Re: OT: Digital camera opinions

[The Older Gentleman]

The Older Gentleman <chateauSPAMKILL.murray@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

> Steve Uzochukwu <randombloke@genie.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >Why so keen on "real" film?
> >
> > Possibility of using wide angle lenses - there are not many affordable
> > really wide lenses for digital cameras even SLR ones.
> >
> > A sensible nice wide 3:2 aspect ratio not the television reject 4:3.
> >
> > Instantaneous shutter and the ability to shoot far more pics/secd than
> > digital without a huge pause to write to memo card.
> >
> > Exposure tolerance.
> >
> > Affordable accessories.
>
>
> My Nikon D100 meets all the above criteria.

Bad form post - the buffer memory is only good for about 7 or 8 shots,
so yes, a film SLR can be kept chuntering on "continuous shooting" for
longer, but for practical purposes, 7 or 8 is enough.


--
Trophy 1200 (Doctored) 750SS CB400F CD200 ST70 DT50MX
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....

[The Older Gentleman]

Grimly Curmudgeon <grimlycurmudgeon683@hotmail.com> wrote:

> legacy lenses


Is that the technical term? Useful.


--
Trophy 1200 (Doctored) 750SS CB400F CD200 ST70 DT50MX
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....

[Andy Hewitt]

Lozzo <lozzo@speedyspic.co.uk> wrote:

> Andy Hewitt says...
> > Lozzo <lozzo@speedyspic.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Timo Geusch says...
> > >
> > > > Production engineering and the victory of the "good enough"
> > > > product. Several of the repairers I've spoken to reckon that while a
> > > > 1970s mechanical SLR will usually go on forever - duff designs
> > > > excluded - those cameras that are stuffed with electronics and
> > > > computers (aka 1980s onwards) will prove to be unrepairable in the
> > > > near future due to the lack of spare parts. And you can't just
> > > > remanufacture a chip on a lathe...
> > >
> > > <tosses recently purchased Olympus in the bin>
> >
> > Yes, that's what worries me about the OM40 I must admit, although it has
> > operated faultlessly for about 17 years now. I know the OM10 was prone
> > to circuit board failures though.
>
> Mines an OM101

Don't know much about those I must admit, they arrived about the time I
got my OM40. I believe these were the last SLR that Olympus made (or was
it the 707?). I remember thinking that the autofocus was a bit gimmicky
at the time.

The only references I found using Google were in a forum that said if
you have one, use it, but don't buy one.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Civic 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/thehewitts/index.htm

[Timo Geusch]

Bear was seen penning the following ode to ... whatever:
> In article <slrnctshb7.31fd.tnews@nermal.unix-consult.com>, Timo Geusch
> says...
>> Bear was seen penning the following ode to ... whatever:
>> > In article <iinrt0lpq8r1ml1880c2n8cfs70vapp6ne@4ax.com>, Grimly
>> > Curmudgeon says...
>> >> It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>> >> drugs began to take hold. I remember Bear <bastardDOTbear@gmail.com>
>> >> saying something like:
>> >>
>> >> >Is film camera stuff mega cheap on eBay since digital took off then?
>> >>
>> >> Some stuff you can't give away. Canon and Nikon lenses are still
>> >> fetching ok money - especially legacy lenses which can be used with the
>> >> new gen digibodies, but m-o-r stuff like Vivitar/Tamron in Olympus fit
>> >> is going for peanuts.
>> >
>> > What about bodies? Sounds like it might be worth a look ... OTOH, I must
>> > admit I fancy the PC-based editing and printing of digital ...
>> >
>> > ... decisions, decisions.
>>
>> Sir wants analog cameras and a decent film scanner then. My 300-quid
>> Minolta scanner[1] produces scans that are the equivalent of 8MP or
>> somesuch, making the combination rather cheaper than a similar quality
>> digital camera.
>
> That is, if you don't mind me saying, a very Timo-style solution :)

<proud>

<thinks>

Oi, are you trying to tell me something here? :-)

>> Downside is, wet printed B&W is till considerably better then inkjet
>> printed. If you know what you're doing that is.
>
> I used to love printing B&W, seeing the image emerge, etc, but without a
> dedicated darkroom it's a bit of a pain, IMHO.

Yes and no - I'm doing the usual convert bathroom bit and it's
OK. Mind ewe, I've upgraded to gadgets like paper development tank
(like a Nova, but stainless steel instead) so I do need a lot less
space. Plus my now-ex SWMBO made me a nice fitted cover for the
bathtub so I can now convert the bathroom into the darkroom in less
than 15 minutes.

> I think I'll wait a bit longer, and see what nice "compact" digital
> cameras go for in, say, a year or so ... the plain truth is I don't do
> enough photography to justify the sort of money either a film SLR or
> decent digital camera would cost. My problem though is that cameras are,
> after hi-fi/home cinema kit, my fave gadgets, and I lust after 35mm
> Nikons with huge lenses and autowinders :)

Tell me about it. I purposely stay away from the ****eOldCamera
section of fleabay most of the time for exactly that reason...

--
Timo Geusch
Morini Corsaro 125 | Husky SM 610S | CB450K4 | ST1100 | TS 250/1
BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10
The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html

[Andy Hewitt]

Timo Geusch <tnews@unixconsult.co.uk> wrote:

> Andy Hewitt was seen penning the following ode to ... whatever:
> > Timo Geusch <tnews@unixconsult.co.uk> wrote:
> >> <Points at ****eOldLeica, made in 1958 or 1959>
> >>
> >> Still takes extremely good pictures, and all it requires is a CLA
> >> every ten-odd years. And no matter what people say regarding Leicas
> >> and the 'male jewellery' thing, the body plus the four lenses I've got
> >> still cost me slightly less than TOG paid for his D100 body.
> >
> > I always wanted a Leica.
>
> I love mine. You can actually pick them up for reasonable money if you
> forego the mint collectors items and buy a mechanically good, slightly
> lived-in example.
>
> Main problem is that finding affordable lenses takes time, but with
> the new Voigtlaender screw lenses + adapters you can get good quality
> lenses for reasonable money.
>
> That said, a lot of people I know just don't like rangefinders - it's
> probably a case of what you are and could get used to.

Not sure I *would* go an get one now though, but a few years ago I would
have done anything to get a Leica. I have the OM40 now, and I'll
continue to use it while it still works.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Civic 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/thehewitts/index.htm

[Andy Hewitt]

steve auvache <dont_spam@thecow.me.uk> wrote:

> Andy Hewitt wrote
> >Indeed, you look at the general build of any electrical item now, and
> >it's so obviously done *cheap*.
>
> Much better in the good old days when they were carved out of stone and
> decorated with papyrus. Right.

Not really, although as a storage medium it was far better than anything
we have now.

> Astounding though it may seem modern materials technology is actually an
> improvement on what went Before. So stop ****ing whinging and enjoy
> this consumer paradise in which you live.

In part I agree, however I find that modern materials are not as hard
wearing as some of the traditional stuff, such as the aforementioned
brass. OK, a modern camera is a lot lighter than they used to be, but
personally I like to feel some weight in a camera, it gives an
impression of quality.

Many goods now do not last as long as their older counterparts from,
say, 20 or 30 years ago. Technology certainly hasn't made any difference
to the end product has it? I mean what does a new digital camera produce
now that a camera from 30 years ago didn't?

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Civic 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/thehewitts/index.htm