nilanjan_sen

Shun hit the nail on the head. The difference in AF speed, especially with the outer sensors, is more significant than the shutter lag.

Sam, I will try and clarify this a little -

 

As Michael said, the combination of shutter speed and aperture is linked to how much light you have available. The faster the shutter speed, the wider the aperture that you need. If you are using the kit lens, f4 is the widest aperture available. A 1/1000 second shutter speed would let in much less light than 1/80 second, and would require a much larger aperture to compensate.

 

You can try changing to a higher ISO, which will give you a faster shutter speed for the same aperture.

 

I hope this helps.

I think I got what you said until "....just to get a 10MP camera". I am not clear on what you meant by the words after that.

I tried the same experiment as Elliott with my D40x. I took pictures of a rose bush in my garden at the Large and Medium file size settings (10 MP and 5.6 MP respectively), using both the Normal and Fine image quality options. Then I pored over the pictures on screen at various zoom settings.

 

Below 100% zoom, all four variations looked equally great. Obviously, 100% means a larger file size at 10 MP vs. 5.6 MP, which will allow for more cropping or a larger print without resizing. But I was extremely impressed with the quality of the smaller files and could detect no difference between the Fine and Normal options.

Any non-dedicated automatic flash will do. You can try a Sunpak 383 or any number of used flashguns. If you want a new unit, Ritz Camera has a small auto flash for $25.

 

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/531660181.htm?bct=t13031003%3Bcifilm-cameras-and-accessories%3Bciflashes-motor-drives%3Bciflashes

Try putting the negatives in backward - i.e. turn it back to front.

I used to own a Minolta Scan Dual IV and have a friend who owns the Coolscan V. I have owned the Epson for less than a week, so I cannot claim much experience with it. Here are the main pros and cons from my admittedly brief experience:

 

Pros:

1) The software is a breeze to install, especially compared to the Minolta;

2) Digital Ice works very well with color films;

3) You can scan many more frames at a time, which saves a lot of manual effort;

4) The quality of the scans is very nice even at the default settings.

 

Cons:

1) The file size at the highest setting is huge even for 35mm (about 150 MB per TIFF file), which is too much for my PC to handle;

2) Scan times are extremely slow at the highest setting, and it is no rocket even at the default JPEG compression;

3) I find the huge glass surfaces to be dust magnets, necessitating a wipe-down before each use;

4) It is much larger than the Nikon, and the Minolta looks like a cigar box in comparison. Its front-to-back dimension can challenge a typical home office shelf.

 

Here is the bottom line - I am sure the Nikon is better as far as ultimate resolution is concerned. However, if you have the space and want the convenience of scanning large batches at a time while still getting very good scan quality, you can't go wrong with the Epson. I admit that as a confirmed cheapskate, I was also titillated by the deal I got from Newegg - $384 and free shipping.

Did you connect the FAU cable to the back of the scanner? See page 7 of the Quick Start Guide.

"Mmmmm.... can someone sum up this thread for me? :-)"

 

There is a camera called the Leica M8. Some people like it. Others do not :-)

I played with a Panasonic L1 and an Olympus E-330 for a few minutes at B&H.

While they obviously share the same genes and general dimensions, they feel

quite different in the hand. The Olympus has rounded surfaces covered with soft

rubber and a more ergonomic shape. It felt lighter, probably because it had the

14-45 kit zoom attached. The Panasonic felt much better finished, but you have

to get used to the boxy shape, traditional shutter dial and aperture ring.

 

I noticed that the L1 viewfinder was much brighter than I had expected, and

distinctly brighter than the Olympus. I was under the impression that they had

the same semi-reflective mirror assembly, and that it is a waste in the L1

because it does not have the secondary 5MP sensor. The difference was so much

that I am not sure whether it can be attributed solely to the faster Leica

badged lens.

 

They both had excellent rear LCD's. I kind of liked the live preview mode in

the L1 because the LCD image was so bright. It is true that there is a bit of a

lag taking the shot in the live preview mode, but there are times when it can

be useful - although here the Olympus has the Panasonic beat, thanks to its

articulating screen.

 

Overall, I liked the L1 and will likely buy it in the next month. Any comments

or hands-on experiences would be welcome.

David, it is a lovely shot. But I was sure it was digital. I can't explain why - could be the smoothness, or absence of grain clumps, or whatever.

I had started a similar thread a month or two ago. Kerry's observations about the disposable society saddened me a little, since I have a firsthand view of some of the transformations that he is talking about in the world of IT. All the consolation I can offer with my reading of WWII literature is that people were even more disposable before, on a much vaster scale and without any fear of adverse opinion polls :)

 

I have noticed that the whole prosumer genre is gaining in popularity, at least in terms of resale values. I am not sure if this is because of any inherent advantages over inexpensive DSLR's, collector interest or nostalgia. Certainly the Sony 717 (which I have) and 828, Canon Pro 1 and Olympus 8080 seem to go for high prices. Even older high-end prosumer cameras like the Coolpix models with swiveling lenses attract plenty of bids.

 

As for older DSLR's, I am most familiar with the Nikon D1 series. Their used prices are still high but nowhere near their original sticker. I can only speculate that my own fear of excessively high shutter actuations by professionals and imminent transformation to high-tech paperweights is shared by others.

 

I am happy to do my part to preserve the classics of yesteryear. In the film world, I have a Nikon F3 and F5, and am thinking of filling in the blank with an F4. In the digital arena, the Olympus E-1 strikes me as a future classic regardless of the future of the 4/3 format. I might get that and/or a Sony R1 (perhaps a one of a kind prosumer with an APS-C sensor) when the bonus check is deposited.

You have posted this message more than once, so I have to ask. What model is this? I don't know of any recent 3.5 MP models from Olympus that might still be under warranty. And if it is an old camera that is out of warranty and not working for some unspecified reason, isn't it reasonable for them to ask about any physical damage?

I am finding this discussion very interesting. Dated or not, it is clear that the people who like the E-1 like it a lot. Mike Johnston wrote a short article called "Whither the E-1?" at http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/ where he called it one of the best bodies of the digital age while acknowledging its limitations and Olympus' problems with market share.

 

Having worked in financial services all these years, I see so many other factors that determine a company's success besides engineering prowess - such as knowing your customer, positioning your product appropriately, having the right partners and a strong financial base. Perhaps Olympus would have been in better shape today had they launched a keenly priced consumer model like the E-500 first. In general, professionals with their huge investment in lenses are the most resistant to a new platform and ultra-conservative even within the same platform. Heck, even the Nikon F3 was not accepted at first because F2-toting pros did not take to its new-fangled electronics.

 

All that being said, the E-1 is a really neat camera and I hope Olympus can come up with a worthy successor.

I appreciate Ilkka's point and certainly have no bias for or against Olympus. But isn't the "limitation" equally valid for, say, a D2X with an APS-C sensor and 12 MP as it would be for a hypothetical 4/3 sensor with 10?

 

I am no expert, but I have read that digital sensors require physically larger lenses for edge to edge sharpness. It would follow that for the same lens, a smaller sensor would be less demanding. The tradeoff is obviously higher noise. It would indeed be a violation of the laws of physics if anyone achieved optimum sharpness across the frame along with lower levels of noise than a larger sensor.

If you are an amateur who wants a new DSLR and has a budget of about a thousand dollars, would you buy an E-1 with 14-54mm, or go with a Nikon or Canon? Assume you have no heavy investment in lenses to tilt your decision one way or another.

 

This is another way of asking the same question about the future of the Olympus platform - i.e. would you buy into the system with an older but well made body and a great lens at a sharply reduced price with the expectation that you could upgrade the body later?

Thanks for all your replies. I agree that my use of the term 'classic' may have been questionable. Digital technology is advancing so fast that any camera built today will not be usable decades later in the same way that, say, a Leica M3 or Hasselblad 500 is usable today. However, classic or not, you have pointed out some of the major milestones to date.

 

Any thoughts on the significance of the Kodak DCS series?

Which digital cameras in your opinion deserve to be called classics? And why?

 

A classic may have been ahead of its time, or a breakthrough in price vs.

performance, or wildly popular, or significant in some other way.

 

My nominees:

 

Sony DSC-F717: One of the best prosumer cameras of all time, establishing a new

level of excellence under $1000.

 

Nikon D70: Perhaps the first genuine crossover DSLR, capable enough for pros

but within the reach of amateurs.

Great thread. I have a similar dilemma myself, as a hobbyist who enjoys taking pictures with a fine precision instrument.

 

I own three lovely Nikon film bodies (F3, F5 and N8008S) and a raft of manual focus lenses. I do not own any autofocus lenses other than a 28-105, 50/1.8 and two old Tokinas. I also have a few digital point-and-shoots, with a Sony DSC-F717 being the best.

 

I am thinking of getting a DSLR but am a little conflicted. A lower end Nikon body is nowhere near as nice as my film bodies and cannot meter with my manual focus lenses. And having played with a D200, I appreciate its features and ruggedness but as a hobbyist, cannot bring myself to pay $1700 for the body, plus the cost of a wide-angle zoom and external flash - given that 1) we are in the early stages of digital camera technology, and the cameras of today will be obsolete in a couple of years; and 2) the same money would buy an F6, which is arguably the zenith of film SLR development.

 

I am pondering my options, including starting with a new digital platform based on the Olympus E1 which is being closed out at sharply reduced prices.

The F4 is compatible with non-AI lenses with some limitations, but the F801s is not.

 

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/other/compatibility.html

This is a match needle, manual exposure SLR. You are seeing f8 because that is the aperture that is set on the lens, not the suggested aperture for correct exposure. What you do is move the shutter dial until the two needles in the viewfinder line up. This will give you the correct shutter speed for an aperture of f8. Or you could do this in reverse - set the shutter speed first and turn the aperture ring until the needles line up.

I think you damaged the coating. There are explicit instructions to use only a soft cloth or lens tissue in the following page:

 

http://www.thkphoto.com/products/hoya/coatings.html

Patrick is absolutely correct. I had an SRT-201, which worked perfectly with a hearing-aid battery. I put a bit of thick string around it as a spacer. These batteries are 1.4v, which is close enough to the 1.35v mercury batteries to make no difference.

I don't know about astrophotography, but I will add one comment to Peter's original posting. I find my 55mm to be incredibly sharp, and in some ways my best lens. However, I do tend to misfocus more often with grab shots under indoor lighting than with the 50/1.8. I am not sure if it is due to the smaller maximum aperture or the sensitivity of the manual focus ring.

I agree with the positive comments. It is a timeless classic and a joy to use. I picked one up in absolutely mint condition with a data back, remote release, Nikon strap, body cap and 3 manuals (camera, back and Magic Lantern) for $100. I am reducing my film bodies to just two cameras - this and an equally mint F3HP. They are pinnacles of Nikon body design in their own ways and I love them both.