heady 0 Report post Posted March 2, 2005 I love the bulky Nikons. I used to use a FM2 which when mated with the motordrive was a joy to use. It was so heavy, it stabilised itself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rameish 0 Report post Posted March 2, 2005 Yeah when you bring along one lens that's fine but when you have to lug 3 bodies and 10 lenses it becomes a nightmare. Esp with Gitzo tripods, lights etc. Of course it's still lighter than a hassle-bled (pun intended). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tropicalrips 0 Report post Posted March 2, 2005 Rips - stay away from the FM-10 - made by cosina. GO for either an FM or FM2 (if you are looking for a completely manual/mechanical camera in the Nikon stable). If you buy an FM-2 becareful as there were 2 models made, The earlier one had a 1/200 flash sync speed while the later model has 1/250 flash sync speed. FE2 is also pretty good but is an electronic camera. ok, thanks Rameish but the price of the FM-10 is very tempting ($350) will look for other mechanical cameras, but it seems there's not many around any more Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firefox 0 Report post Posted March 2, 2005 I feel digital cams are less forgiving than slides which are already less forgiving than colour negatives. I grew up with slide films and it took me a while to get used to digicams (I am selling my DSLR in the classifeds - shameless plug, not getting enough use out of it to keep it). Tropical - I have a FE2 body in good condition, if you are interested. Hard times, luxuries must go. Do let me know how much you're thinking of for the FE-2. I've a campmate with a FM-10. Can ask him if he's interested.. I'm sure he's a good photographer.. Guy's trained in Film, sound & video.. And definitely a super arty farty guy... LOL.. His framing during videos is fantastic.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rameish 0 Report post Posted March 2, 2005 but the price of the FM-10 is very tempting ($350) The FM-10 and the Olympus OM-2000 (basiclly the same camera - different mount) has several problems - shutter bounce being one and plastic gears being another. The lens that came with the FM-10 are also very cheap "Nikons" (probably not made by Nikon) They have the brand name Nikon not Nikkor (the more ex versions) I believe they are not even E-Series Nikon. All plastic lens btw so over time the element will turn yellowish (not a major problem with. S$350 for a Cosina is pricy. If you really wish to get a Nikon FM-10 I ask my friend, I know he doesnt use the cam at all (maybe shot 10 rolls max). He bought it with the FM-10 kit lenses. I'll ask him tomorrow. Hell maybe he's willing to let go the whole thing for S$400!! thats 2 zoom lenses plus the cam body. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dundee 0 Report post Posted March 8, 2005 the price of the E-1 now is very close to the 20D whcih is why i'm considering the later as well, the 20D is probably the closest u can get to a true "pro" DSLR camera like the 1Ds without the big bucks wink.gif but the E-1 has a metal body and its weather proof, together with USB 2.0 + fire-wire connection (not to mention ultra-sonic CCD cleaner) which can only be found on the high end DSLR camera of the other brands the E-1 should not be worse then the E300 1) Why do you want it wheather-proof? 2) Why do u want firewire/usb2? 3) Why do you want the CCD cleaner? I own the EOS-3, 1D and 300D. Have used the 20D, 10D, E-300, E-1, D70 and quite afew others before. Some quick tips.... --->The number of MP is not important. 4MP-8Mp is a 25% increase in line pairs per mm (resolution), pretty insignificant. --->What is important is that the camera must help you take pics. It should not hinder you. --->The lens is more important than the camera. ---> resolution is usually limited by the lens, not the camera. No point getting a good camera...without equally good lenses. (which cost more than the camera anyway.) ---> Yes, the E300 is one of the WORST cameras i've seen in awhile. The viewfiinder is terribly dark...and practically useless. Was impossible tio Its even darker than the 300D/D70... avoid this one. Bottom line, spend ~ 75% of your budget on ONE lens. preferably a wide prime, like the 35/1.4 or 24/1.4 or brighter. Do not waste your time on "kit lenses". Figure out which body you can afford with the remaining $$. (i will take the 350D/300D) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bpribadi 0 Report post Posted March 8, 2005 (edited) 1) Why do you want it wheather-proof? 2) Why do u want firewire/usb2? 3) Why do you want the CCD cleaner? Cool! I agree with most of your point But I think we do need the automatic CCD cleaner. --->The number of MP is not important. 4MP-8Mp is a 25% increase in line pairs per mm (resolution), pretty insignificant. --->What is important is that the camera must help you take pics. It should not hinder you. --->The lens is more important than the camera. ---> resolution is usually limited by the lens, not the camera. No point getting a good camera...without equally good lenses. (which cost more than the camera anyway.) Yes!!! Stop the MP hype!!! That's just a marketing propaganda Sometime the camera also limit the resolution. To avoid moire, most DSLR have the built-in anti aliasing filter which is to reduce the resolution of the lens Edited March 8, 2005 by bpribadi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kenshinz 0 Report post Posted March 8, 2005 Yes!!! Stop the MP hype!!! That's just a marketing propaganda Hehe, MP easier to market to the general public compared to sensor sizes less technical and easier for the manufacturers to get away with churning new products that does not differ much from the rest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Q00 0 Report post Posted March 8, 2005 Yep with all the false advertising in the papers and magazines... its not hard to understand why. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firefox 0 Report post Posted March 8, 2005 Hehe, MP easier to market to the general public compared to sensor sizes less technical and easier for the manufacturers to get away with churning new products that does not differ much from the rest Speaking of which, I'd like to see a 6MP, 35mm sized, JFET-LBCAST sensor in the near future.. LOL.. That should give noiseless shots up to ISO1600. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fuwen 0 Report post Posted March 10, 2005 ---> resolution is usually limited by the lens, not the camera. No point getting a good camera...without equally good lenses. (which cost more than the camera anyway.) Hey! Is this true? From what I know (film camera, sorry) lenses are normally not the limiting factor as far as resolution is concerned. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bpribadi 0 Report post Posted March 10, 2005 Hey! Is this true? From what I know (film camera, sorry) lenses are normally not the limiting factor as far as resolution is concerned. All factors play part, but lens plays the biggest part for the image quality, including resolution, especially in film. Film can be considered as a very high megapixel CCD. So normally film resolution is higher than the lens resolution. But in low megapixel CCD, No matter high the lens resolution is, the CCD will be the limiting factor. Remember that "A camera is not better than it's lens" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fuwen 0 Report post Posted March 10, 2005 (edited) Hey! Is this true? From what I know (film camera, sorry) lenses are normally not the limiting factor as far as resolution is concerned. All factors play part, but lens plays the biggest part for the image quality, including resolution, especially in film. Film can be considered as a very high megapixel CCD. So normally film resolution is higher than the lens resolution. But in low megapixel CCD, No matter high the lens resolution is, the CCD will be the limiting factor. Remember that "A camera is not better than it's lens" Hope I am not too OT but I felt that film (or CCD ) is the limiting factor and not the lens. My reason is I ever use negatives ASA ranging from 25 to 1000. It is quite obvious to me that the lower the ASA I used the more details I am able to get from the lens. Even when I use ASA 25 I can still see obvious improvement in details and I can get grainless 8R print. My theory is if the lens is the limiting factor then after certain ASA u should not see anymore improvement in details, and hence the lens is the limiting factor. So based on my logic as far as up to ASA 25, the film is still the limiting factor. Views from u guys? Edited March 10, 2005 by fuwen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
heady 0 Report post Posted March 10, 2005 (edited) Like Bram said, it is a combination of factors. But sure, lens do play an extremely important part. If you take a pic of scene with the aperture fully open up to max, eg f2 and then take it again at f5.6 or f8, you should see a difference if your sensor has high enough resolution. This is due spherical distortion. However closing the aperture to the minimum is also not the answer as the picture soften up again. I cannot remember the effect's name. Complicated ah. Anyway, the really good lens reduce spherical distortion and chromatic aberration which usually means more elements with specially ground surfaces etc. which also means $$$. Edited March 10, 2005 by heady Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bpribadi 0 Report post Posted March 10, 2005 My reason is I ever use negatives ASA ranging from 25 to 1000. It is quite obvious to me that the lower the ASA I used the more details I am able to get from the lens. Even when I use ASA 25 I can still see obvious improvement in details and I can get grainless 8R print. My theory is if the lens is the limiting factor then after certain ASA u should not see anymore improvement in details, and hence the lens is the limiting factor. So based on my logic as far as up to ASA 25, the film is still the limiting factor. Because you used a good lens Here the lens resolution is higher than the film. But there are lousy lens which resolution is less than the film. Try a lousy long zoom such as 28-300mm kind of zoom, you probably won't see resolution improvement when using ISO 400 or ISO 25 Ooohhh yeaaa, I love the discontinued Kodak Ektar 25 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
