PDA

View Full Version : what camera you guys using?



KillMe
07-29-2009, 03:55 PM
i'm thinking its well past time i retired my old 35mm slr and upgraded to digital slr.

My old slr is a pentax camera so i'm thinking that i should go pentax again so i can reuse all my old lenses and thats drawn me to the Pentax K20D

However there are several options in this price range and wondered what other people were using and if is something out there good enough that i should just shove all my old stuff on ebay and start from scratch

COBRASoft
07-29-2009, 04:37 PM
I have an 'old' Canon 350D (8mp) which is now replaced by the 500 model I think. I'm very happy with it for my amature shots.

My brother however does semi-pro photography under water with his Nikon D-300. The results are really stunishing with the 12mp.

I think it are mainly the lenses which make the biggest difference (as always). If you take photographs in RAW, the body doesn't matter that much, because all can be changed later on in PhotoShop or LightRoom.

colkai
07-30-2009, 02:06 AM
I'd kill for a new Canon but I still use my old Sony DSC-F828 - no lens swap capability but it's served me well. Given you want to re-use your lenses though, the Pentax sounds a logical choice to me.

Sensei
07-30-2009, 02:27 AM
what camera you guys using?

Perspective camera.. ;)

KillMe
07-30-2009, 03:29 AM
ah but perspective camera is abit bulky - my workstation could prove difficult to get to the top of mountains and even if you did getting power to it could be difficult =)

colkai
07-30-2009, 07:06 AM
Yeah, but how easy would it be to do Pano's then. ;)

Riff_Masteroff
08-01-2009, 09:26 PM
I assume that the output from digital cameras is better than film ever was. I am thinking about the newer 12mp + or - units. If this is not so, please fill me in.

tnx in advance

Animapper
08-02-2009, 09:39 AM
I assume that the output from digital cameras is better than film ever was. I am thinking about the newer 12mp + or - units. If this is not so, please fill me in.

tnx in advance

The Canon EOS 5D Mark II is flying off the shelves because it takes amazing pictures, 21 MP and full HD video capable. I know 2 DPs that are using them as a B-roll camera. Check it out

http://tinyurl.com/mesmm9

Warmly,

KillMe
08-02-2009, 04:33 PM
well i've descided to blow the budget and get the pentax k-7 instead - k20 is getting on abit and lacked some features but k-7 is getting great reviews and fits everything i want along nwith compatibility with all my lenses - shame that costs nearly twice as much but i'm into that 'I WANT IT' zone now

this camera is 14.6MP so should be able to get results as high resolution as from 35mm easily enough and has HD video too and even a socket to attach an external microphone too so makes it a nice toy =) and not as expensive as that fancy cannon while doing most of the stuff it can so i'll take it

COBRASoft
08-02-2009, 05:27 PM
Good luck with it! 14.6MP is 55% more pixels than I have, so you should be more than fine :)

gordonrobb
08-02-2009, 05:31 PM
Canon 350D here. Love it, although I would upgrade it if i had the money.

mac
08-05-2009, 01:50 PM
I shoot Canon gear, a 40D and two 30D's as back up. I mainly shoot birds so a Canon 500L IS is my main lens, coupled with a 1.4 extender that gives me 700mm. Also for birds in flight I use the Canon 400 5.6

My bird images can be viewed on my site.

http://darrenmckenna.com/

oobievision
08-05-2009, 08:55 PM
You should check Ebay for new cams all the stadiums sell their old models at the end of football season as their given the latest cameras. most of the cameras out there u can find a adapter to use ur old lenses, Canon SLRs are all 35mm so u can use any 35 mm lense.

mac
08-05-2009, 11:34 PM
Canon SLRs are all 35mm so u can use any 35 mm lense.

Most Canon body's are 1.6 crops and the only body's that are 35mm equivalent or full frame as they are known are the 1Ds Mark III and the 5D and the 5D Mark II.

Panikos
08-05-2009, 11:53 PM
I have a Canon SLR 400d with a small variety of lenses. I dont do photography for living and I take pictures that a tourist cam cannot. I am happy with it.
After some years I will invest in a miraculous one

Silkrooster
08-05-2009, 11:59 PM
Well he had it half right. Not all DSLR's have a 35mm sensor but generally do except a EF lenses. Which were originally developed for the 35mm film SLR. I haven't seen any yet that accept only an EF-s but I wouldn't be surprised if that day came.

My camera is also the Canon 40D.

Animapper
08-06-2009, 07:32 AM
Most Canon body's are 1.6 crops and the only body's that are 35mm equivalent or full frame as they are known are the 1Ds Mark III and the 5D and the 5D Mark II.

Good point. Many people think that everything is compatible but not all the lenses work right. The ranges change depending on the chips too. This is even more dramatic on the video side of things where the glass makes a huge difference in using prime vs. non-prime lenses. Always a good idea to check with a good VAR that knows the lenses that will work.

Regards,

mac
08-06-2009, 11:13 AM
Well he had it half right. Not all DSLR's have a 35mm sensor but generally do except a EF lenses. Which were originally developed for the 35mm film SLR. I haven't seen any yet that accept only an EF-s but I wouldn't be surprised if that day came.

My camera is also the Canon 40D.

The EF-S lens will not fit on any of the FF (full frame) body's and generally have a sub par build which are often in the mid price range. If your 40D came with a kit lens there is a good chance it had a EF-S 17-85 with it, at least in Canada :)

All EF lens will fit digital Canon body's but not all EF-S will.

Oh in my first post I should have said most of the Canon crops are either 1.6 or 1.3.

Silkrooster
08-06-2009, 10:06 PM
The 40D camera had two options the EF-s 17-85mm or the EF 28-135mm. Mine came with the EF lens. I kind of prefer the EF just for the reason you mentioned. Who knows if one day I decide to get a full frame camera. It would cost quite a bit to replace any lens that didn't fit. Should I ever get any(EF-s lenses that is :D).

aaronv2
08-06-2009, 11:08 PM
I assume that the output from digital cameras is better than film ever was. I am thinking about the newer 12mp + or - units. If this is not so, please fill me in.

tnx in advance

This is NOT so... Film is far superior to digital and it is a widely accepted fact. There is more resolution in film than any megapixel camera can get. Also digital cameras are cursed with noise. In low light a digital camera will get ALOT of noise. The more megapixels, the more noise. Also more megapixels does mean it will enlarge better. But consider that film can enlarge to almost ANY size. Even the size of a roadside billboard. Where as digital provides artifacts as you enlarge.

Analog ALWAYS beats digital. Because of how digital must be programmed. This is why many audio buffs still love the old school records and a needle.

Digital hasn't surpassed analog yet. But in the future who knows. Consumer market gets the technology that is cheap and affordable at the time. In 10 years it is likely we will have 500 megapixel cameras. Huh? dont believe me?

"Fermilab, a U.S. Department of Energy research lab, is part of a collaboration on an experiment to measure the properties of dark energy. The Dark Energy Survey would measure the history of the expansion rate of the universe more precisely than ever before, using the largest camera ever built with Charge Coupled Devices (CCD). The 500 megapixel Dark Energy Camera (DECam) would be placed on an existing 4-meter telescope located in north-central Chile at the National Optical Astronomy Observatory's Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory. The DECam together with the CTIO 4-meter telescope will allow for a survey of 15 percent of the sky to light levels faint enough to measure the colors of galaxies at redshift one."

mac
08-07-2009, 11:41 AM
Film is far superior to digital and it is a widely accepted fact. There is more resolution in film than any megapixel camera can get.


Not sure were you get your facts from, but you are wrong, if film was better don't you think they would still make it.

You are obviously "old school" and most folks know the dynamics of digital have surpassed film years ago. I know I retired all of my old film body's and moved to a far superior "digital" world.

cheers

Animapper
08-07-2009, 12:51 PM
This is NOT so... Film is far superior to digital and it is a widely accepted fact. There is more resolution in film than any megapixel camera can get. Also digital cameras are cursed with noise. In low light a digital camera will get ALOT of noise. The more megapixels, the more noise. Also more megapixels does mean it will enlarge better. But consider that film can enlarge to almost ANY size. Even the size of a roadside billboard. Where as digital provides artifacts as you enlarge.

Analog ALWAYS beats digital. Because of how digital must be programmed. This is why many audio buffs still love the old school records and a needle.



Oh Aaronv2 you really stepped out on this one. So many of us could go ape over this one but I'm afraid your facts are simply wrong, very wrong. Just do a simple search on the history of film and if you understand silver halide and how it is formed you'll see that the size of the crystals certainly does affect resolution in film. It is not endlessly able to be blown up. The faster the speed of film, the more course the grains get and noise appears. Your example of a billboard is pretty entertaining seeing they don't generally go past 50 ppi on the artwork and sometimes as low as 12 ppi.

I hope you understand I'm not attacking you but when you boldy assert very wrong information it needs to be addressed.

As a Geographic Scientist I use 25 megapixel cameras when we fly aerial missions to capture ground images for 3D viewing and timber stand counting. These cameras far exceed anything we ever shot with a 4x5 or 6x8 so there's the experienced facts. I'm sure others can give more examples.

Regards,

COBRASoft
08-07-2009, 03:46 PM
aaronv2 is not entirly wrong guys. Good films are able to capture 7200dpi. Most digital cameras nowadays don't reach that quality. There's a simple rule: 8MP is A3 format printed, with a decent film camera and a very decent film, you can go much larger than A3 format.

But, the digital cameras are far more light sensitive and can take the same picture much faster than most films with less noise (films have grain).
Another big problem of film compared to digital is well... the digital world we live in. Trying to get the right colours from film into your computer can be difficult and finding a good scanner for high resolutions can cost more than the camera itself.
There's also the ease of use. Don't like a shot, just delete it and shoot again, or have enough space on your SD card (or whatever) to take the same shot 20 times. Want to make a small movie, most modern digital cameras do this with ease.
The digital world is definitely taking over the film one, but I know some pro photographers using both, one of them still uses a glassplate for very special shots...

mac
08-07-2009, 05:11 PM
As a professional bird photographer I can say I know of zero other bird photographers (wildlife as well) that still shoot film. Film is really antiquated in every way except for those with a high sense of nostalgia.

Animapper
08-07-2009, 05:54 PM
aaronv2 is not entirly wrong guys. Good films are able to capture 7200dpi. Most digital cameras nowadays don't reach that quality. There's a simple rule: 8MP is A3 format printed, with a decent film camera and a very decent film, you can go much larger than A3 format.

But, the digital cameras are far more light sensitive and can take the same picture much faster than most films with less noise (films have grain).
Another big problem of film compared to digital is well... the digital world we live in. Trying to get the right colours from film into your computer can be difficult and finding a good scanner for high resolutions can cost more than the camera itself.
There's also the ease of use. Don't like a shot, just delete it and shoot again, or have enough space on your SD card (or whatever) to take the same shot 20 times. Want to make a small movie, most modern digital cameras do this with ease.
The digital world is definitely taking over the film one, but I know some pro photographers using both, one of them still uses a glassplate for very special shots...

Arghhhh!

Please just do the research!!! 7200dpi??? DPI is dots per inch in paper output not pixels per inch equated to silver halide crystals - this has to be differentiated. Film is crystals just like I said. You can't equate it to the newest 40+ megapixel cameras. They have far superior resolution, period. I spend too much time correcting this false notion.

Sorry for the bandwith,

Lightwolf
08-07-2009, 06:22 PM
Except for the fact that this page has got dpis and lpis mixed up as well (*sigh*) it's actually quite interesting.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm
Also this link:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153.html
As it tries to compare film to digital without digitizing the film in the first place (which would just be another source of error).

But obviously there's plenty of reasons to use digital.

Cheers,
Mike

JonW
08-07-2009, 07:06 PM
I used Mamiya 645 & 67 for years & have some of there best lenses, my Canon D20 was getting pretty close to the 645 for quality. In the end I sacrificed the slight quality edge for the shear convenience of digital.

The 12mp is better than 645 & close to 67. The 21mp is better than 67. The other issue is every time you go up a size in format you need to double your f stop for the same depth of field. This can be a pain depending on what you are shooting.

I use my Mamiya 35mm & 80mm Macro on the Canon (had their 50mm shift lens, is was the best of the lot but two elements went cloudy). The Mamiya 80mm Macro is the best lens I have, & the 135mm Canon comes in second.


I love using medium format, it slows you down while shooting, but I get better quality from 21mp, & convenience.

21mp is pickup every fault of the lenses, & also the user, you really need to shoot using a tripod & most importantly shoot RAW.

COBRASoft
08-07-2009, 07:40 PM
Arghhhh!

Please just do the research!!! 7200dpi??? DPI is dots per inch in paper output not pixels per inch equated to silver halide crystals - this has to be differentiated. Film is crystals just like I said. You can't equate it to the newest 40+ megapixel cameras. They have far superior resolution, period. I spend too much time correcting this false notion.

Sorry for the bandwith,

Hey, this 7200 dpi is a comparision to known standards, I know very well what dpi means. And I was comparing with a 8MP (like mine). Perhaps you should read better instead of getting on to me :) And I gave enough reasons why digital is becoming better and better and surpasing film. Thrust me, I once had to convince my father that digital would surpass film. It took me more than 5 years :thumbsup:

COBRASoft
08-07-2009, 07:43 PM
Except for the fact that this page has got dpis and lpis mixed up as well (*sigh*) it's actually quite interesting.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm
Also this link:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153.html
As it tries to compare film to digital without digitizing the film in the first place (which would just be another source of error).

But obviously there's plenty of reasons to use digital.

Cheers,
Mike

Thanks :)

cresshead
08-07-2009, 08:25 PM
let's see...

nintendo dsi
psp camera
and my LG cookie phone camera!


okay, i get the picture...i'm leaving!

i'd love to have a digital still camera or a HD camcorder..

mac
08-08-2009, 03:41 AM
i'd love to have a digital still camera or a HD camcorder..

HD camera's are getting better and cheaper all the time. I think for around $800 Cnd you can get a very good camcorder these days. It's on my list ... someday. :hey: