ChrisB

Been out looking round the shops today at SLRs.

One shop will do me a 2nd Minolta 7000i with a 35-80 lens for £150 (deal open until Monday). I was told this was quite an expensive camera previously but you only get a four month warranty on it.

New recommendations seem to be...

Minolta Dynax 404si (35-80mm Minolta) - £180
Minolta Dynax 505si (28-80mm Minolta) - £230
Canon EOS 300 (28-90mm Canon) - £259

Opinions on the 7000i? 4 month warranty isn't very generous in my book.

I'm sucker for marketing and the Eye Start feature on the 505si looks handy. One shop had a Minolta 100 (IIRC) to 300 lens for £130 - is that a good price for a long zoom lens?

TIA,

Chris.

IanW

http://www.cix.co.uk/~rgivan/m7000i.html

Link to a site with comments on the 7000i.

ChrisB

Hmm, just reading a lot of the end-user reviews on http://www.photographyreview.com and quite a few people say the AutoFocus on the 505si is slow. Considering probably 50% of it's use will be track days and sporting events, I'm not sure now.

The reviews of the slightly more expensive Dynax 5 seem to say the AF is much quicker.

I am coming from a Digital background though, so I'm used to the delay imposed by the Digi products.

Luke

I think I can honestly say I think I was the first person in the UK to own a 7000i. It was Krap. The auto focus was terrible. The metering system was iffy... I have seen bodies go for £50.00!!

Buy a Cannon EOS 5 if you can. They are the fastest focusing. Well made and easy to find. Try "Jaccobs" 0207 4365544

All the new cameras around £300.00 are built like Tampons!!!!

Hoppy

Chris, technology is still moving quickly even with 'old tech' film SLRs. Newer means better, and usually cheaper. You'll not be disappointed with any of the leading brands, especially if it's a Canon EOS of some kind.

Yes, sure they are cheaply manufactured these days, but that doesn't mean either badly made, or unreliable. Just superb value.

I've been thinking lately of spending less time on ScoobyNet and more time with a camera, but am not investing in conventional film technology any more, but can't yet afford the digital kit I want. However, the third generation of interchangeable-lens digital SLRs is around the corner (due this year) and they're going to be another jump up in performance and down in price. Only a few years ago a digital SLR was £25k

So ScoobyNet wins for now

Richard.

PS There was a Canon EOS for sale in the Private section a few days ago. Looked like a bargain to me.

ChrisB

Thanks Richard.

Picked up a catalogue in Jessops today and whilst digital would be my choice, the models with anything near a decent zoom are £1200. In this month's PC Pro, JonH writes about the Nikon D1X and that's £4000 just for the body

Any idea what a 300mm lens is in figures (ie 10x zoom)? Actually, is it possible to work that out?

My Digtial Ixus is my only camera, so I figure get an SLR to learn more about photography and then see how the high end digitals work out over the next year.

Luke

"Jessops" wouldnt walk through their doors.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

To be fair, the D1X is a professional model, although it's still not as expensive as the Canon EOS 1D at £5500

All that a 10x zoom means, is that the focal length at the telephoto end is 10 times that at the wide angle end. It measures the flexibility you have in composing photos, not the ability to fill the frame with a bird in a tree half a mile away

300mm is a pretty long zoom, and might well be adequate depending on what you want to photograph. If you have a 10x zoom that maxes out at 300mm, then the other end will be 30mm. The Digital Ixus 300 covers the range 35-105mm (ie. 3x zoom), and the Ixus V is 35-70mm (2x zoom).

With interchangeable lenses you can have whatever focal length you like - the widest available are about 14mm (complete 180 degree field of view), and the longest are 1200mm or more (for a fee!).

Andy.


Andy.

Hoppy

Chris, if you've come from digital to conventional, you'll need to learn as much new jargon as those of us who have come the other way. Right now the technologies are crashing together and the result is confusion.

There's another thread further down here where I've gone on and on about focal length, apertures, depth of field and all sorts of crap most people just don't need to bother with (see Spudgun thread). Focal length in particular can be very consfusing (I'll help to explain if I can).

The most important thing to remember about focal length is that its significance is directly related to format (ie ie digital [not all the same] or 35mm or APS). What's most important is the angle-of-view. That tells you how much you get in the picture - wide-angles for panoramic landscapes, narrow angle (telphotos) for close-ups of distant subjects). 300mm is about on the limit for handholding on a 35mm camera and greater magnifications get you into another set of problems. I don't have the exact angle of view figures (magnification) to hand but can if you want, so you can compare to other lenses.

Here is my view. For serious photography where you know more than the camera does, stick with 35mm film. That's where you'll get maximum picture quality, but you need the knowledge. Be aware that this technology will be dead within three years. Digital, with the exception of the Nikon/Canon SLRs, is mainly for snapshotters (a bit like compact-zooms etc). Serious digiatl SLR have yet to enter the mainstream, but they're only months away.

Cheers,

Richard.

Luke

New Canon EOS -1D has had a few problems. British Army evaluation team had many problems...
But all where software and can be fixed. it is basicaly a Digital "1-V" which is the best body going.

APS is dead, dont bother buying one.

Josh L

Chris.
The minolta is very old technology, with an indifferent reputation to boot! There is absolutely no point in buying something like that. If at all possible I would always recommend Nikon or Canon as they tend to make fewer changes to lens mounts, which means you don't have to replace them all every time they bring out a new body. In Nikon's case, there have been very few changes, and I'm able to use a couple of my very old lenses on my D1's.

You don't need to go digital. It's great fun, easy to use etc, but development moves at such a pace that whatever you buy will be out of date within 6 months. When buying 'digi' gear, liken the residuals to those of a computer. ie £1000 a year ago, worth £2-300 max now.

Try calling Skears Photographic in Northampton (in the book), they're very good with second hand gear.

Luke,
I would have to disagree about Jessops, to a certain extent. With their taking over techno, there is even less choice, but they still seem to offer their price matching bit. So it's not a bad place to actually purchase what you want, even if half the staff don't seem that knowledgable.

Josh

ChrisB

Hi Josh.



Interesting comments about the Minolta Dynax 5. http://www.virtualtraveller.org/dynax5review.htmp seems to rate it as high at the EOS 300. Your comment about it being old technology has intrigued me as from reading around the Dynax 5 only seems to have been out a few months (November 2001?)

I don't want to sound like I'm ignoring your advice though - if there's one person on here I know is a photography guru, it's you.

Does anyone know what the difference is between USM and none USM Canon lenses? I can certainly see the benefit of going with a Canon if they don't change the lense mounts very often.

Also, are Skylight / UV filters as essential as most catalogues seem to recommend? I know the shop's own catalogue is there to sell stuff but the Jessops blurb says they don't affect the photo and protect the lens.

Chris.

Hoppy

Chris, I think Josh was referring to the second-hand Minolta 7000. USM stands for Ultra-Sonic Motor which gives fast and totally silent autofocusing. To be fair, I don't think any of the major SLR manufacturers has changed their lens mounts in the last ten years.

I don't like UV or Skylight filters as a permanent fitting. There is no UV which gets through a modern lens and they are two more air-to-glass surfaces to promote flare (reflections/fogging) and what are you trying to protect your lens from? However, if it's wet etc (sea spray is particularly nasty) then they obviously makes sense. Oh, and the mark-up on accessories like these is 100%.

Have to agree with Josh about Jessops. They are not perfect but are dedicated to enthusiast photographers and stock absolutely everything. If it's not in the shop they can usually get it next day from their Leicester HQ. And they have 200 branches.

Check their web-site www.jessops.com for mountains of product info, including a list of all the second-hand stuff they've got. Over 40,000 items! I've just checked Canon SLRs and they list 684 of them

Final plug for Jessops (and my publishing company ). Buy one of these magazines, join the free PhotoActive club and you'll get 10% off processing and 5% off all gear. Mags are Garden Answers, Trail, Country Walking, Your Horse, Steam Railway but check the issue first as the form might not be in every edition.

Richard.

howardb

Luke, I'm interested in your comment APS is dead. Care to elaborate?? I recently talked my folks into buying an APS for ease of use. I'd hate to think they've wasted their money.

ChrisB

Excellent! Top tip for the discount Richard. I'll call into the newsagents this afternoon.

It now becomes clear that Josh was on about the 7000i, not the Dynax 5. Doh!

Another question! Can you say one make of lense is better than another? For instance, would a Minolta lens with a Dynax be better than a Sigma?

Chris.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Hoppy: your point about angle of view is well made. It's worth mentioning, that many digital and APS cameras quote focal lengths in '35mm equivalent', so you can compare it directly with a 35mm camera.

The focal length of a lens is the distance from the plane of the film to an imaginary pinhole - so, for example, a camera with a focal length of 50mm has the same field of view as a pinhole camera that's 50mm from the hole to the film. If the film (or sensor) gets smaller, then the focal length for a given field of view gets smaller in proportion. That's why 35mm equivalents are often quoted instead, so that cameras with different sensor or negative sizes can be more easily compared.

Luke: I'd be interested to hear what you've heard about the 1D. The major complaint I've heard about is horizontal banding in shadows - unforgivable for a £5000+ camera - but that's not necessarily just a software problem, or indeed fixable in software. Manufacturing variations mean that each row or column of a CCD will always have different sensitivity from its neighbours, which is why there are extra pixels around the edges of the sensor that are shielded from light and used for calibration.

Chris: USM is a Good Thing (tm). It's very fast, provided that your camera body actually recognises the point at which focus has been achieved. My D30 has problems in low light (a well known weakness, sadly) which USM doesn't help with. Most of the time it's brilliant, though, and my non-USM lens is very slow and noisy by comparison. USM lenses do tend to have quite a coarse focusing ring, so if you often want to use manual focus, you might prefer non-USM lenses that are lower geared to give you finer control.

Andy.

Hoppy

Howard, Luke is right about APS being dead, but I shouldn't worry. Camera sales are led by technology and, having run out of new gadgets to add to cameras, a group of manufacturers got together to invent a new film format - the Advanced Photo System. I could waffle about this for hours as it's a great idea and could have revolutionised the market IMHO but they dropped some of the best features of the system and when it was eventually launched it was too little and too late - digital was already on the move. But APS is very easy to use, the results are good and you'll have no trouble getting films processed for many years yet. Processing is still expensive, though.

Chris, it's not possible to say one brand of lens is absolutely better than another, although you tend to get what you pay for. Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax all make great lenses (as do Zeiss and Leitz, but you'll need a second mortgage) but it depends what you want. All lens designs are a compromise. Sigma are very innovative and their 28-300mm that I've used a lot lately never fails to astonish me - how can a 10x zoom possibly be that good? However, a fixed focal length lens will beat it every time. Also, it's possible to get the odd lemon as the manufacturing tolerances in a 12-elements or more lens are miniscule. Best not to drop them

Andy, you lost me on your focal length and pin-hole thing. Focal length is the distance from the lens' nodal point to the film plane, when focused on infinity. But the nodal point is a weird thing and can actually be outside the lens body in some exotic designs. Conventional lenses focus by moving to and from the film plane, but zooms and long lenses now focus by moving a small group of elements internally, which is much quicker and easier, and allows a much greater focusing range. Interestingly, this also changes the focal length along the way, but that's surely enough confusion for now!

Josh, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be interested in your experiences with Nikon digital SLRs. I was out with a pro the other day (Stuart Collins, Car mag) who uses Nikon film cameras, and Bronica in the studio. He's got no intention of going digital yet, but accepted that he'd probably have to eventually. He's wedded to his Velvia. We were up in the Welsh mountains and with wind-chill it was minus 9 degs How does digital cope with that? Do you ever use film now?

Cheers,

Richard.

Luke

Ok, here we go !!

Jessops are a good shop,IF you know what you want. Some of the sales staff I have listened to, dont know poo.

I rate Cannon lens to be the best (VFM)
I use 2 x EOS 1V's and a EOS 5. Also a RICOH GR1 as a small back up (Mind you the quality is superb).

I tried Contax,Minolta and Nikon. I would always chose Cannon again.

Aps is so expensive. Is loading a film into a modern compact so difficult????

Cannon Failed British MET testing. Dont have full details but the second lot are due to be tested soon. Supplied from states !!! as difficult to get here.

If you are in London give "Jacobs" a try. (New Oxford street). An ex sales staff from "Jessops" told me a lot of second hand stuff get put out for sale without even been cleaned or tested correctly.
"Jacobs" use "AXCO" in Finchley to fix all their stuff. These guys reputation is fantastic. They are the "Steve Lawson" in the camera world!!! If you dont know, hard luck !!!

The other place for info and to buy is "FORDS". I could buy mail order second hand stuff, from them just on their word. They are very honest.

ChrisB

This place never fails to amaze me - people only ready to give out decent advice. Thanks guys. Expect some more questions later.

Just wait till I start looking for a film scanner...

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Hoppy: You're probably way ahead of me. I was just regurgitating from memory what I've read on http://www.photo.net/photo/optics/lensFAQ.html

As for the different mechanisms used by modern lenses to focus, I don't pretend to understand - I'm happy to leave that one to the experts. I merely observe that, in order for it to fit in my camera bag properly, I have to manually focus my Canon 100-300 f/5.6 L lens on infinity before packing it away. My 28-135IS (a much more modern, presumably rear-focusing design) doesn't change length as it focuses.

Andy.

Josh L

Chris,

I was indeed refering to the 7000i.
Other than the real 'low-end' lenses, there is a difference but not as much as the price would sometimes suggest. However, the manufacturers lenses are 'matched' to the bodies. Sigma lenses are very good VFM. I've used several over the years, and they have pleased. The only exception being a 28-70 2.8 which I bought 5 or 6 years ago which is soft as poo. There is an element of luck involved though. I recently found out that Tokina lenses are made in two different countries. The ones (usually wide apperture stuff) made in Taiwan are brill, the rest are ............not.

Unfortunately, Luke is potentially starting a Scoob v Evo type row with his comments over lens quality. Nikon and Canon, you either prefer one or the other. For me, Nikon is the dog's danglies, and anything else is the anti-christ. However, it's all subjective.

I would disagree slightly with Hoppy about the mounts though. Nikon are the only manufacturer, AFAIK, who still uses essentially the same mount as they always have. Occasionally manufacturers can't make the changes they want without major mods to the mount, so you just have to throw all your gear away! Since I turned pro both Minolta and Canon have made this sort of change.

At the end of the day Chris you have to bear in mind that with SLR's it's best to settle on one brand and stick to it, so don't rush your choice.

Josh

Hoppy

Andy, thanks for that link. Honest! Phew!

I've just finished reading it and can tell you that the author is neither a photographer nor writer, but a mathematician with an obsession with diffraction (an optical fault that has never troubled me in over 30 years). I struggled manfully to grasp his desciption of Modulation Transfer Function (MTF - the method used by lens designers to test their optics) even though I know what it is and have operated an MTF machine often enough and tested hundreds of lenses.

There are a few mistakes in there, though. First of all it is headed FAQ yet I've never heard most of those questions asked at all. Ever! I still don't get the measurement of focal length by a pin-hole. And right up front he says that at f/8 the lens aperture is 1/8th of the focal length. That's simply not true. The definition of hyperfocal distance is also wrong. There are a few other things but some of the descriptions are ambiguous so we'll give him the benefit eg, he says "large" f/numbers increase diffraction when I think he means higher, which is actually smaller LOL

Josh, tell us about how you get on with your digital Nikons, and I'll remind you how many times Nikon have altered their lens mount since 1959

Cheers,

Richard.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Ooh, heck, what a can of worms I seem to have opened. Sorry everyone

What does an aperture of (say) f/8 mean, if not that the aperture diameter is 1/8 of the focal length? (Am I missing something really obvious here? I can't immediately find a good explanation).

Cheers
Andy

Hoppy

Hi Andy. No worries - I actually enjoyed reading that link, in a masochistic kind of way

Aperture and f/numbers have been done to death lately, but here's an abridged version. Well, as abridged as I can make it.

An f/number is the focal ratio, that is the focal length divided by the diameter of the aperture. So a 50mm lens with an f/number of f/2, will have an aperture 25mm wide. This is directly related to the amount of light passing through the lens (in theory, but today also in practise). The confusing bit is that while each f/number is either half or double the f/number either side of it, instead of multiplying by 1/2 or 2, they are muliplied by the square root of 2, ie 1.4. Not very logical, but there you go.

So the full range of apertures commonly found runs like this: f/1.4 lets in double the amount of light of f/2, which is double f/2.8, which is double f/4, then double f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22.

Once you've got your head around that, f/numbers begin to make sense and it is one of the few constants that you can apply to all lenses and all cameras, no matter what format size, digital, video or cine.

Lenses are marked with their maximum aperture, eg 50mm f/2 or 200mm f/3.5 which is half-way between f/2.8 and f/4. Maximum apertures are important as they define the low-light capability of the lens, the brightness of the viewfinder image and a number of other important things. Large aperture lenses (low f/numbers) are very expensive.

Finally, you'll see things like this written on zoom lenses: 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3. Which means the maximum aperture when set to 28mm focal length is f/3.5, but this drops to f/6.3 at the 300mm end. Now it is easy to see why a lens like a 300mm f/2.8 is so big, heavy, costs a few grand and is most sports photographer's favourite tool. Capable of breathtaking images, but very hard to use well. Buggered if I can do it

Cheers,

Richard.

KF

I have a really good idea for a new system of numbering apertures and focal lengths
KF.

Hoppy

LOL KF And you just knew I'd go and check, sucker that I am

Richard.