aaron meyer

I've learned not to take anything personally (well, some of the time I manage to remember that I've learned that anyway). I know that most people don't mean those statements in that way, but I can't help but come on a little strong. You also touched on a "soap box" of mine, which is the tendency of people to say things like "does the world really need another sunset image?"

 

I see a lot of people who take some very beautiful photos get discouraged because they aren't making "art" according to someone else's definition and it saddens me a little. At the core though, I agree with you; shoot what you like, shoot what makes you happy. But shoot to shoot. Don't shoot to make "art" (which I don't believe you were saying or implying at all), but shoot because you enjoy it (which is what your message was even though I let myself get lost on a tangent).

 

One of my favorite commentaries on the idea is here: http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles1006/gt1006-1.html

In current production only the Sony Alpha A100. Though there will be an additional Sony model this fall and another additional model in the spring of 2008 that will also use Maxxum AF lenses.

 

Out of production but sometimes still available are the Konica Minolta 5D and 7D.

And what if I _like_ shots of barns and lighthouses?<BR><BR>

 

That little parenthetical in the first post is (whether intentionally or not) awfully damn conceited. I feel like Arlo Guthrie sitting on that Group W bench whenever I sit down with "real" photographers.<BR><BR>

 

"What do you shoot kid?"<BR>

"Landscapes."<BR>

And they all moved away from me on the bench there...<BR><BR>

 

Public acceptance, in and of itself, is certainly not a criterion for "art", but likewise, just because something's not popular doesn't make it art. There is an illness in art today that supposes that in order to be "art" something must be unpopular, and that anything popular must somehow be popular only because of pandering.<BR><BR>

 

To be sure, some things are indeed popular because of pandering (Brittany Spears comes to mind), but we would do well also to remember that Shakespeare's plays were low-class "pandering" in their day. Some great artists are unpopular (Kierkegaard comes to mind) while some great artists are popular (Wagner comes to mind), but the popularity is not related to the value of the art produced. <BR><BR>

 

Do I think my own shots are art? Nah. But they're pretty and that's enough for me.

I can sort of see where some would think that with the advent of digital photography more people are snapping away without thinking about the images and just getting lucky when they hit a good one, but that shows a lack of knowledge of the history of photography.

 

I grew up next to a woman who is a very talented photographer and who teaches at university. She shoots exclusively with an 8x10 view camera and has been lamenting the loss of Tech Pan. In a recent exhibition at the Toledo Museum of art, she had 35-40 photographs on display. Those 35-40 photographs represented what was worthwhile out of over 1,000 exposures.

 

A common refrain from a couple of WWII veterans who shot photos with Rollei cameras during the war is "film is cheap, take all the pictures you can".

 

The ratio of submissions or exposures to printed shots in National Geographic has been running around 1,000:1.

 

When I started shooting 35mm film I was told that I'd be lucky to get one worthwhile shot per roll of film (36 exposures, and "worthwhile" meaning a shot I liked, certainly not a National Geographic quality shot).

 

Every time something becomes more accessable to more people, there is a group that will believe that something has been lost. And to some extent they're correct. When something is rare or difficult then there's only a specific subset of people who will be interested in working with it and that dedication will show through.

 

That said I don't think I could ever call photography a "committment". Photojournalism certainly is, but there's a lot more to photography than just photojournalism. The OP talks about people "committing themselves to record something they tought really valuable" or of "raising our voices", but what voices are raised through landscape photographs? What was Ansel Adams committed to other than simply taking a beautiful photograph? What about wild animal photography? Or photography for things like automotive magazines?

 

The OP has taken photography and tried to claim that photojournalism encompasses the entirety of the field. Photography can simply be an appreciation of beauty. There doesn't have to be a message. There doesn't have to be a committment to something valuable. There doesn't have to be a voice being raised. Sometimes it's just pretty pictures. And that can be enough.

Some people will rate Velvia at ISO 40, some rate it right at 50, just depends on the look that you like.

<EM>Seems like a shame to have that hardware sitting there and not use it</EM><BR>

<BR>

I'd rather have the superior AF and metering of an SLR than live preview, and both the AF and metering of SLRs depend upon the swinging mirror system.

Straight out of the camera photos will seem dull with the A100 or any other DSLR, there is little in-camera processing for sharpening and saturation, and if you don't adjust the images or go into the preferences and increase the contrast/sharpness/saturation settings you will get images that aren't as "vivid" as images straight from a compact digital or from consumer film processed in a photo lab.

 

DOF will be larger than with a film camera for a given field of view. It's due to sensor size. It's really not much of an issue though.

 

All of the following were taken with the kit lens:

 

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/161/439435795_8b7d4cacb6_b.jpg

 

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/185/439444124_efc1b8b564_b.jpg

 

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/439448366_0466056940_b.jpg

 

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/439454774_4200b8a920_b.jpg

 

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/159/439444126_a4125b5ad2_b.jpg

 

And I would't call any of them "dull". Basic levels and exposure adjustments in photoshop, nothing that would qualify the photos as "manipulated".

Try it with just a pair of new CR123A batteries in the camera and don't use the grip. That's all I can think of.

<div></div>

Had a chance to do an outdoor shoot with the couple recently. Had hoped to come away convinving them that a pro would have a better "hit rate" but ended up having both the future bride and groom love the photos (great for the ol' ego, but it makes the wedding that much more "real" in that I'm a dead cert to do it now so not great for the ol' self-induced stress level). I honestly think I'll be OK though. (And my that I mean, the more I practice the more I believe I can provide the bride with what she wants.)

 

I've revised my lens idea as well. The 16-80 is definitely out. I've been shooting a lot with a Minolta 28-75 f/2.8 and it's been a marvelous lens for me. I have a hard time believing that I'd need anything much longer than that that wouldn't be covered by my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (great lens, underrated IMO). After much internal debate on the flash, I picked up a Sony 56AM and a Lightsphere II, I like what the Lightsphere can do to soften a flash and keep the photo from being too harsh.

 

The Sigma 30mm and Zeiss 85mm are still on my list for use in the formals (and the 30mm during the ceremony), just need to marshall the funds for the Zeiss.

 

And the photoset:

 

The first 7 are what I thought came out (other two are random candids that I just took and liked). The bride and groom were less discerning, but since I didn't like the others, they aren't posted. I'd really appreciate any critiques you all may have.

I've found mine to be pretty quiet, even though most people think that it's loud. I think that the issue is that I came from some old film cameras (25-30 years on my film bodies) while mose others compare the shutter noise of the more modern SLRs.

 

It's going to be noisier than a point and shoot, so if that's what you're used to, then yeah, it's louder.

Dale,

 

As a Contax user as well I appreciate your recommendation of the Zeiss 16-80. However, it's an incredibly poor recommendation for someone who has stated, "I mainly shoot people and do a lot of low light flash photography." The 16-80, while quite nice optically, is simply too slow for low light use. It's also too slow to be able to be pressed into portrait duty. It's f/4.5 by the time it's in the portrait range of the zoom, and that's just not as desireable as an f/2.8 lens.

 

In the OP's case, the 28-75 f/2.8 is a better choice.

 

The 85/1.4 is an exceptional lens and would certainly be a great choice. There are no "earlier versions" however. Zeiss did make several other 85mm lenses for various systems, but the new one for Sony is a clean-sheet design and is not based on any previous design.

I second Jed's point. I moved to the 28-75 because I wanted the speed for indoor work. Better than 50% of the time I'm using a lens wide open, so that was important to me. If I could afford the Sony 30mm f/1.4, and the Zeiss 85/1.4 and 135/1.8 I'd be using those, but since I don't have $3,600 burning a hole in my pocket, I went with the KM 28-75/2.8 and a used Sigma 70-200/2.8. Less than $1000 in total and both are solid performers.

 

But if you don't need the speed, the kit lens is excellent. It's sharp, has good contrast, and doesn't have much distortion. Plus it covers a very useful range.

I have the 28-75 F/2.8 on my Alpha 100. Great lens, works perfectly. No glitches at all that I've seen. At 75mm (FOV crop is 112.5mm equivalent) and f/2.8 the lens works quite nicely as a portrait lens. The 6 most recent photos on my flickr page are all taken with the 28-75, the others are taken with the kit lens. All of the 28-75 photos were taken wide open.

 

 

I'm definitely very satisfied with this lens.

1. What aspects of traditional photography do you believe are lost in digital?

Believe it or not, it's ease of display. For snapshots, E-mail is much easier, but for the photographs I really like it's kind of a pain to compress an image enough that my parents (on dial-up) don't get frustrated trying to download it. Or when I want to show photos to others at home. My computer's not in a "public area" of my house, it's in a small room. Trooping people into that room to view the images is actually more of a pain than just projecting a tray of slides.

 

I also miss getting the slides back. I've never been a darkroom nut, so I favor slides for color work, less that the lab can screw up.

 

2. What aspects of digital photography are most valuable?

Less expensive. That's really the long and short of it. Film is more convenient since I am not tempted to spend an hour trying to "save" an image digitally when I should just let it go. Digital takes away much of the variable cost to take a photo and by so doing makes one feel free-er to experiment.

 

3. If you could turn digital photographs into negatives would you? Why?

Sure. Never hurts to have backups in more than one format. Aside from that though, I don't see any reason.

 

4. Would the development of a camera that takes digital and film photographs simultaneously be useful?

My 1970's Chinon can do that. You just have to use this thing called a flim scanner.

 

5. Do photographers that have "gone digital" still use film on an equal basis?

"Equal"? No. But I still use film frequently. I have several rolls of Velvia, Provia, and Neopan in the fridge right now actually.

 

6. Comments? What questions have I not asked?

"Is there even a gap to bridge?"

I would say that no, there is not. I like digital. I like film. I don't think that there's any gap that needs bridging.

"I'm afraid I have to agree that Sony makes poor quality products these days. 15-20 years ago Sony was the best so I bought a Sony TV. Right after the warrenty expired it needed a new tuner. Had it replaced at a factory shop. Two years later the new tuner went out. The only TV I actually had to throw away. Bought a Sony DVD player. Dead in 2 years. I don't buy Sony anymore."

 

Yes, because we all know a single sample is a legitimate judge of the entire product line. Give me a break.

To the best of my knowledge, the HVL-56am is essentially identical to the Minolta 5600HS(D). It _should_ work with any older camera on which the 5600HS(D) worked, but I have not seen conclusive test results.

<<You could trade the Canon in on a Sony Alpha or Konica-Minolta and have image stabilisation in the body. But I wouldn't reccommend it really, using old lens on new body means you loose the automation of digital, ok for occasional specialist use but not as an everyday tool.>>

 

Not so if his lenses are Minolta AF lenses. Any and all Minolta-brand AF lenses will work on the A100 and on Minolta DSLRs. Most Sigmas will work (some of the older Sigma lenses for Minolta AF do not work) and all Tamron lenses will work as well. (Tamron licenses the mount/electronics from Minolta while Sigma reverse-engineers theirs which causes Sigma to have a few more compatability issues, especially with older lenses.)

<<My post was not a swipe at you, and should not be taken that way.>>

 

It wasn't taken that way. In fact, there's nothing in my reply to your post that would indicate that it was taken that way.

By all means switch to Canon or Nikon.

 

Then sell your Minolta gear to me. ;) If you do switch, let me know, I might be interested in your flash (if it's a 3600/5600 HS-D) and possibly the 7D body as well, it would make a great high-ISO compliment to my A100 if I can get permission to spend the money on it. ;)

<<While a Sigma made lens will mount on your A100, it may not always work as it should, due to 'chipping' problems, especially with older Sigma lenses.>>

 

Hence my use of "should" and not "will".

<<Sony is historically proprietary. You may be given a limited choice. Other manufacturers are not so limiting, It is one of the reasons I have never chosen Sony.>>

 

The A100 is fully compatible with all major brands (and most minor brands) of CF card. There's absolutely no reason for you to spread rumors otherwise. Sony has NEVER been brand-proprietary, only format proprietary (third-party memory sticks work fine, as did third-party Betamax tapes and as do even third-party A100 batteries).

 

The only card that gave me trouble in my A100 was a no-name microdrive that was not fully compliant with the CF specifications (the microdrive caused issues in some other brands of cameras I tried it in as well).

Quality depends on the resolution and format that you choose, the A100 has several options and I'll go through them here:

 

RAW: A 2GB card holds approximately 135 RAW files. They range from 8-12 MB each depending on the complexity of the scene. A RAW file is straight data from the image sensor that is not processed. This allows the greatest freedom for editing with a program like Photoshop, but it also takes up the most room and requires an investment of time after the fact to process the photo on your computer. You can only shoot at the full 10MP resolution in Raw.

 

RAW + JPG: The camera stores both a RAW file (so you can edit it later and make adjustments) and a JPG file. The JPG file is processed and won't necessarily require work in photoshop afterwards. This mode allows you to have an easily-distributed JPG straight from the camera, while still having a RAW file available if you want to manipulate the shot later. A 2GB card holds about 105 photos with this setting. You can only shoot in the full 10MP resolution in this mode.

 

Fine: The least-compressed JPG available. Allows shooting at the full 10MP as well as at 5.6MP and 2.5MP. JPG is available straight out of the camera and is easy to send off or view. A 2GB card holds 496 Fine JPG images at 10MP, 857 at 5.6MP, and 1,775 at 2.5MP.

 

Standard: High-compressed JPG. Allows shooting at the same resolutions as above. This setting is typically not used as it produces lower quality output. Also allows a JPG straight out of the camera that is easy to send off or view. A 2GB card holds 773 Standard JPG images at 10MP, 1,309 at 5.6MP, and 2,582 at 2.5MP.

<<It's also better to have multiple cards rather than one large card. I would buy a cheap 1 gig card and see if you outgrow it's use before investing in a fast expensive card.>>

 

Common myth. If you took it to it's logical conclusion, you'd have hundreds of 16MB cards. I've been shooting with digicams for 7 years now and have yet to have a memory card go bad.

 

Shooting RAW I would say a minimum of a 2GB card. That will hold ~135 RAW files. Easy to fill up, but not too quick to fill up. If you take a lot of pictures, a 4GB or 8GB card is very nice to have.

Minolta:

http://dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=204

 

Sony:

http://dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=312

 

It's not a bad little lens, slow, but otherwise pretty good. Exceptional for the price. Unless you intend to shoot a lot indoors without flash, there's no reason to avoid it.