Beginner SLR

[Beta Max]

I recently made the same transition from a Oly C-3000z which when new was more than I
paid for my whole 35mm setup, and I bought a N75 Nikon.
Afterwards I discovered that the N80 is probably a better value. More features and
less traditional features are crippled.

Lens-wise, I went with two of the G series lenses, the one that came in the
kit(28-80) and the cheap 70-300 G zoom, but the D series are useable with more
cameras.The F100 looks to be a great camera, and if you can afford it, the F5. Both
cameras are considerably more expensive than the N80.

Cannon also makes popular entry level cameras.

I dont look to go back to digital for a good long time, I'm going to medium format
next and digital may never reach that level of resolution.

--
_______________________

-Keith



________________________
"Mark Handy" <arcturis_no_spam@rogers_get_bent.com> wrote in message
news:E9eQa.28753$1aB1.21615@news02.bloor.is.net.ca ble.rogers.com...

> I'm in the market for a good starter camera. I currently have a digital, and
> I really enjoy it, but it does have it's limitations. I've been looking at
> the Canon Rebel, but only price wise. Any suggestions?
>
> Mark.
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 7/10/2003

[redcat]

i would throw in the few extra $$ for a better body too. i busted my savings
in buying the N80, but am very happy i didnt go for the N55. If you are
inclined to the Canons, elan 7 is the equivalent to the N80 i believe.

but i would still urge you to think about all-mechanical cameras of yore.
they'll last forever and make you "think" that much more.

[MF06D]

I would highly reccomend the Minolta Maxxum 5 with a 50mm f/1.7 lens for a few
reasons:

1. size
2. weight
3. price
4. my personal preference
5. fast lens (allows for more light to be let on to the film)
6. high max shutter speed (1/4000), some lower end cameras, such as the Rebel
G, or even the Maxxum 4 have only 1/2000.
7. Auto Eye Start- the camera recognizes that it is being held, and without
pressing a button it starts to focus wherever you point it.

There are certainly other reasons, but this is certainly what I have
reccomended to others, what I will continue to reccomend, and what I would buy
in your situation. Good luck, and happy shooting!

BTW: Camera bodies are really a matter of personal preference among different
cameras in the same class-- ex- the N65/75, Rebel Ti, and the Maxxum 5, they
all have almost the same features, but some specs differ.

Matt

[William D. Tallman]

Mark Handy wrote:

> I'm in the market for a good starter camera. I currently have a digital,
> and I really enjoy it, but it does have it's limitations. I've been
> looking at the Canon Rebel, but only price wise. Any suggestions?
>
> Mark.

How much do you know about photography? Are you just in the market for a
point 'n shoot? Or are you interested in creating/capturing meaningful (?)
images? These are relevant questions, elicited by the phrase "starter
camera". What does that mean? Are you starting to learn photography, or
are you starting a SLR system?

Whilst this is an equipment news group, many here are also concerned about
other aspects of the photography experience. It's pretty common for people
to invest buckets of money in equipment, and discover that it will not
produce extraordinary photographs all by itself. Often, they wind up
giving the whole business up as a bad job. The right advice in this venue
could prevent that, which is why I ask.

If you already know enough about photography to know that equipment alone
won't do the job, then a simple recommendation is sufficient. I like
Canon, so I'll recommend the Elan 7 as a body. You choose the lens, and/or
ask here about that.

If you don't know about such things as aperture settings and depth of field,
and you do want to learn to take meaningful (your's to define) images, then
the modern SLRs are likely to impede that learning. Automation is
wonderful, if one knows what is happening; otherwise, it's a crutch that
can be difficult to overcome. If you're learning, use a tool that will
force you to learn, and then when you've gotten it to work for you, you may
(or may not!) choose to get a camera with the bells and whistles. Then,
you will know enough to effectively use such equipment.

If you are a learner, get hold of a mechanical manual camera that will
require you to know some photography to use. Then get some books on the
subject, get a bag of film, and go and learn by doing. In that case, I can
tell you that there is quite a variety of professional quality mechanical
cameras available for reasonable money. You could spend the same amount of
money that you would spend for an entry level new SLR, and get a pro camera
with excellent lenses.

I've been known to recommend the Pentax MX and the K mount lens system.
Others will tell you about equivalent Nikons, Canons, Minoltas, Olympus',
and still others will exhort you to save your pennies until you can afford
a Leica or Contax or the like.

In any case, the choice you make *may* determine your experience of
photography; we'd like it to be good!

Bill Tallman

[RT]

Let me jump in and suggest someone else's website (before he does so
himself), as it is probably as good a starting point as any:
[url]http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/mani/equip/mmselect.html[/url]

Another informative site is:
[url]http://www.photo.net/equipment/what-camera-should-I-buy[/url]

Suggest you do some homework! ;)
Good luck.



"Mark Handy" <arcturis_no_spam@rogers_get_bent.com> wrote in message
news:E9eQa.28753$1aB1.21615@news02.bloor.is.net.ca ble.rogers.com...

> I'm in the market for a good starter camera. I currently have a digital,

and

> I really enjoy it, but it does have it's limitations. I've been looking at
> the Canon Rebel, but only price wise. Any suggestions?
>
> Mark.
>
>

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

"Mark Handy" <arcturis_no_spam@rogers_get_bent.com> wrote

> I'm in the market for a good starter camera. I currently have a digital, and
> I really enjoy it, but it does have it's limitations. I've been looking at
> the Canon Rebel, but only price wise. Any suggestions?

A Rebel is as good a choice as any. Despite all the hoopla, and with the
exception of some dog zoom lenses, the output of all modern SLR's is
indistinguishable.

A first SLR is like a first camera - it doesn't matter one whit whether
it is a Chevy, Buick, Dodge or Ford, they will all get you where
you are going.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio [email]nolindan@ix.netcom.com[/email]
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

[Ming]

What is the limitation of your digital ?


Ming.

¦b Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:38:28 GMT, Mark Handy
<arcturis_no_spam@rogers_get_bent.com> ¼g¹D:

> I'm in the market for a good starter camera. I currently have a digital,
> and
> I really enjoy it, but it does have it's limitations. I've been looking
> at
> the Canon Rebel, but only price wise. Any suggestions?
>
> Mark.
>
>
>

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: [url]http://www.opera.com/m2/[/url]

[Tony Spadaro]

The Rebel 2000 or the Rebel Ti are excellent. I don't recommend any other
Rebel model however as they won't have dof preview. There are other cameras
too but watch out for sub- bottom of the line models. There is an article on
selecting equipment here:
[url]http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/mani/equip/mequip.html[/url]

--
[url]http://www.chapelhillnoir.com[/url]
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
[url]http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html[/url]
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
"Mark Handy" <arcturis_no_spam@rogers_get_bent.com> wrote in message
news:E9eQa.28753$1aB1.21615@news02.bloor.is.net.ca ble.rogers.com...

> I'm in the market for a good starter camera. I currently have a digital,

and

> I really enjoy it, but it does have it's limitations. I've been looking at
> the Canon Rebel, but only price wise. Any suggestions?
>
> Mark.
>
>

[Jan Keirse]

Nicholas O. Lindan <nolindan@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> "Mark Handy" <arcturis_no_spam@rogers_get_bent.com> wrote
> A first SLR is like a first camera - it doesn't matter one whit whether
> it is a Chevy, Buick, Dodge or Ford, they will all get you where
> you are going.

Should have been a first car I asume ;-)

--
Codito ergo sum - /(bb|[^b]{2})/ that is the Question
Jan Keirse: [email]jan.keirse@pandora.be[/email] Tel.: +32 51 22 11 82
Website: [url]http://jankeirse.free.fr[/url]

[Ed Blagden]

"William D. Tallman" <wtallman@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<vh3egqnvmat555@corp.supernews.com>...

[SNIP]

>
> If you don't know about such things as aperture settings and depth of field,
> and you do want to learn to take meaningful (your's to define) images, then
> the modern SLRs are likely to impede that learning. Automation is
> wonderful, if one knows what is happening; otherwise, it's a crutch that
> can be difficult to overcome. If you're learning, use a tool that will
> force you to learn, and then when you've gotten it to work for you, you may
> (or may not!) choose to get a camera with the bells and whistles. Then,
> you will know enough to effectively use such equipment.
>
> If you are a learner, get hold of a mechanical manual camera that will
> require you to know some photography to use. Then get some books on the
> subject, get a bag of film, and go and learn by doing. In that case, I can
> tell you that there is quite a variety of professional quality mechanical
> cameras available for reasonable money. You could spend the same amount of
> money that you would spend for an entry level new SLR, and get a pro camera
> with excellent lenses.
>

[SNIP]

William

The question of whether a beginner should get a old style manual
camera or a modern auto SLR has the potential to develop into a film
v. digital debate. Having acknowledged the risk, here is my 2
shillings worth:

In my opinion there is much to be said for getting a modern auto SLR
as a beginner camera. The beginner can use the auto settings and take
technically OK pictures from day 1, and can concentrate initially on
highly important things like composition, the effect of different
focal lengths, and holding the camera straight and steady. At least
with an auto SLR, the pictures have a decent chance of being properly
exposed and in focus.

Now of course you can do all this with a P&S, but here comes the next
bit.

Over time, the learner may realise that the pictures are lacking a
certain something, and enquiring minds will want to know about
exposure compensation, partial metering, the aesthetic effect of
different apeture settings and so forth. The Auto SLR can do all this
too, and the learner can happily embark on phase 2 of the learning
curve *if* he or she wants to.

Of course, if they don't want to learn then they are left with a
highly specced P&S, and will probably be very happy with it.

The statement that auto is a "crutch" pre-supposes that people can't
be bothered to learn. Granted, this is probably true of 99% of
people, but then shouldn't be buying a manual SLR anyway. For the
remaining 1% who do want to learn, then an auto is fine because they
will learn anyway. The advantage of auto is that if someone realises
that actually they are not so interested in the technical aspects of
photography, then at least they are left with a useable camera.

The one thing I *do* agree with you is about using slides rather than
print film. Because:

- They look so good, and that is a huge motivator in itself.
- They mercilessly punish mistakes, and reward accuracy.

The above, by the way, represents my own learning curve so perhaps I'm
biased. And needless to say I'm still learning and your mileage may
vary.

Regards



Ed

[Ed Blagden]

"William D. Tallman" <wtallman@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<vh3egqnvmat555@corp.supernews.com>...

[SNIP]

>
> If you don't know about such things as aperture settings and depth of field,
> and you do want to learn to take meaningful (your's to define) images, then
> the modern SLRs are likely to impede that learning. Automation is
> wonderful, if one knows what is happening; otherwise, it's a crutch that
> can be difficult to overcome. If you're learning, use a tool that will
> force you to learn, and then when you've gotten it to work for you, you may
> (or may not!) choose to get a camera with the bells and whistles. Then,
> you will know enough to effectively use such equipment.
>
> If you are a learner, get hold of a mechanical manual camera that will
> require you to know some photography to use. Then get some books on the
> subject, get a bag of film, and go and learn by doing. In that case, I can
> tell you that there is quite a variety of professional quality mechanical
> cameras available for reasonable money. You could spend the same amount of
> money that you would spend for an entry level new SLR, and get a pro camera
> with excellent lenses.
>

[SNIP]

William

The question of whether a beginner should get a old style manual
camera or a modern auto SLR has the potential to develop into a film
v. digital debate. Having acknowledged the risk, here is my 2
shillings worth:

In my opinion there is much to be said for getting a modern auto SLR
as a beginner camera. The beginner can use the auto settings and take
technically OK pictures from day 1, and can concentrate initially on
highly important things like composition, the effect of different
focal lengths, and holding the camera straight and steady. At least
with an auto SLR, the pictures have a decent chance of being properly
exposed and in focus.

Now of course you can do all this with a P&S, but here comes the next
bit.

Over time, the learner may realise that the pictures are lacking a
certain something, and enquiring minds will want to know about
exposure compensation, partial metering, the aesthetic effect of
different apeture settings and so forth. The Auto SLR can do all this
too, and the learner can happily embark on phase 2 of the learning
curve *if* he or she wants to.

Of course, if they don't want to learn then they are left with a
highly specced P&S, and will probably be very happy with it.

The statement that auto is a "crutch" pre-supposes that people can't
be bothered to learn. Granted, this is probably true of 99% of
people, but then shouldn't be buying a manual SLR anyway. For the
remaining 1% who do want to learn, then an auto is fine because they
will learn anyway. The advantage of auto is that if someone realises
that actually they are not so interested in the technical aspects of
photography, then at least they are left with a useable camera.

The one thing I *do* agree with you is about using slides rather than
print film. Because:

- They look so good, and that is a huge motivator in itself.
- They mercilessly punish mistakes, and reward accuracy.

The above, by the way, represents my own learning curve so perhaps I'm
biased. And needless to say I'm still learning and your mileage may
vary.

Regards



Ed

[Tony Spadaro]

If you want to learn photography you will learn photography with a
modern SLR,not only as well as you would with an older manual SLR but you
will learn how to use the automation to your own advantage, something no
manual camera can teach you.
The concept of being "forced" to use manual methods is not only flawed
but, in fact quite harmful to a student. If he/she can't set the camera on
autop and get good shots he/she is liable to become discouraged and quit. If
you have to "force" a student to learn photography that student does not
want to learn photography, in which case they would be better off with a
fully auto camera anyway - at least they can get pictures without work they
don't want to do.
If you know anyone who learned photography with a gun to his or her head,
of course this does not apply, but I think anyone who volunteers to learn is
not going to need forcing.

--
[url]http://www.chapelhillnoir.com[/url]
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
[url]http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html[/url]
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
"William D. Tallman" <wtallman@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vh63vve7jckr37@corp.supernews.com...

> Ed Blagden wrote:
>
>

> > The question of whether a beginner should get a old style manual
> > camera or a modern auto SLR has the potential to develop into a film
> > v. digital debate. Having acknowledged the risk, here is my 2
> > shillings worth:

>
> Indeed! IIRC, that's already happened more than once, though dunno about
> this venue....
>

> > In my opinion there is much to be said for getting a modern auto SLR
> > as a beginner camera. The beginner can use the auto settings and take
> > technically OK pictures from day 1, and can concentrate initially on
> > highly important things like composition, the effect of different
> > focal lengths, and holding the camera straight and steady. At least
> > with an auto SLR, the pictures have a decent chance of being properly
> > exposed and in focus.

>
> At first read, this sounds reasonable. There is a problem here, I think:
> with an auto SLR, things happen all too fast and there is no enforced time
> for reflection. Most people don't preconsider their shots, but discover
> them through the viewfinder. One sees something that they think would

make

> a good picture and looks at it through the viewfinder, which forces one to
> consider framing. It's all too easy to press the shutter button
> immediately, and having done so, consider the shot made. If there are
> things to do before making the shot, subsequent looks through the finder
> bring second thoughts and more (usually meaningful) consideration of these
> matters.
>

> > Now of course you can do all this with a P&S, but here comes the next
> > bit.
> >
> > Over time, the learner may realise that the pictures are lacking a
> > certain something, and enquiring minds will want to know about
> > exposure compensation, partial metering, the aesthetic effect of
> > different apeture settings and so forth. The Auto SLR can do all this
> > too, and the learner can happily embark on phase 2 of the learning
> > curve *if* he or she wants to.

>
> Sounds reasonable. The lack of need will predispose towards not learning,
> though.
>

> > Of course, if they don't want to learn then they are left with a
> > highly specced P&S, and will probably be very happy with it.
> >
> > The statement that auto is a "crutch" pre-supposes that people can't
> > be bothered to learn. Granted, this is probably true of 99% of
> > people, but then shouldn't be buying a manual SLR anyway. For the
> > remaining 1% who do want to learn, then an auto is fine because they
> > will learn anyway. The advantage of auto is that if someone realises
> > that actually they are not so interested in the technical aspects of
> > photography, then at least they are left with a useable camera.

>
> I think that people are never really sure about knowing what they might or
> might not want to learn until they've had some amount of exposure to the
> subject <...resolutely ignores the pun...>. Those who think they might be
> so disposed do well to get hold of a really good mechanical camera and

give

> the process a chance, subject themselves to the discipline of necessity.
> If they then decide they don't want to do this, they can dispose of the
> equipment (given adequate care) for what they paid for it. This is not
> likely the case for modern equipment. They can then take the money and at
> least make a more informed choice of modern camera; for instance,
> discovering the DOF button might establish it as a requirement, where many
> modern machines don't have that facility.
>

> > The one thing I *do* agree with you is about using slides rather than
> > print film. Because:
> >
> > - They look so good, and that is a huge motivator in itself.
> > - They mercilessly punish mistakes, and reward accuracy.

>
> Interestingly enough, I almost never shoot slide film, though I may start
> doing so now. I never had a reason to have slides, and they were more of

a

> hassle to print than negative film (internegatives, etc.) But then, I was
> mostly into black and white anyway.
>
> When I get my digital darkroom complete, I may just make the switch if I

can

> find a way of getting the processed film returned unmounted, but that's

yet

> to be determined.
>

> > The above, by the way, represents my own learning curve so perhaps I'm
> > biased. And needless to say I'm still learning and your mileage may
> > vary.

>
> No two people's mileage is ever the same, which is why uncritically

copying

> another person's process is never fully successful. A deeper observation
> is that we are commonly taught how to learn, but seldom taught how to
> think; learning is for copying, and thinking is for figuring it out for
> ourselves.
>
> Do 'ya s'pose I've got an axe or two to grind here? Nahhh.....
> LOL!!!!!!!
>
> Bill Tallman
>

[William D. Tallman]

Tony Spadaro wrote:

> If you want to learn photography you will learn photography with a
> modern SLR,not only as well as you would with an older manual SLR but you
> will learn how to use the automation to your own advantage, something no
> manual camera can teach you.

Hmmm.... there's a misunderstanding here. As far as I know, one does not
learn from a camera; one uses a camera as a tool for learning photography.
WRT automation: how is one to comprehend automation if one does not
adequately understand what is being automated?

> The concept of being "forced" to use manual methods is not only flawed
> but, in fact quite harmful to a student. If he/she can't set the camera on
> autop and get good shots he/she is liable to become discouraged and quit.
> If you have to "force" a student to learn photography that student does
> not want to learn photography, in which case they would be better off with
> a fully auto camera anyway - at least they can get pictures without work
> they don't want to do.

<snip>

The concept of force as presented here is not relevant. Discipline,
specifically self-discipline, is the issue, and the devising of processes
that will promote (enforce) self-discipline is a useful activity. The
concept of students implies that of teachers (and classes and labs, etc),
all of which is irrelevant. The focus of the discussion was autodidactics
in photography

Bill Tallman

[Duncan Ross]

>From: "Tony Spadaro" [email]tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com[/email]

>Date: 15/07/03 03:39 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <EPJQa.232114$nr.9462081@twister.southeast.rr.co m>
>
> If you want to learn photography you will learn photography with a
>modern SLR,not only as well as you would with an older manual SLR but you
>will learn how to use the automation to your own advantage, something no
>manual camera can teach you.
> The concept of being "forced" to use manual methods is not only flawed
>but, in fact quite harmful to a student. If he/she can't set the camera on
>autop and get good shots he/she is liable to become discouraged and quit. If
>you have to "force" a student to learn photography that student does not
>want to learn photography, in which case they would be better off with a
>fully auto camera anyway - at least they can get pictures without work they
>don't want to do.
> If you know anyone who learned photography with a gun to his or her head,
>of course this does not apply, but I think anyone who volunteers to learn is
>not going to need forcing.
>
>--

That's one point of view but I genuinely believe that a manual SLR is the best
tool for learning photography. I learned on a Practika MTL3 and didn't feel in
any way forced into doing anything. Having a manual camera means you have to
turn the lens to focus, and adjust a dial and/or a ring while metering to set
the exposure. Period. It does not suddenly result in a run of wrongly exposed
out of focus shots unless you forget to focus it or forget to meter, something
that I never once did - in fact the only thing you'll probably ever do wrong is
forget to wind on. Also no automatic camera is as easy to use on manual mode as
a proper manual camera, in fact they rarely have a split glass in the
viewfinder at all.

What my Practika did was to make me think about the shot. I decided on what I
was focussing on and whether I would like more aperture or a quicker shutter
speed, overexpose a bit etc. You /can/ do this on a fully automatic camera but
it then defeats the purpose of having one. In fact I ended up being completely
driven up the wall with an automatic SLR! You had to focus and then hold
something down and recompose without letting go, then you had to start pressing
buttons to add a stop because of where the sun was, but maybe the camera had
compensated for it, or had it? I sold up, bought a Kiev and a Fujica and have
never regretted it!

My view is this, if you wan't to learn to drive a car, learn to drive a car.
Don't expect to sit in the passenger seat and give the driver directions and at
the end of the journey expect to be a good driver.

The rules of composition etc. apply equally to manual and automatic SLRs,
you'll learn that regardless of the camera you choose. However you'll learn
even more with a manual, and you want to learn, right..?

[Tony Spadaro]

How could one learn to comprehend automation from a camera without
automation?
Self discipline is just that. If I tie you to a chair you are not
learnign self discipline - you are tied to a chair. If you are after
self-discipline - do it yourself. If you simply want others to have to learn
how to use your idea of what is the "correct" type of camera, call it what
it is - Limiting the student.

--
[url]http://www.chapelhillnoir.com[/url]
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
[url]http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html[/url]
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
"William D. Tallman" <wtallman@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vh75rbll1h04da@corp.supernews.com...

> Tony Spadaro wrote:
>

> > If you want to learn photography you will learn photography with

a

> > modern SLR,not only as well as you would with an older manual SLR but

you

> > will learn how to use the automation to your own advantage, something no
> > manual camera can teach you.

>
> Hmmm.... there's a misunderstanding here. As far as I know, one does not
> learn from a camera; one uses a camera as a tool for learning photography.
> WRT automation: how is one to comprehend automation if one does not
> adequately understand what is being automated?
>

> > The concept of being "forced" to use manual methods is not only flawed
> > but, in fact quite harmful to a student. If he/she can't set the camera

on

> > autop and get good shots he/she is liable to become discouraged and

quit.

> > If you have to "force" a student to learn photography that student does
> > not want to learn photography, in which case they would be better off

with

> > a fully auto camera anyway - at least they can get pictures without work
> > they don't want to do.

> <snip>
>
> The concept of force as presented here is not relevant. Discipline,
> specifically self-discipline, is the issue, and the devising of processes
> that will promote (enforce) self-discipline is a useful activity. The
> concept of students implies that of teachers (and classes and labs, etc),
> all of which is irrelevant. The focus of the discussion was autodidactics
> in photography
>
> Bill Tallman
>
>
>

[Duncan Ross]

>From: "Tony Spadaro" [email]tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com[/email]

>Date: 15-Jul-2003 18:38 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <x_WQa.236770$nr.9549002@twister.southeast.rr.co m>
>
>Any good automatic SLR allows you to have the same controls as every manual
>camera - shutter, film speed and aperture. Most of them also have dof
>preview - something missing on many manual models.
> Are you saying you never had a badly exposed or out of focus shot with a
>manual camera - if you are you have a very poor memory. Perhaps you have
>runs of out of focus or poorly exposed shots with an auto camera because you
>never learned how to use one.

Your first point is answered if you read my post that you quoted! As far as
point two, I would sincerely like to know how it is possible to look through
the viewfinder, focus and still take an out of focus shot. I focus past
something and then snap back on to it - never fails. Likewise exposure - if the
meter is right then I am right because I line up the little needle and add /
subtract a little from judgement, however I always use print film so I only
need to be within a stop regardless. Of course I get bad shots, especially when
I'm trying to photograph very mobile baby degus handheld with a macro lens, but
so would you! :o)

Frankly there isn't an aspect of my photography that would be improved by
automating it, I'm sorry for others that cannot take pictures without having
the camera set all the knobs and focussing for them!

[mike II]

William D. Tallman wrote:

> The focus of the discussion was autodidactics
> in photography

Ya'll larn that there big word by'n yourself, Billie boy? Now, you don't
be doin' too much o' that autodidacticussin, I'm tellin' you. You'll go
blind...sure as shootin'




zeke

[William D. Tallman]

mike II wrote:

> William D. Tallman wrote:
>

> > The focus of the discussion was autodidactics
>> in photography

>
>
>
> Ya'll larn that there big word by'n yourself, Billie boy? Now, you don't
> be doin' too much o' that autodidacticussin, I'm tellin' you. You'll go
> blind...sure as shootin'
>
>
>
>
> zeke

But Paw... I did wash m' hands afterwards! Waren't that enuff?

Ectually, old boy, it was, I believe, a Fifth Form word! Ta......

LOL!!!!!!

Bill Tallman

[Rick]

Well this has been very interesting but here comes another view.
Lets take a different look at this " Auto v Manual " discussion.
Both have there place depending on how you look at it will determine
how you see it. I use computers for remote imaging for a living.
Now while programming and writing code may be fun for some of use
being a code writer was not necessary in learning how to use a computer.
In fact I started out with pre-written programs on the computer so I
could how to use the computer in the first place. After I was using the
cursed thing for a while I branched out into the other fields. So having a
" Auto " SLR to start just maybe a good thing so you can see what a
camera " might " be able to do then go after the " Good Stuff " to see
what " You " might be able to do. Just a different look at this..
Having fun with a camera is just as important as knowing what it
might be able to do...
Enjoy.

Rick Keefer
Chula Vista, CA
[email]rickkee@cox.ner[/email]

"Tony Spadaro" <tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Io7Ra.231123$_w.9279389@twister.southeast.rr. com...

> And I am sorry for you Mr. Duncan Ross. You have set your mind in
> concrete and are unable to even see other ways. You might find that a few
> lessons in loosening up the stiffness in your thinking would do more for
> your photography than any camera, of any kind.

*** snip ***

> > Frankly there isn't an aspect of my photography that would be improved

by

> > automating it, I'm sorry for others that cannot take pictures without

> having

> > the camera set all the knobs and focussing for them!

[Ed Blagden]

"Tony Spadaro" <tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message news:<Io7Ra.231123$_w.9279389@twister.southeast.rr .com>...

> And I am sorry for you Mr. Duncan Ross. You have set your mind in
> concrete and are unable to even see other ways. You might find that a few
> lessons in loosening up the stiffness in your thinking would do more for
> your photography than any camera, of any kind.
>

See, I said this could turn into a film vs. digital debate!

Big-endians rule.

Hurrah for the little-endians!