OT - Konica Minolta to stop making cameras



Surfer! wrote:

> IMHO the price of DLSR is still dropping - yes, sales will increase
> over the next 2 years, but there are still a few drawbacks compared
> to film.

It's very tempting to imagine that these are worse than they actually are,
if you are trying to resist the change.

> One is that if you get dust on the sensor it's a problem -
> the sensor is very delicate and easily damaged.

Only if you touch it. You're not supposed to touch it. So don't touch it.
Simple.

> Film, OTOH, gives
> you a brand new 'sensor' with each frame.

And a variable one too, depending on the film you choose. You can end up
with a wide variety of different colour balances and contrasts. One really
good thing about digital is that you get consistent colour quality
characteristics, particularly if you leave the white balance set to daylight
for outdoor work (I really don't advise using auto).

> Also DSLR has all the
> disadvantages of any digital camera on a long trip in out-of-the-way
> places like the Nepal treks - those of needing to be able to recharge
> batteries, and of having to buy lots of extra memory cards you will
> rarely need.

As Chris said, battery power is amazing. I heard of one guy who went to
Nepal for three weeks who took seven batteries, but only used three of them!

> I've also come across the idea that they don't behave
> as well in extremes of temperature as film cameras do.

I've had no problems when taking very long exposures on a snow covered
mountain at night, or in the midday heat of summer. In fact, my digital
cameras have performed better in the cold than one of my SLRs did.

I have had a few card write errors in very wet weather though. Compare that
to an SLR with an electronic shutter which would conk out completely. I've
often had the electronics conk out in wet weather with my film cameras, but
most of them have manual shutters so I could still keep taking photos.

> Also, I feel that at present the extra discipline
> of film will help me to become more thoughtful about what I take.

It's not the film that makes you more disciplined, it's your stinginess!
;-)

No, what I mean is that since every frame of film costs you money, you
naturally don't want to take more than you have to, because that can get
very expensive. The beauty of digital is that since each shot costs
nothing, you are freed from that limitation. You no longer associate
throwing money down the drain each time you take a duff shot. What this
means is that you can experiment more, just go out into the garden and take
loads of test exposures. You can hone your photographic skills a lot faster
through experimentation, which can benefit you when you encounter that once
in a lifetime shot.

Experimentation is particularly useful in tricky conditions, like night
shots. With film you have to write down everything you do, then when you
get the shots back a few days or weeks later, you have to compare the photos
with the data to figure out what you did right or wrong. With digital, you
get instant feedback, so if you screwed it up you can change your settings
and take another one one the spot. Digital has transformed my night/low
light photography, whereas in the past with film, it was always a bit of a
lottery (one that I didn't often win).

Paul
 
The Reid wrote:

> I'm always changing lenses, often in poor conditions. I've read
> cleaning yourself can be a risk, is that true or is it only a
> problem if you act idiotically?

It's really easy. It's only a risk in the sense that using any electronic
device is a risk, you know how paranoid manufacturers have become with their
warnings these days - WARNING! IF YOU USE THIRD PARTY BATTERIES IN THIS
CAMERA THEY MAY EXPLODE AND CAUSE BLINDNESS! - yes, theoretically they may,
but then theoretically anything might happen, I could get run over by a bus
crossing the road or an aeroplane may crash on my house. Most of these
warnings are just covering themselves.

To clean the lens you simply press the button to move the mirror out of the
way, then blow some air onto the sensor with a blower brush (without the
brush bit). It can be tricky to remove every bit of dust, I try to do it
upside down so that moving dust falls down and out of the camera rather than
just being moved around inside it. Take a photo of a white sheet of paper
afterwards to check if there are any marks (use a wide angle lens with a
small aperture, focused close).

The only real "risk" is if the battery runs out while you're doing it, since
battery power is being used to hold the mirror open, which is why they
recommend only doing it with a fully charged battery. I'm not sure what
would happen if the battery did run out, maybe the mirror would snap closed
and that might cause your blower to hit the sensor?

Paul
 
Alan Bremner wrote:

> I'll change lenses on the hill if I feel the need
> and so far (touch wood!) any accumulation of dust has been minor

I agree, I haven't found dust to be a problem. A friend of mine regularly
changes lenses indoors and in a car and the dust on his Nikon sensor is
horrific. I've offered to clean it for him but he's totally paranoid and
insists that it must be sent away to a specialist to have it cleaned.

Anyway, I try to avoid changing lenses in a dusty environment (i.e. indoors)
and when I do change lenses I point the camera down so that nothing falls
into it. I get the new lens ready in advance and attach it quickly after
removing the old lens, also attaching lens caps as quickly as possible too,
to minimise the amount of time that dust could get in.

In the outdoors I'll stand with my back to the wind when changing lenses,
and I'm particularly paranoid about changing lenses on a beach, especially
if it's windy. A grain of sand once got into my film camera and ruined the
entire roll of film with a single long scratch across every frame (although
I could easily remove that digitally now). I prefer not to change lenses at
all if I'm near sand.

Paul
 
Following up to Paul Saunders

>To clean the lens you simply press the button to move the mirror out of the
>way, then blow some air onto the sensor with a blower brush (without the
>brush bit). It can be tricky to remove every bit of dust, I try to do it
>upside down so that moving dust falls down and out of the camera rather than
>just being moved around inside it. Take a photo of a white sheet of paper
>afterwards to check if there are any marks (use a wide angle lens with a
>small aperture, focused close).
>
>The only real "risk" is if the battery runs out while you're doing it, since
>battery power is being used to hold the mirror open, which is why they
>recommend only doing it with a fully charged battery. I'm not sure what
>would happen if the battery did run out, maybe the mirror would snap closed
>and that might cause your blower to hit the sensor?

thanks Paul.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to Paul Saunders

>In the outdoors I'll stand with my back to the wind when changing lenses,

not the only time its good advice!
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
In message <[email protected]>, The Reid
<[email protected]> writes
>Following up to Chris Townsend
>
>>This is only likely if you change lenses regularly. Cleaning sensors
>>isn't difficult.
>
>I'm always changing lenses, often in poor conditions. I've read
>cleaning yourself can be a risk, is that true or is it only a
>problem if you act idiotically?

It does require care and I wouldn't want to do it in a storm on a
hillside. I wouldn't want to do it very often either. But there's
probably no more risk than there is damaging the shutter blades when
cleaning a film camera. I've had more dirt and scratch marks on films
than I've had dust marks on digital images.

If dust marks do show up on an image they can be quickly removed on the
computer. Much easier than scanning slides and removing scratch or other
marks.
 
In message <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders
<[email protected]> writes
>Surfer! wrote:
>
>> Also DSLR has all the
>> disadvantages of any digital camera on a long trip in out-of-the-way
>> places like the Nepal treks - those of needing to be able to recharge
>> batteries, and of having to buy lots of extra memory cards you will
>> rarely need.
>
>As Chris said, battery power is amazing. I heard of one guy who went to
>Nepal for three weeks who took seven batteries, but only used three of them!

Which is exactly what I did. And the third battery had plenty of power
left after three weeks.

You do need to charge the batteries immediately before the trip. Lithium
batteries slowly lose their charge when stored so a battery that hasn't
been used for a month or so won't have a full charge.
 
Alan Bremner wrote:

> As Chris T. said, digital doesn't automatically require less
> discipline. I'm just as thrifty with frames expended on digital as I
> was with 35mm, especially as a glance at the image histogram after
> taking usually tells me exactly how much EC is required for the
> 'perfect' exposure. With 35mm I'd be more likely to take several
> bracketed shots to be sure.

That is a good point, but there are actually plenty of good reasons for
taking more shots with digital.

1. Bracketing. Not for the same reasons as with film, but in order to do
layer masking later. Particularly useful when you have a bright sky and a
dark foreground. One exposure for each, blend them with layer masking
later. Similar to using a graduated filter but with much finer control
possible, especially with an irregular horizon. You can also do clever
stuff like using a different white balance on the land and sky before you
flatten the layers.

2. Different exposure settings. Similar to the point above, but in this
case you can use different apertures, shutter speeds and so on, to create
different effects then blend them later. For example, I recently blended a
waterfall shot using a 1 second exposure at ISO 100 for high quality with
lots of depth of field, with a fast shutter speed shot at ISO 1600 to freeze
the water, blending the frozen water with the high quality background. No
single exposure could have achieved the same effect.

3. Movement. When photographing moving objects it can be tricky to pick
just the right moment. This is not usually a problem with landscapes but it
can be in some situations, like with crashing waves or clouds moving quickly
across the sky casting changing shadows over the land. Digital is ideal for
taking lots of shots, then choosing the best later. If you want, you can
pick the best one on the spot and immediately delete the others, but I'd
advise against doing this. In my experience, I often end up choosing a
different shot to the one I thought was the best at the time. Unless you
are short on memory, keep them all.

4. Best composition. I know there are those (usually LF and MF
photographers) who argue in favour of taking the time to find the best
composition, then taking only one shot, but is there really a single best
composition of any scene? I'd argue that there isn't. Composition is by
definition an arbitrary decision, and different photographers will often
choose to compose the same scene differently. Which one is correct?
Neither. Which one is best? That's a matter of personal opinion. So why
shouldn't you take more than one composition? I've often taken more than
one of a scene and later found it very difficult to choose the "best",
because each of them were better in different ways. At least with multiple
compositions I have a choice, and I may choose either one over another
depending on what I need to use the shot for.

Probably the best argument for only taking one composition is if you are
time limited, where taking more than one may cause you to rush and make
mistakes (one good picture is better than two bad ones), or may waste time
that could be spent walking to another location. If time isn't a problem
though, there's no reason why you can't take two or more different
compositions of good quality, if you are careful about every shot.

I remember one sunset last year where I found a good foreground area and I
was determined to find the "best" composition. I wasn't going anywhere else
and the sun was taking it's time setting, so I had plenty of time to find
experiment and find the best one. I found what I thought was the best, plus
another couple. When the sunset reached the optimum point I took them all
again, even though I thought I knew one which was the best.

Guess what? On the computer later, I ended up choosing a different one as
my preferred composition. For some inexplicable reason, what I thought was
the best composition "in the field" just didn't look so good on the computer
screen. I'm not sure why this is exactly, but it's happened to me many
times over the years. I think it's something to do with perceiving images
differently when you view them in isolation, rather than when you have the
actual view right in front of you.

5. Just in case. I once took two shots of something, the first was
underexposed so I took another. I should have deleted the first one on the
spot but as I had plenty of memory I couldn't be bothered. Later when I
examined them closely on the computer I discovered that the second shot was
ruined by slight camera shake. I hadn't noticed that at the time. I was
able to brighten the under-exposed shot instead and it turned out to be
perfectly useable.

If you find yourself in a situation where the shutter speed or aperture may
cause problems (camera shake or shallow depth of field), then you can take
more than one exposure at different settings, just in case. You could take
one at the "ideal" setting, then one or two more "just in case" shots,
perhaps using a higher ISO to get a faster shutter speed or smaller
aperture, compromising low noise to ensure sharpness or plenty of DOF. If
the "ideal" shot doesn't turn out to be as good as you expect, one of the
other shots may be a better alternative. (Sometimes you can't be sure of
the sharpness and DOF until you study the pics on the computer later.)

6. Panoramas. Easier to do digitally than with film IMO, and significantly
cheaper. I rarely ever did panoramas with my film camera because of the
sheer cost. I once used an entire roll of film to produce just two 360
degree panoramas. That kind of photography can reduce your bank balance
very quickly. Once digital liberates you from the guilty feeling that every
shot costs money, you can have great fun shooting panoramas. If you've
bought a lot of memory cards for long trips, this is a good way of making
full use of them on short trips.

7. Because you can. This is a bad reason for taking lots of shots, but
it's very easy to do. This is where you need to apply discipline. Just
remember that every shot you take will have to be stored on your hard drive
and archived onto CD/DVD, unless you're the kind of person who can
ruthlessly cull their photographs after downloading to the computer.
Personally I can't bring myself to do that, because of my "just in case"
mentality (you never know when one of those shots may become useful in the
future).

Even though the shots themselves don't cost money, storing them on hard disk
and CD/DVD does. As megapixel counts get bigger and bigger, this can become
a serious issue - some cameras, even compact digitals like the Panasonic
LX1, can produce 20 meg RAW files!

Even with hard disk and DVD prices coming down, the sheer quantity of images
taken can become a problem in itself. If you don't have a good filing
method, your photo collection could turn into an unmanageable nightmare. I
have a good filing system, but where I get problems is simply choosing which
photos to use/print. If I take 10 different shots of the same subject, with
a mixture of different compositions and exposure settings, it can sometimes
be really difficult to choose the best one, whereas if I'd made those
decisions in the field and only taken one shot, the choice would be simple!
(Assuming I didn't screw up the one and only shot - I prefer to take more
than one shot of really important things, just in case.)

Paul
 
Chris Townsend wrote:

>> I heard of one guy...

> Which is exactly what I did.

Maybe it was you that I heard about then!

Paul
 
Chris Townsend wrote:

> Batteries last a surprisingly long time

This is more true with DSLRs (IME) than with digital cameras that
have an over-reliance on the battery, for example with a digital
viewfinder. I can use my 10D perfectly well switched off to frame
an shot. I need then only switch it on to actually take the shot
itself while preferring also manual focus over auto and limiting the
amount of time the shot is on preview after its taken preserves the
battery further. My camera can go a whole week on a single charge.

Chris
 
In message <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders
<[email protected]> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>>> I heard of one guy...
>
>> Which is exactly what I did.
>
>Maybe it was you that I heard about then!
>
Could be. I did write it up somewhere.

That was with a Canon 300D. The 350D seems even better even though the
battery is smaller.
 
Chris Gilbert wrote:
> Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>> Batteries last a surprisingly long time
>
> This is more true with DSLRs (IME) than with digital cameras

Quite.

> that
> have an over-reliance on the battery, for example with a digital
> viewfinder.

And the battery operated zoom.

> and limiting the
> amount of time the shot is on preview after its taken preserves the
> battery further.

Yes, I quickly glance at the screen to check the exposure then half press
the shutter to quickly turn it off. I don't have it set to turn off
quickly, I have it set to display permanently, because sometimes I want to
study it for longer, but I'm in the habit of half pressing the shutter to
switch it off so it's rarely on for long.

Another tip is to turn the viewfinder brightness down to minimum and disable
those stupid beeps.

Paul
 
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:49:32 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Alan Bremner wrote:

>> [...] so far (touch wood!) any accumulation of dust has been minor

>I agree, I haven't found dust to be a problem.

Some people border on the obsessive about the merest hint of dust on
their sensor and are very vocal about it. Yes dust will get into a
DSLR but in the eight months I've had mine I've only found it when
looking for it with test shots of a lightbox at min. aperture. It's
never shown up in actual photographs, even against a blank sky. I blow
the mirror box out more or less weekly but the sensor has been cleaned
a total of twice, both times with the blower. IMHO the dust issue is
greatly exaggerated.

>Anyway, I try to avoid changing lenses in a dusty environment (i.e. indoors)
>and when I do change lenses I point the camera down so that nothing falls
>into it.

Like you I use common sense, but if I need to switch lens to capture a
particular scene I do. I want to take photographs, not retain the
resale value of my kit! <g>

Al
--
[This space left intentionally blank]
 
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:41:29 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm not sure what would happen if the battery did run out, maybe the mirror
>would snap closed and that might cause your blower to hit the sensor?

Not only that, but the shutter will also close. That's why Canon (for
one) warn not to insert a blower beyond the shutter aperture; if it
closes unexpectedly and strikes the blower nozzle then you could be
looking for a new shutter.

Al
--
[This space left intentionally blank]
 
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:54:10 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> there are actually plenty of good reasons for taking more shots with digital.

[mucho snippage]

All excellent points Paul, especially with respect to combining
multiple images. What's the point in carrying 1GB cards if you don't
make use of them? <g>

Al
--
[This space left intentionally blank]
 
Alan Bremner wrote:

> Some people border on the obsessive about the merest hint of dust on
> their sensor and are very vocal about it. Yes dust will get into a
> DSLR but in the eight months I've had mine I've only found it when
> looking for it with test shots of a lightbox at min. aperture. It's
> never shown up in actual photographs, even against a blank sky.

I've noticed it a handful of times, typically with my ultra-wide-angle lens
(due to it's great depth of field) against the sky. Usually just a greyish
smudge, but if I stop it down it can be quite obvious. Still just the odd
speck though.

> IMHO the dust issue is greatly exaggerated.

Yeah. You should see the state of my friend's Nikon though, it's absolutely
horrific, worse than any slide I've ever scanned, even 20 year old ones.
Must be a nightmare to clean up the pics afterwards. All because he's too
paranoid to risk cleaning it (that's the downside of taking these warnings
way too seriously).

Is it possible that some types of cameras or sensors attract dust more than
others?

> Like you I use common sense, but if I need to switch lens to capture a
> particular scene I do. I want to take photographs, not retain the
> resale value of my kit! <g>

Indeed. I've read some insanely obsessive advice about sensor cleaning, for
example spraying the air with water in advance to remove dust particles from
the air, amongst other things. Some people are way too fussy.

Paul
 
Alan Bremner wrote:

> What's the point in carrying 1GB cards if you don't
> make use of them? <g>

1 gig? That's barely enough for a decent day's shooting! I've shot 1.5 gig
in a day (that's a really good day). Did that once on the first full day of
a camping trip and had to cut it short due to lack of memory, I've only got
1.75 gig at the moment. I really need to buy an extra 2 gig card to last
longer than three days.

Paul
 
Following up to Paul Saunders

>1 gig? That's barely enough for a decent day's shooting! I've shot 1.5 gig
>in a day (that's a really good day). Did that once on the first full day of
>a camping trip and had to cut it short due to lack of memory, I've only got
>1.75 gig at the moment. I really need to buy an extra 2 gig card to last
>longer than three days.

blimey, I came back from a week in Wasdale with about 40
exposures! Not that I can process the film ones as the new Nikon
scanner makes 100 MByte files and my 128 of memory isn't enough.
Anyone know how to guess which type of SDRAM I have or if I'm
buying new 2 x 256 memory units, will it not matter as long as
the pins are right for the slots? (there seems to be buffered and
unbuffered) BTW can I put a third 256 in the third slot or do I
remember you have to go up in x2s 56, 128, 256, 512 etc?
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
In message <[email protected]>, The Reid
<[email protected]> writes
>Following up to Paul Saunders
>
>>1 gig? That's barely enough for a decent day's shooting! I've shot 1.5 gig
>>in a day (that's a really good day). Did that once on the first full day of
>>a camping trip and had to cut it short due to lack of memory, I've only got
>>1.75 gig at the moment. I really need to buy an extra 2 gig card to last
>>longer than three days.
>
>blimey, I came back from a week in Wasdale with about 40
>exposures! Not that I can process the film ones as the new Nikon
>scanner makes 100 MByte files and my 128 of memory isn't enough.

I can't think what version of Windows you are running to manage on
128MB... 512MB is really the starting point for XP, IMHO.

>Anyone know how to guess which type of SDRAM I have or if I'm
>buying new 2 x 256 memory units, will it not matter as long as
>the pins are right for the slots? (there seems to be buffered and
>unbuffered) BTW can I put a third 256 in the third slot or do I
>remember you have to go up in x2s 56, 128, 256, 512 etc?

If this is a desktop PC, you can check what make & model your
motherboard is (look at it - it will be printed on it somewhere) you can
get all the information from the makers web site, unless it's some
'brand X' motherboard.

If it's a laptop check the manual, again from the maker's web site.

My guess is you have 2 x 64MB sticks, which suggests it's a *very* old
PC and my personal feeling is that it's time for an upgrade...

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net
 
Following up to Surfer!

>>blimey, I came back from a week in Wasdale with about 40
>>exposures! Not that I can process the film ones as the new Nikon
>>scanner makes 100 MByte files and my 128 of memory isn't enough.
>
>I can't think what version of Windows you are running to manage on
>128MB... 512MB is really the starting point for XP, IMHO.

that's one reason I'm running 98, I'm not in the business of
funding Bill Gates for the sake of it, I upgrade things when
absolutely necessary.

>>Anyone know how to guess which type of SDRAM I have or if I'm
>>buying new 2 x 256 memory units, will it not matter as long as
>>the pins are right for the slots? (there seems to be buffered and
>>unbuffered) BTW can I put a third 256 in the third slot or do I
>>remember you have to go up in x2s 56, 128, 256, 512 etc?
>
>If this is a desktop PC, you can check what make & model your
>motherboard is (look at it - it will be printed on it somewhere) you can
>get all the information from the makers web site, unless it's some
>'brand X' motherboard.

I got the brand from the BIOS but no model, I'm going to open it
up today to see if I can find more info. as to model. One of the
memory sellers will predict what memory to use if you know the
model, which I don't so far of course.

>If it's a laptop check the manual, again from the maker's web site.

a manual would be a nice thing!

>My guess is you have 2 x 64MB sticks, which suggests it's a *very* old

1 x 128, it is old, why is that a problem?
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back