|
|
 #31 Re: Digital SLR?? Posted 03/12/2009 @ 15:31 |
   |
|
| In reply to post #30
... |
QUOTE (WillyPete - 03/12/2009 @ 15:11) eh? Is that why the nikon to canon converters are selling like hotcakes, and people are doing stuff like this so they can use the nikon 14-24? http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/blog/articles/27-the-nikon-14-24-on-a-canon-1dsiii-a-landscapers-report.html "the client list for these is pretty impressive: we've so far shipped about 70, with another 50 to go out this week, and another 50 in a month or so. Among those shooting with it even as we speak are the BBC Nature Unit, Rob Galbraith, Red Digital, Michael Reichmann and a galaxy of international photo stars." - speaking of the adaptor used to mount the nikon on the canon. http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_17mm/nikon1424_17mm1.html
If you're on the topic of anecdotal evidence, take a look at photographers at any major sporting function. You will notice that white lenses outnumber other lenses by a ratio of 2:1. White lenses are Canon's L spec telephoto range.
On the topic of real evidence, Canon changed its lens mount in 1987 to enable EF technology - this means that the focusing is actually done inside the lens using USM motors. Nikon has not changed its mount since 1959 (iirc) and is hamstrung by the limitations of the contacts in use from that time.
Image stabilisation was initially a Canon invention. Canon also make the fastest lenses on the market. |
|
|
|
|
|
| #32 Re: Digital SLR?? Posted 03/12/2009 @ 15:41 |
|
|
thanks everyone for the good advice,
although it looks like a DSLR could be out for this year at least?? its just too expensive at the moment, wonder if i should just get him a comact to be starting out? he can paly around wiht the Olympus getting used to film too? and build up to a DSLR in the future...
anyone got any tipd for a decent compact?? unkless anyone has a DSLR they want to part with thats a reasonable price??
cheers 
Andy |
|
 |
|
I do NOT fear Death - I fear not living..........er.........and small people with very large hands!
www.bushidokaikarate.webs.com |
|
|
|
|
|
| #33 Re: Digital SLR?? Posted 03/12/2009 @ 15:47 |
|
|
| In reply to post #32
... |
QUOTE (daywalker - 03/12/2009 @ 15:41) anyone got any tipd for a decent compact?? unkless anyone has a DSLR they want to part with thats a reasonable price??
Not sure what your budget is but you can find some decently priced DSLRs on ebay. |
|
|
|
|
|
| #34 Re: Digital SLR?? Posted 03/12/2009 @ 15:58 |
|
|
| In reply to post #33
... |
QUOTE (Random - 03/12/2009 @ 15:47) Not sure what your budget is but you can find some decently priced DSLRs on ebay.
not under £350 i cant?
and as it a chritmas gift and part of others, i was looking at baout £1-150 ish......
i got him the PS3 2 years ago that cost me nearly £400, but times are a bit harder this year what with the current climate...
Andy  |
|
|
|
|
I do NOT fear Death - I fear not living..........er.........and small people with very large hands!
www.bushidokaikarate.webs.com |
|
|
|
|
|
| #35 Re: Digital SLR?? Posted 03/12/2009 @ 16:16 |
|
|
| In reply to post #31
... |
Film... I'm unclear then why glass plate photography isn't even better. is it just that those who grew up with that are already dead. Just wondering if you're ancient, or if you're kids who never had to actually wait for the lab to screw up your Kodachrome and charge you two pints of beer per shot (£6 a shot in today's money).
For sure there's nothing wrong with manual cameras, although I don't really see the point in teaching people how to manual focus or use thyristor flash though: that technology is simply obsolete, as are flash bulbs. K1000? give me an OM1 any day though.
Digital needs significantly less "tweaking" than Ansel Adams describes in his books, which you must be aware of. You don't need bogus arguments to justify sticking with what you like.
White lenses / black lenses... Canon's last sports camera had something of a problem with, ahem, focusing, and the balance shifted quite considerably. Most people will have, or will have used, both systems and will know the strengths and weaknesses of each. You need a photography equipment fan-boy site to have a proper argument about that. Can't we stick to arguing about how banana boards turn beginners into professionals? |
|
|
|
| Posts: 360 |
|
North Yorkshire |
|
|
| #36 Re: Digital SLR?? Posted 03/12/2009 @ 16:30 |
|
|
| In reply to post #35
... |
Ok you do need to 'tweak' with film but it's fun and interesting tweaking  |
|
|
|
|
|
| #37 Re: Digital SLR?? Posted 03/12/2009 @ 16:35 |
|
|
| In reply to post #32
... |
you should be able to get an olympus slr for about 300 including a lens or two (that would be new) - beyond that could always take a look at gumtree, see if there is anything in your local area.
at the end of the day, you're looking for a camera that does a basic dslr job and is fairly easy to use and isn't expensive - based on that olympus make some decent cameras at a reasonable price |
|
|
|
|
|
The difference between eccentricity and madness is an engineering background |
|
|
|
|
|
| #38 Re: Digital SLR?? Posted 03/12/2009 @ 17:12 |
|
|
| In reply to post #34
... |
QUOTE (daywalker - 03/12/2009 @ 15:58) not under £350 i cant? and as it a chritmas gift and part of others, i was looking at baout £1-150 ish......
I doubt you'd find something Canon (which is what I know) complete (body and lens) for that sort of price. Having a quick look at eBay I think you can pick up a G10 for £270 - great camera and built really well and will certainly withstand a bit of battering, say in your backpack or pocket if you take a tumble on the slopes.
G9s are cheaper still. |
|
|
|
| Posts: 4133 |
|
Isle of Tiree |
|
|
| #39 Re: Digital SLR?? Posted 03/12/2009 @ 17:14 |
|
|
| In reply to post #31
... |
On the topic of real evidence, Canon changed its lens mount in 1987 to enable EF technology - this means that the focusing is actually done inside the lens using USM motors. Nikon has not changed its mount since 1959 (iirc) and is hamstrung by the limitations of the contacts in use from that time.
I would have thought that would be a good thing? I can use my non digital lenses on my digital body. Why would I want to upgrade my lenses every time I buy a new body?
The Nikon ones use the SWM(silent wave motor) as opposed to the USM. Any lens can be used on any camera, but you lose functionality with some combinations as seen in the table here.
In case you're wondering why lenses are so expensive! I'm sure I've linked to this before but it's a fascinating site - Canon virtual lens plant
Whatever camera someone has they would recommend someone else gets it otherwise they wouldn't have bought it in the first place.
Another option is the Fuji S3 which I think Ally* has. That has the advantage of being able to use the Nikon F mount lenses. You may be able to pick one up more cheaply as the S5 has just been released.
Apart form ebay other places you could try are London Camera exchange and maybe Jessops. Both have online searches and can get kit into a local store for you to have a look at. |
|
|
|
|
|
| #40 Re: Digital SLR?? Posted 03/12/2009 @ 21:01 |
|
|
| In reply to post #39
... |
QUOTE (wildebeest - 03/12/2009 @ 17:14) Ok you do need to 'tweak' with film but it's fun and interesting tweaking
Ok, that's something I can understand although I'm in the other camp. I found it dirty, frustrating and smelly, and I wasn't too shabby at it. Where's my graphics tablet
QUOTE (wildebeest - 03/12/2009 @ 17:14) I can use my non digital lenses on my digital body. Why would I want to upgrade my lenses every time I buy a new body? ... Any lens can be used on any camera l
I'm not disagreeing, but using old lenses on digital bodies is quite a sobering experience. Digital does resolve significantly more than film, so lens quality is the limiting factor. You'll see it less if you're using a partial frame digital body, but that's throwing away quality I'm happy to keep. In other words if you're upgrading to digital without switching to partial frame, you'll probably want to replace your glass too. |
|
|
|
| Posts: 4133 |
|
Isle of Tiree |
|
|
| #41 Re: Digital SLR?? Posted 03/12/2009 @ 21:43 |
|
|
| In reply to post #40
... |
|
I never said anything about tweaking. I demand an apology or I'm going to The Sun! |
|
|
|
|
|
| #42 Re: Digital SLR?? Posted 03/12/2009 @ 22:10 |
|
|
|
so are you saying it possible to attach my old analog Pantax K100 lenses toa digital SLR? Didn't know that...... |
|
|
|
| Posts: 4133 |
|
Isle of Tiree |
|
|
| #43 Re: Digital SLR?? Posted 03/12/2009 @ 22:12 |
|
|
| In reply to post #42
... |
|
Well with Nikon you definitely can as the mount hasn't changed since the year dot. Not sure about your Pantax. |
|
|
|
|
|
| #44 Re: Digital SLR?? Posted 03/12/2009 @ 22:28 |
|
|
| In reply to post #41
... |
|
Not sure why it did that - sorry for sure. I didn't put your name in it, it's just "quote", plus I deliberately put the other quote in a different colour. I can see what it's doing now, but it's not in the text. Shout loudly enough and I'll strip the quotes out completely, but then your reply won't make sense..... Sorry about that. |
|
|
|
| Posts: 4133 |
|
Isle of Tiree |
|
|
| #45 Re: Digital SLR?? Posted 03/12/2009 @ 22:31 |
|
|
| In reply to post #44
... |
was joking - it seems a bit flaky at the moment.  |
|
|
|