coneected

Concerning the photo, when I got it back from the lab I was stunned. I always thought film to not be as defined as digital. Then I went back to see what film it was that I used and found it to be Agfa Vista 100. This is just run of the mill, off the shelf, general purpose film. If that is the case, could the photos I produce improve with a better quality film? The experiment continues.

I began my photography experience using a Canon digital camera. As time moved forward I began taking a photography class using film as the medium. That's when the bug really hit, once I could see how the development side worked. So I bought a Pentax K-1000. I liked it but didn't, so I bought a Nikon FM2. I loved the look of the photos, but didn't know if it was me or the equipment. As I got older and my sight was not what it used to be, I gravitated toward autofocus cameras. I bought a Nikon N90s and fell in love. Maybe 5 years later I acquired a Nikon F5. Now during all this time from the beginning I owned Canon digital cameras and lenses. The Canon XTi, Canon 5D, Canon 1D MKIII, and the Canon 7D Mkii. I want to be able to use and interchange lenses between digital and film so having one system is the only way to accomplish this. Unfortunately that means all my Nikon gear will be up for sale once I choose the film camera that best suits my needs/wants. By the way I can afford two systems, but that doesn't make sense to me at this point. Just sharpening my skills and learning more with each opportunity spent making photos.

The photo below was taken with a Nikon N90s w/Nikon 85mm f1.8 lens and Agfa Vista 100 film. The experiment continues.

At this point in the experiment is a Canon EOS-1V HS PB-E2 worth $700.00? I still shoot a lot film, but use Nikon N90s and Nikon F5. I recently ran into a Canon EOS-1V HS supposedly in mint condition with 00 rolls used for $699. Do you think this is a good deal as I am ready to transition over to Canon film? Let hear your thoughts. I kind of question the condition, but am aware this camera can be checked for rolls used. I do like the results I get from my Nikon equipment, I just cannot afford to work with two different systems. I started with Canon digital and have been searching for a decent Canon film camera. Maybe I could save some money by going with the Canon EOS 3, which is probably 1/3 the cost of the Canon EOS-1V HS . What are your thoughts?

<p>I was able to find a Minolta Grip for the 9xi that holds 4 AA batteries. That means no more expensive 2CR5 batteries for this one. I actually have (2) Minolta Maxxum 9xi's. They both have the extended grip, one using AA Batteries and the other still using the 2CR5. I sold my Maxxum 7 to keep the two 9xi's. I now own the best of all three camera manufacturers. The Nikon F5, the Canon EOS 3 and the two Minolta Maxxum 9xi's. These cover all my needs for 35mm film for my remaining days on this planet. To my knowledge I have never had a problem with any of the Nikon's I have owned, and the only problem I have had with a Minolta was the connector between the camera and the grip stopped working. I was left putting batteries in the camera, yet I still had the grip mounted on the camera. In the photo the camera on the right has the grip that holds the 4 AA batteries the one on the left is just an extended grip which is very useful for this body.</p><div></div>

<p>My main concern for a camera is the choice between Full Frame or APS-C and which will help me to deliver the best image quality. Not really seeking to sink $2000. into a newer camera which will deflate in value in a matter of moments. Would rather buy a camera that has some added features yet not empty my bank account at the same time which is why I am still using my Canon EOS 5D and 7D.</p>

<p>I do a little of all of these Nature, weddings, portraits, kids, street, and travel.</p>

<p>I do have a small collection of Canon lenses, some for APS-c bodies and some for Fx bodies. That is probably my biggest concern also is to shoot with APS-c of a full frame body. I use mostly primes 35, 50, 85, 100, and 150 but I have have some zoom lenses 24-105mm f4, 70-200mm 2.8 IS USM, 28-75mm 2.8, 17-50mm f2.8 and a 28-105mm f2.8. The image quality I get using a FX camera far outweighs, (in my opinion) using the APS-c, yet some of my lenses will not work correctly (dark corners) on a Fx body. The body I am using is the original Canon EOS 5D, which I like but I also have a Canon EOS 7D. Was trying to upgrade and was just wondering to drop one to pick up the other or remain with what I have. The collection of lenses I have have helped to improve my photographic abilities. The question being to spend so much money on another body or work with what I have. Thanks for all the feedback.</p>

<p>Is the Nikon D600 a better camera when it comes to picture quality or depth of color or does the newer Canon 5D mkiii options make it a better choice to purchase?</p>

<p>Which of these two cameras has the better image quality or depth of color? Trying to figure out if I should stick with my Canon system or change over to Nikon. Image quality is my main concern of staying with Canon or moving over to Nikon. Any comments welcomed.</p>

<p>I just uploaded a photo to a program called Shuttercount.com and it said my Canon EOS 1D Mark III Shutter count is 736. I just about jumped out of my chair. If this is correct to this practically a new camera. Looks like I have answered my own question. Now it's time to get out and continue this experiment of taking photos 1 or more clicks at a time.</p><div></div>

<p>Has anyone ever used a Nikon D600? I hear raves about the quality of the photos and its ease of use.</p>

<p>I use a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS the first edition, a Tokina 100mm f2.8, a Tokina 35mm f2.8, a Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 and a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8. I believe if I chose the 1D Mark III I may not have to worry about another camera for quite a few years.</p>