What cameras do you guys use/have?

[NamelessPFG]

Only noteworthy camera in my house is my stepfather's old, black Canon AE-1 Program, with a Canon 35-70mm f4.0 and two Vivitar telephoto lenses.

Hasn't been used in a long time, though, and a battery needs to be replaced because the camera doesn't beep fast enough when a test button is held down. Cheap point-and-shoot digitals have pretty much taken over this family, presumably in the name of convenience.

I want to see that camera put to use, though, perhaps as a way to get into photography without any extra money spent. Doesn't seem to make much sense to have it lying around unused like that. I just hope I can still get some 135 rolls for it in this day and age, what with digital being the norm for consumers and Kodachrome no longer being produced and all.

[firestorm]

My mother still has her old AE-1, with a couple of lenses, and we have my FIL's old Minolta SLR.  We thought about learning on those, but I decided it would be much easier to learn on a DSLR (e.g. instant results, change ISO on the fly) and I like that you don't have to worry about wasting any film ('though that hardly offsets the cost of the gear.)

[Pylon]

The cost of wasting film though IMO drives you to be better in a way. It kinda drives you to shoot better precisely because you don't want to waste film. E.g. if you're on your absolute last frame on your last roll, you know you're gonna try hard to get a keeper.

[instantkamera]

The cost of wasting film though IMO drives you to be better in a way. It kinda drives you to shoot better precisely because you don't want to waste film. E.g. if you're on your absolute last frame on your last roll, you know you're gonna try hard to get a keeper.

That is why, with my sony f717, I only bought a card that held ~40 shots. Sure, you could delete shots, but I found it really helped eliminate the spray and pray attitude a lot of digital "photographers" have.

[firestorm]

The cost of wasting film though IMO drives you to be better in a way. It kinda drives you to shoot better precisely because you don't want to waste film. E.g. if you're on your absolute last frame on your last roll, you know you're gonna try hard to get a keeper.

I guess I haven't thought of it that way.  90% of my shooting involves kids, and if I didn't shoot continuously, I'd miss a lot of great shots.  They're just too unpredictable sometimes.  I don't generally have a problem with exposure... it's usually composition.

One thing to remember about film is the fact that much of your failings are corrected in processing, unless the lab is otherwise instructed print as-is.

[instantkamera]

I took 80GB of SD cards with me to Japan.  More capacity than MW's computer collection COMBINED.

Yeah, you love to spray

[instantkamera]

good comp.

[Terrysko]

As soon as they glanced over at the booth I knew I had the shot.

Is it somewhere in Kyoto?

[TheSoulhunter]

Nice! But you forgot to add your Ripster tag ;P

Btw, is there a special reason why you are adding tags to you images lately? Did someone "steal" some of your images or so? Just asking because I really hate tags/watermarks...
Sorta destroys a lot images for me, especially when it's not small and barely noticeable but distracting (my favorites are the DeviantArt watermarks right in the center of the image).

[instantkamera]

lol nice

[TheSoulhunter]

Humm, interesting... Usually I don't care if someone uses/publishes public/non-commercial content created by me, as long he doesn't claim its made by himself that is. But if someone secretly makes money of content you created, that sucks! Pehaps this guy simply used Google image search to find a presumable generic image of a spacesaver? I do similar things (using 3rd party images for content creation) myself sometimes, tho I don't use the content commercially or claim its created by me. Thing is, most people see content that is published for free as free for further publication (of any kind). Anyway, I guess when people really want to steal your images they wont hesitate to remove your tag or overlay it with their own, for everything else minimal making should be enough imo:



Just telling you because I always liked ya images, but really hate tags, lol!

[bhtooefr]

I run a Canon PowerShot A560. Gets the job done, supremely durable, and if you take it to an event, even though it's three years old, you can never tell which your camera is, because EVERYONE has an A560.

I've also got a Rebel G, but I never use it. It's not even the cost of film developing, it's having to drive to somewhere that can process it, drop the film off, etc.

Also, Wikipedia says that the Canon T80 used in-lens motors, not an in-body motor, on the FD mount.

[Rajagra]

Wikipedia says that the Canon T80 used in-lens motors, not an in-body motor, on the FD mount.

At least they got something right with the T80. Canon still uses in-lens motors of various types in the EOS range too, but it is now the body that controls the focusing. Only Nikon were stupid enough to think putting the lens motor in the body was a good idea. (/trollattemp.)

[instantkamera]

At least they got something right with the T80. Canon still uses in-lens motors of various types in the EOS range too, but it is now the body that controls the focusing. Only Nikon were stupid enough to think putting the lens motor in the body was a good idea. (/trollattemp.)

Some would argue neither are correct, and one should only focus with their hands/eyeballs.

I CAN tell you one thing, my:

Nikkor 85mm f/1.8
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

work just fine without internal motors.

[bhtooefr]

The body controlled the focusing on the T80, too.

There was an AF FD lens that had lens-controlled focusing - hit a button on the lens to AF - however, and it worked on any FD-mount camera.

[bhtooefr]

Bought a Pentax Auto 110 with 18mm and 24mm lenses last night, should be here in the next few days.

Completely automatic exposure (the shutter and the diaphragm are one and the same, and therefore higher shutter speeds also stop it down - with speeds 1/60s and up, IIRC, the shutter never fully opens, and the shutter is essentially a two-blade compact camera-style diaphragm,) but manual focus. Because of the shutter, lenses have no diaphragm, and are all f/2.8 - even the 20-40 zoom.

Oh, and it's one of the smallest SLRs ever made, and the smallest SLR system ever made (the three common primes - 18 wide angle, 24 normal, and 50mm tele (the other lenses are a 70mm tele, a fixed-focus 18, and a 20-40 zoom,) and the camera can fit in one hand) - it's significantly smaller than even my PowerShot A560.

Downside is, it shoots 110. (This does give it a 2x crop factor, and because the entire system was designed around 110, everything is TINY. The 24mm lens is the size of a freaking soda bottle cap, apparently.)

I want to find a dead Four Thirds or Micro Four Thirds camera, and graft the electronics onto the back, making a digital back for it. There'll need to be some trickery to get the digital camera to not be pissed off by the lack of a shutter and (in the case of a standard 4/3) mirror, among other things, but I think it's doable. (The lens isn't an issue, 4/3 and u4/3 cameras support a mode for shooting "without a lens" when the lens doesn't have electronics - and, in fact, the Pentax Auto 110 lenses are popular on u4/3 cameras.)

[Pylon]

I got an old Seagull FJ-1 from my grampa(some Chinese rangefinder from the 60s or 70s, likely a copy of some Western thing). All manual, no meter, fairly solid, and very small. Slightly smaller than a Canon QL17, but build is worse and it's lens is about a stop and a half slower. Comes with a 38mm f/2.8 lens. Should be interesting having to Sunny 16 and stuff.

However I rarely shoot film anymore. I kinda feel guilty because I have an awesome pro lab only 2 miles from where I live and my local camera store has awesome selection of film  (Velvia, Ektar, etc.). Still the stuff costs too much nowadays,

[TheSoulhunter]

Got some old manual Canon FD lenses converted to EF mount...



Awesome glass....

[TheSoulhunter]

Haha, moving your old images to digital age?
The right season for something like this...

[Pylon]

Are you going to shoot more film, Ripster?

[McLaren]

My favorite camera is my Horseman 45FA field camera - auto *nothing*:



Horseman Specs

I also have a Bronica ETRsi outfit and various and sundry other cameras.

 - Bill

[NamelessPFG]

(I know, bump/thread necro, but I'd rather not create a new thread just for this.)

Guess what I found for $15.75 at a local shop?



Battery's dead, so I don't know if the meter works, but it's in very good condition for a 1960s-era camera. Part of that may be due to the leather case it came in, but even that isn't too worn. Everything else not meter-related appears to be fine, shutter and all, though I have yet to shoot any film with it, and that lens needs the UV treatment to get rid of the yellowing. It may still need a CLA for all I know.

(And I won't have to pester my stepfather for his AE-1 Program if I want to take photos, either...)

[Pylon]

Lenses yellow? Man...

[NamelessPFG]

Lenses yellow? Man...

It's because there's some mildly radioactive elements used in its construction, and after all these years, the result is a slight yellow hue. Seems to be common amongst lenses from that timeframe, but most notably documented with Takumar ones due to their following.

But it can apparently be corrected just by leaving the lens exposed to strong UV light, usually sunlight, for about a week. Some report success with using UV lamps, while others say that only sunlight works.

[keyboardlover]

I use a Nikon D3000.

[clickclack]

to NamelessPFG-
Let me know how your UV session works out, I have never had much luck with it. But it's probably due to my lack of patience in that rather drawn out process. =P
I dont mind tint shifts from "heavy" elements but I hate the browning some of my lenses have and I really hate the whitening of other ones.

=)

[Gerk]

Bodies: Canon 5D (original, not mkII), Canon 7D, battery grips for both

Lenses:  Canon EF 70-200L f/2.8 IS (original, not the mkII), Canon EF 16-35L f/2.8 mkII, Canon EF 50mm f/1.4

Been very happy with both.  I just picked up the 5D not too long ago used (for a really good price) to replace my older 20D.

[Gerk]

Sorry to hear about that Canon thing.

Lemme guess, you must be a Nikkon guy then  It's not what you have, it's what you do with it.  I've taken some great shots with my iPhone

[IvanIvanovich]

I mostly shoot with my Zenit ET for 35mm and Kiev 88 for 120mm. I also have toy cameras the Lomo 135VS and Holga CMY.

[pitashen]

Just got myself a GF2 + mediocre 14-42mm lens kit for 290USD over the thanks giving. Got a better lens for it for 345USD, a 20mm (40mm equivalent) f/1.7.

I own a Nikomat FTn, and had a lot of fun with it until i was relocated to a place where I can no longer find a decent place to develop films (no place for any sort of darkroom either). It's time to move on...

[Pylon]

You don't need a darkroom if all you're doing is developing (presuming you're scanning the negatives). You need a changing bag (~$20-$40) to load the film and a sink, along with the other things (film tank, chemicals, etc.)

[Malphas]

I just have a Panasonic LX3, which I barely use anymore.  I also used to have a Canon 5D and I used that even less.

Not that I'm an expert or anything but I'd recommend considering just getting a micro four thirds as a beginner camera rather than a DSLR.  A good MFT will take better photos than a cheap SLR, it's less to lug around, cheaper lenses.  I also personally think that all prosumer and above cameras are so good now that the diminishing returns from a high-end SLR and a bunch of lenses aren't worth the cost and hassle unless you're taking photographs for a living.

[lootbag]

Been using a GF1 + 20mm F1.7 since it was released.
Perfect camera for everything.

Was in the photography business few years ago, Nikon lent me D700, D3 and lenses for work
Ahhh, Nikon Professional Service, saved me so much money.

[Malphas]

How do you find the GF1 compares to the Nikons?  As in how distinguishable is the end quality?

[pitashen]

How do you find the GF1 compares to the Nikons?  As in how distinguishable is the end quality?

Which Nikon are you referring to? You can't really compare micro 3/4 sensor to the larger ones. They are in complete different leagues. In general larger sensors allow better image qualities (in particular the higher ISO range). Not to mention GF series so far has rather not so impressive image processing unit (but great quality for 300bucks!).

[Malphas]

I was referring to the Nikons he mentioned using, obviously.  Also you can compare them and just did in fact.

Also, if I was being vague, I don't mean how the RAW files compare on a technical level - clearly, a full frame is going to perform better than a 4/3. I meant the end results in his work (prints, JPEGs, etc.).  Since he referred to the GF1 as a "perfect camera for everything", I was interested in how he felt it measured up to the DSLRs he had experience with professionally.

[pitashen]

I was referring to the Nikons he mentioned using, obviously.  Also you can compare them and just did in fact.

Also, if I was being vague, I don't mean how the RAW files compare on a technical level - clearly, a full frame is going to perform better than a 4/3. I meant the end results in his work (prints, JPEGs, etc.).  Since he referred to the GF1 as a "perfect camera for everything", I was interested in how he felt it measured up to the DSLRs he had experience with professionally.

It seems to me his GF1 and Nikon talks are two separate topics... but I do wonder if GF series is good enough to be included in certain pro shots scenarios.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

I posted in this thread way back in 2009, and I think it is time for an update.  I have been using a Canon PowerShot A530 5.0MP 5.8-23.2mm.  Not great by any means, but you would be surprised at the pictures this thing can take.  I installed CHDK onto it, which added so many extra features.  I would love to upgrade to a DSLR, but that will have to wait till after high school.

To see some of the pictures I have taken check out this thread:
http://geekhack.org/showthread.php?24797-Extended-Exposure-Photography&p=467391#post467391
or check out my flickr here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/71766005@N03/

[lootbag]

Which Nikon are you referring to? You can't really compare micro 3/4 sensor to the larger ones. They are in complete different leagues. In general larger sensors allow better image qualities (in particular the higher ISO range). Not to mention GF series so far has rather not so impressive image processing unit (but great quality for 300bucks!).

I was referring to the Nikons he mentioned using, obviously.  Also you can compare them and just did in fact.

Also, if I was being vague, I don't mean how the RAW files compare on a technical level - clearly, a full frame is going to perform better than a 4/3. I meant the end results in his work (prints, JPEGs, etc.).  Since he referred to the GF1 as a "perfect camera for everything", I was interested in how he felt it measured up to the DSLRs he had experience with professionally.

Technicality-wise, they do not compare at all.

D700 and D3 are for work, in my mind anyways.
I hate carrying around big heavy SLRs when I travel or walk the streets; I feel so intrusive and obnoxious.

GF1 with a pancake fits in my jacket pocket and isn't so "in your face".
Image quality is decent, 99% of the time.
That 1% is in low light situations where the ISO6400-12800 on a D700/D3 would have gotten me a shot and the GF1 resulted in slightly blurred results.

But yeah, the GF1 is getting old and newer models today probably provide better high ISO results.
However, after looking at test images, I just can't be moved to spend hundreds on a new body.
Still waiting for that more pro-oriented M4/3 body to be released.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

MW still there or has he been let go for that cheerleader incident?  Just curious.

He is still here, he is just on double-secret probation.  One more incident like that and he's out.

[davkol]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

[cactux]

iphone4 :-(

[nraymond]

Pentax K200D and recently a Pentax K-5, which I am loving.  Both with battery grips.  Too many lenses and other related gear to list.

[alaricljs]

Just replaced my Panasonic DMC-FZ30 with a Canon SX40HS.  The wider angle on the SX40 is nice to have and it takes very nice pictures.  Still wish for a mechanical zoom ring even tho the zoom is multi-speed.

[pitashen]

iphone4 :-(

Never underestimate the power of mobility when it comes to photo taking.

[Benji]

Canon G9

[rvrebel]

Nikon D90 with 4 various lenses. Currently stuck to it is a 35mm 1.8. Good for catching our fast toddler.

Panasonic LX5. Just picked this up on an amazon gold deal ($100 off). Previous point and shoot was another panny. So far loving the camera.

[Brodie337]

Canon 500D, gripped, with a Sigma 50 1.4 EX DG (Best thing since sliced bread), the pair of crappy kit lenses, a Canon EF28-70 2.8L that I picked up dirt cheap, and a 28mm 1.4 on the way.

Oh yay. Another hobby that'll send me broke.

[laffindude]

Never underestimate the power of mobility when it comes to photo taking.

be there and have a camera. Cardinal rule of photography

[tr4656]

Been using the X100 more and more lately but I do have a Nikon D7000


Sent from my HTC HD2 using Tapatalk