Posted: 29-07-2006 14:32
Gooooooooo NASA!
(sarah, here are the pictures again for you. You know I like you)
Very content with it so far! Only cost me a 150 euros, secondhand and in top condition
(came with a 50mm/1.8 lens)Page 7 of 10
Posted: 01-08-2006 15:45
David, I just bought a Nikon FM2 manual focus.
(sarah, here are the pictures again for you. You know I like you)
Very content with it so far! Only cost me a 150 euros, secondhand and in top condition (came with a 50mm/1.8 lens)
(sarah, here are the pictures again for you. You know I like you)
Very content with it so far! Only cost me a 150 euros, secondhand and in top condition
(came with a 50mm/1.8 lens)Posted: 01-08-2006 19:10
so hateful :<
you lot with your fancy cameras !!!
you lot with your fancy cameras !!!
Posted: 01-08-2006 19:13
hm, yeah just non-digital photography is a pain in the ass xD
Posted: 02-08-2006 10:40
DavidM wrote: hm, yeah just non-digital photography is a pain in the ass xD
That's a prejudice, perhaps you think it is a pain in the ass. Some people might like that process.
It's more a matter of what you prefer, I just love the feeling that film photography has. Next month I'm buying a negative scanner to make the development phase as cheap as possible.
The camera feels great, it's solid and I could throw it out my window and it would still survive (try that with your pentax
). The exposure meter is highly reliable, one of the main qualities of the FM2. It's got all the basic function (dof preview, extended shutter speeds and asa, self timer etc), no fancy stuff.Here's an article on it http://www.bythom.com/fm2n.htm
I really love his site, great independant reviews. Much better quality than http://www.kenrockwell.com.
Posted: 02-08-2006 12:26
i dont just mean the cost and the time, i couldnt even produce something good, if i dont see the result right away, which I need to adjust all settings, to get a really good one. after years of experience, i dont need that anymore and i know my settings right away, but until then....pain in the ass
Posted: 02-08-2006 22:13
David, aren't you in space by now?
Posted: 02-08-2006 22:53
sir?
Posted: 03-08-2006 01:57
I read you there. I had an analogue point and shoot for a while, often half of my developed films were blurry, over/underexposured etc. With the SLR it's different though, I'm in full control of exposure, shuttertime and apparture which resulted in a nice first roll of film.
It feels so different from my digital compact, I wonder how a digital SLR would feel.
It feels so different from my digital compact, I wonder how a digital SLR would feel.
Posted: 03-08-2006 09:54
Like sex on a rollercoaster
Posted: 03-08-2006 13:06
First picture with the fm2. It's Sam, my youngest brother. (scanned from print >_<, fuji superia 400, b/w + canvas with ps)
Posted: 03-08-2006 15:21
nice
Posted: 03-08-2006 19:50
Thanks! I do think the right part of his face is a little too dark. Aw well ;P
Posted: 04-08-2006 07:47
Well this thread has urged me to go out and buy a camera, as photography is something ive always wanted to get into and enjoy and i've never owned a camera (aside from on my phone!).
So i've started small and been out and bought a Sony Cybershot dsc-t9. It's 6mp, small enough to fit into my pocket and only cost me 250 pounds so it should be adequate enough to use for a while and see if I enjoy taking photos
Link below for anyone who wants to tell me whats wrong with it and what I should consider changing for a new camera in the future. I went for a sony because I can use the memory from my psp in it, got a couple of 2gig cards.
http://www.sony.co.uk/view/ShowProduct. ... ll+Cameras
So i've started small and been out and bought a Sony Cybershot dsc-t9. It's 6mp, small enough to fit into my pocket and only cost me 250 pounds so it should be adequate enough to use for a while and see if I enjoy taking photos
Link below for anyone who wants to tell me whats wrong with it and what I should consider changing for a new camera in the future. I went for a sony because I can use the memory from my psp in it, got a couple of 2gig cards.
http://www.sony.co.uk/view/ShowProduct. ... ll+Cameras
Posted: 04-08-2006 10:05
-well, at first stop caring about "megapixels"
they don't matter. anything above 2mp (1600x1200) is just fine
-what matters to me is a good sensitivity:
an ISO up to 1600 or 3200 (so you can also produce good pics in poorly lit rooms, without using the flash; I avoid the flash at any cost. flash always looks so ugly)
the one on your camera is 640 maximum. dunno, my old one had max 800...and that sucked bad. you had to use too big exposure times in NORMAL lit rooms, so it was all blurred
so it would only take really good pics when its all very very bright.
-also a manual focus option would be nice. it so annoying me on my old camera, that I could only focus on a certain object with lots of tricks. auto focus always tries to get something in the middle etc...
(-ignore cameras that have a digital zoom. they are just made to fool stupid people around, not to take good pics)
-good macro performance.
my old cam needs minimum 7cm distance to the object. that sucks.
yours seems to only need 8cm.
your camera has some special magnifying glass mode, that only needs 1cm. i dunno what that is. maybe some digital-zoom-hack.
use it and try putting it right on your monitor and take a pic of that. i would be interested in what it produces
my very first camera only needed 1cm for macro. that fucking rocked!
-low shutter lag (1/10 second) is important
-low "time until first pic after turning camera on" time (it sucks if it takes 4-5 seconds), mine has 1 second, that rules
-a manual shooting mode where you can set iso, exposure, aperture, white balance and all that manually (some don't have that, it's unbelievable)
http://www.steves-digicams.com
best digicam review site. it covers ALL stupid tiny little details about all cameras.
they don't matter. anything above 2mp (1600x1200) is just fine
-what matters to me is a good sensitivity:
an ISO up to 1600 or 3200 (so you can also produce good pics in poorly lit rooms, without using the flash; I avoid the flash at any cost. flash always looks so ugly)
the one on your camera is 640 maximum. dunno, my old one had max 800...and that sucked bad. you had to use too big exposure times in NORMAL lit rooms, so it was all blurred
so it would only take really good pics when its all very very bright.
-also a manual focus option would be nice. it so annoying me on my old camera, that I could only focus on a certain object with lots of tricks. auto focus always tries to get something in the middle etc...
(-ignore cameras that have a digital zoom. they are just made to fool stupid people around, not to take good pics
)-good macro performance.
my old cam needs minimum 7cm distance to the object. that sucks.
yours seems to only need 8cm.
your camera has some special magnifying glass mode, that only needs 1cm. i dunno what that is. maybe some digital-zoom-hack.
use it and try putting it right on your monitor and take a pic of that. i would be interested in what it produces
my very first camera only needed 1cm for macro. that fucking rocked!
-low shutter lag (1/10 second) is important
-low "time until first pic after turning camera on" time (it sucks if it takes 4-5 seconds
), mine has 1 second, that rules-a manual shooting mode where you can set iso, exposure, aperture, white balance and all that manually (some don't have that, it's unbelievable)
http://www.steves-digicams.com
best digicam review site. it covers ALL stupid tiny little details about all cameras.