shots on my website from '05 and '06 were with it.

 

[Dustin Wilcox]

The Digital SLR's are not really considered Pro-price anymore one can pick one up for well under $400 throw in even a cheap lens and your in bussniess.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EOS-Digit...008QQcategoryZ107909QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#null

 

[Esa Tuunanen]

Before I got my first SLR a couple of months ago, I previously used a Sony F717. This is a very nice camera and it served my needs very well for lightning shots with only a 30 second exposure. When I bought it back in 2003 it cost me a grand. I'm sure one could find this camera for a good price somewhere.

Minolta Dimage 7-serie, A1 or (Konica)Minolta A2 and A200 would be better options, 28-200mm is much nicer than 38-190mm.
But those are propably very rare and prices might be still quite high. (especially A2)
In F828 Sony included also wide angle.

The Digital SLR's are not really considered Pro-price anymore one can pick one up for well under $400...

I haven't tried "consumer" SLRs of other makers but Canon's consumer SLRs don't really have anything pro when it comes to ergonomics, I have normal size hand and grip is absolutely too small to be even anything remotely comfortable...
Yeah, I'm spoiled by A2+BP-400

I would say that Dpreview and Steve's Digicams are best places for finding does certain camera support long exposures.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs.asp
http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html

Alternately, you could shoot film. Film bodies are quite a bit less expensive, as are the lenses if you get one of the old manual focus bodies. Pop in some Velvia or Provia and there you go!

Cameras might be dirt cheap but shooting itself definitely wouldn't be.

 

[bvassmer]

I have to back getting an old model dSLR. If the Canon XT is too much (with lens) you could even look at the old Canon Digital Rebel, Canon 10D, or D60 (or even the D30). You will be sooo much happier with the long exposure noise you will find in these cameras compared to the smaller Point and Shoot.

And you can get a cable release for about 20$ for these cameras, and this will help with camera shake and shutter.

Just my .02.

 

[bvassmer]

Just an example of what a dSLR can do:

- nice shots with WA lens:
http://www.vassmer.com/stormchasing/photo-images/2006/04-01/

- shots with Canon 20D and an older Olympus E-20
http://www.vassmer.com/stormchasing/photo-images/2005/06-15/

- a little blurry, but good lightning:
http://www.vassmer.com/stormchasing/photo-images/2005/06-16/

 

[Terrence Cook]

Kodak P712 NOT MADE FOR LIGHTNING

I was very disapointed to learn that my new camera basically has no long-exposure capabilites... (that's what you get when it's a gift and you don't get to research yourself).
However the camera does make up for it with excellent sharp photography (thx to 7.1MP and .07 second click to capture).

Example Photo of Cardinal

What digital brand best supplies these exposure capabilites?

 

[fplowman]

Has anyone used the lightning device for cameras that was at the chaser convention?

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

[SLR] Cameras might be dirt cheap but shooting itself definitely wouldn't be.

True, shooting film is more expensive, but the value is pretty high. That is, a slide of Velvia shot with a good lens contains a great deal more information than any of the DSLRs under $7,000. Yeah, it's like 33 cents per shot, but for long exposures like lightning, you probably won't go through more than a couple rolls per storm.

I do agree though, that the old Rebels are a great, great value for digital cameras. I'd definately get one of those before I got a point and shoot digital!

 

[Greg Campbell]

Cameras might be dirt cheap but shooting itself definitely wouldn't be.

Figure 3$ for E6 film and $5 for developing. You'll need to shoot well over a hundred rolls of film (~4 thousand images!) before you break even. (FWLIW, I shoot maybe 20 rolls in a typical monsoon chase season.) Low cost cameras are also nice in that they are somewhat expendable; if a gust of wind knocks over your tripod, you're out one hundred bucks or so, not seven+. Rain, blowing dust, etc. are also less of a worry. Throw in $ for data cards, a backup battery, etc., and 'cheap digital' starts to become somewhat less of a bargain.

-Greg

 

[Dan Robinson]

For roughly $200, you can get a used Pentax K1000, a couple of lenses (28mm wide angle and 50mm), a tripod and a cable release. The K1000 is an old-school 35mm film camera, but it will capture excellent lightning images on good film (Fuji Sensia or Provia, for example). It is a tank and can take quite a bit of abuse and rain exposure.

The newer digital cams can capture lightning very well, but if you're willing to deal with getting slides/negatives developed, lightning photos can be had with film for very little cost.

I'm still using film because I have my hands too full with video to spend a couple grand on a digital camera. When the lightning gets good, I just grab the K1000 from the case and it gets the job done.

 

[Jayson Prentice]

At least with my new dSLR, Canon XTi, you have a 'bulb' setting that you can use while in manual mode. This allows you to take an exposure as long as you would like, best while using a remote that has a shutter lock. This is how most of your star pictures and things such as that are done, so you can have hours of continual exposure if you would like and have the batter power to do so.