My wife teases me because I've been using this same HP camera since 2001. I like it since apparently, they stopped making digital cameras with viewfinders, and to me, looking at a digital image to record your digital image is getting a few too many degrees from the subject you're shooting. But then again, I'm an old man with a bad lawn.
How much can you depend on software to improve the quality of your pics in regard to the cheaper the camera? In other words, how much can you make up in Photoshop for an image captured by a camera that didn't cost $2000?
― •--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 25 March 2009 16:59 (ten years ago) Permalink
That's a harder question: used to be that the camera was just a light-tight box and the lenses were all that counted. Now the camera is also the film, so if you put a great lens on an ancient digibox there's not much photoshop's going to be able to do with it.
I've got a 20dhttp://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS20D/Images/frontview-001.jpgwhich is still in great shape, but the autofocus isn't all that, and I'm desperate to get my hands on one of those super-ISO modern numbers. Can't justify it in the slightest, though.
― stet, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 17:09 (ten years ago) Permalink
Quality wise it might not be up to yer canikons but there are things i like about it - ability to capture an image for preview without saving to memory card, saves much deleting time later. It takes AA batteries so easy and cheap to get spares. And for the time it had high ISO (3200). Cons - too much stuff hidden behind menus, auto white balance is not all that.
― ledge, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 17:14 (ten years ago) Permalink
anti-shake built into the body, too, which is nice.
― ledge, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 17:15 (ten years ago) Permalink
Canon EOS 40D (about half original retail off eBay)Canon EOS 300D (about one-third original retail off eBay 2.5 years ago, now dead)Canon EOS 10 (Freecycled)Canon EOS IX7 (six quid on eBay)Canon FTb (1970s manual SLR, about 170 quid from Jessops Classic nine years ago)Bronica SQ-A (one-squillionth of original retail, US eBay purchase)
Plus some compacts and things.
― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 17:20 (ten years ago) Permalink
Michael Jones, last Thursday.
― •--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 25 March 2009 17:29 (ten years ago) Permalink
I should point out that the Bronica, FTb and the EOS 10 are all nominally Pam's, seeing as she (respectively) initiated the research/bidding, was the giftee, was the Freecycle mail-list subscriber/collector of item. But, let's be honest, I play with them more often.
― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 17:45 (ten years ago) Permalink
is this a new board? i never noticed it b4
― GROLIOUS NIPPON ;_; (cankles), Wednesday, 25 March 2009 17:45 (ten years ago) Permalink
yeah, it's less than an hour old.
― joe, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 17:48 (ten years ago) Permalink
Hanimex something something 110Olympus OM10Fujifilm MX-1200 (1.3MP, bought back in early 2001)
― snoball, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 17:53 (ten years ago) Permalink
minolta maxxum 400si
i've had it for 12 years, great basic camera. i'm not getting a digital one until it breaks down.
― from crass encino (velko), Wednesday, 25 March 2009 17:55 (ten years ago) Permalink
EOS 30D. Just got the EF-S 10-22 for it, and I'm not sure if I'm pleased with its "wideness".
― plenty chong (libcrypt), Wednesday, 25 March 2009 18:03 (ten years ago) Permalink
I have a Canon 450D for fancy things and a Canon Powershot A710is for taking with me when I don't want to lug around an SLR. The A710 has a viewfinder; I seem to recall Canon being pretty good with keeping them in their cameras but I'm not sure about the newer models. To be honest though I don't use it too often on that camera, and I only just realised that I couldn't see the numbers in my 450D viewfinder because I wasn't wearing my glasses and was trying to use my severely nearsighted eye to see them. Duurrrrr. So I either have to train myself to instinctively use my right, farsighted eye or wear glasses more often.
Oh yes, and I have a polaroid camera. One with a little rainbow stripe on it. It's at my parents' house but I plan on bringing it back to UK with me after the next visit.
― salsa shark, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 18:03 (ten years ago) Permalink
The ones that I use and can remember: Ricoh (shit) and a Canon1000D. I have a couple of other compacts but I can't remember the makes/whatevers and I don't even know if I can charge'em cause I lost the chargers. They're somewhere but can't find'em.
Ah well. I also have a regular Canon but it's my mum's and I don't think I'll really use it. Like ever. Did try using its lens but it was crappy/difficult to control. Ah well.
― the tip of the tongue taking a trip tralalala (stevienixed), Wednesday, 25 March 2009 19:09 (ten years ago) Permalink
I suspect I own too many cameras.
Digital SLRs:Pentax K20D (Bought just before the price went up and I got £100 cashback!)Pentax *ist DS (Cheap from Canada)
Film SLRs:Pentax MZ-50 (Bought as a cheap backup body for wedding shoot)Minolta Maxxum 7000 (Bought from a friend when I realized the K1000 needed a repair, rarely used)Pentax K1000 (Dirt cheap off ebay - needs repaired)
Compacts:Canon Powershot A590IS (Direct replacement for the A85)Pentax Optio M20 (A terrible camera for stills - great video mode)Canon Powershot A85 (Superb camera now showing the abuse it's had over the years)Fuji Finepix A204 (First digital camera, bought on a whim)
― treefell, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 21:18 (ten years ago) Permalink
ive got this but wish id spent the extra money on a canon rebel xti maybe:
and for fun and surprisingly good video this:
― I wish I was the royal trux (sunny successor), Wednesday, 25 March 2009 21:58 (ten years ago) Permalink
Ooh, we've got a Pentax K1000 too. Best viewfinder of any of our cameras, I think. It also needs repair (can't meter), but, with some guesswork (or another camera doing the metering), it's certainly usable:
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/pernfors88/2778799283/" title="Format frenzy by JerryBones, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3144/2778799283_270f6b5d27.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Format frenzy" /></a>
(That's a Polaroid taken with the Bronica).
― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 23:12 (ten years ago) Permalink
― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 23:13 (ten years ago) Permalink
(Whoops; photo of a Polaroid, which was taken with Bronica, taken with the K1000...)
― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 23:14 (ten years ago) Permalink
SS, judging from your pix, no need to regret anything. AWESOMENESS! :-)
― the tip of the tongue taking a trip tralalala (stevienixed), Thursday, 26 March 2009 09:05 (ten years ago) Permalink
a Nikon D80. its very very nice
― Ant Attack.. (Ste), Thursday, 26 March 2009 09:28 (ten years ago) Permalink
― I wish I was the royal trux (sunny successor), Thursday, 26 March 2009 13:10 (ten years ago) Permalink
Oh wow! I Love Photography! STOKED.
Well, I have:Canon 20D - my new babyCanon 350D for emergenciesCanon EOS650 film loveI don't have a compact. I really should get one.
― #/.'#/'@ilikecats (g-kit), Thursday, 26 March 2009 13:26 (ten years ago) Permalink
Canon 1000d (what the above was taken with), plus what's in the picture - couple of ancient SLRs that belong to Emma, Polaroid, and a Canon IXUS 40. Used to own a Fuji Finepix thing that had 2mp and 6x optical zoom, many years ago (can't remember model number).
― Sickamous Mouthall (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 2 April 2009 08:20 (ten years ago) Permalink
I have a Olympus E-520. I got it partly because it was the cheapest DSLR with in-body image stabilization and a sensor-dust cleaner, and because my first "serious" camera was an Olympus OM-G I got from my father. I used to have a Canon 10D, but I sold it because it was too heavy - then I went through a period of owning various Panasonic point and shoots before settling back on a DSLR.
I am eagerly awaiting Olympus's entry into the Micro Four Thirds platform, which is rumored to be a rangefinder style design. The Micro Four Thirds standard is an interchangeable lens system using a sensor slightly smaller than an APS-C sensor but without the mirror box. Hence the body and lenses can be made much smaller than a normal SLR. For an example, look at the Panasonic G1, which is like a DSLR shrunk in all dimensions by 30%.
― DJ Khaled El-Amin (dyao), Friday, 24 April 2009 07:46 (nine years ago) Permalink
I was just wishing the other day for a digital camera about the size of my old AE-1. The size of my carry-around setup is preposterous. I like the sound of the little Olympus, but a smaller sensor isn't great -- 35mm would be much more appealing.
― stet, Friday, 24 April 2009 15:23 (nine years ago) Permalink
Well to be fair the 4/3 sensor inside the Olympus and Panasonic cameras is very nearly the size of the sensors used in all non-full frame DSLRs - the vertical height is about the same, the sides are shorter on account of the squarer aspect ratio of 4:3 compared to 3:2.
The Panasonic G1 is about the size of an old school 70s SLR:
Panasonic also is releasing a version capable of shooting HD video:
Make sure to click through to the Youtube page and watch it in HD.
― DJ Khaled El-Amin (dyao), Sunday, 26 April 2009 15:21 (nine years ago) Permalink
That video's really nice, aye. I generally think even the APS-C sensors are too small as well: the depth of field is deeper than you get on 35mm, even wide open, and you can sort of see that in the video: the not-quite-oof area is wider than you'd expect at f2.
Saying that, I've just read a review of the Sigma DP2, and it looks like a great camera so the trade-off could be worth it.
(Also: what is it with the hand grips everywhere? AE-1 > T90)
― stet, Monday, 27 April 2009 13:05 (nine years ago) Permalink
Couldn't see much evidence of skew when the camera was panned on the tripod either, which suggests Panasonic have a very fast-refreshing sensor, optimised for video (Nikon D90 is apparently a bit of a joke for video skew, Canon 5D2 much better but still not pro standard).
This seems to be the way to go if they've achieved fast contrast-detect AF. Sticking video in an SLR design just seems flawed from the get-go really.
― Michael Jones, Monday, 27 April 2009 15:24 (nine years ago) Permalink
Super psyched about this camera! Been wanting to use a rangefinder for awhile, spent too much money on an impulse-buy craigslist purchase of a Yashica Electro 35 (which I now can't seem to get working), but found this at the Salvation Army store in the Inner Richmond a week later (for anyone in SF, that store seems to generally have a pretty decent camera selection. I saw at least one or two other rangefinders, plus maybe four or five SLRs, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc. Lenses too).No worries about getting this one working since it's all manual. No battery troubles like with the Yashica! Feels more solid too, although I think the Yashica's supposed to have a better lens?I probably took some dud photos with it. It'll be a little while before I'm totally used to the focussing and manual exposure, I think.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 18:02 (nine years ago) Permalink
not actually *my* camera pictured above, btw
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 18:03 (nine years ago) Permalink
What a beaut! I've been hankering after a Voigtlander Bessa for a long time. Maybe one day, when I get my arse in gear and sell some stuff.
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 9 February 2010 22:20 (nine years ago) Permalink
that's cute. i'm permanently dithering over a rangefinder, too. i've used an om-1 for maybe ten years and am always jealous of other SLRs which maybe render texture & contrast a little more, like whenever i see shots taken on a pentax. i think i'd go for the yashica, not really knowing what's what, but maybe something else will fall in my path first.
mainly my attitude towards deciding i need another camera is like finding out what kind of guitar jimi hendrix played and being all, oh so that's why my guitar playing's so limited.
― Norman Mail (schlump), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 22:24 (nine years ago) Permalink
Film SLRs, as Stet says upthread, are basically just light-tight boxes (with some clever electronics if yr lucky). You're really entirely at the mercy of your lenses (and the film type/processing).
Meaningless comparison of Pentax and Olympus by me...
(Oly OM-20 aka OM-G, Zuiko 50/1.8, ISO 200 colour neg)
(Pentax K-1000, SMC 50/2.0, ISO 200 colour neg)
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 9 February 2010 22:50 (nine years ago) Permalink
Conclusion: Olympus makes your hair longer.
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 9 February 2010 22:51 (nine years ago) Permalink
A Pentax Super Program (early 80's SLR with a lot of auto functions) has been my main film camera (inherited) for quite awhile. I'm pretty happy with it. We'll see how happy I am with the Minolta after a few rolls I guess, but it's sure fun to hold.I wouldn't have gone buying multiple new cameras in a couple of weeks, except that the "off brand" rangefinders can be kind of cheap. It's kind of dangerous now. I could see myself buying another.Up until recently I've been mostly using a Canon Digital Rebel, so the film phase is the revival of an old expensive habit. I owned and used the Pentax back in high school and college (late 90's/early 2000's).
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 23:47 (nine years ago) Permalink
film just gets so many things right doesn't it MJ? lovely
― 99. The Juggalo Teacher (dyao), Wednesday, 10 February 2010 03:07 (nine years ago) Permalink
Most fun I've ever had was when I got past my first couple of photography classes and gained access to my school's color print processing machine. Nothing I've shot has looked better than Kodak NC printed on Fuji Crystal Archive.
― FIST FIGHT! FIST FIGHT! FIST FIGHT IN THE PARKING LOT! (milo z), Thursday, 11 February 2010 04:39 (nine years ago) Permalink
digital:Nikon D700Pentax k20d (about to sellCanon 5d (need to send off for cleaning, then sell)
film:Canon EOS Elan 7e - my first real camera, amazing how dark the viewfinder is compared to the above dSLRsLeica M7 - purchased with gambling winnings, need to sellBessa R2A - will probably keep when I sell the Leica, at least I'll have a film rangefinder leftCanonet G17 - picked up at a flea market, needs new sealsBronica SQ - my medium format tank, has sat unused since I haven't had access to a decent scanner or darkroom. Should sell, but it has sentimental value (shooting square has always been remarkably comfortable for me) and it's worth a pittanceShenHao 4x5 - Chinese field cameraCrown Graphic (mid-50s, built in rangefinder) - loved shooting Polaroids with it.
toy:coupla Holgas, some Alfa toys from the '50s
useless:Polaroid SX-70 converted to expose correctly with Polaroid pack film... which got discontinued shortly after
― FIST FIGHT! FIST FIGHT! FIST FIGHT IN THE PARKING LOT! (milo z), Thursday, 11 February 2010 04:46 (nine years ago) Permalink
Bronica SQ - my medium format tank, has sat unused since I haven't had access to a decent scanner or darkroom.
I was so discouraged by my usual* mail-order E6/120 lab failing to provide the scans that I'd paid for early last year (and so many frustrating attempts to capture the girls on 120 in less than wonderful light) that our SQ-A is also gathering dust. It has Astia 100 in it at the mo'. Perhaps I can finish it off in the spring.
(* - hark at me; like I even knew what a medium format camera was three years ago)
Hilarious attempt at scanning 120 with a the 35mm film scan option on a Canon 4400F (this is the Ekta E200 the lab failed to scan):
Pam's Blackbird Fly remains in its case - yet to run its way through the Delta 400...
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 11 February 2010 16:27 (nine years ago) Permalink
(Ed - enough Lulu already)
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 11 February 2010 16:31 (nine years ago) Permalink
Digital: A Canon SD300 that I really need to upgrade to one of their newer pocketcams with image stabilization and HD video.
Film: Nikon 35Ti, whose wonderful illuminated analog gauge cluster I wish I could transplant to my next digital camera. Likewise its bulletproof titanium housing and grippy, retro textured leather trim and SLR-quality lens and metering.
Phone: LG VX8360, whose mediocre camera I use way too often because I always have it with me.
Also, the 640x480/30fps video from my iPod Nano 5th gen.
― Lee626, Friday, 28 May 2010 14:09 (eight years ago) Permalink
― Lee626, Friday, 28 May 2010 14:18 (eight years ago) Permalink
whoa that nikon looks trippy and a joy to shoot with!
I've been having intense gear lust over the zeiss ikon:
apparently just about better at everything a leica does except being a leica. it's also about $1300 new, $1000 used - lol at spending $1000 on a film camera in 2010. : |
― Face Book (dyao), Friday, 28 May 2010 14:29 (eight years ago) Permalink
― gbx, Friday, 28 May 2010 20:37 (eight years ago) Permalink
"Even" cheaper than the Zeiss Ikon, as I'm sure you know, is the Voigtlander Bessa range. Better viewfinders too. Leaving more money for the lenses...
Gbx - still without camera?
― Michael Jones, Friday, 28 May 2010 20:46 (eight years ago) Permalink
― gbx, Friday, 28 May 2010 20:51 (eight years ago) Permalink
it's summer! I wanna take pictures! I mean I guess technically I could get another one but yeesh
― gbx, Friday, 28 May 2010 20:52 (eight years ago) Permalink
My friend owns a Zeiss Ikon. Looking through its 1:1 viewfinder is awesome. He also just got a Zeiss Ikon SuperWide which lacks a viewfinder/rangefinder - it's a scalefocus body for use with wide angle lenses.
― kreidleresque, Wednesday, 2 June 2010 17:42 (eight years ago) Permalink
disclaimer- i do not know much about photography, sorry for dumb questions.
i've got a superzoom p&s that allows for a fair degree of manual and programmed controls. it is often very sunny here. this is making dynamic range a bit of a problem when i shoot outdoors, i seem to get a lot of clipping. so, i tried to counter that by adjusting EV -1/3. this gave me a histogram shape without clipping, but i then have to go back in shop and adjust the curve both to the right and left. if i go full auto, i don't get as much clipping, but i can't force flash unless i'm in P or M.
is this a normal way to handle this problem? i mean, it seems to work, but i'm not very good at photoshop.
― you all a buncha takers (say the sad bells of romney) (Hunt3r), Tuesday, 2 October 2012 17:11 (six years ago) Permalink
you're shooting digital? if so, that's kinda normal. you underexpose a bit to avoid clipping, and then later you go in and adjust levels or curves etc. to bring up the overall brightness.it's one of the things I don't like about digital, since I can never seem to get the same sort of vibrance by bringing up an underexposed picture as I can by just exposing for a bight image at the outset. Recently I just decided to screw the highlights on a job I was doing in very mixed light, just to get the actual subjects right and it seemed to work pretty well.
not even worth worrying about the highlights here, imosubjects are in deep shadow with backlighting. nobody really cares about lost detail in the trees, which are out of focus anyway.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Tuesday, 2 October 2012 17:54 (six years ago) Permalink
yeah, it's a canon sx40 i got pretty cheap, i wanted something that was versatile and easy to carry. at 35x i can take pics of my kids games and good video, and images are acceptable. i wanted a panasonic fz150 but i couldn't find one in time for a trip i was taking.
my pocket p&s is mostly ok, but really, for the kind of use i put it to, i might as well just use my iphone.
― you all a buncha takers (say the sad bells of romney) (Hunt3r), Tuesday, 2 October 2012 18:03 (six years ago) Permalink
oh yeah the other thing is that it's hard to make *anything* look good in direct midday light.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Tuesday, 2 October 2012 18:17 (six years ago) Permalink
yeah, i'm trying to learn the basics of like, just shooting good pictures using the basics. i need first to understand basic rules of lighting and composition. i want minimal fiddling around after the fact.
― you all a buncha takers (say the sad bells of romney) (Hunt3r), Tuesday, 2 October 2012 18:22 (six years ago) Permalink
i am gonna descend on this thread like a plague of locusts next week. i need to start negative scanning, because i am shooting too much to afford to be able to process it all, & processing-only is feasibly cheap. i have some time off to play around with a negative scanner, but the seeming complexity of it scares me! it is amusing to me to hear hunter disclaiming a query w/"i don't know a lot about photography" & then going on to talk dynamic ranges, everything seems to get way complicated when you're into that side of things.
― unprotectable tweetz (schlump), Tuesday, 2 October 2012 19:39 (six years ago) Permalink
ha well i googled "highlight overexposure" or something and was thrown into forum hell, but it seemed like they kept talking about dynamic range and histograms.
― you all a buncha takers (say the sad bells of romney) (Hunt3r), Tuesday, 2 October 2012 19:49 (six years ago) Permalink
THE ANSWER IS ... HDR
― barthes simpson, Tuesday, 2 October 2012 19:51 (six years ago) Permalink
"okay so open up your negative scan, then choose 'edit', then select 'curves'""mm-hmm, done that, i'm looking at a straight diagonal line?""yeah you're going to want to make that into a right angle in the top right hand corner"
― unprotectable tweetz (schlump), Tuesday, 2 October 2012 20:12 (six years ago) Permalink
I can't really believe I was ever paying for developing + scanning before. there's no way I could afford that at the rate I shoot these days.maybe when I've got a little time + energy, I'll outline how I scan, since I do a few things differently to get better results than the silverfast defaults would give. some stuff is going to be specific to the advanced version of silverfast 6 though. I shelled out for a used plustek w the advanced software and it's been worth it considering I would have otherwise spent over $5,000 developing and scanning the same quantity of film at a lab.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Tuesday, 2 October 2012 21:30 (six years ago) Permalink
considering I would have otherwise spent over $5,000 developing and scanning the same quantity of film at a lab
i mean yeah this is a pretty compelling argument.i would really be into reading about your process. it maybe just exists in my own head but i always think there's maybe a politics to analogue becoming digital, and being subject or not subject to whatever kind of techniques make this possible - all of my photo scanning is super quick & ready - ie untouched up, preserves selvages of photographs, &c - just because it has the vague integrity of 'i put an object in a scanner & this is it', without me necessarily having intervened in what the object was like, which i think kinda gets into some of the instagram-issues of 'what does it mean that i enhanced the colours'. (& i know that's pretty arbitrary!, & collapses when we consider the various interventions that have happened to a photograph before i scan it). but part of the slight nervousness i have re: negative scanning is having to accept a slightly more active role, which is just more stuff to think about. it's gonna happen, anyway, maybe starting next week. maybe i'll post some examples. i'm gonna be using a pretty basic setup, because i prefer scanning at the library to at home.
― unprotectable tweetz (schlump), Tuesday, 2 October 2012 22:26 (six years ago) Permalink
yeah there are so many technical decisions and changes made to an image at every stage from before pressing the shutter up to the final output (camera settings, developing settings, scan/print settings, color adjustments etc.) that I don't see how you could ID a point at which those adjustments are supposed to stop. I mean the real object is a negative with an orange cast, so there isn't going to be anything *but* massive adjustments from that point on. and the film itself might add a color cast, and the scan might add a slightly different color cast (it's not as precise as I'd like) and so finally I will once again change the color cast in post. I couldn't tell you whether each of those adjustments was a "correction" that got closer to what the colors were supposed to be, or just additional stages of my own transformation. none of those stages were the authentic, real deal object. because there *is* no authentic object. it's a photograph.and man, if it were me, I'd suggest scanning at home because it can end up taking FOREVER and then you've got beer and music.also I'd suggest getting archival sleeves that you can store in a binder, a sharpie, and a pair of scissors.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Tuesday, 2 October 2012 22:52 (six years ago) Permalink
first graf of that super otm & worth remembering.
and man, if it were me, I'd suggest scanning at home because it can end up taking FOREVER and then you've got beer and music.
see this is the thing that is bumming me out. my setup at the moment is an 11x17 only-slightly-scratched-up library scanner w/adobe elements* where i can do 36 photos in an hour. which is awesome. i am keeping a log & being able to process a couple of days shots in an hour is almost the maximum time i can afford it for it to be able to feasible. i'm not gonna ply you w/all my neg-scanning questions right now, but: this isn't realistic wrt scanning from negatives, right?
the sharpie/sleeve combo is one of the more appealing parts of this, the aesthetics of flagged up contact sheets are mega appealing to me.
*which is dope!, btw. just in case anyone does none of this & is looking for a solution to their problems, this is a kinda perfectly refined & light & straightforward image processing tool.
― unprotectable tweetz (schlump), Tuesday, 2 October 2012 23:04 (six years ago) Permalink
i am dreading some scanning i gotta do this week-- some local rag wants to run ten of my photos which is awesome but none of my drugstore scans are high enough res for print :(
― ❏❐❑❒ (gr8080), Wednesday, 3 October 2012 00:15 (six years ago) Permalink
― chinavision!, Friday, 15 February 2013 21:51 (six years ago) Permalink
this looks coolhttp://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wanderlust/travelwide-45-camera
― chinavision!, Sunday, 14 April 2013 23:53 (six years ago) Permalink
I'm trying to remember the darkroom mechanics of loading a 4x5 film holder from my one photography class decades ago. I'm not so sure I'd like doing it in a changing bag every half-dozen exposures.
Real shame Fuji discontinued its FP100B45 film - I always loved the look of Polaroid B/W from 4x5s (IIRC Mapplethorpe used this for most of his B/W work).
― Me So Hormetic (Sanpaku), Monday, 15 April 2013 02:45 (six years ago) Permalink
Recent promotion + company bonus = maybe time to step up to full frame, but actually, when I do the sums, I can't afford it (also 6D isn't quite the do-everything camera it could've been, so I wavered over it for a long time). However, a certain UK chain is currently doing the Panasonic GF3 (which I've long fancied) plus 14-42 kit lens for £149 (about third the price it was launched at, two years ago). Now, the pancake primes (which are the reason to own this camera) are at least as much again (the 20/1.7 is still around £230, I think), but it is tempting. Obviously not superceding the 40D with this, but rather as a coat pocket/overnight bag kind of lightweight thing.
At least two or three micro 4/3rds users in here, right?
― Michael Jones, Sunday, 26 May 2013 21:59 (five years ago) Permalink
That's a good deal, so long as you're comfortable with the GF3's limitations. If you don't need a hotshoe and can deal with a practical ISO limit of 800, then go for it.
I noticed that Amazon US is running a promotion on the GX1 that would be much better, if it doesn't pose any shipping issues for you. Slightly less compact, but more modern innards and tactile controls.
― Millsner, Sunday, 26 May 2013 23:30 (five years ago) Permalink
Awesome deal on E-PM1, rough GF3 equivalent. You gain in-body IS and many people prefer its image output over Panasonic's. UK, too: http://www.amazon.co.uk/OlympusPen-E-PM1-Compact-System-Camera/dp/B0058GI8F0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369611256&sr=8-2&keywords=e-pm1
Sorry if I'm only confusing matters further!
― Millsner, Sunday, 26 May 2013 23:43 (five years ago) Permalink
Ah, the high ISO isn't so good on the GF3? That's an amazing deal on the GX1 - £131! I wouldn't fancy tripling the price with the power zoom kit, so it would force me to get one of the pancake primes.
Oh, I dunno. It really was just the appealing thought of going to Wells Street in the West End tomorrow and just picking up that camera, I hadn't done much research. (Meanwhile, I've spent more than the cost of any of these cameras on getting my 40D refurbed - still in the shop, waiting for the new shutter - so perhaps I'm just getting jitters from not being able to shoot at the moment).
Thanks for the tips!
― Michael Jones, Monday, 27 May 2013 00:17 (five years ago) Permalink
The GF3's is essentially the same as the GF1's (which I had and loved), but colour noise starts creeping in even at ISO 800.
If you're really intrigued by the concept, wait for the inevitable price drops on any of the newer 16 MP bodies -- operation/AF speed and image quality in M43 land have advanced so much in the past year or so that they're much more pleasurable to use than the older stuff.
― Millsner, Monday, 27 May 2013 01:41 (five years ago) Permalink
Just bought a Pany GX1 for $200 (these debuted at around $800 a couple years ago). It'll cost more to have the hot mirror replaced with a Wratten 89B, as this will be my dedicated IR camera.
― Me So Hormetic (Sanpaku), Monday, 27 May 2013 04:08 (five years ago) Permalink
BTW, as much as I love my EM-5, the Olympus m43 cameras with in body image stabilization are not a wise choice for IR conversions - the fixed sensors on the Pany bodies are much better (and a good deal cheaper) for this.
― Me So Hormetic (Sanpaku), Monday, 27 May 2013 04:11 (five years ago) Permalink
Saw a red GF1 in the window of a Brighton shop today for £169; they were doing a secondhand GX1 for £269. They also had a Bronica SQ-A + 80/2.8 for £500, which gave me the measure of their pricing (take eBay and double it). Wonderful little shop though.
― Michael Jones, Monday, 27 May 2013 22:23 (five years ago) Permalink
Annoying n00b q:
A friend who's a photojourno came to visit recently and let me muck around with his camera for a couple of days, which really gave me the bug. So I'm thinking about taking the plunge and buying my first 'proper' camera. I have use of a Canon 550D (I think?) at work which i can take a passable shot with, but I don't think the kit lens is much cop (or maybe more likely I'm just shite). Either way I don't love using it. My mate's camera was a nikon, and I gather it's more personal preference than one being necessarily better/cheaper than the other(?), so I'm inclined to go with that (but a low end one, obv!)
I've been looking at the D3100 and D3200 - is there much to recommend the added expense of the latter? I don't see myself using it for video much (if at all) and I don't intend to print a lot (and when I do, it won't be poster sized). I've read that a D5100 might be worth going for instead if I can find it cheapish second hand?
I'm thinking about buying the body on its own and buying a thrifty fifty lens. I'm perfectly happy (happier) to go second hand - but are there any pitfalls I should look out for in doing so? Any recommendations for good uk-based (or london-based offline) places to go...? I'm guessing ebay and gumtree are probably not the smartest move given I don't know a lot about all this..
― sktsh, Wednesday, 7 August 2013 15:32 (five years ago) Permalink
I shoot Nikon purely because I happened to find a D40x within my budget when I was looking to buy my first DSLR. I don't know much about the D3100/3200 other than that I assume they are the current equivalent of the D40x, which I really liked.
Given that those cameras are cropped sensor, you may actually want a 35mm lens rather than a 50mm to get the equivalent angle of view to a 50mm on full-frame/film. I have, and swore by, the 35mm 1.8 nikon lens, which is great apart from barrel distortion, but that can be fixed and is maybe more of an issue if you look for it. The basic 50mm is even better, great portrait lens on a cropped sensor, though may be manual focus only on the bodies you are looking at as I don't think they have built in focus motors.
I don't know what your budget is, but I've recently gone full frame so may be selling a D7000 body and the 35mm lens in the near future.
― michaellambert, Wednesday, 7 August 2013 17:48 (five years ago) Permalink
The D3200 has a lower readout noise sensor which according to DxOmark, is worth about 2 stops of dynamic range over the D3100. Pretty huge if you need to pull out shadow detail in processing.
In the U.S. there's not much difference in new price, B&H is selling the 3200 for $546 vs. the 3100 for $522 (each with the kit lens, after instant rebates), which would make it a no brainer. All of the camera companies are terrified by the current slump in sales, which means a lot of deals.
― Sanpaku, Wednesday, 7 August 2013 17:49 (five years ago) Permalink
Cheers guys, dead helpful. Difference in sensor does make the 3200 more compelling for the small diff in cost - that's exactly what I was hoping to find out, as increased megapixels and 1080p video wouldn't have swayed me otherwise I don't think.
Also thanks for lens advice Michael - as I'm sure is dead clear, it's all v new to me so I didn't realise having a cropped sensor would have an impact on the view (though makes sense when you explain!) Given that I'm looking at just buying a body and a single prime to use as an all rounder to start, it sounds like the 35mm would suit me better.
(As amazing as that sounds, I think my limit is probably a fair old way off what you'd get for your D7000. The bulk of my budget is a £350 cash windfall I didn't expect to have, so if I go miles over that I might get myself in a bit of trouble!)
― sktsh, Thursday, 8 August 2013 10:14 (five years ago) Permalink
I found the D5100 for a fair bit cheaper second hand than I could get the 3200, so I've gone with that and bought a 35mm F1.8. The advice was much appreciated!
I've also found out that my old man bought an Olympus OM-2 for when I was born, so next time I'm up north I'm going to dig it out and see if it still works..
― sktsh, Monday, 12 August 2013 13:45 (five years ago) Permalink
(ie if the horror of baby sktsh didn't crack the lens)
― sktsh, Monday, 12 August 2013 13:46 (five years ago) Permalink
I also have an OM-2n, I like it but I'm starting to think it over-exposes a touch. Enjoy your new camera, will be expecting quite a few contributions to WDYLL2013.
― michaellambert, Monday, 12 August 2013 20:53 (five years ago) Permalink
― sktsh, Monday, 12 August 2013 22:03 (five years ago) Permalink
OMs and most camears from that era were designed to be used with 1.35V mercury batteries - nowadays you can only find 1.5V batteries, mostly, which work, but cause the meters to overexpose a tad. you can adjust the iso setting appropriately, or get the light meter set for 1.5V batteries by a tech xp
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 13 August 2013 00:52 (five years ago) Permalink
Great, thanks for that. Oddly i've never felt it was an issue, or at least noticable, with my OM-10.
― michaellambert, Tuesday, 13 August 2013 14:28 (five years ago) Permalink
yeah it shouldn't be *that* noticeable, maybe half a stop at most? could be you have a sticky shutter or your shutter speeds are off
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 13 August 2013 16:13 (five years ago) Permalink
Ok, I went a bit mad with some 0% credit and finally went full-frame...
Canon EOS 6D + 24-105L lens. The shop threw in a 430 EX II, spare battery, flash diffuser and a cleaning kit for nothing. Oh, and the camera is bundled with Lightroom 5 and Premier Elements 11 too (not that I have a computer I can run them on).
It is a bit of a marvel. I've installed a trial of LR 4.3 on my Vista laptop just so I can edit 6D RAWs (LR 5 only works on Win 7/8) but I've barely had a chance to do any real work with it yet. Worrying about ISO is a thing of the past - I set the auto range to 100-6400 and forget about it. 12800 isn't bad either. It goes to 102400, but that's just silly. Focuses in low light like you wouldn't believe.
BUT, wifi is pain in the arse. I've only got it to work twice successfully, and both times I was on a train/Tube away from 3G/wifi signals, so my iPhone paired with it immediately. So either my iPhone (4S, 7.0.3) is having a problem finding the thing or I've got a duff chipset in the 6D which is especially weak. It's almost a deal-breaker, as I might have gone for a secondhand 5D2 without the temptation of the 6D's added extras (not had any luck with GPS yet either!). But the 6D sensor is extraordinary.
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 31 October 2013 11:07 (five years ago) Permalink
not 100% sure the above post describes a camera
― schlump, Thursday, 31 October 2013 11:40 (five years ago) Permalink
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 31 October 2013 12:12 (five years ago) Permalink
Went FF too a couple of months back (Nikon D600), wasn't sure of the difference at first but happy with it now. Took a while to get used to the difference in my 50mm prime, have since added 85mm and 28mm primes.
― michaellambert, Thursday, 31 October 2013 15:51 (five years ago) Permalink
I did end up upgrading my RAM from 4GB to 12GB to help out Lightroom 5, which helped a good bit. The Raw files are a fair size.
― michaellambert, Thursday, 31 October 2013 15:52 (five years ago) Permalink
Anyone on here using medium format? I'm tempted to try and pick up a Mamiya 645 or a Bronica ETRS but struggling to pick one and was wondering if anyone had any experience with either?
― michaellambert, Wednesday, 1 January 2014 20:56 (five years ago) Permalink
I've had a Bronica SQ-A for ~10 years, though it hasn't shot a roll in 3-4. Always worked perfectly and the images looked amazing when printed.
Stopped shooting with it when I no longer had darkroom access, tried again several times over the years but paying to develop the film and then scanning it on a flatbed took all the fun out for me. Maybe if dedicated MF film scanners hadn't gone the way of the dodo but I really hated the process of scanning film with an Epson flatbed. The results were never what I wanted, exactly, and when printed didn't justify the expense of MF over good digital.
Part of me would still love the Fuji/Voigtlander 6x6/6x7 rangefinder, I love the square.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 1 January 2014 23:25 (five years ago) Permalink
I pulled the trigger on the Mamiya. I'm expecting to mostly shoot B+W as I can develop it at home, don't think there's anywhere local that can do colour 120.
― michaellambert, Thursday, 2 January 2014 00:24 (five years ago) Permalink
Our Bronica is similarly underused - haven't developed a roll in a couple of years.
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 2 January 2014 12:46 (five years ago) Permalink
just realized I've had the Bronica for 12 years. lol old
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 2 January 2014 17:26 (five years ago) Permalink
I bought an Olympus RC on ebay for a tenner. Just took it out for the first time today, having never used a rangefinder in my life. The shutter is so quiet!
― sktsh, Saturday, 29 March 2014 17:47 (five years ago) Permalink
that was always a selling point for rangefinders - no mirrors to move around as part of the shutter-release sequence
― Lee626, Saturday, 29 March 2014 22:46 (five years ago) Permalink
I need this camera!
― 龜, Sunday, 30 March 2014 00:20 (five years ago) Permalink
Olympus RC has a leaf shutter, so it can flash sync all the way to 1/500. Only a stop slower than the Fuji X100s.
Very, very cool for flash fill in daylight portraiture.
― Congratulations! And my condolences. (Sanpaku), Sunday, 30 March 2014 03:39 (five years ago) Permalink