In article <[email protected]>, Lazarus Long
<[email protected]> wrote:
> And it's got some real heft to it
<snip>
> I think that at some point I'll have to get a digital camera
Don't you just hate the trend of digital camera manufacturers to make
them smaller and smaller. I have fairly large hands and cannot imagine
trying to use a fiddly little camera that's maybe 2.5 x 3 inches. I
love my two old Konica SLRs with the honking big Toshiba flash unit
always attached which I use as a carrying handle. Now that's heft.
Gerry
SAGE FYQ-47 by any chance ?
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jkajpust@###ameritech.net says...
> > the tools you bought new now show up on the various antique tool web
> > sites... sigh...
> >
> I've had that happen - but the worst was when I visited the
> Smithsonian and they had the computer I worked on way back when
> :-).
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jkajpust@###ameritech.net says...
> > the tools you bought new now show up on the various antique tool web
> > sites... sigh...
> >
> I've had that happen - but the worst was when I visited the
> Smithsonian and they had the computer I worked on way back when
Yea, but you don't have to be *OLD* for your computers to be.
I've worked with super computers any decent PC will now out
perform. Heck, even CRAYs, the very name of super computers
are now kept up as antiques with the owners powering them up
on weekends so people can play with them over the net.
When I bought my first digital camera a few years ago, I couldn't
figure out why I taking so many pictures of my shoes. It turned out,
I'd click the shutter and then put the camera down - just in time to
get a picture of my feet.
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:02:58 -0400, Renata <[email protected]>
wrote:
>AH, but on rare occassions the shutter delay works in your favor
>(admittedly, rare). I was taking a picture of dad and my bird was
>perched on the arm of the couch. Well, apparently the camera sound
>scared the critter and he took off. The delay was just enough to get
>him midflight, wings caught mostly open in mid-flap. Turned out to be
>a rather cool shot.
In article <[email protected]>,
Lazarus Long <[email protected]> wrote:
>This is my life with my camera. Buying a new camera of any kind isn't
>very high on the priority list. So I took my old Nikon to a camera
>shop to get the problem it had serviced. I needed light seals. The
>guy behind the counter looked at it and said they don't service
>antique cameras.
*snort* My "new" camera says it was built in "Occupied Germany".
The others pre-date WWII.
In article <[email protected]>,
Lazarus Long <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:29:58 +0000, [email protected]
>(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Lazarus Long <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>This is my life with my camera. The
>>>guy behind the counter looked at it and said they don't service
>>>antique cameras.
>>
>>*snort* My "new" camera says it was built in "Occupied Germany".
>>The others pre-date WWII.
>
>Do they all work?
Of course! I'm a camera _user_, not a collector. I 'know what I'm doing',
and prefer a 'manual' to one of the 'automatics'. Fewer things to "go wrong,
go wrong", plus I've got _complete_ control over the picture and quality
optics. In the contemporary market, that costs a small fortune, _and_
includes a computer I won't use -- well, unless one gets into the Hasselblad
class (a _large_ fortune :), where they _do_ leave off the computer.
I did have to re-tension the spring on the 'songbird shutter' on the Contax,
`cuz it was _way_ slow, though. Absolutely scary -- I did it strictly
'by ear', and it was within +/- 2% across the entire range of exposures, when
I had it tested a few months later. Not too shabby, for a first-time
disassembly of _any_ camera.
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:29:58 +0000, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Lazarus Long <[email protected]> wrote:
>>This is my life with my camera. The
>>guy behind the counter looked at it and said they don't service
>>antique cameras.
>
>*snort* My "new" camera says it was built in "Occupied Germany".
>The others pre-date WWII.
Do they all work?
In article <[email protected]>,
jkajpust@###ameritech.net says...
> the tools you bought new now show up on the various antique tool web
> sites... sigh...
>
I've had that happen - but the worst was when I visited the
Smithsonian and they had the computer I worked on way back when
:-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> *snort* My "new" camera says it was built in "Occupied Germany".
> The others pre-date WWII.
>
And Garrett Wade is still selling clamps marked "made in W.
Germany" - they must have bought a boatload :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 11:44:13 +0000, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Lazarus Long <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:29:58 +0000, [email protected]
>>(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>Lazarus Long <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>This is my life with my camera. The
>>>>guy behind the counter looked at it and said they don't service
>>>>antique cameras.
>>>
>>>*snort* My "new" camera says it was built in "Occupied Germany".
>>>The others pre-date WWII.
>>
>>Do they all work?
>
>Of course! I'm a camera _user_, not a collector. I 'know what I'm doing',
>and prefer a 'manual' to one of the 'automatics'. Fewer things to "go wrong,
>go wrong", plus I've got _complete_ control over the picture and quality
>optics. In the contemporary market, that costs a small fortune, _and_
>includes a computer I won't use -- well, unless one gets into the Hasselblad
>class (a _large_ fortune :), where they _do_ leave off the computer.
>
>
>I did have to re-tension the spring on the 'songbird shutter' on the Contax,
>`cuz it was _way_ slow, though. Absolutely scary -- I did it strictly
>'by ear', and it was within +/- 2% across the entire range of exposures, when
>I had it tested a few months later. Not too shabby, for a first-time
>disassembly of _any_ camera.
I can't say my Nikon's that old, I bought it about 27 years ago. I
had wanted one of the all mechanical Nikons of the time (Photomic F),
but the price was beyond my reach at the time.
So I've got an FE. Some electronics, but nowhere near what they do
now. And it's got some real heft to it, and very nice optics.
In fact, after getting new light seals, I went on Ebay and bought some
more glass for it. This camera takes some absolutely brilliant
pictures when I pay attention to what I'm doing.
And Hasselblad cameras. Well, what can I say. It'd be nice. Nice in
the way that owning a Rolls Royce would be nice. The cachet of owning
the best. I'm afraid my own skills are not good enough to justify
ownership of such a camera. Why spend money on one if I can't take a
great picture?
But in keeping with the times, I think that at some point I'll have to
get a digital camera. But I want one that works like my FE.
Interchangeable lenses and all. Hopefully the same lenses I use now.
Good glass is expensive.
In article <[email protected]>, George <george@least> wrote:
> The measure with a micrometer, mark with a crayon, cut with an
> axe syndrome, after all
I like that turn of phrase. Is that your own or is that a quote?
Enquiring minds need to know.
Gerry <being serious and not sarcastic>
Lazurus Long writes:
>
>But in keeping with the times, I think that at some point I'll have to
>get a digital camera. But I want one that works like my FE.
>Interchangeable lenses and all. Hopefully the same lenses I use now.
>Good glass is expensive.
Nikon has some good ones out just now, and more coming. I'd wait a year, maybe
18 months, though. You're right. Good glass costs the earth. My old Canon F1
(all mechanical) is a fond memory (destroyed in a fire 20 years ago). That
thing took better pictures by accident than I've done with other cameras on
purpose. The only electronics was the match needle metering.
It was a tank and I sometimes drove it like one. I bought it, IIRC, around
1970, maybe a year or so earlier and covered lots of off-road motorcycling with
it in some not so great weather and some really great weather. Never failed.
Never had a glitch.
Also, simple to learn and use something that has totally bypassed even the P&S
digitals, never mind the terribly named prosumer models. The DSLRs are a bit
easier to use, as SLRs in general tend to be.
Charlie Self
"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
I had the EF until it took a salt bath. Still have an FTb and AE1, and a
full SEA set of lenses which, unless they get better megapixels, are wasted
on digital. The measure with a micrometer, mark with a crayon, cut with an
axe syndrome, after all.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lazurus Long writes:
>
> >
> >But in keeping with the times, I think that at some point I'll have to
> >get a digital camera. But I want one that works like my FE.
> >Interchangeable lenses and all. Hopefully the same lenses I use now.
> >Good glass is expensive.
>
> Nikon has some good ones out just now, and more coming. I'd wait a year,
maybe
> 18 months, though. You're right. Good glass costs the earth. My old Canon
F1
> (all mechanical) is a fond memory (destroyed in a fire 20 years ago). That
> thing took better pictures by accident than I've done with other cameras
on
> purpose. The only electronics was the match needle metering.
George writes:
>
>I had the EF until it took a salt bath. Still have an FTb and AE1, and a
>full SEA set of lenses which, unless they get better megapixels, are wasted
>on digital. The measure with a micrometer, mark with a crayon, cut with an
>axe syndrome, after all.
Check http://www.pbase.com/charliediy/galleries
Only one photo and it fuzzed up something awful making it small enough to
upload.
Imagine it tack sharp, because that's what the original is.
That is not from a particularly fancy digital camera. Minolta Dimage 7i, 5MP,
now supplantec by the 7Hi, the A1 and the A2. The pace of change in digitals is
incredible. I bought the 7i in August of '02, and it was supplanted within 3-4
months. That was supplanted in maybe 6 months, and then the A1 was supplanted
in February or early March.
These are all prosumer (godawful word) cameras at or under a grand (way under
for the refurb 7is you'll find now).
The Canon 10d and 1Ds (I think) make them look lousy, but I can't afford the
money for the body plus lenses. The 10d is going for about $1400, while I leave
lenses to the imagination, because that's where most of the prices reside,
AFAIAC. A decent package would probably run $4000, maybe 5.
Ouch.
To do the same in film, knock about $750 off (all off on the camera).
The go with the 1Ds, add about 2 grand.
Charlie Self
"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
Was common in USAF. Possible some crusty old zebra may have originated it,
though I doubt it.
Anyway, used to use Panatomic-X and 1:3 Diafine, and the grain size was
still larger than the resolution capability of the lens. Pixels are even
bigger. Guess that's why the large-ratio zooms are capable enough.
Come to think, since the images are interpolated all the time, do you really
need color-corrected lenses?
"G.E.R.R.Y." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:060420041114092714%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, George <george@least> wrote:
>
> > The measure with a micrometer, mark with a crayon, cut with an
> > axe syndrome, after all
>
> I like that turn of phrase. Is that your own or is that a quote?
> Enquiring minds need to know.
>
> Gerry <being serious and not sarcastic>
But - given the "grain" size and the digital dither....
Oh well, just a thought.
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Come to think, since the images are interpolated all the time, do you
really
> >need color-corrected lenses?
>
> For 'snapshot' photography, not really.
>
> For more demanding work, and especially at longer focal lengths, it does
> get to be "rather important" that all the colors _do_ focus at the film
> plane (or the plane of the CCD array, in the case of digital cameras)
>
> Without it, you get 'fuzzy' edges on objects that aren't the 'right'
color.
> >
In article <[email protected]>, George <george@least> wrote:
>Was common in USAF. Possible some crusty old zebra may have originated it,
>though I doubt it.
>
>Anyway, used to use Panatomic-X and 1:3 Diafine, and the grain size was
>still larger than the resolution capability of the lens. Pixels are even
>bigger.
ayup. with fine-grain film, and careful processing, you can easily get
200 lines/mm resolution. For 35mm film, thats equivalent to about
10,000x15,000 pixel resolution digital. We won't bother to talk about
equivalents for medium- or large-format film. :)
> Guess that's why the large-ratio zooms are capable enough.
>
>Come to think, since the images are interpolated all the time, do you really
>need color-corrected lenses?
For 'snapshot' photography, not really.
For more demanding work, and especially at longer focal lengths, it does
get to be "rather important" that all the colors _do_ focus at the film
plane (or the plane of the CCD array, in the case of digital cameras)
Without it, you get 'fuzzy' edges on objects that aren't the 'right' color.
>
>"G.E.R.R.Y." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:060420041114092714%[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, George <george@least> wrote:
>>
>> > The measure with a micrometer, mark with a crayon, cut with an
>> > axe syndrome, after all
>>
>> I like that turn of phrase. Is that your own or is that a quote?
>> Enquiring minds need to know.
>>
>> Gerry <being serious and not sarcastic>
>
>
AH, but on rare occassions the shutter delay works in your favor
(admittedly, rare). I was taking a picture of dad and my bird was
perched on the arm of the couch. Well, apparently the camera sound
scared the critter and he took off. The delay was just enough to get
him midflight, wings caught mostly open in mid-flap. Turned out to be
a rather cool shot.
OTOH, the sailboat that was nicely heeled over, viewed between the two
buildings, in Monterray (Bee-u-tifully framed), mostly righted and
made for a much less dramatic shot. Can't blame the digital on that
one though. Me pulling out finagling with the dang SLR...
Renata
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:38:59 GMT, "mttt" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>This weekend at the zoo - I was reminded of how much I *hate* my wife's
>digital. The delay between shutter depress; lock-on and then picture
>acquisition is unbearable! So many great candid shots lost because of that
>damned delay. It's not a bottom of the line digital either...
-snip-
This is my life with my camera. Buying a new camera of any kind isn't
very high on the priority list. So I took my old Nikon to a camera
shop to get the problem it had serviced. I needed light seals. The
guy behind the counter looked at it and said they don't service
antique cameras. Never in my life did I feel as old as at that
moment. I turned around and dragged my tail out of the store knocking
over several display cases in the process :D
BTW, I did find a place to do the work and now the camera works as
good as new.
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 16:00:23 GMT, Jim K <jkajpust@###ameritech.net>
wrote:
>the tools you bought new now show up on the various antique tool web
>sites... sigh...
>
>I did a search to find out if my Union combo square was any good since
>I didn't remember how much I paid for it when I bought it during my
>first stint as a mechanic.
"Lazarus Long" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
<snip>
> But in keeping with the times, I think that at some point I'll have to
> get a digital camera.
This weekend at the zoo - I was reminded of how much I *hate* my wife's
digital. The delay between shutter depress; lock-on and then picture
acquisition is unbearable! So many great candid shots lost because of that
damned delay. It's not a bottom of the line digital either...
You can't beat the simplicity, the instant gratification and the time
savings. But, those advantages sure come at a price for those of us versed
in older SLR's. I was ready to show my kids a Professional Grade Tantrum --
grinding that digital into the asphalt.
What kills me is that my "old technology" Canon 630 EOS can lock on within a
tenth of a second.
> But I want one that works like my FE.
> Interchangeable lenses and all. Hopefully the same lenses I use now.
> Good glass is expensive.
My neighbor's a pro. He popped for the top-line digital Nikon to keep all of
his glass.
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:44:31 -0400, "G.E.R.R.Y."
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Lazarus Long
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> And it's got some real heft to it
><snip>
>> I think that at some point I'll have to get a digital camera
>
>Don't you just hate the trend of digital camera manufacturers to make
>them smaller and smaller. I have fairly large hands and cannot imagine
>trying to use a fiddly little camera that's maybe 2.5 x 3 inches. I
>love my two old Konica SLRs with the honking big Toshiba flash unit
>always attached which I use as a carrying handle. Now that's heft.
>
>Gerry
Yes, definitely. This a real problem with being too small. Lots and
lots of tiny little buttons that should be pressed with some sort of
toothpick, not big caloused fingers. And their too damn light. I
want a camera sized just like my old Nikon.
[email protected] (Charlie Self) writes:
>Lazarus Long states:
>
>> This a real problem with being too small. Lots and
>>lots of tiny little buttons that should be pressed with some sort of
>>toothpick, not big caloused fingers. And their too damn light. I
>>want a camera sized just like my old Nikon.
>And you go to rec.digitalphoto and find that...
[That's rec.photo.digital]
>Some of the
>top models are comparable in size and weight, and quality, to top SLRs like
>your old Nikon, but the prices are still in the stratosphere for non-pros.
The 300D and D70 are not bad, around $1k plus lenses. A good deal
if you already have Canon or Nikon lenses.
Also check out the Panasonic FZ10, for around $600. Quality will
not match the SLRs, but it's not bad, and it's a big solid camera
compared to most in it's price range (10x stabilized zoom, with
manual focus ring). For more info see:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/vkelim/DMCFZ10/index.html
It has an electronic viewfinder which you may or may not like
(it's better than most EVFs), but in that price range the
alternative is a non-TTL "optical tunnel". If you want optical
TTL then you're back to the $1-2K range (and up).
[Having said all that, I decided not to buy the FZ10-- I want
something that will fit in a large coat pocket, and the FZ10
won't. I'll probably end up with something like a used Canon G3.]
Lazarus Long states:
> This a real problem with being too small. Lots and
>lots of tiny little buttons that should be pressed with some sort of
>toothpick, not big caloused fingers. And their too damn light. I
>want a camera sized just like my old Nikon.
And you go to rec.digitalphoto and find that many, if not most, of the posters
are delighted with shirtpocket cameras that do everything for them. Some of the
top models are comparable in size and weight, and quality, to top SLRs like
your old Nikon, but the prices are still in the stratosphere for non-pros.
Lower than a few years ago by a lot, but Canon's D1s is $8000 bucks (body only)
and the Kodak 14n is $5000, while reasonably comparable film cameras are $2000
and down, often way down (pro level down to about $800, I'd say).
Charlie Self
"It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore