geddert

we have a minolta digicam 7 at work, and i end up being the one that uses it. if all you want to do is landscape work it may (I repeat MAY) be okay. But, if you intend to take pictures of people or other moving things with it, that camera is an exercise in frustration. The shutter lag is horrible, and it takes forever to refresh so you can take another shot. Also, a concern with this camera for landscape work may be that there is no optical viewfinder (only digital screens like on camcorders). That said, for the price the image quality is okay - certainly not 35mm film like - but okay. I just don't recommend that you buy it and think that it be used dual-purpose for people pictures.

the only concern is if you are a smoker your ligher won't work :)

 

<p>

I guess this would be a good time to quit... you might want to look at the after market chargers for the 511 battery... there are lots of them and they way cheaper... i also recommend taking your regular charger along along just in case there is a problem - then you might be able to charge it a restaurant or something like that.

<ol>

<li>true

<li>false (in part). Its true that you don't need to worry about white balance, but you certainly DO NEED to worry about over/underexposing because different raw info will be stored accordingly.

<li>don't know - i'm still waiting on my 10d to figure that one out

<li>true, but if an only if you have the hard drive space and the ability to back it up... there are always trade offs.

<li>true, but why not save it in the highest quality raw, just in case it happens to be fantastic shot.

<li>don't know, expect for "b" it can be the same, but it won't be exactly the same, especially if you convert it to jpeg using one of the aftermarket converters like capture pro which are higher quality converters than canons software.

</ol>

P.S. digital photography does not change the need for filters, though it can reduce it. If you want to make things a bit more warm (yellow), and don't have a 81 along you can always add that digitally, likewise you can blend pictures for natural densite stuff (see <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml</a>), the one thing you will use the same as in the past is a polarizer because that "effect" can't be added after the fact. Comeing to think of it, the only filter you really need with digital is a polarizer...

<p>

P.S.S. No this is false... they do start to show problems with minute long exposures...

<i> since I am really interested in learning the basics of photography, I think a manual camera would be a better idea</i>

<p>

Having an automatic capable camera like the n65 or n80 does not mean that you can't use it manually. all it takes is the self control to not switch on the auto features. If you haven't seriously done photography in the past i would not recommend that you start off with a rangefinder. Don't get me wrong, i like rangefinders, i own two right now. I just don't think its a good tool to learn with for these reasons:

 

<ul>

<li>no depth of field preview

<li>you haven't learned to "see" in a particular focal length and its harder to learn this with a rangefinder

<li>it is much more difficult for you to know whether or not you messed up on a particular shot (i.e. it might be out of focus, or the depth of field may be way off) and you'll only know when you get the film back, and by then you will likely have forgotten just what you did.

</ul>

I can think of a few more reasons (like the difficulty in using fill flash successfully and the inability to hand your camera to a friend to take a picture for you), but overall i think i'll stop here. Rangefinders are good tools. But the learning curve is steeper than with slrs and that isn't a good thing for a beginner. I have tought photography to a number of people, and many of them are interested by my leicas... but until now i haven't gotten any decent shots from them with this camera becuse they can't previsualize the shot. On the other hand, i have handed my slrs to other photographers and was able to explain things like why i used a certain f-stop, and why i spotmetered on that particular item, or why i did this, and this has helped them (at least that is what they said).

<p>

I recommend following the advice on static pages:

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-system">http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-system</a>

i've forked over more than $500 for such a lens and bought a leica 50/2 summicron, plus the accompanied $1500 primitive camera body. Seriously though, i have used a lot of fifties (and the leica cron is by far my favorite focal length), and at least in terms of tontal gradation, bokeh, an that little bit of magic nothing is in the same league (i haven't used the 50/1.4 or 50/1 from leica they may be close)

<i>one camera with you that you could keep in your pants pocket unobtrusively all day </i>

<p>

If it had to fit in my pants pocket it would be my Ricoh GR1. As a matter of fact i have kept it in my pants pocket unobtrusively on many different occasions in at least 6 different countries so far. In my opinion this is the "perfect" super-small camera.

<p>

If i had more room and it only have to fit in a coat pocket it would probably be my Leica (M6TTL) with a 50/1.4.

yes, it works exactly the same... its the exact same flash system

sorry about the many spelling and grammatical errors in that last one... i need to go to bed...

have you considered a 50 summicron. i think it works well in low light and have a few pics (though stylistically i wasn't caring about sharpness on those so they may not be the best examples) in my folder here at photo.net. I find that f1.4 has a bit too shallow a depth of field for general pics of people... and actually prefer using it at f2 (besides, with a leica i think you can about one stop due to the lack of mirror shake - at least thats what i think i get). I have used the nikon 50/1.4 AFD and new canon EOS 50/1.4 (which aren't the same lenses you are talking about though they are newer optical designs from those companies so presumeably "better") and at least in my view neither produced as pleasing a picture as the 50 summicron... as a matter of fact the nikon 50 afd is one of the poorest 50's i've ever used - it seemed way too harsh - this might just be a me though. Both Nikon and Canon SLR lenses may be just as sharp, but the smoothness of transition from sharp to blurry is really good with the 50 cron... and the bohek (spelling??) is also fantastic. Most importantly you can cuse the 50 cron wide open and you don't need to worry about any loss of sharpness... plus it has the focus tab (well at least mine does)...

i am happy when i get one keeper every 5-6 rolls of film. I end up keeping more (maybe 5 shots a roll) because i invariably become the events photographer and my friends/family want pictures from the event, but as far as my personal artistic satisfaction goes, one from every 200 shots seems to be about my rate. I don't think that this is because i'm a "bad" photographer, i think its because i am by far my most harsh critic.

 

I have placed an order for a DSLR - i would have wanted an M-Digital, but i think that would be too long of a wait. I hope this will help reduce my costs.

it is often very dark in the rain forest... much, much darker then if there were clear skies above you. This means a few things, you need to have a good tele/fill-flash along with you, and you need/want fast lenses and/or fast film.

<p>

Are you planning on using a tripod religiously while you are there?

i don't know what milage you can get from the card, since i've never used one - but, i have LOTS of experience with IBM in regards to their hard drives (i am a network/system administrator and have been one for a while now with a number of different companies). If IBM deals with their warranty on Microdrives like they do their regular hard drives you can rest assured that if under warranty, ibm will replace it no questions asked within 48 hours (at least with me they mail me the part and a pre-paid mailer (most of the time via 2nd day ups, though sometimes via next day - i don't know if my level of complaining influences the time difference or not), and then when a get a new replacement i stick the broken one if the pre-paid mailer and ship it to them, its that easy.

ah okay - i would then suggest that you read:

<ul>

<li>http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/

</ul>

I don't know of a nikon site, but many of the things discussed - like ttl and e-ttl apply to both systems... its a good place to start as it explains what many of these features are. Another thing i can really recommend is reading john shaw's closeups in nature - his section on flash photography in it is excellent and applicable to non-nature subjects.

what types of flashes? i.e. what are you going to do with these flashes?

<p>

is cost a primary concern or is functionality more important?

<i>This isn�t the age old question of Nikon vs. Canon...</i>

<p>

Yes it is. There is no major difference, and if you actually were a "serious armature" (I assume this means to mean somebody that been a part of photography for a while) you would know this by now. If you are pleased with the D100's quality be happy. The Canon isn't significantly sharper - take a look at the reviews on dpreview.com - its just a different system with various pros and cons - though i personally see way more pros on the canon side of things :-)

depth of field and two extra stops are the differences... if you are going to do available the light the 1.4 will handhold 2 full stops lower, which is a World of differenece... if you always have enough light (i.e. during the day or with the use of a flash), f2.8 tends to be easier to work with (since 1.4 must be VERY precisely focused, and often only eyes are in focus and the ears and even the nose tip are not).

if it were me it would be a 50 summilux that focuses down to .7meters... but i'm a 50 portrait person... i'm also a person that thinks that M cameras are excellent for people pictures and little else and thus in my view the only important lenses for an M are a 35 and 50... but that's me and everybody thinks about these things differently. Most people find lenses to between 75 and 100 mm's to be ideal for portraits, and for the M i would recommend the 90AA.

 

i personally think a 35mm lens is great for portraits - it just takes getting in peoples faces without intruding on their space and making them feel uncomfortable - and this takes practice. since you say you are relatively new to photography it makes me think you need more practice instead of new equipment. Too many new photographers think new equipment will get he job done (i was like that myself)... buying lots of new equipment at the beginning has a number of disadvantages. One, you don't learn to use what you have and "see" in the 35mm perspective. And two, you'll get frustrated with photography because you won't realize how much of the problem is you and not the gear and might start regretting spending so much money on a bunch of lenses you don't know how to use. Once you have gotten fully comfortable with your lens you will be able to determine where to go from there...

i want to clarify that - you won't necessarily get a black background with flash - its just more likely your just asking for too much. You will almost certainly either have to use a flash or a tripod - that's the deal with most macro work especially with slower films. My favorite focal lenght for macro is a 100mm, and the nikon 105 is the one lens from Nikon that i miss (i switched to canon)... I haven't used the canon 100 macro so it may be just as good - but hat is the great focal length for a macro lens because it also doubles as an up close portait lens as well.

<i>shot macro outdoor (flora), with available light, no tripod</i>

<p>

If you want to get serious about macro the first step is to use a tripod. There is no way around this - unless you want to use a flash and have that compelely black background people think is cool and dramatic for a 5 shots and then realize is very boring. Seriously, I HIGHLY recommend buying John Shaws, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0817440526/photonetA/">Closeups in Nature</a> - it is an EXCELLENT book on the subject and will answer this question for you.

i had a 1128 gitzo - and thought it was too small to be a "serious" tripod. It just didn't make sense for me to keep that flimsy thing so i donated it to the red cross (through ebay). it wasn't really "flimsy" the legs were stiff - it just when i stuck a pro level slr - even with a "smaller lens" like a 17-35/2.8 it didn't seemed to be too easily influenced by the wind... it just wasn't worth the size for the lack of "true tripodness" it provided. needless to say it never seemed quite right to me. I haven't owned the 1228 yet - though many are happy with it... you will no doubt find the 1325 to be stable enough - though that might reach to far into the not small and light category.

 

If you are able to live with a tabletop tripod for travels (that is what i do now), i can HIGHLY recommend the leica tripod and large ball and socket - i use it as a chest brace, against trees, and as a tripod - its as sturdy as you could hope for in a small tripod and can even take a 70-200/2.8 with a pro body if its on a sturdy base... if you can get creative with it you might find a tabletop to be just what you are looking for. it even fits in a large coat pocket.

<div></div>

i fully understand the sentiment. I have been wanting to get back me SLR system - i sold if when i fell in love with my leica and then which 6 months later i realized was a mistake - i should have both systems, becasue they are so different. Well, i decided to hold off on going back to SLRs until i could get digital ones, and the 10D Canon is getting there... but, i hate for it to be out of date in two years... and i like wide angles so i would really prefer a full frame sensor... nevertheless a 10d may have my name on it... maybe ;-)

i have a Ricoh GR1 as well as an M6 - if asked to choose to sell me M6 and the Ricoh i would sell the M6... not that it is "better" per say, but in my opinion the GR1 is the perfect small film based camera... and the M6 is a just too big for some forms of travel.

 

As far as service goes, i've had it for two and half years and bought it used - no incidents have required service. i accidentally dropped it in a lake once and after drying it was back to perfect working order. My only complaint about the GR1 is that the on off button is activated too easily if you stuff the camera in your pocket.

i know as a student you probably don't think too much about this, but time is money. Spending many hours trying to work with some kind of half solution in order to save a few hundred dollars is often not worth it. I am not saying the photoshop is the only "true" solution, there certainly are a number of others, i am speaking in general terms here. There is no need to reinvent the wheel unless the wheel doesn't work for you (and photoshop, for example, works for almost everybody).

 

Why people feel compelled to upgrade all their software if they don't need the new features i don't know... same goes for computer hardware. it is a vicious cycle. If people kept older software they could run it on older hardware. i would guess madison avenue is to "blame" for these things... then again if people didn't buy new things the economy would suffer (even more than it already has)...

Is it cost? NO (overall they seem about equal)

 

Quality? NO (overall they seem about equal)

 

Features? YES - Image Stabilization is terrific, as is USM on pretty much all their lenses - plus Nikon doesn't offer anything with IS and USM together (yet)

 

 

Customer service? YES - Canon ranks right up amoung the best of any companies on any products in terms of customer service (and i've dealt with a lot of companies).