StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This guide will focus mostly on digital SLR cameras and their accessories. First and foremost, before you do anything else, you need to decide on what brand of camera you want to buy. Everything else, from lighting to lenses, stems from this one basic choice.

That's about where the guide goes all wrong IMO. The first thing is figuring out what you're using the camera for and what kind of features you'll need to do your photography. Then go find the cameras & systems which fill those needs.

For instance I need a relatively small camera that I can carry anywhere which means all DSLRs are out of the picture, there's no way I'm packing a camera & lens in a big bulky bag when I'm biking hours into the woods in the middle of nowhere. I need a decently fast lens for action photography in less than ideal lighting conditions so all compacts are out. That leaves cameras such as the Olympus E-P1 and various Leicas if I go the digital route. Since I also need a built-in optical viewfinder that leaves the Leicas, and I can't justify that kinda coin since I'm not that serious of a photographer.

If I stick with film I can use my Olympus Pen FT or Chinon 35FS rangefinder. I can stuff either one straight in my backpack or even in a back pocket in the case of the Chinon. This is what I continue to do for a fair number of my biking pictures.

On the other hand if I'm just going to be doing photos at the air show every year then I don't need to worry about bulk or weight as long as I can carry it for 5 miles along a flat paved bicyle path. All I need is a big telephoto lens and nice fast focus with minimal shutter lag.

aerius wrote:

This guide will focus mostly on digital SLR cameras and their accessories. First and foremost, before you do anything else, you need to decide on what brand of camera you want to buy. Everything else, from lighting to lenses, stems from this one basic choice.

That's about where the guide goes all wrong IMO. The first thing is figuring out what you're using the camera for and what kind of features you'll need to do your photography. Then go find the cameras & systems which fill those needs.

If the user has decided on purchasing an interchangable-lens camera he should at least consider brands since once you purchase something you're pretty much locked in (excepting maybe the M43 system since there are adapters for damn near every lens mount).

Since I also need a built-in optical viewfinder that leaves the Leicas, and I can't justify that kinda coin since I'm not that serious of a photographer.

The Panasonic G1 has an optional EVF though no in-body IS.

On the other hand if I'm just going to be doing photos at the air show every year then I don't need to worry about bulk or weight as long as I can carry it for 5 miles along a flat paved bicyle path. All I need is a big telephoto lens and nice fast focus with minimal shutter lag.

Doesn't that sort of leave you with (optimally) a DSLR - in terms of telephoto, fast-focus and minimal shutter lag?

Instant Sunrise wrote:What'd you get?

A canon T1i with the kit lens since I don't have enough disposable income for a lens that's actually good.

phongn wrote:If the user has decided on purchasing an interchangable-lens camera he should at least consider brands since once you purchase something you're pretty much locked in (excepting maybe the M43 system since there are adapters for damn near every lens mount).

Yeah, but to me that comes out after identifying my needs for the camera's planned use. After I have my needs figured out then I start looking at the lenses & cameras that'll do what I need them to do, and that's when I start looking at the systems & brands.

The Panasonic G1 has an optional EVF though no in-body IS.

G1 or GF1? The G1 has in internal EVF while the GF1 has a clip-on unit like the E-P1. Thing is I want a built-in finder since I'm lazy and forgetful, and a clip-on unit will likely be left at home when I need it most as per Murphy's Law. The G1 looks too big, unfortunately, the GF1/E-P1 is about as big as I want to go.

On the other hand if I'm just going to be doing photos at the air show every year then I don't need to worry about bulk or weight as long as I can carry it for 5 miles along a flat paved bicyle path. All I need is a big telephoto lens and nice fast focus with minimal shutter lag.

Doesn't that sort of leave you with (optimally) a DSLR - in terms of telephoto, fast-focus and minimal shutter lag?

Yup. But I can't justify a camera that I'll use 3 days a year at the very most. I could rationalize getting a DSLR with a telephoto lens if I take up bird watching or something like that in addition to the annual air show so I can actually get some decent use out of it.

aerius wrote:Yeah, but to me that comes out after identifying my needs for the camera's planned use. After I have my needs figured out then I start looking at the lenses & cameras that'll do what I need them to do, and that's when I start looking at the systems & brands.

Now, if only we had a system with Canon's lens selection, Nikon's flash system, Sony's full-frame pricing and Pentax's in-body IS

G1 or GF1? The G1 has in internal EVF while the GF1 has a clip-on unit like the E-P1. Thing is I want a built-in finder since I'm lazy and forgetful, and a clip-on unit will likely be left at home when I need it most as per Murphy's Law. The G1 looks too big, unfortunately, the GF1/E-P1 is about as big as I want to go.

GF1, yes.

Borrow every photo book featuring members of Group f/64 that you can find in your local libraries. Failing that, search out all their pictures on the 'net and marvel at what they were able to accomplish nearly 80 years ago. You can see some of their influence in my last couple black & white photos.

Simplicius wrote:If anything's getting me excited about someday incorporating full digital into my process, it's the wave of small cameras that have come out lately - first the E-P1, then the GF-1, and now the Leica X1. Seems like camera manufacturers are acknowledging a demand for a 'photographer's camera' - a photographic sports car, if you will, that delivers serious quality in a small frame without fuss about being feature-overloaded or having the mostest megapixels. This film user approves.

I'm having constant headaches about that, with my birthday coming up, my old compact as dead as APS film, and the announcement of the Canon s90 and the Panasonic GF-1. I just can't decide, on one hand the Canon is half the price and offers an excellent lens and is lighter and smaller (as well as EP-1 like IS), on the other hand the GF-1 is a fucking DSLR! The size of a compact! (But it doesn't have IS, and the lens range is smaller for anything compact, and its 900 fucking dollars, and it's less pocketable).
I need a "always on" camera, something to always have with me everywhere, or that I can carry up a glacier on a 23km hike like I did today. (I can't believe I got talked into leaving the DSLR behind for the hike, 1.2 km of pure elevation, winds, ice, snow, ravines, rivers, length, waterfalls be damned! Ah wait, now I realize why I had to leave 1.6 kg of gear...)

I need a "always on" camera, something to always have with me everywhere

If that's what you want, why consider the bulkier camera, all things being equal? Marginal image quality differences don't mean squat when the camera's supposed to be portable first.

However, if you plan on taking this *everywhere*, why not consider something a little less expensive and a little more sturdy? Would you rather break a $900 camera or a $300 one that takes pictures that are pretty much just as good? You'll even save money to go towards a proper well-protected camera bag.

Bounty wrote:

I need a "always on" camera, something to always have with me everywhere

If that's what you want, why consider the bulkier camera, all things being equal? Marginal image quality differences don't mean squat when the camera's supposed to be portable first.

However, if you plan on taking this *everywhere*, why not consider something a little less expensive and a little more sturdy? Would you rather break a $900 camera or a $300 one that takes pictures that are pretty much just as good? You'll even save money to go towards a proper well-protected camera bag.

I'll need to play with them to see how good/responsive the Canon is. I'll almost certainly buy the S90, the price is more reasonable, and for good light at low ISOs it should be barely distinguishable. (And I can deal with shutter lag).
It's just that a compact sized "Pro" camera (responsiveness, sensor size, ISO performance, noise) is soooooooo tempting.

(And I can deal with shutter lag)

Is shutter lag really an issue these days? Honest question. My three-year-old Canon never lagged in any way that could possibly have bothered me, even when compared to zero-lag film cameras, so I'd be frankly amazed if a $400 top-of-the-line compact camera these days had any shutter lag you actually needed to worry about. It all sounds like numbergazing to me.

There's 2 kinds of lag; autofocus lag and actual shutter lag, the latter is generally not a problem these days outside of some truly whacky situations which most photographers won't ever run into.

With compact cameras, when you push the button all the way down in one motion, the camera will take a half second to a second to focus on the scene, then it goes click and takes the picture. For landscapes & other still photos, who cares? The scene's still gonna be there and you'll still get the picture but with sports or action photos where timing is important, you'll get an empty frame more often than not. In that case you'll need to pre-focus the camera by pushing the button halfway down & holding it, then pushing it all the way down when you want the picture to be taken.

The problem is you can't always do the pre-focus thing, for instance when I was shooting pictures at the air show the planes were flying around from all directions and when there's several planes in the air there's no way to keep track of them, by the time you see a plane & get the camera pre-focused, the plane's gone or too far/close and you get a ruined picture. This is where you need the super fast focus & response of a high-end DSLR.

I've also had problems getting my camera to focus in the forest when there's weird lighting conditions, that's when the focus lock feature on my camera came in handy. I locked the focus on a tree that was not in the scene but at a similar distance as where I wanted the focus of my picture to be, then walked over to my shooting spot and took my picture. Ideally I'd want my manual focus film camera for this situation, set the focus, snap my picture, done. No goofing around with pre-focus & focus lock.

Since I do a fair bit of mountain bike action photography in weird and/or poor lighting conditions, I get problems with shutter lag on a fairly frequent basis. This is why I've moved back to film on my Olympus Pen FT for most of these pictures, it just works better.

Bounty wrote:Is shutter lag really an issue these days? Honest question. My three-year-old Canon never lagged in any way that could possibly have bothered me, even when compared to zero-lag film cameras, so I'd be frankly amazed if a $400 top-of-the-line compact camera these days had any shutter lag you actually needed to worry about. It all sounds like numbergazing to me.

Honestly? Yeah. My dad has a nice little Canon P&S and its shutter lag is annoying as hell when I use it.

phongn wrote:My dad has a nice little Canon P&S and its shutter lag is annoying as hell when I use it.

I think annoying's the right word, sometimes I want my picture now and my Canon decides to go "bzzz...bzzzt..zzzt" for what seems like a hell of long time before it takes the picture. With either of my film cameras it's "click", done, no waiting, no problem.

phongn wrote:

Bounty wrote:Is shutter lag really an issue these days? Honest question. My three-year-old Canon never lagged in any way that could possibly have bothered me, even when compared to zero-lag film cameras, so I'd be frankly amazed if a $400 top-of-the-line compact camera these days had any shutter lag you actually needed to worry about. It all sounds like numbergazing to me.

Honestly? Yeah. My dad has a nice little Canon P&S and its shutter lag is annoying as hell when I use it.

I want something to always have with me, be it for a beautiful sunset, or 3 dudes going insane at 3 in the morning, or a tiger breaking loose and eating someone in the middle of the university, even for snapshots in classes (though that's unlikely, the iso and lighting qould be...horrific for a compact).

The Grim Squeaker wrote:I want something to always have with me, be it for a beautiful sunset, or 3 dudes going insane at 3 in the morning, or a tiger breaking loose and eating someone in the middle of the university, even for snapshots in classes (though that's unlikely, the iso and lighting qould be...horrific for a compact).

Get a Leica, problem solved! Though you'll have to rob a bank or something.

One of my co-workers carries an M6 with her all the time, she's a PR person who does a bunch of the photography for our company's annual reports, brochures, and other media releases. I got to handle it for a few hours once and I think that's the only time in my life I've lusted over an object. I felt so unclean.

The Grim Squeaker wrote:on the other hand the GF-1 is a fucking DSLR!

Nitpick: Without the mirror and pentaprism it's no SLR.

I need a "always on" camera, something to always have with me everywhere, or that I can carry up a glacier on a 23km hike like I did today.

Size should be the main concern, and you'll have to accept the sacrifice in flexibility (no interchangable lenses, fewer features, whatever). A go-anywhere camera should fit easily in a jacket pocket so that you never have to ask yourself, "Do I really want to tote this around with me?"

Also, since it serves basically as a backup or a supplement to your main camera, there is no need to break the bank on it. You only need it for those circumstances where any photo is better than none.

Bounty wrote:Is shutter lag really an issue these days?

The difference between my humble Powershot and a low-end DSLR is roughly 0.4-0.5 second. It's an '07-vintage camera, mind, and it clocks toward the low end of this list - but even then, all but ten of the (current) cameras on that list are more than twice as slow as a low-end DSLR.

Now, I'm in the unenviable position of having to make that Powershot work for photojournalism, and it is so slow - especially from shot to shot - that it is throw-it-out-the-window unacceptable. But in general, there is no reason why Joe Snapshooter should have to suffer with a slow-ass camera. There's already a significant lag between first seeing the shot and finally making the finger push the button, and for the camera to add three or four seconds (between autofocusing, taking the picture, processing the picture, and showing you the picture you just took) is ridiculous. Joe Snapshooter doesn't even have instincts honed through practice or the gear-savvy to premeter and prefocus, so he needs a fast camera, not a sluggish one.

muse wrote:Get a Leica, problem solved! Though you'll have to rob a bank or something.

On the upside, if you drop $1500 or whatever on a film Leica, you stand to break even or possibly make a little profit if you sell it again.

Good lord, using my new camera feels like cheating compared to my old camera! And I haven't even had it for more than a day!

muse wrote:

The Grim Squeaker wrote:I want something to always have with me, be it for a beautiful sunset, or 3 dudes going insane at 3 in the morning, or a tiger breaking loose and eating someone in the middle of the university, even for snapshots in classes (though that's unlikely, the iso and lighting qould be...horrific for a compact).

Get a Leica, problem solved! Though you'll have to rob a bank or something.

1. I'm not that rich.
2. I like a little thing called autofocus.
3. I'd rather have something that really is better then its competitors, the full frame M9 for example (drool).

muse wrote: I got to handle it for a few hours once and I think that's the only time in my life I've lusted over an object. I felt so unclean.

Damn, there goes my bet that you're just a sockpuppet for Aerius. No way are you a guy with a response like that .

Simplicius wrote:

The Grim Squeaker wrote:on the other hand the GF-1 is a fucking DSLR!

Nitpick: Without the mirror and pentaprism it's no SLR.

I there's no term yet, blame Olympus's lack of marketing talent .

I need a "always on" camera, something to always have with me everywhere, or that I can carry up a glacier on a 23km hike like I did today.

Size should be the main concern, and you'll have to accept the sacrifice in flexibility (no interchangable lenses, fewer features, whatever).

I don't give a crap about interchangeable lenses, as longas I have a flexible, good lens and good image quality.

A go-anywhere camera should fit easily in a jacket pocket so that you never have to ask yourself, "Do I really want to tote this around with me?"

I consider a 1.5 kg camera "take anywhere" in every regard except for size and cost, and i'm not some American sized behemoth.

Also, since it serves basically as a backup or a supplement to your main camera, there is no need to break the bank on it. You only need it for those circumstances where any photo is better than none.

True that. But it's always fun to have a light replacement for stuff, especially one a sixth of the weight and a quarter of the size.

Bounty wrote:Is shutter lag really an issue these days?

Now, I'm in the unenviable position of having to make that Powershot work for photojournalism, and it is so slow - especially from shot to shot - that it is throw-it-out-the-window unacceptable.

Since when do you do that?

RRoan wrote:Good lord, using my new camera feels like cheating compared to my old camera! And I haven't even had it for more than a day!

What is it?

Simplicius wrote:for the camera to add three or four seconds (between autofocusing, taking the picture, processing the picture, and showing you the picture you just took) is ridiculous

I only counted shutter lag as the time between pressing the shutter after focussing and the moment the shutter fired. If you're talking about the full processing time between taking two pictures than yes, I'm seeing your point.

Death wrote:2. I like a little thing called autofocus.

I'm pretty sure the non-MP Leica's have autofocus these days.

(Personal opinion alert: autofocus is nice on a compact, but really, if you don't have it you don't miss it. A camera with a manual focussing mechanism can be focused in half the time it takes a computer to figure it out.)

Bounty wrote:
(Personal opinion alert: autofocus is nice on a compact, but really, if you don't have it you don't miss it. A camera with a manual focussing mechanism can be focused in half the time it takes a computer to figure it out.)

Some of us have Really bad eyesight and zero spatial thinking capabilities.
The only thing I can manually focus for is to get a sharp blur in the dark before letting the camera's AF take over

Some of us have Really bad eyesight and zero spatial thinking capabilities.

Eyesight I can understand, but spatial what now? It's just making sure two pictures line up, you don't need to think in 3D.

Bounty wrote:

Some of us have Really bad eyesight and zero spatial thinking capabilities.

Eyesight I can understand, but spatial what now? It's just making sure two pictures line up, you don't need to think in 3D.

I can't see that it's sharp accurately, and I can't use the distance measurements on the camera as an aid due to being unable to understand how much "X meters" is in RL.

The Grim Squeaker wrote:I can't see that it's sharp accurately, and I can't use the distance measurements on the camera as an aid due to being unable to understand how much "X meters" is in RL.

Another reason to get a Leica!

It's a rangefinder so all you need to do is make the images line up in the viewfinder.
If it's lined up it's in focus, much simpler than judging fuzziness/sharpness in an SLR.

Another reason to get a Leica!

Or, indeed, any properly built rangefinder of the last 80 years or so.

The Grim Squeaker wrote:

RRoan wrote:Good lord, using my new camera feels like cheating compared to my old camera! And I haven't even had it for more than a day!

What is it?

A Canon Rebel T1i. My old camera was a 180 dollar p&s. It's just a little bit better, no?