Digital Camera? Fergit it!

[campbellcj]

I have a lot of fancy camera gear and have mainly shot digital since the late 90's, but I have to admit there is simplicity and joy in tossing a roll of Tri-X 400 in the F100 (film SLR), slapping on a 35, 50 or 85mm prime and firing away.

No fussing with settings and minimal time at the computer even if you do choose to scan and post-process the negatives, compared to what I typically do with the DSLR raw files.

Here is my latest old-school toy. It does have a meter and aperture-priority mode (electrical shutter) but is otherwise totally manual.

[RWebb]

I'll give ya 50 bucks for that obsolete dinosaur.

[Mr.Puff]

I agree somewhat. My digital camera takes AA's. Screw the rechargeable special nonsense !

Originally Posted by pwd72s

So, Cindy studying the book...pull the Mustang out of the garage, all ready to pose so I can post a pic...well, Cindy wasn't sure how this that, or another thing worked...then the damned thing wasn't charged...

FUGIT! I ran in the house, got my old 35mm point and shoot, and burned a roll. Didn't take long. Of course, I am not in any of the pics, but I at least have a record.

I'll send the film off in the mail to York Photo...in a week or two, I'll have some photos in my hand. This works for me...digital doesn't.

Ron & John...thank mucho for the Olympus you gave us. The thought was nice, but we've already regifted it to a friend of Cindy's

Evren & Ruki? Ditto the Nikon coolpix you sent. I'll never touch the damned thing. They are cursed objects...too small controls for a hand that can pick up a basketball.

So guys, despite the requests...posted pics of me and a Bullitt Mustang will not be coming!

Digital Cameras!

[pwd72s]

Chris, thanks for that image...that's a camera I can understand...which makes me think I should just drag my old Olympus OM-1 out of the closet, slap on it's 50mm lens with a shade hood atop a UV filter, and go take photos. I just cannot wrap my head around a digital camera...it can remain Cindy's toy...but it's pretty obvious she doesn't want to play with it either...

[JCF]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14604-techsavvy-neanderthals-cant-blame-their-tools.html

[VaSteve]

Geez Paul.... Its so ironic you need to bring anti-technology rants to the internet. Don't have a VA hall or barbershop in your town? Lol

[Cornpanzer]

Originally Posted by pwd72s

Yes, the gift was very thoughtful. Cindy's 86 year old friend appreciated it.

Yep, digital cameras are so simple and intuitive that even 86 year old women can figure them out.

Now, what was the purpose of this thread again?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Cornpanzer

Yep, digital cameras are so simple and intuitive that even 86 year old women can figure them out.

Now, what was the purpose of this thread again?

This was just an excuse for Paul to tell us all how big his hands are, and I'm guessing by extension...

We know Paul, we know.

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by pwd72s

I guestimate the available light, know the ASA of the film I'm using, and say..."yep, f 11 at 125th shutter speed should do it..."

First SLR camera I used had a broken light meter, so I had to learn / estimate the f-stop and shutter speed. And then I had to learn what shutter speeds work best for motion, depth of field, still-life...etc. One of the cameras I had wasn't even an SLR - it was a Cannon Model 7. The 50mm lens on that sucker opened up to f 0.95!! You could literally take pics in the dark with that lens!

I have had a few digital point and shoot cameras and have been able to take some very good pictures with them. (I rotate my pics through my background on my work pc - get lots of complements on the nature pics). But what frustrates me about the point-and-shoot digital compact cameras is that there are very few manual settings available, which stifles the creativity.

I am looking for a new dgital SLR camera - one of the mid-range Nikon/Cannon/Olympus cameras, which allow for more manual control.

-Z-man.

[widebody911]

A couple months ago, I bought a Nikon D40 SLR for my g/f. Once I got it home, I was looking it over, and thought "ya know, she's probably not going to use this much (like the guitar and amp I got here for xmas)" so I kept the camera and bought her a set of earrings instead. Good move, 'cause we split 3 weeks later.

A digital SLR looks and works very similar to a film SLR, and if you were to put one in the hands of a luddite (*cough*pwd72s*cough*) they probably wouldn't notice the difference right away.

[dtw]

This is the most ironic thread, ever. Paul, we love ya, but you are going to be pictured in Webster's under 'curmudgeon' in a coming edition.

Assuming of course, they continue to print them.

I suggest we all buy Paul digital cameras and send them to him (and we can even charge the batteries before shipping). Who's in? We should be able to flood his mailbox with about 2 dozen at least....

[Christien]

I don't get it. I used film SLRs for years and always struggled with getting the light correct, shutter speed, etc. and yes, I did RTFM, several times, and and several different ones. Since we got a DSLR, our pictures improved a thousand percent. Not just because we can put it on an automated setting, but also because I can try something and see immediately if it worked or not. I don't have to wait for it to be developed.

I used to keep a log book in my camera case - I'd write down all the settings I was using with each shot so I could study it when they got developed a week or so later. What a ridiculous process. Hell, with digital pics the camera make and model and all settings are embedded in the file.

I'm the last guy to argue for progress for progress's sake, but sometimes the new version is just plain better.

[JavaBrewer]

I sure don't miss paying $20 for 36 prints only to have 5 or less keepers. Since going digital the family portrait shots are way better...everyone has their eyes open at the same time

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by widebody911

A digital SLR looks and works very similar to a film SLR, and if you were to put one in the hands of a luddite (*cough*pwd72s*cough*) they probably wouldn't notice the difference right away.

Eh...if the luddite photographer never used a film SLR with a digital display (like me), then it's a bigger step (I mean, the LCD display showing f stop, etc). If they used any film SLR built from, what, 1995 on, the transition to dSLR is probably close to zero pain.

I went from a Pentax K1000 to a Pentax K100D, and it was a bit of a transition.

I do say, I wish we had those lithium batteries back in the day, a pair of those would run a light meter for decades!

[onewhippedpuppy]

Paul didn't really buy a Mustang, this is just a cover-up.

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by Cornpanzer

Yep, digital cameras are so simple and intuitive that even 86 year old women can figure them out.

Now, what was the purpose of this thread again?

Lois is a sweet gal. She sent us a pic of her cat taken with the digital...oh, not by email. She doesn't do that. She goes to her local camera shop where they make prints for her, then she sends them by snail mail. But what the hell, she's in the digital age.

A good point was made earlier...it's the tiny credit card size with impossible to handle controls that I hate...next time I'm at COSTCO or near a camera store, I might check out the SLR's. They may be more familiar to me. Oh...my film SLR stuff is 70's vintage. The only electronics on them is the built in light meter...nothing "auto" like focus, f stops, shutter speed. I understood film...

[RWebb]

Newer cameras - film or digital - are just much smarter than older ones. i.e. they have many different zones in the picture frame that calculate the light level in each zone (multi-metering - began with the Nikon FA IIRC, but now may be 9 or more zones and better algorithms); focus zones, with predictive focus for moving objects, etc.

A new digital camera also has more parameters it can adjust than a film camera.

for a nice landscape or still portrait, use a big view camera or TLR and a handheld spot meter & your own brain

for sports, action, wildlife etc. the digital cams are tops - they can think and adjust faster than you and it costas nothing to burn thru 50 shots and discard 49

[vash]

Originally Posted by campbellcj

I have a lot of fancy camera gear and have mainly shot digital since the late 90's, but I have to admit there is simplicity and joy in tossing a roll of Tri-X 400 in the F100 (film SLR), slapping on a 35, 50 or 85mm prime and firing away.

No fussing with settings and minimal time at the computer even if you do choose to scan and post-process the negatives, compared to what I typically do with the DSLR raw files.

Here is my latest old-school toy. It does have a meter and aperture-priority mode (electrical shutter) but is otherwise totally manual.

hey what camera is that?

i have a leica ranger, and a hassleblad...both are gathering dust. i would sell both and get a new leica digital rangerfinder..but i think i would still need to sell my soul.

[vash]

isnt tri-x a dead dinosaur?

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by JCF

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14604-techsavvy-neanderthals-cant-blame-their-tools.html

Thanks John...LOL! Maybe I should take a trip to Oregon's obsidian beds...