james_m1

<i>"j/k ofcourse :)"</i><p>

 

I didn't miss this, I was being obtuse, but nevermind.<p>

 

!!yhpargotohp ruoy yojne

Yes.

 

This is due to the light path through the lens. It travels in straight lines so lightpath from top of object goes through lens to bottom of image. Light from bottom of object (assuming this is below the lens) goes through lens to top of image. Hence, upside down. The same applies left-to-right.

 

SLRs have a pentaprism which flips the image the right way up. The brain also does this as the image formed by the eye on the retina is upside down.

 

Turning the lens or the ground glass screen will do nothing to the image as is is not altering the light path.

<i>"Somewhere along the way photographers should learn that the distance from the subject to the lens determines perspective"</i>

 

<p>Unfortunately, I think there are many who do not know this. Too often you hear people talking about using a long lens for the shortened perspective and a wide lens for vice-versa. So anybody who does not know this, take note. This is a very important point. <p>

 

<u>Subject to camera distance, and not focal length, determines perspective.</u> (to stress it again)<p>

 

Personally, I'm not a fan of the 6-8 foot guideline, but prefer to be a bit more experimental. If you want to capture someones beauty this often works, but if you want to capture their personality being a bit different with your choice of lenses and distances can work wonders.

So after you've paid for the 1400 rolls of film, had them developed, and paid for the printing of the pics you want to keep, how much have you spent?

 

What percentage of that cost is the camera body even if the camera was totally dead after this?

 

My point, why are you worried?

Wanna do portraits? The Minolta 85mm 1.4D is one of their best ever lenses. Very sharp, very bright, great contrast, and perfect focal length for portraits. Has many other uses as well.

I would go with Richard and get an X-Pan. This is a take anywhere camera, and can be had for not too much money with the 45mm and 90mm lenses. The 30mm lens costs over $2000 on its own.

 

This is a very portable camera, and can be used for many types of photography unlike large format cameras. It depends how dedicated you are to your landscapes.

 

I also think the Noblex 120 produces wonderful images, with great perspective. I really like the swinglens look, which makes a change from flat field all the time. This is an expensive camera though, but is quite portable.

It doesn't matter which you choose, you'll spend the next six months wondering if you made the right choice. "What if I'd chose the other one???"

 

BTW: Go for the Canon. Better noise control.

Don't forget viewfinder magnification, this is generally less if there is 100% view.

Durability is the main difference. If the camera is going to suffer continued hard use then the metal, weather sealed, rugged body would be worth the extra cash.

 

If not, then the 7 is great, and it has some useful extras.

 

The metering systems are very similar. I remember one comparison review between the 9, EOS-3 and F100, which appeared in UK Amateur Photographer magazine. It came to the conclusion that the 9 had the best metering of the three and was the overall winner.

 

It wasn't compared to the F5 and EOS 1V as they command a significantly higher price.

 

The 9 can be considered a true professional camera. The 7 is a high end enthusiast model which is used by some pros.

 

As we Minolta users know, most 'pros' are sucked into the Canon/Nikon way of thinking.