Back on track, let's talk about cameras

There are probably other folks like me who still use
film cameras because they have a lot of good lenses and
camera bodies that still function well. In my case, I'm
using the old Canon FD lenses on a couple of Canon A-1s.
These manual focus lenses were made obsolete in 1987 when
Canon introduced the EOS auto focus lens mount that is still
used on new digital Canons. Some company made an adapter to
use the FD lenses on EOS cameras, but it didn't work very well.

I guess I could purchase a new digital Canon or Nikon with
a couple of lenses for $600-800, but I can't justify that
expense at the present time.

So I'm still using my old 35 mm cameras, but I also carry a
Fuji 6 Mpix P&S.

One of my favorite photos is of a sunset that I took in
South Carolina in March of this year. The 8x10 photo is
framed and hanging on the wall - and I took it with the
Fuji!

FWIW
Dick

 

Pocket digital cameras often have limitations compared to DSLRs, but
quite a lot of photography doesn't happen anywhere near those limits, so
the results can be very fine. My previous/first digital camera was a
Nikon E5700, which had a nice lens, a large-ish (1/1.7inch) 5Mpix sensor
and an (electronic) viewfinder, and I took many photos that I was very
happy with with it. Indeed, it took at least a year of solid practice
and study before I was as happy with the photos that I was taking with my
newer DSLR (a D700). There's a lot more variability and effect on the
result *behind* the viewfinder than there is between that and the front
of the lens...

Cheers,

 

dickr2 wrote,on my timestamp of 9/12/2010 7:18 AM:

Indeed.
One thing I'm finding incredibly useful: the little E-PL1 that now graces my
bag. It works with just about any of the existing film FF lenses I've got,
Leica or Nikon. As well as quite a few of the MF lenses from the Arax and
Mamiya series. The only thing it doesn't do is use the RB67 lenses. Not that
it's needed, anyway: what it already does is incredible.

With the litle ET-style EVIL finder on top, I find myself carrying it
everywhere. Still use film with the ZI, the Nikons and the MF gear. But this
thing is high on my carry list now.

If only Olympus had half-decent RAW processing software... I use Capture NX2
for the Nikon dslrs but I'm gonna have to invest on Capture One or similar so I
can have one single piece of software that does the lot. Hate having to go
through yet another learning curve...

 

I consider the Canon A-1 one of the significant turning
points in the evolution of cameras and of Canon in general.
I still recommend it for people want to use FD lenses.

The adapter approach was doomed by physics, but even with the
adapter Canon angered many people when it switched mounts,
especially since it had released a top-of-the-line "New F1" in
1984. I still saw bitter posts about the switch more than
20 years later.

In retrospect, though, I think Canon made the right decision.
Nikon chose to attempt to retain backward compatibility, and
the result was a quagmire. Trying to figure out what features
and automation capabilities are available with which Nikon lens
and body combinations requires a multi-page reference complete
with footnotes. While I'm glad I can use my 1980's Nikkors on
my F100 and D200, I'm not sure it's worth the day-to-day pain.

Then relax, don't worry, and keep shooting film. But looking
solely as a financial decision, the break-even point on a
digital investment is a fairly low number of shots. I'd put
it at 2-3 rolls of film a month.

Looking at my shooting log, I will say that when I finally
bought a dSLR in 2006, I ended up shooting far more often
than when film was my only choice. I still enjoy shooting
film, though, and will probably run a roll or two through
my Pentax 645n this weekend.