SLR Cameras

[Ace!]

Need input on SLR cameras. My wife wants to buy me a camera, as she broke my last one, dropping it. I had a Minolta 7000i.

She is looking at the Minolta Maxxum 5, or maybe a Canon Rebel. Any opinions?

[norcaljr]

If your thinking of buying a SLR, then maybe you should think of buying a Digital SLR.

I just bought this right before my trip to Alaska.




Canon EOS Digital Rebel 6.3-Megapixel Digital Camera

[TObject]

If you already have a collection of lenses and accessories, then the wisest would be to by a camera of the same brand.

I myself am a Nikon guy. And would probably recommend a Nikon N80, for an advanced amateur, as far as 35-mm SLR camera bodies go. The first choice for the lens: it would be the 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor, or the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D AF Zoom-Nikkor if you want zoom.

If you have a little more money to spare, take a look into the medium format camera segment. There are several medium format SLRs with auto focus available, such as Mamiya 645AFD, Pentax 645N or Contax 645 AF.

[Paradiddle]

I like Sergey was a big Nikon fan - they were always supposed to have the best glass.

Last year I went shopping for an SLR and probably hit 4 or so professional camera shops. To a shop they all said Cannon had passed Nikon.

Who knows the truth.

You can save a boatload of money by getting them from the NY camera shops - most sell non-gray market.

Get a magazine called Shutterbug and look through the adds.

I ended up getting my dads old Rebel and it takes very good pics - he got an Elan 7e which takes killer pics. I was looking at the Rebel 2000 and was very impressed.

Jeff

[Dan-H]

I agree with the NY camera shops.

B&H photo is one I've done business several times.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home

they weren't the lowest, but they pricematched and I've stood in their store so I felt OK buying from them.


My brother in law has the rebel. the built in flash is really convenient. haven't ever seen a print taken by him though

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

I have a Canon Rebel 2000. It is a great camera. I have never played with any other types of cameras. But I'm very satisfied with mine. It is my second Canon SLR that I have had. I also have a Canon Powershot Digital point and shot type I'm also very satisfied with that camera. I really don't think you could go wrong buy getting a canon.

[Ace!]

No digi-cams for me.

Thanks for the suggestions all. I've been checking out the prices and different online shops.

[Milan]

Another Minolta body since you have the lenses.

Oooor Leica MP + 35mm Summilux + 90mm Summicron
or Contax S2 (or Yashica) body + 80mm Zeiss
or Pentax MX + 35mm + 85mm or 35-105mm zoom

[TObject]

Originally posted by Paradiddle
Last year I went shopping for an SLR and probably hit 4 or so professional camera shops. To a shop they all said Cannon had passed Nikon.

Translation: the shops Jeff visited had better profit margin on Canon cameras than Nikon.

[Milan]

P.S. Sorry, Leica MP is not an SLR, though they have SLR models. I mentioned it only because I myself have gone to rangefinder cameras from SLRs and find them fun to use as well. But I did not abandon the SLRs I just expanded my collection to include rangefinders.

[TJRON]

What do the pros use?

Does one camera really take better pictures than another?

Can we really tell the difference between a good lens and an excellent lens?

Isn't the film we use more important than the camera brand?

Isn't most of the work done in the dark room?

[Handlebars]

Ron- I bet you would really enjoy taking some photography classes. You can learn all of those answers youself on a trial and error basis and have a LOT of fun doing it! Check your local community colleg, they usually have the most in-depth classes for the most reasonable cost.

[Dan-H]

What do the pros use?
even better stuff.

Does one camera really take better pictures than another?

you bet, and the lens is a big part of the camera,

Can we really tell the difference between a good lens and an excellent lens?

pick up a life magazine, or national geographic, and and some snapshots, then you tell me.

Isn't the film we use more important than the camera brand?

I would say no. Photography is a system, limited by the weakest link.

Isn't most of the work done in the dark room?

only in star wars movies.

[TObject]

Q: What do the pros use?
A: Pros use stuff that can handle hundreds of rolls put through the camera every week. Or whatever they require. What kind of pros are you interested in? Wedding photographers? Photojournalists?

Q: Does one camera really take better pictures than another?
A: All the camera must do is hold the film, and lens straight, don't let any light in, except where required, and open the shutter for the specified amount of time. Some cameras help you get there, buy various means of auto exposure, auto focus, and other bells and whistles. So, the camera with better bells and whistles should be able to allow one to take better pictures, especially if one is shooting in a hurry. Not too many good shoots you will get at a basketball game, without a fast auto focus, for example.

Q: Can we really tell the difference between a good lens and an excellent lens?
A: Yes. The difference is especially noticeable in enlargements. And then there is also the obvious difference: an excellent lens would be (usually) much more expensive.

Q: Isn't the film we use more important than the camera brand?
A: Film is important. Camera brand is not important as long as you have something good that works, and the array of accessories you need for what you are doing. If you have a crappy camera or the one that doesn't work right, it is not going to be fun no matter what film you use.

Q: Isn't most of the work done in the dark room?
A: There is only so much you can do in the dark room with a crappy negative.

[Jerry Bransford]

Today's SLR cameras are generally so superb, especially their optics, that it'd be nearly impossible to tell one brand from another by simply looking at the photographs, even greatly enlarged photographs. I've owned probably 15 different SLRs (plus a few high-end range finders) including Canon, Besler-Topcon, Pentax, and Nikon and a few other brands that aren't even around anymore. Of all those, Canon and Nikon's products and optics are generally thought of as the best. Nikon's reputation is better among the pros but much of that reputation was earned many years ago... whether Nikon is still any better than Canon's top of the line equipment is hard to say but they're both superb products.

What do I use now? An inexpensive digital camera. I got tired of having to wait for my photos to come back from the lab (developing color film was beyond me) and digital fixed that. My current SLR is buried in some cardboard box now, it may be re-discovered by my son in 30 years or so and treasured as an antique owned by his late dad.

[TJRON]

Thanks.

I'm thinking the dark room can crop, compensate for bad lighting, over/under exposure and other undesirable conditions to some degree. It's certainly responsible for the tons of enhancement used in many magazines.

I've been to several of the places shown in Arizona Highways that look nothing like their beautiful pictures! It broke my heart to see a beautiful cover picture taken below Hoover Dam that was so phony I didn't even recognize it even though I'd been there many times.

I have a couple old Olympus and a few lens buried somewhere also.
Digital fills my needs and it's so cheap to have fun!

[TObject]

There are still a lot of crappy lenses sold. Just go to a photo forum, and ask. People will tell which ones are good, and which ones are to stay away.

[TObject]

I consider Photography an art. Therefore I think it's ok for the picture not to look like the real thing, as long as the picture is nice.

Yes, there are tricks you can do in darkroom (my experience was only with Black and White). But, you can also do a lot while shooting. For example, you can use a polarizer filter to darken the blue sky. Or a very wide lens for a dramatic angle on large objects. You can bring more light, mirrors, shades stuff like that (not much personal experience there). You can vary the shutter speed and pan the camera for effects on moving subjects. You can vary the aperture for depth of the field control. And many more...

I am sure you know what I am talking about. I just like to blab about this stuff...

[Milan]

Like someone mentioned already, camera system is a system so it will only be as good as its worst component. But there are few rules of thumb one can follow if one does not want or can't spend all their money on camera equipment.

It's the lens that takes pictures not the camera body. Take a Zeiss lens and put it on a Yashica body instead of a Contax and at the same setting the picture should come out the same. Put a Pentax lens on a Ricoh body and you should get "Pentax" quality picture even with the cheaper Ricoh camera.

Where the camera may matter is in its exposure metering (better cameras can be more accurate), general precision of components and hopefully longevity and ability to maintain the precision over longer period of time. This is especially true in case of mechanically controlled cameras.

Film matters but if you use the brand name ones you should do fine (even supermarket brand actually made by Fuji or Kodak will do). In 35 mm color print films I prefer Fujicolor NPH 400 ASA. Sharp pics with good color definition. But everyone has their favorites. Fujicolor is a bit cold, Kodak a bit warm, Agfa also warmer so you should pick a film that suits your needs. For B&W I like Ilford or Agfa 100 or 400 ASA. For slides Fujichrome 50 ASA though I hear there's a 100 that shoots even better. But like I said it's all very subjective even my camera and lense choices.

Bad developing can ruin good negatives, good developing can improve bad negatives but it will not fix basic mistakes made by the photographer or poor quality of pictures caused by crappy equipment.

I feel there are few classes of lenses in the 35mm market with Leica being the best, Zeiss next and everything else being behind. Pentax seems to have the most consistent lens series (the lens quality does not vary much between different focal lengths and models and is considered very high across the range). Other companies have both crappy lenses and some real gems that will rival the best lenses from top manufacturers. Nikon has some, so does Olympus (also very high general quality), Canon has some gems as well (and also seems to have better lenses than most other makers these days). Lens companies like Sigma and Tamron may also have some very high quality models that end up better than the big name manufacturer's lenses. If you get into medium and big format cameras everything changes again. Even digital cameras have your typical $200 auto focus model to $2000 exchangeable lens model to professional 22 megapixel camera for $39 grand Canadian.

Typical 4x6 pictures will not show much difference between a $200 lens and $2000 one. Large enlargements would.

Typical color print lab in a large supermarket is crappy due to overused chemicals (batches not changed as often as they should) and equipment settings averaged out for the masses. Smaller photo shops may deliver better quality of development and prints but are usually more expensive. For simple wheeling and family pics I picked an above average quality 1 hour photo lab over Walmart but I don't send my films to the pro lab.

[Ace!]

To at least another thirty years Jerry

I have enough dig-cams that I want to go old school (with new technology), and start taking film photos again. Thanks for all the input. I didn't know there were this many learned photographers in the bunch.

[Dan-H]

If you have worked with a crappy body, or one with a poor built in meter, or one with a built-in meter that samples in the wrong spots, or or one that isn't sync'd well with the flash, or one that is not easy to hold, or,

that said I agree its mosly about the lens, but not all.

If you take out much of the automation, and set the aperture and shutter speed manually, then the body isn't doing much.

it would be nice to find a body that was digital and worked with the same lenses as 35mm, unfortunately I have a Konica, and I doubt much will happen in that style of lens mount.

[TJRON]

I bought my 35mm cameras in the '70s. At that time the choice of most pros was Nikon and Olympus. The Olympus usually chosen by outdoor photograhpers as it was the first to offer the now standard small bodies. It was also the quietest and had the fastest motor drive and could take more frams per second. Their Japanese ZUIKO lenses were rated among the best. They also had systems and accesories equal to Nikon.
Unless auto focus is important I would think these old cameras could take pictures as well as any today, even though they probaly have more bells and whistles.

On occasion I would use professional film. The kind that had to be kept refigerated. The colors were outstanding compared to the more familiar films.

I have taken bad negatives to custom processors and had wonderfull results. As long as there is an image on the negative they can do amazing things.
For instance I took many wide angle shots on a hike up the Virgin River in Zion National Park. The canyon is over a thousand feet high, very narrow and very dark at the bottom with light streaming in on parts of the canyon walls. No camera can compensate for that type lighting.
The lab I took the negative to made it all "right".
Photography is fun!

[Milan]

Dan-H,
That's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm completely old-school because it's fun and because I like the reliability (though I'm finding dusty environment ruined one of my MX bodies and a lense; this would not happen with a cheap digital that has no zooming mechanism and no moving parts). So for me the body being fully mechanical and the lenses manual, the body is not that important but I do like the quality feel of Leica and the small body of the Pentax MX. The built in meter is where I find the differences between higher end and a standard camera (though MX used to be what non-Nikon pros used to use in the 70s ).

TJRON,
The Zuico lense were exactly what I had in mind when I mentioned some gems. Is that what you take your nice pictures with or do you use something else?

[Desert Fox]

Like several of you, I belong to the Nikon school. I purchased F3 and FM bodies in 1981, and they are still going strong. I use only a Nikkor lens. My current kit bag carries both bodies, a 24mm lens and a 105mm lens plus a doubler. This gives me a 24, a 48, a 105 and a 210mm. Both lens are 2.0.
I also have the usual group of filters, hoods, cable releases etc. I usually carry a heavy duty tripod. If I had to start over today, I would buy a used F3 body (they don't make them anymore) and a few Nikkor lens or maybe a telephoto. The film you use does make a difference, but for the average snapshot shooter, what you buy off the shelf at Ritz is just fine. I recommend Nikon products, at least from the early 1980's.

[Phil Howell]

As someone who makes his living shooting photos, I have to say that I REALLY love my Nikon F5. The tough body with O rings wherever needed keeps dirt out of the camera. Also, I've found TTL flash metering is extremely accurate, so accurate, in fact, that I seldom bracket anymore. My Canon EOS 1D was a fine camera, too, but didn't meter as well.

Now, while I'm still shooting transparencies all the time, It's only a matter of months until I HAVE to switch to digital. All the magazines are going there and I can read the writing on the wall -- modernize, or find another line of work. I made a short foray into the SLR digital world a while ago and purchased a Fuji S2 Pro. Based on the Nikon N80 body, it was not sealed well enough for tough backcountry usage. I also was uneasy trying to use a new format. I was definitely out of my comfort zone. Comfort zone or not, digital is the future. It's also a much CHEAPER future, if you notice how film prices are jumping lately.

[TJRON]

Originally posted by Milan
Dan-H,
TJRON,
The Zuico lense were exactly what I had in mind when I mentioned some gems. Is that what you take your nice pictures with or do you use something else?

No.........
I use an Olympus C-2100 Ultra Zoom. It has a 10X lens with a built in stabilizer like the camcorders use. The word was the lens was a colaboration with Cannon and made by them. The camera was suppose to sell for big bucks but the megapixel wars started and 2.1 didn't cut it. They ended up selling for around $500. They still go for close to that used on e-bay even though it's been out of production for several years.. I just picked up another as I feel it's all the digital camera I'll ever need.