Jason72
newbie
Reged: 23/06/2008
Posts: 3
|
|
Firstly thanks in advance for your tolerance and understanding of some of the stupid questions that may follow!
Many moons ago in my late teens / early twenties I was into photography, SLR with that strange films stuff. Did a lot of nature shots (trees, plants etc) and some experimentation with double exposures and long exposure times etc (car lights at night that type of thing).
I’ve had a point and shoot digital for some time and have Photoshop CS so I’m familiar with some of the basics post shot manipulation of images (very basic though).
I’m now looking to get into digital and have some basic needs with a little understanding of some of the differences of digital –v- film.
I’m after full manual control and want to be able to replicate the depth of field control I had with an old SLR.
I’ll be honest I don’t full understand the digital metering / chip types etc but I do know I’d like the metering to be as close to an SLR as possible and don’t want to be adding another variable when considering a composition, speed, F stop and focus only please.
In summary I’m after;
Full manual control
Inter changeable lenses
Wide choice of lenses
Want to avoid “gimmicky” functions
Reliable control of depth of field
Greater than 4 MP
For those that remember I was an Olympus OM1 owner that may help to gauge where I’m looking to be in the digital age (showing my age now).
Happy to spend £ 500 - £ 1,000 new.
I'd be very happy to answer any question to hone down the possible choices as I'm concious this is a very broad brief.
Many thanks,
Jason
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4457
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
In summary I’m after;
Full manual control
Inter changeable lenses
Wide choice of lenses
Want to avoid “gimmicky” functions
Reliable control of depth of field
Greater than 4 MP
Quite honestly any of the current digital SLRs would do you nicely. Which one suits you best is for you to find out by handling them at a camera shop.
I use my DSLRs pretty much the same as I use film SLRs. I usually don't even bother to look at the review screen. You can ignore the "flashy" features you don't need; unlike most compact cameras, they're turned off by default. And I shoot RAW, which means most things can be adjusted in the computer rather than having to faff around with settings on the camera at shooting time.
I very rarely shoot using anything other than manual or aperture priority metering, and I never use "scene modes" even if the camera has them.
The big plus point with digital is being able to change the "film speed" at will; you don't have to do this, but it does make the camera much more flexible.
|
Hotblack
Dead Horse Flogger
Reged: 07/03/2006
Posts: 7079
Loc: Upstairs in the spare room.
|
|
Sounds like a DSLR is right up your street. Control DoF using the aperture as for any SLR
Exposure is pretty much the same as for a film SLR. I tend to use centre weighted rather than matrix most of the time and get consistently excellent results. Full manual control is available. Nikon or Canon will get you the greatest range of interchangeable lenses but Pentax, Sony, Samsung, Olympus; all are pretty well supplied with a good selection.
Most DSLRs come with 'gimmicky' functions but then that depends on your definition of gimmicky. On the whole they can be turned off and ignored. The lower down the range you go the more 'gimmicky' functions you tend to find IMO. If you require a DoF preview then you'll need somethig higher up the range. They tend not to appear on 'entr level' cameras.
No DSLR has less than 6Mp nowadays, and most are in the 10-12 MP range, more than adequate to print at A3+ without interpolation.
--------------------
Cheers
David
David J White Photography
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9296
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
I’ll be honest I don’t full understand the digital metering / chip types etc but I do know I’d like the metering to be as close to an SLR as possible and don’t want to be adding another variable when considering a composition, speed, F stop and focus only please.
In summary I’m after;
Full manual control
Inter changeable lenses
Wide choice of lenses
Want to avoid “gimmicky” functions
Reliable control of depth of field
Greater than 4 MP
As said any of the current DSLR models will fit the bill. You may prefer to look at the more enthusiast segment (Nikon D80/D300, Canon 40D) rather than the entry level models (which are a bit more point 'n' shoot than perhaps you want) for a more 'hands-on' approach.
Using a DSLR is pretty much like using film except that you stick memory cards in instead of film and you can change ISO any time you want. I went almost straight from 20 or so years of using mechanical Nikons to a Canon D30 digibox. Despite the fact that, like it or not, digital SLRs are a bit more complex than film ones I found it very straightforward to use (especially compared to any compact I'd tried) - for me it was the post processing that was the steeper learning curve...
Come on in, the water's lovely........... 
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
Jason72
newbie
Reged: 23/06/2008
Posts: 3
|
|
Very useful !
Since starting this thread I've taken a look at the Canon 450D, will take a look at the Nikon, will probably stick to either Nikon or Canon based on feedback re lens availability.
Next thought then is with the 450D at around £500 if I spend another few hundred £ what else is out there and what significant improvements are there?
I'm conscious of what I call the "HiFi curve" i.e there's a point at which the correlation between increased cost and true perceivable improvement drops off significantly - anyone care to venture as to where this may be with DSLR ??
Back to my point, if there a real worth in spending £ 750 rather than £ 500 then I’d like to consider it. If not then I spend some money on a decent lens(es).
|
Nod
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/04/2006
Posts: 4170
Loc: Devon, UK.
|
|
In EXTREMELY simplified terms, the camera body is basically just a lightproof box between the lens and the sensor - in DSLRs, the sensor is also part of this box. The major improvements in image quality come from the lens - a great lens on a cheap camera body will almost always give a better result than a cheap lens on an expensive body. Having said that, there IS a build quality difference between a £500 body and a £750 one and there tends to be a weight penalty with the more expensive bodies.
IMO (and others may disagree!), get a reasonable body (D80 and up or 40D and up) and spend the rest of the budget on lens(es). One lens that I will suggest you should have is a 50mm f/1.8 - possibly the best value lens you can buy! Apart from that, it depends where your interests mainly lie - for landscapes you'll probably want wide angle lenses while for sport and wildlife, something longer and faster will be needed. Whatever you go for, be prepared for further investment since there'll nearly always be another lens or accessory that you want!!!
--------------------
MATWSIJ.....
To avoid being offended, please insert apropriate smiley.
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1059
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Quote:
IMO (and others may disagree!), get a reasonable body (D80 and up or 40D and up) and spend the rest of the budget on lens(es).
Well, I don't disagree. The camera is just a box you fit the lens on. That isn't as stupid as some may think. You'll keep the lenses (if they're good) and replace the body eventually (even if it's a 1Ds3).
|
AlexMonro
old hand
Reged: 05/06/2006
Posts: 702
Loc: Exeter, Devon (and Somerset so...
|
|
I think the biggest difference you'll find between modern DSLRs and your OM1 is not so much film v. digital but manual (OK the OM1 has basic auto exposure if I remember) v. automation. A DSLR is probably a lot closer to an automated film camera like a Nikon F80 or Canon Eos 1000F than those are to the OM1 - auto exposure with bracketting, burst mode, auto focus with multiple focus points and single / continuous / tracking modes probably make more difference to the photographer than whether the light is detected by photochemistry or photoelectronics.
I've just got my first DSLR (Fuji S3), and despite having used a Nikon FM2 manual film SLR and several digital compacts and bridges, I'm just starting to climb the learning curve again - because I want to make use of all the featues.
However, as others have said, you don't have to use all the bells and whistles - just set it for centre weighted aperture priority and any DSLR will work pretty much like your OM1. Autofocus makes things a bit different - modern lenses tend not to have DoF scales - some don't even have distance scales! and viewfinders tend to be smaller, with focussing sceens missing the split wedge rangefinders and other aids. However, replacement focussing screens are available which make manual focus easier.
|
john_g
Pooh-bah Hoo-ha
Reged: 09/05/2007
Posts: 2415
Loc: Surrey
|
|
I moved from a Canon T90 (electronic, film, manual focus) to a Samsung GX-10 (electronic, digital, auto-focus) because the Samsung felt, to me, very similar, even if the technology was very different. But when you talk about wanting to be in control of the depth of field, I think you'll find that it's unlikely to be the same as you're used to (more's the pity). Although the smaller size of most sensors vs. 35mm has some effect on this, the biggest difference lies in the way lenses are constructed nowadays.
Gone (for the most part) are prime lenses with clear D.o.F scales, gone are the trombone-type zooms that could still incorporate a rudimentary D.o.F. scale, and in are twist-to-zoom lenses that can never accommodate a D.o.F. scale.
Most (but not all... i.e. the entry-level Nikons for one) allow for D.o.F. preview (often a choice of in-viewfinder or on the rear LCD) and this is, in practise, the closest you'll come to D.o.F. control.
In my view this is the biggest loss of going digital. But there are so many pluses that, for me, the choice is a no-brainer.
--------------------
John
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom - Anais Nin.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_gass
|
OakR
newbie
Reged: 26/11/2007
Posts: 47
Loc: London, England
|
|
Hi Jason
As others have said, you shoud definately go and hold the cameras. I have a (small) 400d and have found I am much more comfortable using the larger 20d (borrowed), so much so that I will be upgrading my 400D for that sole reason.
Canon and Nikon both have cashbacks at present- I believe the 40d can be found for just over £600 and you can then claim £100 cashback making that a pretty decent deal at just over £500. I don't know Nikon gear but I imagine they have some equally good deals, the canon runs out end of June though!
In terms of lenses as mentioned for £70 or so the 50mm 1.8 you can't go wrong. There also seem to be a number of second hand 70-200 f4 non IS lenses (of which I have one) that seem to go for £220-£300 - I love mine and it's comparatively light for travel. The Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is on a very distant horizon on the wishlist....
Good luck
Al
|
Gordon_McGeachie
Joke Historian
Reged: 19/01/2007
Posts: 3978
Loc: East Yorkshire,
|
|
In my film days, I had many brands (Zenith,Chinon,Canon) then went to Minolta.
I stayed with them ever since having gone to A/F and building up a selection of glass, so it made sense for me to go for the Minolta Dynax 7d when it came out, and now I have progressed to Sony (keeping the Minolta)with the A700.
I have had no problems with any of my glass not working on digital bodies, despite one of them (Sigma 400mm f5.6)being 18 years old.
Some people have had to get this lens `rechipped` to work with digital.
The Sony range is not as big as other makes, mainly Canon and Nikon, but I think you should not overlook them.
The best way really is to go in to a dealer and try various brands `hands on`.
People will obviously sway you towards the brands they prefer, nothing wrong in that really, but it all boils down to what you feel happy with.
Good luck in your quest
--------------------
She (Avro Vulcan XH558)Took To The Sky Like A Lovesick Angel.
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4457
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
OK the OM1 has basic auto exposure if I remember
I think you remember the OM2. The OM1 is manual, pure manual, with a non-weighted TTL meter.
|
AlexMonro
old hand
Reged: 05/06/2006
Posts: 702
Loc: Exeter, Devon (and Somerset so...
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
OK the OM1 has basic auto exposure if I remember
I think you remember the OM2. The OM1 is manual, pure manual, with a non-weighted TTL meter.
Actually, I think I was remembering my friend's OM10! 
|
Jason72
newbie
Reged: 23/06/2008
Posts: 3
|
|
Lots to take in, thanks to all for taking the time to help out!
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1059
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
OK the OM1 has basic auto exposure if I remember
I think you remember the OM2. The OM1 is manual, pure manual, with a non-weighted TTL meter.
I read this and worried having used an OM2 for thirty years and never discovered auto exposure. The AUTO setting is what I'd call aperture priority, set the aperture and it chooses the matching shutter speed. The MANUAL setting allows you to set both against a coincident needle sort of system.
After a few years of digital I'f forgotten how bloody marvellous those Olympuses were. Just holding it makes me want to shoot off a film or two.
|
Bikerdave
newbie
Reged: 11/07/2008
Posts: 5
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
OK the OM1 has basic auto exposure if I remember
I think you remember the OM2. The OM1 is manual, pure manual, with a non-weighted TTL meter.
I read this and worried having used an OM2 for thirty years and never discovered auto exposure. The AUTO setting is what I'd call aperture priority, set the aperture and it chooses the matching shutter speed. The MANUAL setting allows you to set both against a coincident needle sort of system.
After a few years of digital I'f forgotten how bloody marvellous those Olympuses were. Just holding it makes me want to shoot off a film or two.
Just to be pedantic the OM2 was UNIQUE with its 'Auto' exposure. You set the ISO and Aperture while the camera set the exposure as you say however the uniqueness of the OM2 was that the camera actually measured the amount of light for a correct exposure during the exposure with two light sensors looking at the film, rather than by a calculation based on a light reading before shutter release.
One significant advantage of this was long exposures in low light as once you set the camera on a tripod and pressed the stutter release the exposure would always be correct without any need for light meters or exposure calculations. I also experimented with some street lighting and starlight images which were interesting.
I dug it out the other day and ran some B&W through just for old times sake must get them printed. . .
David
--------------------
commercial URL removed
- - - - - - - - -
rules stifle creativity
|
AlexMonro
old hand
Reged: 05/06/2006
Posts: 702
Loc: Exeter, Devon (and Somerset so...
|
|
Quote:
One significant advantage of this was long exposures in low light as once you set the camera on a tripod and pressed the stutter release the exposure would always be correct without any need for light meters or exposure calculations. I also experimented with some street lighting and starlight images which were interesting.
I guess another advantage of that system would be if the light levels changed dramatically during the exposure - e.g. passing car headlights in a night shot.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
