-
If I was to sell my Nikon, how much do you think I could expect to get for it?
d200 in fair nick, still a bunch of shutter activations. Missing some inconcequential bits like the eye-guard and a dust cap for a port I've never used.
Nikon 50mm f1.8 - vgc
Nikon 18-200mm f3.5 - vgc
Battery/grip - kind of knackered but still working perfectly.
SB800 flash - vgc.If I was to sell all that stuff off, what do you think would be a fair asking price (and is anyone interested?). I never take it anywhere, and frankly I'd be nice to tell people I didn't have a professional camera any more. I don't want to get emails from clubs any more.
-
Here's a few from last weekend, all straight from the camera could maybe do with tweaking for levels and to get horizon straight on some... but anyway, had a great weekend.
6 Attachments
-
-
Here's a few from last weekend, all straight from the camera could maybe do with tweaking for levels and to get horizon straight on some... but anyway, had a great weekend.
3 and the caterpillar work for me.
-
Some nice ones there Spotter. I have been getting to grips with my Lumix GF1 over the past few weeks and am getting some nice results. I'm a convert (to digital) for my everyday camera (shhhh don't tell the film thread). I'm a total digi noob though, got so much to learn about histograms, white balance and all that stuff; done no post-processing at all on these.
More on my flickr
-
I was a very early convert to digital, did all my learning on film, then bought my first DSLR in 2002. Not sure I see the point of 35mm film anymore unless you are shooting on medium format or 5x4.
Film will always have it's place, but for 'art' photography. Though now is time to buy any old film cameras you want whilst they are all cheap. I predict in two years there will be a digital back you can put in old film cameras, which will be awesome.
-
Not sure I see the point of 35mm film anymore unless you are shooting on medium format or 5x4.
Since medium format and 5x4 aren't 35mm, I'm guessing you still don't see the point of 35mm film? ;)
-
I was a very early convert to digital, did all my learning on film, then bought my first DSLR in 2002. Not sure I see the point of 35mm film anymore unless you are shooting on medium format or 5x4.
Film will always have it's place, but for 'art' photography. Though now is time to buy any old film cameras you want whilst they are all cheap. I predict in two years there will be a digital back you can put in old film cameras, which will be awesome.
I'd say that prices for film equipment have already started to rise as demand outstrips supply.
I'm not so sure about seeing a digital insert for film cameras developing, while it's a nice idea it's pretty impractical and I can't imagine there being a big enough market willing to spend money on it.
The people that use 35mm compacts just now do so because they are choosing film, I don't believe a product that digitised their camera would appeal to them, especially not at the price that you would be looking at for such technology.
People who want to use old manual lenses can do so now on the likes of the NEX or any of the interchangeable lens m4/3 cameras with a simple and cheaply available adaptor.
The only real market for such a product would be people that have something like an old film Leica sitting there that they like the ergonomics and mechanics of but don't use because of the 'hassle' of using film.
Also, if it was an insert that you put in instead of a roll of film then there'd be no preview screen so you lose one of the main benefits of digital straight away.
If it was a case of replacing the film door then
a) not all cameras are dismantleable to that degree and
b) it would have to be a lot more specific to an individual camera which would push the price up even more.I think that if the popularity of Lomography and film use for 'art' photography continues then we will see more companies following in the footsteps of Fuji with the Natura and Klasse and continuing/restarting manufacturing of 35mm cameras.
-
I mean something like this:
or this:
These are two concepts that are around already, there is totally a market for it. A prime example would be me, a pro photographer who has old film cameras he loves but never uses because his need to use digital for his workflow, this would give those old camera a new lease of life. Also it would enable you to take digital shots using a "knackered" old looking camera (arbeit with a quality old lens), into situations where you would rather not take all your expensive new looking kit that is likely to get stolen or broken.
You also mention about about not being able to have the screeen? The screen is not the main benifit of digital. A) no-body needs a screen, and b) if you are using a film camera anyway you are used to not having one.
-
why would you want a film back for an average film camera?
the market of pro photographers is non-existent: the quality of the film backs (note: excluding mamiya and hasselblad etc backs) would not match that of their digital cameras, and if anyone wants to use their old lenses (which is perfectly understandable) then adapters are available cheaply and easily for most brands.as far as i'm concerned an idea like that is the worst of both worlds: complicated, low quality and expensive.
-
why would you want a film back for an average film camera?
the market of pro photographers is non-existent: the quality of the film backs (note: excluding mamiya and hasselblad etc backs) would not match that of their digital cameras, and if anyone wants to use their old lenses (which is perfectly understandable) then adapters are available cheaply and easily for most brands.as far as i'm concerned an idea like that is the worst of both worlds: complicated, low quality and expensive.
I couldn't disagree more. The whole point is that you wouldn't put it in an "average" film camera. And how do you know it would low quality and expensive? If it could output 12mp and RAW files, I'd be willing to pay for that.
-
if you wanted to use a top quality film camera for digital, then why wouldn't you just use a good quality digital back and the lens off that camera?
it would be low quality and expensive because the one development of that product was. mrsmyth detailed somewhere on here why it would always be low quality (something to do with the positioning of the sensor), and honestly, something produced in small numbers and with high manufacturing costs will be expensive. also, how would it fit into every camera?
honestly, i use almost exclusively film, but if i wanted to shoot digital i would buy a digital camera, even if there was a film back for 35mm format cameras on the market.
-
I mean something like this:
or this:
These are two concepts that are around already, there is totally a market for it. A prime example would be me, a pro photographer who has old film cameras he loves but never uses because his need to use digital for his workflow, this would give those old camera a new lease of life. Also it would enable you to take digital shots using a "knackered" old looking camera (arbeit with a quality old lens), into situations where you would rather not take all your expensive new looking kit that is likely to get stolen or broken.
If the digital adaptor costs the same as a roll of film then fine, it's more realistic though that the cost would be comparable to at least something like my NEX3 in which case, the argument about kit being stolen or broken is void.
You also mention about about not being able to have the screeen? The screen is not the main benifit of digital. A) no-body needs a screen, and b) if you are using a film camera anyway you are used to not having one.
No, nobody does need a screen but probably about 99% of the current camera buying market really really want one.
Lets say that something like that costs even as little as £200 - and I'd imagine that in the first several years of production at least you could add another zero onto the end of that - I can buy a roll of film and have it devved and scanned for right around £6 so I could buy a digital adaptor or spread that cost out over the 33 rolls of film, I know which I'd choose.
-
who would make it anyway?
development costs would be huge so it would have to be one of the big players (nikon or canon) who already have a more than healthy business in digital cameras.http://www.dpreview.com/news/0109/01091702siliconfilmvaporizes.asp
someone's tried it before, and it was completely unviable. how would you sync the shutter of the camera with the sensor? the same applies for iso.
mr_tom
MechaMorgan
user18846
TM
Branco_Salious
spotter
Olly398
photoben
petethepirate
M_V
CYOA
kboy
pppp
spenceey-
Post a reply
About
Digital photography
Posted by
Do you understand aperture and depth-of-field, shutter speed, ISO and how they work together?
If not, read some basic stuff pon the Interwebz., e.g. http://jfletcherphoto.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/the-exposure-tiangle-in-beginner-speak-the-end-of-auto-mode/
Built-in flash nearly always looks rubbish so I would avoid that. A few very simplistic tips: if you want to capture some motion blur in the riders, a shutter speed of anything between 1/15 and 1/60 should be about right, depending on how fast they're moving, of course. If you want to capture a lot of people sharp front-to-back in the frame then you will need a smaller aperture, say f/10 - f/16, but again, this will depend how deep the group you want to capture is, and how many you want in focus. If you want to single out riders and throw the rest out of focus, you will need bigger apertures, e.g. f/2.8 - f/4. How much light there is available will determine how much you have to ramp up the ISO (sensor sensitivity) to achieve your desired aperture and shutter speed combo. The payoff with high ISO is noise/grain on the images.
If you're not very experienced with manual focus you may find autofocus easier; you can elect to choose the focus point yourself, or let it decide (usually goes for closest object or face/contrast recognition).
Hope that helps a little.