Let's hear it for the dslr!

let's hear it for the dslr...yeah i can hear it, the subject can hear it, and they're huge, so everyone can see it a mile away! if i need to be inconspicuous, that is not the way to go, though.
 
mark-b said:
let's hear it for the dslr...yeah i can hear it, the subject can hear it, and they're huge, so everyone can see it a mile away! if i need to be inconspicuous, that is not the way to go, though.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the smaller APS-C compact DSLRs lately, like the D40? I totally agreed with you in full at one time... The D5000 has a "Quiet Mode", and it's among the most silent cameras I've ever owned in this mode. Only the GSN is quieter. Shooting at waste level with the LCD swiveled out in quiet mode is the most "stealthy" I've ever shot, although its slow contrast focus when using the LCD is a challenge every so often. Times have changed.

"The D5000 in Quiet Mode is far quieter than any digital Nikon SLR...and even a little quieter than the Nikon SP and Leica M3 mechanical cloth-shuttered rangefinder cameras from the 1950s. I'm not just making this up; I have all these cameras sitting right here and compared them."
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5000.htm

Don't know about that - never owned an M3 (or the SP) but they're supposed to be pretty damned quiet.
 
emraphoto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even so, it's quite easy to overshoot, even with film. Editing (say) 10 rolls is one thing. Editing 100 is quite another. After a while, I get 'pictured out' and can't edit any more, and I know I'm not alone in this.

Cheers,

R.
 
a lot of those dlsr are quite compact and quiet. the e420, canon rebels, d40/d5000 etc. with a prime and a wrist strap they are pretty darn "stealthy" if that's your thing.

i adore rf's for certain attribute. viewfinders and wides being two particular strengths. i also adore the the continuous focus/servo modes in pro dlsr bodies. horses for courses i suppose.
 
Andy Kibber said:
My prefered method of shooting is best. Pity those who disagree.
Click to expand...

Same here!! :)

All jokes aside... I think the key is in the process: one can have different shades of fun or enjoyment; one is for film, another for the dSLR.

Oddly enough, my D700 seems to catch the attention of the male of the species, while my M3 or my S2 (both silver chrome bodies) inevitably provoke some type of comment from women, both young and old. Can it be that they are sensitive to the aesthetics of RF cameras while men notice the practicality of SLRs?

Go figure...
 
emraphoto said:
a lot of those dlsr are quite compact and quiet. the e420, canon rebels, d40/d5000 etc. with a prime and a wrist strap they are pretty darn "stealthy" if that's your thing.

i adore rf's for certain attribute. viewfinders and wides being two particular strengths. i also adore the the continuous focus/servo modes in pro dlsr bodies. horses for courses i suppose.
Click to expand...

Of course horses for courses.. what cabinet maker uses one plane what painter uses one brush what surgeon(and I've met a few of them recently) uses one scalpel etc etc.

Just returned from a rather satisfing jaunt with a cassette of b/w an M6 and a 28 and a yellow filter down at Heybridge Basin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Hicks said:
Even so, it's quite easy to overshoot, even with film. Editing (say) 10 rolls is one thing. Editing 100 is quite another. After a while, I get 'pictured out' and can't edit any more, and I know I'm not alone in this.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Dear Roger,
Can get 'pictured out ' during an assignment let alone editing.
Anyway you get to know when you've got 'the Shots ' and 'its time to gracefully decline'.
Peter
 
JSU said:
AMEN!!!

There was once a saying among news photographers: film is cheap! Missing the moment out of some misdirected sense of frugality is a certain method to ensure a short career.

Much has changed with the move to digital, particularly at major events where many now use wireless transmission from the camera to an editor's computer and the images are moved (filed to the wire service or news desk at the publication for posting to the internet) in a matter of moments.

The "net" is part of this fundamental change.

Where photogs were once responsible for a page one shot and a couple of images for the jump page or perhaps several for a photo page, now publications insist on photo galleries with dozens of images, each representing a page view from which revenue is generated. It takes a great many more images from which to edit a few dozen for a web gallery than only a few for the print publication.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. I used to carry HP5 by the 50 cassette box load from the 'Express' and packet loads of Fujichrome from 'Today'. Film was cheap and you never even thought about how much you used.
Shot some stuff for the Mirror, Sun and Daily Mail last week and the second part regarding the net editions etc is also correct. They want more pics but pay less money !
 
Shelley-Ann said:
Mine too! :D

Love this 'discussion.' Carry on! :bang:
Click to expand...

That's the beauty of the dialectic.

Here we have the thesis ('DSLRs are great'), the antithesis ('not always') and several syntheses ('different cameras suit different applications' + 'it depends on what you shoot' + 'fashions change').

Cheers,

R.
 
I agree that shooting many pictures and make a tough edit is one of the key for the success. But IMHO it depends also on occasion. Of course for a sport photographer, or anyway an action photographer it is an advantage the possibility to work like this. Nothing against it. My question (which is not complaining or refusing this way to work) is that I'm told DSLR with their automatism (autofocus, exposure etc) leave the photographer the possibility to concentrate more on the subject and the composition. Now if it is so (and the tecnical aspect are ok because of automatism) they would need less picture to get the right one compared to the people that have to concentrate also on technical aspects to be set manually. Of course just my opinion,regards
robert
 
robert blu said:
I agree that shooting many pictures and make a tough edit is one of the key for the success. But IMHO it depends also on occasion. Of course for a sport photographer, or anyway an action photographer it is an advantage the possibility to work like this. Nothing against it. My question (which is not complaining or refusing this way to work) is that I'm told DSLR with their automatism (autofocus, exposure etc) leave the photographer the possibility to concentrate more on the subject and the composition. Now if it is so (and the tecnical aspect are ok because of automatism) they would need less picture to get the right one compared to the people that have to concentrate also on technical aspects to be set manually. Of course just my opinion,regards
robert
Click to expand...

Hey, Robert! No fair using logic and common sense!

Cheers,

R.
 
Yes Roger, you know I'm half italian and half german, trying to combine logic and phantasy and...ok maybe I need an m9...
robert
 
For work, I need a DSLR along with me on just about every assignment. Also, I overshoot on every assignment, and why the heck not? If I'm lugging my RF/DSLR gear to a shoot you better believe I'm going to get as many photographs as I can with it. Why else did I buy it?
 
pachuco said:
For work, I need a DSLR along with me on just about every assignment. Also, I overshoot on every assignment, and why the heck not? If I'm lugging my RF/DSLR gear to a shoot you better believe I'm going to get as many photographs as I can with it. Why else did I buy it?
Click to expand...

There's a difference between shooting lots of pictures and overshooting.

You shoot lots of pics based on your appreciation of how many you need. If you consistently shoot far more than you think you need, out of over-enthusiasm, then THAT'S overshooting.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Keith said:
I agree to a point but this 'evolutionary dead end' has dominated photography for near on fifty years now ... and sure it's run will come to an end when someone comes up with a system that works better than the mirror and prism! In the meantime we have cameras that are at the pinacle of their evolutionary journey and we'll probably miss them when they're gone. :p
Click to expand...

The reason the SLR has dominated the market for 50 years is that it was the best way to solve the problem of keeping film light tight directly behind the lens and shutter but still allowing viewing through the same lens. Digital sensors completely eliminate this need. So it makes sense to me that camera designers now building around sensors and not film can come up with a better solution- and they are. I look forward to the day when we abandon altogether the idea of retrofitting new cameras around what is now an out-dated and outmoded way of doing things. Form should follow function, not tradition.
 
mark-b said:
let's hear it for the dslr...yeah i can hear it, the subject can hear it, and they're huge, so everyone can see it a mile away! if i need to be inconspicuous, that is not the way to go, though.
Click to expand...

I remember being on vacation at resort in Mexico changing the film in my Nikon when I hear a guy saying in a loud voice "oh my God he's using film!". I looked over at him and he's using a Canon dslr. That was 2005 when I had never even seen a dslr. At that moment I felt really conspicuous.

The next time I had that feeling was, a few years later, when someone saw me take the baseplate off my m6 to change film. Yeah, you know that "what in the hell look" you get when someone can't believe what you're doing?
 
i don't think the merit of a particular type of camera system can be measured by the conduct of the lads and lasses down at the camera club nor uncle XXX at the wedding. to do so would be a bit of a leap.

Roger - you aren't alone. i could bore everyone to death with tales of pulling my hair out at 4 am however i will refrain.

Robert - the thing is the dslr takes as much concentration on the technical stuff as an m6 full of tri-x. in my humble opinion it takes more concentration and work as it is nowhere near as forgiving. i can set it up to function with the same amount of input as a rangefinder and i can set it up to work like the starship enterprise. choices choices. it must of course be taken into account that what i normally point my cameras at (or put them through) might be totally different than you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom