john_jennings2

<p>If real, a great picture! But, can a gig on American Idol be far behind?</p>

<p>Bill,<br>

Thanks for the info. Pink hippos abide and abound.</p>

<p>For me, the pink hippopotamus under the rug is "response time after shutter trip", aka "shutter lag", aka, “weird stuff that the camera does to ensure you blow the action shot". Mainly the villain is, of course, “focus hunt”.<br />The V1 has been highly rated for fast, reliable response, but I don’t know if that is for real, or just more hype. How do the other suggested cameras perform in this crucial function?</p>

<p>Wow! Are people still asking this question? Here's MY take. While affordable digital cameras don't <em>QUITE</em> deliver the quality of the best ISO 100 35mm films, the advantages of digital overwhelmingly make it the best choice for average users. I crank away hundreds of shots at family gatherings and public events, chasing that elusive peak action shot. Edit ruthlessly down to the best dozen or so, and a good time was had by all. When I have time, I shoot at ISO 100, compose carefully, and do all that to get 11 x 14 inch print quality. <br>

I still got a few film cameras, but doubt I'll ever break them out again. Rather be shooting than in the darkroom, spending TONS of money on film and proccessing, or waiting for the mailman.<br>

Both Nikon and Canon have intro DSLR's with a kit zoom in the $550 range, especially at Christmas time. Acquire. Shoot. Enjoy. Repeat.</p>

 

<p>In the '70's, I was stationed with the U.S. Army in Berlin, and bought some 7 x 35 binos made by Jena Zeiss, while on day trip to East Berlin. Their image quality is okay but never up to snuff compared to the best Western optics. Believe me, I would LOVE to brag about finding a really good deal, but can't!</p>

<p>While I am starting to look for more image quality (aim for 14 X 17 inch exhibition print quality), the Nikon D3000 is incredibly small, handy, light, and relatively quiet, particularly with an old small manual prime. How you project yourself is more important than gear. Obviously, at places like the zoo, cameras are expected, so just click away. I take a lot of shots at "subjects beyond" my subject. (heh, heh.)<br />Main thing, people are incredibly sensitive to non-verbal language, so if you are uptight about your photography, they will pick up on it in a heartbeat. Also look for demographics, some Mexicans are illegal (here in Texas) and are constantly watchful, most women have their noses buried in their iphones, etc. No teenager is aware of your existence.</p>

<p>While I can beat my digital images in theoretical quality with a good ISO 100 film, the no cost, immedate feedback, "right now" editing of digital has been my "Great Leap Forward", (to borrow a phrase from Mao Tse Dung).<br>

Of course, that is built on all the other skills mastered.</p>

 

<p>Perhaps just their version of the Boy Scouts. What's disgusting? </p>

<p>If it's automated, it WILL have a shutter lag that renders it useless.<br>

Actually, it might work in an "instructual" mode. Should sell if it has a mode rating "American Idol style "Hunkiness / "Curvyness".</p>

 

<p>On another website/subject, an effort was made to clean up unreliable commentators. Result?, website is dying. Better to live with the flakes. In the real world, you have to anyway. </p>

<p>How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?</p>

<p>Also, high speed films tend to be used in lighting situations that are more contrastly to start with, i.e., stage lighting for performers, so can get rep for being more contrasty from that alone.<br>

But, my experience was that films like Pan Atomic X and Plus X had more contrast, on average. At the end of the day, it is probably more about how the contrast range of the film/developer matches up with the paper/developer you are printing it on.</p>

 

<p>For years, the "go to" high school film class camera was the Pentax K 1000. Consider that.</p>

<p>Buy digital SLR ... NOW! The no-cost of digital imaging will vastly increase the "velocity" of your learning and imaging curve. A digital camera doesn't take a better picture, it just gets you much faster feedback. All friend and family who have been mooching on you for holiday prints, just email a jpeg fer free.You can justify this in film/processing costs ALONE. Four weeks after you get your digital SLR, you'll wonder why you ever wondered. (If necessary, trade girlfriend.)</p>

<p>When I go to an antique, photography or art show I am always reminded that a seller can write a price tag for any amount. Even in finding parking in a downtown city district, parking rates can vary widely with no discernable difference in service. Just hang up your sign, somebody will pull in and pay.</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>That guy had a legitimate complaint. He came to see the dances, not listen to a shutter run. If anybody asked, I'd quit, unless I was paid by the owner and had an agreement. I can be very aggressive, but I'd quit if someone complained, or shift positions.</p>

<p>The Nikkormat has a nylon gear in the wind mechanism, that caused some early breakage. I guess they got that fixed, but I don't know. I had one that broke.</p>

<p>The quickest way to get joy would be to shoot some low ISO, say 100 color negative, and get prints or disk at you local Walmart or Walgreens. </p>

<p>I think you should take a deep breath and don't think in tems of dumping it quickly to get new lenses. The longer the wait, the better the buyer.<br>

The Nikon SP was favored by many photojournalists who found them to be excellent quality, at a price far under the coveted Leica.</p>

 

<p>I agree with the original poster that all that sharpness doesn't mean much if you don't have the skills to use it. But, with our ease of desktop image editing, it just takes a few mouse moves to zoom in and SEE the difference.<br>

Lens sharpness is a crucial arrow in your quiver. Yeah, you can knock over little bunnies all day with dull arrows, but when you take on Mr. Griz, you want EVERY advantage.</p>

 

<p>Jim Krupnik,<br />I agree that the Canonet was a natural match for those stunning slide films. Kodachrome was so pretty a lot of folks didn't really notice if the actual picture was pretty lame. <br />I also remember, back in those antediluvian days, that there was a rough consensus among some top Life Magazine photographers that the 35mm perspective (for DX use 24 mm) was the best match for the human eye plus a little extra to get more background for context.</p>

<p>To interject a note of reality, the successful P.J.:</p>

 

<p >1. Has an uncanny knack for finding a wealthy patron to pick up the check.</p>

<p >2. Can talk his way through an Equadorean army roadblock manned by bored dope smoking teenagers fondling Heckler and Koch G-3 assault rifles.</p>

<p >3. Drink all night, shoot good pitchers all day.</p>

<p >4. Do a fair imitation of the Dennis Hopper druggie photojournalist rap from “Apocalypse Now”.</p>

<p >5. Has an uncanny knack to wrangle a seat on the last DC -3 taking off as the People’s Popular Front closes in.</p>

<p >6. Knows what all the tools on a sixteen blade Swiss army knife are for.</p>

<p >7. Knows how to filter dirty gasoline through a ladies nylon stocking into a Range Rover tank, (after talking lady out of said stocking.)</p>

<p >8. Can shoot a Pultizer winning photo with a borrowed Kodak Brownie loaded with made in 1967 Verichrome Pan.</p>

<p >9. Can successfully pretend to be a medical missionary on ten seconds notice.</p>

<p >10. Can successfully pretend to be a New Zealander when they start shooting all the other Americans.</p>

 

<p>The best "walk around" primes would be in the 28mm to 50mm range for FX (full frame), or DX equivalent. (18mm to 35mm.)<br>

If you had a small backup point and shoot with a long range zoom to slip in your pocket for UFO flyovers, you would be dressed for all occasions. </p>

<p>I use it as a tool, if I feel I need it. Or not. Such decisions are made in a second. No big deal. I rarely allow "chimping". It's just a waste of time, the next, better shot is just seconds away. But sneaking a glance can detect errors and save mucho embarrassment later. </p>

<p>Excellent list! (Referring to original linked list). But it is more of an ideal, and few will hit all ten. But eight out of ten isn't bad. Relatedly, see the classic film "Under Fire", with Nick Nolte. I suspect that what most of us lack is the essential ruthlessness. But I'm working on it.</p>