mdma

<p>And the more observent of readers might have noticed the Data Back 70 manual - Yes indeed this has a rather rudimentary data back (It didn't come with the original, I can only pray its in a decent home). IIRC, the manual states it keeps an automatic calendar up to <strong>31/12/2009</strong> - I wish the engineers had been <em>slightly</em> more forward thinking!</p><div></div>

<p>Sadly no inbuilt shutter, and I didnt even get a lens cap with it! It did come with a Skylight filter so its ok I guess :) As mentioned before this has a macro mode; one needs to push the switch away fro oneself to allow the zoom to move into the blue macro range.</p><div></div>

<p>I have a different lens to that of JDM and Andy's Maxxums; a 35-70mm constant aperture f/4 zoom.</p><div></div>

<p>I shot them all in P mode, and had a great time not focusing nor adjusting shutter speed/aperture for a change (my main camera was a OM-1n at the time). </p><div></div>

<p>This was my attempt at using the macro mode on my lens (more on that later)</p><div></div>

<p>I made some minor adjustments with Photoshop Elements 8</p><div></div>

<p>I scanned the negatives using a Epson v300 photo ( hey, Im a poor student!)</p><div></div>

<p>The first roll (which came with the £26 outfit) was Superia 400 X-TRA. I took it to the Park:</p><div></div>

<p>Hope you dont mind if another 7000 owner weighs in! Unlike JDM I think the camera is the epitome of mid-80s industrial design, and reckon its good looks are the best thing going for it! As has been mentioned before, the AF is slow, noisy, and requires alot of light. How much light? It struggled on an overcast day...<br>

IIRC Its not the easiest camera to operate either, mainly because it lacks any sort of control dial. Dont get me wrong, its not as if you need a degree in rocket science to use it, but operations on other cameras that would be trivial take longer on the 7000 due to the need of pressing two buttons at once. At least this is what I found when I last used it in December. Anyway I think Ill shut up now and let the camera do the talking :)</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Except for:<br>

B&W - Film & Processing<br />B&W - Printing & Finishing<br />Canon FD<br />Classic Manual Cameras<br />Film & Processing<br />Large Format<br />Leica & Rangefinders<br />Medium Format<br />Modern Film Cameras<br>

Photo.Net would be a vast wasteland for film aficionados.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very true. Pity the poor soul looking for fellow film users.</p>

<p>I think DB Cooper has summed it up pretty well. The colours are more saturated on the <strong>F2</strong>, but other than that the <strong>GF2</strong> picture has qualities that are preferable. Im also using a 27" iMac (but with no fancy colour calibration of any kind).<br>

I thought the <strong>GF2</strong> was the camera Panasonic loaned to me for a day, but after looking back at the photos it was the <strong>G2 </strong>- My word is their naming convention confusing! I used the G2 on "intelligent auto" and everything came out perfectly exposed with a good degree of saturation, and supposedly its a step below the <strong>GF2</strong> in their range.</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I know this isn't a contest and meant to be totally fun but is anyone keeping score of which one is tending to be a favorite? LOL?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very roughly:<br>

F3HP: 12<br>

F100: 8<br>

D700: 8<br>

F2: 8<br>

FM3a: 6<br>

F: 5<br>

F5: 5 (including 1 from me)<br>

F4: 4<br>

D90: 4<br>

D200: 3<br>

D300: 3<br>

FE2: 3<br>

FA: 3<br>

F6:2<br>

FM2n: 2<br>

D3s: 1<br>

D2x: 1<br>

D2h: 1<br>

D70: 1<br>

FG-20: 1<br>

D3100: 1<br>

S2: 1<br>

D7000: 1<br>

F90x: 1</p>

 

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

<p>Fair point - Here it is again. And remember I said "usable", not brilliant!</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Bad processing or way-out-of-date did that, don't blame Fuji.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually I wasn't blaming Fuji, the opposite actually - I love that look. However I was under the impression that was due to the film, not bad processing (I used <a href="http://www.peak-imaging.com/">these guys</a>) or out of date-ness (it was expired by only a month and refrigerated). But like I said I've only shot the one roll.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But Velvia, I even love the sound that word makes!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Haha I thought that was just me! But the spell checker on Google's Chrome browser keeps changing it to 'Vulva' - I dread the day I dont catch and fix that...</p>

<p>I took the jump to Digital SLRs with the D3100. I found it quite capable, but compared to shooting a film SLR it was much more complicated, and the user manual covers little more except the basics so a good book about digital photography would be really helpful.<br>

Straight away I bought the Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8 DX , because coming from film I was used to shooting in available light and wanted more 'bokeh' (more blurred backgrounds). For those purposes its very good, however shooting a fast, fixed angle lens comes with its own discipline and drawbacks so make sure its what you want to use. Like others have said, get used to the kit lens first. </p>

<p>In my burgeoning quest to become a decent amateur photographer I've shot only one roll of Velvia, but was immediately enthralled when I saw the slides. This momentary love was tamed somewhat when it came to scanning the damn things, but the colours are still amazing. It did this to a slightly blue-but-mostly-grey sky:</p><div></div>

<p>Ive had my D3100 for 3 months and while Im annoyed by missing dedicated buttons for common functions (yet having 3 for turning the lcd on - come on!), its portability and IQ is just superb. ISO 3200 pictures are quite usable in my experience, at least as much as any other camera.<br>

I also used the camera in a fairly heavy snowstorm without any protective gear, and it worked fine. Later on I found water around the lens mounting however, so Id still be careful when using it in wet environments. Nikon of course make no claims about weather sealing anyway.</p><div></div>

<p>Les, I think 2 things have occurred - <br>

1. I over-exaggerated to make my point clear,<br>

2. I didnt make my point clearly!<br>

My OM-1n was CLA'd and my OM-2n is near mint, and I'm 100% sure they could last at least as long as the FE2, but that they just dont <em>feel</em> like they would - The fit and finish of the construction is not on par with Nikon's equivalents, and of course the Olympus's weigh less due to their smaller size, lending the heavier Nikons a more "soild", well, <em>feel</em>. <br>

Of course what I'm trying to convey is purely subjective, but I think it serves to highlight some of the differences between cameras from that era. </p>

I've used an Nikon FE2 and Olympus OM-2 and OM-1, and I prefer the Olympus system mainly for the better standard

focussing screen; by comparision I felt like was guessing focus everytime with the FE2. Furthermore the OM-2 in

particular has simply fantastic ergonomics. Where it's let down is build quality - The Nikon felt like it was created out of

lighting and sheer willpower on Mount Olympus by Zeus himself; The OM-2 on the other hand feels like it was made

by someones enthusiastic uncle in his shed during long Saturday afternoons....I doubt it'll fail on me though, it was a

pro level camera and doesn't have a reputation for unreliability ( The later OM-2sp and OM-4 have been known to have problems though).

 

In terms of AF cameras, I can heartily recommend the entry level Canon EOS 300 and EOS 1000 models - very very

cheap, fairly cheerful. Just pair them with a decent lens ;)

 

Im currently using a Nikon F801s, the father to the F90x (and I suppose grandfather to F100). While cheaper, It doesn't have as many features as those later ones, and much slower AF, but I like it. I think it's the best 'Modern' camera designed by Nikon, and like the OM-2 it has brilliant ergonomics, so I simply love using it :)

Likewise, my own quad core 27" iMac is perfect for what I do wrt photography (using LR with 85mb+ scanned TIFFs)

as well as just being an awesome example of industrial design, but 'horses for courses' I think is the appropriate maxim

here :)

<p>It seems like the iMac is bringing you no joy. Thats a shame, and while it may do in the future, theres a fair bit of money tied up in those 27 inches of glass and aluminum. if it were me, Id sell it unless I knew Id use it again in the next year. Then again, I am a cash strapped-student! <br>

Although I mostly use mine for watching TV and films, I wouldn't sell the TV and keep the iMac since its difficult to use the iMac as an external monitor (for Xbox's etc.). </p>

<div></div>

<p>Im afraid you might struggle to find a quote thats not worth more than the camera's value, but thats your decision to make.<br>

http://www.olympuscamerarepairs.co.uk/<br>

When I popped in a month ago, they told me it would be approx. £75 for a full service and battery conversion for my OM-1n, but thats not including buying new parts. However I ended up replacing my OM-1n with a OM-2n, so while I cant vouch for them personally they seem like decent chaps. When I mentioned my Nikon F3, they spontaneously showed me a 1959 Nikon F that was literally factory fresh - but non functional. So someone clearly trusts them enough to send that. <br>

Anyway good luck with getting your original Olympus back, and indeed Minolta 7000 (which I coincidently also have!)</p>

<p>My family hail from Bangalore, and visit relatives there regularly. The ones we stay with live in one of the Banashankari stages (Cant remember which one exactly).<br>

I personally last went there over 5 years ago, and looking at your pictures filled my head with the sounds, smells and general memories. Thanks!<br>

I like no. 9 the best, though I would a bit more contrast would have been nice ;)</p>

<p>I had the same decision in September when I had to pick my first DSLR.<br /> Initially I thought the same as you - the D3100 is better on paper and more "future proof". However the fact remains that the D90 could take great photos when it came out, takes great photos today, and will continue to do so until something breaks.<br /> Eventually my choice came down to money. I pre-ordered my D3100 with £100 free in vouchers, that I put towards a 50mm f1.8 AF-S DX. It came out cheaper than a D90 with 50mm f1.8 AF-D.<br /> The other factors mentioned are differences in ergonomics (viewfinder, controls, top LCD etc) and features (AF system, screen resolution, HD video, CLS Flash etc.) I would prioritize what features you need (I shoot a fair bit of video so +1 for the D3100) and consider then whether a D90 is worth it - and think of the extra ergonomics as more of a bonus. The D3100 can be a bit 'ungainly' to use at times, but its not a really a deal-breaker. And after using an F5 extensively, the added lightness is much appreciated! The bottom line is one can live without the better usability, but not features critical for the actual purpose(s) of use.<br /> A final point would be that whatever camera you buy, I doubt it will be your last. If you compare the situation to be more like looking for a roommate than a partner, then perhaps the gravity of the decision will subside and you'll have no regrets about your chosen DSLR (Though Im still swooning after Miss 5D MKII...)</p>