# Cameras



## MarkDennehy (5 Oct 2016)

I borrowed a workmates Canon 450D this evening (there's a nice bit of grain in the ash I'm making into spars and I wanted a nice photo to show my sister, who the project is for, and the cameraphone just wasn't getting a clean image). 
Holy carp. 
I used to use a pentax SLR 30 years ago and had a nice digital camera myself about a decade ago, but things like the DSLRs were way out of my price range. Secondhand today, those cameras are now nice and cheap (£50 for a DLSR _is_ cheap, come on, that's cheaper than the cheapest smartphone I own by almost a tenner), so I was thinking of buying one (hey, if you have kids, cameras are a wife-friendly purchase). 
One photo with the Canon and I went off and bought one (not a Canon, a Nikon D70, but you get the idea). 

Cameraphone:






Canon:





I mean, you know academically it's gonna be better but still. Wow.


----------



## lurker (6 Oct 2016)

Nikon is not a bad choice.
Cannon are an excellent photocopier manufacturer.

2nd hand cameras are a steal because the tackle tarts have to have the latest wizz bang

I have a camera/lens combo (Olympus) that was aimed at pros, 10 years ago it would have set you back a good £4K 
I paid £300 about 4 years ago
I guess its worth quite a bit less now
The strange thing is, it still takes remarkably good photos well beyond my capability.


----------



## Jacob (6 Oct 2016)

Yep - thanks to gear freaks yesterdays top quality stuff is often very cheap. Mines a Canon 450d - £50 on ebay. You need to check the shutter count if you can.
My daughter (photographer) uses my first ever camera; Pentax S1a bought 52 years ago and cost £100 ish then!


----------



## Racers (6 Oct 2016)

I am a Nikon user and can recommend the free Nikon Capture NX-D editing software, its free and does most things that I need to do with a photo.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsi ... /download/

Shoot in RAW not jpeg to get the benefit of Capture NX-D.

Pete


----------



## transatlantic (6 Oct 2016)

I have no doubt that the Camera phone won't be as good, but at least make it a fair test by taking the same shot!


----------



## woodpig (6 Oct 2016)

:twisted:


transatlantic":1lq0ibcn said:


> I have no doubt that the Camera phone won't be as good, but at least make it a fair test by taking the same shot!


My thoughts exactly!

I use a DSLR but I'm still surprised how good the pictures are from my phone sometimes.


----------



## bugbear (6 Oct 2016)

All the photos I post here are taken with a compact, P&S camera, not a DSLR.

BugBear


----------



## MarkDennehy (6 Oct 2016)

transatlantic":1zi9cc70 said:


> I have no doubt that the Camera phone won't be as good, but at least make it a fair test by taking the same shot!


 
I did, it was worse 
Same photo, same time, same location (slightly different framing because of moving the camera to get the same object in frame, the canon had to be moved back a bit), no post-processing other than scaling the image down to 1200x800:

Cameraphone:





Canon 450D:





Honestly, I'm so impressed by it, I'm seriously considering comparing it to the D70 when the D70 arrives and possibly returning the D70 and buying my workmate's 450D off him as he's looking to sell it. I just need to find another workmate with an F-type nikon lens I can borrow for a day first


----------



## Eric The Viking (6 Oct 2016)

lurker":n6h1asn0 said:


> 2nd hand cameras are a steal because the tackle tarts have to have the latest wizz bang.



You do have to exercise a bit of caution. I have a Canon 30D that used to be lovely. Sadly about four years ago it started to fail with a lot of noise in the blacks (speckles and later coloured streaks). No clever post-processing would fix this, and it was temperature sensitive (they have to make the things in black - why, oh why???).

Yesterday I heard my sister-in-law's fixed-lens SLR camera has acquired a very similar fault. A repair is probably a lot more than they're worth.

And lenses, nowadays being jam-packed with complex electro-mechanics, also fail often. There's a brisk trade on eBay in older "chemical camera" lenses that can work on modern cameras, as they're often better optical quality (and certainly more reliable).

I used to buy most of my camera kit secondhand - my best "chemical" bits were obtained that way. Nowadays I am very careful, but still make mistakes. For example, I have a 24-105mm Canon zoom of a new lightweight design, bought new. Honestly it's not very good optically. I can get good results with it, but it needs to be made to work - certainly not point+click. The worst thing is that the zoom doesn't track (the back-focus isn't consistent across the zoom range). This makes it almost unusable for video work, and yes, you can easily get snaps out of focus too.

My strong advice, after four decades of photography, is to check thoroughly anything secondhand, or be prepared to write off bad buys (e.g. from eBay). It's easy to check cameras and lenses - take your own card, and photograph some newsprint or your own test chart. Shutters still go weird, flash contacts fail, and so on. Cameras are not as strongly (reliably) made as they used to be - it's features over quality all the way now, unless you buy really expensive professional stuff.

That's not to say you can't get good results, but I think you have to exercise more caution than ever before as it's harder now to find faults as they're so much more complex.

I recommend having a look at Lensrentals' blog http://www.lensrentals.com/blog. They use huge quantities of kit, and used to publish a failure data spreadsheet annually (to the chagrin of some big-name manufacturers!). The owner, Roger Cicala, is highly respected, both as a technical expert and a fine photographer in his own right. And he has some clout: not many people place orders for top lenses 100 at a time! I've rented from them whilst in the US too, and the lens I used was nominally cheaper, but turned out to be better quality than the equivalent one I have here. I don't know of an equivalent business here*, but if such exists, it's a good way of finding out the good and bad points of kit before buying it.

Cheers,

E.

*It's not just a rental company - those exist here, of course - but Lensrentals are obsessive about quality and reliability.


----------



## Racers (6 Oct 2016)

I would stick with Nikon as the free editing software saves you from buying or paying monthly for Photoshop etc.

Pete


----------



## RogerP (6 Oct 2016)

Racers":2dpi62lp said:


> I would stick with Nikon as the free editing software saves you from buying or paying monthly for Photoshop etc.
> 
> Pete


Gimp is free and just as powerful as PS


----------



## MarkDennehy (6 Oct 2016)

I normally just use Gimp for mucking about with images Pete (I haven't run windows in a very long time and photoshop is just massively overspecc'd for my needs).


----------



## MarkDennehy (6 Oct 2016)

RogerP":t5uz4t82 said:


> Gimp is ... just as powerful as PS


Er, no it's not  But it *is* good enough for 99% of people and I'm not in the 1%


----------



## Eric The Viking (6 Oct 2016)

I think he means "GIMP is just as _productive_ as Photoshop", a sentiment I'd agree with!

E. 
(my workflow: Aftershot--> GIMP--> Hugin (usually)--> Garden Gnome (usually) -> GIMP (again)--> done!).


----------



## bugbear (6 Oct 2016)

Eric The Viking":3tipmfc0 said:


> (my workflow: Aftershot--> GIMP--> Hugin (usually)--> Garden Gnome (usually) -> GIMP (again)--> done!).



That sounds pretty interesting.

BugBear


----------



## Racers (6 Oct 2016)

I do have Full Adobe CC (free from work) but rarely use it N-XD does most things I need.

Pete


----------



## Racers (6 Oct 2016)

Oops

 

Pete


----------



## lurker (6 Oct 2016)

Eric The Viking":1mnkd2rj said:


> lurker":1mnkd2rj said:
> 
> 
> > 2nd hand cameras are a steal because the tackle tarts have to have the latest wizz bang.
> ...



As i mentioned, I have a proper camera (olympus) :twisted: so its unlikely.
I have never ever had problems with dust on my sensors either (for a very good technical reason).


----------



## MIGNAL (6 Oct 2016)

I don't have a mobile phone. A friend called the other day and just out of curiosity I got him to take a picture of a few objects, still life type. I was astonished at the quality of the pictures. What was more surprising was that he said it was a 3 year old smart phone, although at the time it was towards the high end. It may have been a Samsung, can't remember. We did take them outdoors, so I guess the amount of light was favourable.


----------



## woodpig (6 Oct 2016)

I think most camera makers have had their own software but Adobe LightRoom is probably more popular than any of them.


----------



## MarkDennehy (6 Oct 2016)

Yeah, the cameras are pretty okay out of doors Mignal, but in a shed with 400 lux, mine just wasn't getting it done  
Apparently you can get better apps for using the camera, tweaking settings and so on, and that can help in odd situations. I must give that a try.


----------



## Racers (6 Oct 2016)

woodpig":2idxg194 said:


> I think most camera makers have had their own software but Adobe LightRoom is probably more popular than any of them.



NX-D is seriously good for the money, its not like the mickey mouse editing programs given out with cameras.

Pete


----------



## Claymore (6 Oct 2016)

.......


----------



## bugbear (6 Oct 2016)

Claymore":2s3t8j60 said:


> I have been known to take the odd Macro photos... all on a dslr plus my secret weapon a £10 Carl Zeiss 50mm manual focus lens



So - the Zeiss is reverse mounted, on tubes or a long lens?

BugBear


----------



## Jonzjob (6 Oct 2016)

As far as Canon lenses are concerned. I own a Canon 500D with a ES-F 18/200mm lens and have had it for about 6 years. The lens started to play up in June time this year and would not focus at 200mm unless I suported the end of the lens barrel. I contacted Canon U.K. and finished up sending it to them to sort out. They did the repair, and a full service and returned it by courier and it was all under waranty! On a 6 year old lens! That's what I call service! It is a complicated lens, but I doubt that I would have got that level of service from many other makers.

As for the difference in what you get from a phone as compaired to a DSLR, just google it. Your smart (?) phone may brag megamega pixles, but it's not the same as my 500D.


----------



## graduate_owner (6 Oct 2016)

What gets me about digital photography is the fact that you can take thousands of photographs for free, store them on a card the size of a fingernail, and see the results instantly. It is such a difference from the old pre-digital days. I had a Rollei TLR taking 12 pictures on 1 film. I used to carefully compose each shot, take a light meter reading etc, and rarely took 2 of the same subject because each frame was fairly expensive. These days I just hold down the shutter release and shoot 6 straight off, not even bothering to compose the shots. I might delete any rubbish, but then again, might not. It is a bit like typing on a typewriter versus a word processor. You don't need to take care with a WP, just correct any mistakes flagged up by the spellchecker.

Later on I bought a Pentax 35mm and a 36 exposure film could easily stay in the camera for months. Holiday snaps? By the time the film was finished and processed I would have forgotten what the pictures were.

K


----------



## MattRoberts (7 Oct 2016)

Mark, don't discount the value of a decent lens. Often the biggest contributor to the quality of an image is the glass on the front of the camera, and not the camera itself. 

Depending on what you want to shoot, you can't go wrong with a good 50mm prime, and they're dead cheap too


----------



## stuartpaul (7 Oct 2016)

Racers":14txj0w0 said:


> I am a Nikon user and can recommend the free Nikon Capture NX-D editing software, its free and does most things that I need to do with a photo.
> 
> http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsi ... /download/
> 
> ...


Slightly off topic but how do you manage the large file sizes?

I'm about to trot off to the far east and will probably take in the region of 2000 photos (as someone's said above with digital you take far, far more than with film  ) and I haven't got enough memory cards. I'd also soon fill my hard drive if not careful.

I know memory is reasonably cheap but is it simply a case of lots of it?


----------



## Racers (7 Oct 2016)

Lots of cards, laptop to back them up and a 4TB HDD.
You can up load to dropbox etc if you can get an internet connection.
Its mostly a problem with my D800 40-50meg per picture!

Pete


----------



## RogerP (7 Oct 2016)

You don't _have_ to take far, far more than with film. You'll get better photos if you take less and consider each properly before pressing the button as you did with film rather than machine gunning in the hope you'll get a good one.


----------



## bugbear (7 Oct 2016)

RogerP":ie0suhnt said:


> You don't _have_ to take far, far more than with film. You'll get better photos if you take less and consider each properly before pressing the button as you did with film rather than machine gunning in the hope you'll get a good one.



Go tell it to a wildlife photographer!

BugBear


----------



## custard (7 Oct 2016)




----------



## thetyreman (7 Oct 2016)

I use an old canon 5D mk1 full frame camera and a zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ZE, I've never been happier, it is a great setup, the only downside to the 5D is that you need really high end glass, it shows the flaws in rubbish lenses.


----------



## woodpig (7 Oct 2016)

stuartpaul":3sig2x8u said:


> I know memory is reasonably cheap but is it simply a case of lots of it?



Yes. Trusting all your pictures to one laptop on a holiday could end in tears.
If you spread your pictures over lots of cards it's very unlikely they'll all develop a fault. Sandisk announced a 1Tb SD card the other day but I'd stick with something a bit smaller!


----------



## MIGNAL (7 Oct 2016)

graduate_owner":212qz3s5 said:


> What gets me about digital photography is the fact that you can take thousands of photographs for free, store them on a card the size of a fingernail, and see the results instantly. It is such a difference from the old pre-digital days. I had a Rollei TLR taking 12 pictures on 1 film. I used to carefully compose each shot, take a light meter reading etc, and rarely took 2 of the same subject because each frame was fairly expensive. These days I just hold down the shutter release and shoot 6 straight off, not even bothering to compose the shots. I might delete any rubbish, but then again, might not. It is a bit like typing on a typewriter versus a word processor. You don't need to take care with a WP, just correct any mistakes flagged up by the spellchecker.
> 
> Later on I bought a Pentax 35mm and a 36 exposure film could easily stay in the camera for months. Holiday snaps? By the time the film was finished and processed I would have forgotten what the pictures were.
> 
> K



True. With all the gains and the all the obvious advantages over film you always lose a bit. . . . the anticipation, perhaps the disappointment, the surprise. It was a bit like being a kid at Christmas. That's gone, it's just so easy to go take another few shots and get the instant gratification. 
A few weeks ago I met a rather nice young lady (would like to meet more!). I doubt she was much older than 20. She had just gone out and bought a s/h Leica SLR film camera! I was shocked. I thought that would be the preserve of doddering old fools such as myself.


----------



## bugbear (7 Oct 2016)

MIGNAL":3ueysm7l said:


> She had just gone out and bought a s/h Leica SLR film camera! I was shocked. I thought that would be the preserve of doddering old fools such as myself.



Slightly odd - I'd have thought Contax for SLR and Leica for Rangefinder, Hassleblad for medium format, if you want "Classic German"

BugBear


----------



## MarkDennehy (7 Oct 2016)

Is that the photography equivalent to using only hand tools Mignal?


----------



## stuartpaul (7 Oct 2016)

RogerP":jsd0lmsr said:


> You don't _have_ to take far, far more than with film. You'll get better photos if you take less and consider each properly before pressing the button as you did with film rather than machine gunning in the hope you'll get a good one.


No, - I don't but given the lack of cost why not? I don't 'machine gun' at all but will take a number of shots of the same subject with different settings and from different angles.

In the 'good old days' I would have 'made do' with one or two because I couldn't afford lots of processing whereas now I don't have to. I prefer having a larger selection to choose from when I can.

There is of course, still no substitute for taking a 'proper' photo the first time!


----------



## graduate_owner (7 Oct 2016)

Regarding using film camera lenses on DSLRs, are there any issues here? If I bought a Pentax DSLR body, could I just fit my existing old bayonet fitting lenses on? What compromises would there be (such as autofocus etc)? Surely it is not as simple as that.

K


----------



## woodpig (7 Oct 2016)

graduate_owner":2ko79elj said:


> Regarding using film camera lenses on DSLRs, are there any issues here? If I bought a Pentax DSLR body, could I just fit my existing old bayonet fitting lenses on? What compromises would there be (such as autofocus etc)? Surely it is not as simple as that.
> K


Decent old Pentax lenses aren't as plentiful second hand as they used to be as you can fit them on the latest Pentax DSLR's. Even screw fit lenses can be fitted with an adaptor. Obviously you only have manual focus but you do get auto exposure with the later ones.


----------



## woodpig (7 Oct 2016)

bugbear":1vkmfvnr said:


> Slightly odd - I'd have thought Contax for SLR and Leica for Rangefinder, Hassleblad for medium format, if you want "Classic German"
> 
> BugBear



Hassleblad are *Swedish*. :roll:


----------



## bugbear (7 Oct 2016)

woodpig":2n2qsibp said:


> bugbear":2n2qsibp said:
> 
> 
> > Slightly odd - I'd have thought Contax for SLR and Leica for Rangefinder, Hassleblad for medium format, if you want "Classic German"
> ...



I stand cörrected.  

BugBear


----------



## marcros (7 Oct 2016)

MIGNAL":2usiza9p said:


> graduate_owner":2usiza9p said:
> 
> 
> > What gets me about digital photography is the fact that you can take thousands of photographs for free, store them on a card the size of a fingernail, and see the results instantly. It is such a difference from the old pre-digital days. I had a Rollei TLR taking 12 pictures on 1 film. I used to carefully compose each shot, take a light meter reading etc, and rarely took 2 of the same subject because each frame was fairly expensive. These days I just hold down the shutter release and shoot 6 straight off, not even bothering to compose the shots. I might delete any rubbish, but then again, might not. It is a bit like typing on a typewriter versus a word processor. You don't need to take care with a WP, just correct any mistakes flagged up by the spellchecker.
> ...



There is something about the Leicas that is drawing me. I am looking at an film m2 rangefinder at the moment, and struggling to resist.


----------



## Racers (7 Oct 2016)

woodpig":265yyua4 said:


> graduate_owner":265yyua4 said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding using film camera lenses on DSLRs, are there any issues here? If I bought a Pentax DSLR body, could I just fit my existing old bayonet fitting lenses on? What compromises would there be (such as autofocus etc)? Surely it is not as simple as that.
> ...




I know the pro Nikon's cameras do work with lenses back to 1974!

Pete


----------



## woodpig (7 Oct 2016)

The beauty of the Pentax is that you get shake reduction even with screw fit lenses made in the 1950's!


----------



## bugbear (7 Oct 2016)

woodpig":2ye1d7k2 said:


> The beauty of the Pentax is that you get shake reduction even with screw fit lenses made in the 1950's!



The beauty of (vintage, cheap, natch) Gitzo, Manfrotto and Benbo is that you get shake reduction with all camera and all lenses.  

BugBear


----------



## RogerS (7 Oct 2016)

RogerP":3fr8n6hk said:


> You don't _have_ to take far, far more than with film. You'll get better photos if you take less and consider each properly before pressing the button as you did with film rather than machine gunning in the hope you'll get a good one.



Ne'er a truer word. A friend of mine is a professional photographer and after he went digital his photos went all to pot. Snap happy.
He fixed the problem by getting his assistant to count the shots just as he'd have done with a 35mm roll. He therefore spent much more time thinking about each shot. Problem solved.


----------



## Eric The Viking (7 Oct 2016)

graduate_owner":cdm2khbv said:


> Regarding using film camera lenses on DSLRs, are there any issues here? If I bought a Pentax DSLR body, could I just fit my existing old bayonet fitting lenses on? What compromises would there be (such as autofocus etc)? Surely it is not as simple as that.
> 
> K



Well I use my old, film Pentax lenses on my Canon 6D...


----------



## Eric The Viking (7 Oct 2016)

There are advantages to staying with Pentax, but sadly for me it took them far too long to make a decent full-frame DSLR body. I went Canon ten years ago. 

Pentax (Asahi) were the company which pioneered multi-coated lenses, and the SMC and some of the K-series lenses were superb value. I've kept a few, especially an 85mm f/2 and a 50mm f/1.4, both of which are optically outstanding. The trouble is now that the quality is well known and s/h prices are through the roof. 

They will fit on some Canon bodies with an adaptor (fully manual), and that does work pretty well if you're used to it. There are issues with the mirror swing on Canon full-frame DSLRs though. I can use some of my Pentax lenses with slight dismantling, or using a short extension tube to get round the problem - not always OK, but usually OK for portraiture. The old threaded lenses are easier than K-mount as it's usually very easy (and reversible) to remove the stop-down pin. The K-lenses have a lever, and sometimes a guard, so they are a bit more complex. Sometimes a hacksaw is involved so it's not for the faint hearted! 

Canon cameras have a much wider bayonet ring than anyone else, which makes it practical to make adaptors for most other lens systems, with minimal loss of infinity focus.

I have a number of Zeiss lenses for Exa/Exacta which my dad gave me They'd probably fit too, I think but I haven't seen an adaptor yet. Beautifully made cameras, but the bayonet mount was their undoing - far too small.


----------



## woodpig (7 Oct 2016)

The Pentax K1 is half the price of similar spec cameras and ten places clear of anything made by Canon by dxomarks current ranking. It's packed full of features not possible with fixed sensors in Canon and Nikon bodies.

*Sony* is the company to watch though, especially as they make the sensors in many of Nikons cameras. :wink: 

https://www.dxomark.com/cameras#hideAdv ... pe=rankDxo

Personally though I wish I had one of the new Olympus DSLR's as I've always liked Macro and they have in-camera focus stacking. I hope other makers catch up with this feature. :wink:


----------



## Eric The Viking (8 Oct 2016)

woodpig":3vj87xtf said:


> The Pentax K1 is half the price of similar spec cameras and ten places clear of anything made by Canon by dxomarks current ranking. It's packed full of features not possible with fixed sensors in Canon and Nikon bodies.



With the exception of the physical bayonet mount, I don't much like Canon's feature set. I _do_ like the usability of its pro models though - they seemed to put much more effort into the ergonomics of my 30D than the "ist D" I had (the first Pentax digital body). The "ist D" was rather a let-down, given how good the LX was (I still have mine, although it hasn't had a roll through it for over a decade now) . The only redeeming feature was having an aperture ring on auto- lenses: I still really miss that. And obviously, moving the sensor instead of complex lens optics is way more sensible for many reasons. Infuriatingly, my Canon 6D vibrates its sensor to shake off dust - if it can do that why the **&$?? didn't they move across to doing anti-shake that way and ignore the battery-consuming optics? There's a lot of two-way comms between lens and camera body.

I do have fun with Magic Lantern though. There are infuriating limitations with the hardware on the 6D - the card i/f chip has very limited bandwidth, so you can't do full-frame raw video, but the feature set is a huge improvement on what Canon give you out-of-the-box.I just wish they'd be more forthcoming about their firmware - probably 70% of the development effort goes into reverse-engineering.

Honestly, Canon come across as rather complacent, even smug about their semi-pro range. They are nice, but the competition is fierce, and the lenses in particular are, IMHO, stupidly expensive for what they offer. There's a lot of third party ones out there that are far better value. 

And, as discussed, putting the image stabilizing mechanics in the lens makes for a very heavy camera bag (you need more batteries too). If I was going digital from scratch today, I probably would have stuck with Pentax - the K1 is impressive, even if it probably has far too many controls, for me anyway. When I worked in pro- audio, the professional kit was the stuff with fewer knobs and switches (generally speaking), but better performance.

E.


----------



## graduate_owner (8 Oct 2016)

Ok, so the Pentax bayonet will fit exactly and properly on a DSLR Pentax body, but what then? Manual focussing I would be happy with, also manual zoom ( I would prefer manual zoom actually) But what is this hacksaw business? Is that to remove the FAD lever? What if I leave the lever in place? And what hapoenx then with stopping down? Anything else to know?

I would not want to buy a Pentax, then find the constraints are too much hassle.

Many thanks for all the replies guys.

K


----------



## DiscoStu (8 Oct 2016)

I love Nikon DSLR's and my Nikon F90 film camera. However sometimes my camera phone is the best camera - just because I have it to hand. I also have numerous compacts but my Panasonic LUMIX is brilliant partly that's because it's waterproof partly because it's small so it can go with me when I'm being active etc. 

I also have a go pro - well I own it but actually my daughter seems to have claimed it and that gets some great shots and video with it. Sometimes the best camera is just the one that happens to be there. 

The camera is one thing but the lens you put in front of it is far more important. My favourite lens cost nearly double what the camera body did. However it won't be replaced as often. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Eric The Viking (8 Oct 2016)

graduate_owner":187gi0ar said:


> Ok, so the Pentax bayonet will fit exactly and properly on a DSLR Pentax body, but what then? Manual focussing I would be happy with, also manual zoom ( I would prefer manual zoom actually) But what is this hacksaw business? Is that to remove the FAD lever? What if I leave the lever in place? And what hapoenx then with stopping down? Anything else to know?



AFAIK, Pentax fits Pentax just fine (manual control mind). 

The hacksaw thing is for fitting PK lenses onto CANON full-frame bodies, with a PK-Canon adaptor. And even then it's probably only corner-case lenses. It's because the mirror can hit the bits that stick out at the back of the lens (but it depends - it may not). With Canon APS-sensor bodies it's not necessary at all, anyway, as the mirror is a lot smaller and doesn't go near the back of the lens (for standard lenses and longer f.l.). I've used Pentax lenses on my 30D for years (fully manual) with no mods and no issues.

If you want wide-angles you're better off usually going with modern ones in any case, as they tend to have aspherical glass (optically better).


----------



## woodpig (8 Oct 2016)

I'd like a nice compact with a decent size sensor like one of the Fuji's but I can't really justify the cost for the amount of pictures I take. Mobile phones though have taken a huge chunk out of the compact camera market.


----------



## graduate_owner (8 Oct 2016)

Hi Erik, and apologies for keeping on about this, but what exactly does manal control mean? Would the lenses stop down automatically on releasing the shutter or would it be manual diaphragm?

K


----------



## Beau (8 Oct 2016)

woodpig":xkhogf7y said:


> I'd like a nice compact with a decent size sensor like one of the Fuji's but I can't really justify the cost for the amount of pictures I take. Mobile phones though have taken a huge chunk out of the compact camera market.



Just get it and blow the cost. Got myself a Sony RSX100 and it's great. As said above somewhere you take the best picture with the camera you have with you. The big sensor compacts fit in your pocket but take pictures nearly as good as full DSLRs probably better in my hands as probably more to mess up on a DSLR.


----------



## MarkDennehy (8 Oct 2016)

Some of the older second-hand DSLRs are going for reasonable money right now anyway (like I said above, a Nikkon D70 body costs £55 on ebay from any number of sellers right now). The joys of technological progress


----------



## Racers (8 Oct 2016)

The best Nikon bargain is the D300, its a Pro body with more bells and whistles than you can shake a stick at, for about £300 it was £1000 new.
It will meter and focus with all Nikon lenses back to 1974, I did my photo a day with one.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected] ... 0065967042

Pete


----------



## MarkDennehy (8 Oct 2016)

When the bargain is six times the price of the cheaper option...


----------



## ColeyS1 (8 Oct 2016)

Mark, your camera phone must be really pants. Either that or you were too close and it couldnt focus

Coley


----------



## MarkDennehy (8 Oct 2016)

Samsung S4 cameraphone, so fairly old, and in a shed under LED 6300K lighting. Still though...


----------



## ColeyS1 (8 Oct 2016)

That's surprising ! I had the s3 before my s5 and that would take better pics unless too close. I could get better close up pics by taking a pic far away and then cropping using the phone tool. Back in the day camera phone quality use to be one of the main factors in choosing a phone. Last few years they've got good enough that I don't need to worry about quality as much. I'd stick with Samsung though, just because.

Coley


----------



## MarkDennehy (8 Oct 2016)

Eh. These days I just buy the cheapest that's still supported. My S4's not died yet, but for toddler-chewing-related reasons I didn't think i'd last this long (BTW? Otterbox defender cases. Awesome things), so I have a backup (need the phone for work) which is a Landvo L200 that cost me €80 delivered, fully unlocked, ready to use on anything I wanted. The hardware (bar the screen which they had a manufacturer lockin contract for and LTE which wasn't really out when it was made) was pretty much the equal of the iPhone 6. Once you're willing to step back from the bleeding edge, it's remarkable what you can find like that.


----------



## Eric The Viking (9 Oct 2016)

graduate_owner":x6r1fpzf said:


> Hi Erik, and apologies for keeping on about this, but what exactly does manal control mean? Would the lenses stop down automatically on releasing the shutter or would it be manual diaphragm?



Fully manual means you do everything. So that's focus, exposure calculations, and setting the aperture before taking the picture, and then opening up the lens again afterwards. 

That's how it is using Pentax lenses on Canon. It's a PITA when I do portraiture, as the standard firmware doesn't let me have very low sensitivity ("ISO film speed"), so I have to use an ND filter on the lens (to be able to use it at f/2 with lighting), making the viewfinder rather dark (and impossible to make lighter in use). Live view (on the rear LCD screen) makes this a lot easier though.

On Pentax bodies it is slightly more complex. Some older digital bodies have the mechanical linkage for older lenses, so those work as they did on the chemical cameras they were designed for. My istD had this and all my older lenses worked normally. 

My understanding is that, if those lenses are fitted to newer bodies (without the lens-coupling mechanics), auto-focus works because it's electronic, but not auto stop-down, because it's mechanical. To be fair, the older Pentax AF lenses were pretty horrible, and only really popular with consumer cameras - nasty glass and mechanics - so you wouldn't want to use them anyway.

I *think* later, all-electronic lenses, still using the physical "K" bayonet, work as they originally did. I welcome correction on this, as by then (the last generation of film bodies) Pentax were in a commercially bad way, and had lost a lot of market share. I'm not sure how much of that kit was made, or what it was, or how good it was.

Screwthread (M42) lenses will never have automatic functions on later cameras. They were fully manual on K-series film cameras too - I still have a couple of the official adaptors for them. Those just screw on to provide a bayonet flange. The pin is well out of the way of the mirror at the bottom of the body opening, so I can't see it being a problem with digital bodies, even Canon.

Note on focus: screwthread-to-bayonet Pentax lens adapters don't affect the lens focus (or they shouldn't), but the Pentax-bayonet-to-Canon does, slightly. It has to have some physical thickness, so it moves the lens a few mm away from the sensor, compared to where it would have been on a film body. This means you lose infinity focus, For long f/l lenses this isn't a problem (usually), and you can sometimes even remove the infinity stop on the lens to completely restore it, although the scale on the lens itself will be wrong. Video and movie lenses have traditionally let you move the ring beyond infinity focus anyway, so this isn't as drastic as it seems, and most camera repairers can quickly tell you if it's possible on a specific lens.

FWIW, the lens-body digital interface is pretty complex, so I doubt there will ever be any adaptor that makes any Pentax lens talk to a Canon body's computer. It's been fairly well reverse engineered, but there wouldn't be much of a market for the necessary microcontroller. 

E.


----------



## graduate_owner (9 Oct 2016)

Thanks Eric,


K


----------



## Claymore (10 Oct 2016)

........


----------



## RogerS (11 Oct 2016)

woodpig":2csyrvji said:


> bugbear":2csyrvji said:
> 
> 
> > Slightly odd - I'd have thought Contax for SLR and Leica for Rangefinder, Hassleblad for medium format, if you want "Classic German"
> ...



I do know where there is a Hasselblad going free.


----------



## RogerS (11 Oct 2016)

MarkDennehy":183a9rcc said:


> transatlantic":183a9rcc said:
> 
> 
> > I have no doubt that the Camera phone won't be as good, but at least make it a fair test by taking the same shot!
> ...



Have to confess that I too am under-whelmed by the quality of photos from the two most recent smartphones I've had. Purportedly to be the bees knees at the time and got good reviews. My photos taken with them are usually very soft and the colour rendition poor.


----------



## MattRoberts (11 Oct 2016)

I have the galaxy s7, and I have to say that for the first time ever, the camera on it has replaced my use of my Nikon D7000 for all but landscapes. 

The quality is amazing, and it's so much more convenient and fast to use. 

A few example shots:


----------



## Claymore (11 Oct 2016)

.......


----------



## tim_n (11 Oct 2016)

Not usually the camera bodies that are worth the money - they're relatively cheap. The glass (lenses) are the expensive bit!


----------



## MattRoberts (11 Oct 2016)

Claymore":1hnh4gih said:


> what a pair of cute dogs! is the first one a French Bulldog?
> 
> Brian


Yes he is - we look after dogs on occasion, and Monty came to stay with us. Our Gizmo (the lab cross Staffy) is always happy for a play mate!


----------



## lurker (11 Oct 2016)

MattRoberts said:


> I have the galaxy s7, and I have to say that for the first time ever, the camera on it has replaced my use of my Nikon D7000 for all but landscapes.
> 
> Its not burst into flames yet then?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business


----------



## Eric The Viking (11 Oct 2016)

Claymore":3e94igf5 said:


> It was on a set of cheap extension tubes with AF chip (manual focus but the camera beeps when you get the focus right) mounted on a tripod and... self timer.



I do exactly the same on the Canon (the PK-Canon adaptor ring has a focus-confirm chip), but with the Pentax f/4 macro:




Wish I had the 100mm though, as that's much more useful. The 50mm gets in its own way rather a lot. Nice lens all the same. I've been wondering about trying to sort out some sort of tilt/shift (I have an old bellows with PK rings), but the mechanics are beyond me, and anyway on 35mm it's of limited use that far from the film plane. Anything for Canon is silly money (usually), so that's something I'll have to forego, I fear. 

I've really, really struggled with macro lighting though. I have a 1m tent, and built a rig to mount a variety of light sources, and a turntable with optional glass plate, but I've really struggled to get professional-looking results. The really tricky stuff is anything shiny - I never seem to achieve lighting that's soft enough.

Any tips appreciated.

E.

PS: I do mean macro, i.e. 1:1 (-ish) at the film plane. Micro- seems easier for some odd reason.


----------



## MarkDennehy (11 Oct 2016)

lurker":16pd2pjw said:


> MattRoberts":16pd2pjw said:
> 
> 
> > I have the galaxy s7, and I have to say that for the first time ever, the camera on it has replaced my use of my Nikon D7000 for all but landscapes.
> ...


How do you think it gets such great photos in low-light conditions? It's its own lightsource


----------



## RogerP (11 Oct 2016)

MarkDennehy":px0wam0c said:


> RogerP":px0wam0c said:
> 
> 
> > Gimp is ... just as powerful as PS
> ...


Well I've yet to find anything that PS can do that I can't do with Gimp. So I guess I'm not in that 1% either.  
I use Gimp 2.9.1 in single-window mode.


----------



## MattRoberts (11 Oct 2016)

lurker":1dugvzni said:


> MattRoberts":1dugvzni said:
> 
> 
> > I have the galaxy s7, and I have to say that for the first time ever, the camera on it has replaced my use of my Nikon D7000 for all but landscapes.
> ...


That's the Note 7, not the S7 thankfully!


----------



## MattRoberts (11 Oct 2016)

Eric The Viking":3vmtu9ta said:


> I've really, really struggled with macro lighting though. I have a 1m tent, and built a rig to mount a variety of light sources, and a turntable with optional glass plate, but I've really struggled to get professional-looking results. The really tricky stuff is anything shiny - I never seem to achieve lighting that's soft enough.
> 
> Any tips appreciated.
> 
> ...



Have you tried a ring flash?


----------



## Eric The Viking (11 Oct 2016)

Was waiting for someone to ask that: Yes, I have one, and it's a proper ring, not several lamps round the perimeter. It may be that the one in question doesn't offer fine enough control, but bracketing doesn't seem to help.

I was experimenting with jewellery - it's technically the hardest subject I've ever tried to take pictures of. 1/3 stop either way is the difference between just acceptable and rubbish,

It beat me :-(

E,


----------



## MattRoberts (11 Oct 2016)

Eric The Viking":2m24vyy5 said:


> Was waiting for someone to ask that: Yes, I have one, and it's a proper ring, not several lamps round the perimeter. It may be that the one in question doesn't offer fine enough control, but bracketing doesn't seem to help.
> 
> I was experimenting with jewellery - it's technically the hardest subject I've ever tried to take pictures of. 1/3 stop either way is the difference between just acceptable and rubbish,
> 
> ...


If you're shooting in raw, you shouldn't need to get the exposure so dead-on, as adjustments in an image editor should allow you to refine it. 

I'm not an expert in macro photography though by any means - landscapes are my preference


----------



## Claymore (11 Oct 2016)

.....


----------



## Racers (11 Oct 2016)

Bugbear was experimenting with axial lighting to photograph coins, he posted a thread about cutting a grove for the glass and I asked if it was any good for makers marks, which it turns out it is.
post795656.html?hilit=makers%20marks#p795656

I wonder if it would work with jewellery.

Pete


----------



## Eric The Viking (11 Oct 2016)

That is an interesting and really good thought Pete - I may have another go


----------

