Question:

Having sold a bit of Nikon and Canon gear I would tell you to got the separate route. The prices of film cameras now days is terrible though.

I was actually surprised how good it was. I saw X-700 bodies going for around $100. I figured they’d be well below that. Sure, it’s a fraction of what I paid 14 years ago, but it’s better than nothing, which is what it’s worth sitting in the closet where it’s been for the past four years. — Craig Wagner, craig.wagner(at)comcast.net Portland, OR "Don’t ban high-performance vehicles, ban low-performance drivers!"

Response:

I don’t want to wait that long. Nor, quite frankly, do I have the time to do that much research into it. Unfortunately I have one of those annoying j-o-b things that takes up a lot of my time. And probably pays you a lot more than selling the camera will.

Oh yeah. I still have the original receipt for the camera. I paid almost $1500 CDN for the whole package in 1995. The receipt was printed on a dot matrix printer. As I’ve stated many times in the past, I sell my own personal stuff that I no longer need. I "lose money" on every sale because most of the stuff I bought new for my own personal use. But I get something that is just taking up space out of the house and put a few bucks in my pocket, so I’m happy and someone gets something they want at a good price so they’re happy. It sounds like you are approaching this task with a healthy dose of pragmatism — sensible, but it will bring you into conflict with some of this newsgroup’s regulars.

In this particular incident I don’t see putting up separate listings to be significantly more difficult than a single listing, and doing a couple hours of research is worth it as well. Much more than that just to maybe get an extra $20 isn’t worth it. — Craig Wagner, craig.wagner(at)comcast.net Portland, OR "Don’t ban high-performance vehicles, ban low-performance drivers!"

Response:

I don’t want to wait that long. Nor, quite frankly, do I have the time to do that much research into it. Unfortunately I have one of those annoying j-o-b things that takes up a lot of my time.

And probably pays you a lot more than selling the camera will. It sounds like you are approaching this task with a healthy dose of pragmatism — sensible, but it will bring you into conflict with some of this newsgroup’s regulars. In thin markets, unpredictable prices are normal. When you believe you’ve done as much research as is warranted, list, take your chances, and move on.

Response:

Hi Craig, fancy seeing you here!

Uh, okay. I did that before posting the question. The problem was that prices were all over the map. I saw body-only going for anywhere from $125 to $40. Both sellers described the body in the same way ("like new"), but we know how much that can vary ("it’s like new except the film won’t advance"). Were those active listings or completed auctions?

Completed. Looking at active listings doesn’t tell me anything as the price can change dramatically in the last hour (or sometimes minute) of the auction. print out the page.  In a month or two you will have some really good data on what these items currently *sell* for on eBay, much better data

I don’t want to wait that long. Nor, quite frankly, do I have the time to do that much research into it. Unfortunately I have one of those annoying j-o-b things that takes up a lot of my time. And you just never know on eBay. All you need is two bidders who both want to have *that* particular item and suddenly the price goes way up. — Craig Wagner, craig.wagner(at)comcast.net Portland, OR "Don’t ban high-performance vehicles, ban low-performance drivers!"

Response:

Hi Craig, fancy seeing you here! You’re probably right. If you want to do the necessary work, locate some similar combinations that have just sold, then research the price range for each of the parts. Remember to compare items that are in similar condition. I did that before posting the question. The problem was that prices were all over the map. I saw body-only going for anywhere from $125 to $40. Both sellers described the body in the same way ("like new"), but we know how much that can vary ("it’s like new except the film won’t advance").

Were those active listings or completed auctions? If you aren’t in a big hurry to sell right away, setup some searches for the items you want to sell, then have eBay email you daily with new auction listings that match of your searches.  As you look at each new (active) auction, if it is an item (or lot) similar to the one you want to sell, add it to your watch list.  Then, after the auction closes, print out the page.  In a month or two you will have some really good data on what these items currently *sell* for on eBay, much better data than you can get by searching active auctions (haven’t closed/sold yet) or closed auctions (you can’t search on body text, making it really hard to find good matches if the titles aren’t sufficient to find the items that match what you have). FYI:  I bought a "mint" used Canon 70-200L IS USM f2.8 after following the active auctions this way for several months.  I got it for one of the lowest selling prices I’ve seen in 6 months (missed one better deal that was BIN’d before I saw the auction) for $200 less than from B&H. jc

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s time to part with my 35mm camera equipment. I haven’t used it in years and I’d like one of the new digital SLRs. My question is, should I part it out or sell it as a big lump? I’ve got: – Minolta X-700 – 28-70 Minolta lens – 70-210 Minolta lens – Vivitar Series 1 flash – Some Cokin filters I’m thinking I’d get a higher overall price if I list the items separately. If so, I’m willing to deal with multiple shipments. Does anyone have any experience that would substantiate or refute that notion? — Craig Wagner, craig.wagner(at)comcast.net Portland, OR "Don’t ban high-performance vehicles, ban low-performance drivers!"

Having sold a bit of Nikon and Canon gear I would tell you to got the separate route. The prices of film cameras now days is terrible though.

Response:

You’re probably right. If you want to do the necessary work, locate some similar combinations that have just sold, then research the price range for each of the parts. Remember to compare items that are in similar condition.

I did that before posting the question. The problem was that prices were all over the map. I saw body-only going for anywhere from $125 to $40. Both sellers described the body in the same way ("like new"), but we know how much that can vary ("it’s like new except the film won’t advance"). At this point I’m thinking I’ll break up the set, but after all the ads are up I’ll go back and add cross-reference links between them. That way if someone does want the whole set (or some subset) they can bid on the individual auctions. — Craig Wagner, craig.wagner(at)comcast.net Portland, OR "Don’t ban high-performance vehicles, ban low-performance drivers!"

Response:

ADVICE: (unsolicited) record the serial numbers of the body and lenses and wherever a number appears. Should you get someone who claims there is damage or it is not working, at least you can prove whose camera it is.

That is good advice. Thanks. — Craig Wagner, craig.wagner(at)comcast.net Portland, OR "Don’t ban high-performance vehicles, ban low-performance drivers!"

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s time to part with my 35mm camera equipment. I haven’t used it in years and I’d like one of the new digital SLRs. My question is, should I part it out or sell it as a big lump? I’ve got: – Minolta X-700 – 28-70 Minolta lens – 70-210 Minolta lens – Vivitar Series 1 flash – Some Cokin filters I’m thinking I’d get a higher overall price if I list the items separately. If so, I’m willing to deal with multiple shipments. Does anyone have any experience that would substantiate or refute that notion? — Craig Wagner, craig.wagner(at)comcast.net Portland, OR "Don’t ban high-performance vehicles, ban low-performance drivers!"

I’d say sell them separate.  While you will have higher listing fees and higher final value fees, I think the items in total will more than make up for it. For instance, someone may not like the camera but they love the lenses.   Or they hate the lenses and the filters but love the camera.  If they like them all, they’ll bid on them all and you can ship them all at once, anyway. I will say I’ve never sold or been interested in camera equipment, but I have sold other things in pieces and got a lot more money for them.

Response:

It’s time to part with my 35mm camera equipment… I’m thinking I’d get a higher overall price if I list the items

separately. You’re probably right. If you want to do the necessary work, locate some similar combinations that have just sold, then research the price range for each of the parts. Remember to compare items that are in similar condition.

Response:

I have been toying with the best way to list an older CANON AE 1. I feel I may get more listing it as a package. ADVICE: (unsolicited) record the serial numbers of the body and lenses and wherever a number appears. Should you get someone who claims there is damage or it is not working, at least you can prove whose camera it is. I had a "gentleman" go fishing on a purchase he made from wit an item that has a S/N. He maintained it was not working, and when I asked for the S/N number of the item, he then WAS NOT SURE if it was the one I sent to him….. Never heard another "peep" about it. the 3 most honest people in the world are: ME, YOU and EVERYONE ELSE, however I am not sure about the last two! h — In the words of the IMMORTAL USED CAR DEALER: THERE IS AN ASS FOR EVERY SEAT!

Response:

It’s time to part with my 35mm camera equipment. I haven’t used it in years and I’d like one of the new digital SLRs. My question is, should I part it out or sell it as a big lump? I’ve got: – Minolta X-700 – 28-70 Minolta lens – 70-210 Minolta lens – Vivitar Series 1 flash – Some Cokin filters I’m thinking I’d get a higher overall price if I list the items separately. If so, I’m willing to deal with multiple shipments. Does anyone have any experience that would substantiate or refute that notion? — Craig Wagner, craig.wagner(at)comcast.net Portland, OR "Don’t ban high-performance vehicles, ban low-performance drivers!"

Response:

Question:

Digital’s the way to go. Canon IXUS is sturdy & water-resistant. Yes, get a 1G card for a huge number of photos. When you get to KL or Spore, you’ll simply burn them into CDs, then off you go again. Remie

Actually I would suggest several smaller cards instead of on 1G card.  That way, if you lose one card (or it gets damaged) you haven’t lost all your pictures.  I think the portable HD is a good idea and (a better idea if you can swing it) is to find a cyber cafe that will burn your pics onto CD.

Response:

http://home.fujifilm.com/photokina2002/data/ct_pdf/ob_213e.pdf Rated as the best 35mm compact camera. No other compact has such a fast zoom lens.

http://www.photoworkshop.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=8&n… Not sold in the U.S. of course. Buy it at any camera store in Japan.

That looks like an interesting camera.  Have you shot with one?  Just wondering how the lens qulaity is compared to something like the non-zoom Oly,pus stylus Epic (which I find compares favorable to many 50mm SLR lenses)

Response:

Olympus Stylus Epic.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would appreciate it if anyone would like to share information about their favorite travel cameras. I will be doing some traveling next summer, and am looking for something that is light, easy to pack, and produces good quality photos. I would like to stick with 35mm. I have a lot of experience with 35mm, but my present camera is very expensive, and kind of heavy, so I really don’t want to take it with me. I will be in some rough conditions, and need to pack light. Any Suggestions? Todd

Response:

: The answer ranges anywhere from Leica to Olympus Stylus. : Leica’s are totally overrated……. : and over priced Thank you for your insightful conntribution.

No problem , now back on your knees. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text — Vandit Kalia <this space for rent

Response:

: The answer ranges anywhere from Leica to Olympus Stylus. : Leica’s are totally overrated……. : and over priced Thank you for your insightful conntribution. — Vandit Kalia <this space for rent

Response:

Digital’s the way to go. Canon IXUS is sturdy & water-resistant. … if you need a tiny compact camera. If you want something better with manual controls, consider the Olympus 5050 (still relatively compact), or, if budget allows, a Canon 300D digital SLR camera (much larger though).

There’s also the new Canon A80, a 4MP upgrade to the A70.  It gives you manual control over exposure (just like the A60 and A70 did), but not with actual *manual* controls (individual knobs for aperature/speed/etc). The digital SLRs are great for semi-pro types who want to swap out lenses a lot.  (Though you can actually swap lenses on the A60/70/80s.)  I think the more compact models like the A70/80 or the subcompacts like the Elph are better travel cameras, though.  I prefer to travel light. Gary

Response:

Digital’s the way to go. Canon IXUS is sturdy & water-resistant.

… if you need a tiny compact camera. If you want something better with manual controls, consider the Olympus 5050 (still relatively compact), or, if budget allows, a Canon 300D digital SLR camera (much larger though). — Alfred Molon http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/ Olympus 5050 resource – http://www.molon.de/5050.html Olympus 5060 resource – http://www.molon.de/5060.html

Response:

Any Suggestions?

Nikon FM2 if you stick to film, if you go digital cannon ps s45. Per http://www.lowdin.nu

Response:

Digital’s the way to go. Canon IXUS is sturdy & water-resistant. Yes, get a 1G card for a huge number of photos. When you get to KL or Spore, you’ll simply burn them into CDs, then off you go again. Remie

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you travel with a digital camera don’t forget to buy an X’s Drive II (or other portable HDD with integrated card reader). On my last trip to Malaysia I met people who were deleting even very good pictures to make space for new ones on their memory cards. They were travelling for weeks with just 64 MB of memory cards (I used to shoot 1 GB of pictures per day). On my last trip to Malaysia I popped into the 3rd level at Sungei Wang and asked the nice people at the Apple store to burn my CompactFlash cards onto CDs for me, which they did for rm10 (US$2.50). miguel — Gator is spyware!

Response:

If you travel with a digital camera don’t forget to buy an X’s Drive II (or other portable HDD with integrated card reader). On my last trip to Malaysia I met people who were deleting even very good pictures to make space for new ones on their memory cards. They were travelling for weeks with just 64 MB of memory cards (I used to shoot 1 GB of pictures per day).

On my last trip to Malaysia I popped into the 3rd level at Sungei Wang and asked the nice people at the Apple store to burn my CompactFlash cards onto CDs for me, which they did for rm10 (US$2.50). miguel — Gator is spyware!

Response:

I know it’s not what you requested, but I can’t think of a better time or situation to consider digital.  Canon’s Elph line is really quite amazing and because of how small, light and effortless the entire process is, one manages to get a lot more volume out of the thing than you might with a full bore 35mm rig–even a small one.

The Canon A70 is also an excellent camera.  I haven’t tested it myself yet, but the experts claim it basically matches 35mm picture quality for up to 5×7 prints, and is almost as good for 8×10.  This is for normal consumer 35mm photography; if you’re a pro using specially-processed Fuji Velvia film to get maximum resolution, then you shouldn’t be looking at consumer- grade digital cameras.  Some of the pro-grade digitals are excellent. I’ll be taking my new A70 to Thailand this winter.  Should be fun! Gary

Response:

The Canon A70 is also an excellent camera.  I haven’t tested it myself yet, but the experts claim it basically matches 35mm picture quality for up to 5×7 prints, and is almost as good for 8×10.  This is for normal consumer 35mm photography; if you’re a pro using specially-processed Fuji Velvia film to get maximum resolution, then you shouldn’t be looking at consumer- grade digital cameras.  Some of the pro-grade digitals are excellent. I’ll be taking my new A70 to Thailand this winter.  Should be fun!

If you travel with a digital camera don’t forget to buy an X’s Drive II (or other portable HDD with integrated card reader). On my last trip to Malaysia I met people who were deleting even very good pictures to make space for new ones on their memory cards. They were travelling for weeks with just 64 MB of memory cards (I used to shoot 1 GB of pictures per day). — Alfred Molon http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/ Olympus 5050 resource – http://www.molon.de/5050.html Olympus 5060 resource – http://www.molon.de/5060.html

Response:

The answer ranges anywhere from Leica to Olympus Stylus.

Leica’s are totally overrated……. and over priced – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text — Vandit Kalia <this space for rent

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would appreciate it if anyone would like to share information about  their favorite travel cameras. I will be doing some traveling next summer, and  am looking for something that is light, easy to pack, and produces good  quality photos. I would like to stick with 35mm. I have a lot of experience with  35mm, but my present camera is very expensive, and kind of heavy, so I really  don’t want to take it with me. I will be in some rough conditions, and need to  pack light. Buy a cheap and light 35mm camera.

Another of your "modern" solutions? Go digital. Cheap and light.

Response:

I would appreciate it if anyone would like to share information about their favorite travel cameras. I will be doing some traveling next summer, and am looking for something that is light, easy to pack, and produces good quality photos. I would like to stick with 35mm. I have a lot of experience with 35mm, but my present camera is very expensive, and kind of heavy, so I really don’t want to take it with me. I will be in some rough conditions, and need to pack light. Any Suggestions?

http://home.fujifilm.com/photokina2002/data/ct_pdf/ob_213e.pdf Rated as the best 35mm compact camera. No other compact has such a fast zoom lens. http://www.photoworkshop.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=8&n… Not sold in the U.S. of course. Buy it at any camera store in Japan.

Response:

I would appreciate it if anyone would like to share information about their favorite travel cameras.

The Canon Powershot 230 I got last year completely change the way I take travel pictures. It was a delight.  It’s size and general efficiency (being able to review pictures for one thing) was a delight. I will be doing some traveling next summer, and am looking for something that is light, easy to pack, and produces good quality photos. I would like to stick with 35mm. I have a lot of experience with 35mm, but my present camera is very expensive, and kind of heavy, so I really don’t want to take it with me. I will be in some rough conditions, and need to pack light. Any Suggestions?

I know it’s not what you requested, but I can’t think of a better time or situation to consider digital.  Canon’s Elph line is really quite amazing and because of how small, light and effortless the entire process is, one manages to get a lot more volume out of the thing than you might with a full bore 35mm rig–even a small one. — ///— Vote for the richest Republican.  He understand the common man.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would appreciate it if anyone would like to share information about their favorite travel cameras. I will be doing some traveling next summer, and am looking for something that is light, easy to pack, and produces good quality photos. I would like to stick with 35mm. I have a lot of experience with 35mm, but my present camera is very expensive, and kind of heavy, so I really don’t want to take it with me. I will be in some rough conditions, and need to pack light. Any Suggestions? Todd

For travelling light/rough, my camera is an old Pentax MX……cheap, small, light,fully mechanical, all manual operation, all metal construction, very robust and reliable, unattractive to thieves because it is old, cheap so it doesn’t matter if you lose/damage it, a wide range of good cheap lenses available for it. There are other similar cameras from the same 70’s 80’s era…canon, olympus, minolta….MX is probably the smallest and lightest of the bunch.  Good travel combo is a MX and Pentax 40mm pancake lens…you can slip the combo into a jacket pocket…..40mm is ultra small and light, average optics, a cult lens so be prepared to pay for it.

Response:

: I would appreciate it if anyone would like to share information about their : favorite travel cameras. I will be doing some traveling next summer, and am : looking for something that is light, easy to pack, and produces good quality : photos. I would like to stick with 35mm. I have a lot of experience with 35mm, : but my present camera is very expensive, and kind of heavy, so I really don’t : want to take it with me. I will be in some rough conditions, and need to pack : light. : : Any Suggestions? This question is impossible to answer without knowing: – what system you already own – what your interests in photography are – what your budget is The answer ranges anywhere from Leica to Olympus Stylus. — Vandit Kalia <this space for rent

Response:

I would appreciate it if anyone would like to share information about their favorite travel cameras. I will be doing some traveling next summer, and am looking for something that is light, easy to pack, and produces good quality photos. I would like to stick with 35mm. I have a lot of experience with 35mm, but my present camera is very expensive, and kind of heavy, so I really don’t want to take it with me. I will be in some rough conditions, and need to pack light.

Buy a cheap and light 35mm camera.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would appreciate it if anyone would like to share information about their favorite travel cameras. I will be doing some traveling next summer, and am looking for something that is light, easy to pack, and produces good quality photos. I would like to stick with 35mm. I have a lot of experience with 35mm, but my present camera is very expensive, and kind of heavy, so I really don’t want to take it with me. I will be in some rough conditions, and need to pack light. Any Suggestions? Todd

Olympus mju II Zoom 80, or the non zoom compact with a fast f2.8 lens.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would appreciate it if anyone would like to share information about their favorite travel cameras. I will be doing some traveling next summer, and am looking for something that is light, easy to pack, and produces good quality photos. I would like to stick with 35mm. I have a lot of experience with 35mm, but my present camera is very expensive, and kind of heavy, so I really don’t want to take it with me. I will be in some rough conditions, and need to pack light. Any Suggestions?

I have gone exclusively to digital.  But try cnet.com, great comparison shopping. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Todd

Response:

I would appreciate it if anyone would like to share information about their favorite travel cameras. I will be doing some traveling next summer, and am looking for something that is light, easy to pack, and produces good quality photos. I would like to stick with 35mm. I have a lot of experience with 35mm, but my present camera is very expensive, and kind of heavy, so I really don’t want to take it with me. I will be in some rough conditions, and need to pack light. Any Suggestions? Todd

Response:

Question:

Forget the HP printers. Get yourself an Epson Photo 820 printer for $99 (with the possibility of a rebate perhaps.) Your cost to print one 8-1/2×11 sheet of ColorLife paper will be about $1.00 or less, and you can print (4) 3-1/2 x 5" photos per page, so your cost will be about $.25 per picture.  The Epson Photo 820 offers the best quality (equal to or better than 35mm) at the best price. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am an independent adjuster, working with dwelling claims.  Being an IA, I incur ALL the costs involved with my job.  My current method of reporting is using a 35mm camera, developing the film at the cheapest 1 Hour Photo I can find, and glueing the photos to a sheet.  This costs me about $11.30 per claim, assuming the lost costs of unused photos that I must pay to have developed. I process about 500-600 claims per year.  This is $6000-7000 per year in film and developing.  (Not to mention the cost in TIME) I have purchased the camera, a Canon G3. I must now decide on the best printing method.  Here are my two priorities: 1. Print quality MUST be as close to a 35mm print as possible. 2. Cost per page is critical.  This is why I am switching. I understand that these two priorities may make the decision difficult, since usually "better cost=laser" and "better quality=inkjet."  But I have been unable to find true cost figures for exactly what I am going to do. I have researched quite a bit, and printed sample photos on an HP 2500L laser and on an HP PSC750, using a variety of paper on each.  The injet is far better quality using photo paper, and both are comparable using 24# bright. Using glossy paper on the laser produced negligible improvement over regular paper. HP’s website has a cost analysis for their business line inkjets, and it shows that they are cheaper to run than laser?  That seems very suspicious to me. They attribute this to seperate color cartridges, which are not attached to the print heads. The printers each cost about $1,000. My typical report has 24 photos (12 pages, 2 photos per page).  I will be printing 2 4×6 photos per page, with minimal black text on the same page. So I figure my typical page will be 50% color coverage, and a 5% black. What I need to know is the following: 1. Real world cost per page for HP 2500L, 50% color coverage, using the recommended paper for photos on a color laser. 2. Real world cost per page for HP Business Inkjet (2280?), 50% color coverage, using the recommended paper for photos (glossy, bulk prices?). 3. Is there a reliable "refill ink" solution for the inkjet wells, since they are seperate from the print heads on the HP business line of printers? Thank you for your help, Greg

Response:

If you  have to print all your photos I don’t think there are any savings going the digital route. Can you report on line and let someone else do the printing ? – the cost of printing colour photos is expensive in ink and photo paper – and very slow to boot. Consumer Reports has price approximations on their inkjet printer reports which comprise the cost of glossy paper, the  ink and the amortized cost of printheads. The cheapest appears to be $1.10 US running up to $2.20 per photo. The time to print these photos runs between 6 minutes to 14 minutes / photo. We use digital but print only when necessary in B&W using laser. Still waiting also for OK to use digital on any suspicious claims as you can do weird and wonderful things editing in digital.   However I really like the digital because they’re free until you want to print them – so you  can go to a fire scene and literally take hundreds of photos and download them for future reference – you can even take short videos to pan a room. When I need hard copies I use 35MM prepaid film often discounted to 5.00 or so for a 24 roll  "development included" – a lot cheaper and quicker and better quality. Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am an independent adjuster, working with dwelling claims.  Being an IA, I incur ALL the costs involved with my job.  My current method of reporting is using a 35mm camera, developing the film at the cheapest 1 Hour Photo I can find, and glueing the photos to a sheet.  This costs me about $11.30 per claim, assuming the lost costs of unused photos that I must pay to have developed. I process about 500-600 claims per year.  This is $6000-7000 per year in film and developing.  (Not to mention the cost in TIME) I have purchased the camera, a Canon G3. I must now decide on the best printing method.  Here are my two priorities: 1. Print quality MUST be as close to a 35mm print as possible. 2. Cost per page is critical.  This is why I am switching. I understand that these two priorities may make the decision difficult, since usually "better cost=laser" and "better quality=inkjet."  But I have been unable to find true cost figures for exactly what I am going to do. I have researched quite a bit, and printed sample photos on an HP 2500L laser and on an HP PSC750, using a variety of paper on each.  The injet is far better quality using photo paper, and both are comparable using 24# bright. Using glossy paper on the laser produced negligible improvement over regular paper. HP’s website has a cost analysis for their business line inkjets, and it shows that they are cheaper to run than laser?  That seems very suspicious to me. They attribute this to seperate color cartridges, which are not attached to the print heads. The printers each cost about $1,000. My typical report has 24 photos (12 pages, 2 photos per page).  I will be printing 2 4×6 photos per page, with minimal black text on the same page. So I figure my typical page will be 50% color coverage, and a 5% black. What I need to know is the following: 1. Real world cost per page for HP 2500L, 50% color coverage, using the recommended paper for photos on a color laser. 2. Real world cost per page for HP Business Inkjet (2280?), 50% color coverage, using the recommended paper for photos (glossy, bulk prices?). 3. Is there a reliable "refill ink" solution for the inkjet wells, since they are seperate from the print heads on the HP business line of printers? Thank you for your help, Greg

Response:

Not sure what your location is, but check to see if your local Walmart has the Fuji system in place.  You can bring your memory card in,  insert it,  pick the images you want printed and the amount and size,   leave the ones you dont’ want unprinted and have them in an hour for .29 cents each.  I am very pleased with the quick and very good prints.  I’m not pleased with their gestapo tactics as it pertains to copyright questions, but we’ve worked that out at my local Walmart.   You can then burn your prints to a CD and have an archive of your adjuster jobs.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am an independent adjuster, working with dwelling claims.  Being an IA, I incur ALL the costs involved with my job.  My current method of reporting is using a 35mm camera, developing the film at the cheapest 1 Hour Photo I can find, and glueing the photos to a sheet.

Response:

I have found that for printing a roll of film, my digital camera cannot compete with the local el cheapo super market developer. File:  Package of four about $6.00 Developing about $5.00 You realize savings when you find you need not print all of the pictures.  So if you take a roll of film eith the expectation of needing only a few photographs, digital is cheaper. With my Epson 1270 I figure it takes about $1.00 max to print one 8.5 x 11 sheet for the ink and $0.20 to $0.40 for the paper depending on whether I use matte or Epson photo paper. Bottom line is that you are talking about $1.25 per 8.5X11.  You can fit 2 5×7 or 4 4×5 prints per sheet of 8 1/2 x 11 paper, so you can do the math. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am an independent adjuster, working with dwelling claims.  Being an IA, I incur ALL the costs involved with my job.  My current method of reporting is using a 35mm camera, developing the film at the cheapest 1 Hour Photo I can find, and glueing the photos to a sheet.  This costs me about $11.30 per claim, assuming the lost costs of unused photos that I must pay to have developed. I process about 500-600 claims per year.  This is $6000-7000 per year in film and developing.  (Not to mention the cost in TIME) I have purchased the camera, a Canon G3. I must now decide on the best printing method.  Here are my two priorities: 1. Print quality MUST be as close to a 35mm print as possible. 2. Cost per page is critical.  This is why I am switching. I understand that these two priorities may make the decision difficult, since usually "better cost=laser" and "better quality=inkjet."  But I have been unable to find true cost figures for exactly what I am going to do. I have researched quite a bit, and printed sample photos on an HP 2500L laser and on an HP PSC750, using a variety of paper on each.  The injet is far better quality using photo paper, and both are comparable using 24# bright. Using glossy paper on the laser produced negligible improvement over regular paper. HP’s website has a cost analysis for their business line inkjets, and it shows that they are cheaper to run than laser?  That seems very suspicious to me. They attribute this to seperate color cartridges, which are not attached to the print heads. The printers each cost about $1,000. My typical report has 24 photos (12 pages, 2 photos per page).  I will be printing 2 4×6 photos per page, with minimal black text on the same page. So I figure my typical page will be 50% color coverage, and a 5% black. What I need to know is the following: 1. Real world cost per page for HP 2500L, 50% color coverage, using the recommended paper for photos on a color laser. 2. Real world cost per page for HP Business Inkjet (2280?), 50% color coverage, using the recommended paper for photos (glossy, bulk prices?). 3. Is there a reliable "refill ink" solution for the inkjet wells, since they are seperate from the print heads on the HP business line of printers? Thank you for your help, Greg

Response:

1. Real world cost per page for HP 2500L, 50% color coverage, using the recommended paper for photos on a color laser. 2. Real world cost per page for HP Business Inkjet (2280?), 50% color coverage, using the recommended paper for photos (glossy, bulk prices?). 3. Is there a reliable "refill ink" solution for the inkjet wells, since they are seperate from the print heads on the HP business line of printers? Thank you for your help, Greg

I don’t know that this will be helpful to you, but I do insurance inspections- not appraisals. My photos don’t have to be as good, quality wise, as yours. I use an HP 7350 on plain white 24-28 lb paper because the photo paper is just too expensive. My clients accept these photos, and I went to this procedure because I can print the photos while I do the reports, and I don’t have to make an extra trip to pick the completed photos up  from the processor. Costs are close to comparable to commercial printing with 35 mm film and it is much more convenient. Plus, if a photo is a little dark, or too light, I can fix it. I really think the convenience is the key. If I could garner the same pay as for an apprasial, I’d think I was in heaven. Hope this helps a little. Rick — GROW YOUR OWN DOPE — PLANT A MAN.  Real address on request

Response:

found these unused words floating about: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am an independent adjuster, working with dwelling claims.  Being an IA, I incur ALL the costs involved with my job.  My current method of reporting is using a 35mm camera, developing the film at the cheapest 1 Hour Photo I can find, and glueing the photos to a sheet.  This costs me about $11.30 per claim, assuming the lost costs of unused photos that I must pay to have developed. I process about 500-600 claims per year.  This is $6000-7000 per year in film and developing.  (Not to mention the cost in TIME) I have purchased the camera, a Canon G3. I must now decide on the best printing method.  Here are my two priorities: 1. Print quality MUST be as close to a 35mm print as possible. 2. Cost per page is critical.  This is why I am switching. I understand that these two priorities may make the decision difficult, since usually "better cost=laser" and "better quality=inkjet."  But I have been unable to find true cost figures for exactly what I am going to do. I have researched quite a bit, and printed sample photos on an HP 2500L laser and on an HP PSC750, using a variety of paper on each.  The injet is far better quality using photo paper, and both are comparable using 24# bright. Using glossy paper on the laser produced negligible improvement over regular paper. HP’s website has a cost analysis for their business line inkjets, and it shows that they are cheaper to run than laser?  That seems very suspicious to me. They attribute this to seperate color cartridges, which are not attached to the print heads. The printers each cost about $1,000. My typical report has 24 photos (12 pages, 2 photos per page).  I will be printing 2 4×6 photos per page, with minimal black text on the same page. So I figure my typical page will be 50% color coverage, and a 5% black. What I need to know is the following: 1. Real world cost per page for HP 2500L, 50% color coverage, using the recommended paper for photos on a color laser. 2. Real world cost per page for HP Business Inkjet (2280?), 50% color coverage, using the recommended paper for photos (glossy, bulk prices?). 3. Is there a reliable "refill ink" solution for the inkjet wells, since they are seperate from the print heads on the HP business line of printers? Thank you for your help, Greg Color Laserjet is the cheapest per page solution. Its expensive up front but much cheaper in the long run VS expensive inkjets and very expensive Dyesub. and with lazer you get decent quality with normal paper VS the very expensive photoglossy

Another point would be that the laser could print on both sides of the paper without taking the chance of ruining the first print or waiting for it to fully dry. Heavier paper on the laser (32#) also does show some better quality. Burlington Bright White (under $10 per 500 sheets) is my personal choice. You’ll also find that the laser runs about 15-20% coverage for images, not the 50% (said by HP for inkjunk?) as mentioned above. That per the stats page of my Phaser 740. I print NO text pages, only images on this colour unit.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am an independent adjuster, working with dwelling claims.  Being an IA, I incur ALL the costs involved with my job.  My current method of reporting is using a 35mm camera, developing the film at the cheapest 1 Hour Photo I can find, and glueing the photos to a sheet.  This costs me about $11.30 per claim, assuming the lost costs of unused photos that I must pay to have developed. I process about 500-600 claims per year.  This is $6000-7000 per year in film and developing.  (Not to mention the cost in TIME) I have purchased the camera, a Canon G3. I must now decide on the best printing method.  Here are my two priorities: 1. Print quality MUST be as close to a 35mm print as possible. 2. Cost per page is critical.  This is why I am switching. I understand that these two priorities may make the decision difficult, since usually "better cost=laser" and "better quality=inkjet."  But I have been unable to find true cost figures for exactly what I am going to do. I have researched quite a bit, and printed sample photos on an HP 2500L laser and on an HP PSC750, using a variety of paper on each.  The injet is far better quality using photo paper, and both are comparable using 24# bright. Using glossy paper on the laser produced negligible improvement over regular paper. HP’s website has a cost analysis for their business line inkjets, and it shows that they are cheaper to run than laser?  That seems very suspicious to me. They attribute this to seperate color cartridges, which are not attached to the print heads. The printers each cost about $1,000. My typical report has 24 photos (12 pages, 2 photos per page).  I will be printing 2 4×6 photos per page, with minimal black text on the same page. So I figure my typical page will be 50% color coverage, and a 5% black. What I need to know is the following: 1. Real world cost per page for HP 2500L, 50% color coverage, using the recommended paper for photos on a color laser. 2. Real world cost per page for HP Business Inkjet (2280?), 50% color coverage, using the recommended paper for photos (glossy, bulk prices?). 3. Is there a reliable "refill ink" solution for the inkjet wells, since they are seperate from the print heads on the HP business line of printers? Thank you for your help, Greg

Color Laserjet is the cheapest per page solution. Its expensive up front but much cheaper in the long run VS expensive inkjets and very expensive Dyesub. and with lazer you get decent quality with normal paper VS the very expensive photoglossy

Response:

I am an independent adjuster, working with dwelling claims.  Being an IA, I incur ALL the costs involved with my job.  My current method of reporting is using a 35mm camera, developing the film at the cheapest 1 Hour Photo I can find, and glueing the photos to a sheet.  This costs me about $11.30 per claim, assuming the lost costs of unused photos that I must pay to have developed. I process about 500-600 claims per year.  This is $6000-7000 per year in film and developing.  (Not to mention the cost in TIME) I have purchased the camera, a Canon G3. I must now decide on the best printing method.  Here are my two priorities: 1. Print quality MUST be as close to a 35mm print as possible. 2. Cost per page is critical.  This is why I am switching. I understand that these two priorities may make the decision difficult, since usually "better cost=laser" and "better quality=inkjet."  But I have been unable to find true cost figures for exactly what I am going to do. I have researched quite a bit, and printed sample photos on an HP 2500L laser and on an HP PSC750, using a variety of paper on each.  The injet is far better quality using photo paper, and both are comparable using 24# bright. Using glossy paper on the laser produced negligible improvement over regular paper. HP’s website has a cost analysis for their business line inkjets, and it shows that they are cheaper to run than laser?  That seems very suspicious to me. They attribute this to seperate color cartridges, which are not attached to the print heads. The printers each cost about $1,000. My typical report has 24 photos (12 pages, 2 photos per page).  I will be printing 2 4×6 photos per page, with minimal black text on the same page. So I figure my typical page will be 50% color coverage, and a 5% black. What I need to know is the following: 1. Real world cost per page for HP 2500L, 50% color coverage, using the recommended paper for photos on a color laser. 2. Real world cost per page for HP Business Inkjet (2280?), 50% color coverage, using the recommended paper for photos (glossy, bulk prices?). 3. Is there a reliable "refill ink" solution for the inkjet wells, since they are seperate from the print heads on the HP business line of printers? Thank you for your help, Greg

Response:

How about reporting the pictures electronically.    Either over the web – there are many sites where you can publish photos for a fee – or via e-mail or burning a cd and attaching it instead of paper. Randy Wright, CPCU

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am an independent adjuster, working with dwelling claims.  Being an IA, I incur ALL the costs involved with my job.  My current method of reporting is using a 35mm camera, developing the film at the cheapest 1 Hour Photo I can find, and glueing the photos to a sheet.  This costs me about $11.30 per claim, assuming the lost costs of unused photos that I must pay to have developed. I process about 500-600 claims per year.  This is $6000-7000 per year in film and developing.  (Not to mention the cost in TIME) I have purchased the camera, a Canon G3. I must now decide on the best printing method.  Here are my two priorities: 1. Print quality MUST be as close to a 35mm print as possible. 2. Cost per page is critical.  This is why I am switching. I understand that these two priorities may make the decision difficult, since usually "better cost=laser" and "better quality=inkjet."  But I have been unable to find true cost figures for exactly what I am going to do. I have researched quite a bit, and printed sample photos on an HP 2500L laser and on an HP PSC750, using a variety of paper on each.  The injet is far better quality using photo paper, and both are comparable using 24# bright. Using glossy paper on the laser produced negligible improvement over regular paper. HP’s website has a cost analysis for their business line inkjets, and it shows that they are cheaper to run than laser?  That seems very suspicious to me. They attribute this to seperate color cartridges, which are not attached to the print heads. The printers each cost about $1,000. My typical report has 24 photos (12 pages, 2 photos per page).  I will be printing 2 4×6 photos per page, with minimal black text on the same page. So I figure my typical page will be 50% color coverage, and a 5% black. What I need to know is the following: 1. Real world cost per page for HP 2500L, 50% color coverage, using the recommended paper for photos on a color laser. 2. Real world cost per page for HP Business Inkjet (2280?), 50% color coverage, using the recommended paper for photos (glossy, bulk prices?). 3. Is there a reliable "refill ink" solution for the inkjet wells, since they are seperate from the print heads on the HP business line of printers? Thank you for your help, Greg

Response:

Question:

The Canon G2 or the recently announced Canon G3 are both great.  Ask Brad Swanson who has the G2.

I have the G2 and like it, but I wish it had the lens from my Sony Mavica 91… biggest problem with the 91 is that it is so old in storage technology that is uses floppies. But… the 14X optical lens is fantastic. The G2 is only 3X optical and that is not enough for anything other than close in work. bob

Response:

And what about Mrs. Toms? Guess I should’ve gone over to Phipps Plaza to take pics of the players’ wives and girlfriends shopping.

Damn straight!  I trust next year we won’t have all this forgetfullness, will we? me

Response:

check out www.pricescan.com and follow to the digital photography section. Annika1980 chose well and obviously has the talent to use the tools he buys.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (Annika1980) deemed themselves worthy to grace rec.sport.golf with his/her presence, and uttered…..: The Totally Digital Canon D60 made it out to the PGA’s Tour Championship yesterday and all the players were thrilled to see it.  I’ll be posting more great pics later, but here are a few players’ reactions to being captured by the Totally Digital D60. http://www.pbase.com/annika1980/d60tour You see, even Tiger loves the Totally Digital D60! WHO RULES? That’s pretty amn impressive quality! How much does the D60 set up back in the US? — Mad’Doug Trentham Camp GC, New Zealand RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=stokesd Please remove the apostrophe (‘) to email me

Response:

The Totally Digital Canon D60 made it out to the PGA’s Tour Championship yesterday and all the players were thrilled to see it.  I’ll be posting more great pics later, but here are a few players’ reactions to being captured by the Totally Digital D60. http://www.pbase.com/annika1980/d60tour You see, even Tiger loves the Totally Digital D60! WHO RULES?

That camera costs more than my car.  Nice pics.

Response:

And what about Mrs. Toms? Guess I should’ve gone over to Phipps Plaza to take pics of the players’ wives and girlfriends shopping.

Damn straight.  Get with it, man! Dave Clary/Corpus Christi,TX Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary Never Forget: http://www.politicsandprotest.org RSG Roll Call http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=claryd

Response:

And what about Mrs. Toms?

Guess I should’ve gone over to Phipps Plaza to take pics of the players’ wives and girlfriends shopping.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We want at least one digital replacement. We don’t like cheapest generally, as this tends to sacrifice auality and useful features. We don’t like expensive as this tends, surprisingly, to be too expensive for our use. The digital SLR’s are attractive to those people who already own lenses of that type.  For example, the Canon D30, D60, EOS-1D, EOS-1Ds all use Canon EOS lenses.  Similarly, the Nikon and Fuji digitals use Nikon lenses.  So if you already have an investment in 35mm lenses then a digital SLR might be for you. However, if you just want a good point and shoot digital with pretty good resolution, there are a number of good brands to choose from.  Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Fuji, and Sony all make nice digicams.  Each one has their pluses and minuses.  The Sony, for example, has a great lens but is crippled by the use of the crappy Memory Stick. Check out http://www.dpreview.com/ for all the info you’d ever want and then some.

Thanks for the advice. Will take a look.

Response:

And what about Mrs. Toms? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Totally Digital Canon D60 made it out to the PGA’s Tour Championship yesterday and all the players were thrilled to see it.  I’ll be posting more great pics later, but here are a few players’ reactions to being captured by the Totally Digital D60. http://www.pbase.com/annika1980/d60tour You see, even Tiger loves the Totally Digital D60! WHO RULES? But does Estes’s wife/SO love the D60?? Dave Clary/Corpus Christi,TX Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary Never Forget: http://www.politicsandprotest.org RSG Roll Call http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=claryd

– John Pflum, Jr. 2002 RSG-Cincinnati Champion Email:  jpfumjr at nuvox dot net

Response:

What would you recommend as modestly-priced good cameras, if we’re looking for quality rather than gadgets and gimmicks?

The Canon G2 or the recently announced Canon G3 are both great.  Ask Brad Swanson who has the G2.

Response:

We want at least one digital replacement. We don’t like cheapest generally, as this tends to sacrifice auality and useful features. We don’t like expensive as this tends, surprisingly, to be too expensive for our use.

The digital SLR’s are attractive to those people who already own lenses of that type.  For example, the Canon D30, D60, EOS-1D, EOS-1Ds all use Canon EOS lenses.  Similarly, the Nikon and Fuji digitals use Nikon lenses.  So if you already have an investment in 35mm lenses then a digital SLR might be for you. However, if you just want a good point and shoot digital with pretty good resolution, there are a number of good brands to choose from.  Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Fuji, and Sony all make nice digicams.  Each one has their pluses and minuses.  The Sony, for example, has a great lens but is crippled by the use of the crappy Memory Stick. Check out http://www.dpreview.com/ for all the info you’d ever want and then some.

Response:

How much you guys want to bet that Annika dressed in a clown oufit, then when the palyers looked at the moron with the big shoes… <click :-)

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Totally Digital Canon D60 made it out to the PGA’s Tour Championship yesterday and all the players were thrilled to see it.  I’ll be posting more great pics later, but here are a few players’ reactions to being captured by the Totally Digital D60. http://www.pbase.com/annika1980/d60tour You see, even Tiger loves the Totally Digital D60! WHO RULES?

Response:

The Totally Digital Canon D60 made it out to the PGA’s Tour Championship yesterday and all the players were thrilled to see it.  I’ll be posting more great pics later, but here are a few players’ reactions to being captured by the Totally Digital D60. http://www.pbase.com/annika1980/d60tour You see, even Tiger loves the Totally Digital D60! WHO RULES?

But does Estes’s wife/SO love the D60??   Dave Clary/Corpus Christi,TX Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary Never Forget: http://www.politicsandprotest.org RSG Roll Call http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=claryd

Response:

"Annika", We had an old Olympus 35mm point-n-squirt "chemical" camera. We want at least one digital replacement. We don’t like cheapest generally, as this tends to sacrifice auality and useful features. We don’t like expensive as this tends, surprisingly, to be too expensive for our use. I was impressed by the quality of your zoom picture of two guys in a stadium, but am not impressed by the price of the D60 – $1500, especially if we decide to buy extra digital cameras (for the kids). What would you recommend as modestly-priced good cameras, if we’re looking for quality rather than gadgets and gimmicks?

Response:

(Annika1980) deemed themselves worthy to grace rec.sport.golf with his/her presence, and uttered…..: The Totally Digital Canon D60 made it out to the PGA’s Tour Championship yesterday and all the players were thrilled to see it.  I’ll be posting more great pics later, but here are a few players’ reactions to being captured by the Totally Digital D60. http://www.pbase.com/annika1980/d60tour You see, even Tiger loves the Totally Digital D60! WHO RULES?

That’s pretty amn impressive quality! How much does the D60 set up back in the US? — Mad’Doug Trentham Camp GC, New Zealand RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=stokesd Please remove the apostrophe (‘) to email me

Response:

The Totally Digital Canon D60 made it out to the PGA’s Tour Championship yesterday and all the players were thrilled to see it.  I’ll be posting more great pics later, but here are a few players’ reactions to being captured by the Totally Digital D60. http://www.pbase.com/annika1980/d60tour You see, even Tiger loves the Totally Digital D60! WHO RULES?

Response:

Question:

Why do they allow cameras at golf tournaments?  I am sick of these ‘fans’ who click in the middle of a players backswing.  Anyone else? Danny

Response:

Maybe they should not allow fans at golf tournaments, also. Yeh, that’s the ticket. And no TV coverage also, so no pesky cameras and cables. Yeh, that’s the ticket.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why do they allow cameras at golf tournaments?  I am sick of these ‘fans’ who click in the middle of a players backswing.  Anyone else? Danny

Response:

When I went to the Williams World Challenge here in Thousand Oaks, CA – no cameras, cell phones, or pagers were allowed onto the course. Only cameras allowed were from the press. — They even wanded everyone at the entrance point. A big sign in the parking lot specified all of this, yet some people were turned away and had to go put their cell phones back in the car and get in line all over again. I guess they thought they could sneak them in.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Maybe they should not allow fans at golf tournaments, also. Yeh, that’s the ticket. And no TV coverage also, so no pesky cameras and cables. Yeh, that’s the ticket. Why do they allow cameras at golf tournaments?  I am sick of these ‘fans’ who click in the middle of a players backswing.  Anyone else? Danny

Response:

Why do they allow cameras at golf tournaments?  I am sick of these ‘fans’ who click in the middle of a players backswing.

They don’t allow camera’s at least not here in the European Tour, only clicking you hear is by press camera’s. And they don’t even need to click. The PGA cpould make digital camera’s obliged. Grtz Jan   Anyone else? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Danny

Response:

Why do they allow cameras at golf tournaments?  I am sick of these ‘fans’ who click in the middle of a players backswing.  Anyone else?

Or in baseball games.  Of course, MLB is doing their very best to make sure the stands are empty, allowing the baseball players to remain unbothered by the fans. Golf isn’t at that stage right now.

Response:

Why do they allow cameras at golf tournaments?  I am sick of these ‘fans’ who click in the middle of a players backswing. They don’t allow camera’s at least not here in the European Tour, only clicking you hear is by press camera’s. And they don’t even need to click. The PGA cpould make digital camera’s obliged.

As a photographer who uses both (Minolta SRT101, Minox 35PL, and HP digital), I’ve yet to find a digital camera with the instant response of a film camera. When I release the shutter for an action shot, I want the picture right then; not a quarter second or two seconds later. It’s the difference between a photo of someone hitting the ball and a shot of his follow-up. Eliyahu

Response:

They don’t allow camera’s at least not here in the European Tour, only clicking you hear is by press camera’s. And they don’t even need to click. The PGA cpould make digital camera’s obliged.

They had "cameras for accredited press only" at the BMW Open recently. I saw at least one photographer with a thick furry camera cover to mute any camera sounds. Yet one photographer (very likely one of the accredited pros, though it could conceivably have been a spectator with a smuggled camera) managed to *flash* at John Daly during the downswing of an approach shot on the 17th of the final round. Didn’t see it myself, but a club was tossed. Thomas Prufer

Response:

At the NEC in Seattle, only press and credentialed photogs were allowed in with cameras.  Personally, I would have loved to snap some shots with my SLR on Sunday, lots of opportunities for some great pics.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why do they allow cameras at golf tournaments?  I am sick of these ‘fans’ who click in the middle of a players backswing.  Anyone else? Danny

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why do they allow cameras at golf tournaments?  I am sick of these ‘fans’ who click in the middle of a players backswing. They don’t allow camera’s at least not here in the European Tour, only clicking you hear is by press camera’s. And they don’t even need to click. The PGA cpould make digital camera’s obliged. As a photographer who uses both (Minolta SRT101, Minox 35PL, and HP digital), I’ve yet to find a digital camera with the instant response of a film camera. When I release the shutter for an action shot, I want the picture right then; not a quarter second or two seconds later. It’s the difference between a photo of someone hitting the ball and a shot of his follow-up.

I see your point  Eliyahu. I thought that proffessional digital cameras would be able to do this. Do you know why there’s a delay in pressing the button and making the picture? Grtz Jan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why do they allow cameras at golf tournaments?  I am sick of these ‘fans’ who click in the middle of a players backswing. They don’t allow camera’s at least not here in the European Tour, only clicking you hear is by press camera’s. And they don’t even need to click. The PGA cpould make digital camera’s obliged. As a photographer who uses both (Minolta SRT101, Minox 35PL, and HP digital), I’ve yet to find a digital camera with the instant response of a film camera. When I release the shutter for an action shot, I want the picture right then; not a quarter second or two seconds later. It’s the difference between a photo of someone hitting the ball and a shot of his follow-up. Eliyahu

What I don’t understand is that digital moviecamera’s are also banned they don’t make any sounds. This is probably only for commercial reasons. Grtz Jan

Response:

<snip What I don’t understand is that digital moviecamera’s are also banned they don’t make any sounds. This is probably only for commercial reasons. Grtz Jan

Digital Camcorders do make sounds.  The motors for minDV camcorders make an annoying mechanical sound when starting up and changing direction.  Most also, by default, beep once when you start recording and twice when you pause.  The beeps can be turned off, but how many people would forget? Some tournaments allow cameras at the practice rounds.  I was able to get some great video at the International this year on Tuesday and Wednesday.  A friend knows the teaching pro at Castle Pines and he was able to get us on the range. Phil Webster Founder, cSwing http://www.cswing.com

Response:

As a photographer who uses both (Minolta SRT101, Minox 35PL, and HP digital), I’ve yet to find a digital camera with the instant response of a film camera. When I release the shutter for an action shot, I want the picture right then; not a quarter second or two seconds later. It’s the difference between a photo of someone hitting the ball and a shot of his follow-up.

Hmmmm, strange.  I use Nikon gear, both film and digital. If I slightly press the trigger on the digital one to get the autofocus "set", it only takes a small fraction of a second to go from there to the picture.  Not with flash, though.  But that’s a different story.  Anyone using a flash gun in a golf course should be shot on the spot, IMHO…  :( Cheers Nuno Souto

Response:

They had "cameras for accredited press only" at the BMW Open recently. I saw at least one photographer with a thick furry camera cover to mute any camera sounds.

Most of the pros that shoot on Tour use "sound blimps" over their SLR’s.  These are big rubber things which cover the entire camera body except for the lens.  

Response:

No Danny, just you.  If these fevered egos can’t concentrate for 3 or 4 seconds, maybe they should see if there is a profesional backgammon tourney they can join.  Crowd noise, just like trees and water, are all hazards of the game.  If they really want to have silence for the players, maybe they should stop letting spectators in altogether.

Response:

They had "cameras for accredited press only" at the BMW Open recently. I saw at least one photographer with a thick furry camera cover to mute any camera sounds. Most of the pros that shoot on Tour use "sound blimps" over their SLR’s.  These are big rubber things which cover the entire camera body except for the lens.  

What about film loading? —   -asbjxrn

Response:

Most of the pros that shoot on Tour use "sound blimps" over their SLR’s. These are big rubber things which cover the entire camera body except for the lens.   What about film loading?

Film is rarely used anymore among the sports photographers.  I’m usually the only one there shooting film.  That’s about to change, however, faster than you can say "Canon D60."

Response:

A new toy? Randy

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Most of the pros that shoot on Tour use "sound blimps" over their SLR’s. These are big rubber things which cover the entire camera body except for the lens. What about film loading? Film is rarely used anymore among the sports photographers.  I’m usually the only one there shooting film.  That’s about to change, however, faster than you can say "Canon D60."

Response:

Film is rarely used anymore among the sports photographers.  I’m usually the only one there shooting film.  That’s about to change, however, faster than you can say "Canon D60." A new toy?

This toy might actually pay for itself.  I’ve spent over $3800 on just film + processing in the past two years I’ve had my 35mm camera.  I just went to Sam’s and bought a 80GB hard drive ($99) to make room for all the digital files I’m about to create.

Response:

A new toy? Randy Film is rarely used anymore among the sports photographers.  I’m usually the only one there shooting film.  That’s about to change, however, faster than you can say "Canon D60."

Randy…this ain’t no toy!  (Bad English for effect!)  Lowest price I’ve seen, for the camera body only, is $1999.00.  Surely, he’ll buy a lens or two :-)   ___,     o        |       /      . "Someone likes every shot" bk

Response:

Randy…this ain’t no toy!  (Bad English for effect!)  Lowest price I’ve seen, for the camera body only, is $1999.00.  Surely, he’ll buy a lens or two :-)

The Difference tween a man and a boy is the price of his toys. Qualifies! — bill-o

Response:

Oh, believe me, I know it’s not a "toy" in the traditional sense of the word.  I use the word "toy" to describe the "toys" I have in my studio, which you’ve seen.  They ain’t toys. But like golf clubs, they *are* fun to play with. Now, if only I could figure out a way to make as much money with my golf clubs as I do with my studio "toys," then I’d really have life licked. But alas, until they start paying a pretty penny to watch hackers like me stink it up on the golf course, I guess I’ll just have to keep on being a working stiff.  At least I don’t have a long drive to work. Randy

A new toy? Randy

(=?iso-8859-1?q?Asbj=F8rn_Bj=F8rnstad?=) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Film is rarely used anymore among the sports photographers.  I’m usually the only one there shooting film.  That’s about to change, however, faster than you can say "Canon D60." Randy…this ain’t no toy!  (Bad English for effect!)  Lowest price I’ve seen, for the camera body only, is $1999.00.  Surely, he’ll buy a lens or two :-)   ___,   o    |   /    . "Someone likes every shot" bk

Response:

Good for you! Randy

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Film is rarely used anymore among the sports photographers.  I’m usually the only one there shooting film.  That’s about to change, however, faster than you can say "Canon D60." A new toy? This toy might actually pay for itself.  I’ve spent over $3800 on just film + processing in the past two years I’ve had my 35mm camera.  I just went to Sam’s and bought a 80GB hard drive ($99) to make room for all the digital files I’m about to create.

Response:

Didn’t see it myself, but a club was tossed.

At the photographer ? Rune Molin

Response:

A camera condom?????

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Most of the pros that shoot on Tour use "sound blimps" over their SLR’s. These are big rubber things which cover the entire camera body except for the lens.

Response:

It would be very simple for a golfer to use some little foam earplugs to eliminate camera click distractions.  Put them in after their discussion with the caddy and concentrate with confidence.   Or put them in on the way down the fairway for those of you who think it would cause more delays.  You can still here the person standing next to you talk. Or would this be in violation of the rules of golf.  lol Why do they allow cameras at golf tournaments?  I am sick of these ‘fans’ who click in the middle of a players backswing.  Anyone else? Danny

Jim Childress

Response:

Question:

graced us with yet another photo gear thread, by writing: [FutureSpeak Speculation Snipped] Ummm…Not quite nuts, but I am feeling a little crazy now… Good meds?

Not enough. Not to worry, even I have my limits on gearspeak and they have just about been reached.  

Oh, I think it’s pretty clear y’all passed "Just about" one thread and a whole lot of replies ago… By the time your meds wear off, things will be back to normal. (whatever that is)

I’m afraid. [ROFF heaves a collective sigh of relief]

/daytripper (That’s not all we’re heaving! ;-)

Response:

Good meds? Not enough.

Keep popping ‘em Not to worry, even I have my limits on gearspeak and they have just about been reached.   Oh, I think it’s pretty clear y’all passed "Just about" one thread and a whole lot of replies ago…

That’s the funny thing about "Just About" tolerances, they tend to vary. By the time your meds wear off, things will be back to normal. (whatever that is) I’m afraid.

Nah, you can handle it.  Honest [ROFF heaves a collective sigh of relief] /daytripper (That’s not all we’re heaving! ;-)

Recycle those the barf bags, I’m sure something else equally ludicrous will soon sail down the ROFFian pipe.  :) Anybody up for C&R vs. C&K round 2,147?  NO?  Good. Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://home.cogeco.ca/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

I still don’t understand, despite Wolfgang’s gracious attempts to help, what gets these guys so worked up. Then I’ll try to make it as clear as possible.  

I love it when you get all pouty like that. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

(snip) Steve is a nice guy.  I will not argue that point because I know this firsthand.  You’re accusing him of all kinds of crap he’s usually just joking about.  Your humor is very very funny.  You should learn to laugh at other’s jokes as well. .02 from someone who tries really hard to avoid flame wars on the net – what a freakin waste of time – but Steve is my friend and the things you say about him are unprovoked and completely horeshit. I’ll be in a better mood when I get to Idaho. bruce h

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (snip) Steve is a nice guy.  I will not argue that point because I know this firsthand.  You’re accusing him of all kinds of crap he’s usually just joking about.  Your humor is very very funny.  You should learn to laugh at other’s jokes as well. .02 from someone who tries really hard to avoid flame wars on the net – what a freakin waste of time – but Steve is my friend and the things you say about him are unprovoked and completely horeshit. I’ll be in a better mood when I get to Idaho.

O.K. Wolfgang

Response:

  your gratuitous attacks against anyone with the temerity to participate   in an activity about which he is knowledgeable and in which he has a   great deal of experience while you know very little, if anything, about   it, conspire to annoy them. This DOES remind me of someone!! Willi

Response:

Dude? Whoaaaaaaaaaaaa dude. Dude? Dude? Whoaaaaaaaaaaaa. Crystal meth and the net just don’t mix. "See this egg?" "This is your brain on . . . . " (or was that just an extreame garden variety stalker’s hissy fit? Hmmmmmmmmm.) Tantrum, yeah that’s the word: Tantrum. Dave

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I still don’t understand, despite Wolfgang’s gracious attempts to help, what gets these guys so worked up. Then I’ll try to make it as clear as possible.  Your pathetic attempts to ingratiate yourself with "the boys", your insistence that you are expert in matters about which you know very little, if anything, your snide dismissals of anyone who has demonstrated a good working knowledge of things about which you know very little, if anything, your contempt for half the human species based presumably on the fact that at least one of them knew you well enough to dump your miserable ass, your gratuitous attacks against anyone with the temerity to count fish, and your gratuitous attacks against anyone with the temerity to participate in an activity about which he is knowledgeable and in which he has a great deal of experience while you know very little, if anything, about it, conspire to annoy them.  I hope this clears the matter up.  If not, I’ll be happy to try again.  Let me know. Wolfgang

Dang.  Why don’t you let him know how you REALLY feel? Tom G love my Agfa digital camera (yes, it has macro capability)

Response:

Reading all of that tortuous thread brought to mind a few issues and some history which leads me to believe that things will evolve along these lines: – The photo market is broadly divided up along the lines of a small pro sector, a larger enthusiast sector, and the very big general consumer market.  Within the enthusiast sector we can now add a computer enthusiast who has adopted digital photography since it has a natural affinity to his first love, moving him out of the ‘general’ into the ‘enthusiast’ category. …. Peter

Here’s a couple of points from someone who’s on the inside of digital photography. Today (7/19) here in Palo Alto the best local professional color darkroom operation, Custom Color, closed it’s doors for good. This seems to imply that the pro’s are going pretty solidly digital locally if a lab like that can’t make it any more. The equipment in the better one hour labs now develops film and scans it, rather than printing it optically.  The reason for this is that much superior control of color balance and tone reproduction is possible digitally with minimal operator intervention. It’s then printed digitally on conventional photo paper. It’s not very difficult to substitute files from digital cameras for the scans in this process, and this is available in some places. Mike — Michael McGuire                     Hewlett Packard Laboratories Phone: (650)-857-5491               Palo Alto, CA 94303-0971

Response:

Here’s a couple of points from someone who’s on the inside of digital photography. Today (7/19) here in Palo Alto the best local professional color darkroom operation, Custom Color, closed it’s doors for good. This seems to imply that the pro’s are going pretty solidly digital locally if a lab like that can’t make it any more. The equipment in the better one hour labs now develops film and scans it, rather than printing it optically.  The reason for this is that much superior control of color balance and tone reproduction is possible digitally with minimal operator intervention. It’s then printed digitally on conventional photo paper. It’s not very difficult to substitute files from digital cameras for the scans in this process, and this is available in some places.

Fine art is doomed. If what Mike says is true, it’s looks like someday soon we’ll have nothing but snapshots. :-) — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here’s a couple of points from someone who’s on the inside of digital photography. Today (7/19) here in Palo Alto the best local professional color darkroom operation, Custom Color, closed it’s doors for good. This seems to imply that the pro’s are going pretty solidly digital locally if a lab like that can’t make it any more. The equipment in the better one hour labs now develops film and scans it, rather than printing it optically.  The reason for this is that much superior control of color balance and tone reproduction is possible digitally with minimal operator intervention. It’s then printed digitally on conventional photo paper. It’s not very difficult to substitute files from digital cameras for the scans in this process, and this is available in some places. Mike

Last week I was talking to the local camera shop owner; he owns a 1 hr. mini lab with digital capability.  He was saying that a large percentage of the pros had gone digital to at least some extent and that a lot of the work was actually hybrid.  The pro or amateur shoots on film but the negs are scanned and the results printed digitally. Most amateur enlargements (except notably, B&W) were going through this hybrid process. providing a form of ‘best-of-both-worlds’ result.. He has a beautiful colour shot of a Ford T-Bird that had been printed on an expensive large format inkjet printer – it’s fabulous – better than one could expect from 35mm for the enlargement (about 16X20) but obviously it wasn’t a ’straight-from-the-camera’ print.  The shot had been done with a 6 megapixel camera.  At the very least it had been electronically sharpened up – point and shoot optics aren’t *that* good. Having said that, I noticed that all digital prints have an advertising quality to them – namely, bold colours, dramatic contrast – and not much subtlety.  They have an obvious appeal; a ‘look at me’ quality that is quite dramatic.  For the pro,many amateurs, and the consumer, the appeal is obvious.  Interestingly, despite his aggressive digital stance the sales area he has devoted to film and film cameras has not decreased.  I think this hybrid environment will be with us for some time. Another store owner I was conversing with in London, ON, was comparing the quality outputs of two inkjet printers.  Both printers will accept CF cards directly using a PCMCIA slot and adapter.  Interestingly, he reported colour shifts on both printers, slightly green for the Canon and slightly yellow for the Epson.  Obviously, digital perfection has yet to arrive.  :) Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://home.cogeco.ca/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

@exch.hpl.hp.com: The equipment in the better one hour labs now develops film and scans it, rather than printing it optically.  The reason for this is that much superior control of color balance and tone reproduction is possible digitally with minimal operator intervention. It’s then printed digitally on conventional photo paper. It’s not very difficult to substitute files from digital cameras for the scans in this process, and this is available in some places.

My wife had some film developed and printed under some such process.  The reason I know this is because the images looked so bad– very pixelated.  I could tell the difference immediately.  I had no opinions going into this impromptu experiment– I had no reason to assume the print was generated by any other than a conventional process.  I simply noticed that the images looked terrible, and started looking into why. Maybe this was a "bad" one hour lab.  I don’t know.  I won’t go there again, and see no reason to not have my prints conventionally printed.  I hope the market doesn’t push this process out Scott

Response:

I think the more appropriate analogy is CD vs vinyl. Remove "XX" from address

Perhaps, but I think the huge installed base of film cameras will be harder to dislodge.  See my reply to Mike about the hybrid environment we’re in now. Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://home.cogeco.ca/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

"Jonathan Cook" wrote… When as a kid I walked into the Smithsonian and saw one exhibit that was a green square overlapping a red square, and another that was a 10ft high animated hot water bottle (IIRC!), I lost any budding appreciation for art I might have had.

Fine art can’t be too long dead. I mean it wasn’t too long ago that the painting of the dogs playing poker came out. –Steve

Response:

"Greg Pavlov" wrote…  I think the more appropriate analogy is CD vs vinyl.

That is indeed a great analogy. Anyone who has read Stereophile magazine in the last few years knows that vinyl is far from dead. –Steve

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – @exch.hpl.hp.com: My wife had some film developed and printed under some such process.  The reason I know this is because the images looked so bad– very pixelated.  I could tell the difference immediately.  I had no opinions going into this impromptu experiment– I had no reason to assume the print was generated by any other than a conventional process.  I simply noticed that the images looked terrible, and started looking into why. Maybe this was a "bad" one hour lab.  I don’t know.  I won’t go there again, and see no reason to not have my prints conventionally printed.  I hope the market doesn’t push this process out Scott

It’s hard to say what sort of foulup caused the problem you observed, without knowing more details, but "conventional printing" as an option is disappearing. The only difference you should notice is fewer bad pictures, since the digital process can rescue misexposures that are not feasible with conventional processing. Obviously any operation that offers you the option of also getting your pictures back in digital form–a CD or a floppy–in addition to prints is processing digitally. Another way you can tell is when you get back an index print with your order–a print with thumbnail images of all the pictures in the roll of film. It would not be at all feasible to make such a print with conventional processing. Mike — Michael McGuire                     Hewlett Packard Laboratories Phone: (650)-857-5491               Palo Alto, CA 94303-0971

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Last week I was talking to the local camera shop owner; …. Having said that, I noticed that all digital prints have an advertising quality to them – namely, bold colours, dramatic contrast – and not much subtlety.  They have an obvious appeal; a ‘look at me’ quality that is quite dramatic.  For the pro,many amateurs, and the consumer, the appeal is obvious.  Interestingly, despite his aggressive digital stance the sales area he has devoted to film and film cameras has not decreased.  I think this hybrid environment will be with us for some time. Another store owner I was conversing with in London, ON, was comparing the quality outputs of two inkjet printers.  Both printers will accept CF cards directly using a PCMCIA slot and adapter.  Interestingly, he reported colour shifts on both printers, slightly green for the Canon and slightly yellow for the Epson.  Obviously, digital perfection has yet to arrive.  :) Peter

Subtlety and restraint are possible in digital prints if you understand the controls and that’s what your intent is. But people in the business of selling digital prints and printers are more inclined to play the "1812 Overture" than "Clair de Lune" (sp?). Naturally I won’t defend the quality of Canon or Epson color reproduction ;-) Mike — Michael McGuire                     Hewlett Packard Laboratories Phone: (650)-857-5491               Palo Alto, CA 94303-0971

Response:

Another way you can tell is when you get back an index print with your order–a print with thumbnail images of all the pictures in the roll of film. It would not be at all feasible to make such a print with conventional processing.

I am getting sick and fucking tired of you computer geeks. Haven’t you ever heard of contact prints? Sheesh! :-) — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

Subtlety and restraint are possible in digital prints if you understand the controls and that’s what your intent is. But people in the business of selling digital prints and printers are more inclined to play the "1812 Overture" than "Clair de Lune" (sp?).

I’ll go so far as to say that there is NO useful darkroom technique that you can’t do equally well or better in the digital domain, without all the expense, waste, and smelly chemicals. Furthermore, there are things you can do in the digital domain (control of color saturation, for example) that would be impossible or at the very least difficult to do in the analog domain. I’m imagining Wayno’s head exploding. :-)

Response:

"Jonathan Cook" wrote… Fine art can’t be too long dead. I mean it wasn’t too long ago that the painting of the dogs playing poker came out.

 Excellent point. Actually the dogs-in-human-activities genre dates at least back to Victorian times, popular with the English gentry and the Anglo-Irish occupiers. The British also were fond of formal portraits of their dogs and their horses. Some parallel exists also in American sporting scene painting, a lot of which slavishly followed English fashion. Dave

Response:

Reading all of that tortuous thread brought to mind a few issues and some history which leads me to believe that things will evolve along these lines: – The photo market is broadly divided up along the lines of a small pro sector, a larger enthusiast sector, and the very big general consumer market.  Within the enthusiast sector we can now add a computer enthusiast who has adopted digital photography since it has a natural affinity to his first love, moving him out of the ‘general’ into the ‘enthusiast’ category. – The pro market will adopt digital to a greater degree as the quality improves but film will remain in use for certain applications. – The enthusiast market will polarize between diehard digital and diehard film but with most having a foot in both camps and digital use growing. – The general market is largely made up of people who snap a few vacation, birthday, and wedding pictures each year.  These people have no interest in photography, requiring the simplest of equipment and the least amount of fuss.  These people are unlikely to own a computer, or if they do, it is used for very limited applications (e.g. doing office work at home.)   Digital is going to have the hardest time cracking this market.  To do so, digital cameras must become as simple as point-and-shoot film cameras.  They are not there yet by a long shot.  Some here will argue that they are simple and for the enthusiast, the current crop of digital cameras are very simple, yet for this market they most definitely are not..  (this is a weekly reality for me) Digital photography must also build a large installed base of print capability similar to the current 1 hour labs.  The general market must have a simple, widely available, low cost way of getting prints. A web service doesn’t count for obvious reasons. Digital cameras are still running two to three times more expensive than the equivalent 35mm point-and-shoot. The price has to drop down to the $100.00 range before the general market will begin buying it en mass.  Also, there is a huge installed base of 35mm point-and-shoot cameras.  Digital must offer the general market a compelling reason to toss their 35mm cameras in favour of digital. When digital has crossed these three hurdles, it will begin to displace 35mm in the general market. Until then, an equilibrium will be reached between digital and film in the first two categories as digital captures all its likely to get.  The next burst for digital will come when it becomes truly accessible to the general market . Once this is sorted out, a new equilibrium will emerge as the bulk of all three groups will have converted but a significant film following will remain in all three. Remember that when TV became popular everyone predicted the death of radio and VCRs were supposed to do in the movie theatre.  Digital vs. film will be no different. Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://home.cogeco.ca/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

graced us with yet another photo gear thread, by writing: [FutureSpeak Speculation Snipped] Ummm…Not quite nuts, but I am feeling a little crazy now…

Response:

graced us with yet another photo gear thread, by writing: [FutureSpeak Speculation Snipped] Ummm…Not quite nuts, but I am feeling a little crazy now…

All that stemmed from me saying (in a thread started with my photos) that I thought a digital camera with a good macro capability is ideal for taking streamside photos of bugs. I still don’t understand, despite Wolfgang’s gracious attempts to help, what gets these guys so worked up. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/

Response:

graced us with yet another photo gear thread, by writing: [FutureSpeak Speculation Snipped] Ummm…Not quite nuts, but I am feeling a little crazy now…

Good meds? Not to worry, even I have my limits on gearspeak and they have just about been reached.  By the time your meds wear off, things will be back to normal. (whatever that is) [ROFF heaves a collective sigh of relief] Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://home.cogeco.ca/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

Response:

I still don’t understand, despite Wolfgang’s gracious attempts to help, what gets these guys so worked up.

Then I’ll try to make it as clear as possible.  Your pathetic attempts to ingratiate yourself with "the boys", your insistence that you are expert in matters about which you know very little, if anything, your snide dismissals of anyone who has demonstrated a good working knowledge of things about which you know very little, if anything, your contempt for half the human species based presumably on the fact that at least one of them knew you well enough to dump your miserable ass, your gratuitous attacks against anyone with the temerity to count fish, and your gratuitous attacks against anyone with the temerity to participate in an activity about which he is knowledgeable and in which he has a great deal of experience while you know very little, if anything, about it, conspire to annoy them.  I hope this clears the matter up.  If not, I’ll be happy to try again.  Let me know. Wolfgang

Response:

Question:

I had an AV-1.  Good camera, but backwards.  Most SLRs you set the shutter speed and the electronics sets the aperture for the correct exposure.  

Not any of my Nikons. (FE2s &F2s  Depth of field is what I want to control the most, as well as you use the aperature to control strobe exposures. Most automatics give you a choice though whether you want aperature or shutter priority. http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/

Response:

I have used the disposable water proof a lot. They are great on vacation when you are not sure where you will be (swimming with stingrays in the Caymans or something). They share the same problem all disposables have, a fisheye lens that demands all shots at "belly gun" range or the subject is just a dot in the frame. If they made one with a little longer lens they would be great for times when you don’t want to risk a real camera. Maybe a lens that you don’t turn in with the camera but still not a bazillion bucks.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hmm…I’m considering taking my camera out on a kayak ride in Pensacola Bay this weekend. It’s a 35mm SLR, automated enough that I can pretty much point and click while I learn to use it; it’s capable of being set to full- manual. Better yet, go to WalMart and buy a disposable camera for outdoor pictures.  That way you won’t ruin your SLR because I GUARANTEE you will get salt spray on it in that kayak, even if you don’t roll over and have the camera in a plastic bag. The only way I’d take that SLR kayaking is in a diver’s case made to take pictures at 100′…..TIED TO A FLOAT!

*nod* I’ve pushed the idea around, but at $300, I don’t want to fubar it by dunking. I thought about bagging it, but I like your idea better. I’ve got a disposable (hacked to make it re-usable) or three sitting around. What about the "waterproof" disposables?

Response:

Congratulations on the new camera.  You now have TWO expensive hobbies.  If you want to try for three, investigate RC Airplanes (-:}

Somebody help me…I’m into all three =0 …as long as a kayak is a boat *g*

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hmm…I’m considering taking my camera out on a kayak ride in Pensacola Bay this weekend. It’s a 35mm SLR, automated enough that I can pretty much point and click while I learn to use it; it’s capable of being set to full- manual. Better yet, go to WalMart and buy a disposable camera for outdoor pictures.  That way you won’t ruin your SLR because I GUARANTEE you will get salt spray on it in that kayak, even if you don’t roll over and have the camera in a plastic bag. The only way I’d take that SLR kayaking is in a diver’s case made to take pictures at 100′…..TIED TO A FLOAT! *nod* I’ve pushed the idea around, but at $300, I don’t want to fubar it by dunking. I thought about bagging it, but I like your idea better. I’ve got a disposable (hacked to make it re-usable) or three sitting around. What about the "waterproof" disposables?

There ya go!  I never looked too close for a waterproof one….. Sure would be cheaper if it fell over the side or your little boat went belly up and everyone got a dunking…..(c; Larry

Response:

Butch, you may want to lurk about in the photography newsgroups.  They’re very busy. — steve Remove the "nospam" from my address to abuse my email box.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Congratulations on the new camera.  You now have TWO expensive hobbies. If you want to try for three, investigate RC Airplanes (-:} Thanks….  And thanks to everyone else you replied.  You all have given me great encouragement.  It’s going to be a lot of fun.  I already shot a roll of "sacrificial 24 exp. film" to experiment with the camera.  It works fine and shoots really nice photos.  Two or three photos were way underexposed, ’cause dummy me tried to take an indoor shot without a flash or I was goofing with different F-stops.  But mostly they were nice photos.  The nicest one that I shot was where I screwed on the 4x macro adapter/filter on the 50mm lens and went out to my garden after I watered it.  I went right up to a pea pod about 2-3 inches away and snapped the shutter.  The photo came out looking like something from National Geographic.  Talk about close up!  Wow! I have 200 speed film in it right now and that should be fine for boating. The camera also came with a Skylight filter that you screw onto the 50mm lens. Whatever that does, I have no idea.  I want to pick up a UV filter at the camera store, before I take the camera out in the boat. Thanks again for the great advice! Butch Ammon

Response:

Congratulations on the new camera.  You now have TWO expensive hobbies.  If you want to try for three, investigate RC Airplanes (-:}

Thanks….  And thanks to everyone else who replied.  You all have given me great encouragement.  It’s going to be a lot of fun.  I already shot a roll of "sacrificial 24 exp. film" to experiment with the camera.  It works fine and shoots really nice photos.  Two or three photos were way underexposed, ’cause dummy me tried to take an indoor shot without a flash or I was goofing with different F-stops.  But mostly they were nice photos.  The nicest one that I shot was where I screwed on the 4x macro adapter/filter on the 50mm lens and went out to my garden after I watered it.  I went right up to a pea pod about 2-3 inches away and snapped the shutter.  The photo came out looking like something from National Geographic.  Talk about close up!  Wow! I have 200 speed film in it right now and that should be fine for boating.  The camera also came with a Skylight filter that you screw onto the 50mm lens. Whatever that does, I have no idea.  I want to pick up a UV filter at the camera store, before I take the camera out in the boat. Thanks again for the great advice! Butch Ammon

Response:

The boys of wrecked.boats are experts in a wide variety of subjects. If you need major surgery, ask one of our doctors.  If you need plumbing, we got that covered, too.  Cold Fusion?  No problemo.  Best rum?  Got it……

This is a shocking revelation. Are you proposing there is an unheralded denizen of rec.boats who professes to be a professional marine surveyor, Admiral of the High Seas, gentleman farmer/rancher, champion motorcycle racer, NASCAR phenom, award winning photographer, ace barnstorming pilot, master plumber, electrician, mechanic, capable of solo circumnavigation in a tire tube, and accomplished expert in nautical buggery? Amazing. Major league scouts must be battling to sign this phenom. — Skipper

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The boys of wrecked.boats are experts in a wide variety of subjects. If you need major surgery, ask one of our doctors.  If you need plumbing, we got that covered, too.  Cold Fusion?  No problemo.  Best rum?  Got it…… This is a shocking revelation. Are you proposing there is an unheralded denizen of rec.boats who professes to be a professional marine surveyor, Admiral of the High Seas, gentleman farmer/rancher, champion motorcycle racer, NASCAR phenom, award winning photographer, ace barnstorming pilot, master plumber, electrician, mechanic, capable of solo circumnavigation in a tire tube, and accomplished expert in nautical buggery? Amazing. Major league scouts must be battling to sign this phenom. — Skipper

SFTU.  Go boating, lighten up.

Response:

Can anyone who has a Canon or used a Canon SLR camera, give me some advice on how to get started?  I’d love to take this camera on my boat (getting on topic here….) and take some nice scenic photos on the freshwater lake and maybe get a closeup photos of a Great Blue Heron or something.  Thanks….

The problem is that bird photography can be very frustrating and very expensive. It is very difficult to get close enough for a frame filling shot because birds, including waders, are small. Even with a 600 mm lens, which I know you don’t want to carry in the boat, you need to be about 20 feet from a small bird and about the same for a head shot of a larger wading bird. However, a 400 mm lens (like a Sigma 400 APO) aren’t terribly expensive and are usable on Canon and other bodies. Plus, you haven’t got a fortune in it so you can see if this type of photography is for you. I’ve worked with a 300 with and without extender and was able to use it successfully here in Florida, where birds are relatively well adapted to human presence and I could approach them. In Michigan, for example, where the birds aren’t so well adapted, I’ve had Great Blue Herons typically fly away when you are within a couple hundred feet of them. Clearly, a 300 or 400 would be useless in that situation. From a boat, image stabilization would be an asset. Maybe the 300 F4 IS with a 1.4 extender and some stealthy movements would net you some satisfactory shots with the IS calming the rocking boat and eliminating the need for a tripod. If you have the money, start this way with a used 300 IS (about $750-$950). If not, the Sigma 400 should be available in the $400’s. None of that was meant to discourage you – it is a great idea and fun to pursue. However, you should go in with your eyes open and not expect too much from short lenses. Mike

Response:

Wow, boat and camera expertise! Very good response.

The boys of wrecked.boats are experts in a wide variety of subjects. If you need major surgery, ask one of our doctors.  If you need plumbing, we got that covered, too.  Cold Fusion?  No problemo.  Best rum?  Got it…… Being psychotic, otherwise we wouldn’t own a boat, you can also get expert psychiatric advise, right from the people who lived it, too! Peggie KNOWS sanitation……(c; Larry

Response:

The AV-1 is an EXCELLENT 35 mm SLR.  If you haven’t done so yet, bring it in to a camera shop for a cleaning and overall check up.  Chances are the camera has not been cleaned/serviced since it was purchased.  For close-up shots (and a good all around shooting lens) I would suggest a 28 – 200 mm zoom/telephoto lens.  This type of lens will provide wide angle to zoom close ups (and everything in-between) without having to carry several lenses with you.  While Cannon lenses are very, very good, there are after market lenses that are as good and a lot cheaper.  When I had my Nikon 8008, I used a Tameron 28 – 200 AF (auto focus) zoom lens.  The only problem "I" saw was at 28 mm – there was some very minor distortion at the corners of the photo.  It was minor, you needed to use a magnifying glass and look VERY closely to see it even on an 8 x 10 print. Congratulations on the new camera.  You now have TWO expensive hobbies.  If you want to try for three, investigate RC Airplanes (-:} – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey there…. I was reading through some posts that got into the topic of cameras, both film and digital.  I don’t have a digital camera (I bum my company’s camera, if I need one), but my wife and I have a simple, point -n shoot Kodak 35mm camera. Someone spoke of SLR cameras.  Would you believe that over the weekend, a friend **GAVE ME** an old Canon AV-1 35mm SLR camera with a 50mm lens and a 135mm lens and flash unit?  TOTALLY FREE!  The guy was like, "Hey, I’m into the digital age and have two very nice digital cameras.  You want my old 35mm camera?  Heck, man, take it… I have no need for it anymore.  Incredible!! This camera was bought new in 1982 and still works like a charm.  I replaced the battery and gently cleaned the lenses with lens tissue.  It’s perfectly fine. Question:  I am a simple point-n-shoot, novice photographer.  This Canon AV-1 (it’s the step-down model from the famous Canon AE-1 Program) has all sorts of buttons, F-Stops, Film Speeds, and is all auto exposure, apature priority, kind of a camera.  It’s really great and I need to understand it and what different film speeds do.  I know an apature like F-16 is like a pinhole on the shudder for taking bright sun photos, and F2 or even F1.8 is for dusk or nighttime photos.  At least that’s as much as I know. Can anyone who has a Canon or used a Canon SLR camera, give me some advice on how to get started?  I’d love to take this camera on my boat (getting on topic here….) and take some nice scenic photos on the freshwater lake and maybe get a closeup photos of a Great Blue Heron or something.  Thanks…. Butch Ammon

Response:

The guys around here who shoot wading birds use a kayak and slip right up to them. I have seen guys on the flats that could get a decent shot with a cardboard Kodak. They are a paddle length from spoonbills and ibis. It is is slow process getting up to them, using wind and tide more than paddling.  As long as there are no sudden moves and your line is broken up the birds don’t seem to care. Maybe that is why alligators do so well.

Response:

Congratulations on the new camera.  You now have TWO expensive hobbies.  If you want to try for three, investigate RC Airplanes (-:}

Thanks….  And thanks to everyone else you replied.  You all have given me great encouragement.  It’s going to be a lot of fun.  I already shot a roll of "sacrificial 24 exp. film" to experiment with the camera.  It works fine and shoots really nice photos.  Two or three photos were way underexposed, ’cause dummy me tried to take an indoor shot without a flash or I was goofing with different F-stops.  But mostly they were nice photos.  The nicest one that I shot was where I screwed on the 4x macro adapter/filter on the 50mm lens and went out to my garden after I watered it.  I went right up to a pea pod about 2-3 inches away and snapped the shutter.  The photo came out looking like something from National Geographic.  Talk about close up!  Wow! I have 200 speed film in it right now and that should be fine for boating.  The camera also came with a Skylight filter that you screw onto the 50mm lens. Whatever that does, I have no idea.  I want to pick up a UV filter at the camera store, before I take the camera out in the boat. Thanks again for the great advice! Butch Ammon

Response:

Wow, boat and camera expertise! Very good response.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Question:  I am a simple point-n-shoot, novice photographer.  This Canon AV-1 (it’s the step-down model from the famous Canon AE-1 Program) has all sorts of buttons, F-Stops, Film Speeds, and is all auto exposure, apature priority, kind of a camera.  It’s really great and I need to understand it and what different film speeds do.  I know an apature like F-16 is like a pinhole on the shudder for taking bright sun photos, and F2 or even F1.8 is for dusk or nighttime photos.  At least that’s as much as I know. Here’s a basic rundown on the relationship between apature and shutter speed and the effects of both.  Each stop of the lens lets in half the amount of light than the last ie f8 lets in half the light of f5,6.  Same with the clicks on the shutter speed ie 250 lets in 1/2 the speed of of 125 (a quick aside here, you’ll have one speed either in red or with a lightning bolt that designates shutter synch speed, never shoot with a strobe Faster than this speed, you’ll have a line across your picture, you can however use a slower speed to allow ambient light saturation).  The aperature controls the depth of field, that is how deep things will stay in focus, shooting at f1,4 with a 50mm lens, when you focus on something, you’ll only have a focal plane of a few inches, shooting at f22 nearly everything from the very foreground to infinity will be in focus. Shutter speed is dictated by the movement of the subject and yourself, a general rule of thumb is dont use a shutterspeed lower than the lens lenght in mm in order to avoid a shaken blurred picture, although using panning techniques you may get a desireable effect using a slower speed. Depending on the desired effect you can balance the light level using both aperature and shutter speed to maintain an exposure level through a wide range of aperature and speed settings.  There are many many books on the subject of photography. http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/

Response:

Can anyone who has a Canon or used a Canon SLR camera, give me some advice on how to get started?  I’d love to take this camera on my boat (getting on topic here….) and take some nice scenic photos on the freshwater lake and maybe get a closeup photos of a Great Blue Heron or something.  Thanks….

Honestly, see if your local community college offers a photography course.  You’ll learn a LOT, very quickly, and it’s a bunch of fun.   Dan — Grimstari is weird.  I mean you guys are the quintissential example of absolute, complete, unadulterated, total, inexplicable, mind-blowing, boggling weirdity.                 — Some idiot on GTQ, a loooong time ago.                 (Jeff Stewart, according to mikeb)

Response:

Nice camera. Any library will have loads of photography books from the ’70s-’80s that have all the info you need. Anything with "basic" in the title is a plus. This is the fastest and easiest way to learn. Go through one of those books and you’re all set. GTO(John) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hey there…. I was reading through some posts that got into the topic of cameras, both film and digital.  I don’t have a digital camera (I bum my company’s camera, if I need one), but my wife and I have a simple, point -n shoot Kodak 35mm camera. Someone spoke of SLR cameras.  Would you believe that over the weekend, a friend **GAVE ME** an old Canon AV-1 35mm SLR camera with a 50mm lens and a 135mm lens and flash unit?  TOTALLY FREE!  The guy was like, "Hey, I’m into the digital age and have two very nice digital cameras.  You want my old 35mm camera?  Heck, man, take it… I have no need for it anymore.  Incredible!! This camera was bought new in 1982 and still works like a charm.  I replaced the battery and gently cleaned the lenses with lens tissue.  It’s perfectly fine. Question:  I am a simple point-n-shoot, novice photographer.  This Canon AV-1 (it’s the step-down model from the famous Canon AE-1 Program) has all sorts of buttons, F-Stops, Film Speeds, and is all auto exposure, apature priority, kind of a camera.  It’s really great and I need to understand it and what different film speeds do.  I know an apature like F-16 is like a pinhole on the shudder for taking bright sun photos, and F2 or even F1.8 is for dusk or nighttime photos.  At least that’s as much as I know. Can anyone who has a Canon or used a Canon SLR camera, give me some advice on how to get started?  I’d love to take this camera on my boat (getting on topic here….) and take some nice scenic photos on the freshwater lake and maybe get a closeup photos of a Great Blue Heron or something.  Thanks…. Butch Ammon

Response:

Question:  I am a simple point-n-shoot, novice photographer.  This Canon AV-1 (it’s the step-down model from the famous Canon AE-1 Program) has all sorts of buttons, F-Stops, Film Speeds, and is all auto exposure, apature priority, kind of a camera.  It’s really great and I need to understand it and what different film speeds do.  I know an apature like F-16 is like a pinhole on the shudder for taking bright sun photos, and F2 or even F1.8 is for dusk or nighttime photos.  At least that’s as much as I know.

Here’s a basic rundown on the relationship between apature and shutter speed and the effects of both.  Each stop of the lens lets in half the amount of light than the last ie f8 lets in half the light of f5,6.  Same with the clicks on the shutter speed ie 250 lets in 1/2 the speed of of 125 (a quick aside here, you’ll have one speed either in red or with a lightning bolt that designates shutter synch speed, never shoot with a strobe Faster than this speed, you’ll have a line across your picture, you can however use a slower speed to allow ambient light saturation).  The aperature controls the depth of field, that is how deep things will stay in focus, shooting at f1,4 with a 50mm lens, when you focus on something, you’ll only have a focal plane of a few inches, shooting at f22 nearly everything from the very foreground to infinity will be in focus. Shutter speed is dictated by the movement of the subject and yourself, a general rule of thumb is dont use a shutterspeed lower than the lens lenght in mm in order to avoid a shaken blurred picture, although using panning techniques you may get a desireable effect using a slower speed. Depending on the desired effect you can balance the light level using both aperature and shutter speed to maintain an exposure level through a wide range of aperature and speed settings.  There are many many books on the subject of photography. http://hometown.aol.com/hlaviation/

Response:

Hmm…I’m considering taking my camera out on a kayak ride in Pensacola Bay this weekend. It’s a 35mm SLR, automated enough that I can pretty much point and click while I learn to use it; it’s capable of being set to full- manual.

Better yet, go to WalMart and buy a disposable camera for outdoor pictures.  That way you won’t ruin your SLR because I GUARANTEE you will get salt spray on it in that kayak, even if you don’t roll over and have the camera in a plastic bag. The only way I’d take that SLR kayaking is in a diver’s case made to take pictures at 100′…..TIED TO A FLOAT! Larry

Response:

I had an AV-1.  Good camera, but backwards.  Most SLRs you set the shutter speed and the electronics sets the aperture for the correct exposure.  On the AV-1 that’s backwards.  You set the aperature, which sets the depth of field that will be in focus (higher f-stops, more depth of field) and the electronics sets the shutter speed for you. After you get used to this odd setup, it’s a great little camera…… I gave mine to my dad about 10 years ago, with 6 lenses from fisheye to a 200mm zoom lens.  Nice present! Go to a camera shop that specializes in that brand and ask them to order you an owner’s manual for it.  $10-15 is still a bargain…(c; – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hey there…. I was reading through some posts that got into the topic of cameras, both film and digital.  I don’t have a digital camera (I bum my company’s camera, if I need one), but my wife and I have a simple, point -n shoot Kodak 35mm camera. Someone spoke of SLR cameras.  Would you believe that over the weekend, a friend **GAVE ME** an old Canon AV-1 35mm SLR camera with a 50mm lens and a 135mm lens and flash unit?  TOTALLY FREE!  The guy was like, "Hey, I’m into the digital age and have two very nice digital cameras.  You want my old 35mm camera?  Heck, man, take it… I have no need for it anymore.  Incredible!! This camera was bought new in 1982 and still works like a charm.  I replaced the battery and gently cleaned the lenses with lens tissue.  It’s perfectly fine. Question:  I am a simple point-n-shoot, novice photographer.  This Canon AV-1 (it’s the step-down model from the famous Canon AE-1 Program) has all sorts of buttons, F-Stops, Film Speeds, and is all auto exposure, apature priority, kind of a camera.  It’s really great and I need to understand it and what different film speeds do.  I know an apature like F-16 is like a pinhole on the shudder for taking bright sun photos, and F2 or even F1.8 is for dusk or nighttime photos.  At least that’s as much as I know. Can anyone who has a Canon or used a Canon SLR camera, give me some advice on how to get started?  I’d love to take this camera on my boat (getting on topic here….) and take some nice scenic photos on the freshwater lake and maybe get a closeup photos of a Great Blue Heron or something.  Thanks…. Butch Ammon

Larry

Response:

Kodak also has a ton of info online at www.kodak.com Doftya

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have an A-1 from the 80’s. It survived being driven over by my 75 Pontiac GP. Just smashed the lens. Popped a new lenses on and kept on shooting. Just set the lens on A for automatic and the camera on automatic until you get more familiar with film speeds, shutter and Aperture priority,debth of field, ect…. For the boat, 100 speed film would be best with the 50 and 135 mm lens. That camera will take great pictures!! Canon makes great lenses. Kodak makes a good book to explain photography 101. Can’t remember the name though. Any good camera shop should have it or one similiar. Have fun !!!!! Hey there…. I was reading through some posts that got into the topic of cameras, both film and digital.  I don’t have a digital camera (I bum my company’s camera, if I need one), but my wife and I have a simple, point -n shoot Kodak 35mm camera. Someone spoke of SLR cameras.  Would you believe that over the weekend, a friend **GAVE ME** an old Canon AV-1 35mm SLR camera with a 50mm lens and a 135mm lens and flash unit?  TOTALLY FREE!  The guy was like, "Hey, I’m into the digital age and have two very nice digital cameras.  You want my old 35mm camera?  Heck, man, take it… I have no need for it anymore. Incredible!! This camera was bought new in 1982 and still works like a charm.  I replaced the battery and gently cleaned the lenses with lens tissue.  It’s perfectly fine. Question:  I am a simple point-n-shoot, novice photographer.  This Canon AV-1 (it’s the step-down model from the famous Canon AE-1 Program) has all sorts of buttons, F-Stops, Film Speeds, and is all auto exposure, apature priority, kind of a camera.  It’s really great and I need to understand it and what different film speeds do.  I know an apature like F-16 is like a pinhole on the shudder for taking bright sun photos, and F2 or even F1.8 is for dusk or nighttime photos.  At least that’s as much as I know. Can anyone who has a Canon or used a Canon SLR camera, give me some advice on how to get started?  I’d love to take this camera on my boat (getting on topic here….) and take some nice scenic photos on the freshwater lake and maybe get a closeup photos of a Great Blue Heron or something.  Thanks…. Butch Ammon

Response:

Hey there…. I was reading through some posts that got into the topic of cameras, both film and digital.  I don’t have a digital camera (I bum my company’s camera, if I need one), but my wife and I have a simple, point -n shoot Kodak 35mm camera. Someone spoke of SLR cameras.  Would you believe that over the weekend, a friend **GAVE ME** an old Canon AV-1 35mm SLR camera with a 50mm lens and a 135mm lens and flash unit?  TOTALLY FREE!  The guy was like, "Hey, I’m into the digital age and have two very nice digital cameras.  You want my old 35mm camera?  Heck, man, take it… I have no need for it anymore.  Incredible!! This camera was bought new in 1982 and still works like a charm.  I replaced the battery and gently cleaned the lenses with lens tissue.  It’s perfectly fine. Question:  I am a simple point-n-shoot, novice photographer.  This Canon AV-1 (it’s the step-down model from the famous Canon AE-1 Program) has all sorts of buttons, F-Stops, Film Speeds, and is all auto exposure, apature priority, kind of a camera.  It’s really great and I need to understand it and what different film speeds do.  I know an apature like F-16 is like a pinhole on the shudder for taking bright sun photos, and F2 or even F1.8 is for dusk or nighttime photos.  At least that’s as much as I know. Can anyone who has a Canon or used a Canon SLR camera, give me some advice on how to get started?  I’d love to take this camera on my boat (getting on topic here….) and take some nice scenic photos on the freshwater lake and maybe get a closeup photos of a Great Blue Heron or something.  Thanks…. Butch Ammon

Response:

I have an A-1 from the 80’s. It survived being driven over by my 75 Pontiac GP. Just smashed the lens. Popped a new lenses on and kept on shooting. Just set the lens on A for automatic and the camera on automatic until you get more familiar with film speeds, shutter and Aperture priority,debth of field, ect…. For the boat, 100 speed film would be best with the 50 and 135 mm lens. That camera will take great pictures!! Canon makes great lenses. Kodak makes a good book to explain photography 101. Can’t remember the name though. Any good camera shop should have it or one similiar. Have fun !!!!! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hey there…. I was reading through some posts that got into the topic of cameras, both film and digital.  I don’t have a digital camera (I bum my company’s camera, if I need one), but my wife and I have a simple, point -n shoot Kodak 35mm camera. Someone spoke of SLR cameras.  Would you believe that over the weekend, a friend **GAVE ME** an old Canon AV-1 35mm SLR camera with a 50mm lens and a 135mm lens and flash unit?  TOTALLY FREE!  The guy was like, "Hey, I’m into the digital age and have two very nice digital cameras.  You want my old 35mm camera?  Heck, man, take it… I have no need for it anymore.  Incredible!! This camera was bought new in 1982 and still works like a charm.  I replaced the battery and gently cleaned the lenses with lens tissue.  It’s perfectly fine. Question:  I am a simple point-n-shoot, novice photographer.  This Canon AV-1 (it’s the step-down model from the famous Canon AE-1 Program) has all sorts of buttons, F-Stops, Film Speeds, and is all auto exposure, apature priority, kind of a camera.  It’s really great and I need to understand it and what different film speeds do.  I know an apature like F-16 is like a pinhole on the shudder for taking bright sun photos, and F2 or even F1.8 is for dusk or nighttime photos.  At least that’s as much as I know. Can anyone who has a Canon or used a Canon SLR camera, give me some advice on how to get started?  I’d love to take this camera on my boat (getting on topic here….) and take some nice scenic photos on the freshwater lake and maybe get a closeup photos of a Great Blue Heron or something.  Thanks…. Butch Ammon

Response:

Butch, Try this as a starting point. <http://www.photographytips.com/. Found that by doing a search on altavista with <"how to" near camera as my criteria. BTW it returned 134,244 pages. Cheers, Ross – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey there…. I was reading through some posts that got into the topic of cameras, both film and digital.  I don’t have a digital camera (I bum my company’s camera, if I need one), but my wife and I have a simple, point -n shoot Kodak 35mm camera. Someone spoke of SLR cameras.  Would you believe that over the weekend, a friend **GAVE ME** an old Canon AV-1 35mm SLR camera with a 50mm lens and a 135mm lens and flash unit?  TOTALLY FREE!  The guy was like, "Hey, I’m into the digital age and have two very nice digital cameras.  You want my old 35mm camera?  Heck, man, take it… I have no need for it anymore.  Incredible!! This camera was bought new in 1982 and still works like a charm.  I replaced the battery and gently cleaned the lenses with lens tissue.  It’s perfectly fine. Question:  I am a simple point-n-shoot, novice photographer.  This Canon AV-1 (it’s the step-down model from the famous Canon AE-1 Program) has all sorts of buttons, F-Stops, Film Speeds, and is all auto exposure, apature priority, kind of a camera.  It’s really great and I need to understand it and what different film speeds do.  I know an apature like F-16 is like a pinhole on the shudder for taking bright sun photos, and F2 or even F1.8 is for dusk or nighttime photos.  At least that’s as much as I know. Can anyone who has a Canon or used a Canon SLR camera, give me some advice on how to get started?  I’d love to take this camera on my boat (getting on topic here….) and take some nice scenic photos on the freshwater lake and maybe get a closeup photos of a Great Blue Heron or something.  Thanks…. Butch Ammon

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey there…. I was reading through some posts that got into the topic of cameras, both film and digital.  I don’t have a digital camera (I bum my company’s camera, if I need one), but my wife and I have a simple, point -n shoot Kodak 35mm camera. Someone spoke of SLR cameras.  Would you believe that over the weekend, a friend **GAVE ME** an old Canon AV-1 35mm SLR camera with a 50mm lens and a 135mm lens and flash unit?  TOTALLY FREE!  The guy was like, "Hey, I’m into the digital age and have two very nice digital cameras.  You want my old 35mm camera?  Heck, man, take it… I have no need for it anymore.  Incredible!! This camera was bought new in 1982 and still works like a charm.  I replaced the battery and gently cleaned the lenses with lens tissue.  It’s perfectly fine. Question:  I am a simple point-n-shoot, novice photographer.  This Canon AV-1 (it’s the step-down model from the famous Canon AE-1 Program) has all sorts of buttons, F-Stops, Film Speeds, and is all auto exposure, apature priority, kind of a camera.  It’s really great and I need to understand it and what different film speeds do.  I know an apature like F-16 is like a pinhole on the shudder for taking bright sun photos, and F2 or even F1.8 is for dusk or nighttime photos.  At least that’s as much as I know. Can anyone who has a Canon or used a Canon SLR camera, give me some advice on how to get started?  I’d love to take this camera on my boat (getting on topic here….) and take some nice scenic photos on the freshwater lake and maybe get a closeup photos of a Great Blue Heron or something.  Thanks…. Butch Ammon

Hmm…I’m considering taking my camera out on a kayak ride in Pensacola Bay this weekend. It’s a 35mm SLR, automated enough that I can pretty much point and click while I learn to use it; it’s capable of being set to full- manual. I’m not much more than a beginner, myself; here are some links I found when I got my Canon Rebel: Canon Hall of Fame (might have info on your camera)         http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/ New York Institute of Photography         http://www.nyip.com/ PhotoForum Home         http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photoforum.html There are a few good photog newsgroups: alt.photography rec.photo rec.photo.35mm rec.photo.help rec.photo.misc –J.

Response:

Question:

[snip] Also cost…. what sold me on the digital was when I went to Alaska a few summers ago. Took a point and shoot 35, an old OM-1, and a digital. Of the twelve rolls of film we maybe got 12 decent photos.  Most of our good snapshots were taken with the digital, and I didn’t have to lay out $100 bucks to develop them.

My OM-1 is seriously beat up from all its trips, but without getting some kind of light meter it’s out of commission now that mercury batteries are out.  My guess is lots of older SLRs are in the same fix.  Even a light meter wouldn’t do the whole job with various filters, and extreme macro or telephoto lenses.  The effect is nonlinear, which means that the supposed "fix" (zinc-air batteries) don’t work — the exposure is wrong, and you can’t compensate by ASA tweaks. Plus there’s the issue of weight.  While I haven’t (quite yet) taken the plunge, the digital cameras are so much lighter.  My SLR + a few choice lenses is easily 4 pounds, maybe more.  Quite a bit of volume, too. If anyone has any great suggestions as to how to use two or three hiking poles (borrowing one from my wife) as a make-shift tripod, that would be great!  Yes, I have one of those mini-tripods, but they’re really awkward in most situations. anyway, here’s the alaska album, in case  you haven’t seen it; 160 mile float on the Tatshenshini – Alsek, through the heart of the St Elais range www.cet.com/~pennys/tat.htm

Great photos, Penny!  Thanks!         -frank —

Response:

While I haven’t (quite yet) taken the plunge, the digital cameras are so much lighter.

   Well, you’re not going to get a shot like this with a digital: http://www.grandshelters.com/images/igloo-night-1-s2.jpg If anyone has any great suggestions as to how to use two or three hiking poles (borrowing one from my wife) as a make-shift tripod, that would be great!  Yes, I have one of those mini-tripods, but they’re really awkward in most situations.

   Clamp the mini-tripod to a ski pole and bank it up with snow.    Ed Huesers    http://www.grandshelters.com

Response:

BTW, what do you guys think about digital cameras? Less moving parts and less the price of transparencies or print film . . . Useful? Archie

If what you want is photographic excellence, an SLR with appropriate film is hard to beat. The really old ones are nice in that they work even if the battery is dead. In fact, I have a 1950’s Practica that didn’t even have a battery. If I recall, it came with a Biotar lens (I think that was Zeiss) that was extremely good with slow high resolution films. The trouble with the electronic cameras is the resolution is not as good to start with and manipulation to get images down to email size reduce resolution still more. They are, however, very nice for a lot of casual photography. "Instant gratification" and simple exchange of pictures with friends make electronic cameras justifiably popular. Chuck —                         … The times have been,                      That, when the brains were out,                           the man would die. …         Macbeth

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For all the Photogs out there! I’m an amatuer photographer and have been very disappointed with the performance of various P&S cameras I’ve brought on previous trips.  I’m hiking the JMT in July with a few buddies, and am willing to carry the extra 4 lbs to lug my Canon EOS 7E and 28-105 lens. What are your experiences with SLR camera’s on the trail (Aside from the ridiculous extra weight)? Dust and dirt?  Bouced around too much?  Rain? I’ve never carried the camera on any kind of substantial backpacking trip, and I know how dirty we’ll be on this one. It just seems like the remoteness and excitement we’ll share on the trip would be a great playground for enjoying this hobby with another. Thanks, Brian C

Just do it! Does the camera own you or do you own it? Is it a piece of technoid jewelry or is it a machine for making pictures? Sure it’ll pick up a little dust, just brush it off if it bothers you. I carry my Nikon 8008 all the time. Sure it’s a bit of a klunk weight wise, but the quality of the pictures is worth it to me. I have never had any problems with it with hundreds of rolls of film run through it. Mike — Michael McGuire                     Hewlett Packard Laboratories Phone: (650)-857-5491               Palo Alto, CA 94303-0971          

Response:

| I’m going on a week-long canoe trip in Ontario . . . OK, you guys are just trying to make me jealous! I don’t wanna know anything about this no more! You don’t have to go canoeing in Ontario to take great photos. Why not use the back pool?! Too much! Are you taking one weeks supply in one or two canoes?! That’s a lot of load! The Nikon alone may tip the boat over! Archie

Response:

| | The trouble with the electronic cameras is the resolution is not as good | to start with and manipulation to get images down to email size reduce | resolution still more. They are, however, very nice for a lot of casual | photography. "Instant gratification" and simple exchange of pictures | with friends make electronic cameras justifiably popular. | But you know what Chuck, the digital images can last for ever! That can be a huge advantage especially with kids and all that. Nevertheless, as you say, there is something about the conventional transparencies or prints which looks more fun, perhaps it’s because we can share them without being in front of a computer monitor. I guess this may not be a problem in 10 or 20 years time when the PDAs develop further (Palm or HP or whatever). I was eventually forced to buy a camcorder a while ago (not cheap) so as not to miss the kids growing up and so on – something which we didn’t have when we grew up. Chuck are we getting on topic again?! Archie Man in an antiques shop:  "So, what’s new then?!" :-)

Response:

If what you want is photographic excellence, an SLR with appropriate film is hard to beat. The really old ones are nice in that they work even if the battery is dead. In fact, I have a 1950’s Practica that didn’t even have a battery. If I recall, it came with a Biotar lens (I think that was Zeiss) that was extremely good with slow high resolution films. The trouble with the electronic cameras is the resolution is not as good to start with and manipulation to get images down to email size reduce resolution still more. They are, however, very nice for a lot of casual photography. "Instant gratification" and simple exchange of pictures with friends make electronic cameras justifiably popular.

I’m not a "photographer" I just like to take photos. I use exclusively a digital now, just take plenty of cards and batteries with me. I like the instant gratification of walking in the door, dumping my gear, and looking at the pictures within the hour.  I build web albums just for grins with these photos.  With some manipulation, you can get a semi-decent print, but you will never equal film for quality. The technology is improving, tho. Also cost…. what sold me on the digital was when I went to Alaska a few summers ago. Took a point and shoot 35, an old OM-1, and a digital. Of the twelve rolls of film we maybe got 12 decent photos.  Most of our good snapshots were taken with the digital, and I didn’t have to lay out $100 bucks to develop them. anyway, here’s the alaska album, in case  you haven’t seen it; 160 mile float on the Tatshenshini – Alsek, through the heart of the St Elais range www.cet.com/~pennys/tat.htm

Response:

Lee Bergthold of the Center of Wilderness Studies, during his yearly 100+ days in the Sierra leading Survival treks, uses a nikon f-series with a 35m lense.   He also carries a reloaded disposal in his shirt pocket for the times that he needs to take a quick acton shot and doesn’t have the time to haul out the nikon.  He also carries a small gossen light meter.   Tripod?  Uses a rock, large branch, whatever is out there and handy.   This person is a well published PJ (backpacker, sunset, newspapers, NG) and is also a college level photography instructor, so he knows of what he speaks and does.  The Nikon is wrapped in  layers of plastic ziploc type of bags and is packed in the pack in such a way that it is protected from shock from the outside. Email if you wish further information or visit www.members.tripod.avcws Mike B..

Response:

I won’t say that this is a good solution, but it is a solution. Three of us were backpacking, each with one ski pole as a walking stick. When we needed to take a group shot, we needed a tripod, so we took the three poles and put the handle tops together. Then I had a mini-tripod with a strap, so it lashed the three handles together, and then each camera was screwed onto the min-tripod screw. That worked. —Bob Gross—

  If anyone has any great suggestions as to how to use two or three hiking – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – poles (borrowing one from my wife) as a make-shift tripod, that would be great!  Yes, I have one of those mini-tripods, but they’re really awkward in most situations.

Response:

I guess it just depends on your priorities. Are they (1) backpacking, and (2) photography, or are they (1) photography, and (2) backpacking.? I’ve been known to carry a Canon EOS Rebel (somewhat lighter in weight) with a super 28-200 zoom lens, and that is in a Sundog case. The case can dangle around my neck, or I can shift it to use its shoulder strap, or it can be rigged around the waist. However, one camera and one lens is a lot handier than having multiple zoom lenses. A few years ago when I was in Nepal, we saw a herd of wild mountain goats at a considerable distance (75-100 yards). As soon as I saw them, I started moving in their direction, and then I had to stop. I got out the long zoom lens, pull off the short zoom lens, fool around with this and that, and then I barely got the shot before the animals were gone. That is when I decided to purchase the super zoom lens. Of course, that photo situation would never happen along the John Muir Trail, would it? Bzzzt. Wrong. Last August, I was near the JMT and spotted a small herd of Bighorn Sheep. All I had was the Pentax P&S, and I got the photo only because I was quick. A few seconds later and the sheep were gone. —Bob Gross—

Response:

Thanks everyone for the feedback…there’s a lot of photographers out there! I have a Canon EOS 7E with a 28-105mm lens.  I don’t have a sufficeient case, however, for lugging it around the JMT.  What do you recommend?  I’d like something that could be worn around the waist, or possibly snapped on top of my backpack.  I travel somewhat light.  My pack will only be about 22 lbs before food. This is my second SLR.  I have a 20 year old Canon fully manual that I "learned" on.  Unfortunately it weighs a ton and the 50mm lens doesn’t produce the same quality pics as my newer 7E. Unfortunately, the camera is only six months old, and I really don’t want to break a 650.00 investment…I’ll definitely bring a UV filter for cutting the sun and for protecting the lens.  But the trail gets dirty.  Really dirty.  How does this end up affecting your camera?  What do some people recommend bringing as accessories? Thanks, Brian C

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For all the Photogs out there! I’m an amatuer photographer and have been very disappointed with the performance of various P&S cameras I’ve brought on previous trips.  I’m hiking the JMT in July with a few buddies, and am willing to carry the extra 4 lbs to lug my Canon EOS 7E and 28-105 lens. What are your experiences with SLR camera’s on the trail (Aside from the ridiculous extra weight)? Dust and dirt?  Bouced around too much?  Rain? I’ve never carried the camera on any kind of substantial backpacking trip, and I know how dirty we’ll be on this one. It just seems like the remoteness and excitement we’ll share on the trip would be a great playground for enjoying this hobby with another. Thanks, Brian C

Response:

 I used to carry my Canon A-1 everywhere on the trail with me. The weight was getting to be a bit much so I switched to a Yashica T-4 Super. The photographs come out OK but I find my creativity severely compromised by the limited control and the 35mm lens. I much prefer a standard 50mm and the ideal lens for me would probably be a compact 28-105mm. I’ll probably get the lightest SLR/lens combo that I can and retire the T-4 to simple vacation snapshots.  I keep my A-1 in a padded Lowe case that’s slightly bigger than the camera. It has an attached waistbelt which I sling over my pack in various ways so that I can usually flip the camera case within reach by swinging my pack/body. In all the years of doing this, I have NEVER damaged my camera in any fashion and I’ve even fallen and rolled quite a way down a steep talus slope with my pack AND camera – not to mention tripping over one of those stupid but necessary waterbars on the trail and falling with my pack on the camera! How do you guys do it? Alan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For all the Photogs out there! I’m an amatuer photographer and have been very disappointed with the performance of various P&S cameras I’ve brought on previous trips.  I’m hiking the JMT in July with a few buddies, and am willing to carry the extra 4 lbs to lug my Canon EOS 7E and 28-105 lens. What are your experiences with SLR camera’s on the trail (Aside from the ridiculous extra weight)? Dust and dirt?  Bouced around too much?  Rain? I’ve never carried the camera on any kind of substantial backpacking trip, and I know how dirty we’ll be on this one. It just seems like the remoteness and excitement we’ll share on the trip would be a great playground for enjoying this hobby with another. Thanks, Brian C

Response:

Rules of digital cameras: (1) Bring lots of batteries. (2) Don’t expect to get maximum resolution in the image. (3) Bring more batteries. Those 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 Megapixel images are not good enough to print large, like I do. —Bob Gross—

 snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BTW, what do you guys think about digital cameras? Less moving parts and less the price of transparencies or print film . . . Useful?

Response:

Brian, I have done backpacking with the Canon SLR, and I have also gone with the Pentax P&S. On the JMT, you are likely to be going a pretty steady pace, and the big camera might slow you down or get in your way. For one thing, how would you carry it? If you carry it inside your pack, then it is never handy enough. If you carry it on a chest rig, then it is handy, but then you can’t see your feet. I did that two years ago, stumbled over some trail rocks, and twisted my left ankle (and it has not been the same since). If you carry it on a waist pack, then it tends to get in the way of taking full strides uphill. On the other hand, my P&S camera rides inside a pocket on the belt. Within the limitations of a P&S, it does a good job, but then I never shoot it more than 10-12 exposures per day. The only time I take both cameras is when I am on a foreign expedition. —Bob Gross—

For all the Photogs out there! I’m an amatuer photographer and have been very disappointed with the performance of various P&S cameras I’ve brought on previous trips.  I’m hiking the JMT in July with a few buddies, and am willing to carry the extra 4 lbs to lug my Canon EOS 7E and 28-105 lens. What are your experiences with SLR camera’s on the trail (Aside from the ridiculous extra weight)?

 snip

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would plan on carrying it anyplace but around the neck.  That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have a neck carrying strap — just don’t have it there when you are lugging a large pack.  UNLESS you get a carrier such as a SunDog or similar.  I carry mine in the top of the pack and have to take off everything to take the picture. There will be times when you would like to have a tripod, especially if you are shooting Provia 100F or Ektachrome VS. You might want to pose this same question in rec.photo.technique.nature I have, by the way, managed to bust the front element of every camera lens I’ve taken on an extended hike.  It has usually been a polarizer or UV but once in awhile I manage to crack the retaining ring on the lens itself.  So plan accordingly.

A UV filter or some such is a real cheap way of protecting your lens. I’d rather chip or pit a filter than a lens $$ wise any day. I’ve also always kept a sun hood on my lens. Think that’s what it’s called.  It just screws on and flares out a bit and extends not quite an inch out from the filter face. It’s got 3 good dings around the edge but the lens is almost 30 years old and still solid and clean. Got a Minolta body now but still remember my very first SLR 30+ years ago. A Mamiya Sekor (sp?). God that one felt good in my hands. Doug – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve always thought it worthwhile, since I’ve expended an inordinate amount of effort anyway getting to a place that I will only see in a fading memory – unless…  I use an old Nikon FE2.  Lighter weight and rugged.

Response:

I’m hopin’, one day, just one shot, I’ll just be lucky…and I can use that piece of film and reach for immortality up there along with Ansel. (That’s BS, I’d love a Digital). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | For a P&S, I’ve heard excellent things about the | lens on the Yachica T4. | Of course those T series ‘lenses’ have always been top of the range. Personally I haven’t used Yachica cameras – another reputable manufacturer. BTW, what do you guys think about digital cameras? Less moving parts and less the price of transparencies or print film . . . Useful? Archie

Response:

| Photographic images last pretty well on film and prints. My brother now | has my parents’ collection of pictures going back more than a century | and they are OK (we don’t recognize half the people in them). Writing | digital images to write once CD’s or DVD’s might well last as long but I | do not know of any digital recording medium that we use today that will | last forever. | Yeh, see your point. Hadn’t thought about the actual media. I just assumed that the image files get copied from medium to the next/better medium (whatever that is at the time). Black/white prints are longest lasting; Kodak Kodachrome 25 is about 50/60 years, color prints are the worst, but we have some prints exposed to daylight which seem to be keeping OK.  . . . Another thing, it’s the trouble of making additional prints or copies that is the bother! Whereas, the image files can be copied and sent to everyone on the spot . . . After all this talk, the digital quality suffers as soon as you enlarge or if you print out (which is a shame) . . . horses for course. Archie

Response:

| Just do it! You have a point here. But you know what’s it like when you carry some of these things with you. They are toys as well as tools, . . . it’s just inevitable! Archie

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | | The trouble with the electronic cameras is the resolution is not as good | to start with and manipulation to get images down to email size reduce | resolution still more. They are, however, very nice for a lot of casual | photography. "Instant gratification" and simple exchange of pictures | with friends make electronic cameras justifiably popular. | But you know what Chuck, the digital images can last for ever! That can be a huge advantage especially with kids and all that.

Photographic images last pretty well on film and prints. My brother now has my parents’ collection of pictures going back more than a century and they are OK (we don’t recognize half the people in them). Writing digital images to write once CD’s or DVD’s might well last as long but I do not know of any digital recording medium that we use today that will last forever. Chuck —                         … The times have been,                      That, when the brains were out,                           the man would die. …         Macbeth

Response:

| For a P&S, I’ve heard excellent things about the | lens on the Yachica T4. | Of course those T series ‘lenses’ have always been top of the range. Personally I haven’t used Yachica cameras – another reputable manufacturer. BTW, what do you guys think about digital cameras? Less moving parts and less the price of transparencies or print film . . . Useful? Archie

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | I’ve always thought it worthwhile, since I’ve expended an inordinate | amount of effort anyway getting to a place that I will only see in a | fading memory – unless…  I use an old Nikon FE2.  Lighter weight and | rugged. An old Nikon FE! Now that brings back a lot of good memories! :-) Those cameras were just built like tanks! I have a Canon AE1 which weighs a ton compared with today’s gear but I love the darn thing and the images are perfect – I cancel the auto settings and go for +1 over-exposure for print Kodak 100 ASA color films. Nikon FE or Canon AE1 . . . gee, I know they are just old gear, but they bring back a lot of memories . . . This links to Canon camera database it explains the purpose for building the AE1 model (select the 1976-1986 range): http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/f_camera.html

What a coincidence.  I’m going on a week-long canoe trip in Ontario this weekend and I’m taking a Nikon FE and Nikkor 35-105.  Weight is also a concern for me but last year I took a digital camera and just wasn’t overwhelmed by the images.  I got the snapshot fever out of my system last year. This year I can concentrate on getting GREAT photos.

Response:

| I’ve always thought it worthwhile, since I’ve expended an inordinate | amount of effort anyway getting to a place that I will only see in a | fading memory – unless…  I use an old Nikon FE2.  Lighter weight and | rugged. An old Nikon FE! Now that brings back a lot of good memories! :-) Those cameras were just built like tanks! I have a Canon AE1 which weighs a ton compared with today’s gear but I love the darn thing and the images are perfect – I cancel the auto settings and go for +1 over-exposure for print Kodak 100 ASA color films. Nikon FE or Canon AE1 . . . gee, I know they are just old gear, but they bring back a lot of memories . . . This links to Canon camera database it explains the purpose for building the AE1 model (select the 1976-1986 range): http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/f_camera.html Archie

Response:

I like the old Pentax ME Super for a trail SLR.  It’s small, light and rugged.  It has a decent meter and is aperture preferred.  For a P&S, I’ve heard excellent things about the lens on the Yachica T4. Jeff

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | I’ve always thought it worthwhile, since I’ve expended an inordinate | amount of effort anyway getting to a place that I will only see in a | fading memory – unless…  I use an old Nikon FE2.  Lighter weight and | rugged. An old Nikon FE! Now that brings back a lot of good memories! :-) Those cameras were just built like tanks! I have a Canon AE1 which weighs a ton compared with today’s gear but I love the darn thing and the images are perfect – I cancel the auto settings and go for +1 over-exposure for print Kodak 100 ASA color films. Nikon FE or Canon AE1 . . . gee, I know they are just old gear, but they bring back a lot of memories . . . This links to Canon camera database it explains the purpose for building the AE1 model (select the 1976-1986 range): http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/f_camera.html Archie

Response:

For all the Photogs out there! I’m an amatuer photographer and have been very disappointed with the performance of various P&S cameras I’ve brought on previous trips.  I’m hiking the JMT in July with a few buddies, and am willing to carry the extra 4 lbs to lug my Canon EOS 7E and 28-105 lens. What are your experiences with SLR camera’s on the trail (Aside from the ridiculous extra weight)? Dust and dirt?  Bouced around too much?  Rain? I’ve never carried the camera on any kind of substantial backpacking trip, and I know how dirty we’ll be on this one. It just seems like the remoteness and excitement we’ll share on the trip would be a great playground for enjoying this hobby with another. Thanks, Brian C

Response:

I would plan on carrying it anyplace but around the neck.  That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have a neck carrying strap — just don’t have it there when you are lugging a large pack.  UNLESS you get a carrier such as a SunDog or similar.  I carry mine in the top of the pack and have to take off everything to take the picture. There will be times when you would like to have a tripod, especially if you are shooting Provia 100F or Ektachrome VS.   You might want to pose this same question in rec.photo.technique.nature I have, by the way, managed to bust the front element of every camera lens I’ve taken on an extended hike.  It has usually been a polarizer or UV but once in awhile I manage to crack the retaining ring on the lens itself.  So plan accordingly. I’ve always thought it worthwhile, since I’ve expended an inordinate amount of effort anyway getting to a place that I will only see in a fading memory – unless…  I use an old Nikon FE2.  Lighter weight and rugged.

Response:

Question:

WANTED: ONE LOUSY PRACTICE ROUND TICKET ! When my alarm clock went off at 4:15 AM on Tuesday morning I knew it must be Masters Week.  So what if I only had 4 hours of sleep after driving to Atlanta

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes: I’m not up to speed on all this newfangled stuff, so what’s the practical difference between a jpg from a scanned pic, and a jpg from a digital pic? She says it’s the resolution.  Something about how her production people work with the pix.  I’m old-fashioned, too.  I like a PHD camera. *Push Here Dummy* I just got back some great pix of the Charro Days parade in Brownsville. I’ll try to scan them and get them on the website before we leave.  One thing I’ve noticed about my scanned 35mm on the website.  They load a heck of a lot faster than the digitals my friend posts to his.  We have the same web host. The Road Princess

When you scan a picture you get the resolution of the scanner which may be fixed or variable depending on how good the scanner is. If you use a photo program say like Corel Photopaint you can resample the photo to whatever resolution you want. If you call for a lower resolution it will just dump some pixels and if you call for a higher resolution it will use those you have and add to them based on what’s there, but the sharpness of the image will go down. The size of the file depends on the resolution. High resolution is a big file and low resolution is a small file. Compressing the file to a JPG or some other compression method will reduce the size but the amount of compression decides what the final picture quality will be. Small files load fast and big files load slow. A good photo imaging program will let you decide how much compression you can stand by showing you a preview of the image after compression. Frederick

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When you scan a picture you get the resolution of the scanner which may be fixed or variable depending on how good the scanner is. If you use a photo program say like Corel Photopaint you can resample the photo to whatever resolution you want. If you call for a lower resolution it will just dump some pixels and if you call for a higher resolution it will use those you have and add to them based on what’s there, but the sharpness of the image will go down. The size of the file depends on the resolution. High resolution is a big file and low resolution is a small file. Compressing the file to a JPG or some other compression method will reduce the size but the amount of compression decides what the final picture quality will be. Small files load fast and big files load slow. A good photo imaging program will let you decide how much compression you can stand by showing you a preview of the image after compression. Frederick

I use Adobe Photoshop Deluxe, Home Edition.  My scanner is one of those skinny Canons, about as big as a legal pad and really RV friendly.  It will allow me to set the resolution I want.  The Adobe program also has options to scan for printing or for  reducing for the web.  I can save in *.gif or *jpg or Adobe’s default extension which I think is *pd-something.  The software that comes with the scanner shows previews.  It is a good program, but a little more difficult for the non-pro to handle.  Adobe will open that program when I click "custom scan" so I can use the higher resolution. If I want to put some of the photos on the web site or email them, I rescan them using Adobe’s scan for the web and save for the web which reduce the *jpgs but not the clarity.  I save them to a separate file.  The high-resolution scans get saved on a CD. The Road Princess Residentially Challenged www.roadprincess.50megs.com

Response:

Possibly because most people’s digital cameras have a resolution that’s below 3 megapixels, the absolute, bottom of the barrel, minimum for professional publishing. _RV Companion_, for example, is a high gloss mag that uses higher res photos. Also, as Janet said, some publishing companies (and their contributors) can’t handle the requirements for the industry. Not all places can do color matching to CIP3 standards, go direct-to-plate and print on a 6-color Heidelberg plus aqueous coating.

Yeah, what Dot said. <g The Road Princess Residentially Challenged www.roadprincess.50megs.com

Response:

writes:   One thing I’ve noticed about my scanned 35mm on the website.  They load a heck of a lot faster than the digitals my friend posts to his.  We have the same web host.

Probably because your friends are posting the full image size. You know enough to post a smaller image at 72 dpi with a mid range compression level. — email address. I do not check for mail there, so will not respond.

Response:

Ha, even more reason to buy a digital. BTW did you know that Canon is releasing the D60 next month. SLR, 6.34 MP, full kit (no lens) ONLY $2199.00.  <he he Mines on order.

It would take me about 8 years worth of magazine earnings to afford that camera.  I would have to buy an awful lot of film and developing to spend $2199.  <g I could prolly buy a really nice new computer and new printer for that much. Talked to my editor at RV Companion last week.  She still won’t take digital pictures from her writers.  She did say she would take CDs of my 35mm photos if I scanned them in as *.jpg at 300 resolution and didn’t resize them.   The other mags I free-lance with take the 35mm prints and don’t want digitals. They evidently aren’t "National Geographic" with high-tech resources. The Road Princess Residentially Challenged www.roadprincess.50megs.com

Response:

You’re right, I wouldn’t know. That’s why I ask people to be HONEST about it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – or fiction (as long as you don’t try to pass it off as non-fiction)), Thanks, Christine How would you know?  Unless we mentioned faster-than-light travel, that is… Mark PNWCO#3 link: http://www.rvlover.net/pnwco3.htm

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … Talked to my editor at RV Companion last week.  She still won’t take digital pictures from her writers.  She did say she would take CDs of my 35mm photos if I scanned them in as *.jpg at 300 resolution and didn’t resize them. The other mags I free-lance with take the 35mm prints and don’t want digitals. They evidently aren’t "National Geographic" with high-tech resources. The Road Princess I’m not up to speed on all this newfangled stuff, so what’s the practical difference between a jpg from a scanned pic, and a jpg from a digital pic? — bill Theory don’t mean squat if it don’t work.

Possibly because most people’s digital cameras have a resolution that’s below 3 megapixels, the absolute, bottom of the barrel, minimum for professional publishing. _RV Companion_, for example, is a high gloss mag that uses higher res photos. Also, as Janet said, some publishing companies (and their contributors) can’t handle the requirements for the industry. Not all places can do color matching to CIP3 standards, go direct-to-plate and print on a 6-color Heidelberg plus aqueous coating. — Dot – N. Central Florida Easter Weekend RV Rally http://dreaves.com/1cfcg.htm

Response:

I’m not up to speed on all this newfangled stuff, so what’s the practical difference between a jpg from a scanned pic, and a jpg from a digital pic?

Then Dot responded with: Possibly because most people’s digital cameras have a resolution that’s below 3 megapixels, the absolute, bottom of the barrel, minimum for professional publishing. _RV Companion_, for example, is a high gloss mag that uses higher res photos. Also, as Janet said, some publishing companies (and their contributors) can’t handle the requirements for the industry. Not all places can do color matching to CIP3 standards, go direct-to-plate and print on a 6-color Heidelberg plus aqueous coating. —

And now Bob chimes in with: But, if they have a 3 MP or higher camera with low noise the difference is like zero difference between the two. IMO, a well done digital will be better than a 3rd generation scanned image. Now, if a person wanted to do digital photography and send to a place that insisted on paper prints, most of which are 4×6 prints, take the digital file to a Wal-Mart that has a Fuji Frontier printer and have them print a paper print. It will be on photo paper, and look and feel just like a dumb film print. Then, send it in to the publisher, who will then take it and scan it to a digital for his layout. I do photography for a living and use digital cameras only. The files are sent to a pro lab and printed on a Kodak LED (Light Emitting Diode) printer. This machine exposes regular photo paper and the paper is then processed in chemicals right along with negative exposed stuff. Placed side by side the biggest difference is that the digitals have more color "bounce". The largest straight from digital prints I’ve had done were 20×24. Now, if I send the digital file to the lab, have them make a 6×7 medium format negative, and then print, I have done 30×40. — email address. I do not check for mail there, so will not respond.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  I’ll pass on your offer, thank you.  I don’t write for free anymore. What? You gonna charge us for all these posts? You shoulda said that before we started reading them… <G Nah.  Most of what I post here is *worthless,* anyway<VBG I get about 2 emails a month from regional magazines and web sites asking me to write for them.  I can’t write for everybody, so I only write for the ones who pay.  BTW they don’t pay much.  It’s not a career, it’s a hobby. At my level, the money I make keeps me in Diet Coke and film for my 35mm camera.

Ha, even more reason to buy a digital. BTW did you know that Canon is releasing the D60 next month. SLR, 6.34 MP, full kit (no lens) ONLY $2199.00.  <he he Mines on order. email address. I do not check for mail there, so will not respond.

Response:

Yabut… they want 300dpi and "at size"… most glossy’s used to use 1200 dpi…  which would mean the "at size" would have to be 4 times bigger (from Janet)…  

That’s what the editor told me.  I don’t know enough about it to argue with her.  I could still send her the prints, which might be easier to mail as they go in an regular envelope and a CD would need a special mailer package.  If you’ve seen any of my pix in the magazine they do a great job with them. The Road Princess Residentially Challenged www.roadprincess.50megs.com

Response:

Possibly because most people’s digital cameras have a resolution that’s below 3 megapixels, the absolute, bottom of the barrel, minimum for professional publishing. _RV Companion_, for example, is a high gloss mag that uses higher res photos. Also, as Janet said, some publishing companies (and their contributors) can’t handle the requirements for the industry. Not all places can do color matching to CIP3 standards, go direct-to-plate and print on a 6-color Heidelberg plus aqueous coating. — Dot

Yabut… they want 300dpi and "at size"… most glossy’s used to use 1200 dpi…  which would mean the "at size" would have to be 4 times bigger (from Janet)…   Mark – puzzled to say the least… PNWCO#3 link: http://www.rvlover.net/pnwco3.htm

Response:

Good info, Bob. You are a pro. Most (including me) are not. The results of your suggestion to photo-print digitals are not always *that* good for some publishing purposes. Don’t forget that high res digitals can be cropped for good pics when enlarged to a usable size — one reason for always shooting at the highest res. We need, also, to remind people to not use hi res digitals for the Internet as computer screens cannot "appreciate" the extra pixels that add to download time. BTW, do you have a site where we can view your photos? I’d love to see some. Which reminds me, if anyone should want my higher res pics for their desktop wallpaper or to print for their personal use, I can email them. Pics put on my site are not "pixel-high" enough for wallpaper. Wishing for more time, money, and knowledge to do pro photo work… — Dot – N. Central Florida Easter Weekend RV Rally http://dreaves.com/1cfcg.htm

Response:

I’m not up to speed on all this newfangled stuff, so what’s the practical difference between a jpg from a scanned pic, and a jpg from a digital pic?

She says it’s the resolution.  Something about how her production people work with the pix.  I’m old-fashioned, too.  I like a PHD camera. *Push Here Dummy* I just got back some great pix of the Charro Days parade in Brownsville.  I’ll try to scan them and get them on the website before we leave.  One thing I’ve noticed about my scanned 35mm on the website.  They load a heck of a lot faster than the digitals my friend posts to his.  We have the same web host. The Road Princess Residentially Challenged www.roadprincess.50megs.com

Response:

Hi everybody, I’m starting a travel literature web site called Trip Lit (www.triplit.com) and I thought it would be interesting to have a story about traveling the country by RV. I’m sure there are lots of stories that could be told, and there must be some of you out there who are aspiring writers. Unfortunately I can’t afford to pay anyone, but it would be good exposure. If you’re interested in submitting something (non-fiction narratives, poetry or fiction (as long as you don’t try to pass it off as Thanks, Christine

Response:

Ask Jenny, she’s ALWAYS looking for "exposure"! Mike

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi everybody, I’m starting a travel literature web site called Trip Lit (www.triplit.com) and I thought it would be interesting to have a story about traveling the country by RV. I’m sure there are lots of stories that could be told, and there must be some of you out there who are aspiring writers. Unfortunately I can’t afford to pay anyone, but it would be good exposure. If you’re interested in submitting something (non-fiction narratives, poetry or fiction (as long as you don’t try to pass it off as Thanks, Christine

Response:

or fiction (as long as you don’t try to pass it off as non-fiction)), Thanks, Christine

How would you know?  Unless we mentioned faster-than-light travel, that is… Mark PNWCO#3 link: http://www.rvlover.net/pnwco3.htm

Response:

I’m starting a travel literature web site called Trip Lit (www.triplit.com) and I thought it would be interesting to have a story about traveling the country by RV. I’m sure there are lots of stories that could be told, and there must be some of you out there who are aspiring writers. Unfortunately I can’t afford to pay anyone, but it would be good exposure. If you’re interested in submitting something (non-fiction narratives, poetry or fiction (as long as you don’t try to pass it off as Thanks, Christine

There are a bunch of RVers, full-time and part-time who have their own websites with travel stories.  There are also several publications devoted to RV traveling.  I’ll pass on your offer, thank you.  I don’t write for free anymore. The Road Princess Residentially Challenged www.roadprincess.50megs.com

Response:

 I’ll pass on your offer, thank you.  I don’t write for free anymore.

What? You gonna charge us for all these posts? You shoulda said that before we started reading them… <G — email address. I do not check for mail there, so will not respond.

Response:

 I’ll pass on your offer, thank you.  I don’t write for free anymore. What? You gonna charge us for all these posts? You shoulda said that before we started reading them… <G

Nah.  Most of what I post here is *worthless,* anyway<VBG I get about 2 emails a month from regional magazines and web sites asking me to write for them.  I can’t write for everybody, so I only write for the ones who pay.  BTW they don’t pay much.  It’s not a career, it’s a hobby. At my level, the money I make keeps me in Diet Coke and film for my 35mm camera. The Road Princess Residentially Challenged www.roadprincess.50megs.com

Response: