Digital photography, changing the world

"Jeremy Henderson" wrote in message
...
On 2004-12-17 22:07:59 +0100, Mxsmanic said:

Keith Willshaw writes:

Nothing , they are available for around £3,300

And they still don't match film. So a 300D certainly won't do.

How do you deduce that?


The voices in his head told him.

Keith

"Jeremy Henderson" wrote in message
...
On 2004-12-17 22:07:59 +0100, Mxsmanic said:

Keith Willshaw writes:

Nothing , they are available for around £3,300

And they still don't match film. So a 300D certainly won't do.

How do you deduce that?


The voices in his head told him.

Keith

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 08:45:59 +0000, The Reids wrote:

Following up to

For the digital equivalent of any decent film SLR.

Define decent film SLR.

they are expensive. If I could afford somwthing that would do
what my very modest film SLR does (cost under £200 IIRC) I would
get one but last time I looked it was going to cost thousands and
thousands, especially as there is nothing full frame that fits my
lenses.

The practical upshot of them not being "full frame" is to increase the
apparent focal length. If you shoot lots of wide-angle (as I suspect you
do, going by the photos on you site), I can see that would be a
disadvantage, and you'd probably have to fork out for one shorter lens. If
not, then I don't think it makes much practical difference.

What make do you have now? The Nikon D70 can be had for around 800 quid,
cheaper if you just want the body. And Canon have one for around the same
price. Still too much for me unfortunately.

--
Tim C.

Following up to Tim Challenger

The practical upshot of them not being "full frame" is to increase the
apparent focal length. If you shoot lots of wide-angle (as I suspect you
do, going by the photos on you site), I can see that would be a
disadvantage, and you'd probably have to fork out for one shorter lens. If
not, then I don't think it makes much practical difference.

I use 17mm and 24mm, so non full frame is not a great option,
requiring unfeasible lenses like 10mm!

What make do you have now? The Nikon D70 can be had for around 800 quid,
cheaper if you just want the body. And Canon have one for around the same
price. Still too much for me unfortunately.

Second hand Pentax P50 or was it 30? I just buy a new body when
the old one fails. Lenses I take more seriously.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Tim Challenger

The practical upshot of them not being "full frame" is to increase the
apparent focal length. If you shoot lots of wide-angle (as I suspect you
do, going by the photos on you site), I can see that would be a
disadvantage, and you'd probably have to fork out for one shorter lens. If
not, then I don't think it makes much practical difference.

I use 17mm and 24mm, so non full frame is not a great option,
requiring unfeasible lenses like 10mm!

What make do you have now? The Nikon D70 can be had for around 800 quid,
cheaper if you just want the body. And Canon have one for around the same
price. Still too much for me unfortunately.

Second hand Pentax P50 or was it 30? I just buy a new body when
the old one fails. Lenses I take more seriously.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:16:44 +0000, The Reids wrote:

Following up to Tim Challenger

The practical upshot of them not being "full frame" is to increase the
apparent focal length. If you shoot lots of wide-angle (as I suspect you
do, going by the photos on you site), I can see that would be a
disadvantage, and you'd probably have to fork out for one shorter lens. If
not, then I don't think it makes much practical difference.

I use 17mm and 24mm, so non full frame is not a great option,
requiring unfeasible lenses like 10mm!

I can see that would be a problem. :-( Pretty pricey to boot.
You could always put masking tape around the outer part of the objective.
;-)

What make do you have now? The Nikon D70 can be had for around 800 quid,
cheaper if you just want the body. And Canon have one for around the same
price. Still too much for me unfortunately.

Second hand Pentax P50 or was it 30? I just buy a new body when
the old one fails. Lenses I take more seriously.
Pantax do a model called *ist DS. Around US$800-900.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pentaxistds/page2.asp

I guess the lenses would fit. You won't get a Digital SLR for much less
than that at the moment. Prices are falling gradually though.



--
Tim C.

Following up to Tim Challenger

I can see that would be a problem. :-( Pretty pricey to boot.
You could always put masking tape around the outer part of the objective.
;-)

They have started making super wides for non full frame digitals,
but it seems back to front to me as super wides have problems of
their own, i'll wait till they cam make the sensors more cheaply,
we are still at the equiv. of 32Mbte hard drives in cameras.

What make do you have now? The Nikon D70 can be had for around 800 quid,
cheaper if you just want the body. And Canon have one for around the same
price. Still too much for me unfortunately.

Second hand Pentax P50 or was it 30? I just buy a new body when
the old one fails. Lenses I take more seriously.
Pantax do a model called *ist DS. Around US$800-900.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pentaxistds/page2.asp

I guess the lenses would fit. You won't get a Digital SLR for much less
than that at the moment. Prices are falling gradually though.

Without looking IIRC it isn't full frame, no doubt they will be
2-300 one day.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:38:42 +0100, wrote:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:33:20 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
. ..
Keith Willshaw writes:

They've come down a good bit. The 6.3 megapixel Canon EOS 300D
now sells for under £700 and uses the existing Canon EOS lenses

What happened to the 1Ds?


Nothing , they are available for around £3,300

Not a case of count the GBPs and the 1Ds will look after themselves

I like that one! :-)
--
Tim C.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:51:41 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Tim Challenger writes:

I could say "you", and you could define the word to mean "someone but not
me" if you like.

That is already one of its definitions.

Yes, as defined by you.
--
Tim C.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:48:31 GMT, devil wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:54:54 +0100, Tim Challenger wrote:

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:05:19 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Tim Challenger writes:

We're all over-emotional.

I'm not.

I was being sarcastic. But then you wouldn't know about that. My bad.

Why oh why don't you let Anthony show his emotions? Can't you see how
badly he needs to?

:-) All that lack of testosterone is getting him down.

--
Tim C.