FOAK: Paging the Fotgraphisti

Now I know that some Journos and Photographers hide out here, so,
Here's my Problem:

SLR Cameras.

Having just bought my dad an old Minolta XG1 as an Xmas present, I've
found that the "function testing" was far too enjoyable, so I really
want to start photography again, which I used to do at School, but
kinda gave up during UNI, only recently doing digital snapping (4900
images thrugh a Konica-Minolta KD500Z in less than three years)

Now, having rediscovered the joys of SLR and being able to tell the
camera what I want to do without having to fight the automatic
programs, I Want to go back to SLR. I was thinking of a Digital SLR
Body and an Analog SLR body, with the minimum dupication of lenses (so
the same lense mount would make sense). Digi rocks, but so does film,
and I really don't want to miss either.

Now, I would really like to buy the (2nd hand, from ebay) Analog part
now (so I can play over christmas), with the digital part some time
next year when I have money.

Current experiences with cameras is the above-mentioned digital
camera, Minolta XG-1 and the Practica I cut my teeth on. I used to
develop my own B&W film at school, but stopped when I went to uni.
Seeing the prices of used lab equipment on ebay, I might start agin
soon (might as in polticians might sprout bullshit)

The photography I do is fairly mixed, generally ambient light if I can
get away with it, but I'm not above using a flash for fill-in, or when
it's really dark. For work I do a lot of Macro work (I can get my
Konica to do what I want whears the nikon coolpix work has just pisses
me of). Landscapes and Sunsets I also like doing (sunrise is far too
early IMHO). A fair bit is opertunity fotography - I should have
canned this engineering lark and become a paparazzi (*A*, not the. I
am not Catholic). No domestic wildlife is safe from me while I have a
camera turned on. "Documenting Life" could be the best way of
describing my photography.

Lenses I'd like to eventually include a 28-90 (equivalent) or
thereabouts zoom for both bodys, a something-200 zoom that fits
either, 38/50/135mm fix-focus and a if I'm feeling rich, a macro lens.
I don't necessarily want to buy new, seeing as Ebay has some right
used bargains (even taking into acount the bullshit/overhype factor).
I'll primarily use Digital, with the analog for when I want to get
creative with Ilfords finest or when I want to do photos as mementos.

I like doing manual photography, but having a working, fast, automatic
mode is useful for snapshots.

So... now to the crunch time. This is where I ignite a flame
war/discussion not seen since pro-life/anti-abortion, Gun Control,
wheelying shafties et al. I'm going to ask the brand N vs. brand C
question, with a sideline towards Brand M.

Specifially, there are three camera combinations I have been thinking
about:

Canon: EOS350D and EOS 30
Nikon: D70 and F70
Minolta: Dynax 7D and Dynax 9xi

Each has features I like and features I dislike.

Has anyone got experience with any of these? Any caveats regarding
lenses (other than that Canon L-Glass is a tad expensive)? What is the
deal with these chip-cards for the minolta? Should I look at different
bodies? I want two cameras from the same brand (so I only have to buy
& carry the non-standard-zoom lenses once). What should I look for?
Anyone have an opinion? Anyone have a logically founded opinion? Does
what I said make sense, or should I get a QuickSnap/Hasselblad combo
instead? Give up now and run the KD500Z into the ground, knowing that
ambient light only works if I use a Kowalski Speed 1250D as a pilot
light? SHould I buy whatever Digital and duplicate the lot for a
manual film camera (or borrow my dad's minolta kit)?

Or should I just keep procrastinating until film is no longer
available and stick to digital?

Yours in indescission,

Johannes Gerber

 

Go to google groups and search in the archive of this group, you have
just missed this discussion.

 

Almost, I have a D70 and an N70. Both rock and use the same
lens/speedlight.

 

I'd spend the extra, and do what I've done and get the D100 and F100.

The D70 is ace value for money, but the case is a bit plasticky anbd it
lacks a few of the features that, with your evident ability, you'd like
to use.

Obviously the lenses are compatible between the two, but an ordinary (ie
- not digital) lens will have its focal lens multiplied by about 1.5
when use don the digi, for reasons I wot not of.

So a 100mm lens on the F100 becomes a 150mm on the D100.

Seriously, though - if you're planning this sort of investment, don't be
a pikey, and buy the better spec.

 

It's because the sensitive electronic wossname in the digital camera is
smaller than the exposed area of the film camera.

 

Johannes Gerber scribbled on the back of a napkin:

Given the cost (or lack thereof), say, decent Minolta MF kit, is there
any specific reason why you essentially want to duplicate your film kit
with the ditigal kit or vice versa?

Assuming that you normally pack the right camera for the job, I don't
see that much point in essentially having two of the same with
different recording media.

Well, you may be in for quite a wait...

 

Ah. I like a proper technical explanation, I do

 

The Older Gentleman scribbled on the back of a napkin:

Well, it's focal length, actually, but hey, I'm not the editor around
here.

No it doesn't. A 100mm lens is a 100mm lens no matter if it's mounted
on a Minox spy camera or a 12"x18" view camera.

What changes with the image format and film/sensor size is the angle of
view (and hopefully the coverage). And it's the change in the angle of
view that changes the appearance of the projected picture. In the
example above, the 100mm lens on the Minox would be a *serious*
telephoto lens (given that the 'normal' lens is something like 7mm)
whereas on the 12"x18" the same focal length is a rather wide wideangle
lens.

So, you stick a 100mm lens on your digi SLR and due to the angle of
view, the resulting picture looks similar to one that would've been
taken using a 150mm lens on a 35mm film camera. So hey presto, it does
multiply the focal length, except that it doesn't but spotty yoof
behind the counter at Jizz Ups is a bit too thick to understand the
difference.

Wot he said.

 

As am I.....

 

<snip camera advice sought>

I'm no camera guru so take this with a pinch of salt.

First of all go to www.dpreview.com for good reviews of the cameras on
the market.

I've spent the last few months thinking about what camera to blow my
bonus (if any) on this christmas.
Personally i would go for a Cannon 20D and spend any left over cash on
lenses (tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for starters)

I've tried the 350D in shops and some blokes one at work and i find it
just a little too small, prefer something chunkier.

Also like the Nikon D70s as people seem to have some good things to say
about it.

I'd say if you get into this digital camera lark you will forget about
film photography pretty quickly so you might be wasting your money if
you go for a film one too.

 

The Older Gentleman scribbled on the back of a napkin:

I can try to explain it to you in more detail *if* I make it up
tomorrow...

The RR has developed an oil well...

 

I'd spend the extra, and do what I've done and get the D100 and F100.[/QUOTE]

I Take it that was a "Nikon, and leave the rest".

There is very little price diference between D70s and D100... now that
the D100 is discontinued, replaced by the D200. (If I understand Nikon
correctly)

Now, the F100... is nice. Pricy, but nice.

I think you are mistaking my enthusiasm for ability!

"Crop Factor" is the technical term, I belive. The sensor is smaler
than the film.

This is exactly the sort of encouragement I like and my wallet hates
with a passion.

Now, I must find a D100 / F100 to look at in the flesh...

Johannes Gerber

 

I like digital, 'cause it's practical and has low running costs. I
like film because. My dad has all the Minolta MF kit I'd want. Total
cost less than €200.

The main issue is when I go on holiday, and I want to take some analog
pictures as well - I need to carry the extra lenses as well...

If we use "no longer available" to mean "no longer available outside
specialist shops" and we compare it with my ability to
procrastinate... It could go either way.

Johannes Gerber

 

Ah, I missed that.

 

Johannes Gerber scribbled on the back of a napkin:

I Take it that was a "Nikon, and leave the rest".

There is very little price diference between D70s and D100... now that
the D100 is discontinued, replaced by the D200. (If I understand Nikon
correctly)

Now, the F100... is nice. Pricy, but nice.[/QUOTE]

Buy used, would be the usual advice.

 

Johannes Gerber scribbled on the back of a napkin:

Looks like a badly expressed question on my end - I wasn't really
wondering why you wanted one or the other or both. After all, I'm
toying with the idea of getting a digital SLR myself but am not going
to give up film, so there.

My Minolta kit cost a bit more, but then again I've got several bodies
(although I'm planning to sell one now) and several of the
"collectible" lenses like the 35/1.8 and 85/1.7...

Ah well, fair enough. I'm used to either carry the crap or take one
body with two lenses. Alternatively, SWMBO gets to carry the digicam

Ah well, most shops here don't stock the stuff I use anyway (and it's
not that specialist either) so I've been doing the mail order thing for
some time now...

 

Kerching! The coming of digital hasn't made any difference to the 'male
jewellery' factor of cameras around the neck, resulting in year-old and
hardly-used models being available relatively cheaply. Let someone else
take the depreciation hit.

Of course, once the pixel count race slows and stabilises, the s/h
market will be better for bargains. Atm the only drawback to buying
year-old is the lower pixel count, but for the past couple of years, the
vast majority of cameras above pikey level have been adequately blessed
with pixels anyway.

 

Grimly Curmudgeon scribbled on the back of a napkin:

*ding*

Especially on digital gear.

Actually, unless you want to print bigger than A4 you're probably OK
with 4MP.

And mega pixies aren't everything - one of the current interesting
problems is that the manufacturers increase the pixel count, but sensor
size stays the same. The result being somewhat lower picture quality
because the individual pixels are smaller and you get increased noise
due to them receiving less light.

 

True. My D100 is 6.2MP, and even cheapish compacts beat that nowadays,
but as I point out in the office to those wondering why I hang onto the
Nikon: "How much do you think the lens costs on a £250 happy-snappy?"

All the pixels in the world are worthless if the lens is crap.

 

One of the recent Nikons has a near full 35mm-sized sensor, iirc. Once
other makers fit that, I'll be looking at scoring something worth
keeping and start building a system again.

<aside>
Fucking Olympus. For years I had Olympus-fit kit and none of it's any
use any more.
--
Dave

GS850x2 XS650

On UKRM you're just a **** with opinions.