NickTrop
Veteran
Yes - gas free, as if I downed a case of Beano, and chased it with a 5th of liquid Gas-X!!! Now, I'll explain why I have the greatest camera collection in the world, hands down, bar none. Let me qualify that last statement - best collection "for taking pictures". Certainly, it's better than yours, by far. The reason is that while I didn't blow as many dollars as you did, mine is better because of the thought I put into each purchase. Since I am a super-genius, and you are not, the result is a far better tool box for taking photos. Read, enjoy, and learn from me, the self-professed greatest expert regarding such matters.
First we have the basic SLR. Cosina (Vivitar branded). Still made today, purchased mine circa 1990. Small, black, light. OM-ish. Pentax-K. Cost $100 bucks in 1990 at K-Mart. Tops shutter speed is 2000. The most evocative pics are taken with RFs, due to their low-light capabilities, but SLRs are a better "interchangeable lens" system. I use this with the Jupiter 9 (adapted to Pentax-K). The 50 I use is the 1.4 Super Tak with the radioactive element. As good as a Cron but cost me $25 because it had yellowed (easily fixed by letting it sun itself). I have a cheap Vivitar 19mm superwide for the rare instances I need such a lens (superwides are really toys for spec-drunk lightweights, no sense in shelling out any real dough for this). And I have a 24mm Sigma - a great bargain optic that rates higher than Leicas on Photodo for this focal length.
As you can see, I did my homework. I have a killer SLR kit with incredible glass for not a lot of money. I don't use SLRs a lot - mostly for portraits. But when interchangeable lenses are in order, this is what I reach for. Interchangeable lensed rangefinders are silly devices when compared to SLRs. For interchangeable lenses, you need to see right through the lens. Forget all those annoying "framelines". That's just silly. An SLR is required for portraiture, macro photography. For the seldom used, and least useful "wide/super wide" in 35, yeah a Leica-style rangefinder is better but if you're with me so far, I say "who cares, who needs them". They're intoxicants for "spec-winos". This SLR is "all manual", which means it is a "virtual shutter priority" camera, in use, in reality. It's lighter, cheaper, smaller and therefore more useful - a better camera, than the "name" Nikons and Canons. Because I was - frankly, brilliant in my lens collection, it has better picture-taking capabilities than these cameras t'boot/more importantly.
Now lets move to digital. The only thing digital is good for are small sensor cameras to take advantage of the enormous "zoom" capabilities. Digitals are also good for webshots and prints up to 5x7.
Like the fact that "manual cameras" are really "virtual shutter speed priority" cameras. Megapixels don't really matter all that much in practical use, since nearly everyone who uses digitals post their pics to the web and view on computers printing out next to nothing, and when they do print, print small 6x4s. Also, this last statement being true, "in use" DSLRs are laughable overkill and almost entirely unnecessary. Furthermore - yeah, I want to lug around these ergonomic disasters with their futzy little buttons, lcds that wash out in daylight, want to carry several charged batteries, shoot with some crappy zoom lens (get off your ass and frame the shot, willya) and annoy everyone by blinding them with "autofocus assist lights", and "preflash" flash series, before the big blinding flash. Silly devices. You're welcome to keep them. Don't wonder why everyone ducks for cover when you start aiming your. Shoot that big 10 megapixel raw file - futz with that image in Photoshop, adjusting the curves like an OCD sufferer, only to "downsize" it to something your could have shot with 1/2 a megapixel because you're "album" is on Smugmug where you display all your pics. Hey, I think I'll print this one for granpa. He 97 and doesn't have a PC. Where's that 6x4 photo paper?
Hence, my 2.1 megapixel Panasonic FZ1 is an outstanding digital to own. It's tiny. Mine I hacked to make it an "FZ1v2" giving it aperture and shutter priority.
The only reason to own a digital is for web posting, small prints, and to take advantage of their amazing zoom capabilities. That I can shoot at f2.8 with a 420mm equiv zoom, hand-held (not on a tripod) with a tiny light camera is a tremendous capability. Digital wins on this one.
To sum up part one of this post. Virtual shutter priority "manual" SLRs are clearly better than any rangefinder for an interchangeable focal length system. Wide angle in 35 are for the "spec drunk". An SLR is a "necessary evil" and good mainly for portraiture and macros. Digitals have their place - one place really, compact super zoom models with image stabilization. DSLRS are a joke. There are a million DSLR models, and most are identicle, as opposed to the "golden era of classic film cameras" when there were real differences in both types of cameras and engineering approach in terms of both format and "approach".
However, the best cameras in 35mm are fixed lens rangefinders with superior leaf shutters where the lens is "one" with the camera. You only need one lens.
...to be continued.
First we have the basic SLR. Cosina (Vivitar branded). Still made today, purchased mine circa 1990. Small, black, light. OM-ish. Pentax-K. Cost $100 bucks in 1990 at K-Mart. Tops shutter speed is 2000. The most evocative pics are taken with RFs, due to their low-light capabilities, but SLRs are a better "interchangeable lens" system. I use this with the Jupiter 9 (adapted to Pentax-K). The 50 I use is the 1.4 Super Tak with the radioactive element. As good as a Cron but cost me $25 because it had yellowed (easily fixed by letting it sun itself). I have a cheap Vivitar 19mm superwide for the rare instances I need such a lens (superwides are really toys for spec-drunk lightweights, no sense in shelling out any real dough for this). And I have a 24mm Sigma - a great bargain optic that rates higher than Leicas on Photodo for this focal length.
As you can see, I did my homework. I have a killer SLR kit with incredible glass for not a lot of money. I don't use SLRs a lot - mostly for portraits. But when interchangeable lenses are in order, this is what I reach for. Interchangeable lensed rangefinders are silly devices when compared to SLRs. For interchangeable lenses, you need to see right through the lens. Forget all those annoying "framelines". That's just silly. An SLR is required for portraiture, macro photography. For the seldom used, and least useful "wide/super wide" in 35, yeah a Leica-style rangefinder is better but if you're with me so far, I say "who cares, who needs them". They're intoxicants for "spec-winos". This SLR is "all manual", which means it is a "virtual shutter priority" camera, in use, in reality. It's lighter, cheaper, smaller and therefore more useful - a better camera, than the "name" Nikons and Canons. Because I was - frankly, brilliant in my lens collection, it has better picture-taking capabilities than these cameras t'boot/more importantly.
Now lets move to digital. The only thing digital is good for are small sensor cameras to take advantage of the enormous "zoom" capabilities. Digitals are also good for webshots and prints up to 5x7.
Like the fact that "manual cameras" are really "virtual shutter speed priority" cameras. Megapixels don't really matter all that much in practical use, since nearly everyone who uses digitals post their pics to the web and view on computers printing out next to nothing, and when they do print, print small 6x4s. Also, this last statement being true, "in use" DSLRs are laughable overkill and almost entirely unnecessary. Furthermore - yeah, I want to lug around these ergonomic disasters with their futzy little buttons, lcds that wash out in daylight, want to carry several charged batteries, shoot with some crappy zoom lens (get off your ass and frame the shot, willya) and annoy everyone by blinding them with "autofocus assist lights", and "preflash" flash series, before the big blinding flash. Silly devices. You're welcome to keep them. Don't wonder why everyone ducks for cover when you start aiming your. Shoot that big 10 megapixel raw file - futz with that image in Photoshop, adjusting the curves like an OCD sufferer, only to "downsize" it to something your could have shot with 1/2 a megapixel because you're "album" is on Smugmug where you display all your pics. Hey, I think I'll print this one for granpa. He 97 and doesn't have a PC. Where's that 6x4 photo paper?
Hence, my 2.1 megapixel Panasonic FZ1 is an outstanding digital to own. It's tiny. Mine I hacked to make it an "FZ1v2" giving it aperture and shutter priority.
The only reason to own a digital is for web posting, small prints, and to take advantage of their amazing zoom capabilities. That I can shoot at f2.8 with a 420mm equiv zoom, hand-held (not on a tripod) with a tiny light camera is a tremendous capability. Digital wins on this one.
To sum up part one of this post. Virtual shutter priority "manual" SLRs are clearly better than any rangefinder for an interchangeable focal length system. Wide angle in 35 are for the "spec drunk". An SLR is a "necessary evil" and good mainly for portraiture and macros. Digitals have their place - one place really, compact super zoom models with image stabilization. DSLRS are a joke. There are a million DSLR models, and most are identicle, as opposed to the "golden era of classic film cameras" when there were real differences in both types of cameras and engineering approach in terms of both format and "approach".
However, the best cameras in 35mm are fixed lens rangefinders with superior leaf shutters where the lens is "one" with the camera. You only need one lens.
...to be continued.
