Contemplating the unthinkable for me

OurManInTangier said:
This is possibly one of the biggest turn offs with digital for most photographers who are coming from film only use, at least from what I hear and read. Once you get above the point and shoot digi cams the manufacturers seem to offer every manner of bell and whistle in the same way Nikon and Canon offer settings and abilities many will never use but others will, it reminds me of using Photoshop where I probably only make use of 10-20% of the programs ability. ...
Click to expand...

This is not the case only with digital cameras. I recently acquired a Nikon F6. It has nearly as many bells and whistles as the DSLRs I've owned. The big section of things it doesn't have is the built-in image processing lab ... that can be completely ignored on any digital camera that will output raw image files, if you so choose.

I recommend a different approach. I suggest to students and clients that have bought a digital camera after years of shooting with film to turn on raw capture, and then work with the camera according to the way the Quick Start guide in the manufacturers' instruction manual suggests. That way you get a chance to see how their engineering and testing staff envisioned it, rather than trying to evaluate how it differs from your preconceived notions of "how it ought to work" before you understand the thinking that went into its design. Do that for a week or two, then you start to see how to use the camera in the way that is most comfortable to you.

It's just a different approach to things. I like to give the designers and engineers a bit of credibility for having some decent idea of what they're trying to produce first, and then let my own predilections govern how I work with a piece of technology after I understand the original intent. It makes for a (usually) happier experience, since I'm not always just irritated by the fact that it doesn't work the way I thought it ought to. :)

G
 
willie_901 said:
Frank, The Fujifilm website is ... uh, well ... an adventure in time travel to the past. Many new customers have suffered frustration from this antique website. Fujifilm Japan barely realizes Apple exists. So differences in file sizes are probably irrelevant. Each firmware file has a meaningless file name. You must not rename the files. instead you have to organize them carefully (see below). If there happens to be more than one Fujifilm download file in the OS X downloads Folder, it is easy to copy the wrong file to the SDHC card. You are responsible for organizing the firmware updates and keeping them straight (separate) from one another). I use a system of OS X Folders organized by camera bodies, lenses and dates. This should be completely unnecessary... but it is. If the SDHC card is formatted or if a file is deleted using OS X (Macs), then Fujifilm can not deal with the invisible UNIX bookkeeping file OS X adds to the card. The solution is to format the card in the camera and transfer the correct firmware to the SDHC card. Never, ever delete image files from the SDHC card with OS X. Always reformat the card in-camera. I know it's hard to believe, but once you know how the odd, old-fashioned Fujifim firmware group's delivery system works, it is reliable.
Click to expand...

Hi Willie

Just curious..... Why keep the fw update files ?
Once The latest update is loaded to the camera or lens it's not going anywhere ?
If there is a reason to keep them I have been negligent :eek:
 
Wifi successful on iPhone, but I've not updated my ipad OS so no go there. But it's okay, pics transfer via iCloud.

First pic, sitting on the couch figuring stuff out for the first time.

I'll have to learn about file sizes and stuff. But I'm happy with today's progress!
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    27.1 KB · Views: 0
Frank... you are welcome.

Andy... I could keep track of what's been installed with a simple text document. Disk space is not an issue so I just keep them organized instead. But you are correct. Older updates are essentially useless.
 
willie_901 said:
... I could keep track of what's been installed with a simple text document. Disk space is not an issue so I just keep them organized instead. But you are correct. Older updates are essentially useless.
Click to expand...
Mostly true, I think, but there have been times when people find it useful to revert to a previous version of firmware. And then, having the older version on hand is... uh... handy. :angel:

An example, with the Leica M8... with firmware 2.024 some users experience problems with the camera failing to record photos. The previous firmware 2.014 has no such problem, so those facing the issue may revert to this version if they have kept it on their computer. And since the later firmware seems only needed to recognize the new f/2.4 Summarit lenses most users don't really need it.
 
OurManInTangier said:
This is possibly one of the biggest turn offs with digital for most photographers who are coming from film only use, at least from what I hear and read. Once you get above the point and shoot digi cams the manufacturers seem to offer every manner of bell and whistle in the same way Nikon and Canon offer settings and abilities many will never use but others will, it reminds me of using Photoshop where I probably only make use of 10-20% of the programs ability. Switch everything off until its a manual only camera and then start investigating one thing at a time - some of the add-ons are absolutely superb under the right circumstances, at other times they'll just trip you up and get in the way.

Discovering what works best and when is part and parcel of digital photography it seems.

Frank, that 18-55 kit lens is possibly one of the best kit lenses I've ever used. I sold one that came with one of my XPro bodies and then went out a few months later and bought another, it doesn't get used much but when its needed its there...and it gets the job done well too.
Click to expand...

... this is my problem, I can't cope with having to think about the technical side of things when I'm actually taking photographs. I've used the same camera, film and proses for so many years now it's become automatic and I find the slightest change gets in the way of my 'creativity' (such as it is)

Now though I'm having to have a rethink. I could do with using faster shutter speeds to reduce shake induced blur, and to do that and keep the same DOF it probably means following Frank down the digital road ... and that means starting again from scratch on the technical side of things, an old dog new tricks dilemma from my POV
 
Sparrow said:
... this is my problem, I can't cope with having to think about the technical side of things when I'm actually taking photographs. I've used the same camera, film and proses for so many years now it's become automatic and I find the slightest change gets in the way of my 'creativity' (such as it is)

Now though I'm having to have a rethink. I could do with using faster shutter speeds to reduce shake induced blur, and to do that and keep the same DOF it probably means following Frank down the digital road ... and that means starting again from scratch on the technical side of things, an old dog new tricks dilemma from my POV
Click to expand...
I like this observation...

The user interface is an important issue, sometimes all-important. I got a Mac in 1984 when it probably was not the most rational choice, but even with hardware and software limitations it offered a way of working that appealed to me. I didn't want MS DOS, the command-line interface, or writing BASIC scripts to do simple tasks.

I shot film for decades and then bought a Pentax K100D, a fairly limited model that had a simpler interface than most. But I was still intimidated and it sat unused for over 6 months. I didn't really want to deal with the complications, but I could also see some advantages.

After getting used to the K100D I got a K20D, a larger and more capable model. It also sat unused for nearly a year while I avoided looking at the thick manual. Eventually I gave it a try and found it wasn't all that bad... But it was still the simpler user interface that drew me toward the Leica digital M cameras. Then, complex user interface was *the* reason I rejected the Pentax 645D for which I had lenses and spent twice as much for the easier Leica S2. Interface is very important for me... and it seems to take me some time to come to grips with this issue.

Someone earlier suggested just finding how to do the things you need to do and setting the rest aside for when the need arises. Sounds like a rational approach!
 
Doug said:
I like this observation...

The user interface is an important issue, sometimes all-important. I got a Mac in 1984 when it probably was not the most rational choice, but even with hardware and software limitations it offered a way of working that appealed to me. I didn't want MS DOS, the command-line interface, or writing BASIC scripts to do simple tasks.

I shot film for decades and then bought a Pentax K100D, a fairly limited model that had a simpler interface than most. But I was still intimidated and it sat unused for over 6 months. I didn't really want to deal with the complications, but I could also see some advantages.

After getting used to the K100D I got a K20D, a larger and more capable model. It also sat unused for nearly a year while I avoided looking at the thick manual. Eventually I gave it a try and found it wasn't all that bad... But it was still the simpler user interface that drew me toward the Leica digital M cameras. Then, complex user interface was *the* reason I rejected the Pentax 645D for which I had lenses and spent twice as much for the easier Leica S2. Interface is very important for me... and it seems to take me some time to come to grips with this issue.

Someone earlier suggested just finding how to do the things you need to do and setting the rest aside for when the need arises. Sounds like a rational approach!
Click to expand...

I know from my experience running a busy design studio that any changes in equipment invariably have an impact on productivity, in the short term anyway, I could measure it in terms of quantity and suspected it for many years with regard to quality.

Even if the changes speed things up two or three designers standing around chatting about how fast the new gear is working doesn't help output. Cameras are probably no different and having played around with the d70 now for maybe a year or so I'm comfortable with using it but the files are too small and I need something faster to cope with the tremors

I'd be happy with the DF in many respects, but I know I take better photos with a clear VF so the 240 looks like my rational choice ... then pester Keith about setting it up to do what I want
 
the bottom line is that digital can be almost as simple as film if you don't let yourself become overwhelmed by it.
i shoot pretty much the same with xe1 as i did with my rd1 as i did with my canon f1 or eos1 film cameras.
 
I agree. It is just a tool or maybe it is a toy. Either way, I enjoy playing with my cameras. My daughters will bring with them their Fuji 7MP cameras, so we are covered for family snapshots. In theory, I could take along any camera to our planned trip. I find that using a good digital camera with a very good lens is really "minimal" and it allows me to better enjoy a trip. If all fails, the smart phone is also there with me.
 
Sparrow said:
... any changes in equipment invariably have an impact on productivity, in the short term anyway, I could measure it in terms of quantity and suspected it for many years with regard to quality.
...
I'd be happy with the DF in many respects, but I know I take better photos with a clear VF so the 240 looks like my rational choice ... then pester Keith about setting it up to do what I want
Click to expand...

I understand both this thoughts and feel...this thread is getting dangerous for me...at least for my wallet...

robert
 
I'm trying some vintage lenses on this camera with Joe's generous gift of Leica adaptors. My Elmar 90 and Canon 35f2 give very low contrast results.

Operating the camera either in manual or full auto mode seems to work best in my brain so far. :)

Unfortunately, the 27 lacks an aperture ring. That would have been more comfortable than the control on the body.
 
robert blu said:
I understand both this thoughts and feel...this thread is getting dangerous for me...at least for my wallet...

robert
Click to expand...

I'm not really that bothered in terms of cost, its not often I buy anything ... its the value to me that's important, and I think I've arrived at a solution now anyway
 
Sparrow said:
... this is my problem, I can't cope with having to think about the technical side of things when I'm actually taking photographs. I've used the same camera, film and proses for so many years now it's become automatic and I find the slightest change gets in the way of my 'creativity' (such as it is)

Now though I'm having to have a rethink. I could do with using faster shutter speeds to reduce shake induced blur, and to do that and keep the same DOF it probably means following Frank down the digital road ... and that means starting again from scratch on the technical side of things, an old dog new tricks dilemma from my POV
Click to expand...

In relation to Stewart's words above I'd agree completely with Joe's words below...

back alley said:
the bottom line is that digital can be almost as simple as film if you don't let yourself become overwhelmed by it.
i shoot pretty much the same with xe1 as i did with my rd1 as i did with my canon f1 or eos1 film cameras.
Click to expand...

No doubt there will be some loss in output, or at least in the quality of the output, for some short period but I would be very surprised if you don't find it all fairly similar. If you're going with the M240 than AF is one less thing to concern yourself with.

When I flip between film and digital the only real difference in my mind is to remember that digital blows the highlights whilst films blocks up the shadows (not if you do it right obviously:) )

I hope you and Frank both get on well with your respective choices. I also hope the faster shutter speeds of digital and higher ISO (at least easier to get than high ISO film) help to reduce any shake induced blur, and if that is a result of your recent illness I sincerely hope its temporary or likely to improve with time and exercise.
 
So what's a good price to buy a used 18-55 lens at, assuming ex condition. (US or Cdn, specify please)
 
Frank, I sold mine (via Ebay ) for £195 or $307US and bought another some time later for £130 or $205US.

How that compares to other sales I don't know.
 
back alley said:
give some thought to the xc 16-50 lens also...it's a great lens and cheaper than the 18-55...it has a plastic mount instead of metal...
Click to expand...

Okay. How about prices for each, used?

Wider, lighter, smaller
But
Slower, no aperture ring, not close focussing

But if the price is right...

I've got a line on a kijiji 18-55 for $350Cdn

Used 16-50 used at Henry's for $200Cdn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom