|
Cameras
Aug 30, 2015 0:34:18 GMT -5
Post by bhk on Aug 30, 2015 0:34:18 GMT -5
Many moons ago - like, pre-digital age - I owned a couple of SLR 35mm cameras, the last of which was a Nikon EM (which I still have tucked away somewhere). My first digital was bought in 2003, if memory serves....a little Casio unit. Then I bought a Sony DSC F717, which gave me sterling service up until I bought my Panasonic Lumix in October 2013. But I'd always wanted to get another SLR and recently I bid on and secured a nice pre-loved Nikon D3100 digital unit, which should be here this coming week. Didn't set me back a fortune, either, and in very good condition. Here's a link to a review of the type:- Nikon D3100
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Cameras
Aug 30, 2015 2:23:51 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 2:23:51 GMT -5
Looks pretty good Bruce, be interesting to hear how it performs. The main thing that I don't like about all the digitals that I've owned is that they have screens rather than eyepieces. When it's sunny you can see practically nothing on them and you end up lining up your shots totally blind. Many's the time I've ended up cutting bits off the edges of shots that are irreplaceable, making them practically useless. Never had that problem with my little 35mm Pentax SLRs both of which I too have still got tucked away in cupboards.
Roger
|
|
|
Cameras
Aug 30, 2015 6:50:53 GMT -5
Post by bhk on Aug 30, 2015 6:50:53 GMT -5
....The main thing that I don't like about all the digitals that I've owned is that they have screens rather than eyepieces. When it's sunny you can see practically nothing on them and you end up lining up your shots totally blind.... Roger, would you believe that is EXACTLY the reason I wanted to get another SLR? I even have trouble reading the screen of my mobile phone in the daylight. The D3100 has both an eyepiece for aiming and an LCD rear screen for all the info & function displays....best of both worlds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Cameras
Aug 30, 2015 9:50:28 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 9:50:28 GMT -5
In that case I'll be interested to hear your views on it Bruce. I've always like Nikons and the same camera can be got used but mint in these parts for around 180-200€ with 18-55mm lens. If you recommend it I might think about picking one up as the little point-and-shoot digital (Sony for me now after my Lumix let me down) is OK when flying but has its limitations when used for more 'general purpose' photography.
|
|
|
Cameras
Aug 30, 2015 11:00:41 GMT -5
Post by sgtmajor on Aug 30, 2015 11:00:41 GMT -5
I hear you Bruce and Roger.....I know the digital camera is the "preferred" in this day and age.....but I still enjoy the SLR. However, haven't used mine in a VERY long time. I purchased a Nikon F2 Photomic in Okinawa back in 1977 when you could still find good deals. To be honest.... I haven't used the camera all that much.....probably taken less than 1000 photos with it.
Hmmm..... I might have to dig it out and see if I can find film for it again.
Thanks Bruce.....another obsession started. (smile)
Cheers,
|
|
|
Cameras
Aug 30, 2015 11:30:49 GMT -5
Post by Tom Constantine on Aug 30, 2015 11:30:49 GMT -5
For many years my 2nd wife and I had identical SLRs and an assortment of lenses, filters etc. We photographed much of New England and Eastern Canada. My SLR drowned in a nearby lake about 1998 and as luck would have it, I won a Sony Mavica (It used 3.5" floppies) at about the same time. By today's standards it was pretty low-res. I don't think the word "megapixel" had even been coined. Eventually I got a Sony DSC H2 www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyh2 which I use to this day.Part of me cries out for a new digital SLR, but the rest of me is content with the Sony. But that Nikon looks great and I can hear one calling my name
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Cameras
Aug 30, 2015 13:11:20 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 13:11:20 GMT -5
I hear you Bruce and Roger.....To be honest.... I haven't used the camera all that much.....probably taken less than 1000 photos with it. Thanks Bruce.....another obsession started. (smile) Cheers, Steve, the whole concept has changed since then. In less than 6 months I've taken 800 shots with my little Sony digital and in 18 months I did over 10000 with my little Lumix before dust got into it. The idea is that in any situation you can take several shots so you can then choose the best of the lot. When I'm flying I might take four or five of a particular scene because I want to get the horizon as near to level as I can while snapping away with one hand and also while I'm flying the scene and light are subtly changing. Same when you take a shot of a group of friends - take just the one and someone's always got their eyes closed. You couldn't afford to do that when shooting with film - plus with digital, you're in charge of the editing. I like it, it's fun. Part of me cries out for a new digital SLR, but the rest of me is content with the Sony. But that Nikon looks great and I can hear one calling my name I think there may be two siren voices singing a duet, Tom
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Cameras
Aug 30, 2015 13:20:24 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 13:20:24 GMT -5
BTW - Tom, like all 'new technology', even though the product in question is technically obsolescent, it annoyingly still more or less looks brand new. My first foray into digital was a brick of a Minolta that my stepson brought back with him when he returned from the USA to live in the UK and it was it that stirred me to my first purchase, a Pentax Optio. The old Minolta had around the same number of pixels as your old Sony (or maybe a few less, I can't remember now) and I was very reluctant just to dump it. In fact, I listed it on freecycle.com and among the usual cretins who want to pick up stuff for free to sell on Ebay, there was a very deserving young lady who had recently had her camera stolen and as a student, couldn't afford at the time to buy another. So I had great pleasure in giving it to her Roger
|
|
|
Cameras
Aug 30, 2015 16:25:11 GMT -5
Post by bhk on Aug 30, 2015 16:25:11 GMT -5
....Eventually I got a Sony DSC H2 www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyh2 which I use to this day.Part of me cries out for a new digital SLR, but the rest of me is content with the Sony..... Tom, your Sony unit belongs to the same family as my DSC F717, which I referred to above. Mine is an older model.....came out about a year or so before I bought it (2004). I still have it but have put it on eBay to defray the cost of the Nikon. I really love this camera as it gives the option to use a viewfinder instead of the screen but the resolution is less than half that of the "new" Nikon. Here's a review from 2002.I'll be sure to give you all feedback on the Nikon. I managed to get it for AUS$320 plus postage.....a slight reduction on the AUS$340 price being asked. Roger, it is the identical "kit" to that which you described above.
|
|
|
Cameras
Aug 30, 2015 16:43:30 GMT -5
Post by Tom Constantine on Aug 30, 2015 16:43:30 GMT -5
I still have my Mavica and 20 3.5" disks, the battery and charger if I wanted to get nostalgic with 640 x 480 pictures. I've never been able to bear the thought of selling it.
Bruce- I almost bought one of those in 2002, but life interfered as it often does. By 2005 they were gone and the H2 I bought was about to be replaced by a new model. With that great zoom it is probably the most versatile camera I have ever owned.
|
|
|
Cameras
Sept 2, 2015 4:12:26 GMT -5
Post by bhk on Sept 2, 2015 4:12:26 GMT -5
The new device arrived this afternoon...actually this morning but I was out and didn't get home until 4:40 PM. So first impressions are limited:- it's in lovely condition, lighter than I thought it would be, very comfortable to hold and operate and appears easy to operate in automatic mode...which is what I use for 99% of my photographing - why do it yourself when a little man inside the camera does it for you? Tomorrow I will take some photos and give it a good test by re-photographing some subjects which I have already done with both the Sony DSC-F717 and the Panasonic Lumix.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Cameras
Sept 2, 2015 6:37:18 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 6:37:18 GMT -5
Look forward to that Bruce. I'm already tempted as one is advertised at a very attractive price not that far from me - OK, in French terms, still nearly 2 hours drive away
|
|
|
Cameras
Sept 2, 2015 6:55:50 GMT -5
Post by bhk on Sept 2, 2015 6:55:50 GMT -5
Look forward to that Bruce. I'm already tempted as one is advertised at a very attractive price not that far from me - OK, in French terms, still nearly 2 hours drive away Roger, here's a shot I took about an hour ago...... BLOG
|
|
|
Cameras
Sept 2, 2015 8:30:01 GMT -5
Post by sgtmajor on Sept 2, 2015 8:30:01 GMT -5
Look forward to that Bruce. I'm already tempted as one is advertised at a very attractive price not that far from me - OK, in French terms, still nearly 2 hours drive away Roger.....is that how distance is measured in France....in terms of time? That is the ONLY way it's measured here in California. Two hours could be just 20 miles (32 km) in the right location. (smile) Bruce........I'm looking forward to some pics of the area too. (smile) Cheers,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Cameras
Sept 2, 2015 11:18:08 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 11:18:08 GMT -5
Steve, it's how I do it. Two reasons - (1) local driving can take much longer than you'd think from just looking at the map because the roads can be very windy and hilly and as a result, 'as the crow flies' distances can be twice as long when you drive them (2) French autoroutes are with few exceptions fast (130 kmh), modern, well maintained, wide and fairly straight - you have to pay to use them but it's worth it because compared to the 'routes nationales' that are free but narrow, slow, full of heavy traffic that it's hard to get past and pass through towns and villages, using them you can get from A to B in up to half of the time that you would by using the latter.
France is a big country with a lot of open space between the main towns and cities, probably less so than the rural US but certainly in comparison to the UK. So you have to be prepared to travel quite large distances if, eg you want to see and/or buy something that you've spotted in the small ads, or want to buy something from a specialist supplier or manufacturer, like when I was looking for floor tiles to match the old 'tomettes' in my living room.
Roger
|
|