OT: ? for the photographers

$100 is not going to get you much of an SLR. Maybe an older used one on eBay, but it won't have a
lens at that price. You won't even touch a digital at that price. $250 will get you a decent used
35mm SLR with a normal lens.

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

Quoted message said:

I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need

recommendations.

Quoted message said:

I can't spend more than a hundred US (shouldn't even spend that

much...broke

Quoted message said:

college boy, I am) so my options for quality cameras are, understandably, rather limited.

Auto-focus and flash are not necessary...until this month Pops had been using a Canon 1984
"official camera of the Olympics" model with no (I'm pretty sure) auto settings.

He takes 80% of his pictures outdoors, in great weather, of still subjects (hot rods/other cool
cars) and the rest are indoor family-event pics. Professional he is not, but definitely
appreciates clarity, "crispness,"

and

Quoted message said:

"evenness."

So, any sleeper 35mm SLRs out there, or is any brand name ok at $100?

Thanks, Chris

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

Quoted message said:

I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need

recommendations.

The camera body has nothing to do with the quality of the image you get. It's all about the lenses.
In one motorcycle magazine, I saw a $250 camera body attached to a $4000 lens... the photo would
have looked the same with a $1500 body, given that the photographer knows his stuff.

Frankly, your dad's Canon is probably of better quality than anything in production today. As
Ride-a-Lot said, $100 is simply too low for an SLR.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm and the associated marketplace can get you some decent used equipment. If
your dad is computer-literate, you may want to look into getting him a 2.1MP digicam, which is
getting low these days (under $200).

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Squid-in-Training said:

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

Quoted message said:

I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need

recommendations.

The camera body has nothing to do with the quality of the image you

get.

Absolute [censored].

The body has a great deal to do with focusing speed, metering, FPS, etc. when folks are discussing
film bodies.

Glass is more important but you cannot discount the effect that a decent body has upon photos, in
the right hands.

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Squid-in-Training said:

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

Quoted message said:

I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need

recommendations.

The camera body has nothing to do with the quality of the image you

get.

Absolute [censored].

The body has a great deal to do with focusing speed, metering, FPS, etc. when folks are discussing
film bodies.

Glass is more important but you cannot discount the effect that a decent body has upon photos, in
the right hands.

In addition to the features and bells and whistles that a decent body has, cheap bodies also seem to
be more prone to physical and mechanical problems that effect the image. Warping of film plane, film
feeding problems, even backs not closing properly or popping open or light and scratches on the
emulsion. There is a limit to how cheap you can be and avoid the problems too. I think that you're
only likely to find a decent camera for $100 if you look for an older, second-hand manual brand-name
camera. Possibly without a lens.
--
Westie (Replace 'invalid' with 'yahoo' when replying.)

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Squid-in-Training said:

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

Quoted message said:

I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need

recommendations.

The camera body has nothing to do with the quality of the image you

get.

Absolute [censored].

The body has a great deal to do with focusing speed, metering, FPS, etc. when folks are discussing
film bodies.

Glass is more important but you cannot discount the effect that a decent body has upon photos, in
the right hands.

(Sorry Pete, hit the wrong button before)

I agree here. Take for example the new Canon Rebel Digital and the Canon
10D. Both have the same Digix chip and megapixel. Try snapping a photo and see the results. I
compared them side by side and the rebel is no match for the 10D. The Rebels plastic case is
just begging to be cracked and the shutter mech is absurd. It's a shame how many will be
dragged to this disaster of a camera because of it's sub $1000 price tag (including the
cheap-ass lens they include).

Bottom line is you have to spend some $$$ for a good camera. If you buy good now, they'll last a
lifetime. I had an Olympus OM10 for 25 years. I sold it (still working).

He might be able to find a used Canon S30 or G30 for about $200. I've dropped those puppies and you
can't kill them.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need recommendations.

I can't spend more than a hundred US (shouldn't even spend that much...broke college boy, I am) so
my options for quality cameras are, understandably, rather limited.

Auto-focus and flash are not necessary...until this month Pops had been using a Canon 1984
"official camera of the Olympics" model with no (I'm pretty sure) auto settings.

He takes 80% of his pictures outdoors, in great weather, of still subjects (hot rods/other cool
cars) and the rest are indoor family-event pics. Professional he is not, but definitely
appreciates clarity, "crispness," and "evenness."

So, any sleeper 35mm SLRs out there, or is any brand name ok at $100?

Thanks, Chris

Considered a digital camera?
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ramsays-online.comramsays-online.comOpen ↗

Sir Ride-A-Lot said:

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Squid-in-Training said:

"Chris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need
recommendations.

The camera body has nothing to do with the quality of the image you

get.

Absolute [censored].

The body has a great deal to do with focusing speed, metering, FPS, etc. when folks are
discussing film bodies.

Glass is more important but you cannot discount the effect that a decent body has upon photos,
in the right hands.

(Sorry Pete, hit the wrong button before)

I agree here. Take for example the new Canon Rebel Digital and the Canon
10D. Both have the same Digix chip and megapixel. Try snapping a photo and see the results. I
compared them side by side and the rebel is no match for the 10D. The Rebels plastic case is
just begging to be cracked and the shutter mech is absurd. It's a shame how many will be
dragged to this disaster of a camera because of it's sub $1000 price tag (including the
cheap-ass lens they include).

Bottom line is you have to spend some $$$ for a good camera. If you buy good now, they'll last a
lifetime. I had an Olympus OM10 for 25 years. I sold it (still working).

I agree with the longevity of a good film camera. Though I am dubious about laying down big bucks on
digital camera yet. I think we are still in that early phase of a products lifecycle where there are
many improvements and/or price reductions to come in the next few years.

Quoted message said:

He might be able to find a used Canon S30 or G30 for about $200. I've dropped those puppies and
you can't kill them.

I can recommend the Pentax K1000 and Pentax P90. The 2nd hand '70s K1000 got me through high school
photography in 1982 to 1992, when I added a new P90 to the kit. I've been comparing lower end
digitals for the last year, they just keeping getting cheaper....

Cheers Greg

I'm really greg dot walton at swissonline dot ch

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

Quoted message said:

I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need

recommendations.

Quoted message said:

I can't spend more than a hundred US (shouldn't even spend that

much...broke

Quoted message said:

college boy, I am) so my options for quality cameras are, understandably, rather limited.

Yes, limited to good, older used SLR cameras.

Quoted message said:

Auto-focus and flash are not necessary...until this month Pops had been using a Canon 1984
"official camera of the Olympics" model with no (I'm pretty sure) auto settings.

Why did he stop using it? Did the camera finally break? Maybe it needs a cleaning/lubing.

Quoted message said:

He takes 80% of his pictures outdoors, in great weather, of still subjects (hot rods/other cool
cars) and the rest are indoor family-event pics. Professional he is not, but definitely
appreciates clarity, "crispness,"

and

Quoted message said:

"evenness."

He will want a good lens; but he probably doesn't need to worry about getting the super high-end
lenses. Any brand name lens will be fine. (Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax)

Quoted message said:

So, any sleeper 35mm SLRs out there, or is any brand name ok at $100?

$100 will buy you a solid used SLR from a big name in excellent condition. My wonderful
mint-condition Canon EOS 750QD, for instance, could be purchased on Ebay with a perfect 35-80mm
Canon zoom lens for well under $100. It's the fastest autofocus camera I've ever seen, and very hard
to fool. Exposures are perfect in every lighting situation (I've torture-tested
it. Never had a single bad exposure.) It focuses almost instantly, and doesn't "focus hunt" like
Nikons (which eat batteries). The built-in pop-up flash is great for fill-flash in backlit
scenes, or when you don't want to carry around an external bounce flash. The EOS 750 is also a
very well-built, pro-level camera; and is quite heavy (read: lots of metal parts inside). I also
like the shape of the hand grip better than most other cameras I've tried. My size L paws curve
around the handgrip perfectly, in shooting position.

Most SLR geeks want both manual and automatic features. The Canon EOS 750 is almost completely
automatic, making it less attractive, so it brings a lower price. There are a lot of great used SLR
cameras out there selling for under $100, for similar reasons. I'm sorry that I don't have a strong
grasp of exactly which models are the "sleeper" bargain cameras. SLR's are a personal thing.
Everybody has their favorite features.

It's a tough call, Chris. If your dad's beloved camera is broken, maybe you should spend the $100
having it repaired (assuming it's not just worn out). Barring that, see if you can find an EOS 750
for $90 or so with the zoom lens. I'm sure your dad will be impressed with how easy it is to use,
and the perfectly exposed, clear, sharply focused photos that it takes in virtually any lighting
conditions. The darned thing makes better decisions than I do, and I've learned to trust its
judgement.

Rocketman

"Rocketman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pgMyb.184758$Dw6.707244@attbi_s02...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need

recommendations.

Quoted message said:

I can't spend more than a hundred US (shouldn't even spend that

much...broke

Quoted message said:

college boy, I am) so my options for quality cameras are,

understandably,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rather limited.

Yes, limited to good, older used SLR cameras.

Quoted message said:

Auto-focus and flash are not necessary...until this month Pops had been using a Canon 1984
"official camera of the Olympics" model with no (I'm pretty sure) auto settings.

Why did he stop using it? Did the camera finally break? Maybe it needs a cleaning/lubing.

Quoted message said:

He takes 80% of his pictures outdoors, in great weather, of still

subjects

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(hot rods/other cool cars) and the rest are indoor family-event pics. Professional he is not,
but definitely appreciates clarity, "crispness,"

and

Quoted message said:

"evenness."

He will want a good lens; but he probably doesn't need to worry about getting the super high-end
lenses. Any brand name lens will be fine.

(Nikon,

Quoted message said:

Canon, Minolta, Pentax)

Quoted message said:

So, any sleeper 35mm SLRs out there, or is any brand name ok at $100?

$100 will buy you a solid used SLR from a big name in excellent condition. My wonderful
mint-condition Canon EOS 750QD, for instance, could be purchased on Ebay with a perfect 35-80mm
Canon zoom lens for well under $100. It's the fastest autofocus camera I've ever seen, and very
hard to fool. Exposures are perfect in every lighting situation (I've

torture-tested

Quoted message said:

it. Never had a single bad exposure.) It focuses almost instantly, and doesn't "focus hunt" like
Nikons (which eat batteries). The built-in

pop-up

Quoted message said:

flash is great for fill-flash in backlit scenes, or when you don't want to carry around an
external bounce flash. The EOS 750 is also a very well-built, pro-level camera; and is quite heavy
(read: lots of metal

parts

Quoted message said:

inside). I also like the shape of the hand grip better than most other cameras I've tried. My size
L paws curve around the handgrip perfectly,

in

Quoted message said:

shooting position.

Most SLR geeks want both manual and automatic features. The Canon EOS 750

is

Quoted message said:

almost completely automatic, making it less attractive, so it brings a

lower

Quoted message said:

price. There are a lot of great used SLR cameras out there selling for

under

Quoted message said:

$100, for similar reasons. I'm sorry that I don't have a strong grasp of exactly which models are
the "sleeper" bargain cameras. SLR's are a personal thing. Everybody has their favorite features.

It's a tough call, Chris. If your dad's beloved camera is broken, maybe

you

Quoted message said:

should spend the $100 having it repaired (assuming it's not just worn

out).

Quoted message said:

Barring that, see if you can find an EOS 750 for $90 or so with the zoom lens. I'm sure your dad
will be impressed with how easy it is to use, and the perfectly exposed, clear, sharply focused
photos that it takes in virtually any lighting conditions. The darned thing makes better

decisions

Quoted message said:

than I do, and I've learned to trust its judgement.

Rocketman

Thanks for a real good recommendation. He stopped with his Canon because it broke (I believe he was
trying to take a picture of his car...while driving
it. He's a hot rodder, you see...)

Digital isn't an option as he doesn't own a computer (they can't build a '32 roadster yet, so he has
little use for them).

I knew going in $100 was nearly laughable for SLR, but you gave me better advice than I expected.
Again, thanks.

Chris

Greg Walton said:

Quoted message said:

Bottom line is you have to spend some $$$ for a good camera. If

you buy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

good now, they'll last a lifetime. I had an Olympus OM10 for 25

years. I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

sold it (still working).

I agree with the longevity of a good film camera. Though I am dubious

about

Quoted message said:

laying down big bucks on digital camera yet. I think we are still in

that early

Quoted message said:

phase of a products lifecycle where there are many improvements

and/or price

Quoted message said:

reductions to come in the next few years.

Hmmm...DSLRs have been around for quite a while. Like any tech the price continues to come down but
they are a proven technology.

Quoted message said:

I can recommend the Pentax K1000 and Pentax P90. The 2nd hand '70s

K1000 got me

Quoted message said:

through high school photography in 1982 to 1992, when I added a new

P90 to the

Quoted message said:

kit.

Wow. That's a LONG time to be in high school. Didin't the prom thing get old after a few years?

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

Quoted message said:

Thanks for a real good recommendation. He stopped with his Canon because

it

Quoted message said:

broke (I believe he was trying to take a picture of his car...while

driving

Quoted message said:

it. He's a hot rodder, you see...)

Digital isn't an option as he doesn't own a computer (they can't build a

'32

Quoted message said:

roadster yet, so he has little use for them).

I knew going in $100 was nearly laughable for SLR, but you gave me better advice than I expected.
Again, thanks.

Chris

My old Pentax (I don't have the model number handy) SLR from the 70's was dropped from a car doing
the same thing in about 1980. It had to be repaired and I don't know what the cost was, but since
then I have taken many, many photos with it and carried it around Europe, Australia, Mexico and
lots of places in the USA. Never had another problem with it that couldn't be attributed to user
error. If you can't or don't want to fix the existing camera, maybe you could get an old Pentax in
your range.

Matt

Quoted message said:

Absolute [censored].

I was referring strictly to the quality of the image, not so much the bells and whistles. Granted,
they're important, but often not critical.

The vast majority of SLR owners don't use their SLRs because they're too big. And when they do,
they're usually set on the auto or pre-programmed modes. People who know how to use their
cameras don't need the fancy stuff. Judging by the photos you have taken, it seems that you
should know this.

I find it hard to consider my statement absolute [censored], but I see your points.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Squid-in-Training said:

Quoted message said:

Absolute [censored].

I was referring strictly to the quality of the image, not so much the

bells

Quoted message said:

and whistles. Granted, they're important, but often not critical.

The body can have a great impact upon the quality of the image. To claim that they don't is silly.

Quoted message said:

The vast majority of SLR owners don't use their SLRs because they're

too

Quoted message said:

big. And when they do, they're usually set on the auto or

pre-programmed

Quoted message said:

modes. People who know how to use their cameras don't need the fancy

stuff.

The photographer is indeed the most important part of the equation.

To claim that a photographer doesn't need the "fancy stuff" is silly. Try telling that to the pros
that are shooting basketball games for example.

Better equipment yields higher percentage of good captures, allows more flexibilty in low light
situations, faster focusing, better metering, better white balance, greater resolution for
enlargements and the list goes on.

Quoted message said:

Judging by the photos you have taken, it seems that you should know

this.

I know that your claims are inaccurate.