Let's hear it for the dslr!

Just a tool

Just a tool

To me my DSLRs are just tools - they get the job done, but if Im out to enjoy myself I will use one of my film cams - The act of taking the image is as imortant as the image itself... whereas with the DSLRs it is only the final result that matters..

Zen and the art of image making..


Gary H
 
Roger Hicks said:
If it works for you, it works for you. For me it's just another damn' button to press.

It may be that I have an overly romantic view of anticipation and intelligence, but I find I am happier with my approach.

How much does it matter, as long as we both get pictures we like? I'm prepared to believe that some do better with automation.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

No other button to press Roger, just the shutter release, half way locks the focus point and tracks the subject around the frame! I think it's amazing.
It matters not what we use, I agree, however this kind of automation allows me to concentrate on composition rather than missing the shot because i'm fiddling with focus. My success rate with moving subjects using this is 100%,
regards john
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I go to Italy this year and will have a consumer level dslr and two plastic zooms and digi p&s. I'll use my Contax G1 for very low light blurry b&w prints. I love using all these cameras but of course only one at a time when I'm out walking.
 
Use the tool that fits the situation. I recently added a Canon 1D Mk IV to the 5D II's and it was like the heavens had opened up. Badly lighted high school football field, ISO 12,500. 10 frames per second. AI servo. No matter what the action, everything in focus and sharp.

I love my Leicas, but man the latest DSLR's are scary good.
 
I use film and digital and have no complaints about either. They are just machines to take pictures with and - obviously - some are more suitable for different subjects.

Mostly I like the convenience of digital, once the thing has been set up and does what I want. But I have to make a note of how I set it up because every now and then the things decide to change things for me, whether I want it to or not. And you can pick up a digital for a grab shot and touch a button by mistake and then have to spend ages finding out what the weird icon that's appeared means and how to revert to normal.

The discipline for film, is important imo and having to think before taking improves things no end. And the simplicity of the cameras means things can be done very quickly with total control. And for those that want it there's a lot of film cameras that behave just like digitals. Look at the Olympus µ-II f'instanc of the Pentax MZ-50 (an SLR). Both could be used by a non-photographer with few problems. And both belong to that period when photographers designed cameras...

And ain't film cameras cheap? Just look at all those little P&S's that you can pick up for pennies these days with those superb lenses, cheap batteries or even none and flash guns for pennies too.

A good, usable film line up would be something like a Minolta SLR, FED 2 with an old Weston meter and an Olympus XA2 or XA3 and you could cover a lot. Now compare the cost of that collection with the cost of a spare battery for a dSLR...

Even a second-hand Leica R8 with a mid range zoom and the XA2 would be a lot cheaper than digital these days. And look at how many miles of film I could buy for the cost of a Leica M9 body for the old M2's lenses.

Just my 2d worth.

Regards, David
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Or an M8/8.2/9?

Also, when do you need to take lots of shots? More than you could with film? A 1000-picture wedding is 30 rolls of 35mm. How much more do you need?

I don't deny that there may be such times. I just can't think of many.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Good afternoon Roger,
Try nearly every sport with perhaps the exception of snooker.
Regards
Peter D
 
Interesting thread. What surprise me (fot your knowledge I have no (t yet) a digital camera) is that the friends in my fotoclub with high quality DSLR usually shoot 10 times what I usually shoot to cover the same event. In one afternoon event I can shoot 2, max 4 rolls when they shoot 400-500 times. And this to produce maybe 20 pictures, which are enough to illustrate the event. Of course I accept this, each one has it's own way to work, but if the tecnology of this kind of cameras is so high why it is necessary to shoot so much? I'm just curious to understand it, regards
robert
 
parsec1 said:
Good afternoon Roger,
Try nearly every sport with perhaps the exception of snooker.
Regards
Peter D
Click to expand...
Dear Peter,

I'm still not sure about need. After all, most of the best boxing pics I've seen were shot with 4x5 or 9x12 and there were plenty of stunning football pictures in the days of 35mm. Robert has made much the same point.

Cheers,

R.
 
Dear Roger,
Yes I think a slight misunderstanding. I shot premier and 1st division soccer for the Sunday Express (and others ) before dig. Two F2 as's MDs and 300 2.8 and 180 2.8 and an 85 on a FM2 with a 35 mm very near by. The motors were really used to wind the cameras on quickly to be ready for the next shot, not to 'machine gun' in the hope of getting a good picture. Powered rewinds were a 'godsend'
I would shoot maybe 4/5 35mm films.(Any more and you might get 'strung up' by the darkroom techs ) .
Now with a laptop and wireless LAN dSLRs are essential ,autofocus is a must and images can be deleted so easily before developing and printing.
I have never seen a Leica M at a football match, Rugby,Cricket or motorsport et al.
Ok there were a couple of guys wandering around Monaco with M's around their necks but..................
Regards
Peter
 
Last edited:
robert blu said:
Interesting thread. What surprise me (fot your knowledge I have no (t yet) a digital camera) is that the friends in my fotoclub with high quality DSLR usually shoot 10 times what I usually shoot to cover the same event. In one afternoon event I can shoot 2, max 4 rolls when they shoot 400-500 times. And this to produce maybe 20 pictures, which are enough to illustrate the event. Of course I accept this, each one has it's own way to work, but if the tecnology of this kind of cameras is so high why it is necessary to shoot so much? I'm just curious to understand it, regards
robert
Click to expand...

this has nothing to do with the camera really.

i am also curious as to why shooting a lot of frames is met with such derision? the idea that the greats shot 3 frames and left the party because they were just that good is a myth. i once read an article where Salgado was talking about his move to digital and essentially it was due to resources needed to shoot so much film. he mentioned the amount of film he blows on a particular subject (can't recall the amount and too lazy to look it up) and it was staggering. i have spoken with the folks responsible for developing the rolls shot by some of the icons of our age and the amount of film is mind boggling. when shooting a project on film i can burn 100 rolls plus a month and this was nothing compared to what these folks burn.

it is often tossed about like a badge of merit and frankly i don't really understand it. i have learnt, from some of the greats, that the magic combo is shoot a lot and be ruthless with your editing.
 
Last edited:
I love my RFs, and plan to go early tomorrow to the National Mall with a Canon P for Memorial Day (to those outside USA, this is a day to honor those who served in wars, from the American Revolution to the present day).

Anyway, I love my Canon 40D too because it can do things that rangefinders can't do.

Okavango Delta, Botswana, 100-300 Sigma zoom

BTW, the TIFFs are awesome, and look a lot better than these downsized JPEGs
 
Last edited:
Now that they've shrunk them, the price has come down, they're getting better in low light (excellent, in fact...) they're making affordable primes - yeah. I'm liking the Nikon D5000 + Nikkor 35mm F1.8 - a lot. Never thought I'd see the day when I'd say that, but... you know... Let he who has never eaten a little crow in their life cast the first stone...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jbennett68
Leica LTM Reccomendation a leader trimmer for me.
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
stuart_115
stuart_115
Jake Mongey
My Undying Affection Towards The Nikon F2
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
4K
Alpsman
A
J
  • Featured
  • Article Article
What exactly is a point & shoot camera? Glad you asked!The Kodak of 1888 may have been the first, and even Leica got into the act!
Replies
16
Views
436
Jason Schneider
J
D
Squeaky Focus Helicoid
Replies
3
Views
244
dougfunnie68
D
A
What is the MOST gear you've ever carried on a trip?
2
Replies
34
Views
590
spatumba
spatumba
Back
Top Bottom