Going skiing, do I need anything special?

T00thBru5h · 1 Dec 2006 at 16:24

Heading off skiing for the New Years in Austria/St Anton and this time I want to go with a proper camera. With my Canon Ixus I biting the dust, I'm going to invest in a Canon EOS 400D with an 18-55mm Lens. Does anyone recommend getting a filter to combat against the very bright light? I noticed on my Ixus I the photos could sometimes be quite over exposed over in the bright sunny snow-topped peaks :eek:

I guess the 400D will be more than capable of taking fast moving photos of skiers wizzing past without blurring? Was always hit and miss with the IxusI, but then it again it was in a different league and 3 years old

Thanks!

Scam · 1 Dec 2006 at 18:29

If you're expecting the weather to be good then i'd say you really want a circular polarising filter. Cuts down reflections and makes the sky uber-blue (as long as its nice!). Having said that, i dont actually know for sure whether it will cut down reflections from snow? :confused:

I would have thought so!

growse · 1 Dec 2006 at 19:31

Taken without any filters:

A lot of my shots came out ok, but I think a circular polariser should make things quite interesting with the sky. If I take my camera again, I'd consider buying one for this.

ranarama · 1 Dec 2006 at 20:21

Depending on the amount of snow in your shot you'll actually want to overexpose what the camera is telling you is correct. All the white makes the camera think it's brighter than it is so your snow will end up grey rather than white. Just up the exposure compensation a stop or two and you'll get good shots.

If there's lots of sky in the shot you shouldn't have to do it and I'm guessing that's why the peaks you talked about ended up overexposed. A polariser, as said, will work wonders with the deep blue skies you get in ski resorts. Regardless of that you'll still have to get the exposure right and the polariser won't help you there. If you're unsure of the exposure take the shots in raw and do some post processing. Keep an eye on the histogram as well as it'll give you a great indication of whether the snow is overexposed.

Scam · 1 Dec 2006 at 21:40

ranarama said:
Regardless of that you'll still have to get the exposure right and the polariser won't help you there.

But wont the polariser help cutting out reflections? Maybe help the surface/texture of the snow show up better, rather than just being a big white glare? I reckon so.

ranarama said:
Keep an eye on the histogram as well as it'll give you a great indication of whether the snow is overexposed.

Definately

I check the histogram after every shot i take, if i was shooting in snow i'd be glued to it. Trying to judge exposure yourself from a tiny LCD is terrible, add to that the glare/sun/goggles effecting your own eyes and you'll be in a world of confusion. Stick to the histogram!

T00thBru5h · 1 Dec 2006 at 22:52

Ok chaps, cheers for the info, I'll look into the polariser filter and see how much they cost and if I can justify it.

I've never actually properly had a go on a camera with an "add-on" lens. Bearing in mind that the EOS400 is coming with a 18-55mm unit, will I be able to zoom in a lot on optical without sacrificing picture quality? Want to get some close up shots of individual people going down a slalom :confused:

ranarama · 1 Dec 2006 at 23:24

Scam said:
But wont the polariser help cutting out reflections? Maybe help the surface/texture of the snow show up better, rather than just being a big white glare? I reckon so.

That's why you need to get the exposure right. Do that and you'll get texture in your snow without it being grey or overexposing and blowing it out.

I'm not talking from experience here as the only time I've shot in snow I didn't have my polariser with me. I would have thought snow would give off scattered light and seeing as a polariser cuts out reflections at a certain angle I don't think a polariser would help with blocking glare. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Scam · 2 Dec 2006 at 00:07

ranarama said:
That's why you need to get the exposure right. Do that and you'll get texture in your snow without it being grey or overexposing and blowing it out.

I'm not talking from experience here as the only time I've shot in snow I didn't have my polariser with me. I would have thought snow would give off scattered light and seeing as a polariser cuts out reflections at a certain angle I don't think a polariser would help with blocking glare. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

True. I've never shot on snow so i'm only talking theoretically really. I just thought the way that the polariser cuts down reflected light it would still have a use on the snow itself (and not just to get 'ooh blue skies'

). Just thinking out loud really! I'd like to see some comparisons if anyone can dig up any.

Mind you, maybe if you're shooting on a smooth slope of snow it might be rather like shooting a large body of water? Turn the polariser the right way and you can get a lovely colour.

T00thBru5h said:
Ok chaps, cheers for the info, I'll look into the polariser filter and see how much they cost and if I can justify it.

I've never actually properly had a go on a camera with an "add-on" lens. Bearing in mind that the EOS400 is coming with a 18-55mm unit, will I be able to zoom in a lot on optical without sacrificing picture quality? Want to get some close up shots of individual people going down a slalom

From this post, and from re-reading your OP i suggest you do some research on DSLRs and find out if it's really for you. And for God's sake try one in a shop. Taking a DSLR onto the slopes is a bit different from having a point-and-shoot in your front pocket.

18-55mm tells you the zoom. That's all optical, there's no such thing as digital zoom on DSLRs (as far as i know..). So the good news is you wont lose any quality (nitpickers stay away please

). The bad news is that 55mm zoom is nothing. It's pretty much what you see with your eyes. If you want to get some close-ish shots of skiiers they'd have to be skiing right past you to fill the frame.

In my opinion you need to ask yourself why you want a DSLR and will you really benefit from it.

Amp34 · 2 Dec 2006 at 16:33

I spent ages trying to get the shop owner to tell me the comparative optical SLR zoom to acompact camera optical zoom, he kept trying to explain that it wasnt quite the same and it was measured differently (even though I already said I knew that when I asked the question) :rolleyes:

Anywho he eventually told me 55mm is approximatly equivilent to a 3x zoom of a compact so you will only be able to zoom in the same amount as a normal compact camera.

Joe T · 2 Dec 2006 at 18:54

Dont forget your toothbrush!

T00thBru5h · 2 Dec 2006 at 20:48

Excellent, thanks for the heads up once again. Going to go into central london and check out a few shops. Do you think I am likely to get a decent zoom lens for 150-200 quid to fit the 400D?

And yes, I will be taking my electric t00thbru5h

reddeathdrinker · 3 Dec 2006 at 06:57

T00thBru5h said:
Excellent, thanks for the heads up once again. Going to go into central london and check out a few shops. Do you think I am likely to get a decent zoom lens for 150-200 quid to fit the 400D?

And yes, I will be taking my electric t00thbru5h

Either the Sigma or Tamron 70-300mm zooms should be within your budget. Pick up the macro versions for more scope and fun after your skiing holiday.....