Sold all my RFs and bought D40 and prime

sitemistic said:
Try shooting macro wide open with a Canon QL17. The D40 can do it.
Click to expand...

You can't curl your hair with a bowling ball either. The Canon GIII QL-17 is not designed to shoot macros. It is a fixed lens rangefinder. There is no macro lens for it. ONLY SLRs and view cameras are designed for that, because you have GOT to be able to see through the lens. Rangefinders are designed to work extremely well (better than SLRs and DSLRs) with normal and wide angle lenses.

Rangefinder limitations: Can't use polarizers or ND graduated lens filters, no macro, no lenses over 135mm.

SLR limitations: Retrofocus design means poor performance with wide angle lenses and slightly lower than rangefinder performance with normal lenses (SLRs only really shine with telephotos and macros). Induced vibrations due to mirror slap mean no handheld use at lower speeds (1/60 second or slower). Harder to focus in low light than a rangefinder (provided that the rangefinder has an equally bright viewfinder). Autofocus is innaccurate at best (in testing, it was found that the D40 could be off in some instances by as much as 21 inches).

Personal opinion: The D40 is a low end DSLR that tries to do too much for you and fails miserably at a lot of it. BTW, I have one. I have a Canon A630 p&s that gets more use.
 
nobbylon said:
The D40 is little better than a glorified p&s camera.

Have you used one? I have and it's a great picture taking machine and yes i'm talking about the Nikon! It is so much more than a p&s.
Click to expand...

I own one. My Canon A630 gets more use.
 
Good for you... That's a commitment.

Good for you... That's a commitment.

I hope you never look back. Me, I got so involved, I had 6 digital cameras, Photoshop 7 CS, CS2 and CS3 + lightroom. Even started teaching digital camera selection and photography at the community education level.

But, I could never shake that unnerving visual difference between the best of digital and most shots done with film. So, now I have only three digital cameras largely unused, have my film professionally scanned and go digital after the capture. When it occurred to me that my photographic life was being dictated by TWO (2) computers... the camera and the desktop, I went back to film.

Still teach digital, so I keep up with the technology. It will never be better than film, it will just be different. I can do anything in CS3 with a scanned film image that I can do with the digital camera image, and I do see a distinct difference between what comes out of my film camera's and what came out of the digital camera's.

Good luck on your decision. I truly wish you no regrets.
 
pachuco said:
I have the 20D and love it! Canon makes some great cameras and glass! (Still like my M3 the best!)
Click to expand...

Canon makes some very nice DSLRs, and so does Nikon. It's just the D40 that I don't like. Canon absolutely does make the best digital p&s cameras though. Nikon p&s cameras have an issue with the gearing that extends the lens that they have never resolved.
 
To distort yet another Paul Simon line: cameras is cameras, all over the world. Most of my cameras get loaded with film; one of them, which I took this photo with about 20 minutes ago, I loaded with an SD card:

attachment.php


(A bit Hallmark-ish, but just to illustrate, and the first bit of sun we've had around NYC for some days. Taken with the tiny Casio.)

SLRs, be they film or digital in nature, don't do it for me much anymore. The VFs of the cheaper dSLRs are especially grating to my eye. Doesn't mean they can't do the job, and I've got pics I've taken with a few to prove it. As always, you find what works for you and go with it. And, as Joe Friday might say (not our Joe Friday, though I'm inclined to think he'd agree), you always have the right to change your mind.

Go forth, and keep taking pictures. :)


- Barrett
 

Attachments

  • sunleaf03.jpg
    sunleaf03.jpg
    68.8 KB · Views: 0
There's nothing wrong with making choices in photography. Not everybody shoots 8x10 LF, yet lots of people make nice landscapes, not everybody has the latest pro rig, yet there are lots of fine images made with equipment which is several years or even many decades old. This being said, I believe B&W digital sucks, so if you like b&w you might regret the decision, otherwise, I feel digital is the way to go in colour, so a D40 is going to do just fine.
 
sitemistic said:
"The D40 is little better than a glorified p&s camera."

I think this is kind of funny, actually. This forum is full of threads with folks extolling the virtues of 1960's point and shoot rangefinders. Of Olympus XA's. Of Canon GIII's. The D40 is in most every way superior to these cameras.

Amazing.
Click to expand...

Somebody send him more Cool Aid, he obviously has run out. :D
 
As amateriat says, "cameras is cameras".

However, I'd just like to balance the argument against the little D40 - I had one on loan for about six weeks and it's now gone back. If I wasn't broke, and I actually needed it - I'd buy one.

The regular DSLR/viewfinder issues aside, I thought it was great with a Sigma 30/1.4.

Yes, you can set it up as a point and shoot and by default you get a rather annoying user interface, I changed it for the cleaner one but my sister who knows nothing about photography really liked it - it helped her learn what aperture is/does.

No problems with AF either. I had the AE button set for AF-ON which was handy for pre-focussing shots.

Only complaint is the lack of two scrolly wheels for aperture and shutter speed, and the UI can be a bit laggy (when used).

Sure it can be set up as a point and shoot... But then so can the D3.

Sorry, the above sounds a little combative - in no way intended. Just different points of view. I've tried to get on with Canon P&S's and have failed :)
 
Agree completely that digital is useless for B&W. In fact, as far as I am concerned, there is only one game for b/w, that is TriX. Actually, the camera is not so important in the case of TriX, you can get fantastic results from a cheap point and shoot camera all the way to 8x10. I would even argue that the cheaper the lens and camera, the better the results.
 
loneranger said:
I keep seeing posts by people who claim to have sold off their big DSLR and the huge zoom lenses, and bought a quiet small rangefinder, and they have never looked back. Well, here is the oposite story. I recently sold off all my rangefinders (for tons of money). Instead I bought a canon 40D and a 24mm prime. The whole package is not small but it is not at all huge and the weight is reasonable (around 1000gm with lens and body, compare with leica m8 and 35mm lens which is around 800gms). The cost for lens and body is around $1500, not cheap but not at all exprensive compared to the competition. The best part, in live view, the shutter is quieter than the m6 shutter. I have saved tons of money and time because I dont have to purchase and process film. No more time wasted scanning. No more wasted negatives. Have not looked back ever since and have never been happier.
I still have my mamiya m7 for landscapes. That will go too when the update to canon 5D comes out.
I guess I will consider getting a digital RF when the prices come down, but for now, I am sticking with the DSLR.
Click to expand...

good for you. I have both a DSLR and several RF cameras. I enjoy both immensely. I'm a advocate of "horses for courses." There are some things an SLR/DSLR does better than an RF (and vise-versa). But I doubt I could ever give up film entirely, nor could I give up the pleasure of processing b&w film and scanning film (both color and b&w). That stuff is just way too much fun. Good luck and keep shooting!

.
 
loneranger said:
Agree completely that digital is useless for B&W. In fact, as far as I am concerned, there is only one game for b/w, that is TriX. Actually, the camera is not so important in the case of TriX, you can get fantastic results from a cheap point and shoot camera all the way to 8x10. I would even argue that the cheaper the lens and camera, the better the results.
Click to expand...

Ever tried Efke in ISO 25?
 
The 24 is my choice lens in the Canon system too. But I like film and still have some 300 rolls waiting to be used. It is a pity that Leica, or Canon or Epson, didn't come up with a cheaper full frame rangefinder. Others are sure to opt out the way you did.
 
Earlier in the year I kept my Leica equipment and bought a Tokina 12-24mm lens and a Canon 30D (40D had not been released at the time). I thought I would get back into shooting color again. I already use Canon EOS film bodies and I have numerous EF lenses so using the 30D was pretty easy to learn.

Then I bought one of several subsequent Kiev rangefinders.

I liked shooting with the Kievs. I liked the images they produced. The Kievs stimulated me to get out and shoot with the Leicas even more.

I haven't used the 30D much at all. Nothing wrong with the camera and I made some pretty decent shots with it. I'm keeping it but I don't foresee using it for anything I consider important. It doesn't get my juices flowing like that $60.00 Kiev did. I'm simply not comfortable with digital images. I'm a silver-based B&W kind of guy.

Everyone has to do what works best for them.
 
FallisPhoto said:
Ever tried Efke in ISO 25?
Click to expand...

Have not, but I am a big fan of GRAIN in B/W, going for grainless and sharpness kind of beats the whole point of B/W for me. I guess Ansel Adams would argue otherwise, but hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
 
loneranger said:
I keep seeing posts by people who claim to have sold off their big DSLR and the huge zoom lenses, and bought a quiet small rangefinder, and they have never looked back. Well, here is the oposite story. I recently sold off all my rangefinders (for tons of money). Instead I bought a canon 40D and a 24mm prime. The whole package is not small but it is not at all huge and the weight is reasonable (around 1000gm with lens and body, compare with leica m8 and 35mm lens which is around 800gms). The cost for lens and body is around $1500, not cheap but not at all exprensive compared to the competition. The best part, in live view, the shutter is quieter than the m6 shutter. I have saved tons of money and time because I dont have to purchase and process film. No more time wasted scanning. No more wasted negatives. Have not looked back ever since and have never been happier.
I still have my mamiya m7 for landscapes. That will go too when the update to canon 5D comes out.
I guess I will consider getting a digital RF when the prices come down, but for now, I am sticking with the DSLR.
Click to expand...

Sounds more you prefer digital over film, rather than slr over rf. Or else you would not play with the thought of buying a digital rf. I´m not sure this is really an "opposite story".................
 
loneranger said:
I have saved tons of money and time because I dont have to purchase and process film.
Click to expand...

This is what most people realized four or five years ago. Where have you been?

Personally, I enjoy having physical originals of my work rather than bits and bytes.
 
It is a thread about choices and preferences. This is all.
I say potato you say potatoe ...

I wish you happiness with your choice in photography equipment (digital and film).


Happy Thanksgiving to people here who have such a special day in their culture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom