Seeking recommendation for used SLR gears

Good point. I assumed that the modern lenses will outclass most m42
lenses.

That's probably not a fair assumption unless we are comparing basic
m42 lenses with their modern counterparts.

None of my lenses are really high-end however... although my Rikenon
f1.7 takes very nice pictures
Matt

If you think the Rikenon 50f1.7 is a nice lens, then the 35f2.8
will knock your socks off. Mucho bang for the buck. Bob Hickey

Matthew McGrattan wrote:

Of course this isn't going to take pictures quite as good as a decent
modern film SLR . . .

and . . .

Good point. I assumed that the modern lenses will outclass most m42
lenses.

Don't be so quick to dismiss those wonderful prime lenses from the 70s.
See this article:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...02-11-24.shtml

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:13:04 +0000, Brian C. Baird wrote:

That's pretty ridiculous - on your part. Did you bother getting a color
proof before the job went to press? Did you try to reconcile the CMYK
gamut's limitations with a color profile in Photoshop? If the answer was
"yes" to those two questions - why didn't you fire the printer, refuse to
accept the work and go someplace else?

Yes, I did get a proof but unfortunately it was too late to do anything
about making changes to the source. I had to give the printer go ahead
because the following day we opened to a big exhibition and I simply
couldn't afford to not have any printed material at the show.

It was my fault entirely, not the printer's.

As someone who has spent too many hours color correcting, de-dusting and
sharpening film images for print, all I can say is the current crop of
high-end digital cameras is nothing but a godsend. The color accuracy
tends to be higher, the images sharper (for print use, at least) and the
workflow MUCH, MUCH shorter.

Is that also true for studio work? I'm asking in all seriousness because
I found that all the stuff I did using the Canon E-TTL indoors was what
gave me the problems. All of it was off, but the outdoor shots were fine.

--
Dallas
www.dallasdahms.com
"Is that a Nikon? Omigod! Can I touch it?"

And do you not have to do the same things with film? If you don't that is
something of a miracle. Colour proofing has been the bane of prnting for as
long as there has been colour photography. It will continue to be the bane
for as long as there is no absolute standard -- which is actually much more
likely in a completely digital world than in a film to print world -
although "much more likely" doesn't mean much.
The number one reason for catalog clothing is "Colour is not like it was
in the catalog". THis has been true since the day Mr. Sears added colour to
his catalog in the 1940s. Colour proofing is more than a bitch - it is the
Great Bitch.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Dallas" wrote in message
newsan.2004.08.22.12.45.14.35000@southafrican...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:13:04 +0000, Brian C. Baird wrote:

That's pretty ridiculous - on your part. Did you bother getting a color
proof before the job went to press? Did you try to reconcile the CMYK
gamut's limitations with a color profile in Photoshop? If the answer
was
"yes" to those two questions - why didn't you fire the printer, refuse
to
accept the work and go someplace else?

Yes, I did get a proof but unfortunately it was too late to do anything
about making changes to the source. I had to give the printer go ahead
because the following day we opened to a big exhibition and I simply
couldn't afford to not have any printed material at the show.

It was my fault entirely, not the printer's.

As someone who has spent too many hours color correcting, de-dusting and
sharpening film images for print, all I can say is the current crop of
high-end digital cameras is nothing but a godsend. The color accuracy
tends to be higher, the images sharper (for print use, at least) and the
workflow MUCH, MUCH shorter.

Is that also true for studio work? I'm asking in all seriousness because
I found that all the stuff I did using the Canon E-TTL indoors was what
gave me the problems. All of it was off, but the outdoor shots were fine.

--
Dallas
www.dallasdahms.com
"Is that a Nikon? Omigod! Can I touch it?"

quote who= Brian C Baird /:

Well, the most important issue for any beginning photographer is cost,
convenience and feedback. Digital might cost a little more up front,
but not having to develop prints offsets that some, and the instant
feedback of the medium tends to make composing, focusing and exposing
much more interactive and enriching.

Yes, but the argument is that the initial outlay of a DSLR will keep
students out of being able to start shooting.

I decided to take up photography a year ago and shoot mostly in B&W and
develop it all myself. I really don't think I could afford the price of film
and lab costs if I shot only colour. I burn about 10 rolls a week. I purchased
a used F5 for $800USD and own some used glass as well. All my lab equipment is
borrowed or purchased used for pennies.

I did the math and it would take a very long time for me to break even if
I had gone the DSLR route and worse yet, I'd still be saving for that DSLR and
not shooting a thing.

J



--
Justin F. Knotzke

http://www.shampoo.ca

quote who= Brian C Baird /:

Well, the most important issue for any beginning photographer is cost,
convenience and feedback. Digital might cost a little more up front,
but not having to develop prints offsets that some, and the instant
feedback of the medium tends to make composing, focusing and exposing
much more interactive and enriching.

Yes, but the argument is that the initial outlay of a DSLR will keep
students out of being able to start shooting.

I decided to take up photography a year ago and shoot mostly in B&W and
develop it all myself. I really don't think I could afford the price of film
and lab costs if I shot only colour. I burn about 10 rolls a week. I purchased
a used F5 for $800USD and own some used glass as well. All my lab equipment is
borrowed or purchased used for pennies.

I did the math and it would take a very long time for me to break even if
I had gone the DSLR route and worse yet, I'd still be saving for that DSLR and
not shooting a thing.

J



--
Justin F. Knotzke

http://www.shampoo.ca

"Justin F. Knotzke" wrote:

quote who= Brian C Baird /:

Well, the most important issue for any beginning photographer is cost,
convenience and feedback. Digital might cost a little more up front,
but not having to develop prints offsets that some, and the instant
feedback of the medium tends to make composing, focusing and exposing
much more interactive and enriching.

Yes, but the argument is that the initial outlay of a DSLR will keep
students out of being able to start shooting.

Thanks for adding to this thread. Brian Baird considered that digital "might cost
a little more up front" though the reality is that for many interested in
photography beyond P&S cameras, the cost is a real issue.



I decided to take up photography a year ago and shoot mostly in B&W and
develop it all myself. I really don't think I could afford the price of film
and lab costs if I shot only colour. I burn about 10 rolls a week. I purchased
a used F5 for $800USD and own some used glass as well. All my lab equipment is
borrowed or purchased used for pennies.

Not much film usage, though the F5 cost is quite a bit. Nice camera, but quite
high up, and I would have difficulty recommending anyone start SLR photography
with an F5. Obviously, you would likely not need to consider an upgrade, nor
higher spec camera, but I think something much lower cost used would be an easier
choice for some beginners.

Interestingly, the Kodak digital SLR bodies based on the F5 are now selling used
for less than a film F5. While they are just 2 MP bodies, when they were new,
many proclaimed them better than film, and many paid quite a high price for them
(nearly five times the cost of a film only F5).



I did the math and it would take a very long time for me to break even if
I had gone the DSLR route and worse yet, I'd still be saving for that DSLR and
not shooting a thing.

I think that last comment states it all. As a few others pointed out, getting
into a user controllable SLR for under $300 is quite possible.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

"Justin F. Knotzke" wrote:

quote who= Brian C Baird /:

Well, the most important issue for any beginning photographer is cost,
convenience and feedback. Digital might cost a little more up front,
but not having to develop prints offsets that some, and the instant
feedback of the medium tends to make composing, focusing and exposing
much more interactive and enriching.

Yes, but the argument is that the initial outlay of a DSLR will keep
students out of being able to start shooting.

Thanks for adding to this thread. Brian Baird considered that digital "might cost
a little more up front" though the reality is that for many interested in
photography beyond P&S cameras, the cost is a real issue.



I decided to take up photography a year ago and shoot mostly in B&W and
develop it all myself. I really don't think I could afford the price of film
and lab costs if I shot only colour. I burn about 10 rolls a week. I purchased
a used F5 for $800USD and own some used glass as well. All my lab equipment is
borrowed or purchased used for pennies.

Not much film usage, though the F5 cost is quite a bit. Nice camera, but quite
high up, and I would have difficulty recommending anyone start SLR photography
with an F5. Obviously, you would likely not need to consider an upgrade, nor
higher spec camera, but I think something much lower cost used would be an easier
choice for some beginners.

Interestingly, the Kodak digital SLR bodies based on the F5 are now selling used
for less than a film F5. While they are just 2 MP bodies, when they were new,
many proclaimed them better than film, and many paid quite a high price for them
(nearly five times the cost of a film only F5).



I did the math and it would take a very long time for me to break even if
I had gone the DSLR route and worse yet, I'd still be saving for that DSLR and
not shooting a thing.

I think that last comment states it all. As a few others pointed out, getting
into a user controllable SLR for under $300 is quite possible.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

In article , says...
Thanks for adding to this thread. Brian Baird considered that digital "might cost
a little more up front" though the reality is that for many interested in
photography beyond P&S cameras, the cost is a real issue.

Becoming less and less of an issue. Besides, if my broke ass can afford
one...
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article , says...
Thanks for adding to this thread. Brian Baird considered that digital "might cost
a little more up front" though the reality is that for many interested in
photography beyond P&S cameras, the cost is a real issue.

Becoming less and less of an issue. Besides, if my broke ass can afford
one...
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/