Got pics developed
Mar. 8th, 2003 07:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
luckykaaAt last, I've got through a roll of 40 shots. Took them to boots. Scanned them. Boots don't do very good APS packaging. They used to use nice carboard boxes, but not any more it seems. I'll take my business elsewhere next time.
Anyway, here's a selection of them. The robots from Robot Wars From the Model Engineerring exhibition I went to just after Christmas
A few random snaps of the Star Trek Adventure in Hyde Park
I'll have to criticise my photos though - All of them are of things. No people. This is not like me at all. I'll have to make amends. Perhaps I should actually get my camera out more often. It's quite nice taking pics after all.
Also it takes far too long to get them from being taken onto a computer, which would appear to be everyone's preferred medium for viewing them. Especially people here.
If anyone has any opinioon on digital cameras (And that includes you, Dylan), then I'm after one. I want something with at least 3 million pixels, and a decent optical zoom. 6x would be quite nice. Anyone got any suggestions?
Anyway, here's a selection of them. The robots from Robot Wars From the Model Engineerring exhibition I went to just after Christmas
A few random snaps of the Star Trek Adventure in Hyde Park
I'll have to criticise my photos though - All of them are of things. No people. This is not like me at all. I'll have to make amends. Perhaps I should actually get my camera out more often. It's quite nice taking pics after all.
Also it takes far too long to get them from being taken onto a computer, which would appear to be everyone's preferred medium for viewing them. Especially people here.
If anyone has any opinioon on digital cameras (And that includes you, Dylan), then I'm after one. I want something with at least 3 million pixels, and a decent optical zoom. 6x would be quite nice. Anyone got any suggestions?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Digicams...
Date: 2003-03-08 04:16 pm (UTC)Amount of zoom isn't really relevant beyond a certain amount. 2x might be a bit limiting depending upon how wide the wide end is, but 3x is fine. The more you zoom in, the harder it is to hold the camera steady enough to get a sharp picture; the maximum on a 3x zoom won't have a problem with this. Digital zoom's only virtue is that it doesn't suffer camerashake, but you might as well just crop in Photoshop - it's the same thing :-)
The number of 3mp cameras with 3x zoom is quite small anyway. A larger zoom lens tends also to mean a less sharp lens at all zoom settings, or a much more expensive camera. On the other hand, the *widest* the zoom zooms out to can be more important than the *longest* it zooms in to; most situations where you might zoom right in you can step a bit closer instead, but it's amazing how many places have brick walls, barbed wire, busy motorways etc to stop you stepping further back from your subject. Aim for "28mm equivalent" (as if using a 28mm lens on a 35mm film camera) or shorter.
A far more important property for your lens is the "aperture", or how much light it can take in at once. Larger maximum apertures are, somewhat confusingly, marked out by a *smaller* number. Every factor of 1.4 on the aperture scale takes in twice as much light - so an f/2 lens is twice as bright as an f/2.8 lens which is twice as bright as an f/4... etc. Get at least a 2.8 if it fits your budget.
Wider apertures are incredibly useful for two reasons - they give you much better shots in marginal light conditions (with or without flash) and allow you, if you so wish, to separate the subject from the background by having one sharp and the other soft, which is very useful. Most zooms have smaller maximum aperture when zoomed all the way in, so two numbers are quoted. If the person trying to sell you the camera can't adequately explain aperture and its virtues, find another shop.
Over 3 million pixels, the cameras with decent lenses get expensive very quickly. 3 million is just about enough for a full A4 print on a good photo printer, so more resolution is overkill anyway; film (preferably BIG film :-) is still a much better way of getting really high detail images.
So much for image quality. For my money, build quality and interface design matter a LOT. Cool "features" are worthless if you have to struggle through 20 screens of menus to get to them, and a lot of camera interfaces are shockingly badly designed. Interface is pretty personal, though; this is where photo chains like Jessops are handy. Save a lot of effort by asking to try out a few models, and take lots of pictures of the inside of the shop. That should sort the good from the bad, interface wise; *then* start shopping around for the cheapest price.
Well, I hope something in that long rant was useful. There's a good online camera review site at www.photographyreview.net, but take every single review with a pinch of salt; the collective impression is more important. And give me a shout if you want me to bore you a bit more.
Re: Digicams...
Date: 2003-03-08 04:19 pm (UTC)Please bore me a little more...
Date: 2003-03-09 12:20 am (UTC)Digital Zoom - Yeah, I know. I've always wondered why they call it digital zoom, and not digital crop.
I'm not too concerned about features. About the only "feature" I'd like is a hotshoe. This seems to force me to spend at least £600 and means I can't get a very compact camera though, so I think I'll go without. Manual aperture and shutter would be nice.
Anyway, thanks for the links.
Re: Please bore me a little more...
Date: 2003-03-09 05:34 am (UTC)The relation of zoom multiples to focal lengths is an awkward question. In 35mm, 2x zoom is 35-70mm, 3x zoom generally 28-90mm. 28mm is quite a lot wider than 35mm, and 90mm is a nice focal length to work with - just that crucial bit longer. 4x would be 28-135; 135 is an annoying focal length, too long for portraits, not long enough for really distant objects.
*however* digital camera zooms aren't necessarily the same as 35mm equivalents in the same range. For some reason, they sometimes have less wide wide ends and longer long ends, so a 3x might be 35-105 equivalent. You're just going to have to ask around for the model you're looking at.
APS equivalencies... I don't know the diagonal of the APS film format, so I can't convert directly, but I did see an ad claiming 23mm was 29mm equivalent or thereabouts. So for APS, multiply all 35mm focal lengths by about 0.8.
Manual shutter and aperture... are you *sure* you're thinking of a digital camera? :-)
If these are important to you, check where they are on the menu layout. Some manufacturers bury these capabilities very deep, which cripples their usefulness (both need to be immediately to hand when shooting).
Manual aperture is probably more important than manual shutter. Most of the time you just want the speed high enough not to blur, whereas controlling the depth of field is very useful. (though DoFs are always deeper on a digital than in 35mm as they depend on the actual focal length of the lens, not the angle it covers on any given film format)
How much do you want these two? Because it might be cheaper to buy a digital without them, and an old manual 35mm camera which will undoubtedly be better made, easier to use and probably have a better lens too. But then, I have a massive bias :-)
Hot shoes are pretty damn scarce on digitals, but you can always use a slave flash unit (triggered by your flash on camera). Working out the correct exposure is a PITA though. But wait... you don't have to, you can just shoot again until you get it right. I suppose digital does have its advantages.
Wow. I've just managed to get through two pieces of camera buying advice without prescribing an incredibly archaic camera as a solution to all your woes. *must keep fighting that temptation*
- Lester.
Re: Please bore me a little more...
Date: 2003-03-09 05:48 am (UTC)Yes, I know digital tends to be a little more automated than that. I like control! Or at least the abilty to set one, and allow the thing to calculate the other, with bracketing.
The slave flash unit is a good idea. Didn't think of that.
Wow. I've just managed to get through two pieces of camera buying advice without prescribing an incredibly archaic camera as a solution to all your woes. *must keep fighting that temptation*
I already have an old 35mm Pentax SLR. Only has the 35m lens, but there's no reason I couldn't get a zoom for it. And it's true, 35mm is better quality than digital, and will probably remain so for a while. I'd use that if I had a darkroom setup.
Re: Please bore me a little more...
Date: 2003-03-09 06:09 am (UTC)I was thinking a little more archaic than a Pentax SLR. In fact, the Super Ikonta C of 1934 is the best compact camera I've ever seen, though admittedly awkward when the bellows begin to wear out :-)
What mount is your SLR? Pentax K(bayonet) or M42 (screw)? I see bargain lenses all the time, I could keep an eye out for a zoom for it. (Though I'd argue in favour of a set of primes rather than one zoom lens - higher quality for less money)
Re: Please bore me a little more...
Date: 2003-03-09 06:30 am (UTC)I still never quite got the hang of autofocus anyway. I keep forgetting how stupid it actually is, and focus on the background.
The beauty of an APS compact is that I can just shove it into my bag, or even a pocket, and just take photos as the mood takes me.
Re: Please bore me a little more...
Date: 2003-03-10 12:24 am (UTC)Sounds sensible to me. I would strongly recommend this approach - 35mm film can carry a lot more detail (more than is physically achievable by a digital with the same frame size - and most digitals have chips half the size of a 35mm film frame or even smaller), the SLR is a damn sight easier to focus manually, mechanical controls for aperture and shutter are closer to hand than menu ones... if you can live without automation there's a lot to be said for it. The digital can then replace your snap camera, which most digital cameras are built to do, and do well.
"The fitting is a screw one, I think."
Good news and bad news. The bad news is that there aren't many good zooms in M42 screw mount. The good news is that there are a lot of excellent prime (fixed focus) lenses available for very little money, kicking around in the oddest places. A fixed wide-angle found in a junk-shop for a fiver can still be appreciably higher quality than the wide end of a new £200 zoom (sold that one already though - sorry!). Though carrying three separate lenses is a little bit heavier, all three will be sharper and faster (larger max aperture) than one zoom, which is always good.
If I find any half decent lenses in that mount in my quest through junk shops, charity shops, car boot sales and second-hand markets, I often snap them up despite not using my Zenit much; I'll let you know if I've picked up anything cool and you can borrow it, long term, while I carry on searching for that much rarer thing - the perfect M42 body.
(Now I know I'm a camera geek. Most people, if searching for a perfect body, wouldn't specify a 42mm lens mount...)
"Would be nice to have a new flash for that, too. Where can I get a cheap one of them?"
Depends. Basic flashguns abound - try Jessops for starters, as though there are cheaper places there aren't many cheaper places that will let you find out if it works on your camera before handing over any money. It depends how old your Pentax is - a lot of older cameras don't have a hot-shoe, needing plugging in instead. Many cheaper new flashes don't have the cable connection socket, assuming the camera will have a hot-shoe.
(not all accessory shoes are hot-shoes. Confusingly, some cold shoes look hot, but are not. This is where Jessops comes in. Funnily enough, their cheapest own-brand flashes do apparently have PC connection sockets (Prontor-Compur flash connection - nothing to do with computers) but I know their better ones (with the invaluable bounce and fairly useful swivel and zoom) don't. Get one with bounce if at all possible though.
"I still never quite got the hang of autofocus anyway. I keep forgetting how stupid it actually is, and focus on the background."
Manual fuckup is much better than autofuckup, because a human isn't automatically wrong every time, only occasionally :-)
"The beauty of an APS compact is that I can just shove it into my bag, or even a pocket, and just take photos as the mood takes me."
Ditto the Ikonta, though the neck mount light meter (aka my head) is kinda slow and heavy :-)
APS doesn't really make much sense to me. The camera size savings aren't that substantial, 35mm processing is quite a lot cheaper for negs quite lot larger than APS too. A small digital camera replaces APS very well, though, which is presumably why there's so much short-dated APS film going cheap right now. I do agree there's a lot to be said for having a small camera that you can carry all the time.
Anyway. Have fun.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-08 07:41 pm (UTC)|
I understood about every other word of that *stares agape* Oh well, now to make my comment (however elementary it may seem in comparison) Sirkillalot=amazing! Really nice work...the others were probably great in the wars, but sirkillalot makes for great eyecandy!
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-08 09:53 pm (UTC)Thanks for pointing that out. One of my numerous major social failings is that I find it quite hard to tell when I'm giving sensible explanations and when I'm just blathering on and on in a whole bunch of techy-laden jargon no-one wants to hear. Just a peril of having replaced my brain with camera equipment. Sorry Neil! Let me know if you want me to have a go at a shorter, clearer suggestion...
Re:
Date: 2003-03-08 11:04 pm (UTC)Techy laden Jargon
Date: 2003-03-09 12:13 am (UTC)Yep...
Date: 2003-03-09 12:29 am (UTC)Re: Yep...
Date: 2003-03-09 12:38 am (UTC)