Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
And there goes one again...
E.T
Quote-o-matic
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://konicaminolta.com/releases/2006/0119_03_01.html[/url]
Only maker which had cameras designed clearly as photographers tool.
I just wonder how much reviewers are guilty to this... they have been so heavily favoring those brands whith most bigmouthed and loudest BS departments.
Only maker which had cameras designed clearly as photographers tool.
I just wonder how much reviewers are guilty to this... they have been so heavily favoring those brands whith most bigmouthed and loudest BS departments.
Comments
Soon we'll all have only Canon's left. Or some such. :p
Hmm... I've never actually owned a real camera. I've always just used someone else's... maybe I should start considering. Sooner or later. :)
[EDIT] I'm such an idiot, I mean Canon, not Pentax...
Jake
Fortunately I still have my stockpile of 2X Canon A-1's in mint condition. 2X Canon FTB, 2X Canon F-1 first generation (got to be redundant :D). EOS Elan, Pentax 67, Leicas M2, M3, M4, M5, and M6. Now I just need to find a good used second generation Canon F-1 which was their last true manual no electronic bullshit Camera ever made. Digital, while convenient is gross to the educated eye ;)
Konica Minolta has a strong tradition of near excellence behind them. And their recent digitals have been pretty good. Their prosumer semi-slr DImage 7 and 8 were nice, and the X-series was the first with the internal perpendicular lenses...
And their traditional film SLRs are pretty good, too ;)
And hey, don't dis digital :P the Canon 1Ds-Mark II produces images that come so damned close to film, and has the capacity to be far better in numerous other regions (flexibility of image capture types, ability to postprocess with no unwanted transmission losses). Film still has its use, but in all honesty, I think there's very little capacity to argue against the newest DSLR models.
I'm also a bit weird, though. I was brought up with basic Canon high-end consumer and low-end SLR film cameras, but made the transisition to digital when it was in its infancy and never really went back. I suspect that consumer digital could have been far more popular if companies had invested more in quality digital backs for common SLRs. One of the biggest flaws in many digicams (early and recent history) were the cheap-as-fuck optics... They could have a fine CCD, but were often ruined by the companies catering to consumers with less picky eyes. ;)
I can handle noise. I accept it because it has to be accepted at some price points, but why should I have to accept purple fringing or intense chromatic abberation?
And hey, don't dis digital :P the Canon 1Ds-Mark II produces images that come so damned close to film, and has the capacity to be far better in numerous other regions (flexibility of image capture types, ability to postprocess with no unwanted transmission losses). Film still has its use, but in all honesty, I think there's very little capacity to argue against the newest DSLR models.
[/QUOTE]
Ahh, not really dissing digital. I do know its a hell of a lot more convinient in so many ways. I'm just a softie when it comes to traditional photography. Traditional film when done right, as in you do it yourself in a lab, not send them off to the drugstore to get developed can just offer such an unbeatable color quality sharpness and beauty. It's becoming a lost art. The biggest annoyance I find with digital is even though the image definition can be close the way you interact with it isn't that great. Even the best monitor or color printer can not come close to matching the quality of fine grain photographic paper. I was a pretty avid amateur photgrapher for a long time. Had a lab at home and everything but its now illegal because of the chemicals and shit. Nowhere to really practice it anymore.
I've actually been interested in a high end Canon digital SLR for a while now. Can't quite afford the EOS 1D but the 10 does look tempting. I'm pretty partial to Canon since I have a stockpile of high end lenses for them.
Jake
[B]Here's a question i always wondered from a photo novice, did anyone ever attempt mate a digital imaging accessory to a standard SLR. Somelike a feature that would mount in place of the flim access door to allow one to take digitals with their old manual SLR?
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
there's a lot more to it than just replacing the back.
i currently have 3 cameras,
A Film SLR, A Minolta Maxum XtSI,
A Digital Point and Shoot Fuji S3300
and a Digital SLR, Canon EOS 20D
Jake
The problem is usually that digital cameras are more than just a CCD and a memory card, and as such, the sheer complexity of a digital back makes it far less desirable to the average consumer than a plain 'ol digital camera.
Trusty old Pentax K-1000...
and a Kodak easy share digital for web work
:)
WTF does SLR stand for again? :)
My wife is the shutterbug though, I just do the research and buy the cameras. I got her a digital point and shoot Nikon Coolpix 4300 (couple years old now), but her big boy is a Minolta Dimage A2, I got her that just near the end of last year, it replaced her old SLR.
SLR stands for Sinle Lens Reflex.
I will let someone who knows what that actually means describe it. I just know that a point and shoot camera (the little ones) are great for simple shots, quick shots of the kids, also things that dont need precision, and are not far away.
The SLR Camera is what you use when you want a great photo. She rarely scrapbooks with pictures from the coolpix, they are more album pictures, the ones she takes with that Minolta though look as good if not better than the stuff she used to develop in her parents basement/darkroom. Its one hell of a nice camera, with the right lens she can zoom in for some pics from a distance too. Ill post some comparison shots later when I get home.
SLR , as said above, means Single Lens Reflex. Simply put, it uses the lens attached to the camera for all aspects of photography, including both image capture and spotting before a shot. In an SLR camera is a mirror, prism, or some other reflective/refractive device (depends on the brand and model, but usually a mirror). when stowed or otherwise not taking photos, the mirror sends light passing through the lens into the viewfinder. When you push the trigger, it quickly flips back and directs the light towards the film/CCD/CMOS.
What makes SLR cameras so good is that you can see exactly what you're shooting. Digital helped out a lot in allowing normal folk greater ease of composing good shots, but with SLR and a good lens, you can see or accurately estimate what the results will be.
Anyway, I see no reason SLR wouldn't make a fine point-and-shoot camera as long as it had a good metering mode.
[B]but her big boy is a Minolta Dimage A2, I got her that just near the end of last year[/B][/QUOTE]Now that camera really starts to qualify as classic...
Just remember to use point/spot focus, wide area focus is too good in finding single tree branch or grass near edge of image and focusing to it.
Here's some general info:
[url]http://www.pbase.com/mtf_foto_studies/mtf_faq[/url]
What CF cards are best: (with few months old 1.14 firmware)
[url]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1024&message=15829683[/url]
And here's good free RAW converter
[url]http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp[/url]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sanfam [/i]
[B]What makes SLR cameras so good is that you can see exactly what you're shooting. Digital helped out a lot in allowing normal folk greater ease of composing good shots, but with SLR and a good lens, you can see or accurately estimate what the results will be.[/B][/QUOTE]Only half truth, with SLR you won't see how good exposure is until after taking that shot!
[B]
Only half truth, with SLR you won't see how good exposure is until after taking that shot! [/B][/QUOTE]
That's the reason I asked about a digital back, one of the reasons I don't use my SLR camera more is that it is too costly to experiment with. I am not good enough to know what settings for what situation on my own, and I don't know if the the changes or efforts I made were worth it until the film's developed, which can get pretty costly.
Jake
[B]That's the reason I asked about a digital back, one of the reasons I don't use my SLR camera more is that it is too costly to experiment with. I am not good enough to know what settings for what situation on my own, and I don't know if the the changes or efforts I made were worth it until the film's developed, which can get pretty costly.
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
Thats part of the reason i bought the DIgital SLR, it was pricey, i paid around $1500 for it, but i also paid $800 for my last Film SLR. but when i go out to take pictures, i may shoot 30 rolls at a time, add up the cost of film and processing, and the digitals pay for themslelves, also, since i do some selling of my photos, all i have to do is sell 50 photos to recoup the cost of the camera.
I do still use my Film SLR a lot, especially for Black and White .
However, to say that you can't get really good shots from a point and shoot isn't true at all, I've gotten some FABULOUS shots with my Fuji point and shoot, its a 3.2mp that i picked up about 2 years ago, and even with the Digital SLR i still use it from time to time.
There is a BIG caveat with Digital SLR's that people dont talk about often, and i've run into the problem with mine, and that is Dust.
In a traditional SLR, if you get dust in the camera, it may end up on the film, but gets advanced with the next frame, when you get dust in a Digial SLR, nothing gets advanced, so the dust sits on the CCD, and depending on the size of the dust particles will show up in pictures, granted i almost never take pics with apertures like this, but anything over F10 shows large dust particles in the shot, and even things between F8 and F10 show dust, cleaning a CCD is a difficult thing to do in a digital SLR, and if you screw it up, it costs almost as much as the camera did to replace, Most photo repair places will NOT do CCD cleaning, and you have to send the camera back to the manufacturter to have it done, With Canon its around $50, but can take up to 6 months.
All that being said, I LOVE my 20D, and if you can afford it, i highly reccomend it. but i would avoid the Eos Digital Rebel, its only a few hundred less than the 20D and not worth the savings IMHO.
[B]And me...
Trusty old Pentax K-1000...
and a Kodak easy share digital for web work
:)
WTF does SLR stand for again? :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Single Lens Reflex. Your eye sees the image through the same lens and in exactly the same way as will the film/CCD does. For those that don't know, you look through a prism than reverses the image thats on a mirror sitting at ~45 degree angle between the shutter and the lens. Since the mirror and prism both reverse the image the result is you see the image corrected again. When you fire the shutter, the mirror flips up to let the light pass to the shutter.
Unlike viewfinder type cameras where you look through a seperate window near the lens, SLR cameras don't give you alignment problems. The biggest problem with view finder type cameras is that they are useless for macro shooting since at such close rage the lens and viewfinder can't align so you can't see what the hell you're shooting. Same goes for telephoto lenses. A viewfinders optics might to some degree zoom in to mimic the view area of a very small telephoto lens or they just have a smaller square to represent the area the lens will capture. SLR's up until digital with dispays were you see directly what the CCD sees were pretty much the only way to effectively use long telephoto and macro lenses.
Only half truth, with SLR you won't see how good exposure is until after taking that shot! [/B][/QUOTE]
You're right but thats also another half truth. besides being able to see virtually 90-100% of the actual field of view of the lens, you can also see the depth of focus. With an SLR you can see how how the f-stop changes the depth of focus to look for the frame composition you want. You can't do that with most non-slr cameras (at least not easily evenif they have the ability, which most nonSLR's don't).
The thing with film is as you said, you can't tell quite how the final result will look because obviously while you mey have everything setup perfectly it comes down to good light metering to know what the correct shutter speed vs f-stop needs to be based on the films ISO speed. Lots of factors to look out for. Thething is taking the shot is quite literally only HALF the process. Once the negative is developed then you are basically doing the process all over in the darkroom only now its from negative to photographic paper instead of from light source to film. Once again, the exposure time on the paper, and light intensity of the amplifier, (projector like device that projects the negative image onto the paper) and paper quality will affect the end result. To get really pro quality results here you need to do this stuff yourself in a darkroom until you get exactly what you're looking for. Many times you will take a perfect exposure on the negative but if you get the prints developed at the local drugstore they can end up looking like crap. A lot of those machines can give very good results when well calibrated but many times they aren't. For obvious reasons it also takes away the aspect of being able to play around with the development process.
[B]Single Lens Reflex. Your eye sees the image through the same lens and in exactly the same way as will the film/CCD does.[/B][/QUOTE]Wrong, you can see (rough) framing and focus but nothing after that, you won't see anything about how sensor sees that exposure settings.
While EVF shows what sensor is seeing and how, and real time histogram is also very useful.
In that aspect digital SLRs haven't really advanced from film era. Now you can just look results without waiting longer than seconds after taking shot.
And now you'll propably start complaining about lack of resolution of displays so here's quick fact:
KM A2 has 4x EVF resolution compared to any other EVF/LCD of even current digicams.
And maker of those EVF displays would have much higher resolutions available if people would start demanding good displays... but because putting that kind features to cameras isn't cheap BS departments froath about half-working/-useless "features" which doesn't cost more than burned half of wooden penny to make.
Also that antique design mirror system causes problems to lens designing.
[B]Nikon also announced they were pulling out entirely of the film market and going 100% digital.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I've got a Nikon F-601 AF Quartz Date which is a SLR camera and although it is not a digital it has a cpu as it has auto focus,small lcd display, go to manual auto zoom,manual zoom as wel,etc....It was given to me from my late uncle in Germany just before he past away. :(
He sent 2 Nikon cameras over and I took the newer one which turned out to be the Nikon F-601 AF Quartz Date and my brother took the Nikon FM-2(also SLR) with macro zoom lens and the normal lens that came with it.
maxdamage
Whats the best camera for red eye reduction? Only mine my partners and my Mums ca mera can't get rid of it.
[B]Nikon also announced they were pulling out entirely of the film market and going 100% digital.
Fortunately I still have my stockpile of 2X Canon A-1's in mint condition. 2X Canon FTB, 2X Canon F-1 first generation (got to be redundant :D). EOS Elan, Pentax 67, Leicas M2, M3, M4, M5, and M6. Now I just need to find a good used second generation Canon F-1 which was their last true manual no electronic bullshit Camera ever made. Digital, while convenient is gross to the educated eye ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, that is totally incorrect.
Nikon announced that they were reducing the film line to the F6 and one prosumer Film product , the FM10. All other development will be focussing on dSLR products, which makes absolute sense, as film is all but dead in the consumer/prosumer markets.
Large format Professional cameras always have been limited production, so it will little effect those lines. Rest assured, though once high-bit cameras migrate into that field, the pros will change there as well. The tools are just allot better now in the digital world. Its amazing how much of a difference 10 years has made in photography and post-processing.
Almost all of the stuff you see in magazines and newspapers are D2 / D2x nowadays. 10-12mb dSLRs are making it to prosumer levels, and the ability to create tripple exposure high bitdepth digital negative (Adobe ".DNG") files make digital far more versitile.
The reason for all this is this is pretty obvious, though...look at Kodak and Fuji sales numbers, and anyone can read the writing.
I converted to dSLR about 2 years ago with my D70, and recently had to replace it with a D70s (it was stolen). Never regretted it because:
1. I can take more shots of the same subjects and instantly see the results
2. With RAW 24-bit dataset, you get more information and enhanced manipulation and correction features with PhotoshopCS2 and RawShooter, you'll never want to dip a strip in chemicals again
3. Total control of your IP, forward and back.
4. Easy management and workflow (without all the hazardous chemicals)
5. Portability. Photos are but an e-mail / secure website away.
[url=http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=130907&TICK=NIKON&STORY=/www/story/01-11-2006/0004247596&EDATE=Jan+11,+2006]here[/url] is the full press release and details, straight from NikonUSA's website. Identical announcements were posted on NikonUK and Nikon Japan.
Martian: the color problem you're mentioning is not indicative soully of digital. Film sees the problem as well, you'll really see it if you use daylight film indoors shooting under flourescent lights (everything turns green). Unlike film, where you have to either compensate ahead with colored filters, try to compensate at development, or scan and use software. In digital (especially in RAW format) all you need to do is reset white balance. Rawshooter is amazing for this. You can also use Photoshop to do same, or use a greycard and do white balance in-camera on a by-scene basis.
-Rick
(edited 2006.01.21 - dangling sentence. Ouch.)
[B]I have found that digital cameras don't seem to capture the right colour with certain things.
Whats the best camera for red eye reduction? Only mine my partners and my Mums ca mera can't get rid of it. [/B][/QUOTE]Cameras or point&pray/toy cameras?
In so many claimed to be cameras even white balance is behind menusurfing&button tapping.
One with bigger size and flash farther away from lens.
If flash is close to lens only post processing helps. (all red eye reduction modes are practically scam)
[B]The issue with white balance is that the cheap cameras often don't handle setting it very well. I quite like my Canon Powershot S70, it provides full control over the white balance. I can even set it accurately using the sky. [/B][/QUOTE]
Also, don't forget that many low-end consumer digicams simply do not do perfect color reproduction. Even the high-end models from Sony, Canon, and Nikon all had issues with bright colors (primarily red and green) until their most recent releases (with larger and more up-to-date CCDs)
Color reproduction has always been an issue, and sometimes it's just software, but combine that with the weak white balance control/determination systems on some of the lower-level products and you get a miscolored photo.
[B]I have found that digital cameras don't seem to capture the right colour with certain things. I've had clothes that look a slightly different colour, wheras the old traditional camera seems better in this way. Less me and everyone else has had not so good digi cameras.
Whats the best camera for red eye reduction? Only mine my partners and my Mums ca mera can't get rid of it. [/B][/QUOTE]
If you're not using a speedlight (external flash) with bounce capability (i.e. the ability to rotate the flash and bounce it off the ceiling or the wall), you're always going to get redeye to one degree or the other. Even my D70 will give redeye if I use the "pop-up" flash. The problem is that you are pointing a bright light directly into the pupil, which is then reflected directly back into the camera lens. The Red color is the retna being lit up by the flash.
The best way to get rid of redeye is to either:
1. light the shot better, so you don't need flash (rarely an option).
2. Use a bounce capable auxiliary flash.
3. Use Photoshop, or the editor that came with your camera. most packages have a red-eye removal tool now.
4 . Some people have luck with a "cheap man's diffuser" which is either a sheet of semi-transparent white vellum or waxpaper that is held between the flash and the subject in such a way that it doesn't show in the picture frame. They sell these for some point-and-shoot cameras at better photography stores (some Wolf/Ritz superstores have them--I usually shop at Keeble and Shugat over Palo Alto, who also carries such devices).
5. Have the person not look directly in the lens when you take the shot (simplest way to fix it :) )
In general, bounce flashes with a fitted diffuser are the best solution, as they not only eliminate redeye, but they also produce a softer, more even light, and when properly used, will not leave "stencil shadows" on the wall behind the subject.
-R.
[B]One with bigger size and flash farther away from lens.
If flash is close to lens only post processing helps. (all red eye reduction modes are practically scam) [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, not so much a scam as "not quite affecting everyone."
Most systems simply try to get the pupil to rapidly shrink before taking the photo, thus reducing the amount of light that can get in and reflect back out. It just doesn't always work because not everyone reacts, and can vary depending on where the flash is mounted on the camera itself. The best way to remove red eye post-shooting, though, is plain 'ol photshop. dab them out with the airbrush tool or such.
And while I am not aware of what camera you're using or what desire you have to lug around additional gear, I suspect you're aiming for "point & shoot" use, meaning you'd likely not want to consider carrying around additional external flashes or such. The best way to remove it outside of improving the overall lighting of a shot is simply to move the flash further away from the lens. It'll allow less light to get from the retina to the lens via reflection.
Edit: Rick: thanks for themention of the bounce flash. Didn't cover that here. Tomorrow, I'll try and post up some examples of using a bounce flash & diffuser. It's my favorite method, as the lighting is so much more natural when the source is "larger" than a strobe bar.
Edit 2: I'm shocked at how into photography so many of you folks are! It never came to mind to ask, and so I thought I was one of the very few ;)
[B]Also, don't forget that many low-end consumer digicams simply do not do perfect color reproduction. Even the high-end models from Sony, Canon, and Nikon all had issues with bright colors (primarily red and green) until their most recent releases (with larger and more up-to-date CCDs)[/B][/QUOTE]Now those unnatural colors have very little to do with sensor.
Huge amount of those often most loudly touted digicams do Disneyland-processing, saturation is cranked off the scale and they do same for contrast. (which leads to bad clipping of highlights while just little darker areas go almost black)
And some even do such heavy "sharpening" (which doesn't have anything to do with sharpness of image) that they have sharpening artefacts in photos.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sanfam [/i]
[B]Most systems simply try to get the pupil to rapidly shrink before taking the photo, thus reducing the amount of light that can get in and reflect back out. It just doesn't always work because not everyone reacts, and can vary depending on where the flash is mounted on the camera itself.[/B][/QUOTE]And that's the problem, in ultracompacts (/compacts), flash is often literally in side of lens so pupil would have to close down completely to prevent light from getting inside eye.
Just check some reviews of ultracompacts and it shouldn't be hard to find remark that those flash modes doesn't help any.
Wrong, you can see (rough) framing and focus but nothing after that, you won't see anything about how sensor sees that exposure settings.
[/QUOTE]
ehm, thats what I said.