| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Callunna
Revolving Grey Blob
3044 Posts
|
|
 Posted -
08/09/2011
:
18:15
|
... more like dreaming if I'm being truthful but say I had £800 - £1000 to spend on a new camera, what would I buy?
I've narrowed it down to the Canon EOS 600D or Sony A55 but there may be other models out there which are better.
I would want just one zoom lens to cover a wide range, because I can't be doing with faffing about changing lenses and probably dropping them, although I'm aware such a lens will adversely affect the picture quality to a small degree. But I'm not going to be turning professional photographer so it doesn't matter too much.
I would also need to include a good bag/case, plenty of memory and battery power in that price, perhaps even with a tripod thrown in.
And would I dare buy it on tinterweb or should I play safe by going to a local shop?
=================== www.sheldrickrose.co.ukwww.bernulf.co.ukwww.bernulfsplace.co.uk
|
|
| Replies |
| Author |
|
|
Tizer
|
 Posted - 14/09/2011 : 16:59
Haha, very funny Pluggy! But could be true...
Calluna, If like me you are used to a digital compact think carefully before going to a DSLR. The Canon D600 with the 18-135 lens and battery weighs in at 1kg whereas my Canon G11 is below 600g and much less bulky. It's the weight and bulk plus interchangeable lenses that have always put me off DSLR before. Finally I've got one and I went for that lens to avoid too much changing but I have to accept the extra weight. I have lung/circulation problems now that make my arms get tired quickly when raised. That might make my camera choice seem daft but if I don't get the DSLR now I might not be able to lift it at all in the future! It's pockets and shrouds again.
 |
Bradders
|
Posted - 14/09/2011 : 17:03
Stanley ...You'd better get to the door before Jack, when the parcel arrives or it will end in tears........Oooooph !
I think ( and hope) you'll enjoy using the D200......if you don't , I have the feeling that I might be in a bit of trouble...Ha !
Let us know ........
BRADDERS BLUESINGER |
Callunna
Revolving Grey Blob
3044 Posts
|
|
Posted - 14/09/2011 : 17:22
quote:
Tizer wrote:
The Canon D600 with the 18-135 lens and battery weighs in at 1kg whereas my Canon G11 is below 600g and much less bulky. I don't think the weight would bother me. I borrowed a friend's DSLR a while back and it was fine. They build us pretty tough up here in Barlick.
Reminds me of a joke I heard on TV recently:
Q. In a fight, who would win - a Southerner or a Northerner?
A. Southerner - even their water's harder...
=================== www.sheldrickrose.co.ukwww.bernulf.co.ukwww.bernulfsplace.co.uk |
Sunray10
|
Posted - 14/09/2011 : 18:00
Shows how much I know about cameras does it not. I laughed at the thought of Stanley storing stuff in his fridge, presumably an old fridge though. Te he he
R.Spencer. |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 15/09/2011 : 06:40
Nope Ray, a very new one!
Brad, don't worry old lad, it's something I have been mulling over for years. My ideal was a digital back for an F body and I'll bet at one time they considered that. I already have a Nikon8400, a strange one that, Nikon brought it out and it never seemed to be advertised. It has its own integral 24-85mm zoom lens and to be fair is a very good camera. Does everything that I could possibly need and to a high standard. So why the Itch for the D200? It's all down to one lens really, the 1977 20mm f.4. Nikon only made it for a few years, the rumour was that they couldn't make money out of it. Despite the complication of it (10 elements in the lens) it was the smallest lens that they made. One of the blokes who guided me into snapping was the late Roger Perry, a fine photographer and a considerable expert on Nikons. He was a great fan of the 20mm and one day he saw a pic I did of the bar in the World Trade Centre and got quite excited. He wanted to buy the lens off me and said he would throw in his own 20mm lens free. I wouldn't do it and asked him why he wanted it so much. He told me that all lens are not equal, every now and then a single lens from a manufacturing run got the tolerances just right and was what he called a 'master lens'. He said that my 20mm was one of these and out-performed anything he had seen. I always knew it was good and rated it with my Nikkor 85mm, another great lens. My 20mm is Ai and will fit, my 85mm is non Ai but they tell me it may work OK without modification, depends what I want to do. So, the 20mm will live on the D200 and I'm really looking forward to seeing how it will perform with 10mp. By the way, you're right, I love a good wide angle....
I had a wide angle Hassleblad at one point and that was as good as the 20mm but of course wasn't interchangeable. The other 'master lens I had was a Leca 35mm on a Leica body, can't remember the number, the one before they inroduced a light meter. I don't know what it was about Leica lens but with practice you could tell the difference between them and the Nikon. By the way, Roger had a Nikkor 85mm in aluminium fimish that was Leaca fit, not sure if Leica made it or Nikon but that was a favourite lens of his.
One more Nikkor deserves a mention, the 13mm. Probably the most impressive wide angle I ever owned. The object lens was a massive piece of glass! Despite the angle it was rectlinear. God knows how they did it.
What I'm hoping for is that the combination of supreme lens technology with modern digital wizardry will give me my ultimate. Of course I might not get there but at least I tried! I shall do some test shots and report.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Big Kev
|
Posted - 15/09/2011 : 11:20
quote:
Stanley wrote:
Nope Ray, a very new one!
Brad, don't worry old lad, it's something I have been mulling over for years. My ideal was a digital back for an F body and I'll bet at one time they considered that. I already have a Nikon8400, a strange one that, Nikon brought it out and it never seemed to be advertised. It has its own integral 24-85mm zoom lens and to be fair is a very good camera. Does everything that I could possibly need and to a high standard. So why the Itch for the D200? It's all down to one lens really, the 1977 20mm f.4. Nikon only made it for a few years, the rumour was that they couldn't make money out of it. Despite the complication of it (10 elements in the lens) it was the smallest lens that they made. One of the blokes who guided me into snapping was the late Roger Perry, a fine photographer and a considerable expert on Nikons. He was a great fan of the 20mm and one day he saw a pic I did of the bar in the World Trade Centre and got quite excited. He wanted to buy the lens off me and said he would throw in his own 20mm lens free. I wouldn't do it and asked him why he wanted it so much. He told me that all lens are not equal, every now and then a single lens from a manufacturing run got the tolerances just right and was what he called a 'master lens'. He said that my 20mm was one of these and out-performed anything he had seen. I always knew it was good and rated it with my Nikkor 85mm, another great lens. My 20mm is Ai and will fit, my 85mm is non Ai but they tell me it may work OK without modification, depends what I want to do. So, the 20mm will live on the D200 and I'm really looking forward to seeing how it will perform with 10mp. By the way, you're right, I love a good wide angle....
I had a wide angle Hassleblad at one point and that was as good as the 20mm but of course wasn't interchangeable. The other 'master lens I had was a Leca 35mm on a Leica body, can't remember the number, the one before they inroduced a light meter. I don't know what it was about Leica lens but with practice you could tell the difference between them and the Nikon. By the way, Roger had a Nikkor 85mm in aluminium fimish that was Leaca fit, not sure if Leica made it or Nikon but that was a favourite lens of his.
One more Nikkor deserves a mention, the 13mm. Probably the most impressive wide angle I ever owned. The object lens was a massive piece of glass! Despite the angle it was rectlinear. God knows how they did it.
What I'm hoping for is that the combination of supreme lens technology with modern digital wizardry will give me my ultimate. Of course I might not get there but at least I tried! I shall do some test shots and report.
Your 1977 20mm f.4 should give you the equivalent of 28mm on the D200. You will have the versatility of manual focus as well, sometimes a bonus nowadays.
Big Kev
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always end up with the government. |
Big Kev
|
Posted - 15/09/2011 : 11:26
quote:
Tizer wrote:
Your screen might be difficult to see because it is an older camera, not just because it's a small screen by present standards. They've improved a lot in recent years. I used to use a Canon Powershot 620 compact, a wonderful camera but I always had trouble with the screen in bright weather, even though you can increase the brightness. When I got the G11 compact it was a revelation, a much easier screen to see and it has a viewfinder too. Some screens are much better than others for viewing at an angle - some screens need to be viewed almost at right angles to be clear.
It would be interesting to hear Big Kev's views on all this - he has a lot more experience than me and might point out fallacies in what I've been saying!
Having only had 2 digital cameras, a Fuji S7000 and my current Olympus E520, I've not really got anything to compare the screens against. The Olympus' screen is difficult to see in bright sunlight but, usually, cupping my hand around it gives me an idea of what I've got. I always use the viewfinder for compsition (as it's a DSLR), no digital trickery here.
Big Kev
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always end up with the government. |
Sunray10
|
Posted - 15/09/2011 : 19:50
Most digi cameras screens are difficult to see in direct sunlight, mine included. I prefer to take photos on partly cloudy days - and that's not too difficult these days. Otherwise on sunny days, go into the shade a take a pic from there.
R.Spencer. |
Bradders
|
Posted - 16/09/2011 : 00:57
Stanley .... I was told by Leitz that European lens manufacturers always aimed at High contrast and "Edge definition" whereas the Japanese went for Ultimate sharpness ......and apparently it is impossible to achieve both.
That would explain why it is possible to tell (almost feel) the difference between images taken using one or the other.....and you can !
Incidentally there is an adapter to attach 'Blad lenses to Nikon....but the beloved Distagon would only be a "Standard " lens on the 35mm Format , of course....Plenty of scope for "movements" though if you could engineer an "architectual / shift " mount.....
Nikon made some lovely "low volume " lenses ........There was one called a "GN" ..It stood for "Guide Number" and was for use in cunjunction with a flash gun ...You set the Guide Number of the flashgun being used , and it automatically altered the aperture as you focussed at different distances...It was a flat compact "pancake" design and excellent quality.....I'd like to find one again.
.
Edited by - Bradders on 16/09/2011 01:08:36 AM
BRADDERS BLUESINGER |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 16/09/2011 : 07:40
I think Roger had a GN lens. You might like to look out for a book that Roger Edited for the European market, 'Independent Photography. A biased guide to 35mm technique and equipment'. By Robert Footrap. Omnibus Edition published in UK in 1976. Roger gave me a copy and it was my bible. He inscribed it "To Stanley. To aid the fight for light. From Roger". Someone once asked me why I bought expensive cameras, I told him I had enough personal handicaps without introducing handicaps from the equipment!
Camera is promised to be delivered today..... Tension mounts!
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 16/09/2011 : 10:40
I think we did good! D200 body delivered this morning just after 9am in the original packing and with a shutter count of 220. Not a mark on the body or even the packaging. The date on the 2gb memory card is June 2006 and I hate to think why it never got used. Love the feel of it and the weight, feels like a proper Nikon. Everything is as advertised including the spare battery. I have the existing battery on charge and all I have to do now is sit down and read 210 pages of the manual, the number of buttons and controls is quite intimidating! So, bugger the shed and the article for the BET! Far more interesting things to do.....
The dealer is 123photographs and all I can say is that their service can't be faulted. I think I just saved £900! (Does this mean I can now go out and spend £900? After all, I saved it!)
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 16/09/2011 : 15:29
Correction to the above, shutter count is 9,000 but who cares! I've had a lovely time finding out what the buttons do. Most of them don't concern me because they won't work with my lens. Fascinating getting back into old shooting mode using aperture ring, manual focussing and having to think about depth of field. It even sounds like a Nikon F but a bit quieter. I like the weight as well, keeps my old hands steady. I was a bit disappointed at first by lousy color balance but when I did a bit of digging into the shooting menu I found it was set for 'very vivid', it's back on normal n ow and a big improvement. You were right Kev, about 28mm equivalent but the quality is there, I just need to massage it a b it.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Bradders
|
Posted - 16/09/2011 : 16:26
Don't take it to bed with you Stanley .....Jack will be jealous !.....
I had my D100 out and about today ....and you are correct , the weight is very reassuring and helpful .
I have a lens that will work on "program" , but hate using it , so I don't....Manual all the time for me , too ! (second nature)
Well done ......(and Phew !)
Edited by - Bradders on 16/09/2011 4:29:00 PM
BRADDERS BLUESINGER |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 17/09/2011 : 06:58
Brad, I've always said that weight in a camera was an advantage. Simple kinetics, even the mirror flipping up can affect the pic. I didn't take it to bed but I'm going to have to work out where to keep it, too big for the camera drawer! So nice to be forced to address depth of field, focus and aperture again, as soon as we have a bit of decent light I want to do some proper pics outside, the shed snaps will continue to be done on the 8400. Lpts to learn, but enjoying it. Definitely a good buy but being realistic, a 75 year old fart spending £400 just to use one lens and make life difficult for himself takes some fathoming! By the way, it feels just like the old F. Even some of the buttons are in the same place.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Tizer
|
Posted - 17/09/2011 : 11:04
The manuals get bigger year by year - my Canon 600D came with a 380 page manual!
|
Thinking of buying a new camera...
