Seeking recommendation for used SLR gears

A DRebel whoul be 100 dollars more than the used F5 -- and no film costs at
all. How much did you spend on the darkroom? My last one I sold off for more
than 1500 dollars and it was the smallest and simplest I had ever owned.
I will admit one can get into film a lot cheaper if one is willing to
run cheap (used in the 150-200 dollar range - cheapest enlarger and do all
your own processing, of not very much film) but anyone who really shoots is
going to spend 1000 a year on film and processing. No messy and smelly
chemicals, no room off limits because of dangerous chemicals, etc.

--
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
"Justin F. Knotzke" wrote in message
...
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

A DRebel whoul be 100 dollars more than the used F5 -- and no film costs at
all. How much did you spend on the darkroom? My last one I sold off for more
than 1500 dollars and it was the smallest and simplest I had ever owned.
I will admit one can get into film a lot cheaper if one is willing to
run cheap (used in the 150-200 dollar range - cheapest enlarger and do all
your own processing, of not very much film) but anyone who really shoots is
going to spend 1000 a year on film and processing. No messy and smelly
chemicals, no room off limits because of dangerous chemicals, etc.

--
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
"Justin F. Knotzke" wrote in message
...
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

I agree with:
"Most people can't tell good colour from bad. Forget the other issues." But
this is as true with film as with digital. I've been looking at what people
THINK is good colour for decades. It doesn't take a digital camera to ruin a
colour shot, it only takes the millions of undiagnosed colour blind
photographers.
As one with good colour recognition, I think the "10%" statement about
colour blindness in males is bull. I would put it closer to "60%". I think
poor colour perception is the real reason Vervia and other bizarre
over-saturated junk is so popular - the guys shooting it simply can't see
how bad it looks.



--
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
"Nick Zentena" wrote in message
...
Brian C. Baird wrote:


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.


What feedback? Do you get an 8x10 print out of the back? Do you honestly
think the average beginner can look at the screen and go "Good? Bad?" Take
aMost people can't tell good colour
from bad. Forget the other issues.


few minutes and look at the various digital images people are posting
around
the world. They tend to look like crap. Nick

quote who= Gordon Moat /:

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.

My pleasure Gordon. You've helped me many times before and I am happy to
return the favor.

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.

The F5 wasn't my first. My first was a P&S digital which I dumped very
quickly when I got annoyed with the AF and shutter lag and everything else
that I hated about a digital P&S. I sold it to my sister for a song.

Then I picked up an F80. Liked it a little, but I started reading more and
more books on photography and had the F80 always in full manual and realized
that I should just dump it and get an FE2. Which I did. I still have the FE2
and use it when I am up and about and not shooting something specific. The F5
was something I always wanted. I didn't need it, I just lusted after it. So
ya, I wouldn't recommend a beginner buy one. They weigh a bloody ton. But I
don't regret getting it. I love it.

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.

I can tell you what shooting B&W, developing my own and printing my own had
changed about my photography. I'm not entirely sure what I actually learned but
I can tell you what I do differently. Maybe someone more experienced can
connect the dots for me.

1) More selective about what I print: I used to print everything. If it was
in focus, had something in it, I printed it. The end result would be hours and
hours of quickly printing, staying up late at night, going to bed exhausted,
waking up the next morning and saying "Oh for crying out loud, all these
SUCK!" So now I spend much more time deciding what to print and then really
trying to make it look as good as I can.

2) What makes a frame difficult or easy to print. I can now look at a
negative and decide if it's going to come out well or not. I look for
contrast, tones, sharpness etc. I can look at a well composed image, get
excited about it but spend hours and countless sheets of paper trying to print
it but can't because all I get are shades of ugly grey. So I learned that
there is much more to a good print then composure and focus.

3) People who do B&W printing are incredibly helpful. Nick Zentana has been
very helpful. He's taught me how to get detail out of snow, and how to not
have to do handstands in the darkroom to get detail out of snow by exposing
snow properally the first time 'round. He taught me a technique for using
colour enlargers by making two test prints, one with full magenta the other
full yellow and then looking at both test prints and deciding how much yellow
I need for highlights and how much magenta I need for blacks.. This I think is
also reflected when I actually take photos. Having to print them myself seems
to force me to take more time in getting the exposure right. If I don't, I pay
the price later in the darkroom.

4) Be meticulous. I find if I don't pay attention to what I am doing, all
the time, I screw something up and have ruined a few rolls of film by not
paying attention..

I could go on for a while. But that's about what I've picked up in a year of
shooting film and developing it myself. I've learned that there is some magic
that can be performed in the darkroom but a crappy shot is a crappy shot and
it's important to get it right at the camera.

J



--
Justin F. Knotzke

http://www.shampoo.ca

quote who= Gordon Moat /:

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.

My pleasure Gordon. You've helped me many times before and I am happy to
return the favor.

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.

The F5 wasn't my first. My first was a P&S digital which I dumped very
quickly when I got annoyed with the AF and shutter lag and everything else
that I hated about a digital P&S. I sold it to my sister for a song.

Then I picked up an F80. Liked it a little, but I started reading more and
more books on photography and had the F80 always in full manual and realized
that I should just dump it and get an FE2. Which I did. I still have the FE2
and use it when I am up and about and not shooting something specific. The F5
was something I always wanted. I didn't need it, I just lusted after it. So
ya, I wouldn't recommend a beginner buy one. They weigh a bloody ton. But I
don't regret getting it. I love it.

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.

I can tell you what shooting B&W, developing my own and printing my own had
changed about my photography. I'm not entirely sure what I actually learned but
I can tell you what I do differently. Maybe someone more experienced can
connect the dots for me.

1) More selective about what I print: I used to print everything. If it was
in focus, had something in it, I printed it. The end result would be hours and
hours of quickly printing, staying up late at night, going to bed exhausted,
waking up the next morning and saying "Oh for crying out loud, all these
SUCK!" So now I spend much more time deciding what to print and then really
trying to make it look as good as I can.

2) What makes a frame difficult or easy to print. I can now look at a
negative and decide if it's going to come out well or not. I look for
contrast, tones, sharpness etc. I can look at a well composed image, get
excited about it but spend hours and countless sheets of paper trying to print
it but can't because all I get are shades of ugly grey. So I learned that
there is much more to a good print then composure and focus.

3) People who do B&W printing are incredibly helpful. Nick Zentana has been
very helpful. He's taught me how to get detail out of snow, and how to not
have to do handstands in the darkroom to get detail out of snow by exposing
snow properally the first time 'round. He taught me a technique for using
colour enlargers by making two test prints, one with full magenta the other
full yellow and then looking at both test prints and deciding how much yellow
I need for highlights and how much magenta I need for blacks.. This I think is
also reflected when I actually take photos. Having to print them myself seems
to force me to take more time in getting the exposure right. If I don't, I pay
the price later in the darkroom.

4) Be meticulous. I find if I don't pay attention to what I am doing, all
the time, I screw something up and have ruined a few rolls of film by not
paying attention..

I could go on for a while. But that's about what I've picked up in a year of
shooting film and developing it myself. I've learned that there is some magic
that can be performed in the darkroom but a crappy shot is a crappy shot and
it's important to get it right at the camera.

J



--
Justin F. Knotzke

http://www.shampoo.ca

"Brian C. Baird" wrote:

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...

Sure, getting lower priced all the time. Unfortunately, many college students
considering trying out photography, especially through a class on campus, can barely
afford $500, and often much less than that. Any digital SLRs in the $300 to $500 range
yet? Any under $300?

Ciao!

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

"Brian C. Baird" wrote:

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...

Sure, getting lower priced all the time. Unfortunately, many college students
considering trying out photography, especially through a class on campus, can barely
afford $500, and often much less than that. Any digital SLRs in the $300 to $500 range
yet? Any under $300?

Ciao!

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

"Brian C. Baird" wrote:

In article ,
says...
What feedback? Do you get an 8x10 print out of the back? Do you honestly
think the average beginner can look at the screen and go "Good? Bad?" Take a
few minutes and look at the various digital images people are posting around
the world. They tend to look like crap. Most people can't tell good colour
from bad. Forget the other issues.

Ahem.

#1: Digital allows quick check of focus and composition. If you can't
make a good composition with a digital camera, you can't make one with
ANY camera. Digital DOES allow you to try different things and compare
them almost immediately.

Wow . . . I will take a huge exception to that. In fact, I think someone can
learn good composition without having a camera. Something as simple as holding a
square up to you eye (empty slide mount, or hole cut in paper), and looking
through it. Add a little bit of teaching about composition, and then put a camera
into the students' hands.

The other thing is that if composition is taught properly, then it will be a
learned skill. Then it is down to practice, and any good photographer should have
some idea if the shot was composed well just by looking through the viewfinder.
One does not learn editing one at a time, but by a comparison of images.



#2: Judging color is impossible with film. Who's doing the tweaking
during developing? Not the photographer.

Quite a few college level photography classes still start out with B/W imagery.
This is similar to learning drawing skills prior to painting. Also, are you
suggesting giving a colour test to every student wanting to take a colour
photography course?



#3: The reason most digital images people post look like "crap" is
because they were never meant to be art. They're snapshots of
vacations, kids, etc. etc. Since when does everyone with a camera have
to be a freaking artist?

They do not. Part of using a camera is recording history. Those college students
into that route might be more inclined to go the photojournalist route than the
commercial art route.

Anyone who just wants to use a camera, read the owners manual. This sub area of
this thread opened a discussion about teaching photography, photography students,
and college level photography classes, and that is how I am responding. I don't
think someone needs to be a snob to take photography classes, but they do need to
be a snob to suggest someone cannot learn photography in a formal environment
without spending lots of money.

Ciao!

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

Brian C. Baird wrote in message . ..

Well, the most important issue for any beginning photographer is cost,
convenience and feedback. Digital might cost a little more up front,

It's not a "little more" up front. It's a whole lot more up front.
Note my other post on this thread. If you can find me a DSLR that's
can give as good images as my Pentax ME-Super, for under $150
Australian, then point me to it. Hell, I'll even give you a $300
limit. I don't think you'll find one. Yet. Soon perhaps, but not
yet. (And this is keeping in mind that this isn't the cheapest SLR
which meets the OP's requirements, either...)

Cheers,
Steve

Brian C. Baird wrote in message . ..

Well, the most important issue for any beginning photographer is cost,
convenience and feedback. Digital might cost a little more up front,

It's not a "little more" up front. It's a whole lot more up front.
Note my other post on this thread. If you can find me a DSLR that's
can give as good images as my Pentax ME-Super, for under $150
Australian, then point me to it. Hell, I'll even give you a $300
limit. I don't think you'll find one. Yet. Soon perhaps, but not
yet. (And this is keeping in mind that this isn't the cheapest SLR
which meets the OP's requirements, either...)

Cheers,
Steve