truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on Jun 6, 2014 3:48:43 GMT -5
Sometimes envy those having only one camera, they do not face the problem, which camera should I take out today... So, I have decided to take the Minolta AF 5000 for a spin, it needs some exercise. But which lens? Minolta AF prime or zoom, the nice puny Sigma 35-80, or maybe m42, Tamron? Hmm..
Someone else with this particular problem?
I like this old Minolta AF camera very much. Very simple, only program and fully manual. One could wish new cameras of today was that simple. In low light the AF hunts a bit, but manual focus is then a breeze with confirmation in the viewfinder.
So, I could not make up my mind, the Olympus XA2 got in the pocket in the last minute.
|
|
|
Post by olroy2044 on Jun 6, 2014 8:49:38 GMT -5
Good choice, Truls! My XA2 winds up in my pocket quite often
Roy
|
|
|
Post by Peltigera on Jun 6, 2014 9:52:30 GMT -5
I try to use all my cameras in turn. It helps that I only have 45 (or is it 46 or 47 . . .) so they all get a go at least once a year.
Currently using my Retina I with Agfa Vista+.
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Jun 6, 2014 9:55:45 GMT -5
I try to use all my cameras in turn. It helps that I only have 45 (or is it 46 or 47 . . .) so they all get a go at least once a year. Currently using my Retina I with Agfa Vista+. I've been looking through my '57 collection and there are a few cameras!! I will be using the Petri f1.9 next. Not exactly pocketable but looks and feels food. Possibly may use my Paxina 28 to finish the film.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 6, 2014 12:40:59 GMT -5
I use only two cameras. My splendid Pentax K-5 and my not so splendid but not really too bad Canon Power shot A1200 point and shoot. It has an eye level viewfinder (I would not have otherwise) and a comparatively short shutter lag.
I would like to use some of my 250+ film cameras but the cost of film and processing or of chemicals for my darkroom is just too high.
If only I could convert my wonderful Canon T90 to digital I would be happy as a ----------- almost anything.
Mickey
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 16:35:52 GMT -5
I'm with you, Mickey. I keep telling myself that one of these days I'll haul out one of my Nikons or a Zorki 3C or a FED 1D and shoot some film. But the day never seems to come. Beside, I would have a maximum of 36 exposures and it would cast me additional time and money to see the results. I guess I'm hooked on instant gratification.
W
|
|
matty
Lifetime Member
Posts: 126
|
Post by matty on Jun 7, 2014 3:09:50 GMT -5
Its Wales, its raining (again), everything is very grey and miserable. Weather is so bad I couldn't even be bothered getting out of bed to go to the car boot sale, even the dog doesn't want to go for a walk. Not worth using film at all today. If I do shoot anything, it will be digital, probably monochrome to help bring out the 50 shades of grey that make up the Welsh summer. Matty
|
|
hansz
Lifetime Member
Hans
Posts: 697
|
Post by hansz on Jun 7, 2014 4:31:50 GMT -5
Yashica T3 (with the Tessar) and a ZI Nettar 518/16 with colour film this time of year. Luckily the processing costs are still reasonable here in The Netherlands.
And the weather today is splendid!!!
Hans
|
|
truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on Jun 7, 2014 6:23:39 GMT -5
Gentlemen! Thanks for the encouraging responses, I feel a lot better I could use a high end compact like the Yashica T3 or T4, with sharp lens.. Another camera to look for. Does anyone have the Ricoh GR-series camera? They are sold at premium prices, but how good could they be? Film or digital? I found some time ago old negatives from my starting photo career, early 1980. I think if it have been digital images they would have been lost today. A negative is more archival if you understand, or is it? Wen scanning those old negatives a part of my life with precious memories came back, almost living those years again. Many people, not living today, reconstructed parts of town and places, and so on. My film photography is not so expensive. BW-films can be bulk loaded, and color can be developed fairly cheap when sent to the right company, may be only processing and a cd copy (or scan yourself). when applying some composition and thought when shooting, you get more keepers. Also, photos developed in a darkroom, have a quality one never can get from digital. Of cource I use my digital camera, Olympus M43. But most of the time film. May be I am skeptical to if I will find my images as the times passes...
|
|
truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on Jun 7, 2014 7:15:53 GMT -5
Its Wales, its raining (again), everything is very grey and miserable. Weather is so bad I couldn't even be bothered getting out of bed to go to the car boot sale, even the dog doesn't want to go for a walk. Not worth using film at all today. If I do shoot anything, it will be digital, probably monochrome to help bring out the 50 shades of grey that make up the Welsh summer. Matty Bad weather could make some good images. I'm with you, it is not very cool to wander outside when raining. I have two dogs, they need exercise in any weather, a camera is always in the bag. Here some images, not brilliant composition, I like them anyway. The last BW Fomapan 400, the day before the snow and winter came, last autumn.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jun 7, 2014 10:44:50 GMT -5
Things move on. Digital has got too many advantages, and like Mickey and Wayne it's pretty always something digital which goes as first choice. Sometimes I take a film camera along too, but in truth it is easier to get good results from the digital equipment, and cheaper too. (In this regard I'm meaning what comes out of the camera and its subsequent "development".) Yes, film can give "higher" quality. However to get real quality out of the darkroom one has to be pretty skilled. Even doing it oneself, it is not cheap. I do think a type of snobbishness develops. It is just too easy to produce decent results digitally: analogue is more difficult. Everyone talks about the quality that can come from film, but, in all honesty, how many people ever get close to producing anything of real quality?
I'm not sure which camera I take most. I'd have to sit down and add up what I have taken with which. Overall I do prefer an SLR (or bridge camera).
|
|
Doug T.
Lifetime Member
Pettin' The Gator
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by Doug T. on Jun 7, 2014 11:05:02 GMT -5
A FinePix S5200 together with an old Argus Seventy-Five
|
|
matty
Lifetime Member
Posts: 126
|
Post by matty on Jun 7, 2014 16:44:18 GMT -5
After moaning about the rain this morning the weather changed dramatically as I drove into work, blue skies and the sun beating down. The dog had her walk in the rain, typical dog logic, doesn't like rain but ready to jump in the sea at the drop of a hat, once she got out the door she bounced around like her usual mad self. On an early shift tomorrow so the Spotmatic is ready with my car keys, some sunrise shots (hopefully!) Matty
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 7, 2014 17:58:40 GMT -5
Trul's splendid rainy weather pictures prove there is no justification for wailing about it in Wales. Mickey
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2014 19:19:45 GMT -5
Dave: I'm not sure that today the claim that film is higher quality is still valid. The digital color I shoot has less "grain" than any film, with the possible exception of Kodachrome. And a least for me I can improve the overall look of an image more in Photoshop than I ever could in the darkroom. And I don't mean "improve" by creating colors that never existed. It's like if you shoot film in Hawaii. If you have it developed in a Hawaiian lab the ocean is so blue it hurts your eyes--just like it was when you shot the photo. If you bring the film back to the Mainland and have it developed the water in the prints is the muddy color of the local reservoirs. With digital you can make those adjustments easily yourself. First and foremost, however, is cost. On one of our trips overseas I might come back with 1,500 or more images. If I shot that many with film the cost of the film and processing would be as much as the cost of the trip! (I exaggerate only slightly). W. Things move on. Digital has got too many advantages, and like Mickey and Wayne it's pretty always something digital which goes as first choice. Sometimes I take a film camera along too, but in truth it is easier to get good results from the digital equipment, and cheaper too. (In this regard I'm meaning what comes out of the camera and its subsequent "development".) Yes, film can give "higher" quality. However to get real quality out of the darkroom one has to be pretty skilled. Even doing it oneself, it is not cheap. I do think a type of snobbishness develops. It is just too easy to produce decent results digitally: analogue is more difficult. Everyone talks about the quality that can come from film, but, in all honesty, how many people ever get close to producing anything of real quality? I'm not sure which camera I take most. I'd have to sit down and add up what I have taken with which. Overall I do prefer an SLR (or bridge camera).
|
|