Topic: Cameras are not Computers, but............

[tim]

Seems so - so long as they are the new maker's thread.

[Mr Smith]

Tim,
          I have a similar problem with one of my mobile phones, Can't download any photos on to the computer if that is what you mean :).

[Rhubarb Thrasher]

unfortunately Tim they're not, it seems. They're FD lenses for my trusty Canon A1, and T70 (with the dead battery)

[calendula]

isn't it just that you can't be a proper photograper, and take proper photographs, unless  you have an SLR camera (at the very least), like in the days of film?

in a nut shell basically and as Barnowl says you can 'play' more when it is all digital - in the good old days  ;D you could do so much with the ASA, the speed of the lens, the shutter speed in connection with the diaphragm opening and then of course in the darkroom afterwards - the possibilities are endless but it depends on what your priorities are with regard to depth of field and depth of focus - it will be a rule of thumb that the smaller the diaphragm the longer the depth - you have the beauty of ease with a digital camera but they do take away quite a lot of choices that many cannot be bothered with these days

[Rhubarb Thrasher]

i'm displaying my ignorance again, but don't prime lenses for digital SLRs have indicators for the depth of field either side of the point of focus, or would having to look be too much trouble?

[calendula]

they should do else you'd have virtually no manual operation at all but because so much determines or can alter depth of field and depth of focus I think it is best to buy a digital SLR that offers the most in its manual format - varies enormously and I guess $ comes into it

[tim]

No, I'm OK with that, Mr Smith.

1. Yes, I appreciate the benefits of digital, but I'm trying to justify my purchase of a SLR.

2. Aha, primary lens! Yes - certainly true in the olden days. Mine, of course, is a 17-80mm, so not primary? And yet, all my 35mm Olympus lenses had depth of field markings.

3. Yes, it would be a help, but to be really critical in eg Portrait Photograhy, it was great to have the facility to see the result (the blurring) through the lens.

[calendula]

3. Yes, it would be a help, but to be really critical in eg Portrait Photograhy, it was great to have the facility to see the result (the blurring) through the lens.

have just remembered that the last SLR I bought which must been over 20 years ago - a pentax - did have a preview button, but they weren't the norm then, I guess because photographers kind of knew what to expect with each combination of film speed, shutter speed and aperture - you'd think they'd be the norm with digital SLR's now though

[Rhubarb Thrasher]

the Canon A1 had a stopped down mode, but it was sufficiently ffiddly to suggest it's not such an easy thing to incorporate. And I used it for the opposite reason - to check for no loss of focus at small apertures - course the image in the viewfinder could be very dark

[tim]

Thank you for all that. I now have to accept the status quo.

[Barnowl]

As actually taking the photo doesn't cost anything, do you think it may be worth checking whether the camera will shoot in a burst mode: first shot at metered setting, second at plus a stop or two third minus a stop or two. (I could do this with my 35mm film camera but too expensive on film).

The facility is meant to overcome variable lighting conditions/metering errors but presumably the depth of field would vary a bit with the aperture settings?

[tim]

Clever stuff!

A bit advanced for Daughter, maybe - for critical subjects, she does do a manual bracketing.

Just learnt one reason for SLR - the fact that it not only focusses in real time, but exposes in real time. A real blessing.

Haven't used the camera fully yet - birthday's on Saturday.

[timiano]

Best advice I can offer, is shoot in RAW mode. It took me some time to let go of jpg on my dSLR, but it's the best thing I ever did.

Other good piece of advice about lenses. Is get yourself a cheap 50mm (standard lens), as they're light, fast and cheap.

Any other questions you might want to post, feel free to ask, as I know a bit about dSLRs.

Tim

[tim]

Just off to read up the books - starting with RAW!!

[Barnowl]

unfortunately Tim they're not, it seems. They're FD lenses for my trusty Canon A1, and T70 (with the dead battery)

Hi Rhubarb. Have you tried any of the  FD to EF lens converters? I keep wondering whether they're worth a try. It's pretty frustrating to have Canon FD f1.4 50mm and f4 70-210mm lenses that I can't use on my EOS.

 A new f1.4 from Canon costs around £200 and the quality isn't anything like that which the old lenses had.  I suppose one's paying for the auto focus. Never had much problem with manual, myself.

PS brief hijack - hope you don't mind Tim

[tim]

All grist to the mill??

[Rhubarb Thrasher]

I had a quick Google after using old lenses on dSLR bodies was mentioned. Seemed to be that the Canon converter only worked with some lenses, reduced image quality, and were rare as hens teeth hence expensive. A cheap non Canon alternative seemed to be also about, but was much worse.

So the answer is no, though I was very excited while the thought lasted.

I just keep my hand in with serious photography with my Bronica, though I haven't printed anything for about 4 years - almost impossible to see any Newton's rings from a colour slide until you've got the print