Selecting a Camera

[Kheprera]

Well, all the ones I've priced that fall within my personal requirements tend to range in the $1200 range. Since I already have Nikon film cameras I'm looking at digital bodies where I can still use my lenses (thus saving a ton in the long run). I just can't justify it because I have film cameras that produce an end product I'm happy with (most of the time when I shoot film I'll end up with 11x14 or larger prints). I just can't get happy with digital at those sizes.

 

Then again, I do weird things with my cameras as well that is difficult to reproduce with digital, like pushing and pulling film for specific effects, and purposefully screwing with things so I can get multiple exposures, under exposures, over exposures, high grain, and lighting effects that I just can't seem to duplicate with digital without fiddling in Photoshop.

 

I wish camera manufacturers would stop with the idea that they think they know what everyone wants. I know what I want. I want a digital camera that is comparable to the K1000.

 

 

Yeah, THAT'S never going to happen. I've dropped a K1000 on a concrete floor and it barely got scratched (though I still don't recommend it). I was lucky since it was a school camera, too.

[Heisler]

That's why I waited till Nikon had a DSLR in my price range, so I could still use all my lenses. I haven't gotten rid of my film cameras either. In addition to the good old stand by K1000, I have three (yes, three) Nikon N70s.

 

I think you would love my oldest camera though; 1959 Miranda C, with 35mm, 50mm, and 135mm lenses. Yes, this one is older than me. My Uncle gave it to me when he lost interest in photography. I haven't really played with it in a long time but it is a fun camera to mess around with.

 

The last one in my "collection" is a little Minox spy camera which I never used. I should see if anyone still makes film for this little guy.

[Kheprera]

I have several old cameras I found floating around my grandmother's garage. I need to take them in, get them cleaned up, and see if they work at all. One of them I can't seem to figure out how to load the film (35mm). I think it's from the 40's or 50's. It comes complete with a color lens filter kit and other stuff. Manual focus, but it's not TTL, so you kind of guess on the focus of the thing.

 

The other is a large format brownie type. Great little camera. So many people knock the larger formats without realizing you actually get a better picture since you're working from a larger image.

[claymoore]

While I will always look affectionately at my film cameras, some twenty from 16mm to 4x5, the quality of current digital images makes them obsolete. I enjoyed working with my Nikon F5 more than any other camera but there is nothing to be gained by using it instead of the D3 or 300.

 

Non of the other working pro photogs I know use film anymore either and we work for top Fortune 500 companies with big budgets and demanding usage. If the quality wasn't there the art directors wouldn't accept the work. All of the stock houses I work with will not accept film submissions any longer (Corbis, Getty etc). If you could see some of the 20 x 24 inch prints from ISO 6400 equiv digital captures made with DSLRs that I have you wouldn't contest the superiority of digital. At normal ISO ranges it is just incredible.

 

Btw the Canon A610 has an aperature range of F2.8- F8. 2.8-4.1 is the maximum aperature at the wide-tele settings.

 

DOF is limited on consumer digicams by the limited aperature settings. Typically if shooting something at 1/2 lifesize or more my F stop is set to 32. Most point an shoots only stop down to F8-11 so there is not much DOF when that close to the subject. Backing off some will increase the amount of subject that is in acceptable focus. This is not a problem when shooting for web use where the cropped digital file is still going to be more than sufficient.

 

Good luck DavidVC with the new camera. It should serve you well and let us see your minis.

[Madog Barfog]

I agree that my A70s can have more range in the adjustments, but for under $300, they make mini pictures that I'm happy with, and are far better than what I started with!

[rgtriplec]

While I will always look affectionately at my film cameras, some twenty from 16mm to 4x5, the quality of current digital images makes them obsolete. I enjoyed working with my Nikon F5 more than any other camera but there is nothing to be gained by using it instead of the D3 or 300.

 

Non of the other working pro photogs I know use film anymore either and we work for top Fortune 500 companies with big budgets and demanding usage. If the quality wasn't there the art directors wouldn't accept the work. All of the stock houses I work with will not accept film submissions any longer (Corbis, Getty etc). If you could see some of the 20 x 24 inch prints from ISO 6400 equiv digital captures made with DSLRs that I have you wouldn't contest the superiority of digital. At normal ISO ranges it is just incredible.

 

Btw the Canon A610 has an aperature range of F2.8- F8. 2.8-4.1 is the maximum aperature at the wide-tele settings.

 

DOF is limited on consumer digicams by the limited aperature settings. Typically if shooting something at 1/2 lifesize or more my F stop is set to 32. Most point an shoots only stop down to F8-11 so there is not much DOF when that close to the subject. Backing off some will increase the amount of subject that is in acceptable focus. This is not a problem when shooting for web use where the cropped digital file is still going to be more than sufficient.

 

Good luck DavidVC with the new camera. It should serve you well and let us see your minis.

 

I think you are selling film short and only comparing it to the type of pro photography you engage in.

 

The stock houses may only accept digital formats, but that is so they don't have to scan, and has nothing to do with quality of film cameras. Granted the submissions may be digital, but much of it is still film prints that have been made digital. I agree 35mm slrs are losing ground quickly to digital, but digital is still eons away in the medium and large format world which is still a huge part of the photography industry, as many prints need to be larger than 20 x 24.

 

Although some medium format digitals are out there, they don't even compare to a 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 negative as far as resolution goes. Not all pro photography is product, fashion, weddings or corporate headshots. Some is for billboards, murals, museum walls and larger than life prints.

 

There isn't a digital camera out there that can reproduce the type depth and resolution that Ansel Adams work had.

[claymoore]

I think you are selling film short and only comparing it to the type of pro photography you engage in.

 

The stock houses may only accept digital formats, but that is so they don't have to scan, and has nothing to do with quality of film cameras. Granted the submissions may be digital, but much of it is still film prints that have been made digital. I agree 35mm slrs are losing ground quickly to digital, but digital is still eons away in the medium and large format world which is still a huge part of the photography industry, as many prints need to be larger than 20 x 24.

 

Although some medium format digitals are out there, they don't even compare to a 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 negative as far as resolution goes. Not all pro photography is product, fashion, weddings or corporate headshots. Some is for billboards, murals, museum walls and larger than life prints.

 

There isn't a digital camera out there that can reproduce the type depth and resolution that Ansel Adams work had.

 

Since this is not a camera forum I'll be brief. My comments were directed towards 35mm vs DSLR images. The 20 x 24 image I refered to was at an ISO equiv 6400! At 100 ISO equiv much larger images can be created with excellent detail, color, etc from DSLR captures. If you think that agencies accept inferior quality digital images over film for convenience sake you are off the mark. I'm sure there are some out there but I do not know any professional photographers shooting 35mm film and filing digital scans. DSLR captures are excellent but when final usage requires it ( larger posters, billboards etc) I will use my medium format camera with a Phase One back or the Sinar P with a Phase One or Leaf back. These backs are very close to 4x5 chrome quality now (I see no advantage to 2 1/4 film over the Phase one back). The quality is so close that the slight advantage of the film is more than compensated for by the numerous advantages of digital capture. 4x5 and 8 x 10 film still offers better results in certain projects for specific needs.

 

Ansel Adams artistry was due to his genius., not just his equipment. I miss him. There are now a number of highly acclaimed artists working with digital capture and printing to produce outstanding b&w exhibition prints in addition to their film based work.

[rgtriplec]

Your original post doesn't specify film type, just that digital is superior. I never said agencies accept lesser quality digital for convienience. I said their policy may require submissions to be in a digital format, but that film images can be made digital.

 

I have no doubt digital will catch up to MF in a few years, but its not there yet and is no where near Large format.

 

Granted, Ansel Adams was a genius, but having negatives that are 4"x5", 8"x10" or 20"x24" was key to his style, look and success..

[thrush65]

I'm looking at Phase One backs myself. With the big bucks involved I felt the need to rent one and was able to make comparison 20 x 30 inch prints from 4 x 5 film and the 39 megapixel back. Had to magnify 100x to see any difference with a slight edge to film but not much. So I'm looking at a lease plan for the P45+. Several photogs claimed an equal to 8x10 drum scans but I think that a little optomistic. I have been using the P30 for all medium format work since it is superior to MF film in every aspect. The P45+ is even better.

 

Claymoore - I found out early on these and other mini forums that any shared expertise relating to photgraphy of minis was not well accepted. Win a Sophie or Golden Demon and you are a god here. However being at the top of your field in photography with $2500/day bookings gets you nothing. People who have taken a photo course or shot a few weddings will contest everything you say. It's a waste of your time and effort. PM me if you want since this is way OT.

 

BTW Ansel Adams always downplayed equipment over technique and the Zone System. At one of his workshops i was surprised to find him using a Hassie and shooting 2 1/4 since I was so accustomed to seeing him behind a view camera. I think he would have embraced the new tech as an additional tool.

 

 

DSLR captures are excellent but when final usage requires it ( larger posters, billboards etc) I will use my medium format camera with a Phase One back or the Sinar P with a Phase One or Leaf back. These backs are very close to 4x5 chrome quality now (I see no advantage to 2 1/4 film over the Phase one back). The quality is so close that the slight advantage of the film is more than compensated for by the numerous advantages of digital capture. 4x5 and 8 x 10 film still offers better results in certain projects for specific needs.

 

Ansel Adams artistry was due to his genius., not just his equipment. I miss him.

Edited June 4, 2008 by thrush65

[claymoore]

Claymoore - I found out early on these and other mini forums that any shared expertise relating to photgraphy of minis was not well accepted. Win a Sophie or Golden Demon and you are a god here. However being at the top of your field in photography with $2500/day bookings gets you nothing. People who have taken a photo course or shot a few weddings will contest everything you say. It's a waste of your time and effort. PM me if you want since this is way OT.

 

Unfortunately that has been my experience too. No worries though. I'll be too busy for forums next few months. Then I'll just lurk. PM me if you need more P45 info.

[DavidVC04]

Hmm, you people are way beyond my technical knowledge of cameras, but this layman has been pleased with his purchase. It's certainly superior to the previous camera my wife and I had. Some of her sweetest words ever were, "Maybe you should buy a new digital camera since I'll be taking this one to California." The only way it could have beeen better would have been "Maybe we..."

 

I still need to read the entire manual and learn about backgrounds and such. I would've thought the blue backgroud would've provided better pictures of my ogres and their grey skintones, but it doesn't. The grey backgroud is much better, to me, surprisingly better.

[rgtriplec]

Hmm, you people are way beyond my technical knowledge of cameras, but this layman has been pleased with his purchase. It's certainly superior to the previous camera my wife and I had. Some of her sweetest words ever were, "Maybe you should buy a new digital camera since I'll be taking this one to California." The only way it could have beeen better would have been "Maybe we..."

 

I still need to read the entire manual and learn about backgrounds and such. I would've thought the blue backgroud would've provided better pictures of my ogres and their grey skintones, but it doesn't. The grey backgroud is much better, to me, surprisingly better.

 

A good digital camera is perfect for minis, and most anything else the average user needs. I have a Cannon S5IS my wife uses for family stuff, and it is great. I also have a Canon Eos 1V 35mm and a Canon Digital Rebel XSi.

[willquestion]

This may be more than people want to pay, but I suggest the Nikon D60 and a Nikkor 105mm 2.8G Micro lense.

For lighting and background purposes, this kit seems alright though I've seen better ones in Popular Photography Magazine.

http://store.tabletopstudio-store.com/miphkit.html

 

~Will