Any photography bods?

Gussio

Thread hijack, kind of......we are having to retire a Canon IXUS 120 IS because of damage to the lens. The cost of repair was quoted at over £200. Have been very happy with the camera and would like to replace with something similar in the £100-200 range. Amazon don't sell the 120 any more and I am a bit baffled by the Canon range numbers. Was hoping to continue with Canon because of common batteries and cabling etc.. Have an EOS30D for more serious stuff, and am looking for something that will fit in a pocket and be more transportable. Any recommendations or advice?

MichaelW

essex-commuter wrote:

Perhaps I need to consider updating my Bronica 6x6 equipment :? 2 bodies, 4 lenses and a Metz hammerhead (are they still available??)

When I worked in insurance validation, this was one of the most difficult systems to deal with in terms of valuing a replacement. There is no way you can replace this kit, there is nothing on the market that is equivalent, ie high quality but amateur grade.
I dont now if they are still in demand but if you loose a Bronica, the only replacement is a 2nd hand Bronica

snooks

Paul E wrote:

If I added up all I have spent on lenses its at least £3.5k without the camera bodies, flash guns, bags, tripods and monopods etc etc

Don't add it up...simple as

I get a sicky feeling when I think about the value my camera gear, which is made worse if I think about how much the film kit sitting in the loft is worth.

2xEOS 1VHS, EOS 1n, EOS 3, EOS 5, 2 x Pentax 67 - with lenses inc a full frame fisheye

I've got a colour enlarger and all the kit to go with that too.

Right that's enough of that, not being able to ride at the moment and thinking about lots of unused camera gear is doing me no good, I might have to do a bit of work to get over it

iPete

Haha, if your not riding, dig it out and use it

Gussio, as far as I know just look for an Ixus in your price bracket with a higher number!

I'm pretty much set on a Panasonic LUMIX DMC-GF3
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/pro ... /show.html

BUT can't decide on a pancake lens; 14mm f/2.5 vs 20mm f/1.7?! I'm glad there isn't a jessops in walking distance!

Paul E

Nearest I have to that is my 17-40 F4L mounted on my 5D, works much better than when I had a 10-22 on my 20D although you could use the distortion to good effect if you were careful.

Although my lusting after list still includes a 24-70 F.28L a mate of mine has one and I have borrowed it for a wedding or two, lovely lens heavy though for it's size

Paul E

snooks wrote:

Paul E wrote:

If I added up all I have spent on lenses its at least £3.5k without the camera bodies, flash guns, bags, tripods and monopods etc etc

Don't add it up...simple as

I get a sicky feeling when I think about the value my camera gear, which is made worse if I think about how much the film kit sitting in the loft is worth.

2xEOS 1VHS, EOS 1n, EOS 3, EOS 5, 2 x Pentax 67 - with lenses inc a full frame fisheye

I've got a colour enlarger and all the kit to go with that too.

Right that's enough of that, not being able to ride at the moment and thinking about lots of unused camera gear is doing me no good, I might have to do a bit of work to get over it

When I was burgled, my camera bag was in the front room, they opened it up looked and must have thought "wtf" and left it all, not easy to sell quick and heavy to carry so they left it, phew!

daviesee

Paul E wrote:

If I added up all I have spent on lenses its at least £3.5k without the camera bodies, flash guns, bags, tripods and monopods etc etc

Too true.

One day I had my bike, laptop and camera gear in the back of my car.

The contents were worth WAY much more than the car itself! :shock:

MichaelW

snooks wrote:

I get a sicky feeling when I think about the value my camera gear, which is made worse if I think about how much the film kit sitting in the loft is worth.

is there a market for decent 35mm kit?
Ive got an old OM2+flash and a neat little Ricoh GR1n.

Decent old lenses are worth retaining, you can get converters for most types to use on micro 4/3 bodies, even those useless Canon FD L-series lenses.

Confusedboy

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I've always liked the idea of getting into photography, but not enough to actually get a camera of my own. The last camera I owned was a Kodak Discman (remember those?) but I have a Pentax K10D to play around with for a couple of weeks so this could either really kindle a new hobby or remove any artistic pretentions I have, for good.

As a complete novice, I am blown away by the number of buttons, settings, menus (and sub-menus) and options there are on the Pentax. Throw in the two lenses (Kenko MC Skylight [1A] 52mm and a Tamron 70-300mm 1:4-5.6) and I'm baffled. I just took the Tamron lens out of the camera case and found another doohickey I hadn't seen before.
So far I have lots of pictures of the cat. On some of them you can even see that its a cat and not just a furry blob.

I think I may have to go into a Halfords and ask some complicated questions to the bike monkey working in there to restore my sense of superiority!

Stick at it, Eke. A good 90% of a good photograph is the photographer's ability to see it in the first place; the very best equipment contributes no more than 10% at most. And cats are little b@stards to take good shots of, as they have a natural ability to merge into backgrounds and the innate intelligence to know when they are winding you up. As such they are very good to practice on, as they will force you to become aware of the need to visualise the potential shot holistically-will the subject stand out from the background, how can I make it stand out, and so on. One of my cats is black and white, and a swine to expose for correctly in almost any light! You could try easier subjects to learn on....

And don't forget that part of the 'art' of using a digital camera is that you can use the ability of whatever computer app you have to do things after the shot has been loaded onto the computer. This means that, for instance, you can deliberately allow the original shot to be fairly seriously underexposed and still 'correct' that in Photoshop Elements, Lightroom, IPhoto on a Mac, or whatever you use, bringing out detail and texture which initially appears lost in the shadows of the shot in it's orignal form.

I would suggest buying a reasonable quality, perhaps second hand, 'prosumer' type of camera intiially, and maybe enrolling on a night school course to get to grips with composition, framing/cropping, and such. You may find it adequate for your needs, and you will be able to learn much using it. If you find it restricting what you are doing, and want to take photographs it will not allow you to, this is a good indication that you will benefit from the extra versatility of a DSLR, at which point you can eBay the prosumer.

As for buttons, menus, sub-menus, and doohickeys, it will all become clearer over time as you use the camera. The learning curve which starts with you opting for default 'Auto' will continue when you start looking for things 'Auto' will not do; you may, for instance, want to freeze action with a fast shutter speed and realise that you need to use 'shutter priortiy' for that, and, as a whole new universe of hitherto undreamed of fast ISO speeds and wide apetures (and noise) opens up to you, the learning process furthers itself....

snooks

MichaelW wrote:

snooks wrote:

I get a sicky feeling when I think about the value my camera gear, which is made worse if I think about how much the film kit sitting in the loft is worth.

is there a market for decent 35mm kit?
Ive got an old OM2+flash and a neat little Ricoh GR1n.

Just looked and the price of a EOS 1VHS sold on Ebay is around £300.

Cost me over £1600 new of course :roll:

FoldingJoe

iPete,

I have the older 20mm 1.8 on my GF-1. Great lens, super fast.

Haven't seen any shots with the 14mm, but obviously the 2x crop make the 14mm a more of an interesting proposition at the wider end.

snooks

Confusedboy wrote:

And don't forget that part of the 'art' of using a digital camera is that you can use the ability of whatever computer app you have to do things after the shot has been loaded onto the computer. This means that, for instance, you can deliberately allow the original shot to be fairly seriously underexposed and still 'correct' that in Photoshop Elements, Lightroom, IPhoto on a Mac, or whatever you use, bringing out detail and texture which initially appears lost in the shadows of the shot in it's orignal form.

I'm sorry I'm going to have to disagree with you there. The art of using a digital camera is the same as using a film camera.

Subject matter
Exposure
Timing
Composition

The same rules apply. Yes Digital might be more forgiving, but the "art" is getting it right in camera. It's called "Photography" which is the capture of light (visible and non visible), not the moving of pixels which is post production.

If you capture the light right to begin with you don't have to do anything on the computer. (except adjusting it for printing)

If all the detail is in the image when you capture it you have your options open, but knowing what detail you want to retain in the beginning makes the process further down the line much easier.

iPete

FoldingJoe wrote:

iPete,

I have the older 20mm 1.8 on my GF-1. Great lens, super fast.

Haven't seen any shots with the 14mm, but obviously the 2x crop make the 14mm a more of an interesting proposition at the wider end.

Thanks, as a day to day camera how does the GF + 20mm work for you? Any galleries you could share?

Edit: found this gallery, http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulicutin ... 92/detail/

Gussio

iPete wrote:

Gussio, as far as I know just look for an Ixus in your price bracket with a higher number!!

Thanks! Black Canon IXUS 220 HS ordered from Amazon for £160. £15 cheaper than the same model in silver. Go figure.

Paul E

snooks wrote:

Confusedboy wrote:

And don't forget that part of the 'art' of using a digital camera is that you can use the ability of whatever computer app you have to do things after the shot has been loaded onto the computer. This means that, for instance, you can deliberately allow the original shot to be fairly seriously underexposed and still 'correct' that in Photoshop Elements, Lightroom, IPhoto on a Mac, or whatever you use, bringing out detail and texture which initially appears lost in the shadows of the shot in it's orignal form.

I'm sorry I'm going to have to disagree with you there. The art of using a digital camera is the same as using a film camera.

Subject matter
Exposure
Timing
Composition

The same rules apply. Yes Digital might be more forgiving, but the "art" is getting it right in camera. It's called "Photography" which is the capture of light (visible and non visible), not the moving of pixels which is post production.

If you capture the light right to begin with you don't have to do anything on the computer. (except adjusting it for printing)

If all the detail is in the image when you capture it you have your options open, but knowing what detail you want to retain in the beginning makes the process further down the line much easier.

Exactly, if you don't get it right to start with you are screwed, you can change things yes and to more of a degree than manual developing (which I have done).

Crushing the blacks afterwards is fine but if you do that at the time of exposure no software in the world can get the shadow detail back.

FoldingJoe

iPete wrote:

FoldingJoe wrote:

iPete,

I have the older 20mm 1.8 on my GF-1. Great lens, super fast.

Haven't seen any shots with the 14mm, but obviously the 2x crop make the 14mm a more of an interesting proposition at the wider end.

Thanks, as a day to day camera how does the GF + 20mm work for you? Any galleries you could share?

Edit: found this gallery, http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulicutin ... 92/detail/

Very well, although I use it mainly for portrait\family shots and if I had the time would probably use it for street photography. I use the 20mm probably 98% of the time, although I do like messing around with an old Konica Hexanon 40MM I have which can produce some good portrait shots as well.

Good review of the the GF-1 and 20mm here.

http://craigmod.com/journal/gf1-fieldtest/

Got a nice B&W shot of my daughter that I will post up at some point.

moonio

Wow lots of shooters here, isnt cycling and photography/filming such a wonderul combination..
I shoot with 3 cameras, a Nikon D70 DSLR, a Panasonic lumix DMC-FS30 compact which I carry around at all times, and I shoot video on a Canon HV40.

A link to my flickr here http://www.flickr.com/photos/56502363@N04/sets/
and vimeo here http://www.vimeo.com/user2987862/videos

Paul E

This is one of my favourites, taken a while ago though


Lloyds Building by Paul D Evans, on Flickr

Which was taken on an old 20D with the boggo kit lens (18-55 plastic fantastic)

moonio

I've recently been experimenting with colour infrared, here is one I took a few weeks ago

iPete

The GF-3 & 20mm f/1.7 looks really appealing now. Here are some snaps from this weekend away, I think I'd get more people shots with a smaller camera and my mates would be able to use it with touch screen focus/shoot etc.

Cider faces!

IMG_7912 copy by PeterJDH, on Flickr


IMG_7880 copy by PeterJDH, on Flickr


IMG_7962 copy by PeterJDH, on Flickr

Stitching:

Untitled_Panorama1 copy by PeterJDH, on Flickr


IMG_7804-PS by PeterJDH, on Flickr


Untitled_Panorama2 copy by PeterJDH, on Flickr

Can save the DSLR for one day having a go at more stuff like this:


Durdle Door by PeterJDH, on Flickr


IMG_5150_48_49_TM-PS by PeterJDH, on Flickr


Durdle Door, Dorset by PeterJDH, on Flickr

Confusedboy

snooks wrote:

Confusedboy wrote:

And don't forget that part of the 'art' of using a digital camera is that you can use the ability of whatever computer app you have to do things after the shot has been loaded onto the computer. This means that, for instance, you can deliberately allow the original shot to be fairly seriously underexposed and still 'correct' that in Photoshop Elements, Lightroom, IPhoto on a Mac, or whatever you use, bringing out detail and texture which initially appears lost in the shadows of the shot in it's orignal form.

I'm sorry I'm going to have to disagree with you there. The art of using a digital camera is the same as using a film camera.

Subject matter
Exposure
Timing
Composition

The same rules apply. Yes Digital might be more forgiving, but the "art" is getting it right in camera. It's called "Photography" which is the capture of light (visible and non visible), not the moving of pixels which is post production.

If you capture the light right to begin with you don't have to do anything on the computer. (except adjusting it for printing)

If all the detail is in the image when you capture it you have your options open, but knowing what detail you want to retain in the beginning makes the process further down the line much easier.

Anything I say or write or post here, unless I claim it to be incontravertable fact, is my opinion, and there is no law anywhere that says anyone has to agree with my opinion. It is (barely) conceiveable that my opinion may be wrong. However, I still contend that, in my opinion, knowingly recording an image which does not display all of the information it contains untll it is post-edited is a perfectly valid method of taking a photograph in accordance with your four principles, with which I have no issue; one is not moving pixels around but altering thier values. It is simply the application of modern tech to those four principles, in particular Exposure. Exposure still takes place when the shutter is released, as that is when the sensor records the information and writes it to the memory card, and, as long as all the information possible has been recorded, your exposure is 'correct' irrespective of whether all the information is visible until post-editing has brought it out. And I described this as merely 'part of' the art of digital photography, and did not claim it to be more than that.

I regard post editing of this sort as analagous to film processing, in which techniques can be used to lighten or darken areas of the image, and different from techniques such as cloning, which are image manipulation and more analagous to air-brushing. To this point of view, post-editing functions such as atlering exposure, fill ligh/recovery, contrast, brightness and so on, in which pixel values are altered, are part of the process of creating the image which begins with the shutter release in the camera, Cloning, cropping/levelling, 'repair' and the like, in which the pixels are moved around, are ways of manipulating the image after it has been created, but I do not regard the process of creating the image to neccessarily be compled in the camera. It was not so in the days of film and is still not so, though digital tech has altered the perception of the image creating process a bit.

It is stil desirable to attempt to make the exposure as 'correct' as possible when you press the shutter release, as it will make the rest of the work of creating the image easier, and there are occasions when no further work is required, but in my view, one should not regard the image as it appears on the review screen of one's camera as the last word on the matter.

EKE_38BPM

See, this is the problem I have with arty stuff. So many opinions.

I like numbers and maths. You are either right (1+1=2) or wrong (1+1=3).
I remember in Art class at school a fellow student painted a rubbish picture and the teacher give it a low mark, but said student had the gift of the gab and told the teacher that it meant this and represented that, had the painting re-graded and got a very good mark.
In arty stuff you can do any old rubbish and if you have a good story to back it up, (gullible) people believe you and thinks its amazing, darling.

Now, to fiddle with the camera and learn how to use, at least some, of the buttons. So far I've found the delete button the most useful!

EKE_38BPM

Double post.

FoldingJoe

This was taken with the GF-1 and 20mm



Edit: Not sure how to show image in the same format as yours iPete?

Paul E

FoldingJoe wrote:

This was taken with the GF-1 and 20mm



Edit: Not sure how to show image in the same format as yours iPete?

You posting it from flickr?

iPete

In Flickr select Share at the top and then Grab HTML/BB Code, select BBCode at the bottom and size you want, copy and paste the text, done. Took me some googling to work it out!

mkirby

Not read the whole thread. But wanted to add my slant.

I shoot Medium Format with a Pentax 645. It beats any full frame digital into the ground for quality and resolution. The lenses are amazing and they can be had for not a lot of money.

Its about as large as a full frame DSLR and heavy but is rock solid. It is completely manual which is good, it means you actually learn what you are doing and how to take a shot.

Worth looking into especially if like me landscapes are your thing.

Anonymous

If I remember correctly Panasonic are the digital 'brains' behind Leica's digital cameras.

Once upon a time there were near identical cameras in Panasonic's and Leica's range, the only difference being the case and the menus were made to look different. Of course the Panasonic was considerably cheaper.

I don't know 100% if this is still the case, but I suspect it is.

On a side note, no Nikon users here? I have a 5 year old D200 and Nikkor 17-55G f2.8. Love the D200, but can't wait for the replacement for the D300s to be announced. I have funds waiting, as soon as I can pre-order it I'll be on it!

Paul E

mkirby wrote:

Not read the whole thread. But wanted to add my slant.

I shoot Medium Format with a Pentax 645. It beats any full frame digital into the ground for quality and resolution. The lenses are amazing and they can be had for not a lot of money.

Its about as large as a full frame DSLR and heavy but is rock solid. It is completely manual which is good, it means you actually learn what you are doing and how to take a shot.

Worth looking into especially if like me landscapes are your thing.

Medium format will as it has a lot bigger negative/sensor area, it doesn't mean the quality from say my few years old 5D is not good but it can't compare if you thing is landscapes.

I shoot my 5D on full manual esp if I am shooting with a flash gun or in a studio, it does teach you the interaction between shutter speed iso and aperture and it's the one thing I hate about my little panasoniuc lumix point and shoot, the lack of control and the lack of speed in the shutter.

Paul E

RichardSwt wrote:

If I remember correctly Panasonic are the digital 'brains' behind Leica's digital cameras.

Once upon a time there were near identical cameras in Panasonic's and Leica's range, the only difference being the case and the menus were made to look different. Of course the Panasonic was considerably cheaper.

I don't know 100% if this is still the case, but I suspect it is.

On a side note, no Nikon users here? I have a 5 year old D200 and Nikkor 17-55G f2.8. Love the D200, but can't wait for the replacement for the D300s to be announced. I have funds waiting, as soon as I can pre-order it I'll be on it!

Not a user but I have assisted on a film shoot where we were using a nikon for it's hd res and the low light capability, it was awesome to use and very little noise even at silly iso's