Canon, Nikon or Sony ?

[Piers]

Film ! What's that It's the stuff I use for all my serious photography !

I'm with you Adrian!

At the risk of alienating everyone on this forum I use a Nikon FM3a which I purchased about 3 years ago for about a grand, and it is utterly fantastic. When coupled with any of my Nikon AIS lenses it produces the finest quality photographs you could ever desire.

Having said that, I am forced to consider a DSLR now, just to be able to share images on line. But do I really want to be lumping two camera outfits around when I'm in the field...?

Regards,

Felix.

[Adrian Hoskins]

Hi Felix

Why are you concerned about carrying 2 systems ? You don't have to. Your Nikon film lenses and accessories will all work with most Nikon DSLR bodies ( check the compatibility charts on Nikon's website ).

I use Minolta Dynax 7 film bodies, which do everything that I want them to, but like everyone else I felt the need to get a digital camera for website photos and e-mail. Unfortunately Minolta had just gone bust at the time, so I had to change brands. I got a Nikon DSLR because it was on special offer and I couldn't resist a bargain. Silly me. Lugging 2 outfits around was impossible, and making the mental switch back and forth between them was a nightmare, because the knobs and dials are in different places and operate in different directions.

Luckily Sony came to the rescue and bought out Minolta, and grabbed their best designers. A few months later they announced the a100 DSRL which accepts all my Minolta-fit lenses and accessories, without any compatibility issues. So all I have to carry are my 3 lenses ( 28mm, 100mm macro and 180mm macro ), plus 2 bodies ( Minolta Dynax 7 and Sony a100 ).

Incidentally most people responding to this forum seem to have missed the point entirely. Namely that cameras are tools , not jewellery , and that instead of playing silly "mine's better than your's" games, we would all get far more satisfaction from our hobby if we concentrated less on equipment, and more on composing nice pictures !

Adrian

[Gruditch]

Adrian, I think your find most of us enjoy a bit of banter about the merits of their favoured make or model, and we like the silly mines better then yours game. It seems a bit rich you telling us off, when you then go on to tell us that your film is far superior to our digital (mines better than yours) . I for one would not be involved in photogrophy if it was not for digital, film is just so impractical and restrictive these days compared to digital, that I would never dream of using it again.

Gruditch

[Rogerdodge]

Nice to see that most of you missed the point, which is that it doesn't matter which camera you get,

Adrienne,

You are wrong.

Most people responding to this forum HAVE NOT missed your point.
You have made the above statement in one form or another in just about every post you have made.

Incidentally most people responding to this forum seem to have missed the point entirely. Namely that cameras are tools , not jewellery

The whole idea of a camera surely is to take PICTURES with it

I feel you are being a bit insulting in suggesting that we are unable to understand what you are saying.
The reason no one has commented on it (except for Pete) is that it is BLEEDIN' OBVIOUS.

No one has been playing "mine's better than yours".
We HAVE been playing "I prefer mine to yours" which is pretty obvious and very different.

No one has 'knocked' Canon or Nikon - some have knocked Sony a bit, but that is justified.
Perhaps that is why you are getting a bit tetchy - you own Sony don't you, and are a bit peeved it isn't in the top 3 - Nikon, Canon, Olympus?, or the top 5 (Sigma, Fuji)

I would suggest you re-read the posts, try to understand that many (including this one?) are posted very tongue in cheek, and then lighten up a bit.

Roger

[Lance]

Lens Envy

[Piers]

Hmmm. Well I hope that I didn't offend anyone with my comment upon the technical merits of film.

Besides, surely the point about photography is enjoyment, irrespective of what kit one has, and the choice of kit should be what suits the individual best. There are plenty of people who wouldn't even be into photography if it wasn't for the advent of digital equipment, so that alone for them would override any debate over the technical ability of either medium.

I guess the other point is that it doesn't matter how good (or expensive) your gear is if you can't take a decent photograph. I have one friend for whom expenditure is little issue; he has an EOS-1D outfit as well as his 'old' F6 gear and yet sadly he can't take a good photograph for love nor money!

There are plenty of amateur photographers out there with fairly modest equipment who take some amazing pictures and clearly have huge technical ability.

And above all they enjoy themselves!

Felix.

[Mike Young]

Didn't offend me Felix.....as I've said a few times before, its the photgrapher that makes the difference in the end.

I don't think I've missed any points at all Adrian, I love my photography, I love wildlife, I love my gadgets and I love my kit. I also like a windup..... and enjoy some banter.....but I wont get into a slagging match, either about kit or the film v Digi issue........its pointless.......Digi is here to stay and will continue to get better and better...... both in terms of image quality and the hardware, irrespective of the brand.

I'm just thankful the age of digi arrived before I got to blinking old to take advantage of it

Oh and lastly, I take photos for me, if others like em thats a bonus, if I can sell a few, thats the icing on the cake, but make no mistake when I'm working on images....I'm serious !

[Dave McCormick]

Well, to me, I just got a camera to take decient enough pics. My Samsung Digimax L85 is a good camera with good manual focus and clear shots, but I wanted more flexability so I upgraded to a D-SLR.

I found it hard getting close to some species and wanted more control when taking pics, and as I saw results with Sigma macro lenses, I wanted one of those. I got a Canon 400D as it was in my price range and it was good enough for what I wanted it for.

Sure, everyone is going to have their dislikes and likes. I would have gone either Nikon or Canon, they are both good makes, but I stayed off the Samsung/Olympus D-SLRs for the amount of lenses they could use was low and they did not work with Sigma and other lenses like that.

I used to use film cameras for years, but the cost getting the film devolped and the blurred shots, and the quality in digital pics being better and easier to work with, I went digital.

My first camera was Vivitar 4345. I wantd to take pics as I was bored and wanted to start getting back to butterflies and moths again, start studying them. I took pics and was pleased with the result. But after a peorid of time I noticed the limitations. Blurred up close, only good as a point and click and no manual focus.

I went to Samsung Digimax L85 as it had features I liked. Using that for a year almost, I know its not a bad camera, just limited in how close you can get to subjects speed and ISO was not so great too.

Basically, once you learn how to use cameras properly, you get to understand what camera will suit you for want. If I had the money, I would not just go out and buy the top Nikon or Canon or whatever just becuase they are the top of the range models.

I have seen pics taken with a Canon and Nikon D-SLRs and the quality and clearness and so on of the pics is not that different, just goes more on what lens you choose to put in front of that camera that counts.

I have seen Samsung GX-10 D-SLR pics too and the quality of them are very good, but its the limited range of lenses that stopped me getting one.

I am not for or against any camera maker or camera make. I have seen a pic of a Red tipped clearwing taken on a film camera in 1989 or around that time, and the quality was as great as you could take today.

Whatever camera you decide, its more to do with the way you take pics and the features and function that camera can provide so you are able to take pics easily. I got a D-SLR to replace my compact Digimax L85, and I found it hard getting into bushes and places to get a shot, whereas with my new camera and Sigma 105mm lens, I can do this easier now.

[Piers]

and the quality in digital pics being better

This will be true if your DSLR is in excess of 20mp. 20mp equates roughly in quality to 100iso film.

Felix.

[Martin]

and the quality in digital pics being better

This will be true if your DSLR is in excess of 20mp. 20mp equates roughly in quality to 100iso film.

Felix.

I think you have taken a part of a sentence and misinterpreted the meaning. I think Dave was saying that digital is either "better to work with", or "better than it used to be". Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Martin.

[Mike Young]

SOME BOLD STATEMENTS FLYING AROUND THESE DAYS

[Piers]

I think you have taken a part of a sentence and misinterpreted the meaning. I think Dave was saying that digital is either "better to work with", or "better than it used to be".

If there's a wrong end of a stick to be grabbed, that will be me doing the grabbing...oops, sorry Dave...

SOME BOLD STATEMENTS FLYING AROUND THESE DAYS

keeps 'em on their toes though eh...!


Felix.

[NickB]

Now that I have got a DSLR it seems de-rigeur to defend the brand I own - it could have been Canon but in the end I got the Nikon D300 and I know it is not full-frame (my fiancee would not have put up with that) and NOT A CANON, which seems to upset the guys out there, but I have to agree with the previous comment that it is a hell of a camera! (I tried-out a D200 before and that was v good too!) In particular even at high ISO settings, noise seems less of a problem than on the D200....
I got a Tamron 90mm Macro and a Sigma 28-300 Macro zoom at the same time - so plenty to get to grips with and I'm still learning, still learning....will need a monpod/tripod tho' as 1.6kg is bit too bulky to hand-hold and get perfect sharpmess
But in the end, it is persistance, perspiration and patience - you have to get out there to do it. And I did get some pin-sharp stuff with my old "Bridge" Panasonic FZ50; that extra 10% to 20% is what made me go for the Nikon. (Why Nikon - my fiancee has used a D70 and a D200 and I loved the build quality, exceeded only by the picture quality, that Nikon seems to deliver).

[Dave McCormick]

All I am saying is that digital to me is easier to work with. You can edit your pics, delete ones that blur and have more control that you did with film. You'd have to take your pics, get them devolped, then scan them onto the computer. Now all you have to do is put your memory card into the computer and take all the pics off you want and start over again.

[Adrian Hoskins]

Hi all

Sorry if my bit of fun offended anyone, that wasn't the intention. I just think photography is more important than equipment and was trying to make a point. As for the notion that Sony is inferior to Nikon or Canon, it's all a matter of opinion. I've tried them all, and I'm with Sony because it's a nice camera, does what I want it to, and accepts all my Minolta lenses ( as already stated ). I've never claimed that Sony is better than Nikon or Canon, but in my opinion it is just as good, when comparing similarly priced equipment, although N and C do have a bigger range of bodies available.

If anyone really wants a debate over the merits of various brands or models, there is just one question that I'd put to you - if you were unfortunate enough to have all your camera bodies, lenses and accessories stolen, and your insurance paid up enough to replace it with the gear of your choice, what body and lenses would you buy ? Luckily mine hasn't been nicked, and I hope it isn't, but if I had the money and could afford ANY brand of camera, I'd probably get a Canon with a full frame sensor, and equip it with a Canon USM macro. Why ? Because Canon have probably got the most accurate metering, and the fastest and most accurate focusing, although Nikon are not far behind, and have better ergonomics ( for me ).

There, you've even managed to drag me into the camera wars !

Adrian

[Rogerdodge]

if you were unfortunate enough to have all your camera bodies, lenses and accessories stolen, and your insurance paid up enough to replace it with the gear of your choice, what body and lenses would you buy ?

This is very easy.

I would go for an Olympus body and a Sigma 150 Macro, an excellent combination.
However, a cropped frame Canon with a Sigma 180 would allow occasional use of the MT24-EX Twin Flash, but then a Nikon body with the new VR Macro lens - that would be great, and they have good twin flash too..
So, it's decided - Olympus with live view and a swivelling screen, or perhaps Canon, especially if they follow Nikon and put IS in a Macro, so it has to be Nikon then 'cause they have a nice wireless twin flash, but then again Canon feel so good in the hand and all those lovely “L” lenses……...
So there we go.................
the solution...................
don't let your gear get nicked - the confusion of choosing a replacement will drive you crazy
Roger

[Mike Young]

He He!
The problem with these forums is, unless you are very elequent with your wording or write reams of text to explain a point, theres always gonna be someone who gets hold of the wrong end of the stick or take offence
Thats why I try to use the emotocons if I'm on a wind up....even then it can go wrong and someone will get the hump

Right at this moment in time if I lost my kit, I would go for my Nikon D300 again.....though I might have a look at Canon just to make sure( that hurt to say )
What I would do, is possibly change my bigma (50-500) for the new 150-500mm Sigma, thats just been announced, cos it'll fit my range of focal lengths better with less overlap, plus its got OS which I seem to need more and more these days

Roger....that wireless twin flash you mention is in fact the basis of a much more extensive system....I currently have four of the small heads, and they can all be set to different outputs and so on.
Will be bringing it along in March

[Rogerdodge]

Roger....that wireless twin flash you mention is in fact the basis of a much more extensive system....I currently have four of the small heads, and they can all be set to different outputs and so on.
Will be bringing it along in March

Yippee (rubs hands together) more toys to play with!

I love toys!!!

See you next month!

Roger

[Gruditch]

If I got all my gear nicked, and could have any kit I wanted as replacement. I would have a Nikon neh just joking, I would have a Canon EOS-1D Mark 3, I would stick with the Sigma 150mm macro as I love it. wouldn't mind a nice little EF 17-55 F2.8 IS and perhaps a EF 500M F4 IS, and while your back there I'll have a 100-400 dust pump, somebody stop me.

Gruditch

I may have something for you to play with as well Roger

[Adrian Hoskins]

Ok then, here's another question for you guys.

Which brand of camera is the most likely to survive an accident ?
Sounds at first like a daft question, but my gear gets lugged around in jungles, rained on, splashed occasionally, used in dusty and sandy situations, subjected to the extremes of heat, cold and humidity, and generally has a hard time.

A few years ago during a blackout in Venezuela, I forgot that my Minolta 7D had been placed on top of a suitcase. I opened the case rapidly in the pitch darkness to look for a torch, and you've guessed it, the camera went flying across the room and crashed down on a concrete floor. Amazingly it survived with nothing worse than an electrical loose connection. Yes. I'd had a few beers at the time.

In my biking days I regularly carried a pair of Nikon F4s in a shock resistant and well padded pannier box, but the high frequency vibrations from my 6 cylinder Honda CBX still managed to get through, causing no end of problems with both bodies.

A few months ago I managed very stupidly to get the strap of my rucksac hooked around the top of the banisters as a was about to go downstairs. Yep, the bag was wrenched off my shoulder and went bouncing down the stairs and landed on the hall floor ! Inside it was my Sony a100, which incredibly suffered no ill effects, and later went with me to Peru, where it got soaked during a torrential downpour in the Amazon. It's still taking perfect photos !

If you think I abuse my gear , you should see what some of my mates manage to do ! One pal for example ( no names, no pack drill Steve ) habitually leaves his camera bag open, with the result that his cameras. lenses and flashguns are forever falling out onto the ground. They roll down hillsides regularly. I've lost count of how many Pentaxes, Minoltas, Sigma / Tamron lenses and flash units have died at his hands.

So, nominations for the most bullet-proof camera please....