Any shutterbugs on the website?
- Thread starter derg
- Start date
PhotoPilot
New Member
Something makes me think that Doug wants us to forget about what . . . er . . . didn't happen.
And I know, I know. *Flash!*
Back to camera talk! Anyone play with the new Canon digital SLRs? I couldn't bear to shell out the $8000 for the 11 megapixel 1Ds as I'm occupied with flying and haven't been working as a professional photographer lately, so I picked up the new 10D. It's a 6.3 megapixel wonder that matches my scanned 35mm slides for quality and resolution. I'm very impressed! I still have my film bodies (and will for a long time), but I've been using the 10D for all of my personal shooting.
My instructor caught the photography bug and bought the digital Rebel. Same quality images and guts as the 10D but in a very nice plastic body rather than the 10D's magnesium alloy. The best part is that you can get it for $900 with a lens (though the lens leaves a bit to be desired if you want it for more than causal, personal shooting). Sounds like a lot, but if you take many pictures, think about how much you spend on film and developing over 5 years. In my case, the $1500 10D will save me thousands in film and developing in the first full year that I own it!
And I know, I know. *Flash!*
Back to camera talk! Anyone play with the new Canon digital SLRs? I couldn't bear to shell out the $8000 for the 11 megapixel 1Ds as I'm occupied with flying and haven't been working as a professional photographer lately, so I picked up the new 10D. It's a 6.3 megapixel wonder that matches my scanned 35mm slides for quality and resolution. I'm very impressed! I still have my film bodies (and will for a long time), but I've been using the 10D for all of my personal shooting.
My instructor caught the photography bug and bought the digital Rebel. Same quality images and guts as the 10D but in a very nice plastic body rather than the 10D's magnesium alloy. The best part is that you can get it for $900 with a lens (though the lens leaves a bit to be desired if you want it for more than causal, personal shooting). Sounds like a lot, but if you take many pictures, think about how much you spend on film and developing over 5 years. In my case, the $1500 10D will save me thousands in film and developing in the first full year that I own it!
pilot602
If specified, this will replace the title that
I'd love to try the Digital Rebel but if I had $1,000 or so I think I'd go for the Sigma SD-10 (three layer optics chip that cathes R/G/B at each pixel location ... MUCH less interpolation = better color quality) and for $1,300 (with two lenses ... sigma lenses no less) it ain't a bad deal. Of course I can barely afford the $130 A-1 body I just bought so ...
But at least the lenses I want are "fairly" cheap (Cannon (SSC) FD mount 50mm F1.4 & 28 or24mm F2/2.8 both are running about $150 w/90day warranty 'round here) I don't have a tripod so a zoom lense is useless but a wide angle (for cockpit shots and such) would be very handy.
But at least the lenses I want are "fairly" cheap (Cannon (SSC) FD mount 50mm F1.4 & 28 or24mm F2/2.8 both are running about $150 w/90day warranty 'round here) I don't have a tripod so a zoom lense is useless but a wide angle (for cockpit shots and such) would be very handy.
pilot602
If specified, this will replace the title that
SLR stands for Single Lens Reflex. All it basically means is you look through the lens to compose the shot. The viewfinder is actually showing you the world THROUGH the lens. As opposed to "point and shoot" where the view finder usually just looks straight through the body of the camera.
SLR also means you can change the lenses. Depending on what you want to shoot different focal lengths and aperature openings are required to get good, consistent shots. By buying different lenses you can match the lens with the shot to get a good picture.
SLRs are traditionally film based ... only recently have the big camera companies delved into the the digital SLR realm. The only difference between a digital SLR and a film SLR is price (the basics of the lens theory remains the same) and the medium on which the picture is burned (film or a CCD).
Point and shoot cameras come with one, fixed lens. Meaning it's a camera of averages - it will (or may) do an "average" job on every picture. You may luck out and find light and distances that work great for that particular lens but that really limits what you can shoot, well.
SLRs allow you to swap out the lens when you need to. And you usually find more advanced features (plus the ability to set everything manually) things like aperature (f-stops), shutter speed, film speed, depth-of-field, etc. You can't mess with these things on a point and shoot because the lens is fixed/and or it's a "lower-priced" camera.
There is a learning curve to a full-fledged SLR but once you get the basics you can really start compsoing some imaginative/interesting shots. Combine that with learning how to develop your own pictures (and film) and the potential for the quality of not only composition but development is un-ending.
To give you an idea... this is the actual camera I just bought. A Canon A-1.
Notice how there is no lens? If that cap on the front is removed it would look like this:
See that mirror in there? When the lens is attached, the lens focuses the image on that mirror which in turn bounces it up and through the viewfinder. When you release the shutter (take the picture) that mirror flips up and allows the focused light to hit the, now, exposed film in the back of the camera.
And this is what it looks like with a lens on the body and what lenses look like off-camera:
The A-1 is actually pretty advanced and is the forerunner of all the modern Canon EOS/Rebel AF SLRs. The A-1 does everything the new ones do but it doesn't have auto focus (AF) which I don't really need anyway.
And it's built like a friggin tank (brass body).
SLR also means you can change the lenses. Depending on what you want to shoot different focal lengths and aperature openings are required to get good, consistent shots. By buying different lenses you can match the lens with the shot to get a good picture.
SLRs are traditionally film based ... only recently have the big camera companies delved into the the digital SLR realm. The only difference between a digital SLR and a film SLR is price (the basics of the lens theory remains the same) and the medium on which the picture is burned (film or a CCD).
Point and shoot cameras come with one, fixed lens. Meaning it's a camera of averages - it will (or may) do an "average" job on every picture. You may luck out and find light and distances that work great for that particular lens but that really limits what you can shoot, well.
SLRs allow you to swap out the lens when you need to. And you usually find more advanced features (plus the ability to set everything manually) things like aperature (f-stops), shutter speed, film speed, depth-of-field, etc. You can't mess with these things on a point and shoot because the lens is fixed/and or it's a "lower-priced" camera.
There is a learning curve to a full-fledged SLR but once you get the basics you can really start compsoing some imaginative/interesting shots. Combine that with learning how to develop your own pictures (and film) and the potential for the quality of not only composition but development is un-ending.
To give you an idea... this is the actual camera I just bought. A Canon A-1.
Notice how there is no lens? If that cap on the front is removed it would look like this:
See that mirror in there? When the lens is attached, the lens focuses the image on that mirror which in turn bounces it up and through the viewfinder. When you release the shutter (take the picture) that mirror flips up and allows the focused light to hit the, now, exposed film in the back of the camera.
And this is what it looks like with a lens on the body and what lenses look like off-camera:
The A-1 is actually pretty advanced and is the forerunner of all the modern Canon EOS/Rebel AF SLRs. The A-1 does everything the new ones do but it doesn't have auto focus (AF) which I don't really need anyway.
PhotoPilot
New Member
As much as I love the idea behind the Foevon X3 chip (the one that Sigma using), I have two problems with it. One, because of the complexity involved, it's expensive and has a small usable image area when compared to other CCDs. Second, again because it's so expensive, Sigma is the only company that has decided to use it. That means if I bought one I'd have almost $30,000 worth of Canon E-series autofocus lenses that would gather dust and I'd have to buy new replacements from Sigma. So . . . Canon it is! Besides, if I go back to shooting for money, I'll grab the 1Ds which, at 11 megapixels, rivals the quality of a scanned medium format transparency but has the added bonus of the simplicity and versatility of a 35mm system. I'd love to have 6x9 quality without having to lug around two camera systems, film, tripods, and accessories all the time.
I do wish that there wasn't so much color/image interpolation with standard 3-color CCDs, but I'm just going to have to wait for Foevon to expand their market share, increase the size of their chips, and decrease the price.
But, all of that aside, I think we've finally reached a point where digital quality rivals film quality. That makes it much more feasible for professionals to start using digital for their everyday work. And, just to cover my behind, I know that a drum scan can still pack more resolution than any small format digital camera out there. The problem is that even though the scan is high res, the film's resolution (determined by the quality of the film grain) is far inferior to the scan. All that the drum scan achieves is a high res scan of the film's shortcomings. Once the digital res met the film res (film grain), I switched to digital! (For anyone who cares, the film that I use as my benchmark is Fuji Velvia and Provia F - two of the tightest grained films out there.)
I've been using digital backs on medium format cameras in the studio for years, but their application in the field for location and nature photography was terrible. I'd have to carry a laptop, blank CD-Rs, cables, etc., and I was constantly worried about a speck of sand or grit scratching that 6x9cm CCD. Man, would that be one expensive scratch!
Either way, I now fly AND photograph. When added to biking, skiing, and kayaking, I'm one poor but happy dude!
I do wish that there wasn't so much color/image interpolation with standard 3-color CCDs, but I'm just going to have to wait for Foevon to expand their market share, increase the size of their chips, and decrease the price.
But, all of that aside, I think we've finally reached a point where digital quality rivals film quality. That makes it much more feasible for professionals to start using digital for their everyday work. And, just to cover my behind, I know that a drum scan can still pack more resolution than any small format digital camera out there. The problem is that even though the scan is high res, the film's resolution (determined by the quality of the film grain) is far inferior to the scan. All that the drum scan achieves is a high res scan of the film's shortcomings. Once the digital res met the film res (film grain), I switched to digital! (For anyone who cares, the film that I use as my benchmark is Fuji Velvia and Provia F - two of the tightest grained films out there.)
I've been using digital backs on medium format cameras in the studio for years, but their application in the field for location and nature photography was terrible. I'd have to carry a laptop, blank CD-Rs, cables, etc., and I was constantly worried about a speck of sand or grit scratching that 6x9cm CCD. Man, would that be one expensive scratch!
Either way, I now fly AND photograph. When added to biking, skiing, and kayaking, I'm one poor but happy dude!
tonyw
Well-Known Member
I'm with you on the digital route, my friend. Each roll of film that I shoot costs me $3.50 or so. I found out that the Costco will process it and put all the shots onto disk for $6.00.
So that means, with taxes, I'm paying $10 a roll. If you burn film like I do when I motivate myself to go for it, it adds up quick.
So that means, with taxes, I'm paying $10 a roll. If you burn film like I do when I motivate myself to go for it, it adds up quick.
pilot602
If specified, this will replace the title that
Ahh see I'm just a lowly, lowly amatuer. Which is why the SD-10 would make sense for me ... I have no lenses.
I'd love a nice digital SLR but they are still just too expensive for what I use a camera for. I "learned" (what little I know) on the A-1 and that's why I picked one up when I lost access to the one I was using.
I agree with you on the res of digital now matching and starting to exceed film but I think there will always be a place for film - even if it just becomes a novelty. I may eventually pick up a film-scanner so I can "develop" my pictures digitally. I can't stand using photo-finnishers after learning how to develop my own stuff. So a good film scanner I think would be a nice compromise.
One day, when I'm a Captain and making my $300k a year (that's sarcasm folks) I'll get a really decent digital. Or if I ever decide to try and shoot stuff and sell it. But right now my 1977-era camera is good enough for me.
I agree with you on the res of digital now matching and starting to exceed film but I think there will always be a place for film - even if it just becomes a novelty. I may eventually pick up a film-scanner so I can "develop" my pictures digitally. I can't stand using photo-finnishers after learning how to develop my own stuff. So a good film scanner I think would be a nice compromise.
One day, when I'm a Captain and making my $300k a year (that's sarcasm folks) I'll get a really decent digital. Or if I ever decide to try and shoot stuff and sell it. But right now my 1977-era camera is good enough for me.
PhotoPilot
New Member
The A1 is a great camera. It and the Nikon F2 and F3 were the cameras that set the stage for what we've got around today. In fact, Nikon still makes a version of the F2 for people who want it. The only electronic part is a simple light meter which makes it incredibly durable. There's a story about Galen Rowell (he was a great photographer, climber, adventurer, and pilot) dropping his cameras in a stream while on assignment for National Geographic. His nifty new F5s were ruined, but he hung the F2 up over a woodburning stove to dry and was shooting with it the next day.
I wasn't trying to knock your A1 at all. I'll never sell my film cameras!
I wasn't trying to knock your A1 at all. I'll never sell my film cameras!
Oh, just go for it. Get a 1Ds. It is worth not having the multiplier, and actually being able to take a real wide angle shot digital. Or a Kodak 14n, if you didn't already have money in the Canon lenses. Or, go to Japan, and plunk down a little over $22k for one of these: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0312/03121901fujifilmback.asp
pilot602
If specified, this will replace the title that
[ QUOTE ]
The A1 is a great camera. It and the Nikon F2 and F3 were the cameras that set the stage for what we've got around today. In fact, Nikon still makes a version of the F2 for people who want it. The only electronic part is a simple light meter which makes it incredibly durable. There's a story about Galen Rowell (he was a great photographer, climber, adventurer, and pilot) dropping his cameras in a stream while on assignment for National Geographic. His nifty new F5s were ruined, but he hung the F2 up over a woodburning stove to dry and was shooting with it the next day.
I wasn't trying to knock your A1 at all. I'll never sell my film cameras!
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I know which is why I bought it instead of the Minolta Maxxum 5 I was eyeing. I didn't think you were knocking it.
The brass case and "built-like-a-tank" reliability of the A-1 is more important to me than AF and whizz-bang features I'd never really use. Besides at the $200-300 mark any AF system is more of a gimmick than a useful tool, I think.
The A1 is a great camera. It and the Nikon F2 and F3 were the cameras that set the stage for what we've got around today. In fact, Nikon still makes a version of the F2 for people who want it. The only electronic part is a simple light meter which makes it incredibly durable. There's a story about Galen Rowell (he was a great photographer, climber, adventurer, and pilot) dropping his cameras in a stream while on assignment for National Geographic. His nifty new F5s were ruined, but he hung the F2 up over a woodburning stove to dry and was shooting with it the next day.
I wasn't trying to knock your A1 at all. I'll never sell my film cameras!
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I know which is why I bought it instead of the Minolta Maxxum 5 I was eyeing. I didn't think you were knocking it.
The brass case and "built-like-a-tank" reliability of the A-1 is more important to me than AF and whizz-bang features I'd never really use. Besides at the $200-300 mark any AF system is more of a gimmick than a useful tool, I think.
PhotoPilot
New Member
I know, I know. I dig that 1Ds, but I just can't justify it until I'm pulling in some profit again. But, geez, I long to take a real wide angle again! My 17mm ultra-wide angle lens is but a shadow of it's former self with the smaller CCD in the 10D. Phooey!
And I LOVE the Fuji GX680! Great medium format camera with excellent (though somewhat limited) bellows action. Makes for great studio and landscape possibilites. I occasionally borrowed one for nature work but normally stuck with a Hasselblad, Mamiya RB, or Sinar in the studio. The digital back I used was an older generation Phase 1 - not nearly as slick as the GX680 offering you posted the link to. My birthday is in July if you are thinking of sending me one . . .
And, pilot602, you're right on about the autofocus systems. Until you get to the USM ring-motor lenses in the Canon line, you're not getting much in terms of autofocus. The cheaper camera bodies also lack the 'umph' to drive the AF to peak performance. It's pretty cool when AF works great, predictively focuses, and tracks subjects with precision. On the other hand, it's supremely frustrating when it doesn't do those things. For how much a person actually NEEDS AF, you were wise to save your money anyway!
Finally, to Tony, I assume you decided not to get the digital camera? Come on out to California. We can fly and drive up to photograph in the mountains. You'd be more than welcome to check out the 10D!
Back to reviewing systems . . . 'night folks!
And I LOVE the Fuji GX680! Great medium format camera with excellent (though somewhat limited) bellows action. Makes for great studio and landscape possibilites. I occasionally borrowed one for nature work but normally stuck with a Hasselblad, Mamiya RB, or Sinar in the studio. The digital back I used was an older generation Phase 1 - not nearly as slick as the GX680 offering you posted the link to. My birthday is in July if you are thinking of sending me one . . .
And, pilot602, you're right on about the autofocus systems. Until you get to the USM ring-motor lenses in the Canon line, you're not getting much in terms of autofocus. The cheaper camera bodies also lack the 'umph' to drive the AF to peak performance. It's pretty cool when AF works great, predictively focuses, and tracks subjects with precision. On the other hand, it's supremely frustrating when it doesn't do those things. For how much a person actually NEEDS AF, you were wise to save your money anyway!
Finally, to Tony, I assume you decided not to get the digital camera? Come on out to California. We can fly and drive up to photograph in the mountains. You'd be more than welcome to check out the 10D!
Back to reviewing systems . . . 'night folks!
