On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:52:25 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:


Anybody got recommendations for a digital SLR with the manual
adjustments mentioned? Body and a quality 50-200 zoom lens
for less than a grand?
Bigger the better. Little cameras are not good for fat fingers, and
get left on car roofs.
Yeah, I could find info elsewhere, but I'll trust boaters first.
Lots of gearheads.

--Vic

Vic, check this site.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:23:49 -0700, JR North
wrote:

I love my Canon Powershot G2. Cost $600 in '03. completely auto, or
every manual adjustment a top of the line 35mm SLR has. And then some.
You can pick them up on Ebay for under $100 used. Also, any camera you
can't adjust the compression on is junk, in my NSHO.
JR

Thanks. I'll keep the compression adjustment in mind.
From my preliminary reading it seems the inability of point and shoot
cameras to take good pics in low light (outside sunsets, clouds at
dusk, etc.) is that the light metering isn't done through the lens.
But I also found out my A1100 has settings for exposure metering I
didn't know about or try. Duh.
So I'm going to read the manual and experiment a little.
I'll try at sunset tomorrow.
Might stay with it, might not.
Funny how I have to read so much and go through so many menu screens
with this thing to hopefully get it to do what my hands instinctively
did with the SRT-102. Aperture/shutter combos for depth of field?
No problem. Low light, flash batteries dead or I just want soft
tones? No problem.
But at least digital is fast and you can see the results quickly.
Shouldn't be too hard. I learned to save phones numbers in my 3 year
old cell phone a few weeks ago while on vacation.
Didn't take my son with me, so I had no choice.

--Vic

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:24:50 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:




Anybody got recommendations for a digital SLR with the manual
adjustments mentioned? Body and a quality 50-200 zoom lens
for less than a grand?

Sony DSCH1 ( the one with 20x optical)
Nikon D40x package w/2 lenses, and 10mp
Nikon D60
Nikon D90
Nikon D90 Coolpix
Lumix DMC GH1
Pentax X70

Thanks. Found out how DSLR's do auto light metering and focusing so
it's just a question of looking at specs, deciding how much I want to
spend, and getting the camera in my hands.

--Vic

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:56:20 -0700, Eddie
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:52:25 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:


Anybody got recommendations for a digital SLR with the manual
adjustments mentioned? Body and a quality 50-200 zoom lens
for less than a grand?
Bigger the better. Little cameras are not good for fat fingers, and
get left on car roofs.
Yeah, I could find info elsewhere, but I'll trust boaters first.
Lots of gearheads.

--Vic

Vic, check this site.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

Just a little bit biased. :)

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:35:18 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:56:20 -0700, Eddie
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:52:25 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:


Anybody got recommendations for a digital SLR with the manual
adjustments mentioned? Body and a quality 50-200 zoom lens
for less than a grand?
Bigger the better. Little cameras are not good for fat fingers, and
get left on car roofs.
Yeah, I could find info elsewhere, but I'll trust boaters first.
Lots of gearheads.

--Vic

Vic, check this site.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

Just a little bit biased. :)
Oh, I don't think so. Here is his home page. I go to it occasionally
to brush up on some techniques I've forgotten about or just to
keep up with the latest.
Eddie
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:52:25 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:



Bigger the better. Little cameras are not good for fat fingers, and
get left on car roofs.
Yeah, I could find info elsewhere, but I'll trust boaters first.
Lots of gearheads.

--Vic

Low light requires a decent sized chip and good processing
electronics. Those are most likely found on Nikon or Canon SLRs.

Olympus wouldn't fit your fingers. You can pick up a lightly used
Nikon D200 or D300 on ebay from a reputable seller. New are just too
damned expensive. They're built like tanks using metal cases.

Shutter, apeture priority, full auto or fully manual. I use my D200
in all sorts of situations. Travel, sports, nature. Stunning detail.
The sensors and electronics on the Nikons are geared towards skin
tones, Canons sensors and electronics are more neutral. I've always
liked the look of a Sony picture, similar to Nikon sensors.

The obvious complement to either of those bodies is the 18-200 VRII.

The cheaper lenses are just that.

That's a serious setup with serious heft but a bit more than your $1K
threshhold. You would not regret it and the camera would last many
years, like they used to...

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:08:31 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:52:25 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:



Bigger the better. Little cameras are not good for fat fingers, and
get left on car roofs.
Yeah, I could find info elsewhere, but I'll trust boaters first.
Lots of gearheads.

--Vic

Low light requires a decent sized chip and good processing
electronics. Those are most likely found on Nikon or Canon SLRs.

Olympus wouldn't fit your fingers. You can pick up a lightly used
Nikon D200 or D300 on ebay from a reputable seller. New are just too
damned expensive. They're built like tanks using metal cases.

Shutter, apeture priority, full auto or fully manual. I use my D200
in all sorts of situations. Travel, sports, nature. Stunning detail.
The sensors and electronics on the Nikons are geared towards skin
tones, Canons sensors and electronics are more neutral. I've always
liked the look of a Sony picture, similar to Nikon sensors.

The obvious complement to either of those bodies is the 18-200 VRII.

The cheaper lenses are just that.

That's a serious setup with serious heft but a bit more than your $1K
threshhold. You would not regret it and the camera would last many
years, like they used to...

I just took my 18-200 VR back for the second time to get the
auto-focus fixed. Lucky the warranty is for five years, but I'm
wishing I'd not spent the money for that lens.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:08:31 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:52:25 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:



Bigger the better. Little cameras are not good for fat fingers, and
get left on car roofs.
Yeah, I could find info elsewhere, but I'll trust boaters first.
Lots of gearheads.

--Vic

Low light requires a decent sized chip and good processing
electronics. Those are most likely found on Nikon or Canon SLRs.

Olympus wouldn't fit your fingers. You can pick up a lightly used
Nikon D200 or D300 on ebay from a reputable seller. New are just too
damned expensive. They're built like tanks using metal cases.

Shutter, apeture priority, full auto or fully manual. I use my D200
in all sorts of situations. Travel, sports, nature. Stunning detail.
The sensors and electronics on the Nikons are geared towards skin
tones, Canons sensors and electronics are more neutral. I've always
liked the look of a Sony picture, similar to Nikon sensors.

The obvious complement to either of those bodies is the 18-200 VRII.

The cheaper lenses are just that.

That's a serious setup with serious heft but a bit more than your $1K
threshhold. You would not regret it and the camera would last many
years, like they used to...

What I like most about the higher end DSLR's is
their response time and metal bodies.
Maybe shouldn't have started this, as I find myself reverting to my
old ways about wanting quality in a camera.
But when I bought my old SRT-102 and Rokkor lenses they really did get
about 30 years of use before the shutter gave up.
Probably put as much into that as a new D200 kit, but in 1973 dollars.
Now the money is the easy part, but justifying it ain't, since I don't
have the interest or another 30 years to shoot.
I do the like fast response and metal body of the D200.
Going through the Rockwell site Eddy posted (thanks, Eddy) was a kick.
Almost had me just going for a D40 until I dug deeper, and noticed he
mentions a couple times they have defective meters.
That guy gets some beautiful shots with little camera at all, and he
makes for good reading, but he's all over the place.
What I came away with is that I need to look harder at the adjustments
on my A1100 to see if it can better handle the low light
landscapes/clouds I often want to shoot at dawn and dusk.
If I'm too dissatisfied with the results I might study up and pop for
one of the higher end DSLR's. Maybe even used.
Thanks to all for your input.
I learned a lot.

--Vic

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:06:59 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:15:21 -0400, John H Rant
wrote:



I just took my 18-200 VR back for the second time to get the
auto-focus fixed. Lucky the warranty is for five years, but I'm
wishing I'd not spent the money for that lens.

Didn't get too far into it, but VR seems an unnecessary complication
unless you're printing posters or into forensic photography.
Ken Rockwell touts it, but he shoots from moving cars at 1/125.
And he crops to examine quality closely.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm

Check out the cropping of the cushion with VR and non-VR.
No doubt the VR is much sharper.
But I would never do that cropping, or print posters, so I don't know
if it's worth the complications.
Seems too much can go wrong in a VR lens.
Besides, I still have my good tripod.

--Vic

Once you have the capability, you'll find yourself doing all kinds of
things you used to think were unnecessary, cropping included.

I've another lens with VR, this one: http://tinyurl.com/6qpzhk

It has never had a problem, and the VR is remarkable.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:15:21 -0400, John H Rant
wrote:



I just took my 18-200 VR back for the second time to get the
auto-focus fixed. Lucky the warranty is for five years, but I'm
wishing I'd not spent the money for that lens.

Didn't get too far into it, but VR seems an unnecessary complication
unless you're printing posters or into forensic photography.
Ken Rockwell touts it, but he shoots from moving cars at 1/125.
And he crops to examine quality closely.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm

Check out the cropping of the cushion with VR and non-VR.
No doubt the VR is much sharper.
But I would never do that cropping, or print posters, so I don't know
if it's worth the complications.
Seems too much can go wrong in a VR lens.
Besides, I still have my good tripod.

--Vic