 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General MotorcyclesHarleyYamahaSportbikesRacingOff-roadSnowmobilesTechnicalCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupClassic (UK Group)Related Topics CarsBoatsMore Topics ... |
Motorcycle Forum / Country Specific / UK Group / March 2008Ping TOG: Digital SLRs
Just been looking around for one. Spotted the Olympus E410 with a short zoom lens for £280. Any idea if those things are any good?  SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # > Just been looking around for one. > > Spotted the Olympus E410 with a short zoom lens for £280. > > Any idea if those things are any good? None at all, I'm afraid. Timo's your man. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F, SL125 & SH50 GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3 BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells..... chateau dot murray at idnet dot com >> Just been looking around for one. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > None at all, I'm afraid. Timo's your man. I haven't had a play with one either but from memory (and reading tests in AP and suchlike), it's not a bad camera. AFAIK it's already been superceded by the E420 though, plus the consensus in the AP tests was that the 5xx series are better cameras for slightly more money. The main reason I'm not a big fan of the Olympus and other fourthirds cameras is the size of the sensor - it's even smaller than the 'standard' APS-C sized sensors you find in most DLSRs, which means that low light performance suffers somewhat compared to similar models with bigger sensors from other manufacturers. However if camera size is important, 4/3rds has the advantage of smaller bodies (and lenses to a certain extent). The price is probably OK, but still... SignatureMorini Corsaro 125 | CB450K4 | XL250 Motosport | 900SSD | R1150RT Laverda SF2 | Harley FXD BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10 The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html "Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar > >> Just been looking around for one. > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > The price is probably OK, but still... Thing is, it's by far the cheapest proper DSLR on the market - Katie wants to get back into photography, but, despite her City & Guilds, she's only doing it as a keen amateur, so this E410 would appear to be ideal - at least for the time being. SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # > Thing is, it's by far the cheapest proper DSLR on the market - Katie > wants to get back into photography, but, despite her City & Guilds, > she's only doing it as a keen amateur, so this E410 would appear to be > ideal - at least for the time being. Better to spend the money on a previous model/used real full-size DSLR e.g. Nikon D40 or the like. See ebay Item number: 220213116252 for an example. SignatureDave ex Motorcycle Maintenance Workshop http://tinyurl.com/4mhaw > > Thing is, it's by far the cheapest proper DSLR on the market - Katie > > wants to get back into photography, but, despite her City & Guilds, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > See ebay Item number: 220213116252 for an example. I wouldn't buy something like that on eBay. I'd most likely only buy a used DSLR from someone I know and trust. SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # > > > Thing is, it's by far the cheapest proper DSLR on the market - Katie > > > wants to get back into photography, but, despite her City & Guilds, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I wouldn't buy something like that on eBay. I'd most likely only buy a > used DSLR from someone I know and trust. I might be persuaded to part with my old D100, if you're interested. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F, SL125 & SH50 GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3 BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells..... chateau dot murray at idnet dot com > > > > Thing is, it's by far the cheapest proper DSLR on the market - Katie > > > > wants to get back into photography, but, despite her City & Guilds, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I might be persuaded to part with my old D100, if you're interested. Tempting..... for me, possibly. Looks a bit big and heavy for Katie - her favourite camera of all time is the OM1n, which is pretty tiny by SLR standards. How much, mister? SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # > > > > > Thing is, it's by far the cheapest proper DSLR on the market - Katie > > > > > wants to get back into photography, but, despite her City & Guilds, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > How much, mister? <Checks Ebay used prices> £200? Blimey, is that all they fetch now? Sorry, I might as well hang onto it. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F, SL125 & SH50 GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3 BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells..... chateau dot murray at idnet dot com snip> >> I wouldn't buy something like that on eBay. I'd most likely only buy a >> used DSLR from someone I know and trust. > >I might be persuaded to part with my old D100, if you're interested. Which bit of know and trust confused you? > snip> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which bit of know and trust confused you? I was waiting for some amateur comedian to stick his oar in.... <Re-books Bonwick's ferry for midnight> SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F, SL125 & SH50 GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3 BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells..... chateau dot murray at idnet dot com >> snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I was waiting for some amateur comedian to stick his oar in.... It was a feedline that I couldn't leave alone. ><Re-books Bonwick's ferry for midnight> Adie made me post the comment so it's only fair that she should be on a late ferry. > Thing is, it's by far the cheapest proper DSLR on the market - Katie > wants to get back into photography, but, despite her City & Guilds, > she's only doing it as a keen amateur, so this E410 would appear to be > ideal - at least for the time being. Personally I'd suggest paying the extra and going for an entry level Canon or Nikon. The Canon 400D for example has every feature you could ever need and as canon are so mainstream there's more chance she'll be able to find good deals on used lenses, etc. - or even get the chance to borrow them. £360 new from tesco right now.. http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.200-1666.aspx > > Thing is, it's by far the cheapest proper DSLR on the market - Katie > > wants to get back into photography, but, despite her City & Guilds, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > £360 new from tesco right now.. > http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.200-1666.aspx 80 quid more, though. SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # > > £360 new from tesco right now.. > > http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.200-1666.aspx > > 80 quid more, though. Yes, but one could easily use the BMW 3 series costs more than a vauxhall vectra argument to understand why. > > > > £360 new from tesco right now.. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, but one could easily use the BMW 3 series costs more than a > vauxhall vectra argument to understand why. How? Given that the 3-series is an overpriced, underspecified heap of crap? SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # > > > > > > £360 new from tesco right now.. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > How? Off the top of my head: More sensor noise from the Olympus. Worse high ISO performance generally The olympus has a ridiculously tiny viewfinder. Only 3 point Autofocus, vs canon's 9 point (essentially the same as the 30D) Small choice of lenses compared to Canon and Nikon. > Given that the 3-series is an overpriced, underspecified heap of crap? Substitute for premium brand car of choice then, you know what I meant. > Small choice of lenses compared to Canon and Nikon. This would be the clincher for me. Old camera bodies seem to be worth sod all, except for a few recognised classics, but lenses are always in demand and you can always buy another body and mount your old lenses on it. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F, SL125 & SH50 GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3 BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells..... chateau dot murray at idnet dot com > > Small choice of lenses compared to Canon and Nikon. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > classics, but lenses are always in demand and you can always buy another > body and mount your old lenses on it. The advantage of the Olympus is that it's 'four-thirds' compliant, meaning cross-brand lens compatibility. Obviously, 'four-thirds' may turn out to be a lame duck, like APS. SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # > Obviously, 'four-thirds' may turn out to be a lame duck, like APS. *ding* The EF and DX standards already have *years* of history behind them, there's a proven market, and huge saturation. 4/3 offers no functional improvements, the lenses are no cheaper, and the choice is limited. Sounds a bit like HD-DVD, IYAM. > > Obviously, 'four-thirds' may turn out to be a lame duck, like APS. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > there's a proven market, and huge saturation. 4/3 offers no functional > improvements, the lenses are no cheaper, and the choice is limited. It's not even as if you *have* to use DX lenses with Nikon DSLRs. So long as they have an AF-S drive, a 35mm F-mount lens will work fine, you just need to adjust for the sensor size. I have my eye on a 70-300 VR2 zoom (eq. 105-450 DX) and an 18-200 VR DX. The former should be rather handy for airshows, etc, and the latter would replace my existing kit lenses and eliminate all that irritating lens swapping. I just need to arrange to be drunk in front of a computer and then I'm sure they'll arrive in the post a few days later. And then I only need to learn how to take decent photos! Signatureogden sv650 & rgv250 >> > Small choice of lenses compared to Canon and Nikon. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Obviously, 'four-thirds' may turn out to be a lame duck, like APS. For starters, have a quick look at how many companies are actually producing four-thirds lenses, then subtract the number of lenses made by Olympus. There aren't that many left over after this exercise. SignatureMorini Corsaro 125 | CB450K4 | XL250 Motosport | 900SSD | R1150RT Laverda SF2 | Harley FXD BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10 The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html "Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar > >> > Small choice of lenses compared to Canon and Nikon. > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > There aren't that many left over after this exercise. OK. I hear what you say. I see you can get a Nikon D40 for around the same money. Any idea if they'll take a Nikon Pronea APS SLR lens with full AF and metering functionality? I ask, because I have a Pronea with 2 zoom lenses.... SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # >> >> > Small choice of lenses compared to Canon and Nikon. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I ask, because I have a Pronea with 2 zoom lenses.... Doesn't look like it according to this: http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080109151646AA8Xi1w > > OK. I hear what you say. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080109151646AA8Xi1w Well, that's just about the only reason why Katie wouldn't have the Olympus over the Nikon. If the lenses I have aren't compatible, we're effectively starting from scratch. SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # > > > OK. I hear what you say. > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > If the lenses I have aren't compatible, we're effectively starting from > scratch. Don't know about the others, but you can get adapter rings to fit almost any old lens to a 4/3 camera. I got mine off eBay for £10, and I can also use my old Zuiko 50mm prime, as well as a couple of old Zooms I have. These can be got on eBay very cheap now too. OK you have to use them in manual mode (they also work in aperture priority mode too), and manually focus them, but you can get some good glass for not a lot of money. I thought about the range of available lenses too, but it's very unlikely that I'm going to be buying more anyway - how many do you want to carry about? If I could afford to buy unlimited lenses, I wouldn't have bought a budget level DSLR in the first place. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> > > Well, that's just about the only reason why Katie wouldn't have the > > Olympus over the Nikon. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If I could afford to buy unlimited lenses, I wouldn't have bought a > budget level DSLR in the first place. Interesting. We have some Sigma lenses from a Minolta SLR here as well as a couple with Practika bayonet fitting.... I need to do a bit of research. SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # > > > Well, that's just about the only reason why Katie wouldn't have the > > > Olympus over the Nikon. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > as a couple with Practika bayonet fitting.... I need to do a bit of > research. http://photography.search.ebay.co.uk/olympus_Lens-Mounts-Adaptors_W0QQdf spZ1QQfromZR4QQsacatZ30059QQssPageNameZWLRS SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) saying something like: >Interesting. We have some Sigma lenses from a Minolta SLR here as well >as a couple with Practika bayonet fitting.... I need to do a bit of >research. Your Minolta lens (assuming old Minolta manual) will fit an Olympus (via adapter) but nothing else, because of register distance. See here... http://www.markerink.org/WJM/HTML/mounts.htm Praktica bayonet will fit Praktica bayonet and nothing else, because of its sheer bloody awkwardness. It's the same register as M42, but there's no adapter available for anything as yet. Some PB lenses can be butch... modified, but it's a pita. I'd suggest you have a look here to get the feel of manual lenses on digiSLRs... http://forum.mflenses.com/ http://forum.manualfocus.org/index.php There's also plenty of forum typ info on flickr via flickr groups. SignatureDave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a "A scone and tea at half past three Makes the day a little brighter Keep your cakes and fancy tarts And stick them up your shiter." >> > > OK. I hear what you say. >> > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > manually focus them, but you can get some good glass for not a lot of > money. AFAIK the adapter rings you mentioned are for Zuiko/Olympus OM fit lenses, aren't they? Maybe I've missed something but I didn't think that you could fit other lenses to four-thirds cameras apart from OM ones. Didn't the E-1 originally come with one of these adaptors? SignatureMorini Corsaro 125 | CB450K4 | XL250 Motosport | 900SSD | R1150RT Laverda SF2 | Harley FXD BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10 The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html "Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar > > Don't know about the others, but you can get adapter rings to fit almost > > any old lens to a 4/3 camera. I got mine off eBay for £10, and I can [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you could fit other lenses to four-thirds cameras apart from OM > ones. Didn't the E-1 originally come with one of these adaptors? No, you can get loads of these on eBay to fit different lenses. The OM-4/3 adapter that Olympus sells is silly money, but you can get them for a tenner or so in various places. I have also sucessfully connected my E500 to my two telescopes using a 'T' adapter. A quick look on eBay finds adapters for Nikon, Pentax, Contax, M42 and Leica R, and even an EOS adapter with AE confirm, to connect to a 4/3 camera. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> >> > Don't know about the others, but you can get adapter rings to fit almost >> > any old lens to a 4/3 camera. I got mine off eBay for £10, and I can [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Leica R, and even an EOS adapter with AE confirm, to connect to a 4/3 > camera. Interesting, especially given that I've got a few Contax-fit Zeiss lenses. I was under the impression that the only digital camera that could use those were Canons. Good to know that. SignatureMorini Corsaro 125 | CB450K4 | XL250 Motosport | 900SSD | R1150RT Laverda SF2 | Harley FXD BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10 The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html "Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar [..] > > A quick look on eBay finds adapters for Nikon, Pentax, Contax, M42 and > > Leica R, and even an EOS adapter with AE confirm, to connect to a 4/3 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lenses. I was under the impression that the only digital camera that > could use those were Canons. Good to know that. I've had another look on this, and because the 4/3 sensor is a little smaller, it means the 'flange-back' is such that any legacy lens can be used, as they all need a small amount of packing to fit correctly. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> >> >> > Small choice of lenses compared to Canon and Nikon. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > OK. I hear what you say. Actually, have a look at this week's Amateur Photographer - they've got a comparison test in there between the Nikon D60, Sony Alpha 200 and the E-410. The E-410 came third... SignatureMorini Corsaro 125 | CB450K4 | XL250 Motosport | 900SSD | R1150RT Laverda SF2 | Harley FXD BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10 The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html "Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar >> > Thing is, it's by far the cheapest proper DSLR on the market - Katie >> > wants to get back into photography, but, despite her City & Guilds, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >80 quid more, though. I wouldn't quibble over 80 on the price of an SLR when you're going to end up spending hundreds on lenses. Bodies are the cheap bit. SignatureZX-10R > >80 quid more, though. > > I wouldn't quibble over 80 on the price of an SLR when you're going to > end up spending hundreds on lenses. Bodies are the cheap bit. How many lenses do people buy? - and how much do they spend on them? Katie has a city & guilds in photography, yet I can still count the total number of lenses we own, spread over 3 different brands, on the fingers of one hand. For 99% of use you need a short zoom and a long zoom. Whatever we buy will just need a single additional lens. SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) saying something like: >How many lenses do people buy? - http://forum.mflenses.com/list-your-photo-equipment-here-t4080.html#31425 > and how much do they spend on them? Much, much less than they cost new and many of them are still like new. SignatureDave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a "A scone and tea at half past three Makes the day a little brighter Keep your cakes and fancy tarts And stick them up your shiter." On Mar 24, 3:02 pm, Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REM...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: > We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the > drugs began to take hold. I remember st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Much, much less than they cost new and many of them are still like new. Not always. Canon/Nikon current fit decent quality lenses hold their value very well. Unfortunately. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember GungaDan <dan.edge1@gmail.com> saying something like: >> Much, much less than they cost new and many of them are still like new. > >Not always. Canon/Nikon current fit decent quality lenses hold their >value very well. Unfortunately. Ah well, that's down to folk believing the hype. A lot of older glass is every bit as good as current stuff, in some cases better. More and more people are starting to notice it and prices of manual lenses are steadily climbing. I've got all/most of the glass I want and can slacken off a bit now. Of course, there are always those who can't / won't be seen with anything but current male jewellery, but that's been the case ever since cameras became small enough to sling round one's neck. SignatureDave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a "A scone and tea at half past three Makes the day a little brighter Keep your cakes and fancy tarts And stick them up your shiter." On Mar 24, 4:29 pm, Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REM...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: > We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the > drugs began to take hold. I remember GungaDan <dan.ed...@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Ah well, that's down to folk believing the hype. A lot of older glass is > every bit as good as current stuff, in some cases better. I'm sure that's true > More and more people are starting to notice it and prices of manual > lenses are steadily climbing. I've got all/most of the glass I want and > can slacken off a bit now. > Of course, there are always those who can't / won't be seen with > anything but current male jewellery, but that's been the case ever since > cameras became small enough to sling round one's neck. Sure, but it depends on how you're using the lenses. If you want to maintain all the functions of a modern camera - the obvious one being autofocus - you're going to have to fork out for lenses which are compatible. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember GungaDan <dan.edge1@gmail.com> saying something like: >Sure, but it depends on how you're using the lenses. If you want to >maintain all the functions of a modern camera - the obvious one being >autofocus - you're going to have to fork out for lenses which are >compatible. Why would I want to do that? All that's important is the image, not the gear that takes it. Everything else is posing. I have a couple of AF lenses but I rarely use them. In certain circumstances I do, but having been long used to manual focus lenses and knowing a lot of shortcuts and tricks in the use of them, I find it no problem to carry on using them. AF isn't all it's cracked up to be, by any means. SignatureDave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a "A scone and tea at half past three Makes the day a little brighter Keep your cakes and fancy tarts And stick them up your shiter." On Mar 24, 4:53 pm, Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REM...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: > We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the > drugs began to take hold. I remember GungaDan <dan.ed...@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why would I want to do that? All that's important is the image, not the > gear that takes it. Everything else is posing. So everyone who doesn't use old equipment is just posing? Sounds like inverse snobbery to me. If you're using a modern SLR, it's likely you'll want to use the functions it offers. AF is just one of them. There's nothing wrong with that. > I have a couple of AF lenses but I rarely use them. In certain > circumstances I do, but having been long used to manual focus lenses and > knowing a lot of shortcuts and tricks in the use of them, I find it no > problem to carry on using them. AF isn't all it's cracked up to be, by > any means. I'm not sure what you mean by 'isn't all it's cracked up to be'. On a decent camera it's fast, accurate and convenient and if you have half a clue will give results equal or better than MF. If playing with older equipment is what you enjoy then fine, but it doesn't necessarily mean your photos will be any better than if you were using modern kit. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember GungaDan <dan.edge1@gmail.com> saying something like: >> Why would I want to do that? All that's important is the image, not the >> gear that takes it. Everything else is posing. >So everyone who doesn't use old equipment is just posing? Sounds like >inverse snobbery to me. Read what I wrote. All that matters is the image. Else why have a camera at all? You may as well just write about what you see. I can see I've hit a nerve, carry on. SignatureDave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a "A scone and tea at half past three Makes the day a little brighter Keep your cakes and fancy tarts And stick them up your shiter." On Mar 24, 6:03 pm, Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REM...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: > We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the > drugs began to take hold. I remember GungaDan <dan.ed...@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > at all? You may as well just write about what you see. I can see I've > hit a nerve, carry on I did read all you wrote - seemed pretty chippy to me. If all that matters is the image why are you so concerned with the equipment other people use? As for hitting a nerve - I have one camera and two lenses. It's modern equipment (< 5 yrs old) and it's decent but I make no apology for that. Manual techniques simply aren't practical for 90% of the stuff I do. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember GungaDan <dan.edge1@gmail.com> saying something like: >I did read all you wrote - seemed pretty chippy to me. If all that >matters is the image why are you so concerned with the equipment other >people use? I simply couldn't give a toss about the gear other people use - what possible difference could it make to me? You're reading into what I wrote something that wasn't there and took it as criticism. Otoh... I laugh at the gear-headedness of those who think they must have the latest bit of kit to look the part and/or take better pics [1] - and that's what I mean about the image being everything. Who cares what it's made with or by? It's simply not important, within reason, and even then some utterly timeless pics have come from some very basic cameras. My point about AF not being all it's cracked up to be stands, nonetheless. There are plenty of times AF falls down and simply doesn't work very well. To rely on it is sheer laziness, and if that's all that is used one may as well have a P&S. [1] With this proviso - I am immeasurably grateful to the previous generations of gear-heads who purchased all that fine glass and let it go for buttons later on. Most of it hardly used at all. SignatureDave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a "A scone and tea at half past three Makes the day a little brighter Keep your cakes and fancy tarts And stick them up your shiter." > We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the > drugs began to take hold. I remember GungaDan <dan.edge1@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > generations of gear-heads who purchased all that fine glass and let it > go for buttons later on. Most of it hardly used at all. Can I just chip in here. My ex is a lo-fi camera[1] user and does some f.cking interesting work with it. Get over yourselves will you? [1] And actively seeks out rubbish optical/digital cameras for source material. Signaturep BotM#1 LotR#9 > Read what I wrote. All that matters is the image. Else why have a > camera at all? You may as well just write about what you see. I can > see I've hit a nerve, carry on. If image is everything, why are you using an SLR at all? Surely a large format camera would be better suited? We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Simian" <simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org> saying something like: >If image is everything, why are you using an SLR at all? Surely a large >format camera would be better suited? Horses for courses, innit? Can you imagine trying to snap an F1 race with an 8x10 plate camera? Ansel Adams might have stood a chance, but most of his subjects didn't move very much. SignatureDave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a "A scone and tea at half past three Makes the day a little brighter Keep your cakes and fancy tarts And stick them up your shiter." > We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the > drugs began to take hold. I remember "Simian" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with an 8x10 plate camera? Ansel Adams might have stood a chance, but > most of his subjects didn't move very much. So if your course requires auto focus, then that's the horse you should back? We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Simian" <simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org> saying something like: >> Horses for courses, innit? Can you imagine trying to snap an F1 race >> with an 8x10 plate camera? Ansel Adams might have stood a chance, but >> most of his subjects didn't move very much. > >So if your course requires auto focus, then that's the horse you should >back? Why not? Whatever suits the user. But imo, relying solely on AF is short-sighted. One should always have a fall-back position if the gear f.cks up (and it will, surely at the most awkward time). That means knowing how to use manual settings if necessary and being familiar enough with them to pull off a good shot reliably. Every AF snapper who is in any way serious about their craft should have an MF lens that they are familiar with that will allow them to get some in. SignatureDave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a "A scone and tea at half past three Makes the day a little brighter Keep your cakes and fancy tarts And stick them up your shiter." > Every AF snapper who > is in any way serious about their craft should have an MF lens that they > are familiar with that will allow them to get some in. Every AF lens I've seen can be switched to manual if desired. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F, SL125 & SH50 chateau dot murray at idnet dot com "What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time and hassle for no tangible benefit." > Why not? Whatever suits the user. But imo, relying solely on AF is > short-sighted. One should always have a fall-back position if the gear [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is in any way serious about their craft should have an MF lens that they > are familiar with that will allow them to get some in. Or know how to flick the switch on the lens to MF, then focus it in the traditional way, perhaps? Buying a manual lens to do so would just be posing with retro equipment for the sake of it. :-) We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember ginge <the.gingeREMOVE@THISgmail.com> saying something like: >Or know how to flick the switch on the lens to MF, then focus it in the >traditional way, perhaps? What about when the surprisingly crappy plastic gears fail? No MF then, old bean. >Buying a manual lens to do so would just be posing with retro equipment >for the sake of it. :-) <taps side of nose> <ow> Nowt wrong with a Tamron SP 28-80 in yer bag as standby - a lens for life, for them wot knows. Actually, there's only one lens I've got that's a bit of a poseurs weapon - the Novaflex. It's just soooo big. It's one I lusted after 30 years ago. Cost me a tenth of the new price for NOS from a German dealer. SignatureDave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a "A scone and tea at half past three Makes the day a little brighter Keep your cakes and fancy tarts And stick them up your shiter." >> Read what I wrote. All that matters is the image. Else why have a >> camera at all? You may as well just write about what you see. I can >> see I've hit a nerve, carry on. > > If image is everything, why are you using an SLR at all? Surely a > large format camera would be better suited? If image is everything, surely the thing to have would be a Leica M3 with a 90mm f:2.8 Elmarit and a roll of Pan F? Signaturespam: 220215434435 >>> Read what I wrote. All that matters is the image. Else why have a >>> camera at all? You may as well just write about what you see. I can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If image is everything, surely the thing to have would be a Leica M3 > with a 90mm f:2.8 Elmarit and a roll of Pan F? <pats M2> Yes? And? Actually, there are some Adox emulsions out there that are even finer-grained than PAN F and produce spectacular results. SignatureMorini Corsaro 125 | CB450K4 | XL250 Motosport | 900SSD | R1150RT Laverda SF2 | Harley FXD BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10 The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html "Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar >>>> Read what I wrote. All that matters is the image. Else why have a >>>> camera at all? You may as well just write about what you see. I can [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yes? And? Excessively fashionable, smacks of trying too hard. > Actually, there are some Adox emulsions out there that are even > finer-grained than PAN F and produce spectacular results. Back in the early '90s, I was using Ektar 25 in Super Ikontas and the like. Signaturespam: 220215434435 >>>>> Read what I wrote. All that matters is the image. Else why have a >>>>> camera at all? You may as well just write about what you see. I can [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Excessively fashionable, smacks of trying too hard. Depends on what you want them for, isn't it? For a compact, discreet camera that looks like a toy to most people and has superb lenses, they're very hard to beat. >> Actually, there are some Adox emulsions out there that are even >> finer-grained than PAN F and produce spectacular results. > > Back in the early '90s, I was using Ektar 25 in Super Ikontas and the like. Unfortunately Kodak dropped a lot of emulsions like that - I'm glad I can still get Tri-X for the time being, but other than that and the resurrected Ilford (with a somewhat limited range, too), you'll need to go to specialist suppliers these days. SignatureMorini Corsaro 125 | CB450K4 | XL250 Motosport | 900SSD | R1150RT Laverda SF2 | Harley FXD BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10 The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html "Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar > If image is everything, why are you using an SLR at all? Surely a large > format camera would be better suited? I still have my beloved Lubitel. I rather perversely used it to document one of my trips across Stalinist Europe. I'd decided on using ORWO film (which had to be processed in the GDR) and they were never seen again. Inefficient bastards. SignatureSimon >> If image is everything, why are you using an SLR at all? Surely a >> large format camera would be better suited? > > I still have my beloved Lubitel. I rather perversely used it to > document one of my trips across Stalinist Europe. I used mine for covert hand-held low-light shots of the ceiling of the Pitti Palace, and they came out a lot better than expected. > I'd decided on using ORWO film (which had to be processed in the GDR) > and they were never seen again. Inefficient bastards. You shouldn't have been taking pictures of the missile silos. Signaturespam: 220215434435 We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "sweller" <sweller@mztech.fsnet.co.uk> saying something like: >I'd decided on using ORWO film (which had to be processed in the GDR) and >they were never seen again. Inefficient bastards. There's a UK lab which processes old film stock, but it's not cheap. I'll have a rummage. SignatureDave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a "A scone and tea at half past three Makes the day a little brighter Keep your cakes and fancy tarts And stick them up your shiter." Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REMOVE@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote the following literary masterpiece: >Ah well, that's down to folk believing the hype. A lot of older glass is >every bit as good as current stuff, in some cases better. I'd be surprised if 99% of people can tell the difference between any lenses. And even fewer would know how to actually test them. SignatureVeggie Dave UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08 IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com POST PRODUCTION http://www.iq18films.co.uk Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me > Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REMOVE@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote the following > literary masterpiece: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'd be surprised if 99% of people can tell the difference between any > lenses. And even fewer would know how to actually test them. I posted some test images here a while back now, some were legacy glass, and some were the latest AF lenses on my 4/3 Olympus DSLR. It was very hard to tell which pictures had been taken with what lens. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> > Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REM...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote the following > literary masterpiece: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'd be surprised if 99% of people can tell the difference between any > lenses. Ding! And 99% of people don't care. > >Not always. Canon/Nikon current fit decent quality lenses hold their > >value very well. Unfortunately. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > More and more people are starting to notice it and prices of manual > lenses are steadily climbing. Um, aren't you corroborating what he's just said? Old lenses were 'current fit' at some time. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F, SL125 & SH50 chateau dot murray at idnet dot com "What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time and hassle for no tangible benefit." We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember totallydeadmailbox@yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) saying something like: >Um, aren't you corroborating what he's just said? Old lenses were >'current fit' at some time. Indeed, and I'm glad of it too. When the digi revolution came many threw out the baby with the bathwater, in the mistaken impression their old kit was of no use anymore. SignatureDave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a "A scone and tea at half past three Makes the day a little brighter Keep your cakes and fancy tarts And stick them up your shiter." > We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the > drugs began to take hold. I remember totallydeadmailbox@yahoo.co.uk (The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > out the baby with the bathwater, in the mistaken impression their old > kit was of no use anymore. Well, we had no no 'legacy' kit around the house that would have been usable. Aside from a couple of fixed-length Olympus lenses from the OM1n. Katie decided on the Olympus in the end based on how it felt in her hand - she felt the Nikon and Canon alternatives were big and bulky. Unfortunately, I ended up buying a new digicam as well. I can't be arsed going full-on SLR, so I've just ordered a Panasonic Lumix FZ-18EB. For the few times I may want to use an SLR, I'll borrow hers. SignatureSteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember steve@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) saying something like: >Well, we had no no 'legacy' kit around the house that would have been >usable. Aside from a couple of fixed-length Olympus lenses from the >OM1n. > >Katie decided on the Olympus in the end based on how it felt in her hand For which the old Zuiko glass will be superb. At the very least it means you don't have to shell out hundreds on new lenses if you don't want to and until you decide what you really want to get. >Unfortunately, I ended up buying a new digicam as well. I can't be arsed >going full-on SLR, so I've just ordered a Panasonic Lumix FZ-18EB. Again, it's what suits, depending on circumstances. My constant driving-around cam is a Fuji S7000 to catch anything that takes my fancy in passing. If it's nicked from the vehicle it's no great loss. >For the few times I may want to use an SLR, I'll borrow hers. Good move. SignatureDave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a "A scone and tea at half past three Makes the day a little brighter Keep your cakes and fancy tarts And stick them up your shiter." > On Mar 24, 3:02 pm, Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REM...@REMOVEgmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Not always. Canon/Nikon current fit decent quality lenses hold their > value very well. Unfortunately. They do indeed. If you buy quality, it lasts. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F, SL125 & SH50 chateau dot murray at idnet dot com "What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time and hassle for no tangible benefit." >> >80 quid more, though. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > For 99% of use you need a short zoom and a long zoom. Whatever we buy > will just need a single additional lens. It really depends what you want to do. I've got a couple of fast primes - mostly because they were a bargain and are just so good. A long Zoom (100-400mm L series), a medium lightweight zoom (75-300mm IS USM) a longish tele - 500mm L series. A general walk-about lens (17-85 IS USM) and a wide angle (10-20mm). That seems to cover what I use the camera for at the moment, but it's about 3 grands worth of glass. > > For 99% of use you need a short zoom and a long zoom. Whatever we buy > > will just need a single additional lens. I'd disagree here, as Simes says a few primes are a good idea, a nice 85mm f1.8 or thereabouts to really play around with depth of field. It's always a compromise between image quality, focal length, and light gathering capability, you'll never get the best at everything in one lens. > It really depends what you want to do. I've got a couple of fast primes > - mostly because they were a bargain and are just so good. A long Zoom > (100-400mm L series), a medium lightweight zoom (75-300mm IS USM) a > longish tele - 500mm L series. A general walk-about lens (17-85 IS USM) > and a wide angle (10-20mm). I just bought myself the 10-20 (Assuming it's the sigma one you have) lovely bit of glass... here's one of my snaps taken with it last weekend. http://bighugelabs.com/flickr/onblack.php?id=2335626125&size=large I find it very odd taking photos with it as you can get so close to the subject and not notice. What do you reckon to the 17-85 though? I've heard a lot of mixed reports. > I just bought myself the 10-20 (Assuming it's the sigma one you have) > lovely bit of glass... I have one, and it is indeed the bollocks. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F, SL125 & SH50 chateau dot murray at idnet dot com "What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time and hassle for no tangible benefit." > > I just bought myself the 10-20 (Assuming it's the sigma one you have) > > lovely bit of glass... > > I have one, and it is indeed the bollocks. Yup, I remember it from Chimay last year.. just took me a while to justify it to myself. >> > For 99% of use you need a short zoom and a long zoom. Whatever we buy >> > will just need a single additional lens. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I just bought myself the 10-20 (Assuming it's the sigma one you have) It is - I bought it as it was cheap and I wanted a wider lens than I had - and the Canon equivalent was a lot more money for a lens I will only use occasionally - and it's good -but it does barrel distort and vignette a teensy bit wide open. To be honest though, I think it's only noticeable if you're being hypercritical. > lovely bit of glass... here's one of my snaps taken with it last > weekend. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > subject and not notice. What do you reckon to the 17-85 though? I've > heard a lot of mixed reports. The 17-85 IS USM is a fab lens - I love it - it's just great for most things. If I'm mooching about with the camera, that's the lens that's on it. The others are in the bag, but the 17-85 is OK for most stuff. It's the sweet spot price-wise for a lot of very sharp lens. Remember it's EF- s mount though - so can't be used on full frame sensors. I can use it on the 40d but not the 1Ds-Mk111 I've just bought (he says proudly)... >> >80 quid more, though. >> >> I wouldn't quibble over 80 on the price of an SLR when you're going to >> end up spending hundreds on lenses. Bodies are the cheap bit. > > How many lenses do people buy? - and how much do they spend on them? About 4-5 prime lenses for each system, and you don't want to know, even at used prices. > Katie has a city & guilds in photography, yet I can still count the > total number of lenses we own, spread over 3 different brands, on the > fingers of one hand. And your point is? > For 99% of use you need a short zoom and a long zoom. Whatever we buy > will just need a single additional lens. Depends what you want from the camera, isn't it? The only camera I don't have a prime lens for is the digital compact, mainly because fitting one would be a tad difficult. For all the others, I have no zooms simply because you either can't get any for the system or because it would be a waste of a good camera - at the end of the day I bought my old Contax bodies so I could stick Zeiss primes on them. SignatureMorini Corsaro 125 | CB450K4 | XL250 Motosport | 900SSD | R1150RT Laverda SF2 | Harley FXD BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10 The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html "Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar > > >80 quid more, though. > > > I wouldn't quibble over 80 on the price of an SLR when you're going to > > end up spending hundreds on lenses. Bodies are the cheap bit. > > How many lenses do people buy? - and how much do they spend on them? I bet most people stick with the kit lens they got with the body and maybe an extra, longer zoom. > Katie has a city & guilds in photography, yet I can still count the > total number of lenses we own, spread over 3 different brands, on the > fingers of one hand. I reckon you have to be very keen, ultra critical or earning money from your pictures to make it worth spending a huge amount on lenses. The law of diminishing returns is particularly applicable. > For 99% of use you need a short zoom and a long zoom. Whatever we buy > will just need a single additional lens. Exactly. > > >80 quid more, though. > > > > I wouldn't quibble over 80 on the price of an SLR when you're going to > > end up spending hundreds on lenses. Bodies are the cheap bit. > > How many lenses do people buy? - and how much do they spend on them? Um.... I've got half a dozen, ranging in cost from a couple of hundred quid to £1500. > Katie has a city & guilds in photography, yet I can still count the > total number of lenses we own, spread over 3 different brands, on the > fingers of one hand. > > For 99% of use you need a short zoom and a long zoom. Whatever we buy > will just need a single additional lens. Those cover a lot of bases, but a wide angle (very wide angle) is useful, as well. And if you're taking two cameras to an event, as I sometimes do, it's nice to have both loaded and lensed at the same time, as it were. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F, SL125 & SH50 chateau dot murray at idnet dot com "What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time and hassle for no tangible benefit." > For 99% of use you need a short zoom and a long zoom. I'd disagree. For 99% of my use on a film SLR I use a fast 50mm lens. SignatureSimon >> >> Just been looking around for one. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > she's only doing it as a keen amateur, so this E410 would appear to be > ideal - at least for the time being. Hi Steve, I went through this (or a similar dilemma) a while back. Canon or Nikon really seems the best way to go as they both make some really quality bodies, and some cheap bodies. The important thing is they both make good glass, and are 'standard' enough to have third parties making some cheap and/or good glass that fit them. I can only really talk about Canon as I've never had a Nikon. I see one of the examples given later in the thread is the Canon 400D - now superseded by the 450D - but that doesn't change the fact it's a bloody good camera. The kit lens that comes with it is often derided, but actually it's not a bad lens - it's (IIRC) 18-55 - and it's actually quite sharp if a little slow. I still have a 350D as a backup camera and it's still an adequate camera. For walking about I went for the 40D which, with a good choice of glass is quite good enough for most uses. Canon make a good range of lenses - from fairly cheap to nose-bleed pricey, but even the cheap ones aren't too bad. Just don't by a 28-80mm cheap on Ebay... The one real dog! If she gets back into photography then the 350/400/450 is still a good camera and I'd suggest investing in good glass. The Canon L series lenses are (IMHO) f.cking superb. I've got a few of them now to cover different uses and can't fault them (other than the weight of the longer lenses). Honestly - buy now into a system (maker) with a well supported lens system - Canon or Nikon and it means you wont have to throw the baby out with the bathwater when she want to upgrade the body. SignatureSimes >> Just been looking around for one. >> >> Spotted the Olympus E410 with a short zoom lens for £280. <Snip> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse410/ may help. I have fond memories of Olympus cameras and am seriously considering http://www.photo-i.co.uk/News/Mar%2008/E420.html http://www.dpreview.com/news/0803/08030501olympuse420.asp Olympus cameras have alwys been there or therabouts. I once had an OM for a few weeks but fat fingers and the inability to hold it steady drew me back to Canons. But I really covet one of those with the 25mm f2.8 pancake lens for when I can't be bothered to cart the Canon gear about. I have a load of CF cards and xD cards and a soft spot for a little Olympus. I'd probably use it for "casual" "out and about" photos rather than what I usually take photos of. Mined Ewe, the case for replacing my 20D is getting weightier than I am ...... It has yet to fully recover from http://www.capture-light.co.uk/Front/Latest.htm I think that as a camera that you are more likely to have with you it would be hard to beat, after all, having a camera at home when you are not is not really making best use of your talents.......or opportunities! So one of them in my pocket or in the topbox, tankbag or wherever appeals greatly. HTH Cheers DP SV650K4 for pleasure Yamahaha Townmate 80 shaftdrive for touring to and from work <snip stuff> > what I usually take photos of. Mined Ewe, the case for replacing my > 20D is getting weightier than I am ...... It has yet to fully > recover from http://www.capture-light.co.uk/Front/Latest.htm I'm surprised it ever recovered at all. Normally saltwater+expensive electronics=hello insurance claim Signature/Simon We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Addenuff" <addenuff_NO_SPAM_@gmail.com> saying something like: >It has yet to fully recover from >http://www.capture-light.co.uk/Front/Latest.htm Nice capture, but 'kin stupid. SignatureDave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a "A scone and tea at half past three Makes the day a little brighter Keep your cakes and fancy tarts And stick them up your shiter." > Just been looking around for one. > > Spotted the Olympus E410 with a short zoom lens for £280. > > Any idea if those things are any good? Hi mate, I have an E510 here, and it's bloody fantastic. It recently replaced my E500, from an insurance claim, after a small incident on the Scarborough seafront :-/ If you want to know more about the 4/3 system, and the issue over the sensor size, have a look here: http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/sensor-size.html That whole site will likely answer most of the questions you have. I bought the E500 simply because I have a few good legacy lenses, and wanted to make use of them. However, even without that I was swayed towards the E-series anyway, as they offer such good value. You get a lot of camera for the money, and their kit lenses are renowned to be one of the best for a budget buy (the Canon lens is usually replaced with a Sigma). If you want to see some images, there are a few on my web site, or I'd be happy to bung a few Raw files onto a Cd and send them to you. Also check the images here: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/e410.html I'd be inclined to look for the twin lens kit though. It's more money, but you get a 14-42 and 40-150 pair of lenses - the effective range (compared to 35mm) is 2x, so you get 28-84 and 80-300. The small one is a particularly nice lens. You won't get a better bit of kit at the price. Just another point, if you can go to the E510, you also get image stabilising too. Apart from that, they perform similarly. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy -