fredwelch531

<p>I don't think that a DSLR has a difficult interface, I just think that aperture control on the lens and shutter on the body is easier. I realise there are plenty of people around who have never used a camera designed the way they used to be, and therefore will have no idea what I'm trying to say. Perhaps if they were to experience how easy it was to use a camera formatted in the "Old" way they'd appreciate that it really is very simple.</p>

<p>Charles, I understand what you are saying. It just seems to make more sense, from a user point of view, to have the shutter speeds on the camera body (the shutter is in the body), and the aperture settings on the lens (the aperture is in the lens). You are right when you say that I prefer this as this I how I first learned over thirty years ago. However, although I have got fully used to the way cameras work nowadays, I still find it easier and more intuitive the way it used to be.</p>

<p>Whilst I have no real trouble using the controls on my Canon DSLR, I would still prefer to have the shutter speeds on the camera body and an aperture ring on the lens. It's just so much more intuitive to me, so I see where you're coming from Diego.</p>

<p>Ashley, thanks for you detailed reply. It looks like I'll be going the generic route.</p>

<p>Just general shooting with my DSLR. All my serious stuff, landscapes, architecture, ancient monuments etc I still do using Medium Format film. I only use the DSLR as a walk around camera really.</p>

<p>I'm thinking of getting a battery grip for my EOS 350D and I can't decide to go for a genuine Canon or a generic one, as the generic ones are way less expensive. Has anybody any experience of either or both of these.</p>

<p>Thanks. From what I can tell, the Sunpak auto 455 (G4500 is the other name it goes by) PROBABLY has a trigger voltage of 7.2 volts and the EOS 350D can handle up to 250 volts. Though nobody seems to be able say for sure and I just don't want to fry the camera.<br>

If I could just confirm how much voltage the EOS 350D can handle I can always measure the trigger voltage of the flash gun with my multimeter.</p>

<p>First let me say that I've searched extensively and I can't find a definitive answer to my question.<br>

I have a Sunpak Auto 455 hammerhead flash that I use with my medium format film cameras. I would like to also use this gun with my Canon eos 350D, but I can't find any info on the actual trigger voltage of this gun and whether it will be safe to use on my Canon (with a hotshoe adapter as the Canon does not have a PC socket).<br>

So, can anyone help with this? I realise that it will not "talk to the camera" like a speedlite, but this is not a problem as I'm used to using flash in this way.</p>

<p>I believe it's possible to get an adapter that makes it possible to use Olympus OM mount lenses on a Canon EOS 350D. As I already have quite a collection of OM Zuiko lenses, it would be nice to put these to use again. Does anybody have any experience of doing this and what are the drawbacks if any? I realise that auto focus would not be possible but this is not really a problem.</p>

<p>Matthew Muskovac, I'll be using the camera in manual almost all the time, probably even manual focus, as this is this way I've always worked, the size of the lcd is unimportant as I'm used to waiting to see my pictures anyway. Remember, I'm just trying the whole digital thing out to see if I like it. If I do then I'll be looking at spending more on a new camera.<br>

Thanks everyone for your advice, at least I know now that either will be ok.</p>

<p>John Crowe, on a Frontier type of machine I assume. I don't intend to do the printing myself - just the photoshop work. I've been working with negs I have scanned on photoshop for quite a while now. If ink prints are my only option then I'll stick with film.</p>

<p>I'm hoping that somebody can give me a bit of help. I've been using film, in both MF and 35mm for over 30 years. I have my own darkroom and, before I was made redundant I was a hand printer in a pro lab. Now, I'm finding that chems for colour printing are becoming increasingly hard to get hold, of so I'm contemplating dipping my toe into digital - just for colour - I'll carry on with film for my black and white images.<br>

As I'm just trying trying digital to see whether I'll like it, I don't want to invest too much money initially. So, to my question: Will I notice any appreciable quality difference between a 10x8 print captured with a Canon EOS 350D and a Canon EOS 300D? I should mention that I mean chemically produced lab prints on light sensitive colour paper, rather than prints made on an ink jet printer.</p>

<p>If you mean just for transportation then why not strap a monopod on the seat tube or under the top tube?. You could use toe clip straps; even though we all use clip in pedals nowadays toe clip straps are still readily available.</p>

<p>Richard, I don't know where you are in the UK so this may or may not be of any use to you, but I have 2 good shops dealing in used pro cameras in my area: Dale photographic in Leeds and Bradford camera exchange. I bought my 330f from Dale and recently sold it on at a profit. My wife also bought her Bronica ETRSi from them last year. Both were excellent. Both shops have their own websites so a quick google may be worth it.</p>

<p>I like using my medium format cameras, I like that I only have 3 main initial things to concentrate on - aperture, shutter speed and focus. I love working in my darkroom, I like not being able to instantly check what I've taken, I like the way film makes me take my time and think more, I like that when I hold an image in my hand that I did it using the box between my ears and not the electronic one in my hands. Finally, I really don't like sitting in front of my P.C. monitor endlessly editing and correcting via an electronic medium.<br>

Yes, I did try digital a couple of years ago and decided that it just wasn't for me so went back to film. Maybe at 57 I'm just too old or not interested enough in changing.</p>

<p>As far as the clients go, yes , they are mostly the same people who always sent their work in. They just now all use digital cameras. The skills required for the type of work they now do are not the same as the type of work I used to do. They are more computer oriented. In fact the youngsters who now do this work have never been in a darkroom and, certainly at this company, are paid much less than were I and my darkroom colleagues.<br>

The working life of a technician these days is very different.</p>

<p>Robert, as far as I know, any film work they receive, which according to the people I know who still work there is not very much, is scanned. All corrections and cropping are carried out on screen and printed with a frontier type machine. They are still wet processed through RA4 for colour and trad monochrome chemicals for black and white.<br>

When I left the lab there were about 75 people working there over all departments. (Hand printing, machine printing, film processing etc). At the last count the full workforce was 23 and the company had moved to smaller premises.</p>

<p>Robert, I got made redundant from my job as a darkroom hand printer in 2001, when the pro lab that I worked for went all digital. In fact, there were seven of us - myself as head of department - and my six staff who all went at the same time. That lab no longer does ANY traditional darkroom work at all. There's only one lab in my area (Leeds in the North of England) that offers this type of work, and they get so little of it that it's no longer a real department any more. They can cope very easily just fitting it in as and when they get any traditional printing to handle, which is very rarely.<br>

Does that help to answer your question?</p>

<p>A nice Olympus flex T.L.R. Only ever seen one for sale and the price was very high.</p>

<p>I can still remember the first time I did that many years ago..........and yes, it was also the last time I did it.</p>

<p>Please don't anyone take this the wrong way, I'm not denegrating modern auto everything at all. If that's what you like then that's fine - after all it's the final that image counts.<br>

I've never used an auto focus auto exposure camera in my life. I just like the feeling that I get when I look at my hand made darkroom prints, and think to myself, I did that, from start to finish with the box between my ears and not the box in my hand.</p>

<p>I shoot medium format film exclusively and, certainly here in the UK, I have no problems getting my colour films developed. I have a very good lab close to me that still offers a wet darkroom service and hand enlarged colour prints. Certainly, most of the work they do is digital, but there must still be a market for film photography or they wouldn't offer the services they do.<br>

Monochrome is not a problem to me as I have my own darkroom so I handle all that myself, and if it were ever to prove difficult to get my colour work done, I also have the ability and equipment to handle my own colour prints as well.<br>

For me I have no reason to go digital, especially as I love film so much. You'd probably be best fully researching just how difficult processing film would be in your area and take it from there.<br>

Could you not hire or borrow some medium format equipment in the meantime, just to see how you get on with it and whether it really is the way you want to go?</p>

<p>I've certainly found it better to scan negs rather than prints, although it does take quite a bit longer. I use the scanner software to scan the negs straight into photoshop and work on them from there.</p>

<p>If you have a fully charged battery in the camera you should be able to dry fire it the way you describe, at all speeds. Does the battery check light come on when you press the relevant battery test button?. Do you have a bad battery? (it can happen sometimes that even a new battery is flat). The contacts in the battery compartment and on the lens and body may also need a clean. You could try giving them a rub with a pencil eraser (but nothing abrasive) as this often helps.</p>

<p>I don't disagree with anything you have just said. To quote myself - " I know it's something that will never exist" - it would just be nice that's all.</p>