Right here....

http://www.blue-echoes.com/portfolio/portfolio.html

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BlueEchoes,

Clam-The Nikon D40 would probably be a good camera for you. Mrs. Yoss is still working through all the bells & whistles with her D80 and she's had it for 1 year.

Go Canon, Nikon is on the ropes. The 40d is a killer camera.

Canon Powershot A 530 from PJ's works for us. You can either point and shoot or use the settings.

Or Clam, I can sell you my prestine Canon EOS 1Ds-Mark II (16.7 mp bad arse mofo) for a reduced price so that I can get the Canon EOS 1Ds-Mark III (22.1mp even more of a bad arse mofo).

quote:

Originally posted by BlueEchoes:
Or Clam, I can sell you my prestine Canon EOS 1Ds-Mark II (16.7 mp bad arse mofo) for a reduced price so that I can get the Canon EOS 1Ds-Mark III (22.1mp even more of a bad arse mofo).

Ballpark price?

I'll bet that camera is sold by the end of the day.

Thumbs up on the recommendation for the D40. I've got a Nikon D40x -- same camera, more megapixels -- but I'd probably buy the D40 if I had to do it all over again and save a couple bucks.

I switch between film and digital -- and I've yet to find a digital that's as light and as nice to use as the D40. I don't need the superbig SLR mofos -- I've got my Leicas and lenses to out mofo any digital mofo on the planet.

But the D40 is a great camera. Probably Nikon's best in a long time.

quote:

Originally posted by Fish:

quote:

Originally posted by BlueEchoes:
Or Clam, I can sell you my prestine Canon EOS 1Ds-Mark II (16.7 mp bad arse mofo) for a reduced price so that I can get the Canon EOS 1Ds-Mark III (22.1mp even more of a bad arse mofo).

Ballpark price?

I will sell it for $6400 (this is just for the body, you would need a lens as well). It is just about broken in (used if for 4 months, still has the new camera smell on it), best piece of equipment I have ever used in my life. I will even throw in the 3 year full replacement warranty on it. It sells for $7000 new (not including warranty, that was more). ( http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Mark-16-7MP-Digital-Camera/...id=1199901717&sr=8-1 )

Uh, uh...I think I'll buy a car instead.

For $6,400 you could hire one of GE's bums to police/clean the area around SBUX.

quote:

Originally posted by farber55:
Thumbs up on the recommendation for the D40. I've got a Nikon D40x -- same camera, more megapixels -- but I'd probably buy the D40 if I had to do it all over again and save a couple bucks.

I switch between film and digital -- and I've yet to find a digital that's as light and as nice to use as the D40. I don't need the superbig SLR mofos -- I've got my Leicas and lenses to out mofo any digital mofo on the planet.

But the D40 is a great camera. Probably Nikon's best in a long time.

I'm confused. The D40 is a Canon product. Can you clarify?

D40 is a Nikon

quote:

Originally posted by Clamato:
D40 is a Nikon

OK, the D40 is a Nikon, the 40D is a Canon. got it now, I was a bit confused. I'm still high on Obama-mania.

Nikon's best camera is the 3x. Around $4500. I would buy 2 fish. The d40 is a nice starter ax.

And if you really want snazz, forget the digital and get a Holga at Central Camera (or PJs -- I think they have had some in stock.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holga

I'm an "old-school" film fan -- and much prefer Tri-X in a rangefinder or a Holga to anything digital. But I'm in the minority.

(A properly seasoned Holga can take some amazing pix.)

Okay, about lenses. For now, both Nikon and Canon flat out make the best. Canon has a wider range of lenses. It is also like the apple vs PS thing, both have their pluses and minuses and there is no wrong choice. If you are going to go digital SLR, a body is all well and good, but in 3 years, you will want to upgrade it. Lenses on the other hand will be around for much longer. I would highly suggest spending the extra $$$ to get a lens with Image Stabilization. It works WONDERS for handheld photography. I have a 400mm lens that weighs about 4 pounds, if it did not have IS on it, I would not be able to hand hold this baby to keep it still enough to shoot. IS can save many a shot. I had a Tamron 24-135 zoom lens without IS and thought it was the bomb diggity, I then got a Canon 24-105mm lens with IS and I found it to be 100x better since it has IS. In low light, it allows you to take shots you would not have been able to.

I have a buddy that carries a 4x5 camera with a digital back (about $20k in price) and a holga (I think they are $40 now), and he uses the holga all the time! It has some incredible results. It is a really fun camera.

I love film. I love B/W film. But digital blows it away. Here is my best example why. I took some photos on a 10 minute walk on New Years day in Oak Park at 8:45 AM. I shot in B/W. I took the equivalent of 2 rolls of film. To get it developed, I would have had to drive to Calumet the next day and turn in the film for development. I would then have to wait 7-10 days to get it developed since nobody in the area does B/W developing anymore. After that, I would have then had the film scanned into my computer and then created a web gallery and uploaded the photos. This entire process would take 8 days at the least.

Instead, I got back from my walk at 8:55 AM, downloaded the photos to my laptop, did a quick once over in Lightroom and picked out my favorites, cropped a couple and then created the web gallery while in lightroom and uploaded to my site. I was done at 9:18 AM. From first photo taken (8:46 or so) to posting the photos on my site, it took me 32 minutes. 32 minutes? 8 Days? Hmmm.

Oh, here are the photos from my walk New Years Day morning:

changed my galleries, go to the recent gallery to see these shots: www.blue-echoes.com/portfolio/portfolio.html

Rock on, digital rules.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BlueEchoes,

But speed does not equal goodness.

The advantage to film is that it's *not* fast. You don't take loads of pictures -- and don't have loads of pictures to edit.

To me, that's a plus. To others, that's a negative.

You're talking to a guy that's shot film for 20 years, so you'll never -- ever -- get me to admit digital is somehow *better* than film. It's different -- the workflow is different for sure -- but comparisons between film and digital are apples and oranges.

Been there, done that. (I had more than my share of film versus digital threads on photo.net.)

Digital is actually the reason I moved *back* to rangefinders and film.

Nikon's D40 was my first foray back to digital and digital SLRs after several years of film sanity. And mainly that was only so that I could use telephoto lenses. A bit hard to do with a Lecia M4 -- even with my relatively steady fingers.

And I've yet to be able to duplicate the look of Tri-X in D76 (or even Agfa Rodinal) with Photoshop. And I've tried, believe me. But it always leaves me wondering: why manipulate it when I can just go ahead and do it?

*shrug*

Besides, what's better than venturing into the back of Central Camera and talking film with the guys behind the counter?

I bought my first SLR when I was 11, a Pentax ME super. 1979. I carried it around my ever since then. Retired it 2 years ago. I love the thing, but it just doesn't cut it now.

Digital is faster than film. The 2 new Canons have ISO of 3200, film maxed out at what, 1000?

About editing. I can go through 600 shots, pick out my favorites and crop or whatever in about an hour with Adobe Lightroom. I never use Photoshop, never will. I am in the school of "get it right in the field" mainly because I was a film guy for so long. I do not like to "photoshop" my photos. I like them pretty much as I shot them in the field.