Christian Photographers Community

I started out in 1976 with a Canon AE-1 and migrated to Nikon, which I used until moving to digital.  3 years ago, I bought a Canon Digital Rebel, quickly realized that I wanted more and moved to a Canon 10D.  I recently found a used Canon 1Ds in exceptional shape at a price that I couldn't turn down and that is my current camera.

So, did you get rid of your other one? Or do you still have it?

My dream is to get the Nikon D70 but I'd even be happy with the D50 although it doesn't have the DOF button.

Hot shoe is nice to have, but I rarely use the built-in flash, much less an exertnal flash.

Since my Pentax DSLR can use all my ancient M42 lenses, I can use some really fast ones, that rarely need added lighting.

You can do that with Nikon, too, and supposedly also with Canon.

I'm maybe a bit more serious than some, but for the DSLR, I love my Nikon D200. I also use a Phase One P25 digital back on my Mamiya 65AFD. I can also use that back with my Sinar 4x5 camera and when I use the adapter, and can get a 125MB image. It's great, but expensive.

For my India travel, I stick with the D200.

~V~

Hi Vic! 

I can't tell you how happy I am to see you on the site.  We've had several of our members with serious illnesses lately so not much photography has been being talked about.

I have the D80 now.  I'm trying to get used to it.  So far, I'm really happy.

6 months ago i bought the Olympus E500 DSLR camera and i love it. I looked at various cameras, holding them to see how they felt and taking a few photos. I just liked the feel and performance of the E500. I bought the camera and a two lens kit and while it was an expense, it was well worth it...Of course, i'm  learning all the time and make many many mistakes.

I also have the Kodak Z740 which is also a nice little camera.

I'm a Nikon loyal.  I love the vibrant colors, the feel of it in my hands and the set-up.

Time to update my post here...

I had a decent Sony point and shoot.  It was stolen.  I replaced it with a cheap Olympus, mainly for my wife and son to use to take pictures of their favorite cat.

I had a Pentax *ist DL.  I still have it but I've added a Pentax K10D, as of yesterday.  I took it to the zoo today.  Wow... I like it! 

I still have my Minolta waterproof.   

Mark

   We may have to bring this topic back to life!


    I have Canon Rebel XTi, that my parents got for me on Christmas. I love it.
   


     I started out with a Sony. That's the camera the rest of my family uses. It's a good camera, but it only has two F stops.

My first camera was a Kodac 110 instamatic that my boss gave me in 1969 for graduation. I used it a few years and then in the early 70's my wife and i took a trip to Texas to see my brother and i knew then i had to have a new camera. So when we returned home i bought a Canon AE1 and that is what i used until sometime in the early 2000's.

My first digital was a Sony F707 which was a great little camera (and still is) that my grandson who is 5 now uses. Then i bought the Canon 20D that i now use. It has been a great camera.   

   

Glad to see Canon is leading the way on this poll!

I've got a Canon EOS 40D and totally lovin it!

Well I went and bought my second Fuji digital camera, an 8000fd.
My Fuji S5500 was getting a little long in the tooth with only 3.2 megapixls. The 8000fd has 8. 

Well I more or less started off with a Russian Cosmic 35 camera sometime in the 1960's, then progressed up to a Zenit E SLR, then went with Pracktica as the lenses were interchangeable. Used these cameras for years, the Practicas were ever so easy to load, and my favourite lens was an 80mm F1.8 Zeiss Pancolor. Then I moved on to Olympus, I didn't think they would fit into my meatloaf mitts but it did. Why Olympus, I spotted an Om1 in a junk shop window for just a few quid, tested it out everything seemed to be working just fine, so I bought it. I won a local photographic competition, and the prize money from that paid for a couple of tele lenses a 100mm and a 200mm Zuiko lenses, still got them, ended up with four Om1 bodies, and a collection of lenses.
   Now I'm on Leicas, two M6s and four lenses 35, 50, 90,  Summicrons hence my user name, & 135mm, and love the results from these optics. Yes I'm still on film, and have no desire to go digital at all, I like the feel of film cameras and their shape, and to be honest I detest the shape and look of digital cameras, they just look like amputated deformaties to me, in which half the camera has been cut away. I don't like the idea of holding a camera a foot or so in front of your face whilst you try to peer into an LCD screen that's barely visible in bright light.
   My main objection to digital, is that of alteration and manipulation of images, with film, what you see is what you get, there is a hard copy, with digital there is an electronic image, that's it, it can be manipulated altered, combined with other images to make any other image desired, in other words the potential for creating a lie, is endless. Are people in other generations going to be able to trust the pictures we take and say, this is what it was like then, really what it was like then? Yes there are honest folk recording the world as it is, but its just that element of nothing concrete, no hard copy to refer back too. Its in the book of Revelation about those who create a lie, and digital cameras to me just have that potential to create a lie, in the hands of those who want to distort history to their own political agenda.
   Back to cameras, the most beautiful cameras ever produced is the Contax Aria, its ever such a lovely shape and I wouldn't mind getting my hands on one.

Quote from: Summicron on October 02, 2008, 05:59:19 AM
   My main objection to digital, is that of alteration and manipulation of images, with film, what you see is what you get, there is a hard copy, with digital there is an electronic image, that's it, it can be manipulated altered, combined with other images to make any other image desired, in other words the potential for creating a lie, is endless. Are people in other generations going to be able to trust the pictures we take and say, this is what it was like then, really what it was like then? Yes there are honest folk recording the world as it is, but its just that element of nothing concrete, no hard copy to refer back too. Its in the book of Revelation about those who create a lie, and digital cameras to me just have that potential to create a lie, in the hands of those who want to distort history to their own political agenda.
   Back to cameras, the most beautiful cameras ever produced is the Contax Aria, its ever such a lovely shape and I wouldn't mind getting my hands on one.

I'd have to disagree here...There is just as much potential for altering film photography as there is on digital....

Quotewith film, what you see is what you get

...not necessarily...First off...The detail and color depths and tone that the human eye is capable of seeing is sooo much more true and accurately to the subject. Film cannot match what the eye can see.  Even the glass elements and lens protector on the lens of a film camera alter the true color and tone before it reaches the film...It is impossible to record an image perfectly accurate to how it looks through the human eye.

True digital images are easier to manipulate than film....but both are just capable of manipulation. With Film cameras you can take double exposures over the same frame on the roll of film.  Or how about a slow shutter of a moving object at night....? Theoretically that is not an accurate representation of the true subject as seen by the human eye.  Filters are also widely available for both film and digital.  All of this makes the image less accurate to original subject. These are all ways that manipulation can be done with a film camera.
Also film images, once developed can easily be scanned in and post processed on a computer the same way digital images can.

Therefore, "the potential for creating a lie" is just as possible in a film camera as it is done with a digital camera.

True...in generations to come...some images will be far from accurate to "the real thing"...but...photography is an art isn't it?  Just like painting or sculpting is an art.  Its one individuals perspective of a 3d object displayed on (usually, not sculpting for sculpting) a 2 dimensional surface (be-it paper or a screen).  Just so long as we don't say, "This is how it looked in real life." then its not a lie, its just art.

I don't mean to be controversial...I understand where you are coming from though. it does have the potential for being used for a political agenda.  but I believe if it is not used inappropriately it is just a form of art...the perspective of a single individual on a certain object.

Curious...What are others thoughts here?

I totally understand where Summicron is coming from here.

But I think that editing photos is fun, and as long as you tell the people you edited your picture, it's not really lying.

Quote from: Summicron on October 02, 2008, 05:59:19 AM
Yes I'm still on film, and have no desire to go digital at all, I like the feel of film cameras and their shape, and to be honest I detest the shape and look of digital cameras, they just look like amputated deformaties to me, in which half the camera has been cut away. I don't like the idea of holding a camera a foot or so in front of your face whilst you try to peer into an LCD screen that's barely visible in bright light.

Summicron, not all digital cameras are bad.

Take my Digital-SLR Camera for example.  And by the way, you have to look through the viewfinder on D-SLR cameras.

I have a Nikon D40 and a Casio Exilim Z75.

I lurve your lens, scottyboy!

Quote from: jonathanlundy on October 02, 2008, 03:26:01 PM

Quote from: Summicron on October 02, 2008, 05:59:19 AM
   My main objection to digital, is that of alteration and manipulation of images, with film, what you see is what you get, there is a hard copy, with digital there is an electronic image, that's it, it can be manipulated altered, combined with other images to make any other image desired, in other words the potential for creating a lie, is endless. Are people in other generations going to be able to trust the pictures we take and say, this is what it was like then, really what it was like then? Yes there are honest folk recording the world as it is, but its just that element of nothing concrete, no hard copy to refer back too. Its in the book of Revelation about those who create a lie, and digital cameras to me just have that potential to create a lie, in the hands of those who want to distort history to their own political agenda.
   Back to cameras, the most beautiful cameras ever produced is the Contax Aria, its ever such a lovely shape and I wouldn't mind getting my hands on one.

I'd have to disagree here...There is just as much potential for altering film photography as there is on digital....

Quotewith film, what you see is what you get

...not necessarily...First off...The detail and color depths and tone that the human eye is capable of seeing is sooo much more true and accurately to the subject. Film cannot match what the eye can see.  Even the glass elements and lens protector on the lens of a film camera alter the true color and tone before it reaches the film...It is impossible to record an image perfectly accurate to how it looks through the human eye.

True digital images are easier to manipulate than film....but both are just capable of manipulation. With Film cameras you can take double exposures over the same frame on the roll of film.  Or how about a slow shutter of a moving object at night....? Theoretically that is not an accurate representation of the true subject as seen by the human eye.  Filters are also widely available for both film and digital.  All of this makes the image less accurate to original subject. These are all ways that manipulation can be done with a film camera.
Also film images, once developed can easily be scanned in and post processed on a computer the same way digital images can.

Therefore, "the potential for creating a lie" is just as possible in a film camera as it is done with a digital camera.

True...in generations to come...some images will be far from accurate to "the real thing"...but...photography is an art isn't it?  Just like painting or sculpting is an art.  Its one individuals perspective of a 3d object displayed on (usually, not sculpting for sculpting) a 2 dimensional surface (be-it paper or a screen).  Just so long as we don't say, "This is how it looked in real life." then its not a lie, its just art.

I don't mean to be controversial...I understand where you are coming from though. it does have the potential for being used for a political agenda.  but I believe if it is not used inappropriately it is just a form of art...the perspective of a single individual on a certain object.

Curious...What are others thoughts here?

um, i think that photos taken with film are also processed through the darkroom. some tweaking also goes on in there, right? its just that taking photos on digital SLRs are more convenient because the amount of postprocessing goes beyond just the brightness and contrast (and other minor tweaks) and can be done more easily through software.

Quote from: pao_alfonso on October 06, 2008, 02:53:47 AM
um, i think that photos taken with film are also processed through the darkroom. some tweaking also goes on in there, right?

True!

Good point, Pao.

And, thank you for you comment on my lens.

Our main camera in the family is a Canon XSi, just bought it this year, very very pleased. Got the extended batter pack and a 16 gig card, wow! Love it!

But my heart is still in film. I shoot old cameras and film mostly because I really love the whole process of a mechanical camera with no batteries, a hand-held light meter, film, and processing my film at the kitchen sink. I started shooting with a Canon AE-1 and still have it, though it needs work. I usually shoot medium format in a Yashica Mat Twin lens reflex or a Mamiya RB67 Pro (a heavy monster indeed). I also shoot through cheap toy cameras, old consumer cameras, box cameras, and have a soft spot for the Soviet era rangefinders that copied the venerable Leica. They are amazing, like tanks!

There is something enjoyable about the mechanical process, lens distortion and vignetting, old glass and pure mechanical engineering that makes me stand in awe of light, its characteristics and how it can be channeled through a lens onto chemicals to make an image.

I use a Canon EOS 30D but also have a Fuji that takes very good photos. I just enjoy taking photos and using PhotoShop.

It's interesting to see everyone's preferences in the gear that they use.

I used to do film but it was just too expensive and I find that with digital, I can take hundreds of photos without thinking "cost" and for me that makes a huge difference.

My wife bought her first digital camera a while back, now we are both Fuji people. Me with my 8000fd, and her with her 1000fd. Although my first SLR was a Pentax Spotmatic II (which I still have). If it had not been for the match-needle light meter which is no good in low light,  I probably would still be using it. I got many years of service from that camera.

We used a Fuji Finepix S5000 for years and years. Its an above-basic camera, but its a non-SLR. I was impressed by it, it has the look of a mini-DSLR, lots of great features and can even be used in a pseudo manual mode. Not real flexible, but on automatic it takes really great pictures (6MP max resolution, good optical zoom, very good spot metering). We loved it so much that when my son and I dropped the first on overboard on a boting trip through the swamps here, we salvaged the SD card and bought another one cheap because they are old enough that factory refurbs can be had really cheaply on fleabay.

While not state of the art, we got years of great photos out of it. Well made, highly reviewed, great photos -  I like Fuji.

Now that we have the Canon XSi, the Fuji will not be used as much, but we will keep it because it is a superb little camera. Even the video it takes is nice, very little loss and compression artifacts.

I have nothing bad to say about the Fuji Finepix line. My inlaws even bought one after handling ours, doing hours of consumer reports research, and my father in law is a hard-to-please NASA rocket scientist, so if he likes it, we know its a worthy camera! 

Have used the 110-35mm films throughout life just for the sake of having photos. But when I realized the digital was instanteous and you could just push the delete button for those that didn't turn out without waiting to see how disappointed you were after getting the pics back from film-I decided to go for it...Photosmart 315 1st really inexpensive digital before upgrading to a Fujifilm E500 3 months later. Then the kids got an Olympus SP510UZ for Christmas the following year, which took nice pics was so slow for shutter delay-Then in-steps Nikon D40-which I tried and fell in love with but didn't purchase til a year later-that and a D300. I chose those because it felt good in my hand. I could of chosen any of the others as easy and wish I could have one of each as well, but that's simply a dream!!!

Sorry, hope that wasn't long-winded!

I currently own a rebel xti but I am upgrading in a month to the canon 5d!

Wow!  That will be a great camera to have!

First of all, I'll clearly (I hope) say that the camera brand does not matter as long as it is capable of doing what you want and doesn't get in the way of capturing the images that you see with your mind.

Having said that, we all have preferences.   I'm a Nikon user, but not simply from brand loyalty.   I used to use Canon film cameras, and my first dslr was also a Canon (a D30).  When it came time to upgrade to a dslr with more megapixels a few years ago, I almost "automatically" bought a 30D, which was Canon's lastest and greatest at the time.   But I did some comparison shopping, and the first time I held a D200 in my hands I knew that I was going to jump ship and be a Nikon guy...  it just felt so much better, very well-built and solid with all the controls in the right places...  it felt more like an extension of my hands than a camera.   I've been extremely satisfied with that decision, and now have a D300 as my main camera.   I had my D200 converted for infrared, which I still use a lot.

Ive had my canon 5d now for about 3 months and am inlove.