- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 266
Check your camera manual, and the Nikonian's Lens Compatibility Chart.
Note that the old non-AI lenses can damage most Nikon cameras.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
digital camera suggestions
- Thread starter shooter81
- Start date
Note that the old non-AI lenses can damage most Nikon cameras.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,786
Non-AI lens are really old school though. Seems that it would be hard to find them let alone accidentally purchase one. They weren't compatible with and of the F-series camera's either - and that was all 80's. Anyhow, I fully admit my allegance to the Nikon digital series had everything to do with the fact that I had a 35 mm SLR of the same brand and was pleased to see that those a couple of lenses I bought in the early 1990's worked perfectly fine.
I have sort of fallen back in love with photography, even though I don't have as much time as I used to. When I was in graduate school it was my passion. Rediscovering digital SLR was very much like a re-birth of that fun. Whats more, it seemed to me that digital took a lot of hastle out of the hobby. Like being limited to 36 shots, high cost of slide film, high cost of processing and wait time. Heck, it was like getting faster lenses all of a sudden not shooting kodachrome ISO 25 or fuji velvia ISO 50 anymore. Now I can crank the iso to 800 and still see little grain effect. Anyhow, it was a long time before I switched over to digital - and my film nostalgia kept wanting me to hate this new format. Since I switched over, I can't say I have much film nostalgia anymore.
I do agree with the former poster that an SLR is not and never will be a replacement for a point and shoot. I still think a smaller camera is the bees knees and the kind of thing that you will have along to 'catch the moment'. Lugging an SLR, multi-lenses and tripod take a bit of dedication and I usually like to know that I'm going to spend some dirt time with the camera before I commit to carrying it. I like having a little olympus clamshell as my camera EDC.
Good luck on your decision!
I have sort of fallen back in love with photography, even though I don't have as much time as I used to. When I was in graduate school it was my passion. Rediscovering digital SLR was very much like a re-birth of that fun. Whats more, it seemed to me that digital took a lot of hastle out of the hobby. Like being limited to 36 shots, high cost of slide film, high cost of processing and wait time. Heck, it was like getting faster lenses all of a sudden not shooting kodachrome ISO 25 or fuji velvia ISO 50 anymore. Now I can crank the iso to 800 and still see little grain effect. Anyhow, it was a long time before I switched over to digital - and my film nostalgia kept wanting me to hate this new format. Since I switched over, I can't say I have much film nostalgia anymore.
I do agree with the former poster that an SLR is not and never will be a replacement for a point and shoot. I still think a smaller camera is the bees knees and the kind of thing that you will have along to 'catch the moment'. Lugging an SLR, multi-lenses and tripod take a bit of dedication and I usually like to know that I'm going to spend some dirt time with the camera before I commit to carrying it. I like having a little olympus clamshell as my camera EDC.
Good luck on your decision!
Ding, ding, ding!!!
Oh boy, I can't tell you how I'd like one of those. I shoot a Canon S50 now. It's a great digital, what we used to call a "lens-shutter" camera (although of course, these days there's no shutter. It's a point and shoot.
Here's the confession:
I have an EOS 1 and a 10S in my bag. I sold my 650. I was taught by my best friend (a School of Visual Arts guy) on a Nikon F2 Photomic.
-I still turn my cap backwards when I shoot, the Photomic guys will understand.
I've worshipped at the altar of fine-grained TMax. TriX was THE standard. I developed my own, and printed it. -And Kodachrome. Oh yes, Rochester's best. American and honest. I felt Velvia was "too flashy." The classic guys from the Geographic shot Kodak.
Twenty years ago I worked in a camera store. I worked per diem for a major manufacturer doing product demos at shows... and I haven't shot silver halide in years.
I love it, I really do, it is an art form. Adams would wait a year to get a shot, make a perfect exposure, and MOST importantly print it like no one in history.
But, today it's about email. Case in point, last week some pictures were shot of my partner and I wanted them. But, holy cats! ...they were shot on 35mm, so I have to wait until they're developed, and THEN wait until the negs get burned on a disc so they can be sent to me.
Or... you can shoot the digital SLR and get the same effect. But you still have to haul the bag of lenses around. -I still have the Tenba backpack I used to carry the 300 and 400 2.8s around in. Youth is a marvelous thing.
Forget the SLRs. Buy any major manufacturer's point and shoot digital. Or if you want more...
Buy the G9!
- Joined
- May 28, 1999
- Messages
- 2,606
The modern point and shoots are really nice cameras, and in most conditions will give you pictures that for all intents approach DSLR quality. However, they still focus WAY slower than any SLR, SLR autofocus is lightning fast, with half decent lighting it's almost as fast as your own eye, although in very poor lighting/low contrast situations you may find manual focusing faster.
If shooting in low light without a flash the newer digitals also give you a useful high-ISO range, 1600 ISO is very useable especially if you use a program like neatimage to remove the noise. On a point and shoot ISO 400 and above are next to useless. Ignore megapixel counts, more often than not they actually lead to worse picture quality where it counts, a 3.2 megapixel camera has an actual image size larger than a 19 inch computer monitor when viewed full size. 8 megapixels or 15 megapixels isn't really that much different in terms of print size and you will likely never print them at full size.
Because the features/picture quality are very similar on most consumer digital SLR's the most important thing is finding a camera body you like. I prefer Canon's for their mechanical and software interface, it "works" for me and I don't need to think about how to do something. You may find Nikon's or those other guys to be more to your liking. Alot of folks make a big deal about glass(lenses). This is important more for "which system do you want to invest in" rather than outright quality. Remember that once you get the camera body you're biggest investment after that is lenses, which can easily add up to more than what you paid for the camera. I recommend getting a nice 50 or 35mm prime along with the camera, you can do alot with those lenses and they are inexpensive for the picture quality(often some of the sharpest/best in the range).
If shooting in low light without a flash the newer digitals also give you a useful high-ISO range, 1600 ISO is very useable especially if you use a program like neatimage to remove the noise. On a point and shoot ISO 400 and above are next to useless. Ignore megapixel counts, more often than not they actually lead to worse picture quality where it counts, a 3.2 megapixel camera has an actual image size larger than a 19 inch computer monitor when viewed full size. 8 megapixels or 15 megapixels isn't really that much different in terms of print size and you will likely never print them at full size.
Because the features/picture quality are very similar on most consumer digital SLR's the most important thing is finding a camera body you like. I prefer Canon's for their mechanical and software interface, it "works" for me and I don't need to think about how to do something. You may find Nikon's or those other guys to be more to your liking. Alot of folks make a big deal about glass(lenses). This is important more for "which system do you want to invest in" rather than outright quality. Remember that once you get the camera body you're biggest investment after that is lenses, which can easily add up to more than what you paid for the camera. I recommend getting a nice 50 or 35mm prime along with the camera, you can do alot with those lenses and they are inexpensive for the picture quality(often some of the sharpest/best in the range).
as an amateur, i couldn't justify getting an slr and then spending much more in lenses later on. so i settled for a panasonic dmc fZ50. it's a great "bridge" camera that gives you a lot of control over your shots. the only problem is the noise at higher ISOs and in low light. I have a Fuji F20 for that.
the great thing is that you can get lenses and filters for a lot less than you would have to pay with an slr. for macro work i use a raynox dcr 250 and 150 and a velbon macro rail slider. the raynox wide angle lens, olympus 1.7 tcon telephoto lens and a couple filters (polarizer & neutral density). a reasonable tripod is the slik 700dx. a little heavy but very solid, reliable and good value for the money.
the great thing is that you can get lenses and filters for a lot less than you would have to pay with an slr. for macro work i use a raynox dcr 250 and 150 and a velbon macro rail slider. the raynox wide angle lens, olympus 1.7 tcon telephoto lens and a couple filters (polarizer & neutral density). a reasonable tripod is the slik 700dx. a little heavy but very solid, reliable and good value for the money.
I have long been an advocate of using p&s - most of my photos are taken with a p&s (please check out the links in my sig).
I currently use a (discontinued) Canon S80 most because it is compact and I can literally take it everywhere - and it gives away very little to a dSLR (which I also have) for most of the photography I do.
The Canon G9 is very nice - it is the top of the line Canon p&s -
but it is very expensive for what it is.
It may be worth considering the following alternatives -
Canon PowerShot A720 IS<$190 shipped
review at DCRP
Canon PowerShot A590 IS<$150 shipped
review at DCRP
--
Vincent
http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://clik.to/UnknownVincent
