SLR questions

[Graham 0]

Nikon is good, but not the best, especially when it comes to still-life, fashion and product shots. But for action and faster frame shooting requirments, Canon, Nikon and others are better.

[Graham 0]

Check out this link, and see the difference. And this is the 22mp not the 39mp... Put your mouse on each pic to see the difference...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/h3d-1.htm

[troutgeek 0]

Just joshing Graham. Now I wish I had a Hasselblad. Nope, won't happen anytime soon -- got two boys to get through college yet.

[KVRNut 0]

Newfie, you got a lot of real good advise here about getting your camera but don't be afraid of quality used gear. Most of my equipment is used and I'm happier than hell with it. Getting the good glass is a real good point but if you're like me, I have to go for bang for the buck first. That's the main reason I buy used when I can. What may not work for one shutterbug may be just what you need.

 

Tangler and Stu are right about getting a good tri-pod. This is one area where going cheap or light can cost you. I have a Compac Model CG/BB and that tri-pod is not a light weight by any means. Just ask Stu. This tri-pod puts any of my other tri-pods to shame. It can be a pain to lug around at times but when I need a solid tri-pod for long exposures, it's the first thing I reach for. When I lock the camera in position, it stays LOCKED and when you use a remote shutter release, you have no vibration that can wreck a good shot. Get one with a good head that can handle twice the weight of your camera and the heaviest lens you think you'll own and you won't be disappointed or let down by the dreaded tri-pod sag. My light duty tri-pods are going to be used for point and shoot cameras or converted to studio light holders.

 

Sorry guys but I have to fully agree with Tangler about film except I ain't gonna duck.

As far as prints are concerned, I find that good low ISO film does do a good job on the larger prints as I had to have one done for a friend for his condo up at a local ski hill. This print was larger than poster size (4x8 ft. multi-sheet) and had no grain. Wasn't cheap to have done but he felt the cost was worth it and was happy as hell with the quality from a cropped 35mm picture. I can't wait to get the metered viewfinder for the Bronica and start using the Velvia film just to see the end results as I've heard so much about how 4.5x6 transparencies look. Hopefully I can sell a few prints but then that's only after I feel the pictures I take are good enough to sell.

By the way, if I had the room, the knowledge, the time, and the money to set up my own dark room, you can bet your last dollar I'd do it in a heartbeat in spite of the bother or the smells. Guess it's a film lover thing.

 

Take Care!

Ernie

[Ashby 0]

I was looking at the Hasselblad site two days ago. That is an extreme piece of work there. That thing does everything for you. That price tag though, that is unreal. It makes for unreal pictures though.

 

Ashby

[Al Beatty 0]

Hi group & Graham,

 

The H to N comparison was stunning to say the least. Now I'm really kicking myself for selling my Hassleblad a few years ago. Take care & ...

 

Tight Lines - Al Beatty

www.btsflyfishing.com

Flyfisher magazine

[Wulff 0]

KVR Im willing to bet if I took a 100 17x11 image staken with identical parameters with both a film and say a 1DmkIIn (8mp) or 5D(12) you couldnt pick them out with ay high degree of accuracy. Probably upto poster size even.

 

Beyond that (poster size) Id probably tend to agree but can only guess and getting more than tha isnt really "practical". Ive seen all manr of digital images as posters that you couldnt tell. What film does have over digital is more dynamic range so again the final prints might be more pleasing to look at but then they arent te same image.

 

Im willing to bet if we looked at this months SI issue every single image was taken with a 8mp t 12mp digital. Probably most fashion mgs as well.

 

 

[Peterjay 0]

Pretty amazing - you can see why Hasselblads carry such a price tag. Still, they aren't for everybody and they have some pretty severe limitations. I showed my wife a story on them a while back, and her comment was "maybe we should see about getting you one." (You can see why I guard her with my life) I just laughed. I'm building a new system from the ground up, including cameras, lenses, computer, scanner, printer, etc., and by the time I'm finished I'll have spent less than a single Hassy and a couple of lenses would have cost, even figuring in a 1Ds Mark III body. If I were doing studio work, etc., it would be a no-brainer, but for outdoor stuff, the current crop of Canons and Nikons are the greatest things since sliced bread. I understand that Hasselblad has gone to a closed system with its new cameras, which will effectively shut out people who own Phase One, Leaf, or Sinar backs. Gotta wonder if the folks at Hasselblad are shooting themselves in the foot with that one. They have a pretty solid customer base, but a lot of people are gonna be unhappy with that development.

 

John makes a good point about the dynamic range differential, but if you're shooting color transparencies, it's not that great. All you have to do is use your histogram and your EV compensation, and it's not that tough to work around. A little work in Photoshop will put you right where you want to be. Beats the heck out of coming home with a mess of film, going to the trouble of having it processed, and finding out you've blown a highlight or two. And that can happen with transparency film, no matter how careful you are.

[little laker 0]

newfie,

 

I just wanted to apologize to you.

 

This thread should not have become a film vs digital debate.

 

They can both produce stunning results in the right hands, but that's not what you asked

 

All the other info is good though.

[Graham 0]

I think the debate is helpful for those considering purchasing an SLR. Film based SLR's are much more affordable than digital these days, and there are hidden costs associated with Digital. Recenty I've had to buy two 1 TB external hard drives for backup. I keep one outside my house and one connected to my computer, to prevent a serious loss in the event of a house fire. I swith these drives out about twice a month. Last year I had to buy 2 500gb drives, and the year before 2 250 gb drives. I could have had a lot of film processed for that cost and these days most film processing places provide prints, negatives and digital file on disk. I keep a lot of my old negatives in a safe deposit box at my bank, don't ask me why, I guess just to make sure I have memories from old trips available to see when I'm an old man...

 

Graham

[Peterjay 0]

Stu, why don't you just make up a list of the subjects we can discuss here, along with what you consider good and bad information, and I'm sure we'll all do our best to adhere to your guidelines. Most conversations tend to wander a bit, whether they're conducted online or face to face, and almost without exception, they've been conducted here with good humor and mutual respect. If you find it necessary for some unfathomable reason to apologize for the actions of others, then kindly leave me out of it. If I feel someone is due an apology for any action I've participated in, I'll deliver it myself, without your help. BTW, you're the one who started all this film vs. digital crap to begin with when you announced that digital wasn't good enough for your "money shots." I couldn't care less what people choose to do with their time, but when others crow about the superiority of their methods or the inferiority of my own, then they can expect a response.

[little laker 0]

Here's the origional post

Im planning on buying an SLR around june. Just looking for some opinions on what I should get. Im very interested in macro, still life and landscape photography. It needs to be as cost effective as possible. so any opinions on what body and lenses would be good to begin with. sorry for starting a different slr thread, but I didnt want to take away from the other topics. thanks

 

I don't see anything mentioned about film vs digital.

 

Peter as you pointed out there's another thread started about it already.

It's easy enough to bump, or another one could always be started.

 

I'm packing for a road trip for about a week, so please don't expect me to respond to anything right away.

 

[Graham 0]

If the opening question stated DSLR then mention of film may perhaps have not occured. And he wants it to be as cost effective as possible, which also brings up issues with respect to film and digital.

 

I agree with Peter and don't see a need for appologies.

 

Graham

[kargen 0]

I shot with a Hasselblad for a while and I hated it. Just a personal opinion, but I thought shooting with it was to slow. Not shutter speed slow, but slow in all the details and steps involved before finally pushing the shutter button. Not sure why I even thought that because I used to shoot with a 8x10 Deardorf and how much went into finally getting to push the button on that camera didn't bother me a bit. Maybe it was because most the time the Hasselblad shots included models and you want things to go a little quicker?

 

The first digital camera I used was a great big ugly thing. It exposed each of the three color layers seperate by rotating filters and it was a pain in the butt to use. Took really nice photos though and going billboard size would have been no problem.

 

I am almost exclusive digital now. I would like to get a nice 4x5 field camera to do some B&W just for fun, but gotta wait until I have room for a darkroom first. I have a decent 4x5 camera now but it isn't really made for landscape type of photography. I should sell it, but everybody I know that has sold their viewcameras have later regretted it.

 

I think my alltime favorite camera though was a simple Pentax K1000. It was pretty much a box you could put a lens on. I still mostly like shooting with manual settings probably because of all the K1000s I went through.

 

Now that I have babbled on for a good long time, back to the topic. With all the really high quality digital cameras coming out now I think one of the top priorities is simply comfort. Does it feel right in your hand? Are the controlls where you can change settings easily? Does it have the settings you are most comfortable using?

A friend of mine does a lot of kayaking and bought a really nice camera to take with him when he does that. Problem is he spent so much on the camera he is afraid to take it with him most of the time so he misses some great opportunities for photography. Don't get a camera you are going to be afraid to use doing what you normally do.

 

Get a camera that fits you. That way you will use it more and the really good photographs will then take care of themselves.

 

Though "F16 and be there" is kind of obsolete now the message still works.

[newfie 0]

wow...

no need for anyone to apoligize, the film vs. digitar debate is very interesting to say the least, and since the price difference of the film SLR has been mentioned I may look into that as well. thanks so much everyone for your help thus far.