What's your digital camera history?

"Giorgio Preddio" wrote in message
om...
Canon G1 (there wasn't much to choose from at that time)
Canon D30 (still not much to choose from at the time)
Canon 10D (hoping for improvement, highly disappointed)
Canon 1DS (hoping for *serious* improvement, *EXTREMELY DISPPOINTED*)
Sigma SD9 (the first digital I really liked)
Sigma SD10 (photographic euphoria, bought 3 more bodies for a total of 4)

Kodak DCS 410 - Too big
Kodak DC4800 - Nice in its time
Sidma SD9 - Used for 6 weeks - Too big and crook skin tones
Canon Powershot Pro1 - Nice - Small, good zoom range, nice sharp well
exposed images
Nikon D100- work camera - OK but very soft images - Needs lots of PS work to
make decent prints

Sam

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...


Nick C wrote:

"Doug Warner" wrote in message
...

I'll start:

Fuji MX-700
Nikon Coolpix 950 (still have it)
Olympus E-10
Canon D60
Canon 10D (Got lens collection, trapped now :-)


To reply, please remove one letter from each side of "@"
Spammers are VERMIN. Please kill them all.

Olympus 5050
Nikon D100
Canon 1D MK II


Interesting move from the D100 to the 1D MkII. That must have resulted
in a bit of lens trauma! Why did you make the change?

Phil



Hi Phil,

For some time now I had been planning to sell the D100 and possibly the
Olympus 5050. I don't have an interest in either camera. I am basically a
film user and only worked with a digicam when I felt it was the better of
the tools at hand. Selling them was something I planned to do but didn't
know when I would actually do it. However, though I've sold the D100 I still
have the Olympus 5050 and may give that to my son. You know Phil,
procrastination is something that we can do immediately.

In the meantime, I had, as a matter of interest, placed my name on a list at
the local a camera store, reserving a slot for me to rent the Canon 1D Mk
II. A couple of days ago, I received a call that because of the price, many
who had an interest in the MK II decided not to rent the camera 'cause they
would not be interested in buying it. That action moved me up to top of the
prevailing list. From what I have learned about the many capabilities that
was built into the camera, my interest was still on the high end.

As I mentioned, when I received the call that I could have the 1D MK II, I
went to the store and picked it up. For two days I have been playing with
the camera. This morning I called the store and told them to wrap me up a MK
II, they had sold the camera.

I went to the store and returned the rental and bought the MK II along with
two flashes, a 550ex and 420ex, two lenses to start me off, the 17-40L and
the 28-135 IS, a Timer Remote Controller, and a Transmitter. I plan on
adding three more lenses but I haven't yet decided what they would be USM's
or L-USM's, or a mix. I have Canon's book of MTF graphs and in some cases
the USM's look better than the L-USM's. The store didn't have the CP-32
Compact Battery Pack, so I have that on order. I'll not say what the
total/final cost was, but I wrote the check and bought the MK II camera
which the store sold me for $4,125.00 Yankee buckaroos + tax. I understand
the MK II lists for about $4,800 and has a street price of about $4,500.

I have spent the morning 'personalizing' the camera's settings. It's almost
unbelievable to see the many various settings that can be made. So far I
haven't gotten into the 31 Preset Personal functions. I couldn't begin to
list all the capabilities built into the camera. However, off hand I would
say the camera is definitely a keeper. Handling the camera has all the feel
and quick adjustments that one would expect from a high end film camera.
What I don't like, and will not use is Canon's picture software. After
having used Nikon's Capture Editor, the Canon equivalent, although it has
just about the same functions as the Capture Editor, pales in use. Besides,
I'm into photoshop and have seen no reason to change software.

There is a difference in Raw as opposed to JPEG, but the camera can be set
to take JPEG's with compressions that can be manually set. The camera
defaults at 8, in numbering from 1 to 10. The higher the number the lesser
the compression. At 8, with the camera set to L size, the picture will be
about 8.2MP, which is the same for RAW and (except for easy adjustments in
RAW) there appears to be little difference in quality between RAW and the
JPEG setting (from 8 to 10), as long as the print is not going to be huge.
I've taken shots at ISO's ranging from 100 to 1000. In some photo's at 1000
I can see a little noise but nothing that can't be lived with. I especially
like the camera's capability of averaging spot meter readings, that can be
made from 8 to 11 different spots. Oh, using the cameras histogram setting
and using it to making finite adjustments is a snap.

If I can break away from here next week, I would like to get up to Bodie and
spend about 3 or 4 days photographing the ghost town. From there go to
Bridgeport to catch the Rodeo. I intend taking the MK II and my Nikon F4e
(my favorite film camera) loaded with Neopoan 100. First I have to see if I
can get out. Anyway, it's a plan.

Gee, I forgot to mention pictures. Well, for me to buy this equipment, I can
only tell you picture quality (controlled by many settings) greatly exceeded
expectations. The quality even surprised my wife, who is anti-digital. The
thought may occur to ask, will I get sufficient satisfaction from the camera
to justify the cost of equipment? Beats me. Is the camera worth $4,125.00? I
don't have a ready answer, photography is a hobby and as long as I can
afford it, I guess the cost is not something that bothers me. Besides, I
'was' considering renting the 1Ds and now I have no interest in it
whatsoever.

nick

In article v_nDc.159430$3x.105917@attbi_s54,
says...
Gee, I forgot to mention pictures. Well, for me to buy this equipment, I can
only tell you picture quality (controlled by many settings) greatly exceeded
expectations. The quality even surprised my wife, who is anti-digital. The
thought may occur to ask, will I get sufficient satisfaction from the camera
to justify the cost of equipment? Beats me. Is the camera worth $4,125.00? I
don't have a ready answer, photography is a hobby and as long as I can
afford it, I guess the cost is not something that bothers me. Besides, I
'was' considering renting the 1Ds and now I have no interest in it
whatsoever.

Wish I could afford the 1D Mark II! All those custom features... mmm...
custom features...

My biggest obstacles are still a lack of telephoto, macro and decent
wide angle zoom lenses. That, and composition. And actually finding
time to shoot pictures, etc. etc. The 10D suits me fine for now, but if
I ever become independently wealthy with nothing but leisure time...
look out!

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article v_nDc.159430$3x.105917@attbi_s54,
says...
Gee, I forgot to mention pictures. Well, for me to buy this equipment, I
can
only tell you picture quality (controlled by many settings) greatly
exceeded
expectations. The quality even surprised my wife, who is anti-digital.
The
thought may occur to ask, will I get sufficient satisfaction from the
camera
to justify the cost of equipment? Beats me. Is the camera worth
$4,125.00? I
don't have a ready answer, photography is a hobby and as long as I can
afford it, I guess the cost is not something that bothers me. Besides, I
'was' considering renting the 1Ds and now I have no interest in it
whatsoever.

Wish I could afford the 1D Mark II! All those custom features... mmm...
custom features...

My biggest obstacles are still a lack of telephoto, macro and decent
wide angle zoom lenses. That, and composition. And actually finding
time to shoot pictures, etc. etc. The 10D suits me fine for now, but if
I ever become independently wealthy with nothing but leisure time...
look out!

I've yet to pick out telephoto's, but that's not a biggie for me since I'm
only occasionally interested in long lens shots. I do need a good macro and
perhaps one or two prime fast lenses. I prefer to stay with Canon, but I
'may' look elsewhere. I was going to get the 16-35 L lens but at the last
minute, after examining the MTF graphs of both the 16-35 L and the 17-40 L I
decided on the 17-40 L lens as being the better of the two; I have not been
disappointed. I had reservations about not getting a fast lens but I've used
the 17-40 L lens in low light and cranked up the ISO to 400 and had
encountered no problems in the use of the lens. For a certanty, I don't
intend to end up having as many lenses for the MK II as I gathered for the
Nikon's. In fact, I just may dump a few Nikon lenses; I don't know yet what
I'll end up doing. I'm strong about keeping my F4e and a series of lenses
and flashes for the camera. I might let go of the F5 and my S lenses. I
don't use it as much as I use the F4. I don't know if I will eventually use
the MK II more than my film cameras or not as much as my film cameras,
(shrug) in any event, it's a keeper camera.

From what others have said about the 10D, I can only surmize it must be a
good dSLR. I haven't as yet seen a dSLR that will easily take double,
tripple, or more exposures on one frame. I guess I just couldn't get
interested in the 10D. Probably because I favor film, especially slides and
B&W film. I can't really say what spurred my interest in the MK II. It may
have started in a conversation with a Canon rep., articles I've read, or
things that may have been said in this ng; I don't know. But it seems that
when I first picked it up, just the handling of it began to take hold, then
random shots to see how it worked, tweeked adjustments, finalizing in
photoshop, I began to think it may become an important addition to my
equipment. I haven't yet relied upon settings in the MK II that will enhance
sharpness, or contrast. I prefer those adjustments be made in photoshop so I
can directly see the levels being applied. However, I did make a setting
that I could jump to should the occasion arise where I could use the setting
to enhance a rather flat lighting scene. I have tried the built-in High
Saturation setting and it does add pizzaz to magentas, reds and greens. If I
didn't know better, I would think I was using Velvia film. Setting the
Custom White Balance on the MK II is a snap and comes in handy when taking
indoor shots using filtering light from outdoors. Maintaining the light
temperature from out doors to indoors does perk up flashless a shot;
eveything looks natural. I haven't yet relied upon the Auto-White-Balance
setting, prefering to rely upon the use of Color Temperature settings. The
norm for daylight may be 5200 but I prefer 5500 kelvin and I would rather
use Color Temperature adjustments for morning, mid-day, and evening shots.
All-in-all, for a highly complicated dSLR, it's a surprisingly easy camera
to use. There is a very handy feature in the MK II and that is using the
setting that will show blown-out whites in the picture on the monitor, along
with the histogram, so that an easy adjustment can be made to eliminate the
blown-out whites and correct the histogram.

nick

Randall Ainsworth writes:
1st digital camera - Quicktake 150

2nd current & only digital camera - Canon 10D

That's quite a leap!

Dave

Nick C wrote:

From what others have said about the 10D, I can only surmize it must be a
good dSLR. I haven't as yet seen a dSLR that will easily take double,
tripple, or more exposures on one frame.

And you never will. The flexibility one has in combining images in PS
far outweighs any advantage (are there really any in digital image
making?) of combining images in the camera (in this case via software).

--
John McWilliams

In article D3uDc.160205$3x.16579@attbi_s54,
says...
There is a very handy feature in the MK II and that is using the
setting that will show blown-out whites in the picture on the monitor, along
with the histogram, so that an easy adjustment can be made to eliminate the
blown-out whites and correct the histogram.

The 10D has that too. A life saver if you're trying to get that
critical shot.

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
news:trBDc.124323$Sw.25250@attbi_s51...
Nick C wrote:

From what others have said about the 10D, I can only surmize it must be
a
good dSLR. I haven't as yet seen a dSLR that will easily take double,
tripple, or more exposures on one frame.

And you never will. The flexibility one has in combining images in PS
far outweighs any advantage (are there really any in digital image
making?) of combining images in the camera (in this case via software).

--
John McWilliams

I went through a fun N' games period where I would place simulated costumed
ghost images in backgrounds of pictures I took of old abandoned mines, ghost
town saloons, ranchos, etc.. Developing the technique was/is easy by double
or sometimes triple exposing film. I had found that somewhat difficult but
more to the point, time consuming to do digitally in PS. If I should return
to creating such images (doubtful), I much rather use film than attempt to
create the images by digitally blending in PS. I'm just offering my thoughts
of what I think is best for me and my imaging techniques. Besides, I would
rather not become dependant upon PS to accomplish various imaging objectives
because I might decide to someday abandon PS for some other equally
functional imaging program. I'm of the opinion that the use of digicams
might well spur the creating of software that may be inexpensively
competitive to PS (which I think is grossly over priced at $600 + for a new
user).

nick

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article D3uDc.160205$3x.16579@attbi_s54,
says...
There is a very handy feature in the MK II and that is using the
setting that will show blown-out whites in the picture on the monitor,
along
with the histogram, so that an easy adjustment can be made to eliminate
the
blown-out whites and correct the histogram.

The 10D has that too. A life saver if you're trying to get that
critical shot.


Thanks. Not having a 10D or ever used a 10D, I didn't know that.

Being a loooong time film user, I've the habit of having a back-up camera
body, which at times, was a handy tool to have. I'm wondering if there is a
advantage to having a digital back-up; possibly the 10D as a back-up to the
MK II. I can see where having 1.6x may be an asset to minimizing the need
for long lenses that would cost about the same for a 10D body. Do you have
an opinion to offer?

nick

In article JuEDc.162318$3x.144691@attbi_s54,
says...
Being a loooong time film user, I've the habit of having a back-up camera
body, which at times, was a handy tool to have. I'm wondering if there is a
advantage to having a digital back-up; possibly the 10D as a back-up to the
MK II. I can see where having 1.6x may be an asset to minimizing the need
for long lenses that would cost about the same for a 10D body. Do you have
an opinion to offer?

I've read of a lot of photographers keeping a 10D as a backup to a 1D or
1Ds. I remember reading an article in Pop Photo last year about a bird
photographer - he shot primarily with a 1Ds, but a few of his shots were
with his "backup" 10D. I'll have to dig through my back issues and pull
it up.