Manual or Automatic SLR??

[mattheere]

Mak,

I've been reading the replies to your original message, and one point
that I think is missing so far is the question of budget. If you're
made of money then by all means get the fully auto camera, and turn
off the auto features when you want to learn or need more precise
control.

Having said all that, I am a firm believer (and I'm not alone) that
lenses are the critical part of your equipment - not the camera body.
So, if you are on a budget you need to be thinking about paying for
quality lenses *first*. If that means you can only afford a manual
camera / manual focus - so be it.

Also remember that professional grade film and processing cost more
that the stuff you get a the local drug store. Again, I think these
things will make much more difference in your results that one camera
body vs. another, so make sure you have the funds available to use
these services.

I think your decision will be much easier if you put things in this
order. Once you've done your lens shopping and set aside some money
for film, you'll probably find that you have very few body choices
left...

Matt


[email]maks70@comcast.net[/email] (MAK) wrote in message news:<b7178504.0306071126.3886d73e@posting.google. com>...

> Hello,
>
> I would like to be good photographer. I am too in this classic
> dilemma. Buy automatic (AF) camera or Manual SLR camera and need
> advise.
>
> What features are essential to have them as manual rather than
> automatic ( Like having film winded manually/automatically , should
> not matter and should not be essential right!! )?
>
> Also I observed that most AF camera also now have manual modes for
> many functions like focus, aperture setting. Are they as accurate as
> they are in manual cameras?
>
> I am currently debating between Nikon FM-10 or Nikon N65 ? Pricewise
> there is not significant difference. So which one should I go for?
>
> Also how are the lenses from Pheonix. I found one 28-210mm at damn
> good price.(149 US$) .
>
> Also, what features should I look in flash other than distance and
> battery life/recharge latency?
>
> Please advise.
>
> Thanks
> Mak

[Don Stauffer]

From what I see on market, there doesn't seem to be much difference in
price - in fact some of the fully automatic cameras are cheaper than
manual ones. I suppose this is a function of volume.

I have been considering something a bit more modern than my AE-1 and
KX1000. I see no price advantage of current manual cameras. I have no
real interest in auto focus, but may get one anyway (as long as it has
the manual modes I want) just because I can get a better deal on a
package.

BTW, I find I use auto exposure about half the time on my AE-1. I have
real doubts I would use auto focus much, but I will certainly give it a
try at times on shots where focus is not critical.

mattheere wrote:

>
> Mak,
>
> I've been reading the replies to your original message, and one point
> that I think is missing so far is the question of budget. If you're
> made of money then by all means get the fully auto camera, and turn
> off the auto features when you want to learn or need more precise
> control.
>
> Having said all that, I am a firm believer (and I'm not alone) that
> lenses are the critical part of your equipment - not the camera body.
> So, if you are on a budget you need to be thinking about paying for
> quality lenses *first*. If that means you can only afford a manual
> camera / manual focus - so be it.
>
> Also remember that professional grade film and processing cost more
> that the stuff you get a the local drug store. Again, I think these
> things will make much more difference in your results that one camera
> body vs. another, so make sure you have the funds available to use
> these services.
>
> I think your decision will be much easier if you put things in this
> order. Once you've done your lens shopping and set aside some money
> for film, you'll probably find that you have very few body choices
> left...
>
> Matt
>
> [email]maks70@comcast.net[/email] (MAK) wrote in message news:<b7178504.0306071126.3886d73e@posting.google. com>...

> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to be good photographer. I am too in this classic
> > dilemma. Buy automatic (AF) camera or Manual SLR camera and need
> > advise.
> >
> > What features are essential to have them as manual rather than
> > automatic ( Like having film winded manually/automatically , should
> > not matter and should not be essential right!! )?
> >
> > Also I observed that most AF camera also now have manual modes for
> > many functions like focus, aperture setting. Are they as accurate as
> > they are in manual cameras?
> >
> > I am currently debating between Nikon FM-10 or Nikon N65 ? Pricewise
> > there is not significant difference. So which one should I go for?
> >
> > Also how are the lenses from Pheonix. I found one 28-210mm at damn
> > good price.(149 US$) .
> >
> > Also, what features should I look in flash other than distance and
> > battery life/recharge latency?
> >
> > Please advise.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Mak

--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
[email]stauffer@usfamily.net[/email]
webpage- [url]http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer[/url]

[Skip Middleton]

You must be one stonking great photographer...

--
Skip Middleton
[url]www.shadowcatcherimagery.com[/url]
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.0307041153.386cddee@posting.google.c om...

> [email]maks70@comcast.net[/email] (MAK) wrote in message

news:<b7178504.0306071126.3886d73e@posting.google. com>...

> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to be good photographer.

>
> Then get the best equipment. Leica.

> > I am too in this classic
> > dilemma. Buy automatic (AF) camera or Manual SLR camera and need
> > advise.

>
> Manual focus is my preference.

> >
> > What features are essential to have them as manual rather than
> > automatic ( Like having film winded manually/automatically , should
> > not matter and should not be essential right!! )?

>
> I use a completely manual camera: the Leicaflex SL2. No motor, no
> expoosure automation.
>
>

> >
> > Also I observed that most AF camera also now have manual modes for
> > many functions like focus, aperture setting. Are they as accurate as
> > they are in manual cameras?

>
> Who knows or cares.
>

> > I am currently debating between Nikon FM-10 or Nikon N65 ? Pricewise
> > there is not significant difference. So which one should I go for?

>
> Get a Leica R9.

> >
> > Also how are the lenses from Pheonix. I found one 28-210mm at damn
> > good price.(149 US$) .

>
> I thought you said you wanted to be a GOOD photographer?

> >
> > Also, what features should I look in flash other than distance and
> > battery life/recharge latency?
> >
> > Please advise.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Mak

[Ken]

What is "professional grade film"? Is this not what I get at a camera store
(Kodak, Fuji Film)? Where, then, does one get "professional grade film"?

"mattheere" <mattheere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cdd48dfe.0307030909.28930e8c@posting.google.c om...

> Mak,
> Also remember that professional grade film and processing cost more
>

[Skip Middleton]

It's generally the stuff at the back of the store in a refrigerator.

--
Skip Middleton
[url]www.shadowcatcherimagery.com[/url]
"Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:be6unq$2u$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...

> What is "professional grade film"? Is this not what I get at a camera

store

> (Kodak, Fuji Film)? Where, then, does one get "professional grade film"?
>
> "mattheere" <mattheere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cdd48dfe.0307030909.28930e8c@posting.google.c om...

> > Mak,
> > Also remember that professional grade film and processing cost more
> >

>
>

[Ken]

I just wondered because I went to the Fuji site and saw what it was, but it
seems places like Wolf and Ritz don't sell it. I believe pharmacies and
Walmarts don't sell it either.

"Skip Middleton" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:u9ENa.89025$Pc5.18967@fed1read01...

> It's generally the stuff at the back of the store in a refrigerator.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> [url]www.shadowcatcherimagery.com[/url]
> "Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:be6unq$2u$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...

> > What is "professional grade film"? Is this not what I get at a camera

> store

> > (Kodak, Fuji Film)? Where, then, does one get "professional grade film"?
> >
> > "mattheere" <mattheere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cdd48dfe.0307030909.28930e8c@posting.google.c om...

> > > Mak,
> > > Also remember that professional grade film and processing cost more
> > >

> >
> >

>
>

[Alan]

"Tony Parkinson" <nospamnewsreplies@photoshot.com> wrote in message news:<bc2un2$7av$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...

> "PC Terms" ? You mean like motherboard ?

Yes, I think the proper term today is parentboard.

[Alan]

[email]maks70@comcast.net[/email] (MAK) wrote in message news:<b7178504.0306071126.3886d73e@posting.google. com>...

> Hello,
>
> I would like to be good photographer. I am too in this classic
> dilemma. Buy automatic (AF) camera or Manual SLR camera and need
> advise.

If you want to be a good photographer, study composition, light, and
color. Study the great artists, and then the great photographers.
Once you are familiar with these, the lens and film are secondary, and
the camera takes third place.

[Michael Scarpitti]

"Skip Middleton" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message news:<alnNa.88260$Pc5.16797@fed1read01>...

> You must be one stonking great photographer...

I've done some good work, but I seldom shoot anymore. It's gotten old.

[Ken]

If the film has to be refrigerated, how do you take it with you to a
shooting location (I hope this isn't a stupid question, but the answer is
not obvious to me)?

"Skip Middleton" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:u9ENa.89025$Pc5.18967@fed1read01...

> It's generally the stuff at the back of the store in a refrigerator.

[Pete McCutchen]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:08:43 -0400, "Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com> wrote:

>If the film has to be refrigerated, how do you take it with you to a
>shooting location (I hope this isn't a stupid question, but the answer is
>not obvious to me)?

It doesn't have to be refrigerated constantly; it just performs a bit
better if you refrigerate it for storage. Keeping it in your back for
a few hours, or a few days or weeks for that matter, won't matter.

Btw, if you're shooting color film and taking it in to be developed
and printed at your local drugstore or Wal-Mart, it's probably not
worth the extra money to get professional grade film. The differences
in quality are subtle enough that normal commercial printing won't
really bring much out. Now, if you do your own printing, or if you
take your stuff to a high quality pro lab, you may notice some
difference.
--

Pete McCutchen

[Michael Scarpitti]

[email]AlanRRT@aol.com[/email] (Alan) wrote in message news:<267766ad.0307051423.1f107270@posting.google. com>...

> [email]maks70@comcast.net[/email] (MAK) wrote in message news:<b7178504.0306071126.3886d73e@posting.google. com>...

> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to be good photographer. I am too in this classic
> > dilemma. Buy automatic (AF) camera or Manual SLR camera and need
> > advise.

>
> If you want to be a good photographer, study composition, light, and
> color. Study the great artists, and then the great photographers.
> Once you are familiar with these, the lens and film are secondary, and
> the camera takes third place.

My photography became better when I moved to Leica. The notion that
equipment doesn't matter misses the point of what the technical limits
are. In any given system, the better the lens, the better the color,
tonality, and 'sharpness' that can be obtained. Can you see the
difference between Leica lenses and say Nikon or Canon? Of course you
can. I can, and I have shown the difference to many people over the
years.

Take the 50mm 1.4 normal lens, for example. In 1971, I did a test
between the Nikon 50mm 1.4 (at that time it sold for about $150) and
the Leicaflex 50mm 1.4 ($441) using Panatomic-X film (ASA 32) and a
Paterson test chart. That test chart has various patterns on it to
show the deficiencies in lenses, such as astigmatism, coma,
distortion, resolution, contrast, curvature of field, vignetting, etc.

Looking at the chart, you can even see the astigmatism in your own
eyes!

The results were not even close. The Nikon lens had noticeably lower
contrast and higher astigmmatism, (but higher resolution, which
unfortunately is of no value whatsoever in a high-speed taking lens).
The astigmatism was particularly noticeable, and it degraded fine
detail by reducing the contrast.

The Leicaflex lens had a bit less illumination in the far corners, but
only slightly less. It also had a bit of curvature of field, but
considering that a high-speed lens is NOT going to be used to
photograph newsprint for reproduction, this is of not the slightest
importance.

All in all, no contest. The Leicaflex lens was visibly, markedly,
superior. The Leica lens designers obviously recognized that a
high-speed taking lens needed contrast above all, because of the kind
of environment it would be used in. The Nikon designers had it all
backwards, going for resolution at flatness of field at the expense of
contrast. The eye needs as much contrast as possible to see details.

No amount of photographer's skill can make up for the differences in
equipment.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

[email]mikescarpitti@yahoo.com[/email] (Michael Scarpitti) writes:

> My photography became better when I moved to Leica. The notion that
> equipment doesn't matter misses the point of what the technical limits
> are. In any given system, the better the lens, the better the color,
> tonality, and 'sharpness' that can be obtained. Can you see the
> difference between Leica lenses and say Nikon or Canon? Of course you
> can. I can, and I have shown the difference to many people over the
> years.

Interesting. My one experience with people who thought they could see
the difference ended with the friend who got me into Leicas in the
first place incorrectly identifying as having been taken with a 90mm
Summicron a shot I'd actually taken with a Tamron zoom on a Pentax
Spotmatic. (This was around 1974)

(This is not to complain about either the Leica system, or my friend;
I took many very nice photos with that Leica, and it could certainly
do many things that SLRs of the period could never do -- starting with
having a 90mm f2 lens in the first place, and continuing through
focusing it in the light conditions I could shoot pictures in with it,
and making little enough noise that nobody much cared if I did.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd-b@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>

[Pete McCutchen]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:04:12 -0400, "Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>How difficult is it to learn to do your own developing and printing? Is it a
>skill the average person can learn?
>
>My dad was in the Navy during Korean War and he was an aerial photographer
>doing mapping and such. He had his own darkroom equipment when I was a kid,
>but it was b&w and very simple equipment. I would have to assume from what I
>have written that things are much more difficult and complex today.

Well, I do my own developing and printing in black & white. After
taking a few minutes to find out where everything was, your dad could
probably become acclimated to the darkroom that I use now. In
principle, it's really no different that the one I had in my basement
as a kid.

I don't personally do color darkroom work right now, though I have
done it. Color film is somewhat more difficult to work with -- the
temperatures are higher; you have to be more exacting with time and
temperature; the chemistry is more caustic. Plus, there's a lot less
latitude to adjust processing to increase or decrease contrast, and
therefore less reason to do it yourself. Many people (including me)
consider it to be a PITA, and don't do it themselves. When I feel the
urge to really shoot color, I take it to a pro lab and get negs and
contact sheets. (Vacation snapshots and the like I take to CVS.)

Color printing is just like black & white printing, except you have to
do more in the dark and you have a more to fiddle with to get the
colors right. I don't do it myself, because I find getting the colors
right tedious. Also, photography is a hobby for me, an artistic
outlet, and I find color to be less artistically interesting than
black & white. Not that there aren't some great color photographers
out there; I just don't find doing color to be that interesting. But
if you have the mental capacity to develop and print black and white,
you can do the same with color. Oh, I suppose somebody who's color
blind might have difficulty with color printing, but that's about it.
--

Pete McCutchen

[Ken]

How do I know if the "pro" lab is really? Just because they call themselves
"pro", it doesn't necessarily mean that's what they are.

I want to get more out of my pictures than I'm getting from Wolf, Ritz,
Walmart, CVS (I am assuming here that all the problems with the final result
are not completely the fault of how I take them).

Does anyone know of a pro lab in the Atlanta area? I've looked in the yellow
pages, but that hasn't been much help.
"Pete McCutchen" <p.mccutchen@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:gn87hv0fnr6ta4rfifc6e3f921se9jkevl@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:04:12 -0400, "Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>When I feel the
> urge to really shoot color, I take it to a pro lab and get negs and
> contact sheets.
> Pete McCutchen

[Victor Bazarov]

"Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com> wrote...

> How do I know if the "pro" lab is really? [...]

I am baffled by the fact that you cross-posted to so many
newsgroups and left out "rec.photo.film+labs". Was there
a reason?

In any case, go to [url]www.photo.net[/url] and look up a list of labs
in their forums. People talk about labs all the time there.

Victor

[Gregory W. Blank]

Your local yellow pages or biz to biz yellow pages should help,
just look under professional photo labs.


In article <bf42eu$5t9$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, "Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com> wrote:

> How do I know if the "pro" lab is really? Just because they call themselves
> "pro", it doesn't necessarily mean that's what they are.
>
> I want to get more out of my pictures than I'm getting from Wolf, Ritz,
> Walmart, CVS (I am assuming here that all the problems with the final result
> are not completely the fault of how I take them).
>
> Does anyone know of a pro lab in the Atlanta area? I've looked in the yellow
> pages, but that hasn't been much help.
> "Pete McCutchen" <p.mccutchen@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:gn87hv0fnr6ta4rfifc6e3f921se9jkevl@4ax.com...

> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:04:12 -0400, "Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >When I feel the
> > urge to really shoot color, I take it to a pro lab and get negs and
> > contact sheets.
> > Pete McCutchen

--
Check out My Homepage at
[url]http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank[/url]

Support bacteria - they're the only culture
some people have." -Stephen Wright

[Bill Hilton]

>From: "Ken" [email]kewaynco@hotmail.com[/email]

>How do I know if the "pro" lab is really? Just because they call themselves
>"pro", it doesn't necessarily mean that's what they are.

Find a couple of successful wedding and portrait photographers, then ask them
who does their film developing.

[Bob Crownfield]

Ken wrote:

>
> How do I know if the "pro" lab is really? Just because they call themselves
> "pro", it doesn't necessarily mean that's what they are.
>
> I want to get more out of my pictures than I'm getting from Wolf, Ritz,
> Walmart, CVS (I am assuming here that all the problems with the final result
> are not completely the fault of how I take them).
>
> Does anyone know of a pro lab in the Atlanta area? I've looked in the yellow
> pages, but that hasn't been much help.

why not? using the internet from LA,

google gets "atlanta professional photo lab"

and gives,

[url]http://www.colorgenesis.com/[/url]
which looks like it can do anything you can pay for, and
things you have not even thought about yet.

among many others in a yellow pages search
(147 atlanta photo labs in
[url]http://www.infobel.com/teldir/result.asp?url=http://yp.bellsouth.com[/url]),

> "Pete McCutchen" <p.mccutchen@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:gn87hv0fnr6ta4rfifc6e3f921se9jkevl@4ax.com...

> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:04:12 -0400, "Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >When I feel the
> > urge to really shoot color, I take it to a pro lab and get negs and
> > contact sheets.
> > Pete McCutchen

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

"Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com> wrote

> How do I know if the "pro" lab is really? Just because they call themselves
> "pro", it doesn't necessarily mean that's what they are.

If you can't sniff it out, there is a dead give-away: it will likely be 2-4
times the price of a consumer lab.

And, the lab won't be listed in the consumer yellow pages.

> Does anyone know of a pro lab in the Atlanta area? I've looked in the yellow
> pages, but that hasn't been much help.

Ah Ha - I told you so.

Try the business yellow pages, though the lab may not have purchased a yellow
pages listing: all the photographers already who and where they are, so why
waste the money?

Find a few commercial photographers (the ones doing advertising, fashion,
industrial, annual reports...). They usually list in the business pages.
Call and ask them what lab they use.

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