vuk_vuksanovic

some very good points are being made in this thread, although they are addressing about a half-dozen different issues. the problem with the initial premise is the lack of clarity in whether it's declaring the SLR dead in the water as a popular consumer item or dead in the water altogether. sort of like distinguishing between turntables and 8-track players. an important distinction.

<br><br>

given this fundamental confusion, i'm not sure what to add but i will say i agree with meryl that cell-phone cameras are definitely the future for most: certainly for those who, on every night to the restaurant with friends, have them huddle together for a few more undistinguished pictures that are indistinguishable from the previous effort. as for the prosumer (which certainly describes most of the people on this site), it is a matter of what the marketing department will be able to determine about their most relevant/recent insecurities. it's funny how there is no difference between a picture shot through, for example, a nikon lens on an old "user" manual SLR you can scoop for $100 and the latest nikon "pro" body. it's sad that so many people don't quite understand that.

<br><br>

in spite of it all, i am able to take comfort in the fact there are people like mr. kobayashi (a.k.a. mr. cosina) around to help out just in case ebay runs out of stock.

<br><br>

vuk.

<br><br>

p.s. scott, i hope you're not blaming pentax for anything. i see the *istDS as a very good thing... <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/pentax/istds/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/pentax/istds/</a>

jim.

<br><br>

as with all SLRs and DSLRs, it depends on what glass you mount. the *istDS, with on of the "limited" lenses or old 50mm f/1.4 would certainly be up to the task.

<br><br>

btw-you may want to have a look at my photonet review of the camera at the following link:

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/pentax/istds/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/pentax/istds/</a>

gentlemen.

thanks for the advice! in the end, i was pressed for time and a friend had some NPH 400 that she swears by, so i took a few rolls off her hands. i've got the negs back and shall post the results in a couple of days.

vuk.

<i>"In fact I'd say that a modern pro DSLR will last just as long as an M2 or M3. I'm talking about cameras like the D2H "</i><br><br>

this is funnier than the al kaplan t-shirt.

<br><br>

vuk.

ron.

<br><br>

the D70 veiwfinder is extremely problematic. you want to read the review of an alternative that's just been posted:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/pentax/istds/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/pentax/istds/</a>

i haven't shot colour negative film for almost two years now and was

just wondering what the state of affairs was at ISO 400. the last

time out, i had some nice results with portra VC (ISO 160), but i'd

like a little more speed for something i have in mind for the weekend.

it's all going to be scanned by me and processed in photoshop, so

subtleties of colour balance aren't so much an issue as avoiding

grain, which i simply don't like when it's not B&W.

thanks in advance!

vuk.

bondage photos are the domain of angry poseurs, teenagers, goth dweebs and middle-aged people trying to spice up their sex lives by following the advice of a syndicted newspaper advice columnist.

vuk.

did he only shoot those test charts? in searching for them, i first clicked on the "example photos," decided they were awful and then realised the shots weren't from the epson but rather leicas with film! obviously, as jeff has pointed out, the man doesn't know what he's doing in the digital domain, be it shooting or scanning. i could present better images from a 4MP coolpix.

vuk.

i still haven't recovered from those shots marc williams took with an M lens tape-mounted to a canon DSLR. if someone can make that work, i'll once again own a digital camera.

vuk.

claudia.

first off, to me, a camera body is merely something to which i can attach a lens i like. discussing "features" on bodies is the domain of basement-studio prosumer dweebs. glass, on the other hand, is another matter altogether. once you develop some strong aesthetic tendencies in terms of the look (or looks) you favour, then it becomes very difficult to compromise--and i don't mean in terms of money. one of my favourite lenses was made in 1957 and goes for about $25 on a famous internet auction site.

ben.

that shot with the guy against propeller could very easily have been a prize winner had you just framed a bit differently.

vuk.

these don't look like leica pictures.

vuk.

ray.

<br><br>

i also wasn't being disingenuous about the portrait (mom-pic). it is quite good and only a merely inches away from being brilliant. wording of that last post to you needs much more reworking (an unfortunate side-effect was opening the door for the ny-gy-sy-boys).

<br><br>

vuk.

eric.

<br><br>

that last post makes it quite clear you are merely trying to stir up trouble.

<br><br>

maybe it's best to be modest. i obviously have a lot to learn about street photography; for you, getting the initial framing right seems to be a challenge. no need to get nasty about these things. even helmut newton could learn a lesson or two from some of us.

<br><br>

vuk.

ray.

<br><br>

my apologies. had another look and realised i missed the link to your home-page and assumed falsely...

<br><br>

you have some excellent pictures and your street stuff is definitely way above my street stuff. not being sarcastic, i really mean it.

<br><br>

cheers,<br>

vuk.

<br><br>

p.s. i am not defending all leica users (or rather, owners), just the point of a <b>leica</b> forum. even thought you hate it, there is a point.

ray.

<br><br>

i have confessed outright on this forum (in fact, as recently as a couple of weeks ago) that i am a terrible street photgrapher. no argument there.

<br><br>

vuk.

boys.

<br><br>

i keep getting e-mail from your feet begging for mercy.

<br><br>

vuk.

Jeff Lu , mar 01, 2005; 01:25 a.m.<br>:

<i>"vuk - i wasnt aware there were invalid photo techniques"</i>

<br><br>

you have obviously misunderstood my postings. i said nothing like that.

<br><br>

vuk.

<b>QUOTE:</b> Eric ~ , mar 01, 2005; 01:02 a.m.:</b><br>

"5) cropping your original framing to 5% of the original"</b>

<br>

<b><i>You see Vuk, it's this senseless dribble that does no good. Just posting a negative comment for no reason at all.</i></b>

<br><br>

on the record: eric thinks cropping to 5% of original is valid photgraphic technique. kinda makes the case for hair-shirt leica standards. i am accused of "negative comment for no reason" for disagreeing with absurdity.

<br><br>

vuk

<i>brad-eric-jeff-sycophant</i>

<br><br>

i was warned of this this, but i wouldn't have believed it...