Professional Web Applications Themes

Would I buy a Canon EOS 1000 - Photography

Hello, I've just written a very long mail and noticed it was so boring that probably noone would want to read it, so I'll try to make it short ;-) This is my sittuation: - I have been getting more and more serious about photography during the last year, I am however an amateur and consider myself to be an absolute beginner. - I own a Konica z-up 130e and a Fuji Finepix 2800 zoom. Two very nice cameras, but now that I'm learning things like what a diafragma is and what effect it has on your photos, they're becoming ...

  1. #1

    Default Would I buy a Canon EOS 1000


    Hello,

    I've just written a very long mail and noticed it was so boring that probably
    noone would want to read it, so I'll try to make it short ;-)

    This is my sittuation:
    - I have been getting more and more serious about photography during the last
    year, I am however an amateur and consider myself to be an absolute beginner.
    - I own a Konica z-up 130e and a Fuji Finepix 2800 zoom. Two very nice cameras,
    but now that I'm learning things like what a diafragma is and what effect it
    has on your photos, they're becoming very limiting.
    - My dad has a Rolleiflex SL 35 with excellent Carl Zeis lenses with very
    impressive diafragmas. He hardly ever uses it (doesn't take to much
    photographs anymore). However, he doesn't seam to want to let me use it either
    (:-().
    - I've been to a local shop where they sell second hand stuff, the have a canon
    EOS 1000 and charge 200 Euro for it. The camera comes with a consumer zoom
    (28-80mm I think to remember). The zoom will most likely suffise for many
    photographs, but I would also need a 50mm lens with a serious diafragma (lets
    say at least f2.8-11, preferably f1.8-18 or better) and a 130mm lens.

    I am wondering, would it be interesting to buy the canon? Or is it to expensive?
    And wouldn't it be better to try to convince my dad to let me use, or buy his
    camera (and if so, what would be a reasonable price?).

    I don't really need autofocus (or anything automatic in fact) on the SLR because
    if I have to take photographs fast, I can still use my other cameras (okay, they
    are limiting, but well, money is an issue ;-)).
    However, if I go on a trip, if I have the canon with the extra lenses I
    mentioned, it could completely replace my compact camera, if I use the
    Rolleiflex, I'll still need my compact camera, because well, most people I
    photograph are terribly impatient ;-) sometimes point and shoot comes in
    extremely handy.

    Could you guys give me some advice?

    Greets,

    Jan

    ps.: The camera would probably only be used for 2 years, because after my
    studys, when I earn money, I'll follow photograpy lessons and buy a decent
    camera (I currently follow drawing lesses after school, I wanted to follow
    photography, but it was to expensive and I like drawing). That is, unless this
    EOS 1000 is actually an excellent camera, and all I'd have to buy in two years
    would be some more good lenses.
    Jan Keirse Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Would I buy a Canon EOS 1000

    Jan Keirse <jan.keirsepandora.be> wrote in message news:<slrnbgt67e.1il.jan.keirsemylinux.local>...
    > Hello,
    >
    > This is my sittuation:
    > - I have been getting more and more serious about photography during the last
    > year, I am however an amateur and consider myself to be an absolute beginner.
    ....
    > I am wondering, would it be interesting to buy the canon? Or is it to expensive?
    > And wouldn't it be better to try to convince my dad to let me use, or buy his
    > camera (and if so, what would be a reasonable price?).
    ....
    > Greets,
    >
    > Jan
    Hi Jan,

    The Canon 1000 sounds too expensive to me - they go on ebay for about
    €100 (£50+£35 for the lens). Are you willing to spend that much extra
    for the 3 month guarantee or whatever the shop offers?
    Anyway I would not think the 1000 (Rebel in the US) is the best choice
    - it is in Canon's base class (like the current 3000), and has no
    Depth of field preview which can give you a really nice idea when you
    are learning about this.
    If you want a Canon AF the EOS 100 (Elan) has more control
    possibilites and also a built in flash, and is extremely quiet, though
    it is about 160g heavier. see
    [url]http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/canoncamera.htm[/url] for specs on all
    cameras + other manufacturers.

    As you say AF is not so important to you and the EOS 1000 has no flash
    you could consider an older MF camera. The big advantage is that MF
    lenses are a lot cheaper 2nd hand than AF - I reckon you could get a
    MF camera and the 3 lenses you mention for not much more than €200.
    The manual cameras also usually have a better focussing screen in them
    so you get a good feel for focus. And for point and shoot use you can
    get pretty quick at manual focussing. I used to have a canon AE-1 and
    really liked everything on it. The big disadvantage of this route is
    that if you move to a more modern AF camera in the future you cannot
    use the lenses, unless you go for Nikon, in which case many lenses are
    incompatible in auto exposure even though the physical mount is the
    same (see [url]http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/bodylens.htm[/url]). However
    you will be spending less on the manual lenses so the investment is
    not so great to lose. And you may decide that you prefer a different
    lens/camera system when you come to upgrade anyway.

    About your Dad's Rolleiflex - well I would go out and get your own
    stuff, experiment with that, show him you are serious and that you
    take care of it and maybe in 2 years he will let you use that. Plus
    you will have your own SLR system.

    At the end of the day it doesn't matter too much what equipment you
    get - it's how you use it. Just get something and get out there!

    bye,

    Dan
    Dan Pidcock Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Would I buy a Canon EOS 1000

    Jan,

    Get yourself your own Rolleiflex body with a standard lens (50 mm) or
    equivalent Voigtländer (the "newer" once use the same lenses) and show your
    dad that you treat the camera well and hopefully he will let you use the
    other lenses too...


    Fritz


    Fritz Dold Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Would I buy a Canon EOS 1000

    Jan Keirse wrote:
    >
    > Hello,
    >
    > I've just written a very long mail and noticed it was so boring that
    > probably noone would want to read it, so I'll try to make it short ;-)
    >
    > This is my sittuation:
    > - I have been getting more and more serious about photography during the
    > last
    > year, I am however an amateur and consider myself to be an absolute
    > beginner.
    > - I own a Konica z-up 130e and a Fuji Finepix 2800 zoom. Two very nice
    > cameras,
    > but now that I'm learning things like what a diafragma is and what
    > effect it has on your photos, they're becoming very limiting.
    Diafragma is Spanish (?) for "diafragm"?

    Your English is very good, so you probably should know that the term most
    commonly used in English is "aperture". The diafragm is the aperture
    control mechanism. Most times, the three primary controls for a camera are
    focus, shutter and aperture, and that's what they're commonly called.
    > - My dad has a Rolleiflex SL 35 with excellent Carl Zeis lenses with very
    > impressive diafragmas. He hardly ever uses it (doesn't take to much
    > photographs anymore). However, he doesn't seam to want to let me use it
    > either (:-().
    Often an "impressive diafragma" is called a "fast lens", in that it will,
    when wide open (lowest aperture number), allow faster shutter speeds. In
    general, fast lenses require more sophisticated design and careful
    manufacture in order to produce to some optical standard. So, "fast
    lenses" are often equated with higher quality (and cost).
    > - I've been to a local shop where they sell second hand stuff, the have a
    > canon
    > EOS 1000 and charge 200 Euro for it. The camera comes with a consumer
    > zoom (28-80mm I think to remember). The zoom will most likely suffise
    > for many photographs, but I would also need a 50mm lens with a serious
    > diafragma (lets say at least f2.8-11, preferably f1.8-18 or better) and
    > a 130mm lens.
    The common standard for a 50mm lens is f1.4 to f22. The most common
    telephoto lens is 135mm, or used to be. They usually run from f2.8/f3.5 to
    f22/f32.
    > I am wondering, would it be interesting to buy the canon? Or is it to
    > expensive? And wouldn't it be better to try to convince my dad to let me
    > use, or buy his camera (and if so, what would be a reasonable price?).
    If money is no object, buy the best. Arguments abound on what that might
    be, but Nikon/Canon/Contax/Leica lead, with Olympus/Pentax/Minolta/other in
    some order of rank.

    If you want to learn photography, there are better options. One of which is
    to get a quality mechanical camera with no automation and learn to use it
    effectively. Let your father have his camera, and get your own that you
    can use without undue inhibition.
    > I don't really need autofocus (or anything automatic in fact) on the SLR
    > because if I have to take photographs fast, I can still use my other
    > cameras (okay, they are limiting, but well, money is an issue ;-)).
    > However, if I go on a trip, if I have the canon with the extra lenses I
    > mentioned, it could completely replace my compact camera, if I use the
    > Rolleiflex, I'll still need my compact camera, because well, most people I
    > photograph are terribly impatient ;-) sometimes point and shoot comes in
    > extremely handy.
    You are planning for an imagined eventuality, and using that to define what
    gear you should acquire. Not good.

    You don't need the Canon, or the Rolleiflex, or anything other than a solid
    mechanical camera that will force you to learn photography. That, I
    presume, is the essence of this issue: you learning photography.

    The fact is that there is a nice variety of very fine mechanical cameras
    available with excellent optics that will last longer (have already lasted
    longer..) than the cheap Canon SLR, and that will produce images for you
    that are beyond the scope of the capability of your point and shoot. And
    they can be had for very reasonable prices.

    The point is this: you don't have to limit yourself *after* you learn
    photography, but you really should limit yourself so that you *do* learn
    photography. Once you know how to effectively use a fully manual camera,
    you can get one with all the bells and whistles, because you will know what
    you want done and what the camera is doing for you. Translate that
    knowledge to the latest fully automated machine, and you will discover that
    you will require the camera to offer you full manual control, but you will
    be able to really effectively use the automation as well.

    Does that make sense to you?

    If so, check around and see if you can get hold of an older mechanical pro
    camera that's in really good shape, learn to use it, take good care of it,
    and keep it with you as the tool that will never let you down. Newer
    equipment will inevitably replace it for primary use, but as a backup
    outfit, it will continue to serve you well.

    As to the convenience and impatience of the people whose picture you are
    taking.... get the quality mechanical camera, practice using it until you
    are fast and proficient, and watch them regard you will respect for your
    abilities and your taste in equipment.

    Think about it.

    Bill Tallman

    William D. Tallman Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Would I buy a Canon EOS 1000

    William D. Tallman <wtallmanolypen.com> wrote:
    > Jan Keirse wrote:
    >>
    >> Hello,
    >>
    >> I've just written a very long mail and noticed it was so boring that
    >> probably noone would want to read it, so I'll try to make it short ;-)
    >>
    >> This is my sittuation:
    >> - I have been getting more and more serious about photography during the
    >> last
    >> year, I am however an amateur and consider myself to be an absolute
    >> beginner.
    >> - I own a Konica z-up 130e and a Fuji Finepix 2800 zoom. Two very nice
    >> cameras,
    >> but now that I'm learning things like what a diafragma is and what
    >> effect it has on your photos, they're becoming very limiting.
    > Diafragma is Spanish (?) for "diafragm"?
    Dutch actually (but possibly Spanish to ;-))
    > Your English is very good, so you probably should know that the term most
    > commonly used in English is "aperture". The diafragm is the aperture
    > control mechanism. Most times, the three primary controls for a camera are
    > focus, shutter and aperture, and that's what they're commonly called.
    Ok, thank you, I'll write it down, so I don't forget ;-)
    >> - My dad has a Rolleiflex SL 35 with excellent Carl Zeis lenses with very
    >> impressive diafragmas. He hardly ever uses it (doesn't take to much
    >> photographs anymore). However, he doesn't seam to want to let me use it
    >> either (:-().
    > Often an "impressive diafragma" is called a "fast lens", in that it will,
    > when wide open (lowest aperture number), allow faster shutter speeds. In
    > general, fast lenses require more sophisticated design and careful
    > manufacture in order to produce to some optical standard. So, "fast
    > lenses" are often equated with higher quality (and cost).
    Okay, I even new that :-) The reason I didn't just say fast lenses is
    because you can also set them to f22, and when you want a very long depth of
    field (that's how it is called in english?) you'll need that to. However f22 can
    not really be called fast, so... what I meant was that the lens can be used both
    as a fast one and as a slow one.
    >> - I've been to a local shop where they sell second hand stuff, the have a
    >> canon
    >> EOS 1000 and charge 200 Euro for it. The camera comes with a consumer
    >> zoom (28-80mm I think to remember). The zoom will most likely suffise
    >> for many photographs, but I would also need a 50mm lens with a serious
    >> diafragma (lets say at least f2.8-11, preferably f1.8-18 or better) and
    >> a 130mm lens.
    > The common standard for a 50mm lens is f1.4 to f22. The most common
    > telephoto lens is 135mm, or used to be. They usually run from f2.8/f3.5 to
    > f22/f32.
    I see, I just said 130mm because that's one my dad has and my konicas maximum
    zoom range is also 130mm. 135 will be fine to.
    >
    >> I am wondering, would it be interesting to buy the canon? Or is it to
    >> expensive? And wouldn't it be better to try to convince my dad to let me
    >> use, or buy his camera (and if so, what would be a reasonable price?).
    > If money is no object, buy the best. Arguments abound on what that might
    > be, but Nikon/Canon/Contax/Leica lead, with Olympus/Pentax/Minolta/other in
    > some order of rank.
    Money is :-( Thats my biggest problem.
    > If you want to learn photography, there are better options. One of which is
    > to get a quality mechanical camera with no automation and learn to use it
    > effectively. Let your father have his camera, and get your own that you
    > can use without undue inhibition.
    The Rolleiflex I'm talking about is a mechanical one, I think it even is a
    (high?) quality mechanical one. The reason I'd like to have this one is that it
    already has all the lenses I currently want. (although I'd probably like a very
    wide angle lens for landscape photography to ;-) but you have to start with
    something don't you)
    If I could get a simular camera (for me simular means a decent mechanical one
    with at least a 50mm and a 130 or 135mm lens) I'd be happy to buy it, however, I
    have no idea where I could get one. And since my dads very nice camera is lying
    there unused... I could buy one on ebay, but I would probably pay more for
    shipping the camera to Belgium than for the camera itself, or am I
    overestimating the cost of that?

    >> I don't really need autofocus (or anything automatic in fact) on the SLR
    >> because if I have to take photographs fast, I can still use my other
    >> cameras (okay, they are limiting, but well, money is an issue ;-)).
    >> However, if I go on a trip, if I have the canon with the extra lenses I
    >> mentioned, it could completely replace my compact camera, if I use the
    >> Rolleiflex, I'll still need my compact camera, because well, most people I
    >> photograph are terribly impatient ;-) sometimes point and shoot comes in
    >> extremely handy.
    > You are planning for an imagined eventuality, and using that to define what
    > gear you should acquire. Not good.
    Sorry, I'll try not to do it again.
    > You don't need the Canon, or the Rolleiflex, or anything other than a solid
    > mechanical camera that will force you to learn photography. That, I
    > presume, is the essence of this issue: you learning photography.
    The Rollei would probably ;-) But is indeed the essence. I just don't really
    know where to get such a camera (other than my fathers one), thats why I
    mentioned it. The reason I went to the second hand shop was to find such a
    camera, but all they had was the canon. I guess I'll have to search elsewhere.
    > The fact is that there is a nice variety of very fine mechanical cameras
    > available with excellent optics that will last longer (have already lasted
    > longer..) than the cheap Canon SLR, and that will produce images for you
    > that are beyond the scope of the capability of your point and shoot. And
    > they can be had for very reasonable prices.
    Yes, but where? Where can I find such camera? Or is chipping overseas really not
    that expensive?
    > The point is this: you don't have to limit yourself *after* you learn
    > photography, but you really should limit yourself so that you *do* learn
    > photography. Once you know how to effectively use a fully manual camera,
    > you can get one with all the bells and whistles, because you will know what
    > you want done and what the camera is doing for you. Translate that
    > knowledge to the latest fully automated machine, and you will discover that
    > you will require the camera to offer you full manual control, but you will
    > be able to really effectively use the automation as well.
    > Does that make sense to you?
    Yes it does! I understand what you mean. Thats why I went looking for an SLR,
    to learn more, to get round the limits of a camera that does everything by
    itself.
    > If so, check around and see if you can get hold of an older mechanical pro
    > camera that's in really good shape, learn to use it, take good care of it,
    > and keep it with you as the tool that will never let you down. Newer
    > equipment will inevitably replace it for primary use, but as a backup
    > outfit, it will continue to serve you well.
    Okay, I'll look around some more time and I'll ask some people at the academy if
    they happen to know places (or have) material that I can buy. I just can't wait
    to get out and start making photos myself ;-)
    > As to the convenience and impatience of the people whose picture you are
    > taking.... get the quality mechanical camera, practice using it until you
    > are fast and proficient, and watch them regard you will respect for your
    > abilities and your taste in equipment.
    :-) Okay, I hope it works. Once I can make better photographs than I do now I'll
    keep some in the camera bag to show them if I haven't photographed them before.
    That is asuming that I ever get to a decent level (but well, a lot of practice
    should help me get to a reasonable level, in due time, isn't it?)

    > Think about it.
    I will! Thank you for the advices, they have been most helpfull. I won't buy the
    canon, I do still like the Rolleiflex (it is after all the full mechanical
    camera you are talking about, and it is not being used, just waiting for me to
    pick it up ;-)) but if I can get another one, I'll be just as happy.
    > Bill Tallman
    Jan


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

  6. #6

    Default Re: Would I buy a Canon EOS 1000

    Jan Keirse <jan.keirsepandora.be> wrote:
    > there unused... I could buy one on ebay, but I would probably pay more for
    > shipping the camera to Belgium than for the camera itself, or am I
    > overestimating the cost of that?
    I just discovered that there is a belgian ebay to, but it where almost only
    digital cameras sold there. And very antique onces. Ow, and one rangefinder
    camera for only 19 Euro. I'd actually like that one (its a YASHICA *J*
    rangefinder). I just don't know if I want it for photographing or just because
    I'd like to find out how this rangefinders work.

    Anyway, I actually want an SLR, so I'll check out ebay more in future.

    Kind regards,

    Jan
    Jan Keirse Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Would I buy a Canon EOS 1000

    Jan Keirse wrote:
    > Jan Keirse <jan.keirsepandora.be> wrote:
    >> there unused... I could buy one on ebay, but I would probably pay more
    >> for shipping the camera to Belgium than for the camera itself, or am I
    >> overestimating the cost of that?
    There are quite a few sellers who ship international, more than a few not
    from the US. I think you might be over-estimating the shipping cost, but I
    suspect there may be some range in that regard, and not only depending on
    where the shipper lives.
    > I just discovered that there is a belgian ebay to, but it where almost
    > only digital cameras sold there. And very antique onces. Ow, and one
    > rangefinder camera for only 19 Euro. I'd actually like that one (its a
    > YASHICA *J* rangefinder). I just don't know if I want it for photographing
    > or just because I'd like to find out how this rangefinders work.
    Yashica J rangefiner... Early sixties replacement for the Yashica Lynx
    series, which, I gather, is a nifty and collectable rangefinder. The J has
    no meter. 19 Euro seems in line with what's offered.

    If you go with the J, you'll have to have a hand held meter.
    > Anyway, I actually want an SLR, so I'll check out ebay more in future.
    >
    > Kind regards,
    >
    > Jan
    Thinking about a rangefinder: The common wisdom at some point was that the
    best way to learn photography was with a fixed lens camera that forced one
    to utilize a given format. The Yashica J would certainly qualify. If it
    (Yashinon 45mm f2.8) turns out good images, it might be an ideal beginner
    camera, because it would require complete involvement.

    You see, it used to be that one got hold of a box camera that allowed some
    aperture settings and a few shutter speeds, and tried to make pictures. A
    light meter was a luxury. One usually started with the sunny f16 rule,
    where bright sunlight is addressed with that aperture (f16) and a shutter
    speed that was the reciprocal of the film speed: ASA/ISO 100 would dictate
    a shutter speed of 1/100 second. Some experience taught one the variations
    for hazy (f11), cloudy (f8), shade (f4/5.6), etc.

    Then cameras started appearing with light meters and things got weird. The
    meter worked on reflected light which depended on the reflectance of the
    object metered. Modern meters deal with all that pretty good, but they can
    still be fooled (hence, exposure compensation). And so forth, etc.

    The point is that if you start learning with bare equipment, you'll have a
    chance to develop a real sense of photographic reality, and you'll not be a
    slave to whatever automagic functionality the modern camera provides. But
    there is another bit of business here: Photography == light drawing
    (drawing with light), and you will have a chance to become aware of and
    sensitive to contrast ranges, and will have a chance to learn to perceive
    what will and will not make the kind of print (slide) image you think
    you're seeing.

    Then when you've got a feel for all this that actually allows you to produce
    good images, you can take that developed skill set and transfer it to
    modern equipment. With experience, you'll be able to respond swiftly and
    surely to opportunity, and get quality images instead of snap-shots.

    But that's just an old curmudgeon talking.....

    If you want to do it like it used to be done, get a twin lens reflex and a
    old enlarger, learn to handle black and white roll film (medium format)
    well enough to thread it onto reels and soup your own negs. Then spend an
    evening printing what you've got and finding out just what sort of print
    images you managed to capture on film. Experience is a great teacher if
    one is willing to allow it to teach.

    <... thinks he'll modify his garage workshop in order to set up a couple of
    old Beselers now in storage.... grin>

    Bill Tallman



    William D. Tallman Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: November 24th, 11:26 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 16th, 01:56 PM
  3. Canon 10D - Canon i850 mismatch?
    By Stephen C. Smith in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 10th, 02:19 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139