Speaking of Cameras
 

Bigger and more flexible might be better.
I was fishing on the Crystal river in Florida a couple weeks ago and
put the little Canon A530 on the roof of the car when I was loading
fishing gear on the trunk. Even in the case it's a small package.
Back on the 45mph road next to the park a thump was heard.
"What was that?!" my wife says.
"Just my tackle box shifting in the trunk." I said.
A few seconds later, "Where's the camera?!" my wife says.
I was silent for a bit. Thinking.
"Where's the camera?! Where's the camera?! Did you leave it on the
roof?!" I saw you put it on the roof!"
She was getting overcome by panic.
So I took charge, me being a man of clear thinking and a veteran of
the Armed Forces.
"SHUT UP!" I said.
I needed to turn around and she wasn't helping.
Luckily there wasn't much traffic, and about a half mile back I
spotted the camera on the opposite shoulder, still halfway in the
case.
Ran out and got it. Looked good to go, just a gouge on the plastic,
so I gave it to the wife with some pride.
"Here. Everything will be all right now."
Turned the car around and got a bit down the road, and she calmly
says, "The shutter button is gone, It doesn't work."
No way I could find that button, since I didn't mark in my head where
I found the camera, so I just kept driving and thought up a new plan.
"Here's the plan," I said. " We'll go to Walmart and buy a new
camera." And that's what we did.
But it was no different than putting a $160 in bills on the roof of
the car to blow away. That camera was perfectly fine, and the AS1100
I bought to replace it seems no better, but uses twice the space for a
pic, being 12 megapix vs 5.
Still no aperture, focus and shutter speed at the fingertips.
I've rejected fixing my film Minolta 102 and made the digital
transition in my head, but I need a low light, focusable camera.
My wife took some low light evening landscape shots with the new
camera that I could have caught beautifully with my Minolta.
Not worth looking at.
And I like a lightmeter needle in the viewfinder.
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

Speaking of Cameras
 

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?

Depends on how much you want to spend. A base DSLR with a decent lens
will run you in the vicinity of $500/700 depending on what you can
afford or want to lay out.

Prosumer cameras (professional level consumer cameras) are about a
grand or thereabouts.

Any one of the majors is good - Nikon, Canon or Olympus. Panasonic
makes a very nice prosumer camera in 4/3rds format.

What I would suggest is that you might want to visit Big Buy and look
at the different choices. Olympus might not be to your liking -
4/3rds format is a technicians delight and takes some wonderful
images, but you really have to have some technical chops to get the
best out of the camera in low light situations.

It really depends on what you want to do with the camera. There are
DSLR "type" cameras with fixed lenses that will allow for aperature
and shutter speed adjustments, but nothing beats a full DSLR.

Having said all that, having been a film guy for a while, you will
have to get used to the way DSLRs work. They do not work the same way
as film cameras - there will be a transition period and it will be
frustrating.

Again, the best way to do this is to visit a big box retailer and find
the camera that (1) you want to buy based on your requirements (2) go
online to buy it from Adaroma, National Camera or 47th Street.

You might also want to contact one of our posters here who is a Nikon
type and does some very good work. I'll be glad to send along his
email address - email me at first name last name at swsports dot org.

Speaking of Cameras
 

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

Bigger and more flexible might be better.
I was fishing on the Crystal river in Florida a couple weeks ago and
put the little Canon A530 on the roof of the car when I was loading
fishing gear on the trunk. Even in the case it's a small package.
Back on the 45mph road next to the park a thump was heard.
"What was that?!" my wife says.
"Just my tackle box shifting in the trunk." I said.
A few seconds later, "Where's the camera?!" my wife says.
I was silent for a bit. Thinking.
"Where's the camera?! Where's the camera?! Did you leave it on the
roof?!" I saw you put it on the roof!"
She was getting overcome by panic.
So I took charge, me being a man of clear thinking and a veteran of
the Armed Forces.
"SHUT UP!" I said.
I needed to turn around and she wasn't helping.
Luckily there wasn't much traffic, and about a half mile back I
spotted the camera on the opposite shoulder, still halfway in the
case.
Ran out and got it. Looked good to go, just a gouge on the plastic,
so I gave it to the wife with some pride.
"Here. Everything will be all right now."
Turned the car around and got a bit down the road, and she calmly
says, "The shutter button is gone, It doesn't work."
No way I could find that button, since I didn't mark in my head where
I found the camera, so I just kept driving and thought up a new plan.
"Here's the plan," I said. " We'll go to Walmart and buy a new
camera." And that's what we did.
But it was no different than putting a $160 in bills on the roof of
the car to blow away. That camera was perfectly fine, and the AS1100
I bought to replace it seems no better, but uses twice the space for a
pic, being 12 megapix vs 5.
Still no aperture, focus and shutter speed at the fingertips.
I've rejected fixing my film Minolta 102 and made the digital
transition in my head, but I need a low light, focusable camera.
My wife took some low light evening landscape shots with the new
camera that I could have caught beautifully with my Minolta.
Not worth looking at.
And I like a lightmeter needle in the viewfinder.
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.


This should do the trick if you put it into manual mode:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D60-Digital-18-55mm-55-200mm/dp/B00155137S/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1254950285&s r=8-16

or

http://tinyurl.com/y8wvkb9

Speaking of Cameras
 

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
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?

Depends on how much you want to spend. A base DSLR with a decent lens
will run you in the vicinity of $500/700 depending on what you can
afford or want to lay out.

Prosumer cameras (professional level consumer cameras) are about a
grand or thereabouts.

Any one of the majors is good - Nikon, Canon or Olympus. Panasonic
makes a very nice prosumer camera in 4/3rds format.

What I would suggest is that you might want to visit Big Buy and look
at the different choices. Olympus might not be to your liking -
4/3rds format is a technicians delight and takes some wonderful
images, but you really have to have some technical chops to get the
best out of the camera in low light situations.

It really depends on what you want to do with the camera. There are
DSLR "type" cameras with fixed lenses that will allow for aperature
and shutter speed adjustments, but nothing beats a full DSLR.

Having said all that, having been a film guy for a while, you will
have to get used to the way DSLRs work. They do not work the same way
as film cameras - there will be a transition period and it will be
frustrating.

Again, the best way to do this is to visit a big box retailer and find
the camera that (1) you want to buy based on your requirements (2) go
online to buy it from Adaroma, National Camera or 47th Street.

You might also want to contact one of our posters here who is a Nikon
type and does some very good work. I'll be glad to send along his
email address - email me at first name last name at swsports dot org.

I was talking to a local guy this morning about this very subject.
He has a local site dedicated to the dogs that visit a local park...his
Springer Spaniel is a younger brother to my Springer...same parents a year
apart.
Anyway, he was using an older Sony point & shoot with good results but may
step up to a DSLR. He's doing his homework now.

Speaking of Cameras
 

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

Bigger and more flexible might be better.
I was fishing on the Crystal river in Florida a couple weeks ago and
put the little Canon A530 on the roof of the car when I was loading
fishing gear on the trunk. Even in the case it's a small package.
Back on the 45mph road next to the park a thump was heard.
"What was that?!" my wife says.
"Just my tackle box shifting in the trunk." I said.
A few seconds later, "Where's the camera?!" my wife says.
I was silent for a bit. Thinking.
"Where's the camera?! Where's the camera?! Did you leave it on the
roof?!" I saw you put it on the roof!"
She was getting overcome by panic.
So I took charge, me being a man of clear thinking and a veteran of
the Armed Forces.
"SHUT UP!" I said.
I needed to turn around and she wasn't helping.
Luckily there wasn't much traffic, and about a half mile back I
spotted the camera on the opposite shoulder, still halfway in the
case.
Ran out and got it. Looked good to go, just a gouge on the plastic,
so I gave it to the wife with some pride.
"Here. Everything will be all right now."
Turned the car around and got a bit down the road, and she calmly
says, "The shutter button is gone, It doesn't work."
No way I could find that button, since I didn't mark in my head where
I found the camera, so I just kept driving and thought up a new plan.
"Here's the plan," I said. " We'll go to Walmart and buy a new
camera." And that's what we did.
But it was no different than putting a $160 in bills on the roof of
the car to blow away. That camera was perfectly fine, and the AS1100
I bought to replace it seems no better, but uses twice the space for a
pic, being 12 megapix vs 5.
Still no aperture, focus and shutter speed at the fingertips.
I've rejected fixing my film Minolta 102 and made the digital
transition in my head, but I need a low light, focusable camera.
My wife took some low light evening landscape shots with the new
camera that I could have caught beautifully with my Minolta.
Not worth looking at.
And I like a lightmeter needle in the viewfinder.
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

Get a used Nikon D200 and learn how to do everything manually. I love
mine. Some folks are moving up to the newer Nikons, so a used one
should be around. Or, look at the D40. Not too expensive, and you can
set everything manually. It just takes a little more work.

Speaking of Cameras
 

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:06:24 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:55:04 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:



You might also want to contact one of our posters here who is a Nikon
type and does some very good work. I'll be glad to send along his
email address - email me at first name last name at swsports dot org.

Thanks. But I don't want to devote a lot of time to it. I was pretty
good with my Minolta and know the basics. Don't intend to be a pro.
But the snap and shoots are just inadequate.
Just wanted some suggestions and a place to start.
Good idea about going to the big box store and getting my hands on
them. I'll do that once I narrow them down.
I'll look into the specs of what Wayne and John recommended.
Really liked the Minolta match pointer light meter in the viewfinder.
Took the guesswork out of exposure unless I was doing time lapse.
I'll see if I can find similar.
Buying used might be an option, but I'm a bit leery of that.
I've heard that sensors go kaput, so a warranty might be in order.
Okay, I'm away to Google!!

--Vic

Best of luck!

Speaking of Cameras
 

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:55:04 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:



You might also want to contact one of our posters here who is a Nikon
type and does some very good work. I'll be glad to send along his
email address - email me at first name last name at swsports dot org.

Thanks. But I don't want to devote a lot of time to it. I was pretty
good with my Minolta and know the basics. Don't intend to be a pro.
But the snap and shoots are just inadequate.
Just wanted some suggestions and a place to start.
Good idea about going to the big box store and getting my hands on
them. I'll do that once I narrow them down.
I'll look into the specs of what Wayne and John recommended.
Really liked the Minolta match pointer light meter in the viewfinder.
Took the guesswork out of exposure unless I was doing time lapse.
I'll see if I can find similar.
Buying used might be an option, but I'm a bit leery of that.
I've heard that sensors go kaput, so a warranty might be in order.
Okay, I'm away to Google!!

--Vic

Speaking of Cameras
 

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


Just a few.

Speaking of Cameras
 

"JR North" wrote in message
diainc...
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



You got a G2?
I'm still getting used to my G10. My pictures look super on the brilliant
3" screen but not so great when I use the adaptor cable to project onto a
32" HDTV screen...
Someone else said they also find the Canon photos a bit grainy when blown up
on a computer screen.
I guess they were right when the critics said 14.7 mega pixels were too much
for the small sensor.
I see the G11, out this year, has dropped back to 10 mega pixels and a
slightly smaller screen that swivels out like a camcorder.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09081908canong11.asp

Speaking of Cameras
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
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

Go to www.stevesdigicams.com for a lot of info on a LOT of cameras. They
don't sell there, just evaluate. IIRC, that is.

Steve

Speaking of Cameras
 

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

Speaking of Cameras
 

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

Speaking of Cameras
 

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

Speaking of Cameras
 

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. :)

Speaking of Cameras
 

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

Speaking of Cameras
 

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...

Speaking of Cameras
 

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.

Speaking of Cameras
 

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

Speaking of Cameras
 

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.

Speaking of Cameras
 

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

Speaking of Cameras
 

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

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

Just a a piece of advice - don't take Ken Rockwell seriously about
anything.

Speaking of Cameras
 

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


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.

You make some good points, but I would disagree that it's all about
sensors. Up until recently, Nikon and Canon used the same CMOS sensor
array for a long time when Nikon came up with a different sensor
matched to their lenses - LBCAST I think it's called or something like
that. It's a hybrid CCD/CMOS array, but I could be wrong about that.
Lenses are the most important part of any SLR system and all the
majors make great lenses.

I still prefer the 4/3rds format - I get great performance in a
smaller size, the lenses (in particular the new SWD series which is
really sharp) are excellant. I have pudgy fingers to and I don't have
a problem controlling any of my Oly DSLRs.

Like I said, the one problem with the 4/3rds format is that you really
have to know how to deal with the low light issue. The E-3 is a dream
in that sense - I've gotten some spectacular low light results from
the E-3 and 50mm SWD lens.

Speaking of Cameras
 

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

I shoot my kids playing sports so it comes in real handy, especially
I've got the 70-300 racked to 300 and trying to catch a kid running
full speed.

Also helps in low light conditions.

My hands aren't as steady as they once were...

Speaking of Cameras
 

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:18:40 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

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


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.

You make some good points, but I would disagree that it's all about
sensors. Up until recently, Nikon and Canon used the same CMOS sensor
array for a long time when Nikon came up with a different sensor
matched to their lenses - LBCAST I think it's called or something like
that. It's a hybrid CCD/CMOS array, but I could be wrong about that.
Lenses are the most important part of any SLR system and all the
majors make great lenses.

I still prefer the 4/3rds format - I get great performance in a
smaller size, the lenses (in particular the new SWD series which is
really sharp) are excellant. I have pudgy fingers to and I don't have
a problem controlling any of my Oly DSLRs.

Like I said, the one problem with the 4/3rds format is that you really
have to know how to deal with the low light issue. The E-3 is a dream
in that sense - I've gotten some spectacular low light results from
the E-3 and 50mm SWD lens.

Your E-3 takes in about 75% of the information that a good Nikon
body/lens will deliver at the same resolution. I've witnessed it
personally.

I said "sensors and electronics" since it's what happens as the image
is processed to a file that also counts.

I find Nikon's processing to be more my cup of tea than Canon's.

Canon does better on the low light front.

Ken Rockwell has a well-earned opinion but he's not the holy grail. I
find him to be reasonably on the mark but there are plenty of other
opinions to consider before chosing equipment.

Speaking of Cameras
 

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:21:46 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:18:40 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

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


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.

You make some good points, but I would disagree that it's all about
sensors. Up until recently, Nikon and Canon used the same CMOS sensor
array for a long time when Nikon came up with a different sensor
matched to their lenses - LBCAST I think it's called or something like
that. It's a hybrid CCD/CMOS array, but I could be wrong about that.
Lenses are the most important part of any SLR system and all the
majors make great lenses.

I still prefer the 4/3rds format - I get great performance in a
smaller size, the lenses (in particular the new SWD series which is
really sharp) are excellant. I have pudgy fingers to and I don't have
a problem controlling any of my Oly DSLRs.

Like I said, the one problem with the 4/3rds format is that you really
have to know how to deal with the low light issue. The E-3 is a dream
in that sense - I've gotten some spectacular low light results from
the E-3 and 50mm SWD lens.

Your E-3 takes in about 75% of the information that a good Nikon
body/lens will deliver at the same resolution. I've witnessed it
personally.

Nah. Sorry - nice try.

I've seen the blind tests done in Australia and in Eurpope - Nikon,
Canon and Olympus - in almost all cases, the obvious Nikon bias came
through for both Canon and Olympus - it was embarrassing. The most
interesting item was in the macro area - Nikons were credited almost
70% wrong against Oly.

I said "sensors and electronics" since it's what happens as the image
is processed to a file that also counts.

More BS.

I find Nikon's processing to be more my cup of tea than Canon's.

Canon does better on the low light front.

On that we can agree.
\
Ken Rockwell has a well-earned opinion but he's not the holy grail. I
find him to be reasonably on the mark but there are plenty of other
opinions to consider before chosing equipment.

Well, we'll agree to disagree on that one. A lot of pros I know can't
stand him and/or his opinions - one of which is that Ken Rockwell is
the be all and end all of photography.

Speaking of Cameras
 

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:21:46 -0700, jps wrote:



Ken Rockwell has a well-earned opinion but he's not the holy grail. I
find him to be reasonably on the mark but there are plenty of other
opinions to consider before chosing equipment.

Rockwell is entertaining and throws a lot at you in good fashion.
Did surprise me a bit how hard he pushed the D40 then in another piece
knocked the metering.
But I think he had the gist of what he was saying right.
His enthusiasm spills over, and he doesn't seem to pose with airs of
tech expertise about him. Comes out naturally though, and there's no
doubt about his tech expertise.
I liked his section on cheap/frugal. Aligns well with my own
philosophy, except he's one new car ahead of me.
But as you said, there's other opinions to look at before laying down
the cash.

--Vic

Speaking of Cameras
 

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:18:57 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:21:46 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:18:40 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

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


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.

You make some good points, but I would disagree that it's all about
sensors. Up until recently, Nikon and Canon used the same CMOS sensor
array for a long time when Nikon came up with a different sensor
matched to their lenses - LBCAST I think it's called or something like
that. It's a hybrid CCD/CMOS array, but I could be wrong about that.
Lenses are the most important part of any SLR system and all the
majors make great lenses.

I still prefer the 4/3rds format - I get great performance in a
smaller size, the lenses (in particular the new SWD series which is
really sharp) are excellant. I have pudgy fingers to and I don't have
a problem controlling any of my Oly DSLRs.

Like I said, the one problem with the 4/3rds format is that you really
have to know how to deal with the low light issue. The E-3 is a dream
in that sense - I've gotten some spectacular low light results from
the E-3 and 50mm SWD lens.

Your E-3 takes in about 75% of the information that a good Nikon
body/lens will deliver at the same resolution. I've witnessed it
personally.

Nah. Sorry - nice try.

No, really.

I've seen the blind tests done in Australia and in Eurpope - Nikon,
Canon and Olympus - in almost all cases, the obvious Nikon bias came
through for both Canon and Olympus - it was embarrassing. The most
interesting item was in the macro area - Nikons were credited almost
70% wrong against Oly.

Macro? Is that where you spend most of your time? Bugs?

I said "sensors and electronics" since it's what happens as the image
is processed to a file that also counts.

More BS.

Do some reading professor.

I find Nikon's processing to be more my cup of tea than Canon's.

Canon does better on the low light front.

On that we can agree.

Oh golly. That information came from the same sources as the rest of
my information. Just because you're emotionally attached to your
stinky little E-3 doesn't make a good setup. It's information
collection with a prime lens was inferior to my old D70s with a crappy
28-200mm zoom. Resolution didn't matter, there was simply 25% less
information captured. Your mileage may vary but you've got no basis
to refute, unless you can cite something.

Olympus glass may be wonderful, the E-3 sensor and electronics suck.

Ken Rockwell has a well-earned opinion but he's not the holy grail. I
find him to be reasonably on the mark but there are plenty of other
opinions to consider before chosing equipment.

Well, we'll agree to disagree on that one. A lot of pros I know can't
stand him and/or his opinions - one of which is that Ken Rockwell is
the be all and end all of photography.

"A lot of pros" as if you share any ability to capture images or frame
shots or manipulate exposure on the level of a pro.

I've seen your photography.

Speaking of Cameras
 

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:51:23 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:21:46 -0700, jps wrote:



Ken Rockwell has a well-earned opinion but he's not the holy grail. I
find him to be reasonably on the mark but there are plenty of other
opinions to consider before chosing equipment.

Rockwell is entertaining and throws a lot at you in good fashion.
Did surprise me a bit how hard he pushed the D40 then in another piece
knocked the metering.
But I think he had the gist of what he was saying right.
His enthusiasm spills over, and he doesn't seem to pose with airs of
tech expertise about him. Comes out naturally though, and there's no
doubt about his tech expertise.
I liked his section on cheap/frugal. Aligns well with my own
philosophy, except he's one new car ahead of me.
But as you said, there's other opinions to look at before laying down
the cash.

--Vic

The D40 is a cheap camera with a crappy lens. You'd be disappointed.

Rockwell a good source of info for the non-professional who wants to
know about consumer to prosumer equipment.

To wade through the information available on features, sensors,
electronics, lens distortion is better suited to the guy who's
spending $5 - $20K on a setup that's going to be used for commercial
photography or high-level hobby.

I think your experience with an SLR will lead you back to that form
factor. Those of us who grew up with a well-built SLR body cannot
abide the cheap, automatic, inferior quality of the point and shoot,
even the high end models.

Even Tom's crappy E-3 would be a brilliant purchase in comparison to a
fixed-lens wanna be SLR.