Which Digital SLR....

[Paul Chapman]

Technology is a good and wondrous thing.

Must disagree - where photography is concerned it just gets in the way. Why can't these nerds who design cameras just produce something simple and reliable (like, for example, the film-based Nikon FM2). Set the shutter speed, set the aperture, focus the lens, press the shutter. Simple as that.

Less is more........

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[wizer]

Paul I think you've fundamentally mid-understood what a nerd is.

Think of it in the world of the illegal drug trade. The nerd would be your average junkie. The designer would be your producer in Holland who is ever trying to up the addiction ingredients.

Nerds buy cameras because they have cool gadgets, Photographers take good pictures.

Yours

N. Erd. Esq

 

[Paul Chapman]

Thanks, Tom - that's about as clear as an instruction book for a DSLR :? :lol:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[wizer]

I was merely pointing out that the designers are not the nerds, it's us lot who want to buy things that look shiny or have cool gadgetry on them that are the nerds.

A good photographer takes a good picture.

A nerd can use gadgets to possibly get a good picture.

So I basically agree with you but place myself in the nerd category.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I was merely pointing out that the designers are not the nerds, it's us lot who want to buy things that look shiny or have cool gadgetry on them that are the nerds.

The problem is that the designers don't/won't design what we want to buy. They just keep piling on more and more irrelevant stuff then pass the product to the marketing men who convince you nerdy types that you simply can't live without it. Then you buy it, the batteries pack up or some of the electronic wizardry gives up the ghost and you throw it in the bin and go and buy the next wonder-camera, and so it goes on.

It really all started with electronic news gathering and newspaper photographers sending back pictures via their laptops.

All a bit of a shame really - Cartier-Bresson never had all these problems.......

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[duncanh]

Must disagree - where photography is concerned it just gets in the way. Why can't these nerds who design cameras just produce something simple and reliable (like, for example, the film-based Nikon FM2). Set the shutter speed, set the aperture, focus the lens, press the shutter. Simple as that.

Paul

Paul - it's easy enough on my Konica Minolta 5D digital SLR to use it manual mode if you want to(turn mode dial to M and leave it there if that's all you want to use, set the shutter speed with a dial, set the aperture with a button and a dial, focus manually). Simple as that.
I'm sure it's similar on most DSLRs.
I usually use A mode though so I don't need to worry about setting shutter speed.

Then you buy it, the batteries pack up or some of the electronic wizardry gives up the ghost and you throw it in the bin and go and buy the next wonder-camera

As well as the SLR I still use the compact that I bought in 2001. It's never broken and I'm still using the original batteries.

Duncan

 

[bugbear]

Technology is a good and wondrous thing.

Must disagree - where photography is concerned it just gets in the way.

It's technology that gives us the ability to design colour corrected 11 element lenses, 1/2000th second shutters (using titanium blades), fine grained film...

If you want to see what a lack of technology can do, try using any pre 1950 optics (camera or telescope/binocular). They're pre-computer designed (via ray tracing) lenses, and (compared to anything post 1970) look AWFUL!

BugBear

 

[Paul Chapman]

If you want to see what a lack of technology can do, try using any pre 1950 optics (camera or telescope/binocular). They're pre-computer designed (via ray tracing) lenses, and (compared to anything post 1970) look AWFUL!

That didn't stop people like Cartier-Bresson and Bill Brandt taking the best photographs ever.........

You are right, of course - from a purely technical point of view, cameras and lenses are far better these days. It's just a pity that all the technology gets in the way of taking photographs.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[bugbear]

If you want to see what a lack of technology can do, try using any pre 1950 optics (camera or telescope/binocular). They're pre-computer designed (via ray tracing) lenses, and (compared to anything post 1970) look AWFUL!

That didn't stop people like Cartier-Bresson and Bill Brandt taking the best photographs ever.........

You are right, of course - from a purely technical point of view, cameras and lenses are far better these days. It's just a pity that all the technology gets in the way of taking photographs.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

I agree many "features" are not needed, but most can be disabled, or ignored.

BugBear

 

[cutting42]

That didn't stop people like Cartier-Bresson and Bill Brandt taking the best photographs ever.........

I note your wink but I think the technology is a huge enabler. Bresson, Brandt, and the other gods of photography are artists who just happen to use cameras rather than any other medium. The autofocus, program exposure, digital processing and other technologies make it possible for us mere mortals to take acceptable quality images for our own family and personal pleasure. As we improve our technique if we are interested, we can use the manual modes and upgrade to DSLR cameras. My wife and kids can use my DSLR in full auto mode and get lovely snaps. When I want to get all Ansell Adams I can put it on a tripod on manual and mess with exposures, f stops and filters to get certain effects. The technology is there if you want it. Artistic ability is the same whatever the technology.

 

[woody67]

Artistic ability is the same whatever the technology.

Got to agree with you there Gareth. \/

Mark

 

[virtu]

Just so happens that technology of photography was very advanced already in 1950's, just check and try properly tuned medium format folding camera like Agfa Isolette (www.certo6.com)

Last year when visiting Equador and Galapagos Island, I was taking most of the shots with Canon D400, but still preferred the photographs taken by 120 format film, what you loose in speed and convinience in film you gain by taking better thought out photographs.

Ideal for digital slr for me would be to get full frame digi back to my Yashica FX-3 ;-)

It's the dilemma of too much invested to give it up, having almost all the various Yashica ML objectives...

 

[big soft moose]

Because Canon cameras have one of the shallowest body face to sensor depths you can get adaptors for a surprising amount of lenses made by other makers - Minolta included. All they do is provide a mechanical mount for the lens on the body - the camera controls cannot make it focus or set the aperture but the cameras metering will still work.

Macro lenses even if they have AF are usually used in manual focus and setting the aperture yourself is no hardship so it may be worth the £15 or whatever it is for an adaptor off ebay just for the macro lens.

It isnt quite that simple - without the electrical conection the TTL metering wont work so while setting the apperture yourself is no hardship (providing of course that the minolta lense has a manual apperture setting ring, not all do) you would also need a light meter to tell you what the correct exposure is and would have to set the apperture on the lens and both the apperture and the shutter speed on the camera.

I still would really question the wisdom of spending several hundred quid on a dslr then using lenses that negate 90% of its features - this would be rather like going out and buing a porsche then fitting the wheels off your old mini to save a few quid.

to my mind the best bet has got to be to get eos fit lenses , and if you cant afford a dedicated macro you will still get better results using ext tubes (with ttl conectors), or close up filters than you would by adapting a minolta lense.

one proviso to that is that if you have a f1.8 50mm prime amongst the minolta lenses it would be worth keeping and using with a reversing ring for macro (this is a ring that screws filter thread to filter thread enabling you to reverse any make of lens onto the front of your canon 50mm or short zoom , and in essence to use it as a very high quality close up filter)

 

[John. B]

Like Tom (wizer) I have a Nikon D50. Previous to digital I've always used Canon.
When digital arrived it was then a choice between Nikon and Canon. Nikon won mainly because for similar spec, The Nikon came out cheaper.
Quality wise I think they are about on level par.
Funnily enough our D50 is now regarded as 'Entry level' cameras, mainly I think on pixel count.
If you click on the link in Tom's post he will tell that it dosen't matter a jot, because as he says "The most important part of a camera is the 12 inches behind the lens.

John. B

 

[Blister]

A camera can do nothing , go on try it ! put it on the table for a week and nothing will happen !!

until the user picks it up ,

finds a subject ,

composes a shot ,

and presses the button ,

then if the shot is rubbish its down to your finger it pushed the button

:wink:

I was big time into photography

still have my Pentax 6x7 mk11 system and about 6 lenses

10D Cannon with 2 lenses

and my trusty G5 Cannon , I love that camera its great , us it for all my posts on here :wink:

 

[TonyW]

Cmon guys stop messing about get a proper camera :lol:

Such as this Linhof Kardan

Then a proper light meter

Or choose a digital spotmeter

Add a selection of lenses and a few double dark slides plus a tripod and see how you get on :lol:

Cheers
Tony

 

[big soft moose]

I made the mistake of taking swimbo to see a joe cornish talk before xmas - she now wants to be a landscape photographer and would love one of those (though shes more likely to wind up with a shen tao 5x4 unless i win the lottery)

however shes stuck with my mamiya 645 (and canon 20D) until we get some more money together.

 

[bugbear]

Cmon guys stop messing about get a proper camera :lol:

Then a proper light meter

The mk V is generally preferred

Anyway, how about a digital view camera...

http://www.betterlight.com/why_better.html

BugBear (who has cameras other than digitals...)

 

[kafkaian]

and my trusty G5 Cannon , I love that camera its great , us it for all my posts on here :wink:

Have to agree Blister, the G5 is cracking. After purchasing my Canon 450d last summer (and lately, a whole host of lenses - gulp), I was going to put the G5 on ebay but I just can't do it. To me it's like the equivalent of a Leica rangefinder. Just superb for that pocketable shot. Still have my Nikon film stuff though when I'm feeling nostalgic plus an old Agfa rangefinder.

 

[Blister]

and my trusty G5 Cannon , I love that camera its great , us it for all my posts on here :wink:

Have to agree Blister, the G5 is cracking. After purchasing my Canon 450d last summer (and lately, a whole host of lenses - gulp), I was going to put the G5 on ebay but I just can't do it. To me it's like the equivalent of a Leica rangefinder. Just superb for that pocketable shot. Still have my Nikon film stuff though when I'm feeling nostalgic plus an old Agfa rangefinder.

8) :wink: