Recommended Posts

Posted

Rob,

I don't recall if you've ever mentioned what kind of camera you use to take your review photos. The photos and the composition are really quite well done.

I use a Canon A430 point and shoot for most general cigar picture taking and for the super macro shots. For more serious shooting, I just sold all my Canon gear and bought a Nikon D40, 18-55 mm 3.5-5.6, SB-400 Speedlight. This is a great, light, easy to use kit that performs just fantastically for the money.

On that note, what do other folks use for camera rigs?

Wilkey

Posted

Also, in the old film cameras, how did you compensate for the apparent lack of cohesiveness of the silver oxide crystals in the films over 400ISO? Did you push or pull your film?

If you used a polarizing filter, was it a circular or horizontal line filter?

Do you find that a 24mm lens more closely matches the peripheral vision of the human eye?

Does you camera work after spilling cabernet in it?

I'm just kidding and actually I appreciate the question because I too am in the digital camera market and Rob's pictures seem good. Macro is important to me as a feature too.

Rob always does a nice job with his pics!

Posted

»

» On that note, what do other folks use for camera rigs?

»

I use a Nikon D2x and variety of pro-level glass....not light or very transportable but really brings home the images, especially paired with a good tripod.

In the briefcase I keepa point-and-shoot Leica D-Lux 3 which has a beautiful lens and can shoot RAW format when needed.

I've heard a lot of good things about the D40....tempted...

Bill

Posted

» Also, in the old film cameras, how did you compensate for the apparent lack

» of cohesiveness of the silver oxide crystals in the films over 400ISO?

Poo poo! Only some dirty photo journalist would care!

Makes me think of the smell of fixer... *sniff*... how I miss it. :wink:

Posted

» Rob,

»

» I don't recall if you've ever mentioned what kind of camera you use to

» take your review photos. The photos and the composition are really quite

» well done.

»

» I use a Canon A430 point and shoot for most general cigar picture taking

» and for the super macro shots. For more serious shooting, I just sold all

» my Canon gear and bought a Nikon D40, 18-55 mm 3.5-5.6, SB-400 Speedlight.

» This is a great, light, easy to use kit that performs just fantastically

» for the money.

»

» On that note, what do other folks use for camera rigs?

»

» Wilkey

Rob's pictures are quite nice....can almost smell the cigar.

I opted for the Nikon D50. Was going to go bigger on gear, but settled on a sub $800 digital SLR. Been very happy with it.

Posted

Wilkey, if you dont mind me asking, how come you decided to go the Nikon route, after being a Canon user??

I have used Pentax for years, and now have to decide on a Digital SLR ?? Canon or Nikon, that is the question!!!!

Thanks

Posted

Nikon, D80 is my choice, because theyre amazing in quality, reliability and warranty!

Posted

» Wilkey, if you dont mind me asking, how come you decided to go the Nikon

» route, after being a Canon user??

»

» I have used Pentax for years, and now have to decide on a Digital SLR ??

» Canon or Nikon, that is the question!!!!

»

» Thanks

I looked long and hard at the Rebel XTi and the Nikon D40. And then I sought out reviews and advice. In particular, [link=http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm]Ken Rockwell's[/link] extremely well put together site was instrumental. I've spoken with Ken several times and he is the epitome of practicality. I've learned a lot from him and my perspective on things is much like his. He is a plain talker (but alwayas polite) and straight shooter and I respect that. In the end, it came down to these factors:

1. I only had 3 Canon lenses, of which only one (Sigma 18-35 3.5-4.5) would have been useful with the XTi. So, I was not heavily invested in glass.

2. The XTi is over $300 more than the D40

3. The D40 has better, more efficient design and ergonomics. Two things in particular. First, the XTi feels flimsy while the D40 feels like a solid instrument even though they weight the same. (no offense to ecstatic XTi owners, this is just my impression) Second, while both grips are too darn small, the one on the XTi has a sharp edge that digs into the fat part of your fingers. The D40 grip is more comfortable.

4. The Nikon has a superior flash, the low-profile SB-400. Light, efficient, great locking to the shoe. Bounce but no swivel, ok for me.

5. The menu and menu customization capability on the D40 are awesome. I created a custom menu setup for me that has all the relevent (3-4) adjustments on each base menu page. This means I can get to stuff fast and without having to wade through gobs of menu items that I'd never change once initally set.

6. Great controls layout. While not as one-step as the much more expensive D200, I can access flash comp, exposure comp, and white balance all with one button push and adjust with the intuitive control wheel.

7. 6MP (D40) was not a deficit versus the 10MP of the XTi. I compared identical shots of the D40 with my 6MP Casio Z600 point and shoot and the noise level was astonishingly low. Plus, I don't do monster crops/blowups so I had all the pixels I needed and could fit more shots onto a 2GB card.

8. While I would have liked to have access to a few of the Canon digital lenses (17-85 IS in partic), Nikon had a reasonable set to choose from.

9. Nikon users have a really nice [link=www.nikonians.org]Users Forum[/link].

In the end, I handled and shot with both cameras and the Nikon D40 was a class above, IMO. I've been shooting every day and every day, I love it more than the last.

I hope that helps.

Wilkey

Posted

» 7. 6MP (D40) was not a deficit versus the 10MP of the XTi. I compared

» identical shots of the D40 with my 6MP Casio Z600 point and shoot and the

» noise level was astonishingly low. Plus, I don't do monster crops/blowups

» so I had all the pixels I needed and could fit more shots onto a 2GB

» card.

»

Was there much of a difference between the noise levels of the D40 and XTi?

With both cameras at their best settings, I wouldn't expect much noise / artifacts.

Though I would expect the final resolution of the XTi to be much higher.

Posted

You know what makes the decision making process difficult, in my opinion, is the disappearance of the camera specialty store. They had professionals who knew the cameras they sold. Now, for professional advice, we have to rely on out own research via the Internet. Most digital camera sales are now at stores like Target, Circuit City, Best Buy, etc. For the most part, the kids selling these were selling MP3 players earlier that day and are most concerned about selling you an extended warranty. They don't know enough about their products.

The Big Five are no longer the Big Five... Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and Minolta. Contax/Yashica and Leica also offered solid choices for 35mm buyers. But now, you have to look at brands that are computer or electronics companies and not optical companies.

I still believe that a camera is a box. Yes, the insides like a metering system are a factor in picture quality but the main thing is still optics.

While Canon and Nikon are both solid, I still prefer Nikon (Nikkor) opitics. The Japanese and Germans still make the best optics but there are few companies in Japan that actually produce their own optics. With many brands, you don't know whose optics are in your lenses. I have never been disappointed in Nikkor glass for color resolution, sharpness or contrast. And the boxes have good guts too (such as a multi metering system). I think when it comes to the various Nikon models, you find the one you are comfortable with in feel, operation and bells and whistles. I will probably pick up a D 80 myself.

Posted

» » 7. 6MP (D40) was not a deficit versus the 10MP of the XTi. I compared

» » identical shots of the D40 with my 6MP Casio Z600 point and shoot and the

» » noise level was astonishingly low. Plus, I don't do monster crops/blowups

» » so I had all the pixels I needed and could fit more shots onto a 2GB card.

» »

» Was there much of a difference between the noise levels of the D40 and XTi?

» With both cameras at their best settings, I wouldn't expect much noise / artifacts.

» Though I would expect the final resolution of the XTi to be much higher.

Colt45,

I did not get a chance to do comparisons at 100% on my monitor with the XTi shots. This is what would tell the tale with the same subject shot on manual with comparable lenses at the same aperture, ISO, shutter, and lighting.

The 10MP image would be larger for sure, but keep in mind that the image sensor on the Canon is a little bit smaller even than the one in the Nikon as evidenced by the 1.6x versus 1.5x lens factor. On this basis alone, if all the technology were similar, I'd have to expect the raw Canon image to necessarily have a higher noise level since it packs in 64% more pixels in a slightly smaller sensor. Keep in mind that both sensors are roughly 10 times the size of those in point and shoots so the difference is much, much easier to see in that comparison.

A low noise, 6MP image is a wonderful thing. And if you really think you need more picture real estate to do heavy crops and large blowups, I'd argue that one might consider zooming in more, reframing the picture or going to a next-level 10MP camera like the D200 or 30D (I think).

Wilkey

Posted

» You know what makes the decision making process difficult, in my opinion,

» is the disappearance of the camera specialty store. They had

» professionals who knew the cameras they sold. Now, for professional

» advice, we have to rely on out own research via the Internet. Most

» digital camera sales are now at stores like Target, Circuit City, Best

» Buy, etc. For the most part, the kids selling these were selling MP3

» players earlier that day and are most concerned about selling you an

» extended warranty. They don't know enough about their products.

»

» The Big Five are no longer the Big Five... Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax

» and Minolta. Contax/Yashica and Leica also offered solid choices for

» 35mm buyers. But now, you have to look at brands that are computer or

» electronics companies and not optical companies.

»

» I still believe that a camera is a box. Yes, the insides like a metering

» system are a factor in picture quality but the main thing is still optics.

»

» While Canon and Nikon are both solid, I still prefer Nikon (Nikkor)

» opitics. The Japanese and Germans still make the best optics but there

» are few companies in Japan that actually produce their own optics. With

» many brands, you don't know whose optics are in your lenses. I have never

» been disappointed in Nikkor glass for color resolution, sharpness or

» contrast. And the boxes have good guts too (such as a multi metering

» system). I think when it comes to the various Nikon models, you find the

» one you are comfortable with in feel, operation and bells and whistles. I

» will probably pick up a D 80 myself.

phxkev,

Well said. About the closest I got to a neighborhood shop was Ritz Camera. The genuine mom-pops I visited were in pretty sad shape. I asked one seller if anyone still bought film gear and she replied deadpan: "yeah, high school film students." As far as SLRs, that's pretty much a death sentence.

Wilkey

Posted

The only thing keeping camera stores in business for years was the profits on photofinishing. Hardware margins were almost non-existent. And the photofinishing market has evaporated with the success of digital imaging.

I worked for Fuji for several years. Fuji and Kodak did all they could to try to prevent digital imaging from coming to market via patenting but it was not successful. It would cost Fuji 25 cents (USD) to manufacture, transport and market a roll of 35mm 100ISO 24 exp. film and wholesale was $2.39 a roll. So they had a reason to at least try to slow down digital imaging from coming to the mass consumer market.

Nobody believed me when I left Fuji and people asked me why I was leaving. I said I was leaving because "in ten years color film (the face of the business) would be what black and white film is today." It's ten years later and I don't look so crazy now. They even said "we still have magnetic tape products." I laughed and said "It'll ALL be digital soon boys. And forget about digital tape."

Ritz owns Kits. They own Camera World in Portland, OR which was THE major camera and video retailer and mail order house in the western US. They own some other stores too. But their people are commissioned to push certain equipment over other equipment.

So we rely on the Internet for guidance. Professional guidance as well as from comsumers in forums like this one.

Posted

After my wife and I started having kids, I gave up my home darkroom with all it's nasty chemicals and started painting and drawing instead.

But I loved the darkroom with all it's stinky chemicals.

Maybe I haven't seen enough high-end examples, but I have yet to see a digital print that could hold a candle to a manually developed color or black and white photograph. A well done Cibachrome would make your eyeballs pop out of their sockets.

Of course for snapshots, why not? The prints come back crappy from those machines anyway.

Posted

Hi Wilkey

I also came to the same conclusion but from a different direction.....and decided on the D40 (not purchased yet).

Your comments and after viewing Ken Rockwell's SUPERB site, it will be a definite purchase with his recommended 18-55 lens. I was surprised to see the great macro ability of this lens. His site is recommended reading.

Just have to come up with the $$ :-D

Posted

» After my wife and I started having kids, I gave up my home darkroom with

» all it's nasty chemicals and started painting and drawing instead.

»

» But I loved the darkroom with all it's stinky chemicals.

»

» Maybe I haven't seen enough high-end examples, but I have yet to see a

» digital print that could hold a candle to a manually developed color or

» black and white photograph. A well done Cibachrome would make your

» eyeballs pop out of their sockets.

»

» Of course for snapshots, why not? The prints come back crappy from those

» machines anyway.

You make a good point but digital imaging is getting better. My problem with digital is that it seems less honest. The image is more easily manipulated into something the eye couldn't or didn't see. I know you can manipulate film images too and that there is a difference between documentation and art, but film imaging seems more pure to me.

Posted

» My problem with digital is that it seems less honest.

»

I don't know. I get the feeling that if Ansel Adams and his contemporaries had

access to today's technology, they would have embraced it. But who knows.

It also depends on what your final use for the photo is, at least to me. If you are

making prints from film for artistic puposes, that's one thing.

But if the final use is web, or a printed piece, film loses it's luster.

Posted

Wilkey,

I use a Canon SLR D350 matched to a standard general lense although I have a 100mm Canon Macro lense if needed.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.