Anyone into still photography?

Doug Thompson · August 12th, 2002, 03:02 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by mikeysbistro :
I have a question though, what's the difference between still photography and just plain old photography? -->>>

Webster's Defines Photography as: "the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light," which does not suggest a difference between still and motion photography (it also does not make allowances for digital).

To me, filmmaking is just as much photography as still work. It is the creative art of capturing images to film (or chip).

Doug

pineapples10 · August 13th, 2002, 12:43 AM

good point...i put the still in there for *those* people who would think it was Dv related....actually..no...I don't knoiw why I put it in there...oh well...no worries....great meteor shower tonight...wish I had my camera with me......what a shame....
Chris
http://home.attbi.com/~jimreinhardt

Dylan Couper · August 13th, 2002, 12:59 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Doug Thompson : <<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : I'm really starting to get into still photography.
I bought an OLD Pentax Spotmatic SLR at a garage sale for $30 a few years ago, to try out photography. -->>>

Sounds like a good setup for occasional use but you probably couldn't make a living in photography with it. As with any creative endeavor, it's the eye that controls the equipment more than the equipment itself but you still have to have the hardware to turn out a quality product. -->>>

Fortunately, I'm not trying to make a living at it. :)
I am planning on getting a new camera a lot sooner than my post implied. I've just got to decide what to get. Lots of choices. Digital or not. And I'd like to get a camera whose lenses can be used on the XL1, of course. ;)

Jeff Donald · August 13th, 2002, 07:28 AM

I think it depends on what you want to use your still camera for. Canon EF lenses (or 3rd party lenses with EF mounts) are the only lenses that will directly fit the XL mount. Canon EF lenses are the only ones that fit their AF 35mm SLR bodies. Look for a clean used Canon Rebel 2000 or Rebel G. I think we are several years away from an affordable (under $1000) digital SLR body. A clean, used body will run under $200. The lenses run any where from $50 on up depending on the type, brand, zoom range, condition etc.

Jeff

Paul Sedillo · August 13th, 2002, 08:16 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : I think it depends on what you want to use your still camera for. Canon EF lenses (or 3rd party lenses with EF mounts) are the only lenses that will directly fit the XL mount. Canon EF lenses are the only ones that fit their AF 35mm SLR bodies. Look for a clean used Canon Rebel 2000 or Rebel G. I think we are several years away from an affordable (under $1000) digital SLR body. A clean, used body will run under $200. The lenses run any where from $50 on up depending on the type, brand, zoom range, condition etc.

Jeff -->>>

I would have to agree with you. The interesting thing to note, is that in the film world (photography) you can get a decent SLR for around $600.00 (body only). In fact I have seen F100's around that price range. That is a great camera for the money.

Ross Milligan · August 19th, 2002, 08:26 AM

Phil Askey does a great job of reviewing the latest digital cameras on dpreview.com, as mentioned before, but for me the most entertaining part are the forums.

'My Nikon is better than your Canon any day' etc etc, and as for the CompactFlash vs Microdrive arguments - handbags at dawn!

Well worth a look. It is the site I normally point the medical staff who wander in saying something like "I want a digital camera that does this, this and this but only cost this" (as is their want).

They somehow expect you to know the pros & cons of every domestic camera on the market - 'but your a professional photographer - why don't you know??' :-(

Ross

Doug Thompson · August 21st, 2002, 03:35 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Sedillo : The interesting thing to note, is that in the film world (photography) you can get a decent SLR for around $600.00 (body only). In fact I have seen F100's around that price range. That is a great camera for the money. -->>>

The F100 is he steal of the Nikon line. 85 percent of the functionality of the F5 at 60 percent of the size and 50 percent (or less) of the price. If it had a mirror lockup function it would be perfect. The D1H/X is based on the F100 body.

I have a Coolpix 5000 that stays locked in the console of my Jeep as a "just in case" camera. It delivers incredibly sharp photos.

Doug

Paul Sedillo · August 21st, 2002, 05:56 PM

Doug,

Yes, no doubt about the F100. It is a great rig for the money. My camera of choice for the vehicle is a little Yashica T4. It has a Ziess lens and is at a great price point. Plus it is small enough to take just about anywhere.

I keep watching eBay looking for an F100. That will be my next SLR.

Ross Milligan · August 22nd, 2002, 05:01 AM

My department has been using two Nikon FE's for over twenty years, athough we have been digital for five years now (currently using Kodak DCS 620's).

I guess the FE's (and our F2's) are still going strong because these cameras have brass cogs rather than plastic.

They still get used regularly by students who learn the basics before we let them loose on the digital kit.

My own favourite is my 'F' Photomic bought S/H in in 1975 although it now only deals with holiday snaps......

Ross

Doug Thompson · August 22nd, 2002, 10:08 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Ross Milligan : My department has been using two Nikon FE's for over twenty years, athough we have been digital for five years now (currently using Kodak DCS 620's).

I guess the FE's (and our F2's) are still going strong because these cameras have brass cogs rather than plastic.

They still get used regularly by students who learn the basics before we let them loose on the digital kit.

My own favourite is my 'F' Photomic bought S/H in in 1975 although it now only deals with holiday snaps......

Ross -->>>

Ross:

I've still got an old "F", an F2 and two FM-2s in the closet and use them from time to time to remember the good old days when men were men and cameras required focusing and metering. Hell, my old Luna Pro still works. The F is built like a tank. I think I still have a 4x5 Speed Graphic in the closet somewhere (anybody know where I can get some Plus-X sheet film?).

I wonder sometimes if I still have eye to use manual, though. I've gotten used to letting the camera handle the focus and exposure and concentrating on composition. We get used to the tools we use. The F5 is still my favorite camera and I would us it more but most clients want the speed and convenience of digital. Last weekend, however, I took my Jeep up in the mountains with just the F5 and the 80-400 VR zoom and had a ball. Then I sorted the slides, picked the ones I wanted, popped them in the scanner and went back to digital.

Doug

Ross Milligan · August 22nd, 2002, 10:32 AM

The first 'professional' photographer I ever met, while at High school, was the senior press photographer for a now defunct national newspaper in Scotland.

He used a 'F' with no metering at all - he could look a scene and tell you what aperture and shutter speed it would require. How many of us could de that today and get it right everytime!

Fortunately in my field, medical, we do not use auto focus because it can be fooled to much by the conditions we work in.

I will confess that it is tempting to use the flash on auto....... but I really should not, the depth of field at f32 on manual is much better than what you get at f11 on auto :-)

Ross

Alexander McLeod · August 24th, 2002, 08:48 AM

Good thread. I'm coming into this forum from the other end, i.e., still photography. I have a Sony TRV820 but I'm looking very seriously at the Canon GL-2. Most of my shooting is in travel (primarily Asia) and skiing and sailing. I've had two Canon slrs which have been very good to me. Currently I use the now-discontinued EOS 5. the two lenses I use are the EF 28-105 and and EF 100-300.

The point about the interchangeability of Canon lenses is important. For years I used an FX 1 and had some very good lenses but when Canon changed their lens system I was out of luck. I know there are adaptors but I've been told they are rather kludgy. However, I don't think Canon will change again or at least not soon. :-) The EOS 5 is still available and I think it is a good buy.

Sandy

Matt Betea · November 24th, 2002, 10:19 PM

hello,
i know this is a little dated thread but i've pretty much decided on the digital camera to get and was looking for some opinions from you knowledgeable folks. it's the olympus c-4000z model. other than messing around a little bit with my dad's old minolta x370(that's in desperate need for a good cleaning). this would be my first still/digital cam. for the price it looks like it's loaded with features that will keep very involved and happy. i should be getting it this week. it's definitely not a pro cam, but from the features and price it seems like a really nice deal for my level. the most notable issue with it i've read so far is it's startup time is considered slow (9sec. i read at a few places). and release/exposure time is a bit slow (1sec.). i don't plan i shooting any kind of action. just mainly something for me to sharpen my eye and have a good time with. thanks for any info.

also apart from the sites mentioned before (those are great sites), i found www.steves-digicams.com to have good reviews, thorough and well written.

matt

August 12th, 2002, 03:02 PM	#16
Doug Thompson Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Floyd, Virginia Posts: 99	<<<-- Originally posted by mikeysbistro : I have a question though, what's the difference between still photography and just plain old photography? -->>> Webster's Defines Photography as: "the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light," which does not suggest a difference between still and motion photography (it also does not make allowances for digital). To me, filmmaking is just as much photography as still work. It is the creative art of capturing images to film (or chip). Doug __________________ Doug Thompson http://www.blueridgemuse.com

August 13th, 2002, 08:16 AM	#20
Paul Sedillo Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 607	<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : I think it depends on what you want to use your still camera for. Canon EF lenses (or 3rd party lenses with EF mounts) are the only lenses that will directly fit the XL mount. Canon EF lenses are the only ones that fit their AF 35mm SLR bodies. Look for a clean used Canon Rebel 2000 or Rebel G. I think we are several years away from an affordable (under $1000) digital SLR body. A clean, used body will run under $200. The lenses run any where from $50 on up depending on the type, brand, zoom range, condition etc. Jeff -->>> I would have to agree with you. The interesting thing to note, is that in the film world (photography) you can get a decent SLR for around $600.00 (body only). In fact I have seen F100's around that price range. That is a great camera for the money. __________________ Paul Sedillo Image::Studio http://www.image-studio.com Houston, Texas

August 21st, 2002, 03:35 PM	#22
Doug Thompson Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Floyd, Virginia Posts: 99	<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Sedillo : The interesting thing to note, is that in the film world (photography) you can get a decent SLR for around $600.00 (body only). In fact I have seen F100's around that price range. That is a great camera for the money. -->>> The F100 is he steal of the Nikon line. 85 percent of the functionality of the F5 at 60 percent of the size and 50 percent (or less) of the price. If it had a mirror lockup function it would be perfect. The D1H/X is based on the F100 body. I have a Coolpix 5000 that stays locked in the console of my Jeep as a "just in case" camera. It delivers incredibly sharp photos. Doug __________________ Doug Thompson http://www.blueridgemuse.com

August 21st, 2002, 05:56 PM	#23
Paul Sedillo Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 607	Doug, Yes, no doubt about the F100. It is a great rig for the money. My camera of choice for the vehicle is a little Yashica T4. It has a Ziess lens and is at a great price point. Plus it is small enough to take just about anywhere. I keep watching eBay looking for an F100. That will be my next SLR. __________________ Paul Sedillo Image::Studio http://www.image-studio.com Houston, Texas

August 22nd, 2002, 10:08 AM	#25
Doug Thompson Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Floyd, Virginia Posts: 99	<<<-- Originally posted by Ross Milligan : My department has been using two Nikon FE's for over twenty years, athough we have been digital for five years now (currently using Kodak DCS 620's). I guess the FE's (and our F2's) are still going strong because these cameras have brass cogs rather than plastic. They still get used regularly by students who learn the basics before we let them loose on the digital kit. My own favourite is my 'F' Photomic bought S/H in in 1975 although it now only deals with holiday snaps...... Ross -->>> Ross: I've still got an old "F", an F2 and two FM-2s in the closet and use them from time to time to remember the good old days when men were men and cameras required focusing and metering. Hell, my old Luna Pro still works. The F is built like a tank. I think I still have a 4x5 Speed Graphic in the closet somewhere (anybody know where I can get some Plus-X sheet film?). I wonder sometimes if I still have eye to use manual, though. I've gotten used to letting the camera handle the focus and exposure and concentrating on composition. We get used to the tools we use. The F5 is still my favorite camera and I would us it more but most clients want the speed and convenience of digital. Last weekend, however, I took my Jeep up in the mountains with just the F5 and the 80-400 VR zoom and had a ball. Then I sorted the slides, picked the ones I wanted, popped them in the scanner and went back to digital. Doug __________________ Doug Thompson http://www.blueridgemuse.com

August 13th, 2002, 12:43 AM	#17
pineapples10 New Boot Join Date: May 2002 Location: NH Posts: 16	good point...i put the still in there for those people who would think it was Dv related....actually..no...I don't knoiw why I put it in there...oh well...no worries....great meteor shower tonight...wish I had my camera with me......what a shame.... Chris http://home.attbi.com/~jimreinhardt

August 13th, 2002, 12:59 AM	#18
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	<<<-- Originally posted by Doug Thompson : <<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : I'm really starting to get into still photography. I bought an OLD Pentax Spotmatic SLR at a garage sale for $30 a few years ago, to try out photography. -->>> Sounds like a good setup for occasional use but you probably couldn't make a living in photography with it. As with any creative endeavor, it's the eye that controls the equipment more than the equipment itself but you still have to have the hardware to turn out a quality product. -->>> Fortunately, I'm not trying to make a living at it. :) I am planning on getting a new camera a lot sooner than my post implied. I've just got to decide what to get. Lots of choices. Digital or not. And I'd like to get a camera whose lenses can be used on the XL1, of course. ;)

August 13th, 2002, 07:28 AM	#19
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I think it depends on what you want to use your still camera for. Canon EF lenses (or 3rd party lenses with EF mounts) are the only lenses that will directly fit the XL mount. Canon EF lenses are the only ones that fit their AF 35mm SLR bodies. Look for a clean used Canon Rebel 2000 or Rebel G. I think we are several years away from an affordable (under $1000) digital SLR body. A clean, used body will run under $200. The lenses run any where from $50 on up depending on the type, brand, zoom range, condition etc. Jeff

August 19th, 2002, 08:26 AM	#21
Ross Milligan Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Scotland UK Posts: 63	Phil Askey does a great job of reviewing the latest digital cameras on dpreview.com, as mentioned before, but for me the most entertaining part are the forums. 'My Nikon is better than your Canon any day' etc etc, and as for the CompactFlash vs Microdrive arguments - handbags at dawn! Well worth a look. It is the site I normally point the medical staff who wander in saying something like "I want a digital camera that does this, this and this but only cost this" (as is their want). They somehow expect you to know the pros & cons of every domestic camera on the market - 'but your a professional photographer - why don't you know??' :-( Ross

August 22nd, 2002, 05:01 AM	#24
Ross Milligan Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Scotland UK Posts: 63	My department has been using two Nikon FE's for over twenty years, athough we have been digital for five years now (currently using Kodak DCS 620's). I guess the FE's (and our F2's) are still going strong because these cameras have brass cogs rather than plastic. They still get used regularly by students who learn the basics before we let them loose on the digital kit. My own favourite is my 'F' Photomic bought S/H in in 1975 although it now only deals with holiday snaps...... Ross

August 22nd, 2002, 10:32 AM	#26
Ross Milligan Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Scotland UK Posts: 63	The first 'professional' photographer I ever met, while at High school, was the senior press photographer for a now defunct national newspaper in Scotland. He used a 'F' with no metering at all - he could look a scene and tell you what aperture and shutter speed it would require. How many of us could de that today and get it right everytime! Fortunately in my field, medical, we do not use auto focus because it can be fooled to much by the conditions we work in. I will confess that it is tempting to use the flash on auto....... but I really should not, the depth of field at f32 on manual is much better than what you get at f11 on auto :-) Ross

August 24th, 2002, 08:48 AM	#27
Alexander McLeod Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Posts: 90	Good thread. I'm coming into this forum from the other end, i.e., still photography. I have a Sony TRV820 but I'm looking very seriously at the Canon GL-2. Most of my shooting is in travel (primarily Asia) and skiing and sailing. I've had two Canon slrs which have been very good to me. Currently I use the now-discontinued EOS 5. the two lenses I use are the EF 28-105 and and EF 100-300. The point about the interchangeability of Canon lenses is important. For years I used an FX 1 and had some very good lenses but when Canon changed their lens system I was out of luck. I know there are adaptors but I've been told they are rather kludgy. However, I don't think Canon will change again or at least not soon. :-) The EOS 5 is still available and I think it is a good buy. Sandy

November 24th, 2002, 10:19 PM	#28
Matt Betea Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: detroit, mi Posts: 187	hello, i know this is a little dated thread but i've pretty much decided on the digital camera to get and was looking for some opinions from you knowledgeable folks. it's the olympus c-4000z model. other than messing around a little bit with my dad's old minolta x370(that's in desperate need for a good cleaning). this would be my first still/digital cam. for the price it looks like it's loaded with features that will keep very involved and happy. i should be getting it this week. it's definitely not a pro cam, but from the features and price it seems like a really nice deal for my level. the most notable issue with it i've read so far is it's startup time is considered slow (9sec. i read at a few places). and release/exposure time is a bit slow (1sec.). i don't plan i shooting any kind of action. just mainly something for me to sharpen my eye and have a good time with. thanks for any info. also apart from the sites mentioned before (those are great sites), i found www.steves-digicams.com to have good reviews, thorough and well written. matt