Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21
    For consumer/point and shoot digital camera models, in terms of performance and price, the brands are as follows:

    1. Canon. Still my all-time number one recommendation for both 'p's.

    2. Fuji. More for its price, though it is not too bad a performer.

    3. Ricoh (yes Ricoh) rather obscured but fantastic. Has performance but pricey.
    There's no bad camera, just a bad user
    Loong . Singapore

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    15
    Quote
    Quote: nagar
    View Post
    For consumer/point and shoot digital camera models, in terms of performance and price, the brands are as follows:

    1. Canon. Still my all-time number one recommendation for both 'p's.

    2. Fuji. More for its price, though it is not too bad a performer.

    3. Ricoh (yes Ricoh) rather obscured but fantastic. Has performance but pricey.
    Now that you mention it, my grandfather used to like Ricoh for lower priced units with his 35mm. But mostly he was a Nikon person. Not sure what he was using in the 70mm range though. I think it was 70mm - wedding photos? I'd have to double check (I'm strictly hobby/happysnap use).

  3. #23
    35mm? 70mm? Pardon me, but I think you seem have your math mixed up a little. 35mm describes the ratio of the size of film, wheras 70mm refers to the focal length (otherwise we call it zoom) of the lens. These are two different things...

    A 70mm is usually too short a zoom lens to be used during weddings. Photogs prefer a 85mm - 105mm range kind of lens (portrait lens) on a second body instead of slugging a 70/80-200mm zoom lens (which weighs a hefty 3 - 4kg for a pro lens!) on them.
    There's no bad camera, just a bad user
    Loong . Singapore

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    15
    Quote
    Quote: nagar
    View Post
    35mm? 70mm? Pardon me, but I think you seem have your math mixed up a little. 35mm describes the ratio of the size of film, wheras 70mm refers to the focal length (otherwise we call it zoom) of the lens. These are two different things...

    A 70mm is usually too short a zoom lens to be used during weddings. Photogs prefer a 85mm - 105mm range kind of lens (portrait lens) on a second body instead of slugging a 70/80-200mm zoom lens (which weighs a hefty 3 - 4kg for a pro lens!) on them.
    Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Thank you for the correction. I did wonder what that was all about (I didn't use film much growing up). Sorry, wasn't aware. Wonder what was so special about the film he was using for weddings then? Will have to ask him next time I catch up. All I know for certain about it is that it cost more. I'm more than willing to accept I was wrong about the 70mm bit though. And what's with those tiny 110 films?

    I'm no pro & far from expert. Just someone interested and happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. I prefer digital, personally, but don't mind learning analogue as well.

  5. #25
    Hey no issues on the error. We all make errors. I make A REAL LOT myself! No excuse and that's man's second biggest problem.

    There is nothing special about the size of the film he uses. It's a common size, or we call it format. 35mm film is considered small-format film. Then there is the medium (usually about 6x6/7 cm) and the large format (4X5"). To make it simple, the different sizes of the film likens to the size of the CCD/CMOS chip and number of megapixels on your digital camera. The bigger the physical chip the better, in most cases.

    Film costs more because you need to buy film, spend on processing and printing the images. And with the advent of digital, it becomes 'rarer' by the day. And things that are rare costs more, like antiques!

    110 films are not in production me thinks... I may be wrong though...

    Oh when you are really trigger-happy on digital, you'll really dislike the 'limitations' of film.. but it does build a lot of discipline into you. Try it if you get the opportunity to
    There's no bad camera, just a bad user
    Loong . Singapore

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    15
    Quote
    Quote: nagar
    View Post
    Hey no issues on the error. We all make errors. I make A REAL LOT myself! No excuse and that's man's second biggest problem.
    The main thing is to learn from them. Too many people don't seem to, though I know I make plenty every day. Mostly typos. After all "Richmind" is not a suburb in Australia. "Richmond" is - in several states.

    Quote
    Quote: nagar
    View Post
    There is nothing special about the size of the film he uses. It's a common size, or we call it format. 35mm film is considered small-format film. Then there is the medium (usually about 6x6/7 cm) and the large format (4X5"). To make it simple, the different sizes of the film likens to the size of the CCD/CMOS chip and number of megapixels on your digital camera. The bigger the physical chip the better, in most cases.
    I'm thinking the bigger film means you can enlarge a great deal more before the grain of the film itself starts to show. Right? Hrm, I know Granddad needed special film for the wedding photo camera and only one place in the state stocked anything for it. Hrm, for some reason the number 70 came to mind. Ooh! You don't think maybe I got the 70mm from 7cm do you? I seem to recall digicam reviews back in the 90s comparing a 10MP to the grain of a 35mm film, but I may be wrong again. Canon's first 10MP SLR, I think. Just the body, buy the lens seperate. Was a while ago.

    Quote
    Quote: nagar
    View Post
    Film costs more because you need to buy film, spend on processing and printing the images. And with the advent of digital, it becomes 'rarer' by the day. And things that are rare costs more, like antiques!
    Too true. When you can take 100 happy-snaps at no cost besides whatever your batteries cost & a little room on a memory card of some form, then preview them on-site, most people don't want the bother of film - take the photo, maybe some "use up the roll" shots, wait for it to be processed, then realise their thumb was over the flash or there was crap on the lens... It still has its place though. Least they're not as hard to get hold of as Grandma's old Box Brownie.

    Quote
    Quote: nagar
    View Post
    110 films are not in production me thinks... I may be wrong though...
    They're probably long gone by now. Even when I was helping at Granddad's shop all the equipment besides the wedding camera was geared for 35mm. 110 had to be posted off to the city.

    Quote
    Quote: nagar
    View Post
    Oh when you are really trigger-happy on digital, you'll really dislike the 'limitations' of film.. but it does build a lot of discipline into you. Try it if you get the opportunity to
    I used to have an old cheapie 35mm from when I was 10 years old. Sadly the plastic gears inside it did not like when I tripped over & it hit the concrete downstairs. Was fun taking the photos though. Digital was unheard of then. These days I always have my Fuji with me - you never know what you'll see! And I post the best on my photobucket page.

  7. #27
    You are right about the film grains. Wedding photographers like to use ISO160 film (that is the speed/sensitivity of the film, same as the ISO on digital camera).

    digicam reviews back in the 90s comparing a 10MP to the grain of a 35mm film
    Hmm... I don't think there was a 10 mega-pix digicam from Canon that time yet...

    The Brownie is considered one of the camera classics now.. a very neat camera. The oldest camera I own is a Kodak Instamatic 76=X, brand new that was bought around 1977...

    .. but of course, it was a gift.
    There's no bad camera, just a bad user
    Loong . Singapore

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    15
    Quote
    Quote: nagar
    View Post
    You are right about the film grains. Wedding photographers like to use ISO160 film (that is the speed/sensitivity of the film, same as the ISO on digital camera).
    ISO100 being "basic" speed on a nice sunny day, 200 being "good for late afternoon or scenes with a little motion", 400 for at night but still reasonably well lit and 800 or higher for action shots? Higher numbers being higher sensitivity to light, if I remember rightly. And higher sensitivity meaning you need less light at the same shutter speed OR the same light with a faster shutter. Well, that makes sense anyway.

    My knowledge is "spotty" - just whatever I've picked up here & there from Granddad, really as well as whatever I've "found out" myself through playing with cameras over the years. In some areas I know next to nothing *shrugs* But willing to learn it. And I still keep forgetting the relationship between arpeture size & focus - inverse (increase one, decrease other) or proportional? I suppose I could go play with my Fuji & find out after work tomorrow.

    Quote
    Quote: nagar
    View Post
    Hmm... I don't think there was a 10 mega-pix digicam from Canon that time yet...

    The Brownie is considered one of the camera classics now.. a very neat camera. The oldest camera I own is a Kodak Instamatic 76=X, brand new that was bought around 1977...

    .. but of course, it was a gift.
    Good point - early 2000s more likely (the 10MP). Jeez, was it less than 10 years ago? It feels like so much longer! But you're right.

    My first digital camera was a crappy thing of 320x240 and that was post-2000. I forgot that. Chewed a set of batteries in about 10 minutes and if you didn't get it to a computer within 30 minutes even when "off" it'd wipe its memory. Grainy, blotchy, JPEG-artifacted images from it too.

    1977 huh? I was still in nappies then & not even walking or talking yet. My first cam (Hanimex or similar fixed focus/shutter speed) was in the mid 80s, I think. I bet it's still in a box at my parents' place somewhere. My mother let me use her camera before that. No idea what it was, though.

    Glad I popped into this forum - even when I make mistakes I'm still learning.
    Last edited by databanks; 2nd Aug 2008 at 11:57. Reason: correct a typo - s/as/was

  9. #29

    best camera

    go with an older canon eos-630 it has program mode the camera does everything but press the shutter. it is of course 35mm film format.i just picked one up for $50.00 us. the pictures are beautiful. if you want digital
    i purchased a sony digital mavica for $50.00 the next week they had them on sale for $5.00 us. of course its old but it still takes great pictures and
    with a 3.5 inch storage disk its very simple to download your pictures to your computer. and best of all it's cheep. if you are interested i am looking to sell some of my minolta collection maxxum 9 maxxum 7 etc.
    good luck
    skeeter

  10. #30
    mikecriss
    Guest
    i would like to prefer Pentax K200D ......

    Features
    # 10.2MP Sensor
    # Shake Reduction in-body, eliminates need for special shake reduction lenses
    # Expanded Dynamic Range
    # 16 Segment Metering

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Subscribe to us on YouTube