Let's hear it for the dslr!

I thought I would never approve of anyone owning a DSLR until a friend bought his absolutely marvelous D2x a few years ago. Changed the whole way he approached wedding photography, I understand.

He became so immersed in the thing he couldn't wait to get rid of his Hasselblad 501CM, SWC and a 150mm lens. I was the vulture that was waiting to buy it for a very reasonable price.

I've used my Hassy quite a bit with no problems (I'm a amateur, he is a pro) but he has had sensor issues and finally bought his new D3 a little while ago.

A DSLR got me my Hasselblad, what could be better.
 
emraphoto said:
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.
Click to expand...



That's an interesting comment and very astute! A rangefinder as a choice of picture taker is often chosen wrongly based on this misplaced ideology IMO!

My first serious film camera was a rangefinder and it was bought to appease peer pressure from a friend who was so in love with his M6 that he obviously figured everyone in the world should own one ... because you really needed no other camera in his his eyes.

I subsequently discovered that he was a digital hater of the worse type and having come from a background of professional photography he figured he had the credentials to preach his rubbish. One day I might just beat him sensless with my D700! :p
 
So hold on a second! Is the conclusion that DSLRs are bad because they allow to shoot too many frames? Oh boy :bang:
 
Phantomas said:
So hold on a second! Is the conclusion that DSLRs are bad because they allow to shoot too many frames? Oh boy :bang:
Click to expand...


Yep ... ridiculous ideology created by the same mentality that got poor little Oliver Twist into so much strife when he dared to ask for more gruel!
 
Does it really matter what camera you use. If you are happy and satisfied with the results ?
I am fortunate to be in the position of having a choice. I had my first pro digital SLR around 1996 and it cost a fortune and was obviously not a patch on even the cheapest dSlrs of today but I had to have it for the work I was mostly doing then,National News Photography but when the time constraints allowed I used what I pleased , mostly Leicas, although on some occassions an SLR and an 85 1.4 and time to stroll around a nice event was enough to fill a page or maybe two.
I did have a problem with the 'crop factor' and DOF but now with 'Full frame' not anymore. Although I still don't over shoot and rarely need to 'chimp' .
The best part of using dig for me is that I can transmit from my laptop from almost anywhere and no longer have to suffer driving back into the office after a job or as we often had to, put films on the train at the nearest 'Red Star' railway station back to London and have to rely on others to get them to the picture desk.
 
Last edited:
Good morning Roger,

On a major story the paper would send a 'Team'. One guy to process the film another to print it another to connect the Muirhead at the local telephone exchange to transmit and maybe even a guy to drive . It sometimes became very crowded in those places and I have witnessed quite a bit of 'forcefull interjection' to get the most comfortable positions. Of course the GPO or perhaps more accuratly the unionised staff memebers wouldn't let you through the door without your NUJ press card either.
'Those were the days'..or maybe not !
Regards
Peter
 
From a purely amateur perspective, a manual film camera is like a manual transmission on a car. It's just more fun to drive - for many, a manual transmission as it is fun to drive as a manual camera is more fun to shoot than the alternative. Arguably, I think driving manual makes you a better driver, you definitely have more control of the vehicle, you definitely are more versatile in what you can drive, and you definitely have to think a bit more, you get the most out of your car's engine, you are more efficient with the consumable that powers the car (gas/film), they're less expensive and easier to repair, and you're definitely more engaged in the driving process. Early on, I imagine that the first automatic transmissions added considerably to the cost of a car and left a lot to be desired. As they improved over subsequent generations and their cost dropped - say over a 10-15 year period (guessing) they became the standard. That said, there are plenty of great cars with automatic transmissions. At one time I wouldn't even consider a car with an automatic. Now - guess what I'm driving? Same with cameras - film vs. digital, all the above applies. ('Cept I can afford to own a few cameras of varying types ;)
 
Last edited:
May I report... er, at the parade today... no R4a photos. All icky dad shots, with the DSLR, horribly appropriate tool. Took over 100 shots, walked the whole parade with the band. Went through before doing any PP and I see 50 shots which will get looked at. I will PP most and serve my audience, grandparents, mom... and have a good size collection to post for them.

Still doesn't feel good as far as a good photography day, but the tool did it's job. I actually was kinda at peace with it today.
 
I enjoy my recently purchased $50 non-working 10d. It had dead 3rd party batteries and I put new batts. and a 50/1.8 on it. Fun to use when I need the speed of uploads from the card. I still grab my M4-P first since I really enjoy it , but some days the dslr is a nice tool to use.
 
I'm making the switch from a Leica M8 to a Nikon D700. It is time for me to use the tool that is right for my style of photography, which has changed over the years.
 
JSU, it isn't about flexibility. It is how my photography has changed. I need precise framelines and the SLR is better for that purpose. The M8 sucks at that...it is the worst Leica M regarding frameline accuracy. Unfortunately, I cannot own both at this price range or I would.
 
Slightly off-topic, I just added the Micro 4/3 Olympus E-P2 to my camera line up. With the kit zoom lens, it's kind of a P&S type of thing, but with the M adapters, I quite like the results. The problem with digital is that my shooting "style" changes quite a bit, and not for the good. Photos tend to be colorful, splashy, but not that interesting. Highlight are blown even with this "better" digital camera. But I experiment more, since the cost of each photo s only the pressure applied to the shutter release.

In short, these things are good for some purposes and not for others. A corollary is, they are good for some people, but not for others. Best not to get too hung up on a position that will surely change over the years. I use them all, including evil film SLRs.
 
Last edited:
januaryman said:
Slightly off-topic, I just added the Micro 4/3 Olympus E-P2 to my camera line up. With the kit zoom lens, it's kind of a P&S type of thing, but with the M adapters, I quite like the results. The problem with digital is that my shooting "style" changes quite a bit, and not for the good. Photos tend to be colorful, splashy, but not that interesting. Highlight are blown even with this "better" digital camera. But I experiment more, since the cost of each photo s only the pressure applied to the shutter release.

In short, these things are good for some purposes and not for others. A corollary is, they are good for some people, but not for others. Best not to get too hung up on a position that will surely change over the years. I use them all, including evil film SLRs.
Click to expand...
Dear Jim,

Not necessarily. I've been using Leicas for 40+ years and have no plans for changing. Mind you, I've used most other kinds of cameras as well, but I've not been without at least one Leica since 1969.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
januaryman said:
Slightly off-topic, I just added the Micro 4/3 Olympus E-P2 to my camera line up. With the kit zoom lens, it's kind of a P&S type of thing, but with the M adapters, I quite like the results. The problem with digital is that my shooting "style" changes quite a bit, and not for the good. Photos tend to be colorful, splashy, but not that interesting. Highlight are blown even with this "better" digital camera. But I experiment more, since the cost of each photo s only the pressure applied to the shutter release.

In short, these things are good for some purposes and not for others. A corollary is, they are good for some people, but not for others. Best not to get too hung up on a position that will surely change over the years. I use them all, including evil film SLRs.
Click to expand...


-.07 exposure compensation in bright light is your friend with the olympus pen digitals.
 
fdigital said:
-.07 exposure compensation in bright light is your friend with the olympus pen digitals.
Click to expand...



And a lot of digitals IMO ... shadow detail can be recoverd most of the time with digital files but blown highlights ... forget it!

Blowing highlights is the major curse of my digital photography ... period! :bang:

:p :p :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom