|
Post by John Parry on Jan 7, 2009 4:12:35 GMT -5
Not really - just window shopping, and looking for thoughts. I've had usable results with the Optio point and shoot (the 'History' posts were shot with it), so I've been thinking about an SLR.
I like the idea of using good quality 'old' glass, so of course the Canons and the Pentaxes came to mind. The trouble with the Eos digitals (and the 1000D had some appeal, as I have a 1000FN with a couple of lenses for starters) is that even 'old' glass is expensive. The Pentax K-mounts are less so, although I've read several comments to the effect that they aren't as compatible as Pentax would have you think. Any thoughts on that?
There's also the issue of resolution. With a film camera you knew where you stood - if you bought an old 'top of the range' from any manufacturer it was going to be a better camera than a budget priced brand new one (a generalisation I know, but you get the point). That no longer applies, as a new budget priced camera is liable to have far higher resolution (and almost as many other features) as even the most expensive camera from just a couple of years ago. In that respect, cameras have gone the same way as computers. Even a humble laptop now has more storage capacity than there was available in the whole world thirty years ago ("640k is enough for anyone"!). How have other members come to terms with the pixel race?
Regards - John
|
|
casualcollector
Lifetime Member
In Search of "R" Serial Soligors
Posts: 619
|
Post by casualcollector on Jan 7, 2009 9:47:17 GMT -5
Hi John,
Like you, I've considered and reconsidered and thought again about a better digital than my point and shoot. The Epson RD-1 was an early favorite as I have some LTM lenses that could be used via a common adapter. Price was higher than I thought responsible at the time. Unfortunately Epson discontinued it and no one has picked up the ball.
Next thought was Nikon as I have a slew of adaptable mount lenses that I could fit with an "F" mount. I discovered that just about all of the Nikons refuse to work with the old "pronghorn" lenses and none of mine are of the AI or newer varieties. The "light at the end of the tunnel" viewfinder isn't very appealing either.
The viewfinder of the Pentax K-10D did appeal to me. Add to that the fact that I have "K" adapters for my adaptable lenses and K to M-42 adapter to use my screw mount lenses. Pentax was and is a strong contender for my money.
I've used Canons just about all of my photographic life so they are also a consideration. My Canon lenses, being manual focus models, are useless on just about all digital cameras. Certainly all that interest me. That Canon offers full 35mm format DSLRs is the most appealing feature. That they can be fairly easily adapted to use Nikon, M-42, Contax-Yashica and "K" mount lenses is appealing though using them would be a slow process. I have come into possession of several EOS film bodies and lenses recently so that increases my interest in Canon. The EOS 5D models are full frame and full viewfinder but around $3000 US. The other models suffer from the "tunnel finder" syndrome.
If you don't mind the tunnel finder any of the lower end Canon, Pentax and Nikon cameras are a good consideration.
For my purposes, the Canon EOS 5d is most interesting but the Pentax K-20d fits my budget much better.
I'm still sitting on the fence.
Bill
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2009 10:09:50 GMT -5
John:
I started with a used Nikon D100 and went to the D300. BUT that was because I already had Nikon lenses. If I had been starting from scratch I probably would have gone with the Pentax. The K20D Pentax is one heck of a lot cheaper that the comparable Nikon or Canon models and will meter with just about any Pentax mount lens ever made--including the M42 mount.
The K20D is probably as solidly built as my Nikon and has as good, if not better weatherproofing. I have a friend that has worked in a camera store for 40 years and swears by the Pentax and it's lens compatibility even though he gets to try all the new camera models.
There's a model under the K20D--don't remember the number, that is even cheaper and does good work. (K200D)
Also, I believe the pixel race is over. For most normal applications, anything over 10 megapixels is unnecessary--unless you want to blow stiff up to 4 feet by 6 feet. Six or 10 megapixels on a DSLR's larger sensor renders much better results than 12 megapixels on a point and shoot.
Wayne
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jan 7, 2009 10:50:45 GMT -5
I'm pretty much gone digital I've been using digital since 2002 and have used a number of digicams and DSLRs. Way too many. And to tell the truth I don't think there's a bad DSLR out there -- I've used Canon, Pentax, and Nikon and loved them all. I agree with Wayne that if I hadn't had so many Nikkors in my collection I'd probably have gone with Pentax. Their K200D is an amazing body at a good price point. It has many of the features of my Nikon D300. But if you like Canon, don't hesitate to consider them. The EOS mount is the most universally adaptable mount system there is, and you can use all your Nikkor and Pentax glass (K and M42) on a Canon body with adapters. You can now buy 'chipped' adapters that feed info back to the body so you can meter with the old lenses and get focus confirmation. A friend of mine has a Sony Alpha (formerly Minolta) and uses his large Minolta lens collection on it. As much as I respect DSLR's, I have a passion for small digicams that are easy to carry everywhere. My smallest is a Canon SD800 IS that fits into a pocket or small belt pouch and has pretty good image quality up to about ISO200, though I like it best at 80. My Canon G9 is my favourite all-around digicam due to its 35-220mm equiv zoom range and its very good image quality -- for a small sensor digi. It's not pocketable but it's not big either and it fits nicely into a belt pouch. It's a sophisticated camera with lots of manual control. My newest digicam is a Panasonic LX3 that I got primarily because I don't have any really wide angle in my digiverse. It offers 24-60mm equiv. A very limited zoom range, but startlingly good image quality even at higher ISO values. Images at 1600 are grainy, but usable. Mostly I use it at 24mm in 16:9 aspect ratio. Another thing -- nearly all modern digicams are image stabilized, and that's a feature you don't want to be without, imo. Sorry for the long-winded post. Gene
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2009 13:00:54 GMT -5
Wish you guys hadn't started talking digital. Looked on the Auction and ended up getting a near-new Nikon D50 as a backup for the D300. The D50 can use standard older Nikon AF lenses that won't work on the D40 or D60 models. It also is smaller and lighter than the D70. It has a 6 mp sensor and had developed sort of a cult status. I suspect this is the camera I'll haul around on a daily basis--assuming Sara doesn't break my other leg for buying it.
|
|
|
Post by herron on Jan 7, 2009 13:59:38 GMT -5
My wife has used her Canon SD400 a lot, and loves it. For a P&S it takes remarkably good pictures. I have the dSLR Canon 300-D ... and enjoy the fact it lets me use a lot of the nice old glass I have. I still always carry one of my Mamiya's with me, but I have to confess they are not used as often as they used to be (except for the lenses, which are remarkeable when used on my Canon dSLR), and it takes a while, unless I am on a specific shoot, to fill a roll. Besides, someplace for development is getting harder to find. I may soon restrict my film shoots to B&W, so I can process them myself. But it's all done with a sad heart. I really enjoy film work! ----- BTW Gene -- where did you see those metered adapters for the old glass?
|
|
casualcollector
Lifetime Member
In Search of "R" Serial Soligors
Posts: 619
|
Post by casualcollector on Jan 7, 2009 14:24:00 GMT -5
I may soon restrict my film shoots to B&W, so I can process them myself. But it's all done with a sad heart. I really enjoy film work! I'm in that boat with ya', Ron. I'll soon develop my first roll of B&W in over 20 years. A friend gave me a dozen rolls of various types. I'll have to experiment scanning them on my flatbed. Bill
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2009 14:47:02 GMT -5
I have a bunch of exposed but undeveloped Tri-X from when I was shooting with my Soviet RFs. If I mix some chemicals to develop it I may have to shoot a couple of new rolls of B&W just to keep my hand in. It has been a couple of years since I did any developing.
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jan 7, 2009 15:48:12 GMT -5
I may soon restrict my film shoots to B&W, so I can process them myself. But it's all done with a sad heart. I really enjoy film work! ----- BTW Gene -- where did you see those metered adapters for the old glass? Ron, that's pretty much the direction I've gone. I shoot B&W in my film cams and develop it at home. The other day though I ran a roll of Reala 100 through my Bessa RF. Although I've gone digital, mainly, I still do some shooting with the great film cams. The metered adapters? eBay. Mostly, back when I was interested in them, from places like Hong Kong. Could be there are some American distributors now. Gene
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jan 7, 2009 17:08:01 GMT -5
Wayne:
Developing's like riding a bike. You never really forget how to do it.
I recently developed a couple of FP4 rolls that were exposed nearly two years ago and left in a camera bag I no longer use. Because of the time lag I gave them half a minute extra in D76 and they developed fine. Latent images seem to be pretty tough!
PeterW
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jan 7, 2009 17:17:35 GMT -5
I'm still soldiering on with my Epson digital - all 2.1 megapixels of it. It's not exactly compact, but it still takes good pictures.
Like a lot of people I'd like a multi-mega pixel DSLR, but it'll have to wait till I can afford it. Like Stephen, I don't buy unless I've got the cash. Besides, with cash you can bargain. You can't so easily with credit.
John recently walked into our local Argus catalogue shop and saw a webcam he rather fancied. Only one left - original price £29.99, reduced to £19.99 to clear. John waved a £10 note. They laughed at first, but John asked to speak to the manager, and said he was serious. After a spot of haggling John walked out it - for £10. PeterW
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Jan 7, 2009 20:56:41 GMT -5
Don't you love it on here? Going digital to b&w processing techniques in ten easy moves - LOL !!
I'm going to go for the K200D I think. As its an entry level/beginners camera it should suit me down to the ground. I'm hoping it will give an 'in-focus' beep when used with manual lenses, as too many of my manual shots have begun to go fuzzy over the last few years. I see it does have a diopter adjustment though, which is nice, and hopefully one of my Praktica or Yashica telescope eyepieces will fit the viewfinder.
Maybe I'll have a go at off-camera flash work with it. I started doing some stuff along those lines but it was really too wasteful of film to do the experimentation necessary for anything like consistent results.
Thanks for the advice folks...
Regards - John
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2009 9:59:55 GMT -5
John: My Nikon has a light that comes on in the finder with a manual lens is in focus. It doesn't beep but I wish it did. That's a good idea. I think you'll enjoy the K200D. Here's a extensive review of the camera: www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk200d/Wayne
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jan 8, 2009 10:45:43 GMT -5
John,
I think you'll love the K200D. It's a very feature-rich DSLR.
My recollection is that Pentax does focus confirmation the same as Nikon -- with a little light that appears when focus has been achieved.
Nice choice!
Gene
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Jan 9, 2009 4:35:26 GMT -5
Thanks for the encouragement all. If I'd read that review I'd probably have gone for it anyway Wayne. The advice to shoot in raw doesn't seem a major problem - I didn't think the JPGs looked too bad anyway.
And the lack of a live view but a good viewfinder seems to be a positive advantage. Reliance on the former, and the absence of the latter was what made me want to move on from the Optio.
I've ordered it with the kit 18 - 55mm DA lens, and also gone for a Pentax FA zoom to get me started. Had to laugh. I'd ordered a silver lens as I thought the contrast with the black camera would look nice (I know - shut up!). Anyway, I got a call from the dealer. Turned out they didn't have the silver lens, but if I wanted the black one they would give me a discount. "Of course, your pictures will be much darker".
So that's where I've been going wrong all this time!
Regards - John
ps - Yes, he was joking!
|
|