what kind of digital camera do you use

[stavrosR]

just curious as to what kind of camera you guys are using... i use a fujifilm f900 [i think thats the model number.. i have no clue.]

[notjustgraphics]

I have several...

My pride and joy is a Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Digital SLR which works nicely with my two Minolta 35mm Kits (Maxxum 7 and XTsi)

I also have my "first" camera which is a Pentax SF10 and I will treasure it till I die.

I have a couple of P&S digitals too, all Canon A series... I just keep buying the current model every couple of years or so and there's no real value in a 2 year old digi, so I pass them around when I shoot weddings... Fingers crossed, I always get them back...

Mike.

[tamlin]

I use a Canon EOS 350D (a.k.a the Digital Rebel XT in the US, KISS Digital in Japan), although I think all photographers (and would-be photographers) ought to read this article: Your Camera Does Not Matter

[notjustgraphics]

Thanks Tamlin

Obviously he is an Ansel Adams fan like myself, but I have to disagree somewhat with his opinion that the camera doesn't matter....

Surely in most cases it would not, but i have been affected more than once by the camera i was using... here are some examples:

#1 - Shutter Speed - The camer controls the amount of time the shutter is open for - either mechanically or electronically. Regadless of the method, not all cameras have infinite (bulb) or even 30 second settings. So i say that cameras offering these functions are capable of producing images others cannot.

#2 - Infrared - more than a few cameras allow infrared light to penetrate the film house making it impossible to use infrared sensitive film. One of my favourite films for darkroom results! A method that is still difficult to reproduce in digital cameras.

#3 - ASA/Film Speed - More exotic film speeds can be a problem on lesser cameras as they may not be supported. My SF10 will only meter properly for 100, 250, 500 and 1000 film speeds making it difficult to shoot with ASA50, 200, 400, 800, 1600 or any of the non-standard films in between. My Minoltas will all read from ASA 30 to 6400 with the exception of my XTsi which stops at 3200.

Even my digital is bound to 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, and 3200. While i admit that these will suffice for 99% of situations... i have on more than one occasion wished for a slower option. I also find the variables in the noise at different speeds significantly afffects the quality of my image... Where my camera is stunning at 200 and 400, it is lacking at 800 or 1600. I know other DSLRS are strong at 800 & 1600 but might lack at 100 or even 200.

It is my opinion that every component affects the image you create. In my experience these choices include camera, lens, film, even whether to use film or digital can make a difference.

BUT, before ALL of that... you need to choose your subject and your composition... and this is where artists like Adams set themselves apart from Hacks like me.

Mike.

p.s. Tamlin: i think this was more for onlookers benefit than yours as I know you are a very talented and capable photographer and likely know everything I've just said already.

[tamlin]

I quite agree, Mike. I certainly don't agree with everything Ken Rockwell says in his article, but I still think that it's worth reading - especially by novice photographers who think that just owning an expensive camera will automatically make them a "good" photographer, because there are some very worthwhile nuggets of advice in there.

I am also a member of the Ansel Adams fan club, and I think that what makes a good photographer, more than anything, is mastering the technique that Adams called "visualization" - in essence, learning to "see what the camera sees", rather than what the human eye (and, more importantly, the brain) sees. Once you've got that, you're well on your way.

(Incidentally, the statement in Rockwell's article that I do take a very strong stand against is:

...everyone knows that Photoshop can be used to take any bad image and turn it into a masterpiece...

No No NO! You can use PS to turn a good image into a masterpiece, or an average image into a good one, but a bad image is always a bad image, no matter what you do to it.)

[MoodsR4Cattle]

I use an Epson 850Z which when I bought it new several years ago was around $800 - out of curiosity I looked on Ebay a week ago and found the exact same camera for .... $67. It's only 2.1 mega pixels but it still takes great photos. I'm simply a shutterbug not a photographer by any means, so It's just peachy for me.

[notjustgraphics]

Indeed Tamlin, that is something i very much agree with... that just buying a super-expensive camera is not going to make you take masterful photos... And I agree that all cameras are capable of producing outstanding images in the right hands!

Learning what the camera sees is certainly something that Ansel had more of a need for than digital photographers... with digital we can simply shoot, evaluate and delete... Ansel had to predict what the image would look like since he would not be able to see it until many hours after he had left the location. His experience and expertise, knowledge, and dedication really show through in his work.

As for Photoshop, well, we all know even it has it's limitations. But it certainly opens up possibilities for us average people, that Ansel seems to have had no need for.

Mike.

[tamlin]

Originally Posted by notjustgraphics

As for Photoshop, well, we all know even it has it's limitations. But it certainly opens up possibilities for us average people, that Ansel seems to have had no need for.

Makes you wonder what he would have made of digital photography and Photoshop, doesn't it? I haven't read his biography yet, so I don't know what his views on technology were, but I would guess that some photographers of yesteryear like Man Ray and Pictorialists like Robert Demachy and Constant Puyo would have embraced Photoshop with open arms, whereas Naturalists like Emerson and Sutcliff would probably have denounced it as the work of the devil!

Perhaps "visualization" isn't quite as necessary with digital photography as it is with the traditional method, but I still think it's a vital skill to learn.

[notjustgraphics]

Originally Posted by tamlin

Perhaps "visualization" isn't quite as necessary with digital photography as it is with the traditional method, but I still think it's a vital skill to learn.

I agree whole-heartedly!!!

I guess I was just suggesting that the whole process is quicker for us now that we have digital technology.

As for whether the masters of yesterday would have embraced digital... who's to say. It's likely a generational thing... like in all art forms, our parents art is often different from our art which will in turn be different from our childrens' art. Although each generation might argue with the other, all forms of expression can be truly artful.

With Ansel Adams, he developed his own techniques constantly for such things as interpreting colours as shade of grey and so on... I believe this is a person who was focused on the outcome of his work more so than the technology that produced it. I would like to think he would have embraced digital technology and created some equally astonishing images!

Mike.

[paulopires]

I have a Canon EOS5 for slides (i don't use film)...and a Canon 300D for digital.Lens - All Canon - 70-300mm, 60mm macro, 50mm and the one that cames with the camera...but i don't call this one a len...
I was going to buy the 400D but it's to small to handle...the same size as the 350D.

BTW - Some advice on a good Canon len 18-90 or something like that...for a daily use?

[tamlin]

Originally Posted by paulopires

the one that cames with the camera...but i don't call this one a len...

Is that the Canon 18-55mm zoom? I've heard a few people complain about this lens, but I haven't had any problems with mine.

As for an "all purpose" lens, the one I use most is a Tamron 18-200mm zoom.

[paulopires]

Originally Posted by tamlin

Is that the Canon 18-55mm zoom? I've heard a few people complain about this lens, but I haven't had any problems with mine.

Lucky you...i just avoid using that one...i should have bought only the body...i was very disapointed with Canon because of this lens. I almost changed to Nikon because i coudn't take a suficient good picture. A friend of mine told me that the problem was the lens not the camera and he was right.
All photo magazines say that lens is no good.

200mm is too much for a all purpose lens. If i need to zoom i use the 70-300.

[notjustgraphics]

I love the compression of longer lenses for most subject matters...

Though for Macro shots i prefer shorter lens... Tamron has a great 1.4 18-50 pancake lens with a 60" diameter that is great for Macro.

Mike.

[elementalgrace]

Finepix A600 as a point and shoot, although I have to admit to relying on my Nikon F40 SLR and working in film more often than not as it's a great and very versatile camera and if I need to photoshop any elements of the end image, I can always scan it in and fiddle away afterwards.

Going back to the Ansel Adams conversation at the beginning of this thread, I was once given some advice which has carried me through all manner of disciplines and industries and is something I agree with wholeheartedly:

"If you can produce good work with a rubbish camera, you'll be able to produce excellent work with a good camera. However having an excellent camera doesn't automatically make you a good photographer."

[Med_Kitty]

I use the Kodak easy share 6.0 It is easy to use and takes wuite nice pictures.