douglas k.

Hi folks. Haven't posted on photo.net in quite some time, but am now (finall)

shopping for a digital camera. My all-time fav film camera was a Konica Hexar

AF -- a hybrid rangefinder/P&S with a nice 35mm f2 lens. I am looking, but

not finding, a comparable digital camera -- something small, simple, with a

relatively fast, fixed focal length lens. Have only found a Ricoh with a lens

that gives the equivalent of a 28mm field of view, which is too wide for

general shooting (at least for me).

<p>

Any suggestions?

<p>

<b>Moderator: This is not a forum for film vs. digital. The poster asked for a response about digital cameras, not what was wrong with digital cameras. Film vs digital posts will result in a "time-out" from the forum.</b>

What Mitch wrote. Arthur, if you really want to give credit to the lens, that's your business. As for me, I take credit for my photos rather than ascribing credit to inanimate objects (objects which are no better than other manufacturers' objects, to boot).

"I'm thinking that maybe I should give it a rest for awhile myself."

 

Now there's a thought.

Thanks, Ian...I missed the earlier post. But they're both ridiculous. :-)

Alright, Ben, here are some specifics: the photos are nicely exposed and properly focussed, which probably impresses some folks are here but not me. Good exposure and focus are necessary but not sufficient conditions for good photography. The compositions are very conventional, looking as though they were done according to that old "rule of thirds," which is to say, looking like most other peoples' photos. The subjects are attractive -- e.g., the landscapes, the woman -- but quite common or typical. In short, these are technically competent photos but there is nothing <i>of interest</i>, at least to me. If I am going to hang a photo on my wall, for instance, it will have appropriate exposure and focus and all of that, and there will be something about the photo that makes me think "Man, that's interesting, I've not seen something like <i>that</i> before...And there is nothing in this group of photos that elicits that reaction.

"Which 50mm lens reminds you of Elvis the most, any why?"

 

Wow...A new level of ridiculousness on the forum.

I can't believe what passes for "nice photos" around here.

I'm still wondering why Paul would post such a lousy photo. Oh, now I get it...Paul's preferred response to this and many of his other posts is "Hey, congrats, that's a great lens/camera/wife/son."

 

Hey, congrats.

I'm just curious about the motivation for posting the photo.

Why did you post this? Is there a question?

I shot such fests (including the Monterey Bay Blues Fest at the same venue) for a long time, and can suggest that your setup probably won't work well. Even with a press pass that gets you close to the stages, 50mm is too short for photos with much impact -- you'll mostly get pics with little tiny musicians and much background clutter. I mostly used 85mm and 135mm and even occasionally a 200mm on the main stage at Monterey.

 

Additionally, ISO50 film is a poor choice; in daytime, the awnings make those stages much darker than you'd think, and at night the stage lighting will require faster film, too.

 

One more thing: if the musicians move at all (perhaps less of a concern with jazz, more of a concern with other genres) an SLR is much better than a rangefinder. Much easier to follow-focus with an SLR.

I knew Eric back when he was a nobody.

Feli's post is hilariously illogical. He writes that "Because of this ridiculous behavior we will not have pictures like this:" and then gives links to just those pictures that "we will not have."

 

If you volunteer to help people, it seems perfectly reasonable that authorities expect you to actually help people -- even if you are Al Kaplan. And for those ignoramuses who are wailing that censorship will prevent us from having pictures of this tragedy, I can only ask if they have seen TV and any newspapers in the last week? The images are inescapable, really.

Nice shot, Anhtu. The other one is a yawner.

Seems a bit silly to label this "W/NW" when it's likely that NO ONE ELSE will have appropriate pictures. Why not just use the subject line "I felt like posting a picture, so here it is"?

Christopher: That's fine, because we don't want any more people here!

Great. Now define "plasticity." Better yet, show me an example of the phenomenon.

This 15mm thing was never very good to begin with, and now it's gotten extremely boring, to boot. Congratulations, all.

Well, if I ever want to photograph my porcelain figurines, I'll know which lens to use.

"You can be certain that Harvey doesn't have to spend a nickle of his own money on anything photography-related--cameras, film, processing, etc. He gets everything for free."

 

So presumably he can choose the best tools, which it turns out are (for this assignment) made by Nikon and cost less than a Leica. Interesting.

Thank God that "plasticity" never gets discussed. It's an imaginary phenomenon that was cooked up by the "My lens is better than your lens even though you can't see it" crowd.

Ah...Now I understand. You are correct about the 50mm Nikon, of course. But I still like mine. And it only cost $42.

While I have noticed good and bad bokeh, it has never been a decisive factor in any of my photos (nor in any photos I have seen). Rather, it seems to be another of the flimsy, almost imaginary strengths that Leica owners mention when trying to explain why their gear is superior to that of other mfrs.

 

Don't get me wrong: if you like Leica gear, then that's great. Just don't go all mushy touchy-feely trying to justify it.

Learn to read, Eliot: I never claimed that the Nikon 50mm f1.4 has a floating element.

Hmmm...I own several Nikon lenses with floating elements, and they all have silky smooth focussing. I guess they must be inferior.