Choosing a Camera

[jcuknz]

I think - as they say in the ad - "you're dreaming mate".

Well you are obviously not thinking properly with your pre-occupation with your DSLRs ... they may sell well to the general public and need the larger sensor for that, maybe, but are hardly anything special in photographic circles.
As you said yourself earlier in this thread it is easier using a DSLR.

Grahame ... shooting macro or 1:1 or double extension is precisely that .... back in the fifties I used that knowledge to work out the focal length of a lens. It is convienient to use a close-up lens on a longer lens to overcome its inability to focus close, really the only option with a fixed lens camera where it is widely used, but when we talk about ILCs with the lens and camera separate entities it is merely a question of how you arrange extension .... when copying part of a 16mm film frame [7<8mm subject onto 35mm film which is 36mm wide] I used an extension tube-set on the camera and another on the lens and coupled them together with a short length of plastic tube ... working in my darkened basement so light leaks were of minimal effect ... I call that lateral thinking by somebody not hamstrung with what Canikon provide. Later when I had a bellows I used the 25mm lens from my Bolex movie camera to achieve x9 magnfication with the same camera 4mm of subject filling the 36mm wide negative.

Here using just a 50mm for less magnification ...

The longer the lens the more extension required ...but the longer the lense the more room you have for lighting though here as often I shoot by available light.

With my home made mounting to protect the Nikon lens from the weight of the 50mm lens. I forget but the file number suggests I used the Canon s20 P&S to photograph the Nikon Coolpix 5700 Though it might have been the D60.

In fact it wasn't until the digital age that I had either a Canon or Nikon camera ... they maybe the herrings of the photo world but not the only potential catch by any means.

[jcuknz]

Continuing on with my play ....
I mounted the 25mm movie lens on my half-plate adapted to 5x4 bellows camera and the model is so close you can hardly see him.

The camera's original lens was an f/8 Rapid Rectilinear and these lenses are in two halves. Used together it was an 8 inch lens ... using just one half it becomes a 15 inch lens. One night I used my Pentax 35mm to photograph the moon .... no lens in the camera and the back of the plate camera removed and just half of its lens. It was quite tricky as the moon crosses the sky quite quickly and I first had to set up the bellows camera with its ground glass screen then remove it and hold the pentax in focus ... great fun

I hope all this gives you ideas CC for the future when you want to do something out of the ordinary landscape ... which I rarely take becuase at school we were told Landscape photography was the hardest form of photography and would not be covered ... so I rarely take other than snaps for record as a field I have never learnt. The funny thing is that the usual starter often spend their time shooting landscapes in blissful ignorance of how hard it is.

[Colin Southern]

Well you are obviously not thinking properly with your pre-occupation with your DSLRs ... they may sell well to the general public and need the larger sensor for that, maybe, but are hardly anything special in photographic circles.

John, I give up. At this point I really don't know if you're just trolling, or something else, but as far as I'm concerned, it's just gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

All I can say from myself and on behalf of other professional photographers who "walk the walk" is that there are many good reasons we invest tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars in our SLR cameras and lenses. If we could create the same landscapes using only point and shoot cameras then I'm sure that most of us would do just that, but the reality is we can't.

If you think you can, then great -- lets see some full resolution examples that you've created, and we'll see how they compare. Good luck.

[jcuknz]

I apologise for creating frustration in you becuase that is far from my purpose.

The point is that your opinions are influenced by the path you have choosen and I believe that you are a professional.

I am not and in any case have different aims when I take photos. I respect and admire the quality of your work which I equate to the top studio worker in the old days working with perhap a Linhoff.

But I simply am not interested in doing that sort of work or have the opportunity and value the advantages of working with a bridge or MFT compared with the clunky DSLR, particularly a full frame version.

I am glad back in 2004 to have been forced into getting a digital age camera instead of equating SLR with DSLR as I have mentioned quite frequently now.

You and others may consider me a troll which perhaps I am but really I state the situation as I see it and pick holes in arguments which I do not consider valid.

I also see little point in posting examples of 'X' camera being so good when the result is published at perhaps around 600<700 pixels here .... that is partly the basis of my statement that a good P&S [ Canon G ] can produce equal images at up to A3 and for starters that is probably what they should and will want to produce. and certainly if shooting for a projected competition at 1620x1080 pixels.

So I suggest you stop talking on behalf of professionals becuase I am not critising them or you, and there is little argument that they do not need to spend up in that way .... but CC's budget is UKP333 and I am making valid arguments to meet that budget and warning him of the slippery slope that buying a DSLR may start one on and I think you have mentioned before now. Even with MFT there is a danger ... why the camera I have been waiting for is a 17x13 sensored FZ50 but R&D has gone in different directions.

Your targets are not my targets so I decline your invitation as a pointless exercise in one upmanship and I have no need for that sort of thing.

[Colin Southern]

So I suggest you stop talking on behalf of professionals becuase I am not critising them or you, and there is little argument that they do not need to spend up in that way ....

Likewise the 'wicked' shots of Colin could all have been taken with a good P&S camera ... if the photographer knows how

So in summary, there's little argument that professionals need to "spend up in that way", but you say "my landscapes could have been taken with a P&S", but when asked to back that up with a little "walk the walk" instead of just "talk the talk", we get ...

Your targets are not my targets so I decline your invitation as a pointless exercise in one upmanship and I have no need for that sort of thing.

Thanks for clearing that up John ... pretty sure I understand things now ...

[RobertsMx]

Eugen,

Over two years ago, I considered a second camera body and decided to build system for less. I picked up a Sony NEX-3 (14 MP, APS-c sensor) with its kit lens (18-55/3.5-5.6 OSS) for $320. I am in the US.

One of the main reasons for getting this camera was to engage more in manual photography with cheap old lenses. In the early days, this is how my system looked:
Sony 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS (OSS is optical stabilization which Sony E-mount cameras use)
Vivitar Series I 70-210mm f/2.8-4 (Konica AR mount, $90)
Soligor 24mm f/2.8 (Minolta MD mount, $40)
Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 (M42 screw mount, $40)
Elicar 90mm f/2.5 V-HQ Macro 1:1 (Contax-Yashica mount, $90)
Adapters (about $40)

Total Cost: $620.

I later found a deal on a new Rokinon 8mm f/2.8 Fisheye lens, and picked it up for $250. Eventually, the NEX-3 also turned into my back up camera body. My main system is Sony A-mount. So, I picked up an adapter for $90 (Sony LA-EA1) and was able to use any of my A-mount lenses as well. At a later date, I decided to also use AF (so far, my only AF lens was the kit lens) and invested in a more advanced adapter (Sony LA-EA2) for $250 and now I also use the NEX-3 to shoot action/sports with AF and many old Minolta lenses can be found for little money. To give you an idea, here's my "back to the 1980s" A-mount collection:
Sigma 24mm f/2.8 ($28), tiny lens, good quality
Minolta 35-70mm f/4 ($30), tiny zoom lens, excellent quality
Minolta 70-210mm f/4 ($90), an excellent telephoto internal zoom lens, also known as "beer can"
Minolta 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 ($0, included with the beer can)
Soligor 135mm f/3.5 ($0, included with the beer can, this is an M42 screw mount lens)
Minolta 50mm f/1.7 ($14, found this at a resale shop with a dusty old Minolta 9000 body)

Your choices in Romania may be limited, and not sure how easy it would be to get things online for you, but something different to consider. Any questions welcome.

BTW, if you do want to explore manual photography, Sony NEX system is excellent. Recently, I also discovered Sony 55-210mm OSS lens, which is the telephoto kit lens for NEX, for $150 (normally sells for $250-300). So, my NEX-3 + 18-55 + 55-210 (both lenses are optically stabilized, and AF) itself cost me only $470. And here's a macro taken handheld with NEX-3 (lens is Sigma 70mm f/2.8):

[AB26]

Hi Eugen,

I guess you got to make the final decision.
At night, under incandescent light.

#1 Shot with a Fuji T300 14MP P&S. Mode Natural + Flash (Full auto) Best camera can do. I had to give the P&S a bit of an advantage by allowing flash.


#2 Shot with Sony DSC HX100V 16.2 MP Bridge camera (Intelligent Auto) Best camera can do.


#3 Shot with an outdated Nikon D200 10.2MP in full Manual mode because it does not have an Auto mode. Photographer chooses what to do.


All shot using a tripod from the same position under the same light. ZERO post processing only resized to be able to upload. The Sony and Nikon images were cropped a tad to fit in with the Fuji image.

I rest my case.

[jcuknz]

As Colin says this thread is getting ridiculous .... All I am saying is that there are good alternatives to the DSLR, particularly an old one, and I am glad I took them.

AB26's Nikon is a pretty cold result and with a little PP I produced from the Sony a much more pleasing result to my eyes. Though it and the Fuji may confirm a suspicion of mine that I was lucky to happen on Panasonic when I added it to my Nikon bridge because neither purchase was based on photographic capabilities of the gear ... that was the unforeseen bonus.

I hope I am not trying to win this silly argument becuase I am quite correct in saying Colin's images could have been taken with a quality small sensor camera. If you want to make bigger than A3 then get yourself a DSLR if you think it is the edge you need ... that is a condition to Colin's business so he spends his money differently than I do.

Manu's bug eye is quite wonderful ... lovely shot though with the same lens I'm sure MFT would be tighter.

I shot in manual for many years, hand-held meter and all that, and enjoy letting the camera do the work while I decide what to take these days which is the important aspect.

[jcuknz]

This maybe what Colin wanted me to do but I thought this was an interesting experiment to compare my five working digital camera. I may repeat part of it tonigth if it is not raining as I think AB26's first shot is not representative of what a bridge camera from the right source can do and is quite contrary to my expectations.

First my second digital camera which at 10yo seems to be over exposing It is a 3.3Mp P&S with few controls.
Has not been used for perhaps three years now. SOOC and after a quick use of curves bottom right to be fair to what it used to turn out and win club compettions for me against SLRs before most changed to digital.

All these now are using 800x600 pixels from each file size varies due to Mp of each camera 3.3Mp<16Mp
Nikon 5Mp bridge ..had problems getting something like 100mm AoV with it power zoom

Panasonic FZ50 10Mp

MFT Olympus E-PL1. Cost US$178 from KEH MFT-M42 adaptor <$20 Lens $25 from Cash Converters in Charleston SC 1996 ... another $25 for a matching Takumar 135mm f/2.5 plus $10 for the Pentax body water damaged which stopped working after about three films ... E-PL1 12Mp

And my USD$1400 GH2 and 14-140 lens plus import duty/GST on lens of about NZ$300 You pay for what you want and DSLR would have probably been cheaper .... but not what I wanted

It will be interesting to see how MFt compares with a DSLR with a 800x600 crop of original pixels SOOC.

[Lloydexodus]

Joined to day and absolutely lost?

[jcuknz]

Joined to day and absolutely lost?

Welcome to CiC and you could well ignore this thread as an example of a stubborn person battling conventional thinking.

It is also useful if you add your general location because if you ask where/how can I buy "x" it can differ considerably depending on what part of the world you live in. If you have a problem or puzzlement tell the group and there will be an answer for you very quickly, there are also excellent tutorial pages by highly cluied up people to browse and study as well as tools. This thread was started by somebody in Romania and purchasing possibilities are much more limited for him than for somebody in the States or me 'down under' it seems from what he has told us.

[Colin Southern]

Joined to day and absolutely lost?

Hi Lloyd,

Pop an introduction into the introductions thread, and tell us a little bit about you so we can give you a proper CiC welcome

[AB26]

I may repeat part of it tonigth if it is not raining as I think AB26's first shot is not representative of what a bridge camera from the right source can do and is quite contrary to my expectations.

No John, the first image is from a Fuji T300, a cheap P&S - and it is not representative of all Fuji cameras.
Unfortunately I could not use the Panasonic TZ2 as it might have performed much better than the Fuji. The Panasonic packed up two months ago, the first camera ever to pack up on me. The sensor just started "flowing" magenta and then purple after taking a shot.

The second shot is actually a compilation of 6 shots, if you understand what the Sony does under low light conditions.

What I am trying to illustrate here is that even a used, outdated DSLR will give you much more freedom to be creative than any of the other non DSLR cameras can do.

We all have personal opinions about the gear we use but we should not let our personal opinion influence our objectivity about the gear we use.

Look at what the Pro's do and learn from them.

[jcuknz]

Thankyou Andre, that saves me going out Though even a simple P&S should work better than that particularly if you had NOT used the flash ... this was one of the first things I noticed about digital when I got my first digital a o.3Mp Cooli-pix.

Sad to hear about your TZ ... the Nikon wouldn't focus a few years back and the NZ agents fixed that free of charge ... on reflection I wonder if it was simply a resetting to factory settings which I had not thought to try ... I had no communication about it from them, just a returned working again camera. Sent to the wrong address, incorrect typing of numbers, which often happens between our two houses so I was quickly told of my parcel.

[Colin Southern]

I was going to shoot Ashley with a P&S, but she threatened to shoot me first if I did. And she shoots to kill ...

[Dave Humphries]

and I note she appears to be aiming to break your heart

[Colin Southern]

and I note she appears to be aiming to break your heart

Might have been a long lens

[ajohnw]

If you are on a tight budget I would advise getting a camera with built in flash what ever type it is especially if you are interested in macro work. Or a clip on flash of course.

The general comment about saving money by buying second hand is sound for any make. Ideally this wants to be a make were you can find out how much use the camera has had. It is possible to get at exposure counts on some models but don't let the lack of that put you off. As to how old I'm not entirely sure that matters providing it's in good condition. I still have an original Canon Digital Rebel and it's still capable of taking good pictures and it's pixel count is adequate for PC screen work. I also have several Canon film lenses to go with it. The late versions of these are compatible - not the FD mount.. As these are good lenses they still tend to attract high prices. The early Canon so called kit lenses are another matter and are probably the reason some makes of kit lens have poor reputations. However when shots are reduced to PC screen sizes this aspect is probably irrelevant. Small prints maybe to A4 size too.

Seeing an E-PL1 shot posted and now being a keen micro 4/3 man it's worth making some comments on these. I went down the Olympus route. As these come they are more or less point and shoot and generally make a decent job of things. An option in the menu system reveals a whole host of settings that give extensive control of the camera. The ease of using these settings depends on the cost of the camera. Olympus have also chosen to make the performance of the camera dependent on price via software as well. An E-P3 does a better job of focusing in low light than an E-PL1 for instance even though they use the same sensor. The biggest downside to this range is largely shooting in bright sunlight or use by people that need reading glasses. It's a bit like using a compact however all of the cameras have programmable buttons so if the screen can be shaded as with a compact and peoples eyes can actually focus on it all is ok. Otherwise they need the viewfinder which is an expensive option. You might find a cheap 12.3mp E-P3 within your budget. The 2 kit lenses that are available for these are both excellent lenses but you can also use Panasonic lenses. I use the 100-300mm for instance. I don't rate the Panasonic 45-200mm and am glad the prices have gone up so will get more when I sell it. I am a pixel peeper though. The Olympus 40-150mm is a much better lens. Panasonic micro 4/3 - some come with the viewfinder. It isn't a good idea to use Olympus lenses on these as Olympus have image stability built into the camera body. I have used a manual 500mm lens hand held on these via an adapter. Focusing is a problem but with care stability isn't. The focusing problem is down to the need to use a magnified view. At least by 7x for really critical focusing and there is no image stabilisation while focusing. It's only active when the shot is taken. Trying to keep effectively a 3500mm lens on target and steady by hand is a bit of a problem. Not tried it yet but the OMD EM-5 should cope as does have full time image stabilisation.

There are a number of macro shots taken with an E-PL1, it's built in flash and a 100mm Pentax manual macro lens in the link in my signature. All hand held and focused as usual in macro work by moving the camera with the 7x magnified view. Many of them needed a slower F ratio to increase the depth of field. The available flash power is more than adequate for that. These days auto extension tubes are available very reasonably, these plus the 40-150mm would make the whole job a lot easier. Unfortunately my photographic opportunities have taken a dive since taking those shots but indications are that the set up should work well. Same on panasonic with the 40-200mm which has built in image stabilisation.

There are also a number of other shots taken with an E-PL1 in the link. Also a load taken recently with an E-M5 Some a bit strange as was playing with exposures to get to know the camera. All of these cameras seem to benefit from more or less disregarding the dark end and making sure highlights are correctly exposed. The dark end can be corrected via processing even from jpg's. These cameras can be set to show over and under exposure areas in the preview shown after the shot is taken. The highlight comment relates to the default camera jpeg tone curve - that can be played with on most of these cameras as well.

People can save a lot of money on the processing side by running Linux. I do but from choice. The easiest route to that is probably dual booting Ubuntu. I use OpenSuse but software installation in some cases may be a bit more complicated. Best go for the current stable releases and not go near the newer ones. The distributions web forums can always help with all aspects. For most processing I would recommend Fotoxx. It will easily do all of what most people need. I also use Photivo and Hugin as plugins to that and occasionally the Gimp. I also use Ufraw for processing raw files for say fake hdr type tasks. Or even Ufraw directly from Fotoxx. There are a lot good video tutorials available for Fotoxx - this is a big big plus for new comers as they are complete.

A hidden cost related to processing is the monitor. The cheapest route to solve that problem is probably from Dell. The ones that come with a calibration certificate. You can get a good idea of what monitors do what from this site

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/

What is needed is a monitor that meets the sRGB spec as closely as possible without calibration. Or a monitor that will calibrate well. VeiwSonic usually have something available like that at very reasonable prices. The need for this comes about because many people will view shots on well set up monitors and the difference can be staggering. One common problem in this area is over sharpening. Dynamic range as well.

Linux can help with monitor calibrations as well via Argll colour management. A horrendously complex best but there is a gui available for it that makes calibration easy. The same software may be available for windoze too. It will work with all of the common calibrators but gives users a much better idea of what they have actually achieved rather than more or less just showing before and after photo's etc which don't really tell users anything about how good or bad a set up is. This thread on here gives some idea of what this software can do - people need to spend rather a lot of money on a calibrator to get output of this nature.

Any thoughts on LCD screen calibration and gamut coverage against colour temperature

This site is useful for choosing a calibrator - on the other hand if the one mentioned in the above link is used I doubt if anyone would notice any difference between the results obtained with a so called LED monitor capable calibrator.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews.html

Need to worry about all of this - no but there is a real need to bear in mind that most who get seriously into processing will eventually want to get a good monitor.

John
-

[jcuknz]

John ... you omited to mention that there are accessory viewfinders for the Olympus... I bought the VF-2 which at the time cost more than the camera $178 v. $205 ... it works well apart from not 'feeling' right compared to a built-in finder.

The interesting aspects of my exercise were firstly that the old M42 mounted, which I guess makes it at least 30 years old, Pentax Takumar 50mm f/1.4 gave me the sharpest result.

The second aspect from which I am gently laughing at myself is that during setting the GH2 up I 'noticed' a scale beside the image on the LCD which enables me to choose a small focus area ... so I am no longer mourning passing the G3, where I first discovered this feature, over to my son I had thought the earlier GH2 didn't have this feature which I believe is a key to accurate use of AF in the way I manually focused my earlier film cameras.

You are obviously an Olympus fan, I find the menus incomprehensible I largely treat it as a P&S having focus and aperture in the Takumar lens. Using the 'Auto-MAN' slider to focus at f/1.4 and shoot at f/16 etc ... the EVF maintains the same brightness in both positions.

[jcuknz]

Once again Colin I find your photograph very disturbing as during my Army service and being in my regimental shooting team I only point a gun at somebody I intend to kill, something I fortunately never had to do.