kkeller

Sorry, F30. See, I told you I panicked. I'm not as critical as the question sounds, just frustrated. I know that I am the limiting factor, not the equipment. I usually shoot with a Yashica 124 or an old Olympus Epic. I appreciate the Ricoh comments--Jeff's pictures look great. I like the B&W.

Is there nothing better? There, that is my question. Here is my statement: I

have surrendered. I have been trying to go digital and have researched myself

in circles. I have some digital p&s's (Canon g5--slowwww and sd700-pretty good

kid shooter) but wanted to make the jump to a digital SLR for multipurpose

street shooting, kid shooting, and serious (amateur serious) B&W work. I don't

like my lens options for standard 35-50 perspective where I do 95% of my

shooting. And I like primes. I'm not a snob, I'm just used to them--less to

think about, light, fast and clean. I'm not happy with the lenses available

considering a 1.6 or 1.5 multiplier. I don't like the thought of using a 24

with the necessary optical compromises to get a 35+ normal perspective. The ff

35 to 50 range lenses are cheap, essentially compromise free, distortion free,

fast and tack sharp.

QUALITY FEEL: Even the Canon 35 (the one under $1000) is older design, non usm,

loud, plasticy, etc. My 35 fd (heck, any fd) , metal and glass, well damped,

tight, feels like a uber L series in comparison. I cannot help it, and know I'm

not the only one who likes the smooth, quality feel of a good lens--especially

at a total price of 2 grand! I know they may shoot the same pictures, but it's

a tool, similar to a high quality fishing reel, car, watch, knife, range, boat,

etc. Quality gear should feel like quality. The Tamron 17-35, 28-75, Sigma 30

and even the new Canon 17-55 2.8 IS is plasticy. The 17-40 is better but a slow

4.

SPEED: The Tamron and Canon zooms are at least a 4 by the time you are at 35-

50. The 2.8 28-75 zooms are better, but I would use them like primes, racked in

the whole time. Many times, I like shallow DOF. Many wide open 35mm 35 and 50

f1.4s, 1.8's, 2.0's look good wide open. They have a certain signature. I guess

I could go FF and broke with a 5d and a 35 1.4 L.

SURRENDER: So, I actually put the 30d and 17-40/4 and 50/1.8 in my cart,

panicked like I was I was at the front of a 30 deep Taco Bell line, nixed it

all and ordered a Fuji d30. It doesn't address many of my problems, but it

costs less, is metal, has a 2.8 38 (I wish they would do a 2.0 fixed lens 35,

the 28 Ricoh is a little too wide), and is otherwise pretty good. I wish it was

faster shot to shot. Maybe I will hate it. Maybe I odredered the

dsissapointment platter. I could still go back and put 30d ensemble in my cart,

but am I missing something? Is it worth it? And yes, I know I should just go

out and shoot, good enough is good enough, and that most of the euipment I have

mentioned is very good stuff that has good reviews and user feedback. But, I

still have these quesitions/issues. Thanks!

Phototechniques used to have an awesome film guide on their site, and often published in their magazine. I just briefly went to the site and could not find it.

I have a barely used one in excellent condition I will sell for $250 or so, if you are still interested. My wife wanted a much smaller all auto and is not using it anymore. We got a 550, which is good for her purposes.

Latest issue of Lens Work has a gorgeous portfolio of shots inside a church, b@W, by a digital rebel 300 (and a photographer). He shares the one camera with his wife (also has great wildlife shots by a Pentax 67, scanned film).

bobatkins.com just posted an article on this issue.

Fuji f10, hands down. Can shoot up to to 1600. Bigger sensor. f11 is out now, so you may get f10 for around 200.

Scott, thanks for the very substanitive and thought out response. I agree, largely. And yes, it is tempting to go with the drebel (I have also been looking at 600$ used d10s), at a triple rebate price of $570, but hate my lens choices. I guess I will walk around with a portrait prime, 50 1.8, maybe 75 will be the new "in" perspective. Or drop $350 (with rebate) on the 28 1.8. Again, no good choices. That's what makes me want to shoot film. Granted I could go with the 5d, but then I couldn't afford the adoption. All the choices are poor right now. Many like me are frozen, and maybe should be for a couple of years. If I get the dslr, then I have to upgrade my computer and get a 20" monitor, and a color matching program, and dedicate at least 50-100 hrs to a PS learning curve (I still cannot burn and dodge B$W in PS as good as I could after spending 3 hrs in a darkroom), and have virtually no good B&W printer options, and get some 1-4 G flash memory cards, and perhaps an Epson storage device, and some lenses as I discussed above, and extra batteries: all of which I put at 2-3000 for a 570$ amera. Or just get a nice Leica 35 2.8, and a brick of Tri-x. At what point do I turn into a tecky instead of a photographer? Then again, I have gotten very good and easy family shots with my wife's sd500 (and G5 before that--verrry slowwww). In fact over the last year I have shot much more digital than film. Then again, then again, ad infintem.

Thanks for all the great advice. I will probably go hybrid, both digital and film. I think it is a little early to go whole hog digital, but 2 years from now will be very tempting.... Thanks also for the kind words and shared experiences re the adoption. I will probably od a web log also, so will probaly get the Digital Rebel, but also bring an M6, if I can find a good deal on a user.

I know, these are unanswerable questions, but I would still value

input, realizing there is no true answer. I could write pages on my

indecision, competing considerations, review of articles (I think

the photomags have an essay every month by the editor, digital v.

film, with the answer always dissatisfying "It's up to you, just go

shoot!"). I am ready to buy something: DRebel, 20d or skip it all

and go buy a used m6 and nice 35mm lens, and 35 mm film scanner. I

do primarily B&W. I love low light stuff and street shooting. I have

an m3 and a couple of older 50's, but want a meter in camera. I have

a lot of Canon fd stuff, and some MF. No current easy access to dark

room. Have done a fair amount of mf negative negative scanning and

Photoshopping, some posted here. I have waited, and waited but am

ready to pop. One of my issues is no "special" lenses when it comes

to something for the reduced frame DSLR in the range of (effective)

28-50 persective. There certainly are such special lenses for every

make of film or non full frame SLR... or rangefinder or MF for that

matter. I can't afford full frame yet. I am thinking of the D Rebel

with the 17-40L, a 50, and something else to take advantage of the

triple rebate, and get the body almost for free, and yet have the

full frame lenses forever(or maybe the Tamron 17-35 that Luminous

Landscape likes so much). I think I would choose the 17-40 over the

17-85 IS just based on full frame covg, but would love the IS, and

the 4 aperture on the 17-40 is a little slow. I would get the 20D,

but hate paying too much for any d-body knowing it will be outdated

in 2 years (no flaming pls). I figure in 2 years I could trade up

for a FF digital and still use the 17-40. I wish someone would put

out some special IS fast primes that would result in 28-50 effective

focal length on reduced frame DSLR's. Otherwise I am absolutely

stymied with indecision, and may trade in the M3 and go with an M6

and a "special" lens. Same price difference. One other

consideration: we are adopting from China and travel in 2-3 months

to be there for 2 weeks, with lots of travel and new baby photo ops--

-and I MUST get the shot of that baby being placed in m wife's arms,

in a poorly lit interior--so I am shooting at 1600 to 3200 wide open

one way or another. Please no flaming.

I just posted on this a few days ago, and have since done too much research on it, on this site and digital preview, and others. My conclusions: 1. Digital Elphs-the SD300 (4 meg, but very, very small), or the S500 (5 meg, and a little bigger, but still very compact), are the fastest out there (1.4 secs. off to on, 1.3 sec. shot to shot-w/o flash, 2.4 fps continuous--smokin'). And, 2. Sony 150 or 200 (7.1 meg, slightly larger than s500, but still very compact). Also fast (1.4 off to on, 1.5 shot to shot w/o flash, only .6 to .9 FPS in continuous mode). Both have about .5 sec. full depress shutter lag (fast by small digicam standards, but not for Leicas or DSLRs). The Canon SD500, 7.1 meg (the 7.1's are all Sony chips, and the 7.1 is supposed to be very good) is due out later this month. So is the SD400, which is a 5 megger is the very, very compact size of the sd300. I am probably choosing the sd400. My wife likes very compact (cameras). No pinky nail sized sensor will be low noise, so any non-DSLR, G6, 8080, Panasonic, Konica-Minolta, Nikon, whatever, will have noticable noise over 100 asa setting. There is no full sized, or 1.5-.6 sized sensor in a compact digicam, yet. I have no truck against the Lumix (IS is good), Casios, Nikons, Fujis (which UK Practical Photograpy rates highest), or Ricohs. I have a g5 which is slowww, and big. This is just the result of my research on compacts, focusing on speed, which to me is very important. I have enough shot's of my 7 year old half out of frame. Makes me bring my M3 along, using my G5 as a meter.

I just posted on this a few days ago, and have since done too much research on it, on this site and digital preview, and others. My conclusions: 1. Digital Elphs-the SD300 (4 meg, but very, very small), or the S500 (5 meg, and a little bigger, but still very compact), are the fastest out there (1.4 secs. off to on, 1.3 sec. shot to shot-w/o flash, 2.4 fps continuous--smokin'). And, 2. Sony 150 or 200 (7.1 meg, slightly larger than s500, but still very compact). Also fast (1.4 off to on, 1.5 shot to shot w/o flash, only .6 to .9 FPS in continuous mode). Both have about .5 sec. full depress shutter lag (fast by small digicam standards, but not for Leicas or DSLRs). The Canon SD500, 7.1 meg (the 7.1's are all Sony chips, and the 7.1 is supposed to be very good) is due out later this month. So is the SD400, which is a 5 megger is the very, very compact size of the sd300. I am probably choosing the sd400. My wife likes very compact (cameras). No pinky nail sized sensor will be low noise, so any non-DSLR, G6, 8080, Panasonic, Konica-Minolta, Nikon, whatever, will have noticable noise over 100 asa setting. There is no full sized, or 1.5-.6 sized sensor in a compact digicam, yet. I have no truck against the Lumix (IS is good), Casios, Nikons, Fujis (which UK Practical Photograpy rates highest), or Ricohs. I have a g5 which is slowww, and big. This is just the result of my research on compacts, focusing on speed, which to me is very important. I have enough shot's of my 7 year old half out of frame. Makes me bring my M3 along, using my G5 as a meter.

Sorry for another comparison euipment question, but I'm obsessed

with getting a small quick p&s for my wife, that i can use for

street photography when I travel. Must be fast. Canon seems to have

trouble with that--my g5 is slow focussing, even with half depressed

shutter button. I'm down to Sony DSC p200, Canon PS 5500, or Canon

sd20 (intereting). I've read digital preview. Help!

Is it time yet for a diehard B@W film guy to consider a Canon d20, or

a Konica-Minolta 7d, or Nikon d70? I keep trying to read between the

lines on the reviews, but it is not really nailed. Or should I be

buying an old Kodak DCS760m? What I really want to do is just use the

camera in monotone mode--I know it's usually best to take the picture

in color, RAW, and then process using the color channels in PS. But,

I read that you can use the d20 (and I'm sure the others too) in

monotone using the channels--like using color filters. Is this

stupid? Is anybody doing it? What is the advantage to shooting

digital monotone: seeing monotone on the camera screen (after the

shot), faster processing speeds (?), less memory (?), and I like

shooting that way. My hope is that there is an obvious choice out

there for B@W people like me, actually shooting in B&W mode--is

there? I don't like the g6 (I have the g5), or olympus 8080, or Nikon

8400 or other Sony chip 8 meggers because of shutter lag and time

between shots, but maybe I'm wrong. I kinda like street shooting, but

also land/cityscapes. Help please.

The Tamron 17-35 di ($469) just got a rave review at Luminous- Landscape.com

FYI Article on Siachen war at Outsideonline.com/coldestwar, has some

beautiful B&W photos, and a narrated slideshow by the photographer.

He was shooting at 30 below zero, and discusses (briefly) using

Leicas and an old Nikon. Worth a look. I'd give the photographer's

name (I've forgotten it), but I cannot revisit without signing on,

and I get enough spam as it is. Somebody else pls post it.

Wow, quite a comparison and very informative. I certainly appreciate the trouble he went through. I want to read more discussion on this. I also wonder at the lens choices for the 67. The 200 and above are especially prone to shutter bounce (read these threads, or Luminous's own reviews), and are very tripod picky. There's also a 2 stop dof difference that mayhave, but probably did't matter. Nevertheless, I'd love to see the comparisons done with wide angle lenses (try the 67 55 or 45 vs a Canon 28 or 24) to help control such factors. I'd also like to see the comparison done against a leaf shuttered mf camera---even an old TLR. Latsly, I don't quite understand why a sharper image cannot be blown up near as much as the inferior image. Lastly lastly how about a B@W print comparison for not just sharness but tone, etc. And finally lastly,is there really no doubt but that an Epson 2200 print is far superior to a wetroom print? $699 is cheap in photo-dollars ( anyone want my epson 820?). Please comment!

I have one of the current versions and like it. It has not optically changed from the earlier, "heavier" versions, and several in thsese posts prefer the older. However, given that you can get it new for about 489$, I went new (my 45 and 200 are very used).

Probably too late, but in actually in VaB, go to Seahore State Park off Shore Drive. Very scenic beach and beach side wood trails, and swamp lake complete with spanish moss (looks like you're in Fla.). Also, Back Bay and Knotts Island--very scenic sound/wood/orchard sights--also with wild ponies and swarms of mosquitoes. Get a civil war sight map--lots of battle fields and very old cemeteries (check out St. Paul's Church in Downtown Norfolk, Revolutionary war). Botanical Gardens in Norfolk and the Norfolk Zoo are huge suprises if you haven't been there. I second strongly the outer banks, Eastern Shore (Walker Evans used to take pictures there) and Williamsburg/Jamestown/Yorktown/Lee's Battle of the Peninisula).

I second the p67. The 135/4 macro is a great semi closeup lense that can be had new for 499.

Ok, I'll speak up for the Pentax 67 45 and 55, which get alot of kudos on this sight.

I've bought exclusively from KEH and Focus. Both are great.

I have and so far love the 135. The glass is set back so far you'd

have to shoot directly into the sun to get lense flair. I looke for

it used for a while, but found no better deal than new from Focus for

$489. Focus supports photonet.

Has anyone heard of any plan that a digital back/modification of

some sort be created for the p67 system. I would at least like to

think its an option in the future.

I often print 6x7 as 6x6 because I like the square format (and I'm too lazy to switch my negative carrier and 90 to a 105). It does give you more freedom. Also, there are a lot of 6x6 enlargers out there.