OT: ? for the photographers

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Chris, Nov 30, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Chris

    Chris Guest

    I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need recommendations.

    I can't spend more than a hundred US (shouldn't even spend that much...broke college boy, I am) so
    my options for quality cameras are, understandably, rather limited.

    Auto-focus and flash are not necessary...until this month Pops had been using a Canon 1984 "official
    camera of the Olympics" model with no (I'm pretty sure) auto settings.

    He takes 80% of his pictures outdoors, in great weather, of still subjects (hot rods/other cool
    cars) and the rest are indoor family-event pics. Professional he is not, but definitely appreciates
    clarity, "crispness," and "evenness."

    So, any sleeper 35mm SLRs out there, or is any brand name ok at $100?

    Thanks, Chris
     
    Tags:


  2. $100 is not going to get you much of an SLR. Maybe an older used one on eBay, but it won't have a
    lens at that price. You won't even touch a digital at that price. $250 will get you a decent used
    35mm SLR with a normal lens.

    "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need
    recommendations.
    >
    > I can't spend more than a hundred US (shouldn't even spend that
    much...broke
    > college boy, I am) so my options for quality cameras are, understandably, rather limited.
    >
    > Auto-focus and flash are not necessary...until this month Pops had been using a Canon 1984
    > "official camera of the Olympics" model with no (I'm pretty sure) auto settings.
    >
    > He takes 80% of his pictures outdoors, in great weather, of still subjects (hot rods/other cool
    > cars) and the rest are indoor family-event pics. Professional he is not, but definitely
    > appreciates clarity, "crispness,"
    and
    > "evenness."
    >
    > So, any sleeper 35mm SLRs out there, or is any brand name ok at $100?
    >
    > Thanks, Chris
     
  3. "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need
    recommendations.

    The camera body has nothing to do with the quality of the image you get. It's all about the lenses.
    In one motorcycle magazine, I saw a $250 camera body attached to a $4000 lens... the photo would
    have looked the same with a $1500 body, given that the photographer knows his stuff.

    Frankly, your dad's Canon is probably of better quality than anything in production today. As
    Ride-a-Lot said, $100 is simply too low for an SLR.

    rec.photo.equipment.35mm and the associated marketplace can get you some decent used equipment. If
    your dad is computer-literate, you may want to look into getting him a 2.1MP digicam, which is
    getting low these days (under $200).

    --
    Phil, Squid-in-Training
     
  4. On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:12:56 GMT, "Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need
    >recommendations.
    >
    >The camera body has nothing to do with the quality of the image you
    get.

    Absolute bullshit.

    The body has a great deal to do with focusing speed, metering, FPS, etc. when folks are discussing
    film bodies.

    Glass is more important but you cannot discount the effect that a decent body has upon photos, in
    the right hands.
     
  5. Westie

    Westie Guest

    "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:12:56 GMT, "Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]...
    > >> I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need
    > >recommendations.
    > >
    > >The camera body has nothing to do with the quality of the image you
    > get.
    >
    > Absolute bullshit.
    >
    > The body has a great deal to do with focusing speed, metering, FPS, etc. when folks are discussing
    > film bodies.
    >
    > Glass is more important but you cannot discount the effect that a decent body has upon photos, in
    > the right hands.

    In addition to the features and bells and whistles that a decent body has, cheap bodies also seem to
    be more prone to physical and mechanical problems that effect the image. Warping of film plane, film
    feeding problems, even backs not closing properly or popping open or light and scratches on the
    emulsion. There is a limit to how cheap you can be and avoid the problems too. I think that you're
    only likely to find a decent camera for $100 if you look for an older, second-hand manual brand-name
    camera. Possibly without a lens.
    --
    Westie (Replace 'invalid' with 'yahoo' when replying.)
     
  6. "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:12:56 GMT, "Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]...
    > >> I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need
    > >recommendations.
    > >
    > >The camera body has nothing to do with the quality of the image you
    > get.
    >
    > Absolute bullshit.
    >
    > The body has a great deal to do with focusing speed, metering, FPS, etc. when folks are discussing
    > film bodies.
    >
    > Glass is more important but you cannot discount the effect that a decent body has upon photos, in
    > the right hands.

    (Sorry Pete, hit the wrong button before)

    I agree here. Take for example the new Canon Rebel Digital and the Canon
    10D. Both have the same Digix chip and megapixel. Try snapping a photo and see the results. I
    compared them side by side and the rebel is no match for the 10D. The Rebels plastic case is
    just begging to be cracked and the shutter mech is absurd. It's a shame how many will be
    dragged to this disaster of a camera because of it's sub $1000 price tag (including the
    cheap-ass lens they include).

    Bottom line is you have to spend some $$$ for a good camera. If you buy good now, they'll last a
    lifetime. I had an Olympus OM10 for 25 years. I sold it (still working).

    He might be able to find a used Canon S30 or G30 for about $200. I've dropped those puppies and you
    can't kill them.
     
  7. In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] says...
    > I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need recommendations.
    >
    > I can't spend more than a hundred US (shouldn't even spend that much...broke college boy, I am) so
    > my options for quality cameras are, understandably, rather limited.
    >
    > Auto-focus and flash are not necessary...until this month Pops had been using a Canon 1984
    > "official camera of the Olympics" model with no (I'm pretty sure) auto settings.
    >
    > He takes 80% of his pictures outdoors, in great weather, of still subjects (hot rods/other cool
    > cars) and the rest are indoor family-event pics. Professional he is not, but definitely
    > appreciates clarity, "crispness," and "evenness."
    >
    > So, any sleeper 35mm SLRs out there, or is any brand name ok at $100?
    >
    > Thanks, Chris
    >
    >
    >

    Considered a digital camera?
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
     
  8. Greg Walton

    Greg Walton Guest

    Sir Ride-A-Lot wrote:

    > "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]x.com...
    > > On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:12:56 GMT, "Phil, Squid-in-Training" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > >
    > > >"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > >news:[email protected]...
    > > >> I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need
    > > >recommendations.
    > > >
    > > >The camera body has nothing to do with the quality of the image you
    > > get.
    > >
    > > Absolute bullshit.
    > >
    > > The body has a great deal to do with focusing speed, metering, FPS, etc. when folks are
    > > discussing film bodies.
    > >
    > > Glass is more important but you cannot discount the effect that a decent body has upon photos,
    > > in the right hands.
    >
    > (Sorry Pete, hit the wrong button before)
    >
    > I agree here. Take for example the new Canon Rebel Digital and the Canon
    > 10D. Both have the same Digix chip and megapixel. Try snapping a photo and see the results. I
    > compared them side by side and the rebel is no match for the 10D. The Rebels plastic case is
    > just begging to be cracked and the shutter mech is absurd. It's a shame how many will be
    > dragged to this disaster of a camera because of it's sub $1000 price tag (including the
    > cheap-ass lens they include).
    >
    > Bottom line is you have to spend some $$$ for a good camera. If you buy good now, they'll last a
    > lifetime. I had an Olympus OM10 for 25 years. I sold it (still working).

    I agree with the longevity of a good film camera. Though I am dubious about laying down big bucks on
    digital camera yet. I think we are still in that early phase of a products lifecycle where there are
    many improvements and/or price reductions to come in the next few years.

    > He might be able to find a used Canon S30 or G30 for about $200. I've dropped those puppies and
    > you can't kill them.

    I can recommend the Pentax K1000 and Pentax P90. The 2nd hand '70s K1000 got me through high school
    photography in 1982 to 1992, when I added a new P90 to the kit. I've been comparing lower end
    digitals for the last year, they just keeping getting cheaper....

    Cheers Greg

    I'm really greg dot walton at swissonline dot ch
     
  9. Rocketman

    Rocketman Guest

    "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need
    recommendations.
    >
    > I can't spend more than a hundred US (shouldn't even spend that
    much...broke
    > college boy, I am) so my options for quality cameras are, understandably, rather limited.

    Yes, limited to good, older used SLR cameras.

    > Auto-focus and flash are not necessary...until this month Pops had been using a Canon 1984
    > "official camera of the Olympics" model with no (I'm pretty sure) auto settings.

    Why did he stop using it? Did the camera finally break? Maybe it needs a cleaning/lubing.

    > He takes 80% of his pictures outdoors, in great weather, of still subjects (hot rods/other cool
    > cars) and the rest are indoor family-event pics. Professional he is not, but definitely
    > appreciates clarity, "crispness,"
    and
    > "evenness."

    He will want a good lens; but he probably doesn't need to worry about getting the super high-end
    lenses. Any brand name lens will be fine. (Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax)

    > So, any sleeper 35mm SLRs out there, or is any brand name ok at $100?

    $100 will buy you a solid used SLR from a big name in excellent condition. My wonderful
    mint-condition Canon EOS 750QD, for instance, could be purchased on Ebay with a perfect 35-80mm
    Canon zoom lens for well under $100. It's the fastest autofocus camera I've ever seen, and very hard
    to fool. Exposures are perfect in every lighting situation (I've torture-tested
    it. Never had a single bad exposure.) It focuses almost instantly, and doesn't "focus hunt" like
    Nikons (which eat batteries). The built-in pop-up flash is great for fill-flash in backlit
    scenes, or when you don't want to carry around an external bounce flash. The EOS 750 is also a
    very well-built, pro-level camera; and is quite heavy (read: lots of metal parts inside). I also
    like the shape of the hand grip better than most other cameras I've tried. My size L paws curve
    around the handgrip perfectly, in shooting position.

    Most SLR geeks want both manual and automatic features. The Canon EOS 750 is almost completely
    automatic, making it less attractive, so it brings a lower price. There are a lot of great used SLR
    cameras out there selling for under $100, for similar reasons. I'm sorry that I don't have a strong
    grasp of exactly which models are the "sleeper" bargain cameras. SLR's are a personal thing.
    Everybody has their favorite features.

    It's a tough call, Chris. If your dad's beloved camera is broken, maybe you should spend the $100
    having it repaired (assuming it's not just worn out). Barring that, see if you can find an EOS 750
    for $90 or so with the zoom lens. I'm sure your dad will be impressed with how easy it is to use,
    and the perfectly exposed, clear, sharply focused photos that it takes in virtually any lighting
    conditions. The darned thing makes better decisions than I do, and I've learned to trust its
    judgement.

    Rocketman
     
  10. Chris

    Chris Guest

    "Rocketman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:p[email protected]_s02...
    > "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > I'd like to get my father a new SLR for Christmas, and need
    > recommendations.
    > >
    > > I can't spend more than a hundred US (shouldn't even spend that
    > much...broke
    > > college boy, I am) so my options for quality cameras are,
    understandably,
    > > rather limited.
    >
    > Yes, limited to good, older used SLR cameras.
    >
    > > Auto-focus and flash are not necessary...until this month Pops had been using a Canon 1984
    > > "official camera of the Olympics" model with no (I'm pretty sure) auto settings.
    >
    > Why did he stop using it? Did the camera finally break? Maybe it needs a cleaning/lubing.
    >
    > > He takes 80% of his pictures outdoors, in great weather, of still
    subjects
    > > (hot rods/other cool cars) and the rest are indoor family-event pics. Professional he is not,
    > > but definitely appreciates clarity, "crispness,"
    > and
    > > "evenness."
    >
    > He will want a good lens; but he probably doesn't need to worry about getting the super high-end
    > lenses. Any brand name lens will be fine.
    (Nikon,
    > Canon, Minolta, Pentax)
    >
    > > So, any sleeper 35mm SLRs out there, or is any brand name ok at $100?
    >
    > $100 will buy you a solid used SLR from a big name in excellent condition. My wonderful
    > mint-condition Canon EOS 750QD, for instance, could be purchased on Ebay with a perfect 35-80mm
    > Canon zoom lens for well under $100. It's the fastest autofocus camera I've ever seen, and very
    > hard to fool. Exposures are perfect in every lighting situation (I've
    torture-tested
    > it. Never had a single bad exposure.) It focuses almost instantly, and doesn't "focus hunt" like
    > Nikons (which eat batteries). The built-in
    pop-up
    > flash is great for fill-flash in backlit scenes, or when you don't want to carry around an
    > external bounce flash. The EOS 750 is also a very well-built, pro-level camera; and is quite heavy
    > (read: lots of metal
    parts
    > inside). I also like the shape of the hand grip better than most other cameras I've tried. My size
    > L paws curve around the handgrip perfectly,
    in
    > shooting position.
    >
    > Most SLR geeks want both manual and automatic features. The Canon EOS 750
    is
    > almost completely automatic, making it less attractive, so it brings a
    lower
    > price. There are a lot of great used SLR cameras out there selling for
    under
    > $100, for similar reasons. I'm sorry that I don't have a strong grasp of exactly which models are
    > the "sleeper" bargain cameras. SLR's are a personal thing. Everybody has their favorite features.
    >
    > It's a tough call, Chris. If your dad's beloved camera is broken, maybe
    you
    > should spend the $100 having it repaired (assuming it's not just worn
    out).
    > Barring that, see if you can find an EOS 750 for $90 or so with the zoom lens. I'm sure your dad
    > will be impressed with how easy it is to use, and the perfectly exposed, clear, sharply focused
    > photos that it takes in virtually any lighting conditions. The darned thing makes better
    decisions
    > than I do, and I've learned to trust its judgement.
    >
    > Rocketman
    >
    >

    Thanks for a real good recommendation. He stopped with his Canon because it broke (I believe he was
    trying to take a picture of his car...while driving
    it. He's a hot rodder, you see...)

    Digital isn't an option as he doesn't own a computer (they can't build a '32 roadster yet, so he has
    little use for them).

    I knew going in $100 was nearly laughable for SLR, but you gave me better advice than I expected.
    Again, thanks.

    Chris
     
  11. On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:27:51 +0100, Greg Walton <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Bottom line is you have to spend some $$$ for a good camera. If
    you buy
    >> good now, they'll last a lifetime. I had an Olympus OM10 for 25
    years. I
    >> sold it (still working).
    >
    >I agree with the longevity of a good film camera. Though I am dubious
    about
    >laying down big bucks on digital camera yet. I think we are still in
    that early
    >phase of a products lifecycle where there are many improvements
    and/or price
    >reductions to come in the next few years.

    Hmmm...DSLRs have been around for quite a while. Like any tech the price continues to come down but
    they are a proven technology.

    >I can recommend the Pentax K1000 and Pentax P90. The 2nd hand '70s
    K1000 got me
    >through high school photography in 1982 to 1992, when I added a new
    P90 to the
    >kit.

    Wow. That's a LONG time to be in high school. Didin't the prom thing get old after a few years?
     
  12. Mattb

    Mattb Guest

    "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]... <snip>
    >
    > Thanks for a real good recommendation. He stopped with his Canon because
    it
    > broke (I believe he was trying to take a picture of his car...while
    driving
    > it. He's a hot rodder, you see...)
    >
    > Digital isn't an option as he doesn't own a computer (they can't build a
    '32
    > roadster yet, so he has little use for them).
    >
    > I knew going in $100 was nearly laughable for SLR, but you gave me better advice than I expected.
    > Again, thanks.
    >
    > Chris
    >
    >

    My old Pentax (I don't have the model number handy) SLR from the 70's was dropped from a car doing
    the same thing in about 1980. It had to be repaired and I don't know what the cost was, but since
    then I have taken many, many photos with it and carried it around Europe, Australia, Mexico and
    lots of places in the USA. Never had another problem with it that couldn't be attributed to user
    error. If you can't or don't want to fix the existing camera, maybe you could get an old Pentax in
    your range.

    Matt
     
  13. > Absolute bullshit.

    I was referring strictly to the quality of the image, not so much the bells and whistles. Granted,
    they're important, but often not critical.

    The vast majority of SLR owners don't use their SLRs because they're too big. And when they do,
    they're usually set on the auto or pre-programmed modes. People who know how to use their
    cameras don't need the fancy stuff. Judging by the photos you have taken, it seems that you
    should know this.

    I find it hard to consider my statement absolute bullshit, but I see your points.

    --
    Phil, Squid-in-Training
     
  14. On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:41:02 GMT, "Phil, Squid-in-Training"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Absolute bullshit.
    >
    >I was referring strictly to the quality of the image, not so much the
    bells
    >and whistles. Granted, they're important, but often not critical.

    The body can have a great impact upon the quality of the image. To claim that they don't is silly.

    >The vast majority of SLR owners don't use their SLRs because they're
    too
    >big. And when they do, they're usually set on the auto or
    pre-programmed
    >modes. People who know how to use their cameras don't need the fancy
    stuff.

    The photographer is indeed the most important part of the equation.

    To claim that a photographer doesn't need the "fancy stuff" is silly. Try telling that to the pros
    that are shooting basketball games for example.

    Better equipment yields higher percentage of good captures, allows more flexibilty in low light
    situations, faster focusing, better metering, better white balance, greater resolution for
    enlargements and the list goes on.

    >Judging by the photos you have taken, it seems that you should know
    this.

    I know that your claims are inaccurate.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...