Yet Another Cycling Forum
Random Musings => Gallery => Phototalk => Topic started by: LEE on 06 February, 2018, 11:09:02 pm
-
Any older digital cameras out there still going strong? Are you resisting the marketing hype to get that new, state of the art camera?
Since I bought a used 2005 Canon 5D "classic" recently I thought it may be of interest to report back. I was looking forward, to a 6D Mk2 or a 5D Mk4, when I started hearing that the amazing pro cameras of the past, like the original 5D, didn't suddenly become bad cameras. So I grabbed one, for <10% of the price of the latest 5D.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4757/39149393054_f883e6ec01_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22DuSBq) (https://flic.kr/p/22DuSBq)
The 5D is a 13Mp full frame but my "modern" 20Mp 6D is no spring-chicken any more (launched 2012). My S120 12Mp compact is from 2013 so I have a camera bag full of fairly old, in Digital Camera terms, technology.
I have to say that, when used correctly* at 100-400 ISO, the old 5D is perfectly good enough for my use (portraits, street & landscape).
*By correctly I mean you need to get your exposure spot on, it clearly doesn't support "pushing" an underexposed image very well, it gets noisy very quickly.
I'll throw some test shots up when I get time but it's clear that the 6D handles poor exposures a lot better, I'd estimate 2-3 stops better.
I certainly never worry about missing an exposure by 2 stops with the 6D.
I think I'd be happy to use the 5D to its 1600 max ISO in good lighting, for a portrait (You can expand it to 3200 but it's a bit grim) The noise looks like the grain I used to get when pushing FP4 to 1600 ISO (ASA) and I don't mind grain in a portrait.
I think I may default to shooting 3 bracketed images on the 5D, to make sure I nail the exposure.
Mainly though, it's a superb camera, built like a bloody tank and as close to an old 35mm film SLR as you can get (no video, no live-view, just a camera with a relatively limited ISO range). It makes you concentrate on taking a photos and getting it right.
Certainly it makes for a more than adequate backup to my 6D.
£260 for the body off of of Ebay. A Classic in the making.
My S120 on the other hand gets used less and less, as my Samsung Galaxy S7 is mostly good enough for the type of images I was taking with it*.
I won't sell it though, it's something of a classic (the Canon S series are built superbly well) itself.
*Like the photo of the cameras above.
-
Still using my Olympus E620. First picture taken was 2010
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4088/5173888321_9fe2b06a38.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/8TcwK4)Dance 1 (https://flic.kr/p/8TcwK4) by ian (https://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/), on Flickr
-
I've still got my Pentax K110D (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_K110D) (launched in 2006). It was very much the low end, and possibly one of the cheapest DSLRs ever produced. It's fine for most of my purposes, but a bit limited with flash and in low light. Not massive resolution, but I mostly view images on screen, and it has more pixels than my screen does.
I have a K30 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_K-30) as well now, which I use more often, and is itself not exactly the latest model.
I've also still got some ME Supers and a Super A. But I haven't used those for quite some time.
-
I sense a Photo-challenge. >10 year old Digital cameras only perhaps, to show that you can do this on the cheap, on Ebay bargains.
-
Our consumer level Sony Alpha 350 is ten years old this year. 14.2 MP aps-c sensor. The Samsung Galaxy S7 is our 'go to ' these days as we both have one and they are very convenient.
I'd be happy to join a 'challenge' though my contributions will be at the point, shoot, share end of the spectrum as I really don't do post image processing.
Ever wondered what a blind man sees?
-
My Y2K 1.3 Mp Olympus E-100RS still works, and I could even get the pics off it if I had a CF/SD adaptor. However, its old Smart Media card doesn't fit any of my readers and it can no longer communicate via its Neolithic USB interface.
This was taken in 2004:
(http://www.pbase.com/johnewing/image/145852954.jpg)
And this in 2014 with a Nikon 1 V1 and an 18-200 zoom
(http://www.pbase.com/johnewing/image/157265686.jpg)
-
I'm not into photography (like you guys), but I have a Canon Powershot A580 (http://www.cameras.co.uk/reviews/canon-powershot-a580.cfm) from 2010 and I'm very happy with it.
-
Still got the Olympus E500 I bought with some of my redundancy money in 2006 and it still works fine. Only 8MP but to be honest since we don't blow things up massively that's fine.
A nice simple SLR. The only thing I wish it had is a traditional split screen focusing screen so it was easier to use old non digital non autofocus lenses with it.
To be honest except for the fact that its quite big and my Fuji EXR300 was dying and had no viewfinder anyway (essential for Mrs Pcolbeck these days) I would not have bothered buying the Olympus E-10 I mainly use now ad the E500 was perfectly adequate.
We have a rule you cna only buy one expensive camera every 10 years or so, the one before the E500 was a Nikon Fsomething or other film SLR (its in the attic so I cant check) :)
-
This thread has just motivated me to order a replacement focusing screen for the E500 from China. It may or may not work but for £15 its worth a try.
-
My Y2K 1.3 Mp Olympus E-100RS still works, and I could even get the pics off it if I had a CF/SD adaptor. However, its old Smart Media card doesn't fit any of my readers and it can no longer communicate via its Neolithic USB interface.
This was taken in 2004:
(http://www.pbase.com/johnewing/image/145852954.jpg)
And this in 2014 with a Nikon 1 V1 and an 18-200 zoom
(http://www.pbase.com/johnewing/image/157265686.jpg)
10 years!! That's one annoying Moth.
-
My elder relatives get my cast-off cameras.
I sort of wish I'd kept my first, a Fuji Finepix 2.1Mp from 2001. It cost me £300 + £50 for a 256MB memory card !!! Significant cash.
Bloody awful now, bloody amazing at the time.
-
I'd even like to have my 8 Mp Panny TZ3 back. The lens was brilliant and the default JPEGs sparkled. I gave it to my daughter when I bought a TZ30, which I quickly came to detest.
-
I've got an Olympus C220 P&S from c.2002. 2MP, I think, and it takes a 128MB smart media card. It still gets used as a chuck-about-in-the-pool holiday camera in a waterproof bag. It runs on AA batteries so no proprietary battery to worry about.
-
I've still got my first digital cameras from around 1999.
https://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/compacts/fuji_mx1200
It still works (flash doesn't), only I don't know how to transfer from the smart media card to my pc. I used a 3.5 inch disk adaptor. I no longer have a pc with a disk drive, and none of my adaptors work with smartmedia.
-
I've still got my first digital cameras from around 1999.
https://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/compacts/fuji_mx1200
It still works (flash doesn't), only I don't know how to transfer from the smart media card to my pc. I used a 3.5 inch disk adaptor. I no longer have a pc with a disk drive, and none of my adaptors work with smartmedia.
Max resolution 1280 x 960
Other resolutions 640 x 480
640x480, just in case full resolution was too much and blew people's minds.
-
I also have one of those Fujis, was my first digital camera. Think it still works, though the screen broke years ago.
The lower resolution was useful if you wanted to fit more photos on a memory card. You could only get about 10 full resolution photos on the 2MB card.
-
Some of last night's testing with my 5D and 6D
The scene...(Canon 24-105 L set to 50mm)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4618/40101575412_dabaf03dfc_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/246D4fC)]
Here's a 6D crop. 100 ISO and good exposure under various artificial lights (White Balanced using white card you can see above)
You can click and zoom for more detail.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4665/40101577232_34a9b690f9_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/246D4N1)]
Here's the 5D equivalent. Apart from less detail from thw 13Mp sensor there's no difference. Totally acceptable.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4611/40101578952_9421fa7912_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/246D5iE)]
Here's a 6D at 1600 ISO and "pushed back" 3.7 stops of Ev. That's quite a test and it does pretty well. It's usable if you consider this is a tight crop. The full image seems fine.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4660/28353817019_892d30064a_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KcwHY8)]
And here's the same on the 5D...it's a mess. Pushing to the "extremes" is where 8 years of sensor tech has improved matters.
My attempts to use noise-reduction to remove the terrible amounts of noise have reduced detail significantly.
It may still be OK for a social media upload I suppose but it really pays to stick below 800 ISO and nail that exposure. There's hardly any room for errors.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4653/28353817429_2949a5962a_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/KcwJ6c)]
-
640x480, just in case full resolution was too much and blew people's minds.
It wasn’t too much (it wasn’t enough!), but how on earth would you store 1280×960 JPEGs?
I have a Nikon D60 in regular use as my main digital camera. It works as well as it did new, which is to say very well. It was one of the first cameras to solve the big problems of digital such as shutter lag, base-ISO noise (problematic in the otherwise ground-breaking EOS 5D as you note), speed of writing to card, speed of browsing images, speed of pixel-peeping to check focus, recording raw files, CCD blooming, etc.
Since then, little progress has been made in SLRs, the big ones being live view; read-out noise to the extent that that matters; and a larger, better display. Recently a variety of radios has been added but nothing useful is being done with them. The remaining SLR problems of a poor viewfinder, poor manual-focus aids, excessive complexity, lack of metadata such as GPS position, etc., remain or have worsened because no-one is interested in solving them.
-
In the early days of digital cameras they weren't so much an alternative to film for making high quality images, as they were a fast, convenient and cost-effective alternative to the faff of having to scan photographs (possibly Polaroids) to get them into a computer. In the days when a typical computer screen was 1024x768, 640x480 was plenty for an image on a webpage. (Indeed, isn't that the resolution that YACF limits embedded images to by default?)
And yes, flash memory was *expensive*. A typical memory card would store a number of images comparable to a roll of film.
I experct the limiting factor for keeping these older cameras useful is going to be compatibility with the storage medium / computer interface.
-
I've still got my first digital cameras from around 1999.
https://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/compacts/fuji_mx1200
It still works (flash doesn't), only I don't know how to transfer from the smart media card to my pc. I used a 3.5 inch disk adaptor. I no longer have a pc with a disk drive, and none of my adaptors work with smartmedia.
Max resolution 1280 x 960
Other resolutions 640 x 480
640x480, just in case full resolution was too much and blew people's minds.
Back in 1993 I wrote a prog to handle images grabbed from a digital videocam. IIRC they were 320 pixels wide and delivered in 256-colour PCX format. I had to write a library in assembler to pick them apart and toss them at the screen, using a 2-inch thick "EGA/VGA Bible" for inspiration.
And then the bloody client says "can you put 4 small ones up at once?" That's when I learnt all about RGB/CMY colour cubes and how to share a 256-colour palette among 4 images and get the colours of each approximately right.
-
The standard resolution on my first digital camera was 320×240 You could go extreme and get 640x480
-
Just remembered: I have a Fuji Finepix 610 (https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1631846933/fujifilmf610) somewhere. Battery life is measured in single frames! :o It took decent enough shots though.
-
The standard resolution on my first digital camera was 320×240
I think the TV News use them now, to pixelate the faces of victims.
-
I still have my first digital camera.
A Canon PowerShot A20 with a whole 2.1 Megapixels.
Bought in 2001 with a serious (for me) chunk of overtime.
Still works fine. I have a card reader which worked the last time I tried. It uses the big square Compact Flash cards.
-
Still using an Ixus that I bought in 2007 too. It need bog standard SD cards tho' and doesn't work with SDHC
-
I'm still using one of Pentax's first digital SLRs - the *ist D.
Memory is a Compact-flash card. :o
-
Compact Flash (ironically the least compact of all the flash memory) is still used in the latest high-end cameras.
I just bought 16Gb for the 5D. I like it, it's less susceptible to being carried away by an Ant than an SD card.
-
Just remembered: I have a Fuji Finepix 610 (https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1631846933/fujifilmf610) somewhere. Battery life is measured in single frames! :o It took decent enough shots though.
I've got a Fuji Finepix 2800 that I had before the Pentaxes I mentioned above. I still take it out occasionally when riding, because it's lighter and easier to stick in a saddlebag. I've never felt the need to replace it for that purpose.
-
Think I have a sony mavica somewhere. Stored photos on proprietary sony sticks or disc.
-
I just turned up an 8 Mb (yes, really Mb) CF card that was knocking about behind my monitor. My card reader can't see it, though.
Anyone ever have an IBM Microdrive? There was a time when the idea of having a whole gigabyte in the camera was thrilling.
-
Which was the last camera to have a CompactFlash Type II card slot?
-
Anyone ever have an IBM Microdrive? There was a time when the idea of having a whole gigabyte in the camera was thrilling.
I remember giving two of them to Valiant when my camera that used them (Olympus E20) wore out.
-
I'm loving the 5D & 40mm f/2.8 "pancake" combination out on the street*
It's a properly sharp lens (click to enlarge). Yes, the 13Mp sensor lacks detail if you crop too much but if you frame carefully and expose correctly, it's still a winning combination.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4610/25279284987_3095c99747_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EvQWHa)]
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4651/26277917458_9218a7038c_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/G36cmo)]
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4661/40118922082_fd3783b719_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/248aXP9)]
* The mean streets of Winchester.
-
I have a Sony DSC P71 from 2002. It still works, with the exception of forgetting the date, time and next file name whenever the batteries are changed.
I suspect there is a dead battery that powers the RTC.
-
I have a Sony DSC P71 from 2002. It still works, with the exception of forgetting the date, time and next file name whenever the batteries are changed.
I suspect there is a dead battery that powers the RTC.
Let's see some images...get out there.
-
OK, Photo Challenge now started.
Post NEW photos from your >10 year old gear. That's 2008 cameras, 2007 cameras..but nothing 2009 or newer*
The challenge is finding batteries and adapters to squeeze a few final moments of glory from that old hardware and prove that it can still hack it.
*2009 is "the modern age" as far as Digital Cameras are concerned. Canon Launched the 5D Mk2 in 2008, 21Mp and 1080p video (used for TV). That really moved the bar up to the point where any camera newer than that was really capable of good results.
-
I'm planning on getting a few more years of service from my Nikon D3s. Fuck megapixels, anyway.
-
I'm still getting good service from the D80. As long as I am shooting at iso 400 or lower (pref iso 200)
-
I'm planning on getting a few more years of service from my Nikon D3s. Fuck megapixels, anyway.
Assuming your LEL portraits are done using a D3 I don't see any reason to upgrade.
Interestingly the good condition ones retail at around £650 now. That's a hell of a good reason for Nikon users to pick one up.
I'm still loving the 5D. This was shot at 400 ISO and it holds together well, although I was careful to get the exposure spot on. I pushed the shadows a little and added some contrast but nothing extreme. As many people have reported over the years the noise comes across as pleasing "grain". I'll try and test that out at the extremes.
Click to zoom
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4766/39573269944_fed136512f_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23hXmrE)]
-
Big Tom taken on my trusty compact IXUS 70 purchased in 2007.
(https://scontent.flhr2-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/27993431_1078783755594582_6435225080532496740_o.jpg?oh=6d71b7c2bce7adb6c26fc33a59679113&oe=5B09D0A4)
-
I'm planning on getting a few more years of service from my Nikon D3s. Fuck megapixels, anyway.
Quite. DP Review went into dithyrambs when Nikon brought out the D1x (or maybe D1s) with a whole 2.7 Mp. The FFCT glossy mag used to require "at least" 4 or 5 Mp for a full-page shot. Current resolution levels are wondrous, but away beyond anything I'll ever need.
I wonder where I put my old D40???
-
A 2Mp camera is close enough to HD to fill a 1080p x 1920 screen without a real problem (which is saying it's enough for the majority of TVs and Computer monitors in the Western World).
Clearly you have almost no option to crop into a 2Mp image without it looking bad very quickly but, if you frame the shot well and don't crop, you can happily print a 10x8* in my experience.
*When viewed from an appropriate distance.
This is a key part of the whole image sharpness/detail equation and there are formulas to calculate how far you should view images from, depending upon the pixel count and the printing resolution (pixels per inch).
Billboards are incredibly low-resolution but appear pin-sharp when viewed from the correct distance.
Get it right in the viewfinder, rather than relying on cropping later, and 7Mp and above seems more than adequate*
* I just looked back at some of my 7Mp Canon S70 images and you can crop quite a lot.
I wonder just how many people actually test the limits of modern camera sensors of 24Mp and greater.
Here's a 7Mp image from my old S70 and a fairly substantial crop into it. The crop would make a perfectly acceptable 10x8 or more(you can zoom into it)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4605/39405751745_8fd42d810b_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2339M7R)]
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4602/25431947477_025ccd857f_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EKknX4)]
The drawback with these older cameras isn't the lower pixel count, it's the speed that they tend to operate, poor low-light ability and poor dynamic range.
They force you to get everything spot on...which is no bad thing.
Opinions??
-
And the rubbish battery life.
My canon A620 still works fine. It takes perfectly respectable photos for something with those optics, and being a Canon you can run third-party firmware that gives you Proper Camera features. The weakness is that it's bulky, gnashes its way through 4 AA batteries, and faffing around with SD cards in order to use a camera that, in decent light, is only marginally better than my phone is inconvenient. I only usually get it out because, unlike my phone/tablet, it's got a tripod mount and a flash.
But, as a way to arbitrarily restrict yourself so you actually think about composition etc, then most of these seem to be a reasonable halfway point between current cameras and film.
-
Never forget that dropping a 10 year-old compact camera has less of a financial impact than dropping a modern Smartphone.
The Apple iPhone X is £959 (I had to double check that was correct) whereas a rather wonderful "classic" Canon S100 is most likely 10% of that on Ebay (and, with a wrist strap, less droppable).
-
Never forget that dropping a 10 year-old compact camera has less of a financial impact than dropping a modern Smartphone.
Which makes them the cyclist's friend. Assuming they're reasonably compact and aren't battery hogs.
-
Even if you don't drop it, the Canon will still die with a "lens error".
-
Even if you don't drop it, the Canon will still die with a "lens error".
Never had that error in 15 years of Canons
-
OK, Photo Challenge now started.
Post NEW photos from your >10 year old gear. That's 2008 cameras, 2007 cameras..but nothing 2009 or newer*
The challenge is finding batteries and adapters to squeeze a few final moments of glory from that old hardware and prove that it can still hack it.
Not old enough to be a challenge IMO, for example this:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4710/39306872035_29ac7d3141_z.jpg)
was taken last Sunday on a 2006 Casio EX-Z70. Great little pocket sized camera, I use it all the time. I was gutted a few weeks ago when it got switched on in my work bag, the lens got pushed and it became unusable (lens error). Fortunately iFixit has a tear down so I did last time I was home, all it needed was to manually retract the lens and reassemble it. Battery life is still great, the 2Mb card in it pops straight into this laptop or the desktop at home.
Our digital before that was also a casio but that one ran on 4xAA. A new set would start to go flat as you opened the packet, be half gone as you shut the door on the camera and drained in 5 shots, less if you used flash. We've probably still got it knowing us, I won't be digging it out.
-
Even if you don't drop it, the Canon will still die with a "lens error".
My first IXUS 70 did indeed die of a lens error at 6 weeks.
Amazon replaced it and the replacement has worked faultlessly since late summer 2007.
-
My old 2006 D40 can still hack it:
(http://www.pbase.com/image/167015683.jpg)
ISO 800, no less, and my lovely 70-300 Tamron at the short end. Then we got indoors again, bloody quickly.
I love this wee camera: it's always been very obliging in a good-doggie sort of way (cynomorphism). I bought it in 2009 at about half price after Nikon discontinued them, and used it on cycling shoots as a "no great loss" camera. Only fly in the soup: I used the strap temporarily on an electric uke that I subsequently gave away without thinking, strap and all. :facepalm:
-
My old 2006 D40 can still hack it:
From Ken Rockwell:
Make Huge Prints! If you're good, you can blow up the images from the D40 without limit. I've made great 20x30" prints from my D40. More pixels doesn't help: holding the camera still does. Your skill as a photographer is more important than your choice of camera.
-
A lot of folk disparage KR, but I've always enjoyed his stuff. If your quotation is from article I think it is, it was the reason I bought my D40.
Re holding the camera still, the stabilization in that Tamron 70-300 is so rock-steady you practically have to wrench it off-target.
-
Where do old camera chargers disappear too?
-
Where do old camera chargers disappear too?
The cupboard our TV is sat on apparently. Its full of them.
-
A lot of folk disparage KR, but I've always enjoyed his stuff. If your quotation is from article I think it is, it was the reason I bought my D40.
Re holding the camera still, the stabilization in that Tamron 70-300 is so rock-steady you practically have to wrench it off-target.
Rockwell has a reputation for keeping the manufacturers "sweet" and never finding many flaws in the gear he reviews.
However I find that he speaks a lot of sense because, as we are discussing on this thread, most gear is bloody amazing, more amazing than the capabilities of the photographer in most cases.
I'm getting very tired of some of the other "famous" reviewers now, fawning over the latest and greatest cameras and making out that even cameras from the last 2 years are now redundant.
Yes the latest cameras as incredible pieces of technology, huge dynamic range, low noise at silly ISO values, and so on and so on. But the differences can only be seen at the very extremes, and under very close scrutiny.
All of this is fine for me because I still crave a good old Canon 5D Mk3 and they are getting cheaper on Ebay by the day. A bomb-proof tank of a camera with image quality good enough for thousands of Pros over the last 6 years or so.
-
I disparage Ken Rockwell because many of his 'reviews' really aren't (he just regurgitates press releases and other third-party info in his own template) and his pictures are technically proficient, tedious, over-saturated postcards. Often the case with photo geeks who review gear, unfortunately. There's definitely a reviewer aesthetic. When not photographing the sides of buildings (FFS) to prove some marginal unimportant talking point, it's long exposure scenics with garish colours never found in reality. Or gimmicky, Strobist-approved studio portraits carefully engineered to avoid revealing any hint of personality in the model.
And where are the reviewers who'll try to explain what its actually like to use a piece of kit in practice? If you're lucky they'll throw in a sentence (mis)using the word 'ergonomics' and pretend they've said something meaningful. There's a reason digital cameras are still awkward rectangular bricks.
Anyhow, if you like his stuff, then take KR's advice. I generally try to pay more attention to photographers whose work I admire . The problem with that is they tend to be too busy taking pictures to pontificate online about the latest kit.
And I'm really not sure this stuff is doing his credibility any good...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nm/aliens/index.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/analprobe/about.htm
(And I'll never forgive him for his obliviously daft 'review' of the Nikon 45mm AI-P. So there.)
</rant>
-
I generally try to pay more attention to photographers whose work I admire . The problem with that is they tend to be too busy taking pictures to pontificate online about the latest kit.
It's a valid point and, by definition, they will be using "old" gear and not a Nikon D850.
I like my gear to have proved itself for a couple of years, it takes me ages before I commit to buying stuff (so long-term tests are what I gravitate to).
This always means I own "old" gear and hence why I'm looking at a Canon 5D. I think it's fair to say it's established itself.
OK, my 13 year old 5D "classic" is a bit extreme but I bought that with a specific purpose, of going back to basics.
-
I have a Canon G2 whose JPEG image quality astounds me when I consider that the camera has a 4MP imaging sensor.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/cPMAAOSw7JxdUXes/s-l1600.jpg)
An f2 lens (and f2.5 at tele) is still remarkable on a compact camera. When I consider what Olympus and Nikon were offering at the time, the G2 must have seemed capable of magic.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/GU8AAOSwZqpdUXez/s-l1600.jpg)
I didn't see equivalent image quality from Canon's next three G series models. (G3 had a longer lens that wasn't so well suited to the sensor, G5 had noise issues, G6 had purple fringing issues).
-
I still run the EOS 400D (thanks Torslanda) now and again, bulletproof reliabilty, great sidearm to the 60D
-
I'm still using my Panasonic Lumix LX3, 10 yrs on! In the last couple of years it's taken a bit of a convenience back seat in favour of my MotoG5, but I'm still using in locations when I want quality. Not great in low light (unless well supported), but in good light quality is superb, even with the small sensor. I may at some point move to large sensor compact, but with it being a bit of a 'classic' probably won't part with it...
Flickr album... Pick of my LX3 bunch (https://www.flickr.com/photos/25983110@N05/albums/72157622781596412) from 2009-2017
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48600904926_86b0e4c307.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h3GkNE)P1320869-e2 (https://flic.kr/p/2h3GkNE) by ao (https://www.flickr.com/photos/25983110@N05/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/2804/4038631778_4e90bd2a2e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/79T3wo)P1020403 (https://flic.kr/p/79T3wo) by ao (https://www.flickr.com/photos/25983110@N05/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/3042/3996386706_c95baa6560.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/769wx5)P1010208 (https://flic.kr/p/769wx5) by ao (https://www.flickr.com/photos/25983110@N05/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48601043217_19c0581839.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h3H3UZ)P1280048 (https://flic.kr/p/2h3H3UZ) by ao (https://www.flickr.com/photos/25983110@N05/), on Flickr
-
I'm still using my Panasonic Lumix LX3, 10 yrs on! In the last couple of years it's taken a bit of a convenience back seat in favour of my MotoG5, but I'm still using in locations when I want quality. Not great in low light (unless well supported), but in good light quality is superb, even with the small sensor. I may at some point move to large sensor compact, but with it being a bit of a 'classic' probably won't part with it...
Flickr album... Pick of my LX3 bunch (https://www.flickr.com/photos/25983110@N05/albums/72157622781596412) from 2009-2017
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48600904926_86b0e4c307.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h3GkNE)P1320869-e2 (https://flic.kr/p/2h3GkNE) by ao (https://www.flickr.com/photos/25983110@N05/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/2804/4038631778_4e90bd2a2e.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/79T3wo)P1020403 (https://flic.kr/p/79T3wo) by ao (https://www.flickr.com/photos/25983110@N05/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/3042/3996386706_c95baa6560.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/769wx5)P1010208 (https://flic.kr/p/769wx5) by ao (https://www.flickr.com/photos/25983110@N05/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48601043217_19c0581839.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h3H3UZ)P1280048 (https://flic.kr/p/2h3H3UZ) by ao (https://www.flickr.com/photos/25983110@N05/), on Flickr
Your Mt Blanc/Chamonix photo, in my opinion, proves that you don't need to lug a 40kg wooden tripod, bellows, and 10x8 glass plates around on your holidays any more.
I suspect that the only reason Ansel Adams did so was the shortage of Sony A7iii cameras in the shops.
-
:) The LX3 has a well implemented mode called "Dynamic B&W" (red filter effect) used on that Chamonix pic. One can always desaturate in pp, but the camera screen* displays in B&W and helps one focus on the composition. The only downside is that the raw file has a colour cast (correctable in Lightroom).
In good light the cropability of the image is not bad at all, for a smallish 10MP sensor.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49694425451_98c5662ce4.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iHjVmP)P1280048-002 (https://flic.kr/p/2iHjVmP) by ao (https://www.flickr.com/photos/145942400@N06/), on Flickr
* assuming that the image on the screen is visible, can be tricky in sunny conditions...
-
Well what fun!
I just dragged the old Olympus E500 out and swapped the focus screen for a traditional split screen style one. That was much easier than anticipated. The stuck on orginal analogue OM 50mm prime lens on using and adaptor ring. Works great ! I now have lovely bokeh!
Autofocus doesn't work of course (hence the split screen mod) nor does shutter speed priority but aperture priority does, just set the aperture on the lens and the camera will work out the shutter speed. Full manual works too.
Now to find a prime telephoto at a reasonable price for bird shots.
-
I bought an Olympus 135mm from eBay for a few quid for that very purpose. Works a treat with an inexpensive adapter.
So the E500 is 4/3? I'm not sure how that differs from micro 4/3. I'm guessing not mirrorless?
-
Exactly right. Its a traditional SLR with a sensor that's smaller than a full frame DSLR. Hence why I got a manual split focus screen.
Micro 4/3 uses the same sensor standard but does away with the mirror. Micro 4/3 also uses a different auto focusing system I think.
-
I just ordered a 135mm F3.5 from eBay to play with as well. That should be about 270mm on 4/3rds.
-
This photo was taken in my back garden with a Lumix GF1 (even quite old itself at the time) with an Olympus 135mm f3.5 lens. The focus isn't perfect but it shows the potential.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/532/18608846076_07f4044c61_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/umpcBJ)
P1000952 (https://flic.kr/p/umpcBJ) by pencyclist (https://www.flickr.com/photos/38357939@N02/), on Flickr
-
I may have to break out the tripod. I have shaky hands (a genetic trait inherited from my Dad and my Grandad before him) and there is no antishake with these old lenses on the E500.
-
Very wise. My current camera (Lumix G80) has IBIS so it's less of an issue. Focus peaking too, which helps.
-
The 135mm F3.5 arrived this morning. It came with a free Miranda skylight filter that wasn't listed in the eBay sale - which was nice. Perfect nick £40. Prime lenses for these prices ace.
Gave it a quick try. I really need that adaptor that does focus confirm :)
Managed to get a couple of shots just about in focus and they suggest that its going to be a promising lens to use.
If it all works out well I might get an adaptor for the OMD-EM10 II as well. Might be a bit easier to use as its mirror-less.
Macro lens for bugs next I guess. Any suggestions form the OM range that are cheapish ?
-
Macro lens for bugs next I guess. Any suggestions form the OM range that are cheapish ?
A nifty-fifty mounted in reverse.
-
If it all works out well I might get an adaptor for the OMD-EM10 II as well. Might be a bit easier to use as its mirror-less.
Does the focus peaking still work with legacy lenses?
-
Does the focus peaking still work with legacy lenses?
Yes (at least on the 2 Lumix cameras that I've had that have this feature).
-
...there is no antishake with these old lenses on the E500.
I fancy trying an E300 (https://assets.pcmag.com/media/images/91204-olympus-evolt-e300.jpg?width=333&height=245). That was the model with no SLR 'mirror hump' because they put the mirror to the left of the lens which then allowed them to move the viewfinder to the left, (meaning you could take photos with both eyes open). The resulting body shape probably makes the camera easier to stow in a bag. The E300 didn't sell well as they were too 'different'.
-
Does the focus peaking still work with legacy lenses?
Yes (at least on the 2 Lumix cameras that I've had that have this feature).
Thanks, I've been playing with the focus peaking and manual focus and am now scouring ebay for an appropriate lens and adapter.
-
Just won a Miranda 70-210mm f4.5 Macro from eBay for £6.50. Not a prime but worth a play with at that price.
-
That takes me back. I had Miranda K-mount stuff when I first started. I'm still on K-mount DSLRs now. In fact I'll still have the film stuff and various lenses in a bag.
-
Well the chipped adaptor arrived from China. Cant get it to do anything more than the dumb adapter did, no focus confirm at all :(
Meanwhile a dumb adaptor for the OM-D EM10 II arrived. That works really well! In body stabilisation, focus peaking and magnification through the EVF as well. Much easier. The whole setup even looks like an analogue OM 4 for added cool.
I'd still like to get the E500 working with old lenses better though as I would be tempted to take it out where I might worry about the OM-D, 8 mega pixels is still pretty good for most things and its a nice handling body even if its old and butt ugly.
-
The 135 is excellent for birds in the garden. Been practising with it and a squirrel even turned up to add to the fun. When I find the USB lead that fits the camera I'll post some pics.
-
Here we go. Some first efforts. These are unprocessed JPGs straight out of the camera except for the poppy which I clicked enhance in an old version of Shotwell. All shot with an Olympus 135mm F3.5 prime.
I need to practice focusing quicker and play with some different photo software but I am pleased with the way these old lenses work on the EM10. Much more fun than the kit auto focus zooms and I think the pictures look different as well.
(https://user.fm/files/v2-632de00de154ddd95e1eda63be3ba306/P1010133.JPG)
(https://user.fm/files/v2-d19541c009a4c014023daf1072e56fcf/P1010138.JPG)
(https://user.fm/files/v2-03be6e78dd71a803488c0fb4e63a8c51/P1010147.JPG)
(https://user.fm/files/v2-b92611e34bf70ce7c76004eb9b854afb/P1010148.JPG)
-
I'm still using my entry level Pentax K100D Super dslr from 2007.
-
See my comment (third post in the thread) about my K110D. Although I accidentally got a K70 as well, so the K110D is rather disused now.
The full story is that I left the K30 and some other kit, my passport included :o in a café in Köln HBf. I was rather upset. My wife kindly bought the K70 as a replacement for my birthday :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Then, several months later, the café owner got in touch to return my bag, K30 included :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
I really don't take enough photos to justify two bodies, let alone three, but nor would I consider selling them ::-)
-
My Pentax K100D Super is the newest "big" camera I've got and I use that mainly for "product photography" (flogging stuff on Ebay). I bought an even older Pentax ist DS body a couple of years ago as a back up, about £20, but I haven't used it much.