Sort of......About Cameras (which seem to be essential to posting here).

My Digital Canon Rebel XTI is IMHO a pretty good intro to intermediate SLR camera for taking pictures of BUCK KNIVES.
If purchased with the 18mm-55mm zoom it's a pretty good all around shooter.
One could start out using the auto functions and get decent shots.... later moving on to the manual settings to increase their photo artistry.
All in all I am very happy with this camera.
 
BG42EDGE said:
There was a great old 35mm SLR that when you needed to shoot from the hip you just pulled off the top and, PRESTO......there was a viewfinder you could look down into. What brand was that? I always wanted one of those......never got one.
Click to expand...

Removable fiewfinder had Nikon F (all of them), Pentax LX, Praktica VLC and may be some other too (Exacta, Contax ...) but I don't know which one. Rollei had a camera with two viewfinder. I think it was the 3003. One for looking through and one with a matte screen to look upon.

Haebbie
 
Last edited:
Wow!!

Haeb, you are a true camera enthusiast!!! I never realized there were so many.

I think some of those came along later. I just found the earlier one that I was thinking of (ain't Google great?). From Wikipedia:

Miranda

Orion's (later name-changed to Miranda's) Miranda SLR camera was sold in Japan from August 1955 with the launch of the Miranda T camera. The camera was narrowly the first Japanese-made pentaprism 35mm SLR. It featured a removable pentaprism for eye-level viewing, that could be removed for use as a waist-level finder.
Click to expand...

I loved the style of the Miranda and their magazine ads were always beautifully done and so appealing. Never got one though. I was pretty poor in those days and already had a few too many cameras.

:D
 
Hey BG a Buck knife picture,

I keep thinking I have "helped" enough, but like a dog to his vomit, here I am this morning.

OK, here is a photo taken with my shirt pocket sized 8MG Fugi J10. I carefully used the menu to change setting from outside where is normally use to my lightbox settings.Used manual setting, white balance to the right light, ISO 100, etc. Then on a camera stand took the photo with the camera timer to trip the shutter. I bought this camera used like new in the box for $50 off ebay. Guess I should take the same photo with the Canon for comparison. Ok I did, for this forum is the difference worth $650.

I am saying with this post, if folks have a decent camera (like your big one), before buying another, get some good lights, get a GOOD tripod, fix up a light box and give that camera a menu tune-up and take some photos. Then decide how high you want to go. Its about money, time and technique. 300

DSCF0001.jpg

Canon DSLR Rebel Xsi, 18 - 55 zoom
Canon.jpg


Here is big blow up from small camera of small spot to check for sharpness, with increase you can see the limits of the small camera sensor, such as the fuzzy reflection lines. The larger photo was copied at 800mP on its largest side. 800 is about all you can use on the internet....FYI

DSCF0002.jpg


camera.jpg
 
Last edited:
BG42EDGE said:
Casey, what I meant to convey was that you can manipulate depth of field to a greater extent with a 35mm SLR than with a digital SLR because the average 35mm lens will go from F1.4 to F16 or 22 and the average digital SLR will have a far smaller range of F stops--maybe F3.5 to F5.6.

At F16 you will have far more depth of field than you will at F1.4, and if those apertures are unavailable you just can't do as much with depth of field manipulation.

Another variable is that telephoto will decrease depth of field and wide angle will increase depth of field.

That's how I understand it, anyhow. I suppose digital lenses with more F stops are available, but I imagine they're so expensive that most people don't buy them.

Almost all my experience is with 35mm, so I'm just beginning to figure the digital side out now.

:)
Click to expand...

BG,
The lenses are the same. The Pearl Beer shot was taken with an 85mm f1.2 mounted on a Canon 20D. There is no drop-off in available f stop ranges between 35mm and DSLR. Point and shoots, yes.

I think that Canon you posted is a great camera. I tried to get my wife to go that direction but she wanted smaller. Another camera that I think is worth considering is the Canon GXX (G10, G12) models. They give you the ability to shoot RAW images in a point and shoot style camera. I don't want to get wrapped around the axle discussing RAW, but these RAW images maintain all the data grabbed by the camera where jpegs are compressed. It's handy if you want to manipulate the images with software to get the most out of your work.
 
Oh gosh.......so much to talk about here.

:)

1. 300......I've agreed with everything you've said here on this thread.

That means you are totally correct in everything you've said. :D

So why do I detect a little......discontent? It's been a most enjoyable discussion thus far, I think. Certainly no vomit.

2. And Casey......I'm not disagreeing with you either, except in one way. For most people there is a drop-off in ability to control depth of field......simply because most people don't have the equipment that you have.

If you check my post carefully, I was comparing the "average" 35mm SLR to the "average" digital SLR.

The average DSLR comes with a short zoom telephoto with 3.5 to 5.6 as aperture choice. That's what I was talking about from the beginning. Most people won't spend the money (how much, by the way?) to get a digital camera lens that will open up to F1.2, so I guess we were talking about two different things.

Yes, you may be able to control depth of field like you could with 35mm (I'm not sure if that's precisely true, because I'm beginning to get the impression that digital has an inherently greater DOF anyway, and thus it may be a little more difficult to blur backgrounds to the same degree as 35mm).......but I can't.......and the average guy won't be able to either.....because he'll be using DSLR equipment far inferior to and far less expensive than yours.

Your point is well taken, it's just not the point I was makin'. :)

If my understanding of depth of field is incorrect, feel free to help me continue to figure it out.

My second 35mm SLR, BTW......was a Canon FT with a 58mm F1.2 lens. Oh......that was a wonderful camera. I had a Canon 35mm 2.5 and a Canon 135mm 2.5 for it. Traveling with the U.S. Navy. Those were the days.

3. RAW.....don't know any more about it that what you've taught me. However, it DOES inspire me to invite all to list their favorite computer program for pictures and say a few words about it. I'm still using the Windows program that came with the computer.

4. What camera did your wife end up with, Casey?

5. Now 300......try not to be grumpy. Give us a pic of your oldest 35mm camera, that might be fun. I wish I still had all of my oldest ones. I may just take a shot at replacing them on e-Bay......now there's a thought!

:)
 
Gotcha.

I use Adobe Photoshop CS4 to make corrections to levels, color, saturation...whatever.

My wife ended up with the S870...I think. Small "purse" camera. It does a fine job and being small like that, it's with her a lot.
 
I sold some in a garage sale, had a pentax 1/2 frame camera. For travel photos and such you got 48 photos from a roll or even 72 from a 36. Was handy for light carry and not having to change and keep up with film. But 8 x 10 was the absolute upper limit. I have a really old camera from the 30s somewhere that was my fathers family camera. I have my mother's Kodak Brownie Hawkeye 120 over in my book case.

Let me see if I can find my high school 35 it will look rough...I have a new knife to include in th photo.....300

Minolta SRT101 from 1970ish. Shutter is shot, its been a million miles.. New Lux select, but it will be gift knife, to heavy for me.
IMG_2528.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nice. You used that camera well. I guess Minolta doesn't offer a spa treatment like Buck.

:D

Pentax half-frame?? Never saw one of those.

Sure you don't mean an Olympus Pen EE??? I had one of those. Great little camera, but totally automatic so I sold it and got the Canon FT QL in the late sixties.

I notice that the old Olympus Pen EEs seem to sell for more than the old Canon FTs now on e-Bay.......even though the Olympus originally sold for about 80 percent less than the Canon. :)

I'm getting close to adding a Canon G12 to my current battery. Enjoying the research and the info shared here by so many.

Note: I just found the Pentax.......you should have hung onto that, it's a rare camera.
 
BG, Pentax Q (so called in Germany) new mirrorless system camera, the smallest sys cam with interchangeable lenses. Launched this autumn. New bajonet, new lenses, not compatible with the standard Pentax K bajonett only with an adaptor
Best, Haebbie
 
Your right it was a Oly. Your gonna make me look in boxes, but I am sure I got rid of it. Had a little Minox 16mm spy camera also....
300
 
Hah. I bought my Pen EE in Yokosuka, Japan. We drank Oly beer and used Oly cameras.

Remember the dots on the back of the label? The beer, not the camera.

I'm now homing in for the kill on the new digital Oly with the 4/3rds sensor. Stand back.

Hey, I always wanted a Minox and never got one.

:)
 
I suspect that this is the sensor that everybody's been talking about.

Big Sensor, Not a Big Body
At the heart of the E-PL1 is a large-size image sensor that's the same sensor as the one inside the Olympus E-30 and E-620 DSLR models. The only difference between this sensor and what the pros use is that this big sensor is inside the much smaller body of the E-PL1. This high-performance 12.3-megapixel Live MOS image sensor (eight times larger than the average point-and-shoot camera sensor) delivers excellent dynamic range, accurate color fidelity, and a state-of-the-art amplifier circuit to reduce noise and capture fine image details in both highlight and shadow areas.
Click to expand...

I've always had a weakness for rangefinder cameras--the old Olympus Pens...

rangfndr.jpg


and Leicas....

M6-RPS-link.jpg


So.....I'm thinking the Olympus E-PL1 will give me that old rangefinder feel and also be able to do more and better than those old rangefinders that I liked so well.

Best of both worlds.

:)
 
This is the E-PL1....small body, big sensor and it can make big, beautiful pictures.

penepl1300x.jpg


Shown with optional removable rangefinder attached, which ironically, I don't want.

My eyes are such that the big viewing screen actually works better for me......and I can always shade it with my hat in bright sun.

:)
 
OK, OK,

All your talk made me look around also, but all I did was buy 2 new daylight bulbs. You can get them up to 105 watts now. Check the rainforest site that begins in A.......

And so lets be teenagers and compare hotrods from the car mags. Check out the name on my lens.... But no hot shoe....300

Sony HX100V
Front.jpg

back.jpg


Buck Talk, anyone in the Buck forum interested in a new camera, well - ask several people what they think, decide how much you can afford and read some on the internet about your top couple of choices. I was showing this one as it has features I like, I especially like a back screen that would be moveable. If I had a 301 under some lights, camera on a tripod, the angle of fixed screen on a camera might glare or even make me bend down trying to look directly into the screen. Looking at a screen from angles can fool your eyes on the actual lighting the camrea is seeing. A moveable screen would let me tilt the screen for precise viewing while letting me fully see the scene and the camera controls....just so you know.....but the tilting ability makes it a little more fragile if you plan throwing it in a backpack, scaling a mountain.....300
 
Last edited:
Well, that's a fine-looking camera, 300!!!

That Zeiss lens is pretty impressive, although my Zuiko also starts with a "Z" and, like Zeiss, has a reputation for superb quality. :)

If they were cars we could take them out to the freeway at 4 a.m. and race them.

:D
 
300,,, the semi new Nikon 5100 has that tilt screen that interlocks fairly tight when closed. Haven't got to play with it much yet, it just came. But looks like a neat feature for odd position shooting.

But still a hand full for backpacking.
 
Guys, Like I said all I have bought are two 85watt flou 6500 K light bulbs. Now you can get them up to 105 watts. I am currently using 45 watt.

Other is just wishing on a star.

I do look very forward to see and hear how the new tech is working out. Please give us some test photos....

300Bucks
 
Oh good, I thought you actually bought that thing, 300!!!!

You would want to shop and research further, I think. Too many pixels on that small sensor and extravagantly extreme zooms sacrifice a lot.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top