OT: which camera?

"Lewis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

OK, so I have a fairly crappy Kodak compact digital camera right now, and
I really want to improve my photography, but even an "affordable" digital
SLR like the EOS 300D is £800 or so. Now I know I can get a film SLR like
the EOS 3000V for about £150, so I'm tempted to just go back to using film
like in the old college days.

Quoted message said:

Are these 2 cameras going to be comparable in capability/quality? I'm kind
of hooked on the convenience of digital, but would also like to move to
using an SLR.

Hi Lewis. I have the 300D and have used the 3000V - personally I prefer the
digital, and not just in terms of conveniance. My friend has the 3000V but
even with Fuji Velvia, the quality doesn't match my 300D (some might differ)

Quoted message said:

2. What kind of work is a 28-90mm lens good for?

Most general work, it's a pretty good range - 28 isn't that wide but it
should be fine if you're just looking to improve. Besides, lenses aren't
cheap!

Quoted message said:

3. Would a second hand SLR be a good idea?

Why not visit your local camera shop? They're always incredibly anorakish
and will have most answers, and good local shops will let you play with most
of the cameras. In my experience, you don't tend to save much with 2nd
hands though.

So...get the 300D. It's an awesome camera, and I love it (although I now
want the 20D!). You can get it for around £600, brand new, with the lens if
you know where to look 🙂

Hope this helps a bit

Will

Lewis said:

OK, so I have a fairly crappy Kodak compact digital camera right now, and I
really want to improve my photography, but even an "affordable" digital SLR
like the EOS 300D is £800 or so. Now I know I can get a film SLR like the
EOS 3000V for about £150, so I'm tempted to just go back to using film like
in the old college days.

Are these 2 cameras going to be comparable in capability/quality? I'm kind
of hooked on the convenience of digital, but would also like to move to
using an SLR.

1. Are we talking similar quality here?

With a decent slide film and scanner you will be better off than the
digital. That's not going to remain the case for very long, and film does
have high running costs unless you are prepared to process your own. (I run
about 12p per shot, and thats with compunding my own chemicals from the
ground up. Fun though)

Quoted message said:

2. What kind of work is a 28-90mm lens good for?

None if it's a cheap nasty consumer zoom. A camera is a light tight box
with a shutter. The lens is the clever bit. Good glass does not come cheap
however.

Quoted message said:

3. Would a second hand SLR be a good idea?

Assuming you buy a good one yes. If you are going to take landscapes, and
don't need anything fancy then I'd seriously consider a decent manual
camera system. You should be able to pick up an excellent Pentax or Olympus
system with a couple of excellent lenses for under £100. Stretch a little
more and you should get Nikons, FM2's are excellent cameras and dirt cheap.
Just make sure that you buy glass that will fit on the digital body you are
going to buy next year when the price has fallen to what you have left in
your budget....

Quoted message said:

Any help/opinions/advice gratefully received, folks!

Lewis

Will said:

Quoted message said:

Are these 2 cameras going to be comparable in capability/quality?
I'm kind of hooked on the convenience of digital, but would also
like to move to using an SLR.

If you're hooked on digital convenience, film will [censored] you off. Film
pisses me off now, and I've been using it for 25 years. I hate taking
shots on film now.

Quoted message said:

Hi Lewis. I have the 300D and have used the 3000V - personally I
prefer the digital, and not just in terms of conveniance. My friend
has the 3000V but even with Fuji Velvia, the quality doesn't match my
300D (some might differ)

It's borderline at the moment. Film is still sharper than digital at
6MP, but the 300D has zero noise and a wider dynamic range. All things
considered, I think the digital looks better. In spite of being less
sharp, it can be enlarged more and sharpened more because of lack of
grain. Similar sharpening with film makes the grain look too bad,
whereas grain reduction software on film reduces the sharpness, making
it no better than the digital, so weighing it all up, I prefer the
digital, I love the clean grain free quality and the wide dynamic range,
those are more important than the sharpness IMO. I can make great 18" x
12" prints from the 300D, do you really need any larger?

The other factor of course is the scanner. If you use film you'll need
to scan it to be able to do post processing, put your pics on the web,
make inkjet prints and so on. If you only intend to get conventional
prints or slides made, then you won't need a scanner, but if you do want
to scan them, ask yourself how much a decent scanner will cost and add
that to the price of the film camera. Suddenly the 300D isn't looking
so expensive after all.

And scanning is a pain. So is taking your film to the shop to be
processed. And going back to pick it up again. And having to pay for
it. And having to buy more, over and over again. It keeps costing you
money, for every photo you take! Slide film plus developing costs me
around £10 a roll, for just 38 photos. How many photos do you take a
year? Add the cost.

Buying a film camera, plus scanner, plus film, and more film, and more
film (repeat ad infinitum) isn't really that cheap at all. And it's a
lot more hassle.

If you really do fancy using film, consider getting a second hand MF
system plus an Epson flatbed scanner. You will get much better quality
than digital with one of those.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2. What kind of work is a 28-90mm lens good for?

Landscapes. Poucher generally used three lenses, a 28mm, a 50mm and a
90mm.

Quoted message said:

So...get the 300D. It's an awesome camera, and I love it

I agree.

Quoted message said:

(although I now want the 20D!).

No you don't! You want the 30D! :-) Wait a little and skip a
generation.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Chris Street said:

Quoted message said:

1. Are we talking similar quality here?

With a decent slide film and scanner you will be better off than the
digital.

I tend to disagree Chris. It's borderline at the moment, but the
noise-free wide dynamic range of digital beats the sharpness of film
IMO. I never thought I'd ever hear myself saying that, but there you
go. It's difficult for film photographers to accept that sharpness
isn't the most important thing, but owning a decent digital camera is a
good way to change that point of view.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hi Lewis. I have the 300D and have used the 3000V - personally I
prefer the digital, and not just in terms of conveniance. My friend
has the 3000V but even with Fuji Velvia, the quality doesn't match my
300D (some might differ)

It's borderline at the moment. Film is still sharper than digital at
6MP, but the 300D has zero noise and a wider dynamic range. All things
considered, I think the digital looks better. In spite of being less
sharp, it can be enlarged more and sharpened more because of lack of
grain. Similar sharpening with film makes the grain look too bad,

Agreed - and I forgot to add one of the most brilliant features of digital
SLRs is the ability to instantly change the ISO. If the light's fading, or
you're inside - switch to ISO 400, 800 or even 1600. With film, you'd have
to waste x shots on the roll and change - a) wasting money b) wasting time
and c) missing the shot you need.

Quoted message said:

whereas grain reduction software on film reduces the sharpness, making
it no better than the digital, so weighing it all up, I prefer the
digital, I love the clean grain free quality and the wide dynamic range,
those are more important than the sharpness IMO. I can make great 18" x
12" prints from the 300D, do you really need any larger?

Absolutely - I had 3 or 4 18" prints done from my trip in Aus a year ago,
and they look as good as any film shots I took.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(although I now want the 20D!).

No you don't! You want the 30D! :-) Wait a little and skip a
generation.

30D? Wasn't even aware that had been announced(?)!

Will

Will said:

30D? Wasn't even aware that had been announced(?)!

It hasn't, but it will be. You don't digital camera evolution will stop
at the 20D do you? Might be worth waiting for the 12MP 40D! ;-)

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Will said:

30D? Wasn't even aware that had been announced(?)!

It hasn't, but it will be. You don't digital camera evolution will stop
at the 20D do you? Might be worth waiting for the 12MP 40D! ;-)

12? I'm expecting a 120MP by next year, at 1GB per photo <g>. Out of
interest Paul, have you found your media deteriorating over the months? I'm
convinced my CF card (Sandisk) is slower than a year ago - it must be my
imagination, however I think I'll try some highly-rated media soon just to
see if the buffer clears faster.

Will

Will said:

Out of
interest Paul, have you found your media deteriorating over the
months? I'm convinced my CF card (Sandisk) is slower than a year ago
- it must be my imagination, however I think I'll try some
highly-rated media soon just to see if the buffer clears faster.

Can't say I have. I've got a pretty good buffer on my 300D, I can take
3 or 4 shots in very quick succession, so I don't have to worry about
the speed of the card. Sometimes after I've taken a few quick shots I
turn it off, put it back in my belt bag and then notice the flashing
light indicating that data is still being written to the card (after
I've switched it off!).

I'm currently using a cheapo slow flash card as my main card - a Viking
1Gb, cost me around £93 I think, bought for capacity, not speed. I have
a much faster SanDisk Ultra 512, but I really don't notice any
difference with my camera's buffer.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

On 14/10/04 12:30 pm, in article [email hidden], "Paul

Saunders said:

It hasn't, but it will be. You don't digital camera evolution will stop
at the 20D do you? Might be worth waiting for the 12MP 40D! ;-)

Things might not go that way. The Nikon 2DH has 4.1 megpixels but because of
the way that the image is scanned it apparently gives a quality equal to
almost 12 megapixels. I don't mean to understand this at all but the
reports of professional photographers using this camera suggest that picture
quality here is better than Nikon cameras with higher resolution sensors.

Mind you, have you looked at the digital Hasselblads and Mamiyas? Bet
they're awesome!

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

On 14/10/04 11:10 am, in article [email hidden], "Paul

Saunders said:

I tend to disagree Chris. It's borderline at the moment, but the
noise-free wide dynamic range of digital beats the sharpness of film
IMO. I never thought I'd ever hear myself saying that, but there you
go. It's difficult for film photographers to accept that sharpness
isn't the most important thing, but owning a decent digital camera is a
good way to change that point of view.

I think Paul is right. I've only been using my digital for a few months but
I think the sharpness of a good digital is as good - if not better - than my
old Olympus OM4.

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

"Will" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Lewis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

OK, so I have a fairly crappy Kodak compact digital camera right now, and
I really want to improve my photography, but even an "affordable" digital
SLR like the EOS 300D is £800 or so. Now I know I can get a film SLR like
the EOS 3000V for about £150, so I'm tempted to just go back to using film
like in the old college days.

Quoted message said:

Are these 2 cameras going to be comparable in capability/quality? I'm kind
of hooked on the convenience of digital, but would also like to move to
using an SLR.

Hi Lewis. I have the 300D and have used the 3000V - personally I prefer the
digital, and not just in terms of conveniance. My friend has the 3000V but
even with Fuji Velvia, the quality doesn't match my 300D (some might differ)

Quoted message said:

2. What kind of work is a 28-90mm lens good for?

Most general work, it's a pretty good range - 28 isn't that wide but it
should be fine if you're just looking to improve. Besides, lenses aren't
cheap!

Quoted message said:

3. Would a second hand SLR be a good idea?

Why not visit your local camera shop? They're always incredibly anorakish
and will have most answers, and good local shops will let you play with most
of the cameras. In my experience, you don't tend to save much with 2nd
hands though.

So...get the 300D. It's an awesome camera, and I love it (although I now
want the 20D!). You can get it for around £600, brand new, with the lens if
you know where to look 🙂

Hope this helps a bit

Will

what is the best camara i canm buy for about £250

kill kenny

Chris Street <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Lewis said:

OK, so I have a fairly crappy Kodak compact digital camera right now, and I
really want to improve my photography, but even an "affordable" digital SLR
like the EOS 300D is £800 or so. Now I know I can get a film SLR like the
EOS 3000V for about £150, so I'm tempted to just go back to using film like
in the old college days.

Are these 2 cameras going to be comparable in capability/quality? I'm kind
of hooked on the convenience of digital, but would also like to move to
using an SLR.

1. Are we talking similar quality here?

With a decent slide film and scanner you will be better off than the
digital. That's not going to remain the case for very long, and film does
have high running costs unless you are prepared to process your own. (I run
about 12p per shot, and thats with compunding my own chemicals from the
ground up. Fun though)

Quoted message said:

2. What kind of work is a 28-90mm lens good for?

None if it's a cheap nasty consumer zoom. A camera is a light tight box
with a shutter. The lens is the clever bit. Good glass does not come cheap
however.

Quoted message said:

3. Would a second hand SLR be a good idea?

Assuming you buy a good one yes. If you are going to take landscapes, and
don't need anything fancy then I'd seriously consider a decent manual
camera system. You should be able to pick up an excellent Pentax or Olympus
system with a couple of excellent lenses for under £100. Stretch a little
more and you should get Nikons, FM2's are excellent cameras and dirt cheap.
Just make sure that you buy glass that will fit on the digital body you are
going to buy next year when the price has fallen to what you have left in
your budget....

Quoted message said:

Any help/opinions/advice gratefully received, folks!

Lewis

hi iam learning how to post messages

Chris Street <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Lewis said:

OK, so I have a fairly crappy Kodak compact digital camera right now, and I
really want to improve my photography, but even an "affordable" digital SLR
like the EOS 300D is £800 or so. Now I know I can get a film SLR like the
EOS 3000V for about £150, so I'm tempted to just go back to using film like
in the old college days.

Are these 2 cameras going to be comparable in capability/quality? I'm kind
of hooked on the convenience of digital, but would also like to move to
using an SLR.

1. Are we talking similar quality here?

With a decent slide film and scanner you will be better off than the
digital. That's not going to remain the case for very long, and film does
have high running costs unless you are prepared to process your own. (I run
about 12p per shot, and thats with compunding my own chemicals from the
ground up. Fun though)

Quoted message said:

2. What kind of work is a 28-90mm lens good for?

None if it's a cheap nasty consumer zoom. A camera is a light tight box
with a shutter. The lens is the clever bit. Good glass does not come cheap
however.

Quoted message said:

3. Would a second hand SLR be a good idea?

Assuming you buy a good one yes. If you are going to take landscapes, and
don't need anything fancy then I'd seriously consider a decent manual
camera system. You should be able to pick up an excellent Pentax or Olympus
system with a couple of excellent lenses for under £100. Stretch a little
more and you should get Nikons, FM2's are excellent cameras and dirt cheap.
Just make sure that you buy glass that will fit on the digital body you are
going to buy next year when the price has fallen to what you have left in
your budget....

Quoted message said:

Any help/opinions/advice gratefully received, folks!

Lewis

hi am new just trying to learn how to use this!

"Andy Howell" <andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk> wrote in message
news:BD9448B6.38C7D%andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk...

Quoted message said:

On 14/10/04 11:10 am, in article [email hidden], "Paul

Saunders said:

I tend to disagree Chris. It's borderline at the moment, but the
noise-free wide dynamic range of digital beats the sharpness of film
IMO. I never thought I'd ever hear myself saying that, but there you
go. It's difficult for film photographers to accept that sharpness
isn't the most important thing, but owning a decent digital camera is a
good way to change that point of view.

I think Paul is right. I've only been using my digital for a few months
but
I think the sharpness of a good digital is as good - if not better - than
my
old Olympus OM4.

Great camera that though, the old OM4...

Will

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person Will <[email hidden]> said
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Great camera that though, the old OM4...

Nearly as good as the (=really old=) OM2. 8>.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.

Quoted message said:

12? I'm expecting a 120MP by next year, at 1GB per photo <g>. Out of
interest Paul, have you found your media deteriorating over the months? I'm
convinced my CF card (Sandisk) is slower than a year ago - it must be my
imagination, however

Possibly not - flash memory is notable for suffering from a phenomenum
known as write hardening whereby repeated erasure and re-writing causes
the write time to increase. It's a feature of the technology and can't
be avoided. It's possible that some manufacturers of flash chips may
quote different specs for this but I don't know offhand whose chips are
better.

--
Boo

"Boo" <boo@spam_me_no_spam.net> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

12? I'm expecting a 120MP by next year, at 1GB per photo <g>. Out of
interest Paul, have you found your media deteriorating over the months?
I'm convinced my CF card (Sandisk) is slower than a year ago - it must be
my imagination, however

Possibly not - flash memory is notable for suffering from a phenomenum
known as write hardening whereby repeated erasure and re-writing causes
the write time to increase. It's a feature of the technology and can't be
avoided. It's possible that some manufacturers of flash chips may quote
different specs for this but I don't know offhand whose chips are better.

Interesting. I did hear from a pro photographer some months ago that you
should keep it away from heat as much as possible. I'll try a new one when
I find a job and see what happens 🙂

Will

Will said:

Great camera that though, the old OM4...

Terrific camera. I used the manual version, the OM3 (identical except
for a mechanical shutter instead of an electronic one) for most of my
photographic life, until I wore it out a few years back.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

"Lewis" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

OK, so I have a fairly crappy Kodak compact digital camera right now, and
I really want to improve my photography, ..

snip (pay attention college kids, this means that something has been left
out ;-)

If you want to improve your photography you'll also have to improve on
making good compositions, choosing the right viewpoint, being there at the
right moment and leaving the trodden path.
--
Theo
www.theosphotos.fotopic.net
[email hidden](we'll.leave.the.house.and.read.the.mail)