I'm too poor
E. Soh
I am 18 and am obviously not rich. I want to be a photographer someday
and want to begin practicing as soon as possible, but I can't afford the
camera. The only camera I have is Canon "sure shot" z115. Yeah, it's
good and it has zoom, but I can't learn much about focusing, filters,
etc. etc.
So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that doesn't
cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some money,
which won't occur in 3 years?
How did *you* buy a first camera? Did you buy expensive one first so
that you can use it forever or did you buy a reasonable-priced one first
and came up step by step?
Please give me advice,
thank you!
P.S. By the way, I want to take photos of dancers. Do you know any good
camera for dance photos?
c.b...@bmsg.de
Get all the money you can get and buy the best thing you can get. You won't
regret it.
If there is no possibility to get some money, get the cheapest 2nd hand thing
you can get, so you save at least the money.
But never never (really never!) buy in the mid range
--
"I [..] am rarely happier then when spending an entire day programming
my computer to perform automatically a task that it would otherwise
take me a good ten seconds to do by hand. Ten seconds, I tell myself,
is ten seconds. Time is valuable and ten seconds' worth of it is well
worth the investment of a days's happy activity working out a way to
save it". -- Douglas Adams, "Last Chance to See"
Sal
On 23 Dec 1996 11:40:48 GMT, c.b...@bmsg.de wrote:
>Get all the money you can get and buy the best thing you can get. You won't
>regret it.
>
>If there is no possibility to get some money, get the cheapest 2nd hand thing
>you can get, so you save at least the money.
>
>But never never (really never!) buy in the mid range
That's kind of odd advice. What do you mean about the "mid range"??
Sort of ambiguous, isn't it??
Plus, why would you suggest to a total beginner to "Get all the money
you can get and buy the best thing you can get. You won't regret it"
That's the stupidest thing a rank amateur could do. Total waste of
time/money and a bad direction in attitude.
Then you say "If there is no possibility to get some money, get the
cheapest 2nd hand thing you can get, so you save at least the money."
Doh, that makes a lot of sense (not), (besides grammatically), cause
if there is no posibility of getting some money, then you have none to
save.
The short version answer should/could be buy what you can and shoot
till you drop. The more you practice the better you get. Get good
first, and during that period you may find out more about yourself,
i.e. if you want to persue photography further.
If you do, upgrade your system a piece at a time (if that is all you
could afford), buy adding lenses (wide, normal, and short telephoto to
begin with). As time goes on, add second body and longer lenses.
Doesn't matter if it is new or used. Whatever you can afford. I buy
new bodies, and used lenses if they are in prime condiditon.
Don't try to do it all at once. The most important thing is to learn
your craft by doing it. Look for every excuse you can find to shoot.
If you enjoy it, invest in it. If you don't you will know it.
Paul Chefurka
Buy used. I have the money to buy new, and I still buy all my gear used.
Do not wait till you have more cash, but do be careful what you buy.
It sounds to me like you're a candidate for a good basic manual camera.
I would suggest a Pentax Spotmatic of some sort, or a used Pentax K1000.
They're all solid cameras, and cheap (probably $100 to $150) on the used
market. Also, if you buy a screw-mount Spotmatic, you'll have the widest
choice of cheap high-quality used lenses you could imagine.
The only problem with a Spotmatic might be the PX625 mercury batteries -
depending on where you live, they may be unavailable. If that's the
case, look for a used K1000 and get a K-mount to screw mount adapter,
and go for all those tasty SMC Takumar lenses out there. Or get a used
hand-held meter like the Sekonic incident meter (the one with the ping-
pong ball) - that will be another good learning experience.
As far as lenses for dance are concerned, I'd suggest a 35/2.0 and an
85/1.8. Both those lenses were among Pentax's best. With a bit of
looking you should be able to find a camera and those two lenses (all in
very good condition) for $500 US or less. If that's too high, then just
get a 50/1.8 and learn to enjoy the discipline that enforces :-)
Above all, don't wait to get a good camera. My first one was a Pentax SV
with a 50 bought when I was 18. I used it for years (even when I turned
pro), and the lessons I learned on it stayed with me forever. You don't
need polycarbonate and built-in RISC bit-slice processors to take good
photos.
Good luck,
Paul Chefurka
Chris
In article <32BE4D...@servtech.com>, el...@servtech.com says...
>
>I am 18 and am obviously not rich. I want to be a photographer someday
>and want to begin practicing as soon as possible, but I can't afford the
>camera. The only camera I have is Canon "sure shot" z115. Yeah, it's
>good and it has zoom, but I can't learn much about focusing, filters,
>etc. etc.
>
>So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that doesn't
>cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some money,
>which won't occur in 3 years?
>How did *you* buy a first camera? Did you buy expensive one first so
>that you can use it forever or did you buy a reasonable-priced one first
>and came up step by step?
If you want the best images for the dollar forget 35mm cameras and buy an
inexpensive medium format twin lens reflex ($100 to $200). I was in the same
position at your age and bought an ancient folding camers that took huge
negatives. I was forced to learn real photography and image control; I was
also forced to make-do with one lens and no meter - somthing that will prove
invaluble as a pro. By the way those huge negatives made better quality
prints than anything I took with my Nikons or Leicas in later years.
Chris
John or Jenn
In article <59m3ov$i...@news.nstn.ca> Paul Chefurka,
chef...@fox.nstn.ns.ca writes:
>It sounds to me like you're a candidate for a good basic manual camera.
>I would suggest a Pentax Spotmatic of some sort, or a used Pentax K1000.
>They're all solid cameras, and cheap (probably $100 to $150) on the used
>market. Also, if you buy a screw-mount Spotmatic, you'll have the widest
>choice of cheap high-quality used lenses you could imagine.
Išll second the vote toward a used K1000...you ought to be able to find
a body and several lenses for $200-$300, and itšd be a great learning
platform (how many out there started on one?) Thatšll help you figure
out what sorts of features you really want/need when you go to buy
your next camera...
Tim Cary
>So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that doesn't
>cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some money,
>which won't occur in 3 years?
>How did *you* buy a first camera? Did you buy expensive one first so
>that you can use it forever or did you buy a reasonable-priced one first
>and came up step by step?
Don't wait 3 years, but something that you can afford now, and start taking
pictures.. you don't need an expensive camera to take great pictures,
everybody knows that. I bought a Nikon FE2, with a 50mm lens, and a flash
for $500 (Canadian) and it's been great. Look for something used in the
private market.. you'll have to decide whether you need autofocus or not..
Anthony P. Jones
In article <32c182d3...@news.airmail.net>, phot...@airmail.net (Sal
) wrote:
> The short version answer should/could be buy what you can and shoot
> till you drop. The more you practice the better you get. Get good
> first, and during that period you may find out more about yourself,
> i.e. if you want to persue photography further.
> If you do, upgrade your system a piece at a time (if that is all you
> could afford), buy adding lenses (wide, normal, and short telephoto to
> begin with). As time goes on, add second body and longer lenses.
> Doesn't matter if it is new or used. Whatever you can afford. I buy
> new bodies, and used lenses if they are in prime condiditon.
> Don't try to do it all at once. The most important thing is to learn
> your craft by doing it. Look for every excuse you can find to shoot.
> If you enjoy it, invest in it. If you don't you will know it.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. When I started, I got a fairly simple
full-manual SLR (a Ricoh KR-5 Super II) with a 28-80mm lens and a
Starblitz flash. The package at the time went for around $200. Shopping
around, I found a used 70-210mm for $70.
This was pretty much the setup I learned on. I shot as much as I could,
whenever I could (of course, working in a mini-lab at the time helped with
the developing cost...=).
I also found that working and learning on a full-manual SLR helped me nail
a lot of the theory down behind the operation of an SLR (ie: shutter
freeze and drag, depth of field, manual flash exposure)...something you
wouldn't learn as quickly by picking up a full-auto Canon Rebel or
somesuch.
As time went on and I decided I wanted to get into photography as a
serious hobby, I upgraded my equipment as I could afford it. Switched
over to a Canon Rebel for a few years as the AF system had some great
appeal- I could spend more time composing the image rather than making
sure I had it in focus...=) Now, I've got 35mm and 645 gear coming out the
wazoo, and I spend as much time as I can using it because I love the
feeling of coming out of the darkroom with a truly satisfying print in my
hands.
Buying a high-end SLR such as a Nikon F-70 or 90, an EOS 1 or a Minolta
9xi when you're starting out, wouldn't be very beneficial- there's a LOT
of gadgets on the cameras that you may not use for YEARS if you're just
starting out, and you can be sure you're paying for them. Buy a simple
manual SLR (a la Pentax K-1000 or the Ricoh KR-5- both take the KPR mount,
so lenses are easy to find used AND new) and learn on THAT. Upgrade
later. What happens when you decide a year from now that you don't enjoy
photography as much as you though, and you've sunk $$$$$ into it?
One more thing- if you REALLY want to learn, use slide film. The exposure
latitude on modern day C-41 print film is something like 4-stops through
the range....you can be a full stop under and still pull an image from it
that'll be half-decent. With slides, if you're not bang-on with the
exposure, you'll know about it when you get the images back. Very
frustrating at first, but in the long run, you'll get better results with
both chrome AND print, and your work will look all that more professional
(you'd be amazed how easily you, and others, can spot a neg that's
undered by half a stop after awhile...=)
Anyways, hope this helps. Merry Christmas!
APJ.
--
Anthony P. Jones
Photograph Effects
Edmonton, Ab.
pho...@ccinet.ab.ca
www.ualberta.ca/dagriffi/
Tim Takahashi
Chris <kay...@clcinc.com> wrote:
>>I am 18 and am obviously not rich. I want to be a photographer someday
>>and want to begin practicing as soon as possible, but I can't afford the
>>camera. The only camera I have is Canon "sure shot" z115. Yeah, it's
>>good and it has zoom, but I can't learn much about focusing, filters,
>>etc. etc.
>If you want the best images for the dollar forget 35mm cameras and buy an
>inexpensive medium format twin lens reflex ($100 to $200). I was in the same
>position at your age and bought an ancient folding camers that took huge
>negatives. I was forced to learn real photography and image control; I was
>also forced to make-do with one lens and no meter - somthing that will prove
>invaluble as a pro. By the way those huge negatives made better quality
>prints than anything I took with my Nikons or Leicas in later years.
Gotta second that.... 'cept you really need to factor in an enlarger
for medium format work. Machine prints often dont do the negatives
justice... and as you will one day learn, the print is as much
a function of the printer as the photographer or camera.
-tim
p.s. my suggestions.... 4x5 Speed Graphic or a Rolleicord or early
(pre-ZeissPlanar) Rolleiflex. Budget about $500. $200 ish for the camera
and $300ish for the darkroom.
>
>Chris
>
maohai huang
E. Soh (el...@servtech.com) wrote:
: I am 18 and am obviously not rich. I want to be a photographer someday
: and want to begin practicing as soon as possible, but I can't afford the
Hi, there are already some good advices on buying used equipment. i think
i want to add something on reducing film/processing cost. i suggest you
join a student club or small campus newspaper if you can. they can usually
let you get free film and dark room access, and they sometimes they don't
really care about success rate of your pictures.
if you have to buy films, dirt cheap expired films can let you at least
practice composition, exposure speed and timing for a moving object, and
hand holding etc. actually a lot of expired film don't show degradation
obviously. but don't be too mean when you need good films and chemicals
to practice exposure and, say, the zone system.
- mh
Godfrey DiGiorgi
The fundamentals of photography require that you understand
and have control of focus, aperture and exposure time. Any
camera which allows you to control those three essentials,
any camera which allows you to make a mistake with those three
essentials, is a good tool to learn photography. Everything
else is secondary.
So if you don't have much money to spend, buy a good cheap
camera used and learn to use it. Use it a lot. You don't
need an SLR, you don't need automation, you don't need a
motor drive. You don't need interchangeable lenses. You need
to understand light, film, processing and basic techniques
so that you can understand what any camera is doing. Money
is better spent on lots of film, processing pictures, printing
pictures than on a fancy camera.
Equipment is ephemeral and does not make great photographs all
by itself. Those are produced by your eye and your mind when you
understand how to use the tools.
Godfrey
Peter C.Koot
On 23 Dec 1996 14:08:31 GMT, chef...@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Paul Chefurka)
wrote:
>In article <32BE4D...@servtech.com>, "E. Soh" <el...@servtech.com> says:
>>
>>I am 18 and am obviously not rich. I want to be a photographer someday
>>and want to begin practicing as soon as possible, but I can't afford the
>>camera. The only camera I have is Canon "sure shot" z115. Yeah, it's
>>good and it has zoom, but I can't learn much about focusing, filters,
>>etc. etc.
>>
>>So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that doesn't
>>cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some money,
>>which won't occur in 3 years?
>>How did *you* buy a first camera? Did you buy expensive one first so
>>that you can use it forever or did you buy a reasonable-priced one first
>>and came up step by step?
>>
>>Please give me advice,
>>thank you!
>>
>>P.S. By the way, I want to take photos of dancers. Do you know any good
>>camera for dance photos?
>
>Buy used. I have the money to buy new, and I still buy all my gear used.
>Do not wait till you have more cash, but do be careful what you buy.
>
>It sounds to me like you're a candidate for a good basic manual camera.
>I would suggest a Pentax Spotmatic of some sort, or a used Pentax K1000.
>They're all solid cameras, and cheap (probably $100 to $150) on the used
>market. Also, if you buy a screw-mount Spotmatic, you'll have the widest
>choice of cheap high-quality used lenses you could imagine.
Batteries for the Pentax Spotmatic are still available at the address
listed below. I too started with a Spotmatic II and STILL use it from
time to time for black and white. In my humble opinoin, the is one of
the finest camera's ever made puting it in its proper prospective. I
will learn nothing about photography when you use a point and shoot,
it is all done for you. Start with a manual camera and learn what it
is all about and enjoy it at the same time.
here is the address for the batteries.
VARTA Batteries Inc
300 Executive Blvd
Elmsford, NY 10523-1202
(914)-592-2500
Ronald B. Melton
E. Soh wrote:
>
> I am 18 and am obviously not rich. I want to be a photographer someday
> and want to begin practicing as soon as possible, but I can't afford the
> camera. The only camera I have is Canon "sure shot" z115. Yeah, it's
> good and it has zoom, but I can't learn much about focusing, filters,
> etc. etc.
>
> So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that doesn't
> cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some money,
> which won't occur in 3 years?
> How did *you* buy a first camera? Did you buy expensive one first so
> that you can use it forever or did you buy a reasonable-priced one first
> and came up step by step?
>
> Please give me advice,
> thank you!
>
> P.S. By the way, I want to take photos of dancers. Do you know any good
of lenses available. Not very expensive because it doesn't have all the
bells and whistles of the more recent cameras. I believe the body sells
new for around $100. You can certainly get one used for less than that.
Check out rec.photo.marketplace for used equipment.
lui
Godfrey DiGiorgi <god...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Equipment is ephemeral and does not make great photographs all
> by itself. Those are produced by your eye and your mind when you
> understand how to use the tools.
>
> Godfrey
Seems Godfrey s words needs a frame around, or a message automail
to Canon-Leica-Nikon- or format-fetishists...
I own some pictures from an Australian amateurphotographer done with
$ 30 4,5x6 folding cameras/ homemade pinholes/homemade field
cameras/homemade enlargers and sometimes showing them to people asking
me for which high end gear to make "betta pics"...
Lui
Publications Specialist
E. Soh (el...@servtech.com) wrote:
: I am 18 and am obviously not rich. I want to be a photographer someday
: and want to begin practicing as soon as possible, but I can't afford the
: camera. The only camera I have is Canon "sure shot" z115. Yeah, it's
: good and it has zoom, but I can't learn much about focusing, filters,
: etc. etc.
: So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that doesn't
: cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some money,
: which won't occur in 3 years?
: How did *you* buy a first camera? Did you buy expensive one first so
: that you can use it forever or did you buy a reasonable-priced one first
: and came up step by step?
As long as you have the ability to control the camera manually, you will
have the opportunity to learn all you need about photography. I got my
first "real" camera (after the little 110 Minolta pocket camera) when I
was 12 and had no money. It was a Yashica FX-70 which, despite it's auto
shutter, I learned to force it to act manually. Anyway...I learned
everything on that camera and used it early in my professional career.
It's photos found their way onto the cover of NY Newsday (now defunct...no
fault of my pics!) and a number of newspapers in the NY City metro area
and the LA Times. I've since sold that gear to another young photographer
(it had 10 years of consistent service and is still going strong) and
bought into the Nikon philosophy.
So, whether it's a Pentax K-1000 (a solid camera for beginners) or other
low-cost camera, just get shooting. There's nothing like running a few
hundred rolls through a camera to learn photography.
Brian Yarvin
Chris wrote:
>
> In article <32BE4D...@servtech.com>, el...@servtech.com says...
> >
> >I am 18 and am obviously not rich. I want to be a photographer someday
> >and want to begin practicing as soon as possible, but I can't afford the
> >camera. The only camera I have is Canon "sure shot" z115. Yeah, it's
> >good and it has zoom, but I can't learn much about focusing, filters,
> >etc. etc.
> >
> >So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that doesn't
> >cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some money,
> >which won't occur in 3 years?
> >How did *you* buy a first camera? Did you buy expensive one first so
> >that you can use it forever or did you buy a reasonable-priced one first
> >and came up step by step?
>
> inexpensive medium format twin lens reflex ($100 to $200). I was in the same
> position at your age and bought an ancient folding camers that took huge
> negatives. I was forced to learn real photography and image control; I was
> also forced to make-do with one lens and no meter - somthing that will prove
> invaluble as a pro. By the way those huge negatives made better quality
> prints than anything I took with my Nikons or Leicas in later years.
>
Chris:
The problem with this advice is that it's TOO good. If our guy does
this, he'll blow his competition out of the water!
Brian
Jerome Jahnke
> How did *you* buy a first camera? Did you buy expensive one first so
> that you can use it forever or did you buy a reasonable-priced one first
> and came up step by step?
My folks gave me an old Kodak Instamatic it took cartridge film, it had a
fixed focal length lens (no zoom) and I took pictures with that for years,
I got a 110 along the way and eventually I went into a used photo store and
bought a used Yashica FX-3 with a 45 - 75 lens on it for about 60 bucks.
All that time before I got my 35 mil SLR I had to learn a few things to
make my photos look good. One was framing and the other was lighting. I
became aware of what the light was like and tried to line up my shots in
such a way that the light would be the best it could be.
I won quite a few photo awards with my 110 and instamatic, I learned also
what makes a good photograph, and what I liked to take pictures of. It
seems to me folks want to get the equipment and then take the pictures. But
even if I could not afford my current Cannon A2e setup I would still be
taking pictures with my instamatic or my 110. Becuase that is the part of
the process I enjoy not the equipment, alhtough now that I can afford cool
stuff I must admit it is kinda cool in and of it's self.
My advice is to go to a photo store and look at the used mechanical
equipment. It will be pretty cheap, and sturdy, should last you long
enough. Otherwise just keep taking pictures with your sureshot. You don't
have to be outfitted like a pro to have fun. My first photo contest I won
with my instamatic I was 16 and all the so called pros who had great
equipment were amazed I took the picture I did with that camera, and the
next year I saw many of them use the same composition as I did when I won.
Jer,
--
Jerome Jahnke
Biological Sciences Division/ Office of Academic Computing
University of Chicago
Patrick Tower
In article <32BE4D...@servtech.com>, E. Soh <el...@servtech.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that doesn't
>cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some money,
>which won't occur in 3 years?
>that you can use it forever or did you buy a reasonable-priced one first
>and came up step by step?
>
>thank you!
>
>P.S. By the way, I want to take photos of dancers. Do you know any good
>camera for dance photos?
Since many people seem to have missed this last statement (prompting a
new thread which emphasizes that point), I thought I'd chime in here.
Starting at the lens end, I wouldn't recommend anything slower than
f/2.8 unless you want consistently blurry and/or grainy photos. The
lighting for dance will usually allow 1/250th sec with a f/2.8 lens at
1600 or 3200 ASA, but not much faster.
As far as a system goes, I think I'd have to recommend Nikon, if you
have $1000 to spend and expect to stay with it a while. (I know this
last part is always subject to change.) I use EOS myself, but while
it's possible to get a 28/2.8, 50/1.8 and 135/2.8 (my suggested
starting kit) in AI or AIS form with a body (FE or FM), this would be
tough in EOS.
My reason for suggesting this is upgradability and a proven resale
market. This will allow you to stay with Nikon and slowly upgrade if
you stick with it and also to sell your equipment if you decide to
change systems. Also, you will be more likely to find rental
equipment in case you decide to try a 300/2.8 or 80-200/2.8 for some
special application. Rental equipment for Minolta and Pentax is, in
my experience, non-existent, and Canon FD would offer little or no
resale market if you do decide to switch to a newer system.
My main beef with Pentax is that, while there are lots of lenses
available, most of them are slow zooms and off-brand lenses. The
exceptions are the three lenses I suggested, but if you want to add
anything beyond the 28/50/135 setup, you will have to do some hard
shopping or switch systems.
That's my two cents' worth (or less). :)
FYI, my main subjects are gymnastics and dance, and my main lenses are
at least f/2.0. However, I'm still paying for my equipment, so I
wouldn't recommend this as a starting goal. I would definitely
recommend against waiting for years and then spending lots of cash on
something which you may decide is not really for you. Better to spend
less now (although $1000 is still a substantial investment) and see
how you like it.
Inquiries and dissentions are welcome, but please don't clutter the
list with flames. I'm just trying to help....
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Patrick Tower po...@leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~poser/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I like to skate on the other side of the ice...." -Steven Wright
David Rozen
: E. Soh (el...@servtech.com) wrote:
: : I am 18 and am obviously not rich. I want to be a photographer someday
: : and want to begin practicing as soon as possible, but I can't afford the
: : So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that doesn't
: : cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some money,
: : which won't occur in 3 years? [snip...]
Few users buy the perfect camera first time out.
If you have all of $1000 you can go a long way in
the used market.
Other than condition of the used camera, the two
major headaches to avoid are orphaned systems and
discontinued batteries.
The major discontinued battery is the PX-13, also
known as the PX-625. As to orphaned systems, if it
comes with one each of wide, normal, and tele lenses
and is truly dirt cheap, grab it and start learning.
The real pitfall with orphans is buying less than a
fairly complete system and expecting to complete it.
Many screw-mount systems use the PX-13 battery, and
most screw-mount lenses are well-worn. They are
now getting a bit hard to find. But the screw-mount
is not a fully hopeless orphan since so many were
sold. For a real orphan, the Fujica AX line would
be a perfect example. Fuji made some screw-mounts
that took the S-76 battery which is easy to get.
But Fuji switched to bayonet mount [AX line] just
before Fuji stopped selling SLRs altogether. The
Topcon SLRs are very good quality orphans.
Rather than list all the orphans, it's easier to
say that Nikon, Canon FD, Minolta non-AF, and
Pentax K [bayonet] are NOT orphans. The Nikon and
Pentax K [also called Pentax A] are definitely very
viable lines. Canon FD and Minolta non-AF are less
orphan-like than screw-mount or Fuji or Topcon, but
are not as solid a buy as Nikon or Pentax K [or A].
Prices will reflect this heirachy of viability.
Pentax and Nikon one can easily build outfits piece
by piece. Canon FD or Minolta non-AF are best
bought in close to complete outfits so you only need
to find one item. Screw-mount or total orphans
should be bought only if the outfit is complete,
the price is a joke, and the PX-13 [PX-625] battery
is not involved. One could say that for older
cameras the only battery to consider is the S-76.
It's about the only battery that dates way back but
remains very common. Canon A-series cameras are a
later spin-off of their FD line [compatible lenses],
and use a PX-28 battery, which remains easy to find.
Your $1000 can go a very long way, even buying a
system you can keep for a long time if you spend
the whole thing. while there are many options, I
think the most commonly suggested outfits would use
a Nikon FE-2, FM-2, or FA body at about $350, and
include a 50mm lens because 50s are the biggest
bargain in photography at about $65 for Nikon. An
OEM Nikon 28mm is about $225, and a 135:2.8 or an
80-200:4.5 is about the same. A Nikon SB-16 flash
is $175 for a decent one.
For $975, the above is available in close-to-mint
condition on a regular basis just by browsing the
marketplace. You could use it for at least ten
years, perhaps double that. This is not the only
option, but is an example of your $1000 buying all
you need in a manner that all will acknowledge is
a very solid outfit built of easy-to-find elements.
A less popular but decent Nikon body, 3rd party
lenses and flash, and you can find an outfit for
half that price, but you will likely find yourself
gradually upgrading the lesser outfit.
Nikon is the common denominator, easiest to find
advice and components, but other systems can be
equally good and cost maybe 1/3 less. To save that
1/3, you have to work for it, as you are more on
your own to find advice and locate components. A
perfect example of no-free-lunch. One possible
savings is to find that $975 Nikon system for sale
all in one seller's outfit. Price should be about
$100 less, and may include filters and a bag or
others useful [and useless] items.
David Rosen go...@capital.net go...@acmenet.net
James Keivom
I started off with a 35mm point/shoot then a minolta x7-a with 50mm lens.
you use what you have. i have gone through pentax k-1000, 8008, 8008s,
N90 and F4s. It doesn't matter what you have, just how you use it. Just
like in sex. :)
As you get better, you can start getting more money for your equipment.
save up and try to get the best lenses. forget about fancy camera if you
can't afford both. i'd rather have a 8008 with 80-200/2.8 than an F5 with
50mm lens.
keep shooting. try internships, shoot at any opportunity. i like
practising my skills at bars because the light is way low and you have to
shoot at f2 at 1/15s like Nat. Geo photographers. A lot of people, even
the big guys, will help you if you are genuinely interested.
Go for it.
In article <32c182d3...@news.airmail.net>,
Sal <phot...@airmail.net> wrote:
>On 23 Dec 1996 11:40:48 GMT, c.b...@bmsg.de wrote:
>
>>Get all the money you can get and buy the best thing you can get. You won't
>>regret it.
>>
>>If there is no possibility to get some money, get the cheapest 2nd hand thing
>>you can get, so you save at least the money.
>>
>>But never never (really never!) buy in the mid range
>
>That's kind of odd advice. What do you mean about the "mid range"??
>Sort of ambiguous, isn't it??
>
>Plus, why would you suggest to a total beginner to "Get all the money
>you can get and buy the best thing you can get. You won't regret it"
>
>That's the stupidest thing a rank amateur could do. Total waste of
>time/money and a bad direction in attitude.
>
>Then you say "If there is no possibility to get some money, get the
>cheapest 2nd hand thing you can get, so you save at least the money."
>
>Doh, that makes a lot of sense (not), (besides grammatically), cause
>if there is no posibility of getting some money, then you have none to
>save.
>
>The short version answer should/could be buy what you can and shoot
>till you drop. The more you practice the better you get. Get good
>first, and during that period you may find out more about yourself,
>i.e. if you want to persue photography further.
>
>If you do, upgrade your system a piece at a time (if that is all you
>could afford), buy adding lenses (wide, normal, and short telephoto to
>begin with). As time goes on, add second body and longer lenses.
>
>Doesn't matter if it is new or used. Whatever you can afford. I buy
>new bodies, and used lenses if they are in prime condiditon.
>
>Don't try to do it all at once. The most important thing is to learn
>your craft by doing it. Look for every excuse you can find to shoot.
>If you enjoy it, invest in it. If you don't you will know it.
>
>
>
>
--
o-------------------------------o-------------------------------------------o
|James Keivom - Photojournalist | To see my portfolio, set your browser to: |
|Boulder, Colorado | http://rtt.colorado.edu/~keivom/Home.html |
o-------------------------------o-------------------------------------------o
The Silhouette
kei...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (James Keivom) wrote:
>I started off with a 35mm point/shoot then a minolta x7-a with 50mm lens.
>you use what you have. i have gone through pentax k-1000, 8008, 8008s,
>N90 and F4s. It doesn't matter what you have, just how you use it. Just
>like in sex. :)
>As you get better, you can start getting more money for your equipment.
>save up and try to get the best lenses. forget about fancy camera if you
>can't afford both. i'd rather have a 8008 with 80-200/2.8 than an F5 with
>50mm lens.
>keep shooting. try internships, shoot at any opportunity. i like
>practising my skills at bars because the light is way low and you have to
>shoot at f2 at 1/15s like Nat. Geo photographers. A lot of people, even
>the big guys, will help you if you are genuinely interested.
Who are you referring to as the "big guys" that are willing to help?
And, just as importantly, how can I contact them? :)
Michael Edelman
E. Soh (el...@servtech.com) wrote:
: I am 18 and am obviously not rich. I want to be a photographer someday
: and want to begin practicing as soon as possible, but I can't afford the
: good and it has zoom, but I can't learn much about focusing, filters,
: etc. etc.
: So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that doesn't
: cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some money,
: which won't occur in 3 years?
Under $1,000 is *cheap*???
Someone's been reading too many photo magazines.
*Any* camera with some manual overrride will do just fine. Pentaxes,
manual Nikons, Olympus, whatever you can afford. A used SLR and a wide angle
and a short tele shouldn't cost you more than $300 with careful shopping.
Hit yard sales; I picked up a Minolta SRt 102 with 50mm lens for $35, and
they threw in a banjo, too ;-)
: P.S. By the way, I want to take photos of dancers. Do you know any good
: camera for dance photos?
This question suggests that you should perhaps do a little more studying
before you start spending money.
George Kalemanis
On Thu, 26 Dec 96 00:33:44 GMT, swhh...@light.softnet.co.uk wrote:
>On 12/23/96 1:15AM, in message <32BE4D...@servtech.com>, "E. Soh" <el...@servtech.com> wrote:
>
>I am 18 and am obviously not rich. I want to be a photographer someday
>and want to begin practicing as soon as possible, but I can't afford the
>camera. The only camera I have is Canon "sure shot" z115. Yeah, it's
>good and it has zoom, but I can't learn much about focusing, filters,
>etc. etc.
>2. Stay for the time being with 35 mm SLR, you see through the lens with this unlike your sure shot that
>doesn't. Any of the recommendations given on FULL MECHANICAL CAMERA k 1000 richoch Nickon will serve you
>well.
I agree, unless a person whats to learn photography, their first
camera won't be a AE. Those auto camera's don't teach you to think
for yourself - very bad learning tool. A Minolta SRT 101, 201, or
Pentex K1000 with a 28mm, 50mm, will cost under 350 if you shop
around. Once you've learned to control light, then you might what to
move up to a "pro" model (Nikon N90s, F4, F5, Canon EOS-1x, Minolta
9xi, 700si). I've spent 7 years on a fully mechanical camera
(SRT201), and I bought a 9xi afterwards, I usually shoot in S or A
mode. I also still love manual camera's, but my vision isn't perfect
so AF may help if your vision isn't perfect. Large format is the
next project.
David McSparron
David Rozen wrote:
>
> : E. Soh (el...@servtech.com) wrote:
> : : I am 18 and am obviously not rich. I want to be a photographer someday
> : : and want to begin practicing as soon as possible, but I can't afford the
>
> : : So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that doesn't
> : : cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some money,
>
> Few users buy the perfect camera first time out.
> If you have all of $1000 you can go a long way in
> the used market.
>
> Other than condition of the used camera, the two
> major headaches to avoid are orphaned systems and
> discontinued batteries.
>
> The major discontinued battery is the PX-13, also
> known as the PX-625. As to orphaned systems, if it
> comes with one each of wide, normal, and tele lenses
> and is truly dirt cheap, grab it and start learning.
> The real pitfall with orphans is buying less than a
> fairly complete system and expecting to complete it.
>
> Many screw-mount systems use the PX-13 battery, and
> most screw-mount lenses are well-worn. They are
> now getting a bit hard to find. But the screw-mount
> is not a fully hopeless orphan since so many were
Fuji ST701 uses 400 battery, ST705 uses MS76, ST801 uses PX32.
In fact, very few screwmount cameras use the PX625.
> sold. For a real orphan, the Fujica AX line would
> be a perfect example. Fuji made some screw-mounts
> that took the S-76 battery which is easy to get.
Only ST705
> But Fuji switched to bayonet mount [AX line] just
> before Fuji stopped selling SLRs altogether. The
> Topcon SLRs are very good quality orphans.
Topcon Auto 100 and Unirex use mercury battery - not recommended.
Fuji X series OK, but lenses very hard to find!
--
From: White Plains, New York, USA.
swhh...@light.softnet.co.uk
I am 18 and am obviously not rich. I want to be a photographer someday
and want to begin practicing as soon as possible, but I can't afford the
camera. The only camera I have is Canon "sure shot" z115. Yeah, it's
good and it has zoom, but I can't learn much about focusing, filters,
etc. etc.
So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that doesn't
cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some money,
which won't occur in 3 years?
How did *you* buy a first camera? Did you buy expensive one first so
that you can use it forever or did you buy a reasonable-priced one first
and came up step by step?
Please give me advice,
thank you!
P.S. By the way, I want to take photos of dancers. Do you know any good
camera for dance photos?
--
phi...@light.softnet.co.uk
Having read all that has been said to you about starting out you have been inundated with advice from
your fellow countrymen so much so that you are now no doubt more puzzled than when you first asked the
question. I have been into photography for more years than I care to remember starting of in the early
60.s with an old Zeiss Ikon 31/2 by 2/12 using a company called Grastispool who gave you free film they
developed In that era the negs where actually paper negatives, but now to your dilemma.
I lecture regularly to camera clubs in the UK and often get asked your question or when its too late and
they say I have just bought this camera how do i use it. It is the latest all singing all dancing model
that they will NEVER LEARN THEIR ART ON. so onward;_
1. DON'T start of by taking Dance photo,s only this is a specialist subject best tackled as your knowledge
improves.
2. Stay for the time being with 35 mm SLR, you see through the lens with this unlike your sure shot that
doesn't. Any of the recommendations given on FULL MECHANICAL CAMERA k 1000 richoch Nickon will serve you
well.
3. Good advice to stay on slide film initially as you will be able to see your results and compare them
quicker than prints but make sure you always use the same brand and ASA setting and the same dev lab. The
less variables the easier to learn.
4. Now down to it you need to learn quickly the difference of settings the way that the apature those nos
that go from 2.8 up to 22 and higher affect your depth of field the speeds that freeze of allow movement.
the interaction between speed and aperture. what happens if you overexpose it and under expose it and all
these in different situations and lighting conditions Hence the good advice put as much film through as
you can afford.
5. The problem nobody has addressed is that with so much film going through you need to be aware of what
conditions each slide was taken under You can write it down each time but you won't so take a tip get
yourself a small portable tape recorder some of the dictaphone tapes are great for this then every time
you push that shutter you also speak into it giving the location describing weather condition where the
sun was what shutter speed you used and what aperture and if you altered the exposure at all.
When you view them all,is there just like your school notes that teach you your many subjects.
6. One of the tasks i set my new people is to go out and place camera on something steady on a static
scene with plenty of space but objects in the foreground then take slides with the shutter at say 1/125
and aperture at 2.8 then 4 ;5.6 8' 11 16, 22 etc and study the difference it makes.
Set up by a road or better still water fountain stream brook will do set aperture on F8 and this time take
with the speed at 1/500 then 1/125 and down you go to apply 6 secs again study the difference it makes
repeat with aperture at fyi and at f2.8 look learn try taking moving objects by holding the camera and see
at what speed you can hand hold before camera shake sets in.
Now you see the need for the taped notes.
This way you learn the basics for yourself but what happens when these are understood how do you get
further help.
Perhaps in UK being small helps within a distance of 100 miles an 1/1/2 driving i have 52 camera clubs
with a total membership of 1200 plus photographers young old amateur proff slide workers print workers
Multi projections workers and we unite under the Welsh Photographic Federation There are another 13 such
bodies in the UK and we exchange ideas lecture etc with them and work under an Umbrella called The
Photographic Society of Great Britain (PAGB). I have just finished three copies of a lecture In the
beginning Digital Imaging all on slides and a taped commentary any club or individual can borrow them
through the PAGB. There are many titles in the library that help our photographers. Check with your
Photogra[phic Society of America if there is a similar scheme over there find out if you have a gathering
near you. Over here we meat weekly and have a competition every month where slides and prints are put in
and commented on by members of other clubs.
We also have an organization called the United Postal Portfolios that is a club by post you join and are
put in touch with a circle of like minded people normally groups of 15/18 once a month a parcel would
arrive you would have 18 slides incl one of your own you would comment on the other slides and read 17
comments on yours It is a great way to learn find out-use the internet - to see if any organization
similar is available over there.
If not don't forget a lot of professional photographers took time to answer your request so ask them if
you sent them a parcel of slides would they comment on them for you. You could send of a tape with them
giving all the details of how you took them --AGAIN THAT TAPED INFORMATION COMING IN USE-- and they could
tape their reply to you.
You are entering a carrea that only the good get to the top and those that do started of like you
dedication learn the basics put as much film through as you can and copy copy copy all the good ides you
see other do.
Stick at it and your name will get there but by then I will be passed my expiry date and won't be able to
think that I had a little little bit in putting you aon the right track.
Philip Davies
Ron Walton
Brian Yarvin <bya...@abest.com> wrote in article
<32C070...@abest.com>...
: Chris wrote:
: >
: > In article <32BE4D...@servtech.com>, el...@servtech.com
says...
: > >
: > >I am 18 and am obviously not rich. I want to be a photographer
someday
: > >and want to begin practicing as soon as possible, but I can't
afford the
: > >camera. The only camera I have is Canon "sure shot" z115. Yeah,
it's
: > >good and it has zoom, but I can't learn much about focusing,
filters,
: > >etc. etc.
: > >
: > >So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that
doesn't
: > >cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get
some money,
: > >which won't occur in 3 years?
: > >How did *you* buy a first camera? Did you buy expensive one
first so
: > >that you can use it forever or did you buy a reasonable-priced
one first
: > >and came up step by step?
: >
: > If you want the best images for the dollar forget 35mm cameras
and buy an
: > inexpensive medium format twin lens reflex ($100 to $200). I was
in the same
: > position at your age and bought an ancient folding camers that
took huge
: > negatives. I was forced to learn real photography and image
control; I was
: > also forced to make-do with one lens and no meter - somthing that
will prove
: > invaluble as a pro. By the way those huge negatives made better
quality
: > prints than anything I took with my Nikons or Leicas in later
years.
: >
: > Chris
:
: Chris:
:
: The problem with this advice is that it's TOO good. If our guy
does
: this, he'll blow his competition out of the water!
:
: Brian
A couple MF perverts. I bought a M645 hoping to get beter pics.
Guess what? If anyone would like to buy my M645 I'd sell very
cheap.
Ron Walton
:
Nelson Liu
In article <32BE4D...@servtech.com>, el...@servtech.com says...
>
>I am 18 and am obviously not rich. I want to be a photographer someday
>and want to begin practicing as soon as possible, but I can't afford the
>camera. The only camera I have is Canon "sure shot" z115. Yeah, it's
>good and it has zoom, but I can't learn much about focusing, filters,
>etc. etc.
>
>So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that doesn't
>cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some money,
>which won't occur in 3 years?
>How did *you* buy a first camera? Did you buy expensive one first so
>that you can use it forever or did you buy a reasonable-priced one first
>and came up step by step?
>
>thank you!
>
>P.S. By the way, I want to take photos of dancers. Do you know any good
>camera for dance photos?
Hey man I am only 16 and I managed to do pretty good at photography. First
off go in a photography class in highschool or help out with annual it helps.
Also get a job it would help you pay for photography equipment. I got a
Nikon 401x (5005) with a 35-70 and a 80-210 lens all this is payed with my
own money from working. Even a job at Mcdonalds is ok if you want the money.
Well i am luckily because at school i get to bulk load film and develope for
free but it takes time. I also do color at my own cost too but if u want to
do photography seriously well anything you want to do serious can cost alot
of money so be prepared..
nelson
David N. Heller
Strongly agreed!
I learned photgraphy in the early 1970's with my father's all manual, no meter
Argus rangefinder, and manual fixed-output electronic flash. Started with the Sunny 16 rule.
Learned focus, flash, and exposure basics. I'm grateful that I did.
Now that my composition skills are better, I've graduated to an AF/AE camera.
Now I'm learning when to trust and distrust my in-camera meter. :)
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> The fundamentals of photography require that you understand
> and have control of focus, aperture and exposure time. Any
> camera which allows you to control those three essentials,
> any camera which allows you to make a mistake with those three
> essentials, is a good tool to learn photography. Everything
> else is secondary.
>
> So if you don't have much money to spend, buy a good cheap
> camera used and learn to use it. Use it a lot. You don't
> need an SLR, you don't need automation, you don't need a
> motor drive. You don't need interchangeable lenses. You need
> to understand light, film, processing and basic techniques
> so that you can understand what any camera is doing. Money
> is better spent on lots of film, processing pictures, printing
> pictures than on a fancy camera.
>
Ron Walton
swhh...@light.softnet.co.uk wrote in article
<N.122596....@n70i048.c1r4.pol.co.uk>...
: On 12/23/96 1:15AM, in message <32BE4D...@servtech.com>, "E.
When I see someone giving this advise about learning with a
fully manual camera I'm amazed. I know everyone is allowed to have
and express thier opinions, but why would anyone recommend a piece of
equipment that has been on the market in various guises for 30 years.
The only reason I can think of is money. If that's all you can
afford, then buy it. You can produce good work with a K1000, but for
very little more you can get an EOS Rebel G. The Rebel does have a
manual mode, you know. If nothing else the power winder in the Rebel
is well worth the difference in cost. The power winder was one last
accessories I bought for the Canon A series because I thought it was
for lazy people. It's a tool that let me concentrte on my subject,
not getting ready for the next frame.
Next I'll mention the exposure meter in the Rebel is far
superior to the averaging meter built in the K1000. Yes the Rebel's
meter can be fooled sometimes, but not nearly as often as the
Pentax's. This is from someone that used Spotmatics for several
years.
My camera of choice is an EOS A2, and every thing written about
it being a transparent camera to use is correct. It is a joy to use.
I reacently had the chance to use a K1000 for a couple of days.
This is an outdated camera and you are doing a disservice to everyone
you recommed it to. Something like the Pentax Super Program or
Program Plus won't cost much more and is a lot more versatile.
I mentioned the Rebel cameras because they are now the best
selling cameras. The general has voted with thier wallets.
Just because a camera will expose 5 frames a second dosn't mean
you have to use it that way. To me the multiple programs are
useless, but they are there for anyone that wants to use.
I could go on forever, but I won't.
Ron Walton
: 3. Good advice to stay on slide film initially as you will be able
:
:
Ron Walton
Ronald B. Melton <mga...@3-cities.com> wrote in article
<32BEA7...@3-cities.com>...
: E. Soh wrote:
: >
: > I am 18 and am obviously not rich. I want to be a photographer
someday
: > and want to begin practicing as soon as possible, but I can't
afford the
: > camera. The only camera I have is Canon "sure shot" z115. Yeah,
it's
: > good and it has zoom, but I can't learn much about focusing,
filters,
: > etc. etc.
: >
: > So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that
doesn't
: > cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some
money,
: > which won't occur in 3 years?
: > How did *you* buy a first camera? Did you buy expensive one first
so
: > that you can use it forever or did you buy a reasonable-priced
one first
: > and came up step by step?
: >
: > Please give me advice,
: > thank you!
: >
: > P.S. By the way, I want to take photos of dancers. Do you know
any good
: > camera for dance photos?Get something like a Pentax K1000. A
very good and durable camera.
Getting something like the K1000 would be the worst thing you
could get, except maybe a Zorki IV. Sure you can learn the basics
and you can make some good pictures with it, but you need equipment
that won't hold you back, and with $1000 you can do fairly good.
For your money you can get an EOS Elan ll along with a 28-105
USM and the 100-300 USM.
Don't get something 30 years outdated. This would be like
getting a computer with an 8088 processor compared to a Pentium.
Ron Walton
John Stewart
In article <59put2$7...@news.acmenet.net>, go...@shell.acmenet.net says...
>
>: E. Soh (el...@servtech.com) wrote:
>: : I am 18 and am obviously not rich. [snip...]
>
>: : So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that doesn't
>: : cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some money,
>
> Few users buy the perfect camera first time out.
> If you have all of $1000 you can go a long way in
> the used market.
>
> Other than condition of the used camera, the two
> major headaches to avoid are orphaned systems and
> discontinued batteries.
>
> The major discontinued battery is the PX-13, also
> known as the PX-625. As to orphaned systems, if it
> comes with one each of wide, normal, and tele lenses
> and is truly dirt cheap, grab it and start learning.
> The real pitfall with orphans is buying less than a
> fairly complete system and expecting to complete it.
>
> Many screw-mount systems use the PX-13 battery, and
> most screw-mount lenses are well-worn. They are
> now getting a bit hard to find. But the screw-mount
> is not a fully hopeless orphan since so many were
> be a perfect example. Fuji made some screw-mounts
> that took the S-76 battery which is easy to get.
> before Fuji stopped selling SLRs altogether. The
> Topcon SLRs are very good quality orphans.
>
> say that Nikon, Canon FD, Minolta non-AF, and
> Pentax K [bayonet] are NOT orphans. The Nikon and
> Pentax K [also called Pentax A] are definitely very
> viable lines. Canon FD and Minolta non-AF are less
> orphan-like than screw-mount or Fuji or Topcon, but
> are not as solid a buy as Nikon or Pentax K [or A].
> Prices will reflect this heirachy of viability.
>
> David Rosen go...@capital.net go...@acmenet.net
>
David has good advice.
Please see my review of the current multi-mode Ricoh K mount SLR (about $325)
at http://www.acpress.com.
This camera does EVERYTHING except AF. It runs off penlight batteries. If
you miss depth of field preview, PC cord for flash, etc, you will be very
pleased.
It even has a spot meter.
John Stewart
AC Press
PO Box 216
Spring Grove, MN 55974
Ron Frank
> >: : I am 18 and am obviously not rich. [snip...]
> >
> >: : So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that doesn't
> >: : cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some money,
> >: : which won't occur in 3 years? [snip...]
> >
$1000?? Your not poor. Many many many photographers start with cameras costing
a few hundred $$. In college photography classes it's not unusual for the
students to walk in with a used K1000 with one 50mm lens (maybe $100 used), or
a Cannon A1 from Dad or whatever. But the important thing is they start running
film through the things.
What do you expect to purchase as a first time SLR, and Nikon F4s? Your not
even sure you like photography yet.
I'd do your own homework, pick a manufacture (I like Nikon for example), and
start a system. For $1000 you can get a real nice camera, lens, and flash. Then
spend what ever is left on SHOOTING! You don't need a $1000 worth of gear to
get good results, but you do need practice.
I'd purchase a K1000, and enroll in classes over blowing $1000 on equipment,
and having nothing left for class, or development costs, or film costs.
Funny, while I am as guily as any photographer for being INTO my equipment, I
see many people at my local equipment dealer and they are always buying
gadgets. I tend to buy film, and don't see these gadget owners ever doing so. I
wonder if they ever shoot, or if a roll of film sits in their camera for days
and weeks on end.
As a beginner shooter, I'd focus<g> on what's important...shooting. Buy a bulk
film loader, a few good books, and a tank processor. Then rent darkroom time,
OR better yet take a class and you may get access to all of the above plus
instruction and interaction with other photographers. Either way a roll a day
is a good way to quickly improve, but expenive in color.
There is plenty of time after you know you love photography to spend money on a
dream system. And after shooting for a while, you will become familiar with
whats important in a camera for you.
Ron - With a large backlog of negatives....Now if I can just make time to get
into my darkroom..........
Ron Frank
Ron Walton wrote:
>
> Getting something like the K1000 would be the worst thing you
> could get, except maybe a Zorki IV. Sure you can learn the basics
> and you can make some good pictures with it, but you need equipment
> that won't hold you back, and with $1000 you can do fairly good.
> For your money you can get an EOS Elan ll along with a 28-105
> USM and the 100-300 USM.
> Don't get something 30 years outdated. This would be like
> getting a computer with an 8088 processor compared to a Pentium.
>
> Ron Walton
Boy, a bunch of Ron's on this group.
Anyway I'd have to disagree that the K1000 is the worst thing you can do. The
comparison of an 8008 processor to the Pentium hardly applies to cameras.
A camera has only three adjustments, shutter speed, aperture, and film speed.
Everything else is fluff. This is hardly like a computer where technology is
evolving almost daily. The meter is also important, but multi-segment meters
can be as easily fooled as center-weighted, and I usually use my ambiant
meter over either, but to each his own. I like autofocus, but many don't.
Auto film advance is almost always liked by all, but again not necessary.
So a basic camera can be a good tool regardless of if the design came from
the 50's (like my favorite Medium format camera), or the 90's. I'm not
suggesting that Ron's advice to buy a Cannon Elan is bad, but I don't find
anything wrong with the K1000. And in reality the K1000 is a much more rugged
tool than most of todays techno-wonders. There is a good reason Nikon
continues to make the F3, and that M6's are around, neither a technically
advance camera in todays marketplace.
As I stated in my previous post, shooting is going to make you a better
photographer, camera's are just tools. If you really don't know what you want
in a camera, you'd be better to purchase an inexpensive used model until you
do, vs. buying an Elan (for example) and deciding you hate Cannon.
Also if you have no money for film and developing, than anything you purchase
is pointless.
Ron Frank
Mirror Image
"Any tool can be the right tool." Red Green
steve
i agree with ron.i've used them all and i still use my leica screwmount
the most.
ML
My name isn't Ron.
Although Ron F. brought up some excellent points, I agree with Ron W. in
that a K1000 can hold you back (or at least make it harder to get a good
picture). An example of where the Elan II's electronics can make a
difference is Predictive AF. Before Predictive AF, the manual camera
photographer had to prefocus to where he/she thought the moving subject
(e.g, racehorse) would be, after system lag. This technique requires
practice.
Albert Lui
MSchaf7081
If that is all you can afford than stick with it !. I'll send you an
E_Mail that I think
will have some great advice for beginners such as yourself.
math...@ix.netcom.com
steve wrote:
>
> Ron Frank wrote:
> <snip>
> > comparison of an 8008 processor to the Pentium hardly applies to cameras.
> >
> > A camera has only three adjustments, shutter speed, aperture, and film speed.
> > Everything else is fluff. This is hardly like a computer where technology is
> > evolving almost daily. The meter is also important, but multi-segment meters
> > can be as easily fooled as center-weighted, and I usually use my ambiant
> > meter over either, but to each his own. I like autofocus, but many don't.
> > Auto film advance is almost always liked by all, but again not necessary.
> >
> > So a basic camera can be a good tool regardless of if the design came from
> > the 50's (like my favorite Medium format camera), or the 90's. I'm not
> > suggesting that Ron's advice to buy a Cannon Elan is bad, but I don't find
> > anything wrong with the K1000. And in reality the K1000 is a much more rugged
> > tool than most of todays techno-wonders. There is a good reason Nikon
> > continues to make the F3, and that M6's are around, neither a technically
> > advance camera in todays marketplace.
> >
> > As I stated in my previous post, shooting is going to make you a better
> > photographer, camera's are just tools. If you really don't know what you want
> > in a camera, you'd be better to purchase an inexpensive used model until you
> > do, vs. buying an Elan (for example) and deciding you hate Cannon.
> >
> > Also if you have no money for film and developing, than anything you purchase
> > is pointless.
> >
> > Ron Frank
> >
> > "Any tool can be the right tool." Red Green
>
> i agree with ron.i've used them all and i still use my leica screwmount
> the most.
The other advantage a screwmount leica with '50s prime lenses will
produce much better B+W images than most consumer grade zooms made
today. - at a lot less cost.
It's a professional grade camera. The color rendition of the old lenses
is much flatter compared to new lenses but the cameras are great. And
screwmount are tiny.
I also think learning with primes rather than zooms is a good idea too.
J
Michael Gerard Maranda
>My name isn't Ron.
>Although Ron F. brought up some excellent points, I agree with Ron W. in
>that a K1000 can hold you back (or at least make it harder to get a good
>picture). An example of where the Elan II's electronics can make a
>difference is Predictive AF. Before Predictive AF, the manual camera
>photographer had to prefocus to where he/she thought the moving subject
>(e.g, racehorse) would be, after system lag. This technique requires
>practice.
> Albert Lui
My name isn't Ron either, but I side with Ron (sic).
Predictive AF might (just might) happen to get a better picture in this one
case, and yes manual predictive focussing does take practice. But then
again, loading film in your camera can take practice as well ... does this
mean that one will be a better photographer by buying throw-aways???
I didn't think so.
This comparison isn't meant to prove a point, but it is leading to one. If
you take one of these fully automated gee-whiz marvels, throw it on complete
auto, drop in a roll of film and have it take one photograph every five
minutes. Then, hang the thing around your neck and go on with life (and hope
that you don't bang it into a wall and watch the plastic break). After
three hours, drop the film off at a local lab and have it develop. Chances
are there will be one photograph on the roll that is interesting and worth
printing. Not a bad shooting ratio for a beginning photographer. Does this
make the person a better photographer??? Of course not.
The best bet is to learn how to take photographs, learn what the camera
does, learn what focus is all about -- aperature, shutter speed, exposure,
et al. This takes (gasp) practice. The more you rely on the camera to do the
dirty work, the less you will know what is happening and why the camera
fails in specific situations. The more you know, the less you will feel you
need the technical assistants to do the work for you.
In my view a fully manual solid camera, such as the K1000, isn't the best
option for learning 35mm photography -- it is the only option.
michael (not ron)
--
"If you can't use your delete key, get offa the internet."
Michael Maranda___...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu_________________
Jeff Segawa
>> >: : So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that
doesn't
>> >: : cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some
money,
>> >: : which won't occur in 3 years?
>> >
What an amazing discussion: I wish I had seen the original posting in it's
entirety! Whatever our friend may be poor in, it's certainly not money.
For those who consider photography, first and foremost, to be a passion, or
who wish to experience it as such (as opposed to remaining forever, a
casual snapshooter), I really do feel that the beginner needs to have a
firm grasp on the basics of film and hardware, because it's only through
their skillful application that a particular mood or fleeting moment can be
captured on film on a consistent basis. Burn enough film, and rely on
sufficiently advanced automation, and sooner or later, by sheer law of
averages, you will get something good, maybe even great. But this is a
waste of film, and it becomes less and less acceptable as one moves from
35mm to medium format and large format.
If there's anything wrong with a lot of today's consumer-oriented automatic
gear, it's that it shields the user from the nuts and bolts of the
operation, being primarily designed to operate in program mode. Sure, it's
very appealing to have a camera in which one only need choose
"Program-sport" or "Program-portrait" mode in order to get pleasant
results, but what is the photographer learning-really? Far better to leave
these well enough alone until one has a better understanding of what's
going on.
The K1000 may be a good choice, but I do not recall it having a depth of
field preview, and I feel this is very important. For this reason, I think
the Nikon FM2 may be a better choice. To this, I'd add a 50mm lens, rubber
lens shade, cable release and an inexpensive tripod of good quality, such
as a Bogen, particularly a model which can get low to the ground. I realize
that compact, inexpensive zoom lenses are wildly popular these days, but
these do not work real well in this situation.
---------------------------------------------------
Specializing in interesting, quality junk.
Sherline items sought
---------------------------------------------------
MSchaf7081
mpp...@mindspring.com
mm0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Michael Gerard Maranda) wrote
(snip)
>My name isn't Ron either, but I side with Ron (sic).
>Predictive AF might (just might) happen to get a better picture in this one
>case, and yes manual predictive focussing does take practice. But then
>again, loading film in your camera can take practice as well ... does this
>mean that one will be a better photographer by buying throw-aways???
>I didn't think so.
>This comparison isn't meant to prove a point, but it is leading to one. If
>you take one of these fully automated gee-whiz marvels, throw it on complete
>auto, drop in a roll of film and have it take one photograph every five
>minutes. Then, hang the thing around your neck and go on with life (and hope
>that you don't bang it into a wall and watch the plastic break). After
>three hours, drop the film off at a local lab and have it develop. Chances
>are there will be one photograph on the roll that is interesting and worth
>printing. Not a bad shooting ratio for a beginning photographer. Does this
>make the person a better photographer??? Of course not.
These two statements make no sense at all.
>The best bet is to learn how to take photographs, learn what the camera
>does, learn what focus is all about -- aperature, shutter speed, exposure,
>et al. This takes (gasp) practice. The more you rely on the camera to do the
>dirty work, the less you will know what is happening and why the camera
>fails in specific situations. The more you know, the less you will feel you
>need the technical assistants to do the work for you.
>In my view a fully manual solid camera, such as the K1000, isn't the best
>option for learning 35mm photography -- it is the only option.
While the former comment is quite true, the latter statement still
makes no sense. Any autofocus camera with manual override can do the
same things as a K-1000, so the point is moot.
The $1000 figure that drives this thread intrigues me, because
the total cost of the 4 cameras I currently use (Mamiya C-33 with 2
lenses, Yashicamat, Pentax ME Super, Ricoh XRM and 5 SLR lenses)
is exactly $1009!! Yes, I too started with a K-1000 SE (with the brown
wrapper), yet I highly recommend that new users buy autofocus now, if
one can afford it. A mid-level Nikon or Pentax autofocus body, a
reliable 75-200 or 75-300mm autofocus zoom lens, and an inexpensive,
sharp 28 mm lens will cover almost any situation and leave a great
deal of money to spare if a second, manual focus body (35mm or TLR)
becomes necessary.
As for learning photography, the best asset for a beginner is
access to a decent free public library system. Look at pictures
carefully, read, look again, and read some more. Take advantage of
any free or cheap photographic resource you can find.
mpphoto
Bryant Wetzel
BALLS!!!
every system has it's advantages and disadvantages.
The K1000 is an excellent camera that will not limit your imagination...
Full auto will not limit your imagination,
make your own decisions....
ML <ml...@concentric.net> wrote in article <32C4E8...@concentric.net>...
Glenn D. Turner
You will need:
camera Body
ONE normal (apx 50mm if 35mm film format) lens
flash unit
tripod
head (I prefer a ball head-try stuff out & make your own judgment)
cable release
blower brush/cleaning tissues
camera bag (not nec. one MADE for cameras, just one that'll hold your
stuff)
clear or UV filter (to protect the lens-keep it clean
Pet & paper to record settings for ALL your shots
LOTS of film
LOTS of $$ for processing all that film
library card (for reading up on photographic techniques-don't buy books!)
OK, I'm sure there are many more things people will tell you here, but
given this somewhat complete list, it would seem that spending too much on
the camera body alone would be a big mistake. There's too much emphasis on
the camera, which is really just a light box. If you want a cool toy,
that's one thing, but if you want to be a good photographer, take chances
and burn up lots of film. Learn from it. You can always upgrade the camera
or add lenses and filters later.
Just my $.02,
Glenn Turner
Dean Williams
ML wrote:
>
> Ron Frank wrote:
> >
> > Ron Walton wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Getting something like the K1000 would be the worst thing you
> > > could get, except maybe a Zorki IV. Sure you can learn the basics
> > > and you can make some good pictures with it, but you need equipment
> > > that won't hold you back, and with $1000 you can do fairly good.
> > > For your money you can get an EOS Elan ll along with a 28-105
> > > USM and the 100-300 USM.
> > > Don't get something 30 years outdated. This would be like
> > > getting a computer with an 8088 processor compared to a Pentium.
> > >
> > > Ron Walton
> >
> >
> > Anyway I'd have to disagree that the K1000 is the worst thing you can do. The
> >
> > A camera has only three adjustments, shutter speed, aperture, and film speed.
> > Everything else is fluff. This is hardly like a computer where technology is
> > evolving almost daily. The meter is also important, but multi-segment meters
> > can be as easily fooled as center-weighted, and I usually use my ambiant
> > meter over either, but to each his own. I like autofocus, but many don't.
> > Auto film advance is almost always liked by all, but again not necessary.
> >
> > So a basic camera can be a good tool regardless of if the design came from
> > the 50's (like my favorite Medium format camera), or the 90's. I'm not
> > suggesting that Ron's advice to buy a Cannon Elan is bad, but I don't find
> > anything wrong with the K1000. And in reality the K1000 is a much more rugged
> > tool than most of todays techno-wonders. There is a good reason Nikon
> > continues to make the F3, and that M6's are around, neither a technically
> > advance camera in todays marketplace.
> >
> > As I stated in my previous post, shooting is going to make you a better
> > photographer, camera's are just tools. If you really don't know what you want
> > in a camera, you'd be better to purchase an inexpensive used model until you
> > do, vs. buying an Elan (for example) and deciding you hate Cannon.
> >
> > Also if you have no money for film and developing, than anything you purchase
> > is pointless.
> >
> > Ron Frank
>
>
> Although Ron F. brought up some excellent points, I agree with Ron W. in
> that a K1000 can hold you back (or at least make it harder to get a good
> picture). An example of where the Elan II's electronics can make a
> difference is Predictive AF. Before Predictive AF, the manual camera
> photographer had to prefocus to where he/she thought the moving subject
> (e.g, racehorse) would be, after system lag. This technique requires
> practice.
>
> Albert Lui
lessen the confusion. My name is Albert Williams... no just kidding. I
think that some of you missed one of the important points in all of
this. I am usually one of the people who say that it is better for a
beginner to spend less money on a decent secondhand manual camera and
learn the basics, then trade up. But Mr. Soh (not a Ron or an Albert)
already knows what his principal subject will be amd it is a moving
subject. Furthermore, the moving subject will be indoors. A Pentax
K-1000 in these conditions? I don't think so! To effectively shoot in
these conditions, it is imperative that the camera be able to easily
handle flash situations... particularly fill flash. When shooting a
dancer, you don't have time to calculate the fill, and to make matters
worse, stages are frequently unevenly lit. For this situation the Nikon
N90/N90s is the best camera available due to it's 3d matrix flash
metering and its ability to easily and automatically compensate for
rapidly changing situations.
The other problem concerns focus. In the conditions that Mr.Soh is
likely to find, can you imagine trying to manually focus while one half
of the split image focusing aide is dark? Also keep in mind that if you
shoot at 1/250 or more while wide open, the DOF is very small. Corret
focus is critical, and very difficult. The use of an autofocus camera
would be far better here, as it gives you the ability to easily handle
all of the variables in this situation. Oh, and don't forget the
filtration to compensate for the tungsten lighting!
Happy New Year to all!!!
Dean.
math...@ix.netcom.com
Dean Williams wrote:
I am not sure a k1000 would be my choise. A Nikon FA would be great
because of the metering but using flash in this situation is just not
done because of the perfromers and thee is a major difference between
picking a camera for a specific purpose and picking one to learn on. To
do the latter the posters who suggested manual cameras are spot on. To
do the former, and simply want to produce decent results from day one an
automatical camera will make things easier but you still will not learn
anything.
Incidently IMHO considering the low light and difficulty focusing, A
Leica screw mount, or one of the the canon copies would be an excellent
choice to learn on with a 50mm sumitar lens (the sumicron is better but
more money). Cheap, Professional, and easy to fucus in low light if the
rangefinder is in good shape. OF course the M series would be better but
that's too much money to start with. I learned on a 3C
J
David Torix
I have been watching this thread, and others like it for
several years now. I have also sat down and thrashed this
over in class rooms, coffee shops, and over dark room trays.
In all that time I have found two distinict types of
photographers and photography. Note that you don't have to
fall totally into one or the other, but most photogs tend to
lean one way or the other.
The first type agree that a camera is just a box with a hole
in it. You make a photo by putting film in the box and
uncovering the hole. Then you develop it. You can change
the way the photo looks by changing the size of the hole,
the time you leave it open, and the type of film (speed)
that you use. This type tends to use manual cameras, view
cameras, and are more concerned with getting a good photo
than the other. These folks tend to make things as simple
as possible because that is their nature. They don't feel
the need to complicate things just to make themselves feel
good.
The second type are the gadget nuts. The more bells and
whistles and technology that is used in a camera the better.
15 metering patterns? No problem, I'm just ready for
anything! These folks tend to make things sound more
complicated than they are to try and impress the natives,
and probably themselves. Not that this is a bad thing, and
a lot of excellent photos are taken with these do everything
cameras, sometimes in full manual mode. It is just a
difference in style. Type 2 people also seem to think they
are going to make a fortune from photography by selling
stock photos to postcard companies, poster printers, and
really want to publish a coffee table book.
What it boils down to is that the type 1 people don't
understand the need for more gadgets, and the type 2 people
think the type 1's are a bunch of old camera worshipers.
All I can say is ain't America wonderful that we can both
stand side by side, take the same photo, and argue in public
about it. Because the two types are never going to agree on
anything when it comes to equipment.
I like old manual cameras, don't care for too many metering
options (Although I am desperately seeking a used spot
meter) and completely enjoy my photography. I am a type 1.
Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. My employer doesn't pay me enough
to claim them. You want 'em? Rent them like everybody else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The pen is mightier than the sword, but a hand grenade beats 4 aces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moon...@rand.nidlink.com Moon...@aol.com Tor...@pss.iix.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Talley
Interesting post......I wonder if it came down to it............how many of
your "Type 2" photographers actually make use of all the different exposure
options they have on their camera or just leave it at one setting all or
most of the time? That would be an interesting study and God Bless America
<g>.
David Torix <moon...@rand.nidlink.com> wrote in article
<32c9412b...@news.nidlink.com>...
Rick Berk
I for one use very few of the different metering functions on my EOS1n.
Having said that, the fact is that most of the "gadgets" that are on the
camera just make things easier. The fact is that if I didn't know the
basics of photography, I wouldn't know what these "gadgets" were doing, and
therefore, I would not be able to take a good photo using the camera. My
basic theory is this: Anyone can buy an SLR with alot of gadgets, such as
the Rebel G, or an N50, and set it on autopilot and press the shutter
button. But then, is that person really getting the most for his/her money?
And is he/she really making photographs? Or are they just taking pictures?
I think we all know what the answer to that is, and I think most of the
people in the ng's know how to spot these people. In order to use the
little gadgets on your camera correctly(i.e.. metering modes, autofocus,
DOF preview, etc), one needs to know what those functions are doing. the
only way to know that is to know the basic of photography. And then some.
Rick
--
"Every dream, I'm told, has its December"
-Savatage
http://www.portfolios.com/photographers/berk.rick
Mel Talley <mta...@whts.com> wrote in article
<01bbf765$1255efc0$a74da1ce@mel>...
: Interesting post......I wonder if it came down to it............how many
: >
:
Teng Soon Kooi
apj...@ccinet.ab.ca (Anthony P. Jones) wrote:
>In article <32c182d3...@news.airmail.net>, phot...@airmail.net (Sal
>) wrote:
>> The short version answer should/could be buy what you can and shoot
>> till you drop. The more you practice the better you get. Get good
>> first, and during that period you may find out more about yourself,
>> i.e. if you want to persue photography further.
>> If you do, upgrade your system a piece at a time (if that is all you
>> could afford), buy adding lenses (wide, normal, and short telephoto to
>> begin with). As time goes on, add second body and longer lenses.
>> Doesn't matter if it is new or used. Whatever you can afford. I buy
>> new bodies, and used lenses if they are in prime condiditon.
>> Don't try to do it all at once. The most important thing is to learn
>> your craft by doing it. Look for every excuse you can find to shoot.
>> If you enjoy it, invest in it. If you don't you will know it.
>I agree with this wholeheartedly. When I started, I got a fairly simple
>full-manual SLR (a Ricoh KR-5 Super II) with a 28-80mm lens and a
>Starblitz flash. The package at the time went for around $200. Shopping
>around, I found a used 70-210mm for $70.
>This was pretty much the setup I learned on. I shot as much as I could,
>whenever I could (of course, working in a mini-lab at the time helped with
>the developing cost...=).
>I also found that working and learning on a full-manual SLR helped me nail
>a lot of the theory down behind the operation of an SLR (ie: shutter
>freeze and drag, depth of field, manual flash exposure)...something you
>wouldn't learn as quickly by picking up a full-auto Canon Rebel or
>somesuch.
>As time went on and I decided I wanted to get into photography as a
>serious hobby, I upgraded my equipment as I could afford it. Switched
>over to a Canon Rebel for a few years as the AF system had some great
>appeal- I could spend more time composing the image rather than making
>sure I had it in focus...=) Now, I've got 35mm and 645 gear coming out the
>wazoo, and I spend as much time as I can using it because I love the
>feeling of coming out of the darkroom with a truly satisfying print in my
>hands.
>Buying a high-end SLR such as a Nikon F-70 or 90, an EOS 1 or a Minolta
>9xi when you're starting out, wouldn't be very beneficial- there's a LOT
>of gadgets on the cameras that you may not use for YEARS if you're just
>starting out, and you can be sure you're paying for them. Buy a simple
>manual SLR (a la Pentax K-1000 or the Ricoh KR-5- both take the KPR mount,
>so lenses are easy to find used AND new) and learn on THAT. Upgrade
>later. What happens when you decide a year from now that you don't enjoy
>photography as much as you though, and you've sunk $$$$$ into it?
>One more thing- if you REALLY want to learn, use slide film. The exposure
>latitude on modern day C-41 print film is something like 4-stops through
>the range....you can be a full stop under and still pull an image from it
>that'll be half-decent. With slides, if you're not bang-on with the
>exposure, you'll know about it when you get the images back. Very
>frustrating at first, but in the long run, you'll get better results with
>both chrome AND print, and your work will look all that more professional
>(you'd be amazed how easily you, and others, can spot a neg that's
>undered by half a stop after awhile...=)
>Anyways, hope this helps. Merry Christmas!
>APJ.
>--
>Anthony P. Jones
>Photograph Effects
>Edmonton, Ab.
>pho...@ccinet.ab.ca
>www.ualberta.ca/dagriffi/
You need to plan. Start with low cost SLR camera and lens but you must
be sure that there are no problem when you upgrade your equipment. My
suggestion is you can start with full-manual camera like Yashica FX3
or Nikon FM10/FE10 .
Yashica camera have a same lens mount with Contax camera ,so you can
either buy Yashica lens , Zeiss lens(made in germany) or 3nd party
lens. The great thing is you can get auto-focus with your manual lens
when using Contax AX body with auto back focusing, or you can upgrade
a piece at a time from Yashica FX3 to Contax 167mt, RX, ST, and to the
high end professional camera Contax AX or RTSIII.
If you consider to buy Nikon FM10/FE10 , be sure you are buying Nikon
mount AF lens. Do so buy AF lens when buying 3nd party lens.Because
those lens can only work AF with Nikon AF camera body.You can upgrade
your camera to great camera like F70,F90X,F4,F5. when you get into
photography as a serious hobby and you can afford it.
You need great lens to help you in photography.My suggestion is buy
3nd party lens first.Vivitar 24mmf/2.8 and 100mmf/3.5macro is the best
choice because the price is more cheap then other bland and useful to
you.If you are buying nikon camera,Vivitar didn`t make AF24mmf/2.8 so
you can try with other bland like Sigma 24mmf/2.8,Tokina AF28mmf/2.8.
Use 24mm wide angle for shooting landscapes,nature.travel.
100mmMacro for shooting flower,macro,insect,portrait,copying.
Buying used equipment is a great ideals to save more money but be sure
to have a knowledgeable friend on standby who can help in your
decision.
Spend more money on buying flim and devoloping.Remember to do more
practice.
HAPPY NEW YEAR
Tjkphoto
Consider this: with a bare-bones manual camera, after the one week or so
that it will take for a motivated novice to learn the relationships
between f-stops, shutter speeds, depth of field, and subject motion, the
person will be stuck with what amounts to a Model T. The newer cameras
will look pretty good at that point. Why not learn the basics on a nice
current model? You don't need a Model T to comprehend parallel parking or
skid control or whatever. A person can find out basic concepts from a
book, then zero in on the parts of the camera that control those things,
ignoring the bells and whistles until they feel like trying them. Also, a
newer model could prove easier to re-sell if enthusiasm dwindles. Am I
extending an already overly-long thread?
math...@ix.netcom.com
Tjkphoto wrote:
>
> Consider this: with a bare-bones manual camera, after the one week or so
> that it will take for a motivated novice to learn the relationships
> between f-stops, shutter speeds, depth of field, and subject motion,
A week? I have been photographing for years and I am still learning. If
all you want to do is duplicate what a basic automatic camera can do
then by all means a week may be what you need.
The tricky bit about photography is not setting the exposure or the
focus but what to point the camera at, what in the frame to focus on,
and what part of the picture to expose for. None of these things are
handled by any automatic camera in any particualrly creative fashion. In
addition after years of manual 35mm cameras my switch to large format
and medium format cameras, which have no automaitc features, was easy
and built on my 35 knowledge.
J
the
> person will be stuck with what amounts to a Model T. The newer cameras
> will look pretty good at that point. Why not learn the basics on a nice
> current model? You don't need a Model T to comprehend parallel parking or
> skid control or whatever. A person can find out basic concepts from a
> book, then zero in on the parts of the camera that control those things,
> ignoring the bells and whistles until they feel like trying them.
Why pay for features that you don't need?
> Also, a
> newer model could prove easier to re-sell if enthusiasm dwindles.
Not really older manual cameras that were purchased used to begin with
will retain a greater part of their value than any newly purchased
camera, expesially if the camera is not top of the line.
J
Ron Frank
Mel Talley wrote:
>
> Interesting post......I wonder if it came down to it............how many of
> your "Type 2" photographers actually make use of all the different exposure
> options they have on their camera or just leave it at one setting all or
> most of the time? That would be an interesting study and God Bless America
> <g>.
>
> Mel
> mta...@whts.com
>
I am more like the type I guy. But since I own many gadgets, I'm sure I've
got some type II in there somewhere. Funny, on my F4s, I tend to either
point a spot meter at something I think is medium grey (or zone IV based on
my primary subject), or use a hand held ambiant meter. Then I shoot in
manual mode about 75% of the time. I do use the matrix metering, but often
point it at the sky to meter (neteral blue), which I'm sure is not what
Nikon with their built in 10 zillion exposure scenerios intended.
My favorite camera is my Hassy, and I'm VERY SERIOUSLY thinking of purchase
an M6, so I like solid, manual camera's with expensive glass over my
automated F4s (for many things, not all). I do love autofocus, but spend a
small amount of time in A, or S priority, and tend to shoot alot in manual
exposure mode keeping a careful eye on my meter.
I learned on a Nikor FM, so I like many others really like traditional
controls, and grew up on manual modes.
Ron
Ron Frank
Tjkphoto wrote:
>
> Consider this: with a bare-bones manual camera, after the one week or so
> that it will take for a motivated novice to learn the relationships
> person will be stuck with what amounts to a Model T. The newer cameras
> will look pretty good at that point. Why not learn the basics on a nice
> current model? You don't need a Model T to comprehend parallel parking or
> skid control or whatever. A person can find out basic concepts from a
> book, then zero in on the parts of the camera that control those things,
> newer model could prove easier to re-sell if enthusiasm dwindles. Am I
> extending an already overly-long thread?
As someone who will purchase an M6, and is strongly considering doing so
soon, I think that your Model T comparision is off. Since this camera has
very little of the technical bells and whistles of a Canon Rebel, but can
withstand temps of -25C and +60C etc. it's a very rugged and compact tool. It
also requires no batteries (except for metering) and is completely manual in
every aspect. Why would I consider one? Because it produces awesome results,
and after shooting with one for a weekend, I'm sold! Unfortunately they are
expensive as hell as are the lenses. But I consider it an investment for LIFE
which I can not say about most other camera's on the market.
My dad's Minolta 3xi which I gave them for XMas maybe 3 years back, already
needs repair, the flash no longer works! It seems to me the more stuff you
jam in a camera body, the more there is to go wrong. And the more plastic
involved, the easier it breaks if (god forbid) one drops the thing.
50 years from now there will be cameras with 500 segment matrix metering, and
Hassy's and Leica's will continue to out perform them that were built in the
late 20 century.
Not to discourage automation, I'm a compurter programmer full time!
But to each their own!
Ron
David Torix
tjkp...@aol.com (Tjkphoto) wrote:
>Consider this: with a bare-bones manual camera, after the one week or so
>that it will take for a motivated novice to learn the relationships
>between f-stops, shutter speeds, depth of field, and subject motion, the
>person will be stuck with what amounts to a Model T. The newer cameras
>will look pretty good at that point. Why not learn the basics on a nice
>current model? You don't need a Model T to comprehend parallel parking or
>skid control or whatever. A person can find out basic concepts from a
>book, then zero in on the parts of the camera that control those things,
>ignoring the bells and whistles until they feel like trying them. Also, a
>newer model could prove easier to re-sell if enthusiasm dwindles. Am I
>extending an already overly-long thread?
Interesting point. If you think you can fully understand
the basics of photography and the relationships between
aperture, shutter speed, and film speed in a week, then you
are much quicker than me! I have the basics down, but after
15 years I still enjoy shooting my manual cameras.
I don't consider a manual SLR a Model T type camera. (That
would by my Yashicamat B! No meter, cock the shutter, did I
advance the film yet?) Rather a modern(??) manual SLR is
more like a Pinto with a four speed, or a metro with no
radio.
To take your automotive metaphor a bit farther, do you
really need a Mercedes with power everything, a cell phone,
and a TV in the back seat, to learn to drive? Do you need
all that to get to the store and back? I don't think so.
Not that all those features aren't wonderful.
To go back to the camera world I will fight anyone who tries
to take away my motor drive, and sometimes I do use aperture
priority or even program mode, when taking action type
photos. In those cases I depend on the old "Shoot a lot and
hope you get 1 good shot" rule. Then again, I can station
myself somewhere, prefocus, set my exposure by metering, and
wait for the action to come to me. But that depends too
much on the photographer for some folks. (No offense
intended!) Also, I might have guessed wrong where the
action will be, or I might be slow on the shutter and miss
the big moment. That is the risk I take.
In defense of a manual camera, it is a lot like a single
shot rifle, or muzzle loader. You learn real quick to make
that first shot count. Because you don't get a second one.
And if you wound an animal hunting with one, you might wind
up walking a LONG way to get a second shot. It really hones
those instincts and encourages you to KNOW your subject.
Yes, it would be nice to learn on a fully loaded camera, and
be able to use those features as you learned how, or as you
needed them. However, it has been my experience, both as a
student and as an instructor, that features tend to confuse
the issue. Learn the basics, then expand on them. And you
will always have a student who prefers to let the camera do
the thinking. "Why should I bracket when my Canikolta 2300
can do it for me." "What is all this about metering the
highlights and the shadows and placing zones? My matrix
metering produces a nice photograph." That student will
never really understand why a photo is good, or how the
metering works.
In the end, I have to grant you the reselling point. More
features, more money. Of course the difference in buying a
used manual camera for $150 and selling it for $100 is a lot
less than buying a $500 camera and selling it for $350. And
that old manual camera might just make a good backup to your
SuperDuper 2000 when the batteries are dead and the shutter
is locked. When my battery dies all I lose is my meter, and
I carry a spare one of those.
Interesting discussions, but I doubt we will ever convince
each other of our point. So let's just agree to disagree
and enjoy taking pictures.
Tim Takahashi
In article <32CD57...@mci.com>, Ron Frank <ronald...@mci.com> wrote:
>Tjkphoto wrote:
>>
>> Consider this: with a bare-bones manual camera, after the one week or so
>> that it will take for a motivated novice to learn the relationships
>> between f-stops, shutter speeds, depth of field, and subject motion, the
>> person will be stuck with what amounts to a Model T. The newer cameras
>> will look pretty good at that point. Why not learn the basics on a nice
>> current model?
Rather like complaining that a vintage Ferrari doesnt come
with a factory Cellular Phone.
>As someone who will purchase an M6, and is strongly considering doing so
>soon, I think that your Model T comparision is off.
>Not to discourage automation, I'm a compurter programmer full time!
Except that automation works best for repeated tasks, one doesnt
write C++ code when one can use a hand calculator (usually).
A photograph should be a unique creation. A basic light meter
is often more than enough (used intelligently, mind you).
Automated 500 point matrix metering does not imply "zone-system"
-tim
Ron Walton
Tim Takahashi <t...@isaac.me.rochester.edu> wrote in article
<5ak8b3$9...@isaac.me.rochester.edu>...
: In article <32CD57...@mci.com>, Ron Frank
<ronald...@mci.com> wrote:
: >Tjkphoto wrote:
: >>
: >> Consider this: with a bare-bones manual camera, after the one
week or so
: >> that it will take for a motivated novice to learn the
relationships
: >> between f-stops, shutter speeds, depth of field, and subject
motion, the
: >> person will be stuck with what amounts to a Model T. The newer
cameras
: >> will look pretty good at that point. Why not learn the basics on
a nice
: >> current model?
:
: Rather like complaining that a vintage Ferrari doesnt come
: with a factory Cellular Phone.
You can add a Cellular Phone to your vintage Ferrari and your
Model T, but what can be added to your bare-bones manual camera.
Most won't accept a power winder.
:
: >As someone who will purchase an M6, and is strongly considering
doing so
: >soon, I think that your Model T comparision is off.
:
: >Not to discourage automation, I'm a compurter programmer full
time!
:
: Except that automation works best for repeated tasks, one doesnt
: write C++ code when one can use a hand calculator (usually).
: A photograph should be a unique creation. A basic light meter
: is often more than enough (used intelligently, mind you).
: Automated 500 point matrix metering does not imply "zone-system"
:
: -tim
:
As someone who started using cameras like the Pentax K1000
(Pentax Spotmatic plus a few others actually) I'll tell you the
difference between the old averaging meters in the Pentax and the
newer segmented meters used in the newer type cameras is very
pronounced. With the older cameras if you just matched the meter and
then exposed the film you would probably get good exposures about 75%
of the time. With the segmented meters in the EOS line of cameras
your percintage will probably be improved to about 95% or better. My
first mistake when changing to EOS cameras was to treat the meter
like I was still using an older type camera. I finally realized if I
left the camera alone, except for a few extreme situations, it would
give better exposures than I would otherwise. It may not be
"zone-system", but it's still pretty good.
Ron Walton
:
:
Tse-Sung Wu
Excerpts from netnews.rec.photo.misc: 4-Jan-97 Re: I'm too poor by "Ron
Walton"@tima.com
> (Pentax Spotmatic plus a few others actually) I'll tell you the
> difference between the old averaging meters in the Pentax and the
> newer segmented meters used in the newer type cameras is very
> pronounced. With the older cameras if you just matched the meter and
> then exposed the film you would probably get good exposures about 75%
> of the time. With the segmented meters in the EOS line of cameras
> your percintage will probably be improved to about 95% or better. My
> first mistake when changing to EOS cameras was to treat the meter
> like I was still using an older type camera. I finally realized if I
> left the camera alone, except for a few extreme situations, it would
> give better exposures than I would otherwise. It may not be
> "zone-system", but it's still pretty good.
Excellent points. I do like the idea of leaving everything on
autopilot. Esp. for my camera-challenged friends and taking fleeting
shots in the street or travelling. But, as a long time K1000 user, I
haven't the foggiest how these multisegmented meters work, and in those
rare occasions when the scene is wierd (backlit e.g.), at least knowing
that the K1000 is a full screen averaging meter (like one big ol' spot
meter) I think I'd have a better chance at second guessing the exposure
than trying to second guess a modern multisegmented meter. I suppose
one could switch to CW metered manual in that case...
Tse-Sung
Tim Takahashi
>: write C++ code when one can use a hand calculator (usually).
>: A photograph should be a unique creation. A basic light meter
>: is often more than enough (used intelligently, mind you).
>: Automated 500 point matrix metering does not imply "zone-system"
>:
>:
>(Pentax Spotmatic plus a few others actually) I'll tell you the
>difference between the old averaging meters in the Pentax and the
>newer segmented meters used in the newer type cameras is very
>pronounced. With the older cameras if you just matched the meter and
>then exposed the film you would probably get good exposures about 75%
>of the time. With the segmented meters in the EOS line of cameras
>your percintage will probably be improved to about 95% or better. My
>first mistake when changing to EOS cameras was to treat the meter
>like I was still using an older type camera. I finally realized if I
>left the camera alone, except for a few extreme situations, it would
>give better exposures than I would otherwise. It may not be
>"zone-system", but it's still pretty good.
To each his own, but a basic incident light meter (I used an
ancient Weston Master) and a basic flash meter (I use an
equally ancient Calumet) work wonders. Maybe I'm less picky,
since I tend to make prints from negatives... but those
simple tools reveal the most about light. 'course their use
requires active participation of the photographer.
-tim
>
>Ron Walton
>:
>:
Tse-Sung Wu
Excerpts from netnews.rec.photo.misc: 5-Jan-97 Re: I'm too poor by
Godfrey DiGiorgi@netcom.
> As someone who still uses an incident light meter and a
> manual Nikon FM with centerweighted averaging meter, as well
> as several automated cameras, I fin I get better pictures
> when I think about what I'm doing regardless of which
> camera I'm using. I like setting my own exposure most
> of the time, and some great pictures have resulted from
> inadvertent mistakes over the years. I also like to know why
So true! I've had several slightly out of focus shots turn into
displayable keepers.
> a camera has done what it's done when used in automatic mode,
> and it's useful to understand what to do with exposure first,
> before giving all the decision making to the camera.
>
> Godfrey
Tse-Sung
Godfrey DiGiorgi
>You can add a Cellular Phone to your vintage Ferrari and your
>Model T, but what can be added to your bare-bones manual
>camera. Most won't accept a power winder.
Um, the ability to see pictures? I need a winder or motor
drive very rarely, if at all. ;)
>As someone who started using cameras like the Pentax K1000
>(Pentax Spotmatic plus a few others actually) I'll tell you the
>difference between the old averaging meters in the Pentax and
>the newer segmented meters used in the newer type cameras is
>very pronounced. With the older cameras if you just matched
>the meter and then exposed the film you would probably get good
>exposures about 75% of the time. With the segmented meters in
>the EOS line of cameras your percintage will probably be
>improved to about 95% or better. My first mistake when
>changing to EOS cameras was to treat the meter like I was still
>using an older type camera. I finally realized if I left the
>camera alone, except for a few extreme situations, it would
>give better exposures than I would otherwise. It may not be
>"zone-system", but it's still pretty good.
As someone who still uses an incident light meter and a
manual Nikon FM with centerweighted averaging meter, as well
as several automated cameras, I fin I get better pictures
when I think about what I'm doing regardless of which
camera I'm using. I like setting my own exposure most
of the time, and some great pictures have resulted from
inadvertent mistakes over the years. I also like to know why
MSchaf7081
I think the last post was a good one but would like to supplement.
"Burning Lots Of Film" is good advice IF:
1. You take the time to record both your exposures and thought processes
when you took the picture so you have data to review.
2. You actually review your results with a critical eye and the above
data.
3. Continue your education via classroom,books, mags, friends help, these
boards etc. so you know why you had the problems you did and how to
correct these in the future.
The above may seem obvious but I have seen alot of beginners over the
years
that have burned through a million miles of film and never seem to get any
better.
MSchaf7081
Isn't it great to have choices.
This thread has been one of the better debates offering the uneducated
several
important points to consider in their decision making.
Good work guys !
swhh...@light.softnet.co.uk
Tjkphoto wrote:
>
> Consider this: with a bare-bones manual camera, after the one week or so
> that it will take for a motivated novice to learn the relationships
> between f-stops, shutter speeds, depth of field, and subject motion, the
> person will be stuck with what amounts to a Model T. The newer cameras
> will look pretty good at that point. Why not learn the basics on a nice
> current model? You don't need a Model T to comprehend parallel parking or
> skid control or whatever. A person can find out basic concepts from a
> book, then zero in on the parts of the camera that control those things,
> ignoring the bells and whistles until they feel like trying them. Also, a
> newer model could prove easier to re-sell if enthusiasm dwindles. Am I
> extending an already overly-long thread?
As someone who will purchase an M6, and is strongly considering doing so
soon, I think that your Model T comparision is off. Since this camera has
very little of the technical bells and whistles of a Canon Rebel, but can
withstand temps of -25C and +60C etc. it's a very rugged and compact tool. It
also requires no batteries (except for metering) and is completely manual in
every aspect. Why would I consider one? Because it produces awesome results,
and after shooting with one for a weekend, I'm sold! Unfortunately they are
expensive as hell as are the lenses. But I consider it an investment for LIFE
which I can not say about most other camera's on the market.
My dad's Minolta 3xi which I gave them for XMas maybe 3 years back, already
needs repair, the flash no longer works! It seems to me the more stuff you
jam in a camera body, the more there is to go wrong. And the more plastic
involved, the easier it breaks if (god forbid) one drops the thing.
50 years from now there will be cameras with 500 segment matrix metering, and
Hassy's and Leica's will continue to out perform them that were built in the
late 20 century.
Not to discourage automation, I'm a compurter programmer full time!
But to each their own!
Ron
--
phi...@light.softnet.co.uk.
Following up on Rons theme my wife and I have three Pentax sfxns all arround 6 years old. They recently
started plsayting up and when i asked Pentax at a trade show about this had Where do you live Ah by the
Sea then sorry after 6 years what do you expect best invest oin our Z sytem cameras yours are worn out.
YET my faithfull K100 goes on and on and on if only my eyes would focus it sharlpy.
Yres you can't beat the older and newer manuall and yes neither my wife or I used half the gadetry of
programes built into the sfxns.
Paul
"Ron Walton" <ro...@tima.com> wrote:
>:
> As someone who started using cameras like the Pentax K1000
>(Pentax Spotmatic plus a few others actually) I'll tell you the
>difference between the old averaging meters in the Pentax and the
>newer segmented meters used in the newer type cameras is very
>pronounced. With the older cameras if you just matched the meter and
>then exposed the film you would probably get good exposures about 75%
>of the time. With the segmented meters in the EOS line of cameras
>your percintage will probably be improved to about 95% or better. My
>first mistake when changing to EOS cameras was to treat the meter
>like I was still using an older type camera. I finally realized if I
>left the camera alone, except for a few extreme situations, it would
>give better exposures than I would otherwise. It may not be
>"zone-system", but it's still pretty good.
I must agree with Ron. I have a 20 year old center-weighted camera
and a new one with segmented metering. The difference is amazing.
Like many of you I grew up being very careful of what the meter told
me. Often I would use manual mode because I did not trust the meter.
But the new matrix-metering has really upped the number of correct
exposures. This is especially true in contrasty situations.
Does this mean I always use the meter's recommendation? NO! When
composing a scene that allows me to time to meter and judge myself, I
can still beat the meter. the brain is still smarter than any
computer. But with action and family snapshots I let the
matrix-metering do the job and it does it much better than the old
center-weighted. My old center weighted hit the mark about 70% of the
time. Matrix hits it about 90% of the time.
Now I use either matrix metering for acton and snapshops or spot
metering when I have time to compose and evaluate the light.
Ron Walton
Tse-Sung Wu <tses...@CMU.EDU> wrote in article
<smni1nO00...@andrew.cmu.edu>...
: Excerpts from netnews.rec.photo.misc: 4-Jan-97 Re: I'm too poor by
"Ron
: Walton"@tima.com
: > As someone who started using cameras like the Pentax K1000
: > (Pentax Spotmatic plus a few others actually) I'll tell you the
: > difference between the old averaging meters in the Pentax and the
: > newer segmented meters used in the newer type cameras is very
: > pronounced. With the older cameras if you just matched the meter
and
: > then exposed the film you would probably get good exposures about
75%
: > of the time. With the segmented meters in the EOS line of
cameras
: > your percintage will probably be improved to about 95% or better.
My
: > first mistake when changing to EOS cameras was to treat the meter
: > like I was still using an older type camera. I finally realized
if I
: > left the camera alone, except for a few extreme situations, it
would
: > give better exposures than I would otherwise. It may not be
: > "zone-system", but it's still pretty good.
:
: Excellent points. I do like the idea of leaving everything on
: autopilot.
This is a point of departure for you and I. About the only
time you will see one of my cameras in program mode is when set there
by accident. Just because you have auto everything dosn't mean you
have to use it that way. I do use shutter priority most of the time
tho.
Esp. for my camera-challenged friends and taking fleeting
: shots in the street or travelling. But, as a long time K1000 user,
I
: haven't the foggiest how these multisegmented meters work, and in
those
: rare occasions when the scene is wierd (backlit e.g.), at least
knowing
: that the K1000 is a full screen averaging meter (like one big ol'
spot
: meter) I think I'd have a better chance at second guessing the
exposure
: than trying to second guess a modern multisegmented meter.
Segmented meters are more accurate than the averageing type
meters, but they can still be fooled. For example, with my older
cameras I usually needed to open up 1 1/2 stops for a snow sene.
With the segmented meter it's only 1/2 stop. More accurate, but not
perfect. Like any built in meter, you need to learn it's
characteristics.
Ron Walton
:
:
Ron Walton
Godfrey DiGiorgi <god...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<goddersE...@netcom.com>...
: >You can add a Cellular Phone to your vintage Ferrari and your
: >Model T, but what can be added to your bare-bones manual
: >camera. Most won't accept a power winder.
:
: Um, the ability to see pictures? I need a winder or motor
: drive very rarely, if at all. ;)
Maybe I appreciate a winder more than most because I'm left eye
dominate. Having to remove your eye from the view finder to wind the
film, and then trying to locate your subject isn't very productive
sometimes. A winder lets you concentrate on your subject, not
winding the film.
:
: >As someone who started using cameras like the Pentax K1000
: >(Pentax Spotmatic plus a few others actually) I'll tell you the
: >difference between the old averaging meters in the Pentax and
: >the newer segmented meters used in the newer type cameras is
: >very pronounced. With the older cameras if you just matched
: >the meter and then exposed the film you would probably get good
: >exposures about 75% of the time. With the segmented meters in
: >the EOS line of cameras your percintage will probably be
: >improved to about 95% or better. My first mistake when
: >changing to EOS cameras was to treat the meter like I was still
: >using an older type camera. I finally realized if I left the
: >camera alone, except for a few extreme situations, it would
: >give better exposures than I would otherwise. It may not be
: >"zone-system", but it's still pretty good.
:
: As someone who still uses an incident light meter and a
: manual Nikon FM with centerweighted averaging meter, as well
: as several automated cameras, I fin I get better pictures
: when I think about what I'm doing regardless of which
: camera I'm using. I like setting my own exposure most
: of the time, and some great pictures have resulted from
: inadvertent mistakes over the years. I also like to know why
: a camera has done what it's done when used in automatic mode,
: and it's useful to understand what to do with exposure first,
: before giving all the decision making to the camera.
:
: Godfrey
:
I have two incident meters. A Sekonic L358 Studio Dlx, which I
retired after I bought a Sekonic L308B. The 308B is with me all of
the time.
Ron Walton
Ron Walton
Tim Takahashi <t...@isaac.me.rochester.edu> wrote in article
<5amqoj$c...@isaac.me.rochester.edu>...
: Ron Walton <ro...@tima.com> wrote:
: >Tim Takahashi <t...@isaac.me.rochester.edu> wrote in article
: >: Except that automation works best for repeated tasks, one doesnt
: >: write C++ code when one can use a hand calculator (usually).
: >: A photograph should be a unique creation. A basic light meter
: >: is often more than enough (used intelligently, mind you).
: >: Automated 500 point matrix metering does not imply "zone-system"
: >:
: >:
: > As someone who started using cameras like the Pentax K1000
: >(Pentax Spotmatic plus a few others actually) I'll tell you the
: >difference between the old averaging meters in the Pentax and the
: >newer segmented meters used in the newer type cameras is very
: >pronounced. With the older cameras if you just matched the meter
and
: >then exposed the film you would probably get good exposures about
75%
: >of the time. With the segmented meters in the EOS line of cameras
: >your percintage will probably be improved to about 95% or better.
My
: >first mistake when changing to EOS cameras was to treat the meter
: >like I was still using an older type camera. I finally realized
if I
: >left the camera alone, except for a few extreme situations, it
would
: >give better exposures than I would otherwise. It may not be
: >"zone-system", but it's still pretty good.
:
: To each his own, but a basic incident light meter (I used an
: ancient Weston Master) and a basic flash meter (I use an
: equally ancient Calumet) work wonders. Maybe I'm less picky,
: since I tend to make prints from negatives... but those
: simple tools reveal the most about light. 'course their use
: requires active participation of the photographer.
:
: -tim
Would you tell the Pro with the Nikon F5 that if he wasn't using
an incident light meter with his camera set to manual while he was
shooting a Football Game or pictures of the Hostage the Terrorists
just realeased while the Police were getting that person to safty
that they were not activly participating with thier equipment. There
comes a point where bare-bones basic dosn't quite cut it. If you've
bought the bare-bones basic used, you can probably get most of your
investment, if not all, back when you sell it. But now you have to
learn a new camera, maybe the one you could have been learning about
from the begining. My original advice was to get an EOS Elan ll, not
a bare-bones model, such as a K1000. And don't forget, I've never
said that you couldn't get good pics with a K1000. Just modern times
call for modern equipment.
Ron Walton
:
: >
: >Ron Walton
: >:
: >:
:
:
:
h9...@dmt03.mcc.virginia.edu
| a lot of good stuff snipped...
| Interesting discussions, but I doubt we will ever convince
| each other of our point. So let's just agree to disagree
| and enjoy taking pictures.
|
| Dave
I agree with Dave, that this has been an excellent discussion. I
especially enjoyed the type I and II photographer. I actually
find the hunt for the photo the best part. It's wondering around
looking that I enjoy. How many times are you driving down the
road when you happen on a great shot. Most of the time it's when
I don't have a camera, but I make a mental note about the time
place and conditions and try to get back later. I have to admit
to being a coward to some degree. While I usually, try to set the
shot up using all the science of speed, depth of field, lens
opening etc, I also take a second exposure, letting the camera
do most of the thinking. At any rate, I can't sing, I can't draw
worth a damn, but there are those rare times where I take a picture
that lets me know that God didn't leave me completly devoid of
creativity. And until the next good picture, that's enough to keep
me happy.
Regards,
Tom
Sam Carleton
On Fri, 27 Dec 1996 14:57:32 -0700, Ron Frank <ronald...@mci.com> wrote:
>> >: : I am 18 and am obviously not rich. [snip...]
>> >
>> >: : So my question is, should I buy some kind of cheap camera that doesn't
>> >: : cost me any more than $1,000 or should I just wait til I get some money,
>> >: : which won't occur in 3 years? [snip...]
>> >
>
>$1000?? Your not poor. Many many many photographers start with cameras costing
>a few hundred $$. In college photography classes it's not unusual for the
>students to walk in with a used K1000 with one 50mm lens (maybe $100 used), or
>a Cannon A1 from Dad or whatever. But the important thing is they start running
>film through the things.
>
>What do you expect to purchase as a first time SLR, and Nikon F4s? Your not
>even sure you like photography yet.
>
>I'd do your own homework, pick a manufacture (I like Nikon for example), and
>start a system. For $1000 you can get a real nice camera, lens, and flash. Then
>spend what ever is left on SHOOTING! You don't need a $1000 worth of gear to
>get good results, but you do need practice.
>
>I'd purchase a K1000, and enroll in classes over blowing $1000 on equipment,
>and having nothing left for class, or development costs, or film costs.
>
>Funny, while I am as guily as any photographer for being INTO my equipment, I
>see many people at my local equipment dealer and they are always buying
>gadgets. I tend to buy film, and don't see these gadget owners ever doing so. I
>wonder if they ever shoot, or if a roll of film sits in their camera for days
>and weeks on end.
>
>As a beginner shooter, I'd focus<g> on what's important...shooting. Buy a bulk
>film loader, a few good books, and a tank processor. Then rent darkroom time,
>OR better yet take a class and you may get access to all of the above plus
>instruction and interaction with other photographers. Either way a roll a day
>is a good way to quickly improve, but expenive in color.
>
>There is plenty of time after you know you love photography to spend money on a
>dream system. And after shooting for a while, you will become familiar with
>whats important in a camera for you.
>
>Ron - With a large backlog of negatives....Now if I can just make time to get
>into my darkroom..........
Ron,
After reading all the posting I see that most folks agree with you, as I do.
But I thought I might through in a little twist. For a while I thought I
started with a SLR that had Shutter priority and manual and a 50/1.8 lens,
after thinking about it, I realized I was wrong.
I stared with a point and shoot that didn't have a pop up flash. I realized
this after some enlightened me beyond the idea that folks should start with full
manual camera. His (I think it was a he) point was that he was going to start
his children off on the disposibale camera so that the only thing they have to
worry about is composition, a important element in photography (IMHO).
I agree that the techical is very important, but I think folks need to worry
about composition first. If I where willing to take some advice from those that
know how to shoot (which often I am not, got to be honest here>G<), I would put
most of the money into some money fund that will allow it to grow for me and buy
a point and shoot. Go to the library and read some books on photography and
talk to as many potographer that would talk to me. Run alot of film though the
point and shoot. After I started to get a feel for photography, I would spend a
little money an a fully manual camera (only becuase I would not be temped to go
full auto, I know my weaknesses) and a short wide angle prime (35mm) and a short
tele (80mm - 100mm) and then take a class where I can start to learn the finer
points of the techical side.
If I where to put a little bit of money aside and save for the full manual
camera and lens and let $1000 grow, in a couple of years I will can have more
then that grand to buy a nice AF system that I will full understand how to use,
or I might be a type I photographer and want to put the money into a darkroom.
That is what I would do if a learn photographer told me and I was willing to
listen them her/him.
As it stands now, I have been shooting for a while with a F3 on full manual and
have enjoyed it alot. I am getting tired of missing shoots becuase I am not
that fast at focusing and missing shoots becuase I have been adjusting the
settings. I am hanging out at parks and on the street taking folks pictures,
things seem to happen a little faster then I can react at times. Because of
this I am looking into N90s or might spend too much and get a F5 in eight or
nine month. but this is after know the type of photography I like and knowing
the equipment I think will work the best for me. (I am always going to shoot
with primes though>G<)
Sam
Publications Specialist
MSchaf7081 (mscha...@aol.com) wrote:
: I think the last post was a good one but would like to supplement.
Then, I would suggest, that they aren't cut out to be photographers. Since
no two shoots are ever exactly alike, keeping such a journal may lead to
trouble if you depend on it. Screw up a few dozen rolls of film, learn
what your equipment will or will not do, and keep those general rules in
mind when out in the field. Granted, if you're shooting in a studio
environment where you control every detail, then a journal makes sense,
but we all don't do that type of photography. How do you deal with a
backlit shot to get just the right amount of fill flash? My Nikon with its
advanced "matrix metering" and SB-26 flash can't beat knowing what works
and doesn't work. If you know your meter is full of crap when looking
through the lens, and that comes from seeing previous results, then you
can adjust.
A journal is fine, but looking up figures sometimes leads to missing the
shot.
Ron Walton
David Torix <moon...@rand.nidlink.com> wrote in article
<32d1512a...@news.nidlink.com>...
: >:
:
: Ron, you bring up some VERY good points. And I don't think
: they were adequately addressed in any of my earlier posts.
: There are definately situations where I would miss photos
: with my manual camera. (That is why I have a nice auto that
: I carry too!) And I can't fault your logic or argument at
: all, other than to say that some folks have an easier time
: learning if you eliminate everything except the basics.
: Some computer programs have user levels that can be set to
: remove menu functions, or tool bar items. This can make
: teaching someone to use it simplier. Then gradually
: introducing them to more advanced features as they are ready
: for them.
:
: The point about modern matrix meters giving 95% good photos
: over 70% good for a center-weighted meter is also correct
: and a good point. These newer technologies are making
: picture taking much easier for amatures and pros alike. The
: increased sophistication of the electronics and computer
: programs, along with better films with wider exposure
: latitudes, also make it almost impossible to get a badly
: exposed photo from any modern camera. This level of
: automation can also allow a relative beginner to concentrate
: more on the artisitic aspects of photography rather than the
: technical.
:
: With that said I can actually agree with you. (And I just
: looked up the price differnce on a new EOS Rebel G and a
: K1000.) If you can afford it, and know you will want to
: continue in photography a beginner could do a lot worse than
: a modern camera such as an EOS. However, I don't want one
: most of the time. The exceptions being action, sports, and
: journalistic photos such as you mentioned. For those the
: full auto and auto focus have definate advantages.
:
: I like manual focus and manual metering. I especially like
: taking photos with my old TLR with no meter. I just feel
: like I have more control with it. I'm also in the process
: of building a 4x5 view camera. (I need a lens and shutter
: if anyone has a good one cheap!) Then again, photography is
: a hobby for me, and I don't make much money off it. (The
: occasional portrait or wedding for a family member who
: couldn't afford a "pro" anyway.) So I try to keep myself
: happy on the "love photography" level. Maybe I would feel
: differently if I had to make a living with my camera. I
: know I felt that way about my tools when I worked as a
: mechanic.
:
: Dave
Dave, what you describe sounds very much like my use of
photography. I've been doing it for over 30 years as an amateur I
also get called on for the occasional wedding and portrait session.
Shooting turkeys for the local Armour plant comes to mind also. The
weddings I now do with a 540EZ on my EOS cameras. Before the EOS I
used Vivitar 283 flashes on my manual focus cameras. The difference
in quality is very dramatic. I'll never go back. I don't object to
someone using what they like, but I do object to people that give
advice who think they are giving very sage advice that cannot be
refuted. Especially in this day and age of electronics. Compare the
test results of a Leica M6 with that of the Rebel Xs. The M-6, even
tho not bad for a mechanical shutter, had variances of almost 25% in
each direction. The Rebel's shutter variance was almost linear from
30 sec to 1/1000, and at 1/2000 was less than 10% off. The M-6's
meter was off about 1/2 stop at EV 2 and not correct until about EV
4, but the Rebel's, altho off by 25% was, was consistant across the
board.
Ron Walton
:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
: Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. My employer doesn't pay me
enough
: to claim them. You want 'em? Rent them like everybody else.
:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
: The pen is mightier than the sword, but a hand grenade beats 4
aces.
:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
: Moon...@rand.nidlink.com Moon...@aol.com
Tor...@pss.iix.com
:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
:
Michael Edelman
"Ron Walton" <ro...@tima.com> wrote:
>: To each his own, but a basic incident light meter (I used an
>: ancient Weston Master) and a basic flash meter (I use an
>: equally ancient Calumet) work wonders.
>an incident light meter with his camera set to manual while he was
>shooting a Football Game or pictures of the Hostage the Terrorists
[snip]
>said that you couldn't get good pics with a K1000. Just modern times
>call for modern equipment.
>
I don't thionk there's anything special about modern times that requires
special cameras. An auto-everything camera would certainly have been
useful in documenting the Civil war, and you could have used an 8x10
view camera on the shuttle, if you had a place to mount it.
How many of us are sports photographers or photojournalists covering
wars? How many photos have you taken that really required instant
exposure and focus adjustment, and couldn't have been improved by the use
of a tripod?
Cartier-Bresson, master of the "decisive moment", used a Leica with
manual focusing and no meter. All the great photojournalists- Capra,
Smith- used manual cameras. I have yet to see a photo taken with an F4
or EOS that rivals the work of Capra. These men still managed to
capture things that some posters have argued are impossible without
automation.
Now, I think modern autoexposure and autofocus are marvelous things, and
downright useful in many instances, but most photographers would do better
to learn more about exposure and the use of a meter than to spend $2,000
on the latest and greatest new auto-everything camera. Same goes for learning
about focus and depth of field. The press photographers of the pre-war era
managed to get well-exposed, in focus new photos with equipment that
most modern photographers think belongs in a museum or in a studio.
--mike
math...@ix.netcom.com
> The reason Cartier-Bresson used Leica cameras is that they were
> the "newest", fastest cameras available, freeing him to quickly and
> skillfully make those images. He understood the speed advantages
> of using "modern" equipment.
>
This is an interesting point. in the 1920's the first 35mm cameras
allowed a new generation of photographers to look at the world in a new
way. Auto focus and automatic cameras have now allowed a new generation
of photographers to look at the world in a new way too. Photography has
changed Just as there are schools of paintings there are schools of
photography. Two points:
1 - I doubt that the first generation of 35mm photographers could
handle a 4x5 with the ease and grace of the generation of photographers
that went before them. This was a gap in their education but they
survived and went on to break new ground. The current generation of
professionals might not be able to guestimate exposeure as well as the
previous generation of 35mm shooters but they also have gone on to break
new ground. With each generation there is a loss and a gain.
2 - Most of my work looks dated. This isn't an accident. I have much
more empathy with older styles and I find a lot of modern photography to
be intrusive. My images might convey emotion and feeling and they may
certainly be hung on a wall but in no sense do they break new ground.
MAny photographers share my opinion and older techniques and
technologies are in a resurgance. To do my work I need the old skills
and I wish I was better at it. If on the other hand you see a different
world out there than I do (and I hope you do) moving forward to an ultra
automatic camera may be the right thing. You will know a lot less than I
do about exposure, which if you ever want to shoot with an 4x5 or
something you will have to learn. But if you don't you may never need to
learn the skill. And maybe not knowing the old skill but knowing more
about some new skill will help propel you and the world of photography
to break new ground.
J
mpphoto
m...@bob.pass.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) wrote:
> "Ron Walton" <ro...@tima.com> wrote:
> >: To each his own, but a basic incident light meter (I used an
> >: ancient Weston Master) and a basic flash meter (I use an
> >: equally ancient Calumet) work wonders.
>
>> Would you tell the Pro with the Nikon F5 that if he wasn't using
> >an incident light meter with his camera set to manual while he was
> >shooting a Football Game or pictures of the Hostage the Terrorists
> >just realeased...
>[snip]
>>a bare-bones model, such as a K1000. And don't forget, I've never
> >said that you couldn't get good pics with a K1000. Just modern times
> >call for modern equipment.
> >
(snip)
>How many of us are sports photographers or photojournalists covering
>wars? How many photos have you taken that really required instant
>exposure and focus adjustment, and couldn't have been improved by the use
>of a tripod?
Amateur photographers encounter action situations all the time...
local sporting events, children playing, moving vehicles, etc. Very
few of these settings allow for the time (or space) to set up a
tripod.
>Cartier-Bresson, master of the "decisive moment", used a Leica with
>manual focusing and no meter. All the great photojournalists- Capra,
>Smith- used manual cameras. I have yet to see a photo taken with an F4
>or EOS that rivals the work of Capra. These men still managed to
>capture things that some posters have argued are impossible without
>automation.
Not only is this a meaningless statement, it is an insult to the
work of modern photojournalists. If you can't find newer images that
rival the work of previous photographers, then you aren't looking very
hard.
The reason Cartier-Bresson used Leica cameras is that they were
the "newest", fastest cameras available, freeing him to quickly and
skillfully make those images. He understood the speed advantages
of using "modern" equipment.
>Now, I think modern autoexposure and autofocus are marvelous things, and
>downright useful in many instances, but most photographers would do better
>to learn more about exposure and the use of a meter than to spend $2,000
>on the latest and greatest new auto-everything camera. Same goes for learning
>about focus and depth of field. The press photographers of the pre-war era
>managed to get well-exposed, in focus new photos with equipment that
>most modern photographers think belongs in a museum or in a studio.
Who said anything about $2000?? The original poster discussed
buying new equipment within a budget of $1000...many good autofocus
cameras achieve this goal with plenty to spare. I currently use manual
cameras, but I would have loved to learn about photography using a
Nikon 6006 or 8008s...when my 35mm equipment needs replacing, I'll
go straight to autofocus.
mpphoto
MSchaf7081
>>Then, I would suggest, that they aren't cut out to be photographers.
Since
>>no two shoots are ever exactly alike, keeping such a journal may lead to
>>trouble if you depend on it. Screw up a few dozen rolls of film, learn
>>what your equipment will or will not do, and keep those general rules in
>>mind when out in the field. Granted, if you're shooting in a studio
>>environment where you control every detail, then a journal makes sense,
>>but we all don't do that type of photography. How do you deal with a
>>backlit shot to get just the right amount of fill flash? My Nikon with
its
>>advanced "matrix metering" and SB-26 flash can't beat knowing what works
>>and doesn't work. If you know your meter is full of crap when looking
>>through the lens, and that comes from seeing previous results, then you
can adjust.
>>A journal is fine, but looking up figures sometimes leads to missing the
>>shot.
different people look to different things in photography so to say they
are not
cut out for this may be a bit unfair.
My point in keep a log was to provide feedback for improvement. I consider
myself a very good technican and there are some camera/film combinations
that I am very comfortable with and do not log my shots. However, when
attempting new techniques or experimenting with new films (or both) you
can
bet I will be logging my results.
I agree that when faced with a fleeting moment you need to take the shot
at
all costs.
I agree that when faced with a fleeting moment in time to take the shot.
Mel Talley
I have been following this long debate of Manual vs. Automatic and I
thought I would throw this in.
Could a comparison be made with this debate and Dos vs. Win 95? With your
indulgence I will expound on this thesis.
Point 1: Win 95 has made it easier for people to be more productive with
computers, those with computer experience as well as those with absolutely
no computer experience. I think the same can be said about automatic
cameras for Pros as well as beginning Amateurs. Now the key word is
"easier", not better or worse. Well when a difficult situation appears on
the computer, the person with computer experience is better equipped to
handle it because he knows what is going on under the slick exterior of Win
95. He is able to get down in the dirt and wrestle those ini files. He
has been in the back regions of dos so he has no fear. The beginning
computerist does not really know what goes on underneath that start button
and for the most part he or she really doesn't care since they can be
productive with the programs they use. But let those error messages start
flying and they get scared to death and their heart rate goes up and they
are unprepared to solve the situation because of there lack of knowledge.
No matter how much they know how to use that productivity software, they
cannot be productive since they have no idea how to solve the problem that
lies underneath.
Now for the moment lets discuss manual vs. automatic photography. For your
experience photographer, automatic can make their life easier and they can
spend more time on the actual picture composition instead of the exposure
side of the photograph. If they do come across a difficult shot that they
cannot rely on all the gadgets on the EOS or F5, then they are prepared to
use their technical knowledge and experience to get that shot. When a
beginner is in that difficult shooting situation.....first he may not even
know it is a difficult shot so he shoots away on automatic. Ignorance can
be bliss. He gets back his pictures from the photomat and they did not
come out the way he thought they would. Because of his inexperience with
the technical side of photography, he was unable to identify a difficult
shot when it does come along and when he sees the results, he does not have
the slightest idea on what caused his pictures to turn out bad so he will
post one of those HELP questions on these newsgroups. A person can have
the greatest eye for composition in the world but if he cannot get the
results he is after in some difficult shooting situations, what good is it.
Point 2: The Love-Hate Syndrome.
Experience computer people may like the ease of the new OS interfaces
because they can be productive faster but those without a clue on how
computer works can be just as productive (leaving difficult situations
aside). The old hacker feels this is a little unfair. "That beginner has
not paid his dues." "He does not know the difference between an autoexec
file and an ini file." "He hasn't experience the old days of freeing up
more and more base memory". Does that person really need to know all of
that to be productive? If difficult situations never arise then no, he
does not need that experience but as you and I both know this is a utopia
situation that will never be obtained. Experience with what lies
underneath the OS makes the person a better computerist overall. That will
not happen unless the person takes it upon himself to learn. It is scary
for someone to dig deeper than that desktop but if he really wants to learn
what the box is all about then they must take the plunge and learn.
The same parallel can be made with between experience photographers and
beginners. With the new technology that is available, knowing the
technical side of the photograph becomes a moot point in NORMAL situations.
This puts the pro and amateur at the same level with only creativity as a
discriminator. Amateurs are coming out with great pictures and they didn't
even have to pay the dues that the old pro did and the pros are getting
there nose a little out of joint. Toss in a difficult shooting situation
and that is when the distinction between beginners and pro become wider.
Knowing the technical side beyond the auto mode will make a better
photographer. Getting the person to abandon that automode to experiment is
difficult but he must learn the "cause and effects" of shooting a camera in
a manual mode. It is hard and time consuming but if that person wants to
be a truly prepared photographer then he has to take that camera off auto
and shoot manual and learn by his mistakes.
This was a bit long-winded but I thought a different slant on this debate
would find some interest. Let me know your comments.
Bruce Perathaner
MO>> And don't forget, I've never MO>>said that you couldn't get good
pics with a K1000. Just modern times MO>>call for modern equipment.
I really don't understand this one. What do the "times" have to do with
photo equipment.
MO>There are definately situations where I would miss photos
MO>with my manual camera.
What would those be? My problem is that most new AF camera have too
great a "lag time". The time it takes from the time you push the button
until the picture is recorded. My old F's and F3's are much faster than
the new cameras. Try photographing a digital stopwatch, some of the
faster focusing cameras take forever to actually make the photo.
MO>The point about modern matrix meters giving 95% good photos
MO>over 70% good for a center-weighted meter is also correct
MO>and a good point.
70% good for a center-weighted meter, I'd guess closer to 90% if you
shoot front to side-lighted subjects.
Matrix will do a little better, if you use negative film.
The little piece of paper that comes with negative film will give you
great exposures 90% of the time, no meter needed.
The other problem is that most good photographers shoot most of their
photographs in the 10% of conditions where the meter are the weakest.
Early morning, late evening, sever side light....backlight, etc.
MO>The exceptions being action, sports, and
MO>journalistic photos such as you mentioned. For those the
MO>full auto and auto focus have definate advantages.
What are these! Maybe if you are shooting "f8 and be there" type record
shots, but, otherwise I don't see any advantage.
-- ========================================================================
Keep Shooting!
Bruce
InterNet: Bruce.Pe...@fileconn.org RIME : ->495
AOL: Bru...@aol.com FidoNet : 1:273/408
===========================================================================
* SLMR 2.1a * Despair: an extra tire in de trunk.
Glenn D. Turner
> A journal is fine, but looking up figures sometimes leads to missing the
> shot.
Actually, I'm just starting to keep a journal after some 20 years of
amateur photography. There are still times I'll get a shot back, then
wonder where I screwed up. Knowing what I was thinking at the time of
exposure will be a great learning tool for me.
Glenn Turner
MSchaf7081
Responding to the last sentance in point 1:
I once took a beginners class at a college for the sole purpose of gaining
temporary access to a darkroom. This was a girl in this class that was
just learning. Her technical skills by the end of the class where still
very underdeveloped as you would expect but she had the ability to produce
some of the most stunning works of people (non studio shots) that I have
ever
seen.
My contribution to her education ? I showed her how to be a better printer
and she gave me some of her prints. Maybe some day I will retire on these
prints of subject matter that I could never produce despite priding myself
on
being a solid technician.
Overall I really liked your whole comparison !
Walter Knapp
Mel Talley wrote:
>
> I have been following this long debate of Manual vs. Automatic and I
> thought I would throw this in.
>
> Could a comparison be made with this debate and Dos vs. Win 95? With your
> indulgence I will expound on this thesis.
>
Bad comparison, Both DOS & WIN 95 are Manual. Mac IS Automatic and then
some. Or maybe the WIN 95 Automatic cameras will eventually become
really automatic like Mac's. Now with the distance between Mac's and WIN
95 that would be some camera!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Mel Talley
Walter Knapp <wwk...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<32D801...@mindspring.com>...
> Mel Talley wrote:
> >
> > I have been following this long debate of Manual vs. Automatic and I
> > thought I would throw this in.
> >
> > Could a comparison be made with this debate and Dos vs. Win 95? With
your
> > indulgence I will expound on this thesis.
> >
>
> some. Or maybe the WIN 95 Automatic cameras will eventually become
> really automatic like Mac's. Now with the distance between Mac's and WIN
> 95 that would be some camera!
>
> Sorry, couldn't resist.
>
> Walt
> wwk...@mindspring.com
>
natural to bring up. <G>
Elizabeth Vance
Sam Carleton <scar...@cintech-cti.com> wrote:
: or I might be a type I photographer and want to put the money into a darkroom.
NOw this is a term I've never heard of. A "type I" photographer? What is this?
(Or did I just totally misinterpret a typo??)
Elizabeth Vance
eva...@primenet.com
Okay, just one more. Look at me... hold it.. hold it... <click> Got it!
Thanks, you've been great.
phil willen
In a previous article, m...@bob.pass.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) says:
>ss.wayne.edu!mje
>From: m...@bob.pass.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
>Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
>Subject: Re: I'm too poor
>Date: 8 Jan 1997 19:27:44 GMT
>Organization: Wayne State University
>Lines: 41
>Message-ID: <5b0sfg$q...@cwis-20.wayne.edu>
>References: <32C482...@wco.com> <32CD57...@mci.com> <5ak8b3$9...@isaac.me.rochester.edu> <01bbfa86$5b2602c0$bd45...@tima.com> <5amqoj$c...@isaac.me.rochester.edu> <01bbfba5$784fec60$c545...@tima.com> <32d1512a...@news.nidlink.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: bob.pass.wayne.edu
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>
> "Ron Walton" <ro...@tima.com> wrote:
> >: To each his own, but a basic incident light meter (I used an
> >: ancient Weston Master) and a basic flash meter (I use an
> >: equally ancient Calumet) work wonders.
>
>> Would you tell the Pro with the Nikon F5 that if he wasn't using
> >an incident light meter with his camera set to manual while he was
> >shooting a Football Game or pictures of the Hostage the Terrorists
> >just realeased...
>[snip]
>>a bare-bones model, such as a K1000. And don't forget, I've never
> >said that you couldn't get good pics with a K1000. Just modern times
> >call for modern equipment.
> >
>
>I don't thionk there's anything special about modern times that requires
>special cameras. An auto-everything camera would certainly have been
>useful in documenting the Civil war, and you could have used an 8x10
>view camera on the shuttle, if you had a place to mount it.
>
>How many of us are sports photographers or photojournalists covering
>wars? How many photos have you taken that really required instant
>exposure and focus adjustment, and couldn't have been improved by the use
>of a tripod?
>
>Cartier-Bresson, master of the "decisive moment", used a Leica with
>manual focusing and no meter. All the great photojournalists- Capra,
>Smith- used manual cameras. I have yet to see a photo taken with an F4
>or EOS that rivals the work of Capra. These men still managed to
>capture things that some posters have argued are impossible without
>automation.
>
>Now, I think modern autoexposure and autofocus are marvelous things, and
>downright useful in many instances, but most photographers would do better
>to learn more about exposure and the use of a meter than to spend $2,000
>on the latest and greatest new auto-everything camera. Same goes for learning
>about focus and depth of field. The press photographers of the pre-war era
>managed to get well-exposed, in focus new photos with equipment that
>most modern photographers think belongs in a museum or in a studio.
>
>--mike
>
Right on! I spent years shooting car races and other things
With a Pentax Spotmatic and 3 lenses and didn't miss a thing.
Sold a lot of pix to magazines. Now I use Nikon F2's and 3's.
Tried auto cameras and always wound up using manual everything.
The camera doesn't know what effect I want. Sold my 8008.
Any one wana buy a 6006 with very low milage?
...............Phil
--
Ron Frank
Elizabeth Vance wrote:
> NOw this is a term I've never heard of. A "type I" photographer? What is this?
> (Or did I just totally misinterpret a typo??)
>
> Elizabeth Vance
Elizabeth,
A type I photographer is short, balding, usually has heartburn, and is always in a
bad mood! Type II is tall, has a bad back, smells like ben-gay, and is also always
in a bad mood!<g>
No.....A poster described two types of photographers in general terms. Type I
photographers tend to be into shooting, results, and is less influenced by
technology. They tend to shoot in manual mode, and/or use traditional cameras.
Type II leans more towards gadgets, and equipment. They don't understand Type I's
love of such cameras as the manual Nikon FM2, or Hassy which are both fully
manual.
These terms were use to catagorize the basic responses to this thread. If your
intrested in reading the thread in full, pull it up on Deja News.
Ron