|
Post by kiev4a on Dec 5, 2006 11:20:16 GMT -5
We're making plans to go to Europe in March. I have to admit that if I had the money I probably would pull the trigger on a Nikon D200. I hate the obsolesence aspect but it sure would be nice for the trip.
|
|
|
Post by paulatukcamera on Dec 5, 2006 14:53:56 GMT -5
Wayne, I don't know if this will encourage you to embrace the "work of the devil" but, the D200 is the cheapest Nikon that will allow you to use those old faithful AI lenses and still manually meter.
I tried the D50 in a shop with my f2 85mm and after a few minutes of trying to fathom it out, the manager took it over and said "this simply does not recognise it has a lens fitted" So I abandoned that idea and asked around. The expensive DXs will manually meter, but the D200 is a lot cheaper.
Some say buy a cheap Nikon DSLR and use the histogram, but that is a cumbersome method of metering.
So I await the D300 and the D200 dropping to my price level.
Talking to one of my dealer friends today, he says that there is an all out price war on with Nikon cameras. Weekly the price plummets. He told me to lower the price in his D200 advert to £876 from tomorrow - quite a drop from the £980 last month and the £1220 earlier in the year.
Might be already happening in your neck of the woods if you twist a dealer's arms!
I'll stick to the Panasonic FZ20 as my only digital - I think though its poor at high iso and has a poorer viewfinder than a DSLR, it is so portable & versatile that I can forgive it its few sins. Being so small it also enables me to carry a film camera around as well!
Paul
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Dec 5, 2006 16:10:46 GMT -5
OK, OK
You've convinced me - I'll try digital...
Send me one
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Dec 5, 2006 16:39:39 GMT -5
Paul:
I had pretty much concluded that the D200 was almost a must if I want to make use of my MF ai Nikon lenses. Besides, the D200 is heaviy enough to feel like a real camera. The problem is, my wallet isn't heavy enough--even with the prices declining somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Dec 5, 2006 16:58:04 GMT -5
Wayne - you must come to our Lake District!
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Dec 5, 2006 17:01:49 GMT -5
Paul: I had pretty much concluded that the D200 was almost a must if I want to make use of my MF ai Nikon lenses. Besides, the D200 is heaviy enough to feel like a real camera. The problem is, my wallet isn't heavy enough--even with the prices declining somewhat. Wayne, I can certainly echo this one. I'd have a D200 tomorrow but for the price Gene
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Dec 5, 2006 19:51:46 GMT -5
Wayne, I can certainly echo this one. I'd have a D200 tomorrow but for the price Gene[/quote] You have company that makes it three so far on this board alone. Bob
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Dec 6, 2006 12:38:39 GMT -5
John:
Don't know our schedule yet. My mate and her brothers and sisters are doing the planning. One of her brothers lives near Lakenheath--a teacher in the military dependents school there. I originally thought this was going to be a leisurly trip to the UK but seems to be turning into a "if it's Thursday this must be Rome" production involving six to eight people. No comment.
|
|
paul7
Contributing Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by paul7 on Dec 8, 2006 17:14:42 GMT -5
Okay Mickey, you talked me into giving it a try. My wife and I are leaving for Bermuda tomorrow for 5 days to get in some much needed R&R. I'll swing by Circuit City and pick up a digital camera on the way to the airport. When I get back I'll share my thoughts. Paul Just got back from Bermuda. I picked up an inexpensive Sony 3.2 mega pixel camera before we left. It was a retuned open box special. I took a few snaphots on the island to test it. I was impressed with the DOF. The level of detail is not as good as my film photos but not bad either. Perhaps a better digital camera would have captured more detail so I may not be comparing apples to apples.
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Dec 9, 2006 8:53:40 GMT -5
Just got back from Bermuda. I picked up an inexpensive Sony 3.2 mega pixel camera before we left. It was a retuned open box special. I took a few snaphots on the island to test it. I was impressed with the DOF. The level of detail is not as good as my film photos but not bad either. Perhaps a better digital camera would have captured more detail so I may not be comparing apples to apples. Paul, I'd say that little Sony did a pretty nice job as a small vacation camera. Some of the current models may give you a bit more detail but this looks like a good little P&S digi shooter to have around. Gene
|
|
paul7
Contributing Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by paul7 on Dec 10, 2006 12:14:45 GMT -5
Thanks Gene. Frankly I was surprised. Then again Bermuda is such an aesthetically beautiful place that I don't know if it's possible to take a bad picture there.
|
|
|
Post by majicman on Jan 29, 2007 22:09:32 GMT -5
I like the way Wayne put it "I enjoy the process necessary to shoot a film photo". Also "I think if you look at the backgrounds of a majority of the new members, you will discover they have come here because CC is different". Last year I bought a Nikon D70s with a number of different lenses and filters an investment of a couple of thousand of dollars. Since then I have taken about 8 thousand pictures with it most of the time set it on auto and let the camera do the rest . But then back to what Wayne said,"I enjoy the process necessary to shoot a film photo". But I have also saved a small fortune in developing. I have about 20 film cameras. I rarely buy any under 50 years old and mostly 120 or 620 film. The 620 I can make work with 120 film. A year later after buying the Nikon I pick a camera off my shelf that winds up being a film camera and shoot with that for a week and then pick another, But my favorite is the Mamyia C220f. I can honestly say I have jumped into the digital world and gave it a good shot but nothing beats a good film camera.
|
|
paul7
Contributing Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by paul7 on Feb 4, 2007 0:08:07 GMT -5
I agree with you Wayne. For me, digital doesn’t come close to matching the satisfaction that I get from using a film camera.
What troubles me however is my hypocrisy on the digital vs. film issue. For “still pictures” film rules in my mind. But for “motion pictures” I packed away my Super 8 and 16mm film equipment a long time ago in favor of BetaVision, VHS, and now MiniDV cameras.
|
|
|
Post by minoltaman on Feb 7, 2007 14:04:48 GMT -5
This has been a great discussion here folks. I enjoyed reading the debates between digital vs film and figured I'd leave me .02 cents.
Many here seem to be professional or semi-professional photographers which would account for their preferences for digital cameras. The large investment in DSLR's and their expensive lenses makes sense for them. The return on their investment (or a big chunk of it) is pretty much assured and the demands of the business world require the speed and compatability of digital photography.
For myself, I'm a photography enthusiast and I'm might shoot about 25 rolls of film (x $10 each for processing=$250) in a whole year. All my analog gear cost me about $275, that includes two nice Minoltas, 4 lenses (3 prime, 1 zoom), a few twin flash units, tripod, some filters and macro attachments. Between ebay and my combing the ubiquitous estate sales in my part of NY State I was able to put together 2 systems for such a ridiculously low sum. Plus I have a working Kalimar TLR 100, an old Exakta VXII and an old Mamiya 500DTL that I got for a combined $60.
So for a weekend warrior like myself, my analog systems are perfect for me. I have alot of control over my exposures which makes me think about the shot I'm taking. Also, delaying gratification by using film cameras is good practice for me and my mind....and maybe for many others, I recommed folks practice the art of delaying gratification.
If you get really good with your film cameras, you just know that 85-90% of your shots are going to be good. And you know that 5% will be really great.
In order to get a DSLR system similar to what I have now in analog, I'd probably need to invest an easy $4000-$5000, which is simply impractical for me and my photographic pursuits.
Plus, IMO, film cameras just look cooler than digital cameras.........
..........minoltaman puts on flame-retardant suit right about now!!!!!!
|
|
bobm
Contributing Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by bobm on Feb 7, 2007 16:45:20 GMT -5
No need man - I've got an EOS 5D but it's my old Yashica 635 and Exaktas with a Flek 20/25 or Biotar 75 that get the attention.....
|
|