This is the advice a friend of mine gives. His cameras cost thousands and he is a prize winning photographer. I am not a photographer, so have no idea of the merits of his advice, but take an interest in it because of a general interest in technology and because I have someone else to buy for. Here is a summary.
1) OS does not matter unless you are using RAW. Otherwise you are using a card reader, and any OS will manage jpeg. If you are shooting in RAW the program to read it in is very important, and not all programmes come for all OSs. There is something about Macs and Canons - the best RAW software seems to come only for windows.
2) More megapixels are not better, in fact they are probably worse in compact cameras, because noise rises as the pixel size gets smaller. You will see this particularly in low light conditions.
3) There are two reasons why SLRs are better, and a lot better, than anything else, if quality is what matters. One is size of sensor. They have big sensors, less noise. The other is that they do not use power to deliver the view through the viewfinder. This means more rapid operation, less power consumption. The difference between the alleged semi-pro small sensor cameras and true SLRs is huge, and way out of proportion to the difference either in cost or size. I think his view is, though he doesn't say this explicitly, that the 'semi pro' ones which look like SLRs but are not, is like lipstick on a pig. The only thing to use, if you are serious about picture quality, is an SLR. The difference, he says, is huge.
4) When considering SLRs, worry about dust. Every time you do a lens change, dust will be attracted to the sensor. Cleaning up the dust in photoshop or equivalent will be inredibly time consuming. He uses these special brushes,very expensive, to get the dust off the sensor. There are different ways of getting the dust off automatically now with different makes. Worry about dust. Worry about how you are going to manage, how much its going to cost, whether you have to return for maintenance to get it done. Think hard about whether you actually need to change lenses, and if not, get the kind of lens that is flexible enough to leave in place forever.
If you're a pro you can't avoid changing lenses. As an amateur, plan so you don't have to.
5) More optical zoom is not better. It is impossible to make 12 x optical zoom lenses that are as good at any given zoom as a non-zooming lens. So anything more than 4 or 5 x zoom means compromising quality at all zoom levels.
5) Image stabilisation is fine, but beware of processing that increases sharpness. What you want is a stabilised image, with as little processing as possible. If any sharpening is going to be done, do it yourself on the PC. Otherwise you risk ending up with a pre-processed image where further processing will just degrade quality.
6) He has cameras that cost 5k plus. Nevertheless, the ones that he is surprised to find give him excellent shots and surprisingly good quality are the 200 pound or so compacts with moderate MP and Zoom count. He particularly mentions a Fuji whose model number I have forgotten. It had quite a high MP count. I can find out if you want.
7) Some of these, particularly the more expensive ones, have all kinds of manual controls. He has been surprised to find that they don't appeal to him at all, though in SLRs he is very manual control oriented. He actually prefers simple point and click in compacts, and doesn't quite know why the ones which allow him the freedom he has with his expensive SLRs always seem to get left at home.
I found these conversations interesting because they are so different from anything you read in reviews. As a consequence I bought for my nearest and dearest a then high end 3 x zoom 4MP camera, a couple of large compact flash cards, and a reader. It has worked brilliantly. Its easy to use, the quality is excellent, the zoom is about right, its purse or jacket pocket size, and it goes everywhere. Its certainly not what I had in mind before I asked him.
Peter
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 11:16:33PM +0100, Peter Alcibiades wrote:
*long* post ahead.
It's interesting to read his thoughts, I think they are what I'd expect as it sounds like a "professional" (or at least semi-pro) photographer, so his needs are quite different and far more specific to those of most people who use cameras.
- OS does not matter unless you are using RAW. Otherwise you are using a
card reader, and any OS will manage jpeg. If you are shooting in RAW the program to read it in is very important, and not all programmes come for all OSs. There is something about Macs and Canons - the best RAW software seems to come only for windows.
Not so long ago the best raw converter for Canon cameras was gpl software. I'm not sure what more recent software is up to but there are plenty of gpl tools that can do as much and sometimes more than payware when it is photography related.
- More megapixels are not better, in fact they are probably worse in compact
cameras, because noise rises as the pixel size gets smaller. You will see this particularly in low light conditions.
That is only half the story, image quality depends more on the quality of the sensor and lens than how many megapixels a particular camera has, my 7 megapixel S series canon takes *very* nice photos compared to many 4 megapixel cameras but could well be worse than a 4 megapixel camera with a much better lens.
- There are two reasons why SLRs are better, and a lot better, than anything
else, if quality is what matters. One is size of sensor. They have big sensors, less noise. The other is that they do not use power to deliver the
That's not strictly true either, an slr camera without a lens is useless. When you factor in a lens as good as that on my S series Canon compact on a semi-decent body you'll be paying over a grand just to get where I am in the first place. Of course an slr is more flexible in the capabilities it has but at the same time is damn impractical for many people to carry about and use. A camera that always stays at home is as useful as no camera at all.
like lipstick on a pig. The only thing to use, if you are serious about picture quality, is an SLR. The difference, he says, is huge.
He's over-generalised on a specific point, *technically* a decent slr with the right lens will be better, but when you've not taken the camera down the white water rapids in the raft as you're worried about losing it and have no photos even a photo taken with the worst camera ever will be better. ;)
- When considering SLRs, worry about dust. Every time you do a lens
change, dust will be attracted to the sensor. Cleaning up the dust in photoshop or equivalent will be inredibly time consuming. He uses these special brushes,very expensive, to get the dust off the sensor. There are different ways of getting the dust off automatically now with different makes. Worry about dust. Worry about how you are going to manage, how much its going to cost, whether you have to return for maintenance to get it done.
Dust is easy to deal with, I've done it myself when I was an slr owner. The price of cleaning the sensor is trivial compared to the overall cost of the kit. Doing it digitally can be quite easy too but you are best off not doing anything about it until you notice it or just check every few months if it is affecting your photos by putting the camera on a table facing a light coloured sheet of paper. You then defocus it and set it for a 15 second exposure with the right amount of apeture and wave it around the surface so it won't focus on any points. You will then have a very clear photo of all the dust on the sensor.
Think hard about whether you actually need to change lenses, and if not, get the kind of lens that is flexible enough to leave in place forever.
If you don't need to change the lens don't bother with an slr, you'd almost certainly be wasting money (or need to own more than 1 body). You'd have just ruined the best point of having an slr and that's the flexibility of the damn thing, an slr with a lens that will do everything will be such a compromise you'd be better off with 2 compacts.
- More optical zoom is not better. It is impossible to make 12 x optical
zoom lenses that are as good at any given zoom as a non-zooming lens. So anything more than 4 or 5 x zoom means compromising quality at all zoom levels.
But it is better than digital zoom, if you *need* something that is a 300mm equivalent or better then buying something with stupid amounts of digital zoom will end up with much worse picture quality. I have a Canon S2 which is a 35-400mm equivalient (iirc) and for lots of photography it's perfectly ok at many zoom levels, the only downside is taking photos indoors as the flash isn't up to much and it's quite a slow lens but for the tasks it does and the price I paid it's a very useful camera.
- Image stabilisation is fine, but beware of processing that increases
sharpness. What you want is a stabilised image, with as little processing as possible. If any sharpening is going to be done, do it yourself on the PC. Otherwise you risk ending up with a pre-processed image where further processing will just degrade quality.
Image stabilisation is only really useful if you are taking photos from a stationary vehicle with the engine running or in low light conditions to give you a couple more stops or if you need to take it slower than either 1/60th or 1/30 of a second (depends how much you had to drink the night before).
- He has cameras that cost 5k plus. Nevertheless, the ones that he is
surprised to find give him excellent shots and surprisingly good quality are the 200 pound or so compacts with moderate MP and Zoom count. He particularly mentions a Fuji whose model number I have forgotten. It had quite a high MP count. I can find out if you want.
I thought you were saying that the slr was best for quality? :)
- Some of these, particularly the more expensive ones, have all kinds of
manual controls. He has been surprised to find that they don't appeal to him at all, though in SLRs he is very manual control oriented. He actually prefers simple point and click in compacts, and doesn't quite know why the ones which allow him the freedom he has with his expensive SLRs always seem to get left at home.
I like compacts which have full manual mode available. Most of the photos I take are taken on fully automatic modes, but having that full manual available is crucial for some kinds of work.
My take on this is that the original post doesn't really give me what I'd need to know to suggest a particular camera. The relevant question I'd like to know the answer too would be "what are you going to take photos of? (landscapes, people, sports, wildlife, indoors... etc.)"
Things I would consider are, how much zoom is needed, what kind of memory format you want (although the choice is now pretty much SD and I'd avoid anything that uses either XD or memory stick). How long/far you will be going with the camera for battery choice (good NiMH rechargeable AA batteries with a good charger would be a good thing).
Photography mainly comes down that you are always going to have to compromise on the equipment you use one way or another as no equipment is better than everything else for all situations.
I'd also suggest before buying any camera from any particular manufacturer that you check out what their previous form is like for having to issue updates to fix various issues with their cameras. After a recent bit of fiddling I've had to do for someone I'd never buy (or let anyone buy) an HP camera. I've had to deal with one recently that has had a fair few firmware updates related to it corrupting images on the memory card which even after lots of updates it still does!
Thanks Adam
On 8/14/07, Adam Bower adam@thebowery.co.uk wrote:
How long/far you will be going with the camera for battery choice (good NiMH rechargeable AA batteries with a good charger would be a good thing).
Good point about batteries - while fancy batteries can make the camera body smaller, it really sucks when you're out of juice and you can't just pop into the gift shop to buy some emergency zinc-carbon style AAs. My dad suffers from this so often it's not funny any more - he uses an otherwise very good Pentax Optio.
Tim.
Tim
In these days when most people have cars with 12v supplies ( ciggy lighters! ) and inverters are <£30 then I cant see when people even on holiday run out of power.
Maplins even have a 120W one for £20 http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=220993&&source=14&d...
Confused of Ipswich
From: main-bounces@lists.alug.org.uk on behalf of Tim Green Sent: Tue 14/08/2007 7:32 AM To: main@lists.alug.org.uk Subject: Re: [ALUG] Digital cameras
On 8/14/07, Adam Bower adam@thebowery.co.uk wrote:
How long/far you will be going with the camera for battery choice (good NiMH rechargeable AA batteries with a good charger would be a good thing).
Good point about batteries - while fancy batteries can make the camera body smaller, it really sucks when you're out of juice and you can't just pop into the gift shop to buy some emergency zinc-carbon style AAs. My dad suffers from this so often it's not funny any more - he uses an otherwise very good Pentax Optio.
On 8/14/07, keith.jamieson@bt.com keith.jamieson@bt.com wrote:
In these days when most people have cars with 12v supplies ( ciggy lighters! ) and inverters are <£30 then I cant see when people even on holiday run out of power.
Maplins even have a 120W one for £20 http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=220993&&source=14&d...
That looks like a very useful gadget - thanks!
Although, I imagine my dad will now get strange looks for carrying a car around with him at stately homes ;-)
Or, more sensibly, he could be re-charging the camera batteries on his way there.
Thanks, Tim.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 07:41:05AM +0100, keith.jamieson@bt.com wrote:
Tim
In these days when most people have cars with 12v supplies ( ciggy lighters! ) and inverters are <£30 then I cant see when people even on holiday run out of power.
Confused of Ipswich
I'd get a battery charger that plugs straight into the 12V socket rather than convert 12V to 240V back to whatever the battery charger uses. Of course your suggestion will work for some people some of the time but charging batteries can take "some time" (although I just managed to pick up a Varta 15 minute charger and 10x15 minute charge AA's all brand new for £13 the other week). I'd much rather just go and buy a load of alkalines when I find the batteries are dead on a day out rather than spending an hour or two sitting in the car with the ignition on waiting for the batteries to get charged up.
Adam
** Tim Green timothy.j.green@gmail.com [2007-08-14 07:43]:
On 8/14/07, Adam Bower adam@thebowery.co.uk wrote:
How long/far you will be going with the camera for battery choice (good NiMH rechargeable AA batteries with a good charger would be a good thing).
Good point about batteries - while fancy batteries can make the camera body smaller, it really sucks when you're out of juice and you can't just pop into the gift shop to buy some emergency zinc-carbon style AAs. My dad suffers from this so often it's not funny any more - he uses an otherwise very good Pentax Optio.
** end quote [Tim Green]
Whilst in principle I'd agree(*), in practice I've found that he 'fancy' custom batteries perform by orders of magnitude better. I very nearly didn't buy a digital camera after using my Dads Nikon 3200 because firstly it took ages between shutter press and taking the shot so missed many nice shots of my first son (who is now 6 so I guess that dates the technology a bit!), and secondly it ate batteries like nobodies business. Even with rechargable batteries and charger bought from a good photographic supplier (I can't remember which off hand) they would not keep their charge in the camera when not in use for more than a few days. When used they would manage around 10 shots before giving up. Even new batteries didn't improve things. I suspect everyone is now suspecting a dodgy camera, but the same was found with my Mums Pentax digital camera. When I finally got my Nikon 5200 I found that with my first run through of photos on the first battery charge I forgot exactly when it was first charged, and even now it manages enough shots that I don't really notice how many shots I've taken, or how many days it is since the last charge. That contrasts with my experience of laptop batteries where I was told by Dell that having managed 2/300 ish charges out of my C600 batteries over the period of a just over a year was extremely good going - but that's another issue altogether!
(*) One of the reasons I still have a fondness for my ancient Nikon F301 as it can use either AA or AAA batteries that are easy to get hold of, whereas my F601 and F70 both use different more difficult to get hold of batteries... and as a side note, haven't second hand film camera prices nose dived. If I sold all my boxed pristine Nikon film camera bits I still couldn't affored even the base D40 with a lens :( It's a shame the gadget that would fit a digital sensor into a standard 35mm camera never took off, ah well.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 12:53:27PM +0100, Paul Tansom wrote:
Whilst in principle I'd agree(*), in practice I've found that he 'fancy' custom batteries perform by orders of magnitude better. I very nearly
I agree with that for certain, the S70 takes custom batteries but they do last a very long time. Even when they warn you that they are getting low (about 3 days worth of 100-150 photos in my experience) you'll still get at least another 40 shots out of them (maybe 15 with flash).
business. Even with rechargable batteries and charger bought from a good photographic supplier (I can't remember which off hand) they would not keep their charge in the camera when not in use for more than a few days. When used they would manage around 10 shots before giving up. Even new batteries didn't improve things. I suspect everyone is now
I'd suspect that the charger wasn't up to much, decent chargers cost lots of money but batteries seem pretty run of the mill other than the difference in mah raing) whatever you buy as long as they are branded. There are some webpages out there that have tests done with various batteries and charger found that batteries are all pretty much of a muchness (all within about 10% of each other and their mah rating) but the charger is the most important link. When I spent £30 on a decent charger (see http://www.mahaenergy.co.uk/ ) a few years back (of course the damn thing is now broken but that might have been my fault as i did drop it, hence the new Varta charger) I found that all my batteries suddenly worked for approximately twice as long, not that I ever had to actually worry too much about it then as I could take a camera out for the day and not ever have to change batteries any more so I'd just change batteries with fresh at the end of the day and stick others in the charger. It is worth mentioning that nimh batteries can lose 40% of their charge over a month if they are not used, especially if they are stored in warm conditions so you really do need to charge them the night before or on the day you want to actually use them.
Adam
On 8/14/07, Paul Tansom paul@aptanet.com wrote:
and as a side note, haven't second hand film camera prices nose dived. If I sold all my boxed pristine Nikon film camera bits I still couldn't affored even the base D40 with a lens :( It's a shame the gadget that would fit a digital sensor into a standard 35mm camera never took off, ah well.
Is any of your old Nikon kit compatible with the D40? Manual only focus lenses can be hard work.
Tim.
** Tim Green timothy.j.green@gmail.com [2007-08-14 14:08]:
On 8/14/07, Paul Tansom paul@aptanet.com wrote:
and as a side note, haven't second hand film camera prices nose dived. If I sold all my boxed pristine Nikon film camera bits I still couldn't affored even the base D40 with a lens :( It's a shame the gadget that would fit a digital sensor into a standard 35mm camera never took off, ah well.
Is any of your old Nikon kit compatible with the D40? Manual only focus lenses can be hard work.
** end quote [Tim Green]
The answer to that is possibly, and I've not actually investigated further than that yet. Apparantly the issue is how far the lens protrudes into the camera body when focusing and zooming. The mount, as ever is compatible, although some features may not work. My understanding is that the main difference, apart from the physical side already mentioned, is that the focal length of the lens required for the equivalent magnification is different due to the differing size of the sensor compared to the 35mm film area.
My plan was, and I guess still is, to get another Nikon and with any luck a few of my lenses will tide me over until I can afford properly matching ones. I have to be honest here and confess that I am a seriously biased Nikon fan. Many, many years back when I first upgraded from my original Zenith 11 and Zenith 12 cameras and auto-focus was still a new an expensive idea I was rather taken with the Nikon F301 and found a good price on it, and I have stuck with them ever since. I still remember visiting one camera shop that was pushing hard on a Minolta camera and when the handed it to me it was amazingly light, but at he same time it felt so plasticy it seemed like a toy camera and I felt that if I dropped it it would shatter into tiny pieces. The Pentax and Canon cameras of the time felt pretty similar. Not that I have anything specifically against them, and when I'm carrying my camera I sometimes wish it was lighter (although the bulk of carrying extra lenses is often the most annoying), I just like to feel something solid in my hands when I take a photo. Much as I like my little 5200 digital camera, I recently took my SLR out and enjoyed taking photos with them far more than the convenient, compact and perfectly good little digital - even though I only carried an equivalently ranged zoom on my bulky old SLR!
Anyhoo...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Paul Tansom wrote:
Is any of your old Nikon kit compatible with the D40? Manual only focus lenses can be hard work.
** end quote [Tim Green]
The answer to that is possibly, and I've not actually investigated further than that yet. Apparantly the issue is how far the lens protrudes into the camera body when focusing and zooming. The mount, as ever is compatible, although some features may not work. My understanding is that the main difference, apart from the physical side already mentioned, is that the focal length of the lens required for the equivalent magnification is different due to the differing size of the sensor compared to the 35mm film area.
In the case of Pentax cameras, the K mount has been fundamentally unchanged since it first appeared in the 1970s (obviously, subject to the backwards-compatible addition of auto-focus coupler and auto-aperture and ID electrical connections). In fact, on my fairly new K10D (and the *ist D that preceeded it) I still regularly use a 22-year-old f1.7 50mm and an f2.8 135mm - both completely manual lenses, and which the Pentax can still accurately expose for (admittedly this requires a pre-shot "stop-down" and is centre-spot only, but they're just fantastic lenses so it's worth the slight extra work). They're great for gig photography as they're so fast, and in that sort of environment, auto-focus is next to useless anyway :-)
It is my understanding that Pentax are the only dSLRs that can /truly/ use any lens in their /entire/ back-catalog, right back to screw-fit jobs, but that Canon and Nikon can use some intermediate age lenses - I think that their mounts have evolved somewhat, breaking true backwards compatibility.
On the issue of focal lengths, the "standard" for dSLRs is the APS-C sensor (although there are some with 4/3rds and full-frame sensors). This is smaller than film and ends up giving a crop factor of about 1.5, which means that a 50mm lens on a dSLR becomes about the same as a 75mm lens on a 35mm film camera. However, this is *cropping*, and it does not actually alter the effective magnification of the lens. If you still like to use film cameras and swap lenses around, be aware that many lenses are now made specifically for dSLR cameras and produce a smaller image area (which matches the sensor). you cannot then use these lenses on a film camera, as they vignette around the corners.
same time it felt so plasticy it seemed like a toy camera and I felt that if I dropped it it would shatter into tiny pieces. The Pentax and Canon cameras of the time felt pretty similar.
I certainly agree wrt. the Canons I've tried - the insanely popular 300D and 350Ds /still/ feel like plastic toys compare to my Pentaxes.
wish it was lighter (although the bulk of carrying extra lenses is often the most annoying), I just like to feel something solid in my hands when I take a photo. Much as I like my little 5200 digital camera, I recently took my SLR out and enjoyed taking photos with them far more than the convenient, compact and perfectly good little digital - even though I only carried an equivalently ranged zoom on my bulky old SLR!
Too true. I've bought a couple of compacts with that "I'll take them with me all the time and use the dSLR for special occasions" mentality, but the difference between the two types is just too great, so I really do take my Lowepro Mini-Trekker AW, complete with 10-20mm, 15-30mm, 28-75mm, 135mm, 50mm, 300mm, mini tripod and Vivitar 285HV flash with me /everywhere/. It weighs a ton, but I wouldn't be without it.
Meanwhile, to add to the earlier part of this thread, I use Bibble Pro for photo manipulation (www.bibblelabs.com). Even though it's not free (at around $130 for the Pro version) and it's aimed at RAW processing (which I don't do much of), I still like it as it has a good workflow, some great tools and the licence allows you to run it on Linux, Mac and Windows (and even to be multiply installed, as long as you only run it one at a time). It's can also properly use dual core CPUs, which is nice as the Linux box I mostly use it on and the MacBook pro I use on the road are both such beasts. Sweet.
Cheers, Simon
- -- ====================================================================== Simon Ransome http://nosher.net Photo RSS Feed: http://nosher.net/images/images.rss
On Tuesday 14 August 2007 16:19, Simon Ransome wrote:
On the issue of focal lengths, the "standard" for dSLRs is the APS-C sensor (although there are some with 4/3rds and full-frame sensors). This is smaller than film and ends up giving a crop factor of about 1.5, which means that a 50mm lens on a dSLR becomes about the same as a 75mm lens on a 35mm film camera. However, this is *cropping*, and it does not actually alter the effective magnification of the lens.
Agreed - You just can not go changing the laws of physics.. The number of times I've called oik@jessops a few choice names (apparently, the manager), when told a 300mm lens magically becomes a 450mm lens on a digital camera..
I've found http://doug.kerr.home.att.net/pumpkin/ to have a number of detailed, technical ramblings on the subject of digital photography.
Regards, Paul.
** Simon Ransome simon@nosher.net [2007-08-14 16:56]:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul Tansom wrote:
Is any of your old Nikon kit compatible with the D40? Manual only focus lenses can be hard work.
** end quote [Tim Green] The answer to that is possibly, and I've not actually investigated further than that yet. Apparantly the issue is how far the lens protrudes into the camera body when focusing and zooming. The mount, as ever is compatible, although some features may not work. My understanding is that the main difference, apart from the physical side already mentioned, is that the focal length of the lens required for the equivalent magnification is different due to the differing size of the sensor compared to the 35mm film area.
In the case of Pentax cameras, the K mount has been fundamentally unchanged since it first appeared in the 1970s (obviously, subject to the backwards-compatible addition of auto-focus coupler and auto-aperture and ID electrical connections). In fact, on my fairly new K10D (and the *ist D that preceeded it) I still regularly use a 22-year-old f1.7 50mm and an f2.8 135mm - both completely manual lenses, and which the Pentax can still accurately expose for (admittedly this requires a pre-shot "stop-down" and is centre-spot only, but they're just fantastic lenses so it's worth the slight extra work). They're great for gig photography as they're so fast, and in that sort of environment, auto-focus is next to useless anyway :-)
It is my understanding that Pentax are the only dSLRs that can /truly/ use any lens in their /entire/ back-catalog, right back to screw-fit jobs, but that Canon and Nikon can use some intermediate age lenses - I think that their mounts have evolved somewhat, breaking true backwards compatibility.
OK, I'll have to go back and check, but I believe that the Nikon mount itself (as in the bayonet connection) hasn't changed since 1959, although in 1979 the AI lenses improved the metering information and control significantly. With a few exceptions pretty much all current Nikons will take AI and newer lenses with varying degrees of functionality for the metering (as you would expect with the advances in the technology). Some will also take pre-AI lenses (the D40 and D40x amongst others). As with all things there are no doubt exceptions to the rule, particularly if you take into account third party manufacturers. Mine are all post AI lenses and in most case AF-D, so should have no problems with the DSLR range unless there are clearance problems that I've heard mention of.
My old Zenith used to use the Pentax screw thread which was the pre K mount format, although I've no idea when they changed. My Dad has a Pentax autofocus SLR of some sort which he got when his Nikon FG20 was stolen. That's the only Nikon I've actually sold as it happens, although not the same one.
On the issue of focal lengths, the "standard" for dSLRs is the APS-C sensor (although there are some with 4/3rds and full-frame sensors). This is smaller than film and ends up giving a crop factor of about 1.5, which means that a 50mm lens on a dSLR becomes about the same as a 75mm lens on a 35mm film camera. However, this is *cropping*, and it does not actually alter the effective magnification of the lens. If you still like to use film cameras and swap lenses around, be aware that many lenses are now made specifically for dSLR cameras and produce a smaller image area (which matches the sensor). you cannot then use these lenses on a film camera, as they vignette around the corners.
Yup, I have a feeling my lazy wording was a mistake there, but it didn't seem worth the hassle of a full technical description when the effect on the print (pre optical or digital trickery) was what I was meaning :)
same time it felt so plasticy it seemed like a toy camera and I felt that if I dropped it it would shatter into tiny pieces. The Pentax and Canon cameras of the time felt pretty similar.
I certainly agree wrt. the Canons I've tried - the insanely popular 300D and 350Ds /still/ feel like plastic toys compare to my Pentaxes.
Yes, I seem to remember waivering on a Pentax when I added my F601 to my F301, but the ability to stick with the same lenses, all be it manual not autofocus, won the argument for the F601. The F70 was only added because my Sigma zoom broke just out of warranty and there was a far too tempting package offer on the F70 with the lens I needed at he time - I was also somewhat better funded than I am now!
wish it was lighter (although the bulk of carrying extra lenses is often the most annoying), I just like to feel something solid in my hands when I take a photo. Much as I like my little 5200 digital camera, I recently took my SLR out and enjoyed taking photos with them far more than the convenient, compact and perfectly good little digital - even though I only carried an equivalently ranged zoom on my bulky old SLR!
Too true. I've bought a couple of compacts with that "I'll take them with me all the time and use the dSLR for special occasions" mentality, but the difference between the two types is just too great, so I really do take my Lowepro Mini-Trekker AW, complete with 10-20mm, 15-30mm, 28-75mm, 135mm, 50mm, 300mm, mini tripod and Vivitar 285HV flash with me /everywhere/. It weighs a ton, but I wouldn't be without it.
I know the feeling, although I can't quote the Lowpro model of my camera back. I've taken recently to travelling light and just taking the camera and standard zoom in a Zing camera case - almost as convenient as a compact and more fun for me :)
Meanwhile, to add to the earlier part of this thread, I use Bibble Pro for photo manipulation (www.bibblelabs.com). Even though it's not free (at around $130 for the Pro version) and it's aimed at RAW processing (which I don't do much of), I still like it as it has a good workflow, some great tools and the licence allows you to run it on Linux, Mac and Windows (and even to be multiply installed, as long as you only run it one at a time). It's can also properly use dual core CPUs, which is nice as the Linux box I mostly use it on and the MacBook pro I use on the road are both such beasts. Sweet.
Hmm, may have to take a look, although I'm saving my pennies for the camera at the moment :)
Anyway, heading a bit off topic now I guess! ** end quote [Simon Ransome]
On Tuesday 14 August 2007 00:03, Adam Bower wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 11:16:33PM +0100, Peter Alcibiades wrote: *long* post ahead.
<major snips>
like lipstick on a pig. The only thing to use, if you are serious about picture quality, is an SLR. The difference, he says, is huge.
He's over-generalised on a specific point, *technically* a decent slr with the right lens will be better, but when you've not taken the camera down the white water rapids in the raft as you're worried about losing it and have no photos even a photo taken with the worst camera ever will be better. ;)
From the "been there, done that" department - Don't ever take a camera on a rafting/canoeing trip unless it is in a *very* waterproof box and kit bag.. And I would agree with Adam, a decent lens is crucial for good photos.
- When considering SLRs, worry about dust. Every time you do a lens
change, dust will be attracted to the sensor.
Some people use a very thin rubber gasket between the body & lens to help reduce the ingress of dust.
Think hard about whether you actually need to change lenses, and if not, get the kind of lens that is flexible enough to leave in place forever.
If you don't need to change the lens don't bother with an slr, you'd almost certainly be wasting money (or need to own more than 1 body).
Agreed (but then I have several lenses plus a manual body)
You'd have just ruined the best point of having an slr and that's the flexibility of the damn thing, an slr with a lens that will do everything will be such a compromise you'd be better off with 2 compacts.
If you go the SLR route, I'd suggest getting a manual body to take the same lenses - Note, not all lenses will fit on a manual body. With the Canon, I avoid the EFS lenses so that I can chop'n'change bodies.
- Image stabilisation is fine, but beware of processing that increases
sharpness.
Image stabilisation is only really useful if you are taking photos from a stationary vehicle with the engine running or in low light conditions to give you a couple more stops or if you need to take it slower than either 1/60th or 1/30 of a second (depends how much you had to drink the night before).
At 1/30, consider a tripod or a monopod - The latter makes for a handy seal club or walking stick ;)
I like compacts which have full manual mode available. Most of the photos I take are taken on fully automatic modes, but having that full manual available is crucial for some kinds of work.
Agreed, and for low/zero light conditions, a bulb setting is very useful for those two hour exposures.
"what are you going to take photos of? (landscapes, people, sports, wildlife, indoors... etc.)"
If it is just holiday snaps, a point'n'shoot compact would do. Sports/wildlife would tend to indicate long lenses, fast shutter speeds, where as landscapes/portraits would lean towards shorter lenses.
Photography mainly comes down that you are always going to have to compromise on the equipment you use one way or another as no equipment is better than everything else for all situations.
Agreed - Although an SLR suits *me* for much of what I do, with the lenses, filters, and spare body, it ends up being a heavy bag of kit. Not good if you also go out hiking in the mountains of Norfolk.
I'd also suggest before buying any camera from any particular manufacturer that you check out what their previous form is like for having to issue updates to fix various issues with their cameras.
Also, if you are leaning towards an SLR, find a friend with one and compare notes (and possibly try it out).
Regards, Paul.
-
Adam Bower -
keith.jamieson＠bt.com -
Paul -
Paul Tansom -
Peter Alcibiades -
Simon Ransome -
Tim Green