mesasone

Hmm, I was hoping that this would be sort of like a photographic version of the NPR show "This American Life" (which, apparently is now also a television show on Showtime, however I do not have cable so I have not been able to catch it). Still, I will have to check this out.

 

For those not familiar with This American Life, generally speaking, each week they have an hour long show on a certain theme, and will do 3-4 radio essays featuring different stories on that theme. Sometimes, it's just different perspective on the same event, other times they stories are completely unrelated other than that common theme.

Steve, I don't buy your comparison to jazz musicians. Photography is more than just pressing a button, and many seem to be ignoring this fact for reasons I do not understand.

 

If two musicians play the same sheet of music, using the same instrument, and produce a different sound, that is because they are not using the instrument precisely the same way. They may breathe differently, or have whatever nuances in their techniques that separate them.

 

Like-wise, give a camera to two different photographers and they will not take the same photograph. They will come up with a different composition and they may focus differently. They may meter off of different surfaces to emphasize the tonality of a certain subject, or they may use a metering mode to expose for the entire scene.

 

If shooting film, they may also develop the film differently... different types of agitation cycles can have different affects on the negative. When they go to print/post process, be it in the darkroom or computer, they may make many more choices, all of which comes together to create their own unique vision.

 

Your example gives the impression that all photography is, is setting up a camera on a tripod at a pre-designated location, using precise pre-determined exposure values, pressing a button and dropping off the camera at the nearest Walgreens and picking up your photos an hour later. Some people may choose to do that, but photography can be and is much more than that.

 

If two artists played the same music using the same instrument and exactly the same technique, etc they would produce exactly the same sound. They do not; I imagine it's virtually impossible to do so, and that's what defines one musician from another.

 

 

Another thing to consider is that different arts affect people differently. A painting doesn't capture my heart and imagination the way some photographs do. When a photographer travels to a poor, conflict ridden area of the world and comes back with photographs of the suffering being inflicted, those photos resonate with a gravity that other forms of art do not. I have never seen a painting that moved me. For others, perhaps it's the opposite. It can be likened to the age old adage: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Thanks for the link, I dont really follow phones much these days. It's nice to see the cameras are coming up in quality, though honestly the shoddy camera on my Sony Ericsson t616 gets the job done well enough. Most pictures are deleted with in a few days anyhow.

 

I dont understand why the people above are so critical, it is a phone that takes pictures - it is not Digital SLR or even compact digital camera. If you want to carry a bag full of gadgets around, be my guest - but I'll be more than happy to have a phone that fills my needs reasonably well. After all, if I want to make a beautiful image, I'll get out my 300D - I dont walk around with my camera hoping to take a picture, I go out with my camera to make a picture.

I was just talking with a makeup artist who told me that I should

only put prints in my portfolio that are "full size" - she explained

that 'full size' in professional photography is 9" x 13". When I

questioned the photo lab here, they said they could 'crop' a shot to

that size, but that that size is not a standard paper size nor is it

a "full" negative size of any common format - who is correct

You are very obviously missing a HUGE apsect of photography: Depth of Feild. The apture IS the shutter, if you remove the shutter you lose all control over the DoF, the amount of light entering the camera beyond pure "capture time"(since we'd have no shutters).

 

What you would have would be a pin hole camera. Alot of the really cheap digital cameras are like this... fixed at "2.8" or such. Also, this is how camera phones function.

"Peter Phan" you seem to be a bit of a canon fanboy, as much as some of us (maybe even me) seem to be nikon fanboys.

 

The noise difference between ISO 100 on a 300D and ISO 200 on a D70 are irrelevent. If shot for use on a computer, such as an online showcase or even a photolog, you're going to scale the image down and the noise will disappear, the images will be identical. If you're going to print the images, the noise is going to print out. It's a trivial issue, and I dont understand why you're basing your arguement on it. Really, you should be looking at the noise patterns, which there are very few that would argue the nikon is more agrueable. But in photography, it's purely an issue of aesthetics and personal perference, which makes even that point a bit moot.

 

If you are concerned about being able to use a slower shutter speed, consider this: Nutrual Density Filter. Learn how to use one, and quit complaining. I find it dissapointing how many people over look such a basic, often essential tool.

 

That said, here comes the standard answer for such a silly question: consider your needs. Since you dont have any investiment in lense, that makes your choice even harder. Because you now have to buy lense too. As such, some say that Canon's lense are slightly cheaper. I personally have found Nikon lense to be just as affordable. Once you consider the differences in features in the two entry level DSLRs you're looking at, you should consider your lense requirements. Is the nikon kit lense worth the extra 400 dollars? If you go with Canon(or nikon), are you going to want/need additional lense up front. If so, how much are those going to cost? Canon L series lens are De Facto in pure quality, but do your pockets run that deep? Will they ever?

On the rare occasion that it is actually a problem, provided it is ever really a problem, just use the manual over ride. I mean, jesus people are you that damn lazy that you cant turn the focus ring? Or are you buying the cheapo-lense that have dropped the focus ring? Another thing to consider.

Paul, you over look the fact that the lens AND sensor make the image - both are important(the lense more so, though). The lense will make the transition from camera to camera. You will buy a new camera for a new sensor, not for the sake of buying a new camera.

 

Either way, Deffinately look at the glass. And realize, even when the next 'best" camera comes out your camera will always take the same great images, a new camera on the market will not affect this in any sense.

I've done my homework on the D70, so I'll save you the time.

 

The D70 is a great camera and the kit lense has been very reputable. I would almost certainly get the lense, and even use it. It will go wider than the Tamron, and is acclaimed as a great all around lens. Be aware of the crop factor as well, your tamron will give you an 35mm equivilant of 42mm - that 10mm of actual focal length will make a huge difference in range. Deffinately food for thought.

 

As for vendors, I personally order from Calumetphoto.com. They are reputable, price competively and best of all the standard shipping arrives over night for me, because they ship out of chicago, which is pretty close to here. I've grown weary of other sites, I'd stick with the big names if not a local store - BH photo video, Adorama, or Calument, among a few. The advertised price may be a bit more, but you're also buying a peice of mind in that you're not being yanked around.

 

If you decide to go with someone else, check out resellerratings.com and research the retailer.

 

Finally, I'd image the replacement for the D100 will be a metal bodied D70, possibly with interface for a vertical grip. I wouldnt expect jumps and leaps, just upgrades. I havent heard of one, but I would deffinately wait for the replacement were it to be out soon. However there is no word of it, and as such I'm ordering my D70 next week.

The D70 does not have the interface for a verticle grip, I beleive. However a third party could possibly develope a wireless trigger that functioned as one - granted with somewhat limited capabilty.

Erm, correction. I thought you said you had a Canon AE-1, even though you never even mentioned owning one. Go figure.

 

Them. I guess you'd be looking at the D70 like me. Or, you could get your camera fixed(may not cost much) and buy a fixed lense Digital - there are some very nice ones out there at a decent price point. But Digital fixed vs DSLR is an entire different 'essay'. Ha.

Mike, There is no difference in lense between DSLRs and film.

 

Well, thats not exactly true. There are some lense designed to be used with DSLRs and they provide to be really cheap, but great lense(I'm reffering to the Nikon DX line, anyway). They can be really cheap, because the smaller sensors of most DSLRs(non-full-framed) doesnt capture the edge of what would be image on film, so they can be dead on sharp in the center and a little sharp on the corners with out it showing up in the image. Infact, they dont even cover a full framed sensor or 35mm film, they produce a circle image that would resualt in a partially unexposed frame.

 

However, a lense designed to work with a film camera will work great with a DSLR. Infact, little imperfections in the corners such as focus disappear - but any problem in the center are going to be amplified.

 

That said, there is another issue to be aware with - crop factor. The Nikon D70 for instance has a 1.5x crop factor. The 1.5x crop factor creates an image that is essentially(key word) at one and a half times the focal length of the lense. 85mm essentially(again, a key word) becomes 128mm(127.5, actually). I say essentially, because all you're really doing is cropping out image - were it actually 128 in 35mm terms and used with a full frame sensor, there'd be much more detail. It's not much of an problem, but it is something to be aware of.

 

Anyhow, there are alot of considerations going to into film versus digital. Yes, they are both photography - but quite frankly, they're not the same type of photography. DSLRs absolutely outperform film in low light applications, and match in well light situations. Some say film resolves better, and they are in a sense right - but they look at from the wrong angle. The difference is neglible, I'd say.

 

Another consideration is your love for the developement process. Digital is instant gratification. Film is love and labour(emphasis on this later part). In my opinion, if you dont develope and/or print your own film, then there is no point of staying with film - unless you are a commericial photographer in a situation that simply requires film. The instant feedback is incredibly useful, and film + dev/print costs add up really quick, even for the casual shooter. However, the darkroom expeirence is irreplacable for some, myself included. I'm going digital, but I'm not giving up film - I love printing my images.

 

The digital darkroom does not have the same sort of nitty-gritty of the actual thing. Filters(or graded paper) need not apply. Limited dodging burning capabilities. The developement process is gone - not a loss for me, but some people do like it. There is no expeirmenting with different films - something I do however enjoy. In their place comes incredible control - beautiful, absolute, unadultered control. Right there at your finger tips. Digital Photography as fine art is just as much post processing as shooting.

 

These are all things to consider, and there are more too - this is just an overview. Also consider the price difference in a film camera versus a digital, or even just getting your camera fixed. Your parents may be surprised when they find out how expensive that entry level Canon 300D(I'm assuming you would stick with canon for lense compatiabilty) actually is.

 

I'm also getting a new camera as a graduation gift - a nikon D70 for me - and my relavtives were a bit taken aback by the price. Now I'm just getting cash towards it, but I will be getting 2000+. You may end up wanting to do the same if you go the digital route.

 

Now that I've wrote this essay, I must be getting back to my homework so I can actually graduate. Good luck on whatever route you decide to take.

People are intent on beating this issue into the ground.

 

These are very inconclusive resaults, I must say. Using just one image does not really tell you much, other than how digital and film perform in those specific conditions. While his conclusion has been proven(by countless others), he by no means proved it himself using one image.

Alistair Windsor said:

 

"More megapixels are useful. I am certainly not convinced that the 8MP sensor in the Pro 1 is worse than the 4MP sensor in the G2/G3. It is noisier but resolves more detail. AT ISO 50 the noise is very well controlled. I am sure that in some situations the Pro 1 sensor delivers better images than the 10D's sensor."

 

I think this is an often overlooked issue, and very valuable insight. Most people, myself included, have overlooked the fact that the 8mp sensor of the likes of the f828 still resolves more data than the 6mp sensors of the entry level dSLRS(which of course, many people compare the two often.) There is of course a bit of a trade off, at least when we're talking about the dinky sensors in the p&s cameras - being obviously the noise, and the ability to camera more detail with the smaller pixels.

Ha, thanks for the imformation Robert. When does this offer expire? Or, does it expire? Hopefully Ritz will have the camera in stock in mid to late may when I'm ready to purchase mine.

For what you're doing, I'd say there would be absolutely no problem with turning down the quality, or even the image size as well. Consider the end resault - if you're going to print, how large are you going to print? Generally these family vacation prints never make it beyond 4x6, make sure you keep that in mind. Or, are you even going to print them at all?

Thanks Adam, I will look into freestylephoto.

 

Have you received your camera yet? If so, how would you rate their packaging/customer service and so forth. When you say it shipped to you in one day, do you mean it arrived next day, or shipped the same day.

 

I'm interested in ordering from calumet - I generally order all my products from them, they have great service and since they ship from chicago, standard shipping fares arrive next day. Any idea where freestylephoto ships from?

 

This is a grudation gift from my family, so I'm not entirely ship when the purchase will occur, however it should be with in the next few weeks.

Can anybody tell me who, as of April 3rd has the D70 outfit in stock.

Further more, if you could refer anyone who will likely have it in

stock and non-wait listed in the next few weeks, as well.

Bob or Jean, could you point me to some literature that would give me a more indepth look at some of the information you're talking about. I'm finding this discussion very interesting and would like to research some of the topics discussed here.

Thanks for the answers, I've already started to shoot the roll so we'll what comes out. I'm not taking any "critical" images on this roll, just shooting a round a bit to see what would happen.

 

It would make sense that the paperbacking on mf wouldn't cause a two stop underexposure, otherwise bringing the roll, un-opened, into the light period would expose it. I have no expeirence in mf yet, so I really have little clue what I'm talking about.

So, the other day I un-wittingly loaded a roll of tri-x backwards when

filling a couple of canisters in the bulk loader(I spun the wind level

backwards). The end resault is of course a backwards loaded roll,

which I've decided to shoot and see what happens rather than wasting

it and just reloading.

 

And Thoughts on what will happen when I go to develope? I've read some

threads on people loading mf backwards in their cameras and those

being under exposed by approximately two stops, however this is 35mm

so I dont have the paper backing. Will the images just be backwards?