digital fever and other diseases

I've read a number of posts requesting opinions on various lenses to use with your new D30's. That was after reading all the posts from

those desperately seeking the camera. Probably related to the kids standing in line to get the new Playstation.

A lot of you are contemplating buying non-Canon lenses, or if Canon, then the slow zooms. I say, spend the money on good lenses first,

then get the camera. Money spent on lenses will definitely improve your pictures; money spent on the camera will just get them into your
computer faster.

Ladies and gentlemen, you're looking at spending over $4k for a camera to shoot snapshots. If the point of the exercise is to improve your

pictures, then spend the $4k on pro lenses, an A2 body, and photo CD processing. You'll get MUCH better results.

If you are not experienced photographers, you're wasting your money on a $3k body which entails a steep learning curve and a large time

commitment for every frame you shoot. Think about it. To shoot film requires a couple of minutes filling out the film processing envelope.

To shoot digital requires hours working in Photoshop (oops, there's another $600, cause there's absolutely no reason to spend that kind of

money on a camera without having Photoshop,) to archive and tweak each image and then hours more to print them out. It's expensive in
both time and money.

So if you can't afford another $3k in lenses, plus Photoshop, plus computer upgrades to handle the load, you should think twice about
buying a D30. Is it worth it?

Hi Chuck, I don't know who told you that the learning curve on digital cameras is steep. Nothing could be further from the truth. Being able to view your picture immediately after taking it gives immediate feedback that results in better pictures almost at once. As for Photoshop, the beginner can just get Adobe's PhotoDeluxe which allows a beginner to print out great pictures with very little effort.

First time digital camera users find the process quite easy.

Of course, why would a beginner be spending $3000 for a camera body or $1500 for a lens. That doesn't make much sense. I think most users of Phil's Forums are not rank beginners but rather photographers who may not know all the jargon but want to move their picture taking up to the next notch.

I'm still not sure why you seem so upset by this and give advice that they should spend the $4000 but then turn it over to the corner drugstore and just accept whatever they end up with as the best their photographic talent can achieve. Doesn't mak much sense to me.

Roger

Chuck Fadely said:

I've read a number of posts requesting opinions on various lenses
to use with your new D30's. That was after reading all the posts
from
those desperately seeking the camera. Probably related to the kids
standing in line to get the new Playstation.

A lot of you are contemplating buying non-Canon lenses, or if
Canon, then the slow zooms. I say, spend the money on good lenses
first,
then get the camera. Money spent on lenses will definitely improve
your pictures; money spent on the camera will just get them into
your
computer faster.

Ladies and gentlemen, you're looking at spending over $4k for a
camera to shoot snapshots. If the point of the exercise is to
improve your
pictures, then spend the $4k on pro lenses, an A2 body, and photo
CD processing. You'll get MUCH better results.

If you are not experienced photographers, you're wasting your money
on a $3k body which entails a steep learning curve and a large time
commitment for every frame you shoot. Think about it. To shoot
film requires a couple of minutes filling out the film processing
envelope.
To shoot digital requires hours working in Photoshop (oops, there's
another $600, cause there's absolutely no reason to spend that kind
of
money on a camera without having Photoshop,) to archive and tweak
each image and then hours more to print them out. It's expensive in
both time and money.

So if you can't afford another $3k in lenses, plus Photoshop, plus
computer upgrades to handle the load, you should think twice about
buying a D30. Is it worth it?

Click to expand...

Chuck -

If you are not really interested in this answer, please disregard.

I am only answering for myself and not trying to speak for anyone else who frequents this forum.

Short answer "Yes, to me it is worth it."

Long answer: Imaging is a long standing passion, fueled by Desk Top Publishing. I learned a lesson on that front. All the cheap image editors I purchased before PS were a waste of money because I pushed them to their limits, then got frustrated, finally bit the bullet, and have been been happily growing with Photoshop/Illustrator ever since.

I have hit the same point of frustration with my P&S Mustec (1mp). I can't "afford" to spend $1k on a 3 mp one lense camera, because I will get frustrated and want more. By purchasing the D30 I am buying into a whole system of limitless possibilities - and all the money I put into lenses will not be lost when 6MP or more are common.

There is a lot of buzz about digital providing instant gratification (often used in a perjorative sense.) Consider this - digital is the perfect way to learn something as rich as SLR photogrphy because it provides instant FEEDBACK. You can sort out which of the many variables caused your image to be not what you imagined. I am a music teacher - this is how we educate our young violinists, helping them repeat their successes and eliminate their errors.

This is not meant to be argumentative. It is something I have given a great deal of thought to before committing most of my discretionary income for this year to the D30 system I am building.

If you are a contented film photographer, I admire your ability and wish you well. Thanks for your thought provoking comment.

Sharon Nicolia

Chuck Fadely said:

I've read a number of posts requesting opinions on various lenses
to use with your new D30's. That was after reading all the posts
from
those desperately seeking the camera. Probably related to the kids
standing in line to get the new Playstation.

A lot of you are contemplating buying non-Canon lenses, or if
Canon, then the slow zooms. I say, spend the money on good lenses
first,
then get the camera. Money spent on lenses will definitely improve
your pictures; money spent on the camera will just get them into
your
computer faster.

Ladies and gentlemen, you're looking at spending over $4k for a
camera to shoot snapshots. If the point of the exercise is to
improve your
pictures, then spend the $4k on pro lenses, an A2 body, and photo
CD processing. You'll get MUCH better results.

If you are not experienced photographers, you're wasting your money
on a $3k body which entails a steep learning curve and a large time
commitment for every frame you shoot. Think about it. To shoot
film requires a couple of minutes filling out the film processing
envelope.
To shoot digital requires hours working in Photoshop (oops, there's
another $600, cause there's absolutely no reason to spend that kind
of
money on a camera without having Photoshop,) to archive and tweak
each image and then hours more to print them out. It's expensive in
both time and money.

So if you can't afford another $3k in lenses, plus Photoshop, plus
computer upgrades to handle the load, you should think twice about
buying a D30. Is it worth it?

Click to expand...

for 7 rolls of slidefilm processing and photo cd you spend (@ B&H) ca. $200 for this 7 rolls it self you would spend $35 (velvia) or $50 (provira 1600 if you like lowlights).lets say apx. $35 per roll ! that would mean that the $3500 for the camera + microdrive are paid back after 100 rolls (apx. what i shout in the last half year and i saved on film) and PhotoShop would you need anyway if you want to tread you pictures digital and I do it (going to do it), with all of my pictures. To by a scanner and scan all the pictures at home (scanner at least $500) you have got a hard job to do (one roll takes altogether almost an hour) or you buy the Nikon LS2000 with autofeeder for apx. $2000 and still need to scan you pictures. I really think that the extramoney you spend buying a digital body will be soon paid back. And by the way, I never (only for some posters in my room) made any print of my slides, I scanned them and use them mostly at the computer. That's easy and fast.

Marko

PS: even if you only count the film and processing (ca. $10) you would only nead 300 rolls to get payed back.

Chuck Fadely said:

I've read a number of posts requesting opinions on various lenses
to use with your new D30's. That was after reading all the posts
from
those desperately seeking the camera. Probably related to the kids
standing in line to get the new Playstation.

A lot of you are contemplating buying non-Canon lenses, or if
Canon, then the slow zooms. I say, spend the money on good lenses
first,
then get the camera. Money spent on lenses will definitely improve
your pictures; money spent on the camera will just get them into
your
computer faster.

Ladies and gentlemen, you're looking at spending over $4k for a
camera to shoot snapshots. If the point of the exercise is to
improve your
pictures, then spend the $4k on pro lenses, an A2 body, and photo
CD processing. You'll get MUCH better results.

If you are not experienced photographers, you're wasting your money
on a $3k body which entails a steep learning curve and a large time
commitment for every frame you shoot. Think about it. To shoot
film requires a couple of minutes filling out the film processing
envelope.
To shoot digital requires hours working in Photoshop (oops, there's
another $600, cause there's absolutely no reason to spend that kind
of
money on a camera without having Photoshop,) to archive and tweak
each image and then hours more to print them out. It's expensive in
both time and money.

So if you can't afford another $3k in lenses, plus Photoshop, plus
computer upgrades to handle the load, you should think twice about
buying a D30. Is it worth it?

Click to expand...

My point is that
given a finite number of dollars, your pictures will be better for an investment

in all the other stuff that goes along with a serious camera: good, fast lenses,
off-camera strobes, and most importantly, the investment in time required to
become proficient in their use.

If one has limited funds, it makes more sense to use photo-cd processing from
your local drugstore and tweak/print/email the ones you like. Spend the money

you save on equipment. Of course, if you spend $3K a year on processing, by all means

get the digital. If you can't do something without the digital, get it. If it pays for itself,
get it.

But if you're an avid or would-be photographer concerned about getting nice pictures,
maybe an expensive body hooked to a cheap lens is a poor investment.

Sure the camera is easy to pick up and shoot with. The Polaroid-on-every-shot factor

is one of the strongest arguments for buying it. But if you haven't struggled with output

color calibration, system crashes, archiving, dead batteries, electronic noise, corrupted files
and viruses, your learning curve has been gentle.

I'm sorry if I sounded upset. I'm not. But I am amazed that someone would spend that

kind of money without also getting good quality accessories. I'm a professional who has

used digital cameras for many years. I'm excited by the D30 because it gives great results

at an attractive price. But it is only as good as the lenses on the front and the photographer
behind. Especially the second part.

Chuck

(speaking of learning curves, how do I deal with the funky word wrap here? Mac/Netscape on my end.)

Roger Levit said:

First time digital camera users find the process quite easy.

Of course, why would a beginner be spending $3000 for a camera body
or $1500 for a lens. That doesn't make much sense. I think most
users of Phil's Forums are not rank beginners but rather
photographers who may not know all the jargon but want to move
their picture taking up to the next notch.

I'm still not sure why you seem so upset by this and give advice
that they should spend the $4000 but then turn it over to the
corner drugstore and just accept whatever they end up with as the
best their photographic talent can achieve. Doesn't mak much sense
to me.

Roger

Chuck Fadely said:

I've read a number of posts requesting opinions on various lenses
to use with your new D30's. That was after reading all the posts
from
those desperately seeking the camera. Probably related to the kids
standing in line to get the new Playstation.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Some very good points made so far (i'm the 5th in this line). Yes, what is the point of

buying a $3000 semi-pro/pro body and getting 2nd rate lenses? No point. At least get the

faster glass stuff (f2.8 etc). Those lenses (even non-Canon brand) tend to be made better.

Digital is a great way to learn. I'm using it for just that reason instead of spending a ton

more money on an art school (wish I had rich parents or a trust fund!!!). Personally, I like

the "look and feel" of film better. I think the D30 is going to help me learn with the instant

feedback factor and satisfy my quality standards (at least for the learning process). FYI, I

have been shooting for a while. I want to learn MORE AND MORE AND MORE!!! I like this
stuff.

Good luck, and have fun!

--Teymoor--
We are analog beings, seeing and hearing REAL sights and sounds. When i become a
computer, only then will digital be better than film. (I can't wait).

Chuck Fadely said:

I've read a number of posts requesting opinions on various lenses
to use with your new D30's. That was after reading all the posts
from
those desperately seeking the camera. Probably related to the kids
standing in line to get the new Playstation.

A lot of you are contemplating buying non-Canon lenses, or if
Canon, then the slow zooms. I say, spend the money on good lenses
first,
then get the camera. Money spent on lenses will definitely improve
your pictures; money spent on the camera will just get them into
your
computer faster.

Ladies and gentlemen, you're looking at spending over $4k for a
camera to shoot snapshots. If the point of the exercise is to
improve your
pictures, then spend the $4k on pro lenses, an A2 body, and photo
CD processing. You'll get MUCH better results.

If you are not experienced photographers, you're wasting your money
on a $3k body which entails a steep learning curve and a large time
commitment for every frame you shoot. Think about it. To shoot
film requires a couple of minutes filling out the film processing
envelope.
To shoot digital requires hours working in Photoshop (oops, there's
another $600, cause there's absolutely no reason to spend that kind
of
money on a camera without having Photoshop,) to archive and tweak
each image and then hours more to print them out. It's expensive in
both time and money.

So if you can't afford another $3k in lenses, plus Photoshop, plus
computer upgrades to handle the load, you should think twice about
buying a D30. Is it worth it?

Click to expand...

This is the kind of discussion I was hoping to provoke -- I'm trying to get
people to think about the commitment they're making when they jump into
this digital stuff.

You're obviously both computer savvy and visually literate. A perfect person
to have one of the high-end cameras. The analogy to desktop publishing is
a good one. Lets say you spend XX thousand dollars on your desktop publishing
equipment -- a drum scanner, high end programs, 21" monitor, etc. But if your
only form of output is a dot-matrix printer, what's the point? If you spend

untold hours putting together poorly-designed pages with unreadable type that no one wants to

look at, what's the point? If your publication is filled with typos, bad grammar,

horrible illustrations, and bad reproduction, what's the point? (Oops, that sort
of describes the place I work. I take that one back.)

Anyway, I'll climb another step higher on the soapbox here: Sure, if the camera is worth it

to you, buy it. But if you're going to spend that much, also make a commitment to learning

photography along the way. Buying zooms to cover every millimeter from 17 to 400 won't make

you a better photographer. (Especially if they're crummy zooms.) I'll start another debate here:

I say that a photographer who shoots a thousand pictures with only one lens will become a

better photographer than one who shoots a thousand pictures through a dozen different ones.

chuck

Sharon Nicolia said:

If you are not really interested in this answer, please disregard.
I am only answering for myself and not trying to speak for anyone
else who frequents this forum.

Short answer "Yes, to me it is worth it."
Long answer: Imaging is a long standing passion, fueled by Desk Top
Publishing. I learned a lesson on that front. All the cheap image
editors I purchased before PS were a waste of money because I
pushed them to their limits, then got frustrated, finally bit the
bullet, and have been been happily growing with
Photoshop/Illustrator ever since.

I have hit the same point of frustration with my P&S Mustec (1mp).
I can't "afford" to spend $1k on a 3 mp one lense camera, because I
will get frustrated and want more. By purchasing the D30 I am
buying into a whole system of limitless possibilities - and all the
money I put into lenses will not be lost when 6MP or more are
common.

There is a lot of buzz about digital providing instant
gratification (often used in a perjorative sense.) Consider this -
digital is the perfect way to learn something as rich as SLR
photogrphy because it provides instant FEEDBACK. You can sort out
which of the many variables caused your image to be not what you
imagined. I am a music teacher - this is how we educate our young
violinists, helping them repeat their successes and eliminate their
errors.

This is not meant to be argumentative. It is something I have
given a great deal of thought to before committing most of my
discretionary income for this year to the D30 system I am building.

If you are a contented film photographer, I admire your ability and
wish you well. Thanks for your thought provoking comment.

Sharon Nicolia

Chuck Fadely said:

I've read a number of posts requesting opinions on various lenses
to use with your new D30's. That was after reading all the posts
from
those desperately seeking the camera. Probably related to the kids
standing in line to get the new Playstation.

A lot of you are contemplating buying non-Canon lenses, or if
Canon, then the slow zooms. I say, spend the money on good lenses
first,
then get the camera. Money spent on lenses will definitely improve
your pictures; money spent on the camera will just get them into
your
computer faster.

Ladies and gentlemen, you're looking at spending over $4k for a
camera to shoot snapshots. If the point of the exercise is to
improve your
pictures, then spend the $4k on pro lenses, an A2 body, and photo
CD processing. You'll get MUCH better results.

If you are not experienced photographers, you're wasting your money
on a $3k body which entails a steep learning curve and a large time
commitment for every frame you shoot. Think about it. To shoot
film requires a couple of minutes filling out the film processing
envelope.
To shoot digital requires hours working in Photoshop (oops, there's
another $600, cause there's absolutely no reason to spend that kind
of
money on a camera without having Photoshop,) to archive and tweak
each image and then hours more to print them out. It's expensive in
both time and money.

So if you can't afford another $3k in lenses, plus Photoshop, plus
computer upgrades to handle the load, you should think twice about
buying a D30. Is it worth it?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Okay, Chuck, I'll bite.

First, your previous point on digital fever: Buying good or best glass for a $3K camera would seem to be common sense -- I don't think anyone here really wants to buy junk. However, people already "reaching financially" to get this camera are looking for the most cost-effective way to get the most out of it. (Patience tells me to wait till I can really afford another L lens, but the kid in me says I want it now, so I'm looking at moderately priced alternatives, if the quality is comparable.) And because judging lenses can be so subjective, the "best lens for the buck" issue is an important topic for many of us.

Now, on to the second point. Shooting a thousand pix with one lens WILL make one a better photographer for a number of reasons. To be even more challenging, make that lens a fixed-lenth lens rather than a zoom. What would happen? The photographer would be forced to physically move around the subject. Want a wide shot? Move back. Want an extreme close-up? Move in tight, and change angles while you're at it. Want something else? Move again.

My background is video and my experience tells me that the temptation with zooms (and sometimes with a wide variety of lenses) is to stay in the same place, shooting different shots from the same point of view. This results in boring pictures and missed opportunities for changes in composition, lighting and subject matter. The far superior alternative is to develop an intimate knowledge of the lens... and make the effort to get the most out of it.

JonO

Chuck Fadely said:

I'll start another debate here:
I say that a photographer who shoots a thousand pictures with only
one lens will become a
better photographer than one who shoots a thousand pictures through
a dozen different ones.

Click to expand...

I agree with all your points Chuck. I think a lot of people took your post the wrong way.

The hardest thing for me is the time needed to spend shooting. I'm planning on making
the digital pay for itself by getting out there and doing more projects.

I've been playing with my CP950 and I'm just not happy with the resolution that it

produces printing out to my Epson 1270. That's why, if all goes well, I'll have a D30

tomorrow. I think it will pay for itself with the polaroid factor. $1/Polaroid out my RZ67 gets

really expensive after just one shoot. (I love the 6x7cm slides out my RZ though!!!).

There do seem to ba many trust-fundees out there buying up high end digital cameras (and

film) that think they will get better photos buy using expenisve equipment. One my favorite

shots was done using an old Polaroid 110A (with a 4Designs mod). The shot was supposed

to be a test but it looked so good I scanned it on an Agfa DuoScan and printed it out on a
Fuji PG4000. That was about 3 years ago.

I'm also getting the word wrap problem with my Mac and IE5... Silly PC's. Uh-oh, did I say
that out loud??? my-bad.

--Teymoor--

Chuck Fadely said:

If one has limited funds, it makes more sense to use photo-cd
processing from
your local drugstore and tweak/print/email the ones you like.
Spend the money
you save on equipment. Of course, if you spend $3K a year on
processing, by all means
get the digital. If you can't do something without the digital,
get it. If it pays for itself,
get it.

But if you're an avid or would-be photographer concerned about
getting nice pictures,
maybe an expensive body hooked to a cheap lens is a poor investment.

Sure the camera is easy to pick up and shoot with. The
Polaroid-on-every-shot factor
is one of the strongest arguments for buying it. But if you
haven't struggled with output
color calibration, system crashes, archiving, dead batteries,
electronic noise, corrupted files
and viruses, your learning curve has been gentle.

I'm sorry if I sounded upset. I'm not. But I am amazed that
someone would spend that
kind of money without also getting good quality accessories. I'm a
professional who has
used digital cameras for many years. I'm excited by the D30
because it gives great results
at an attractive price. But it is only as good as the lenses on
the front and the photographer
behind. Especially the second part.

Chuck

(speaking of learning curves, how do I deal with the funky word
wrap here? Mac/Netscape on my end.)

Roger Levit said:

First time digital camera users find the process quite easy.

Of course, why would a beginner be spending $3000 for a camera body
or $1500 for a lens. That doesn't make much sense. I think most
users of Phil's Forums are not rank beginners but rather
photographers who may not know all the jargon but want to move
their picture taking up to the next notch.

I'm still not sure why you seem so upset by this and give advice
that they should spend the $4000 but then turn it over to the
corner drugstore and just accept whatever they end up with as the
best their photographic talent can achieve. Doesn't mak much sense
to me.

Roger

Chuck Fadely said:

I've read a number of posts requesting opinions on various lenses
to use with your new D30's. That was after reading all the posts
from
those desperately seeking the camera. Probably related to the kids
standing in line to get the new Playstation.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Chuck,

I've been a film photographer since my high school years (that's the early '80s). I'd class myself as an amatuer but not one that spends lots of free time at it on a regular basis. Back in school I would burn through 35mm & 120mm rolls of Kodak Tmax B&W and race home to spend hours developing prints. That all had to stop as work & the chores of adult life set in. I still love to get out and shoot...but the pleasure of have full control on the final image is gone since I don't have access to a darkroom nor the time to spend in one. In the last 5 years I found I was taking less and less interest in photography.

I have longed for an SLR style digital camera for 10 years now, knowing that sooner or later the day would come when I could merge one of my favorite hobbies (SLR photography) with my computer abilities. That day came last Friday night when I raced out to buy my D30. Expensive, yes! Worth it? Every penny...to me anyway. It has rekindled my passion for the photographic experience.

Did I spend $$$ on glass...no. I bought a $400 Canon zoom. This will be my only lens for some time I'm sure. I'm no professional and don't intend to become one. My images have only one purpose and that is to satisfy me. So far, they've done just that.

Mike Dobbs.

Chuck Fadely said:

If one has limited funds, it makes more sense to use photo-cd
processing from
your local drugstore and tweak/print/email the ones you like.
Spend the money
you save on equipment. Of course, if you spend $3K a year on
processing, by all means
get the digital. If you can't do something without the digital,
get it. If it pays for itself,
get it.

But if you're an avid or would-be photographer concerned about
getting nice pictures,
maybe an expensive body hooked to a cheap lens is a poor investment.

Sure the camera is easy to pick up and shoot with. The
Polaroid-on-every-shot factor
is one of the strongest arguments for buying it. But if you
haven't struggled with output
color calibration, system crashes, archiving, dead batteries,
electronic noise, corrupted files
and viruses, your learning curve has been gentle.

I'm sorry if I sounded upset. I'm not. But I am amazed that
someone would spend that
kind of money without also getting good quality accessories. I'm a
professional who has
used digital cameras for many years. I'm excited by the D30
because it gives great results
at an attractive price. But it is only as good as the lenses on
the front and the photographer
behind. Especially the second part.

Chuck

(speaking of learning curves, how do I deal with the funky word
wrap here? Mac/Netscape on my end.)

Roger Levit said:

First time digital camera users find the process quite easy.

Of course, why would a beginner be spending $3000 for a camera body
or $1500 for a lens. That doesn't make much sense. I think most
users of Phil's Forums are not rank beginners but rather
photographers who may not know all the jargon but want to move
their picture taking up to the next notch.

I'm still not sure why you seem so upset by this and give advice
that they should spend the $4000 but then turn it over to the
corner drugstore and just accept whatever they end up with as the
best their photographic talent can achieve. Doesn't mak much sense
to me.

Roger

Chuck Fadely said:

I've read a number of posts requesting opinions on various lenses
to use with your new D30's. That was after reading all the posts
from
those desperately seeking the camera. Probably related to the kids
standing in line to get the new Playstation.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

FYI. Photoshop is bundled with the camera.

Stan

Sharon Nicolia said:

If you are not really interested in this answer, please disregard.
I am only answering for myself and not trying to speak for anyone
else who frequents this forum.

Short answer "Yes, to me it is worth it."
Long answer: Imaging is a long standing passion, fueled by Desk Top
Publishing. I learned a lesson on that front. All the cheap image
editors I purchased before PS were a waste of money because I
pushed them to their limits, then got frustrated, finally bit the
bullet, and have been been happily growing with
Photoshop/Illustrator ever since.

I have hit the same point of frustration with my P&S Mustec (1mp).
I can't "afford" to spend $1k on a 3 mp one lense camera, because I
will get frustrated and want more. By purchasing the D30 I am
buying into a whole system of limitless possibilities - and all the
money I put into lenses will not be lost when 6MP or more are
common.

There is a lot of buzz about digital providing instant
gratification (often used in a perjorative sense.) Consider this -
digital is the perfect way to learn something as rich as SLR
photogrphy because it provides instant FEEDBACK. You can sort out
which of the many variables caused your image to be not what you
imagined. I am a music teacher - this is how we educate our young
violinists, helping them repeat their successes and eliminate their
errors.

This is not meant to be argumentative. It is something I have
given a great deal of thought to before committing most of my
discretionary income for this year to the D30 system I am building.

If you are a contented film photographer, I admire your ability and
wish you well. Thanks for your thought provoking comment.

Sharon Nicolia

Chuck Fadely said:

I've read a number of posts requesting opinions on various lenses
to use with your new D30's. That was after reading all the posts
from
those desperately seeking the camera. Probably related to the kids
standing in line to get the new Playstation.

A lot of you are contemplating buying non-Canon lenses, or if
Canon, then the slow zooms. I say, spend the money on good lenses
first,
then get the camera. Money spent on lenses will definitely improve
your pictures; money spent on the camera will just get them into
your
computer faster.

Ladies and gentlemen, you're looking at spending over $4k for a
camera to shoot snapshots. If the point of the exercise is to
improve your
pictures, then spend the $4k on pro lenses, an A2 body, and photo
CD processing. You'll get MUCH better results.

If you are not experienced photographers, you're wasting your money
on a $3k body which entails a steep learning curve and a large time
commitment for every frame you shoot. Think about it. To shoot
film requires a couple of minutes filling out the film processing
envelope.
To shoot digital requires hours working in Photoshop (oops, there's
another $600, cause there's absolutely no reason to spend that kind
of
money on a camera without having Photoshop,) to archive and tweak
each image and then hours more to print them out. It's expensive in
both time and money.

So if you can't afford another $3k in lenses, plus Photoshop, plus
computer upgrades to handle the load, you should think twice about
buying a D30. Is it worth it?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi Chuck,

You said:

I'll start another debate here: I say that a photographer who shoots a thousand pictures with only one lens will become a better photographer than one who shoots a thousand pictures through a dozen different ones.

my answer to that:

I’m not too sure about that statement although I think I can see where you’re coming from. I’m almost 61 years old and retired since one year. Photography has and still is my preferred past time. I even make the occasional photo for a woodworking machinery builder and other technical oriented shops.

The last 20 or so years I found myself reading all I could about light and lighting in photography (an excellent book by Andreas Feininger), Norman Sander’s Photographic Tone control, Kent E. Wade’s book on Alternative Photographic processes, to name a few. The zone system was my favorite subject and I have spent a lot of hours on this subject.

I used a Mamiya RB67 camera and still use it occasionally for my experimentations. I have my own well-equipped darkroom and as you can guess, B&W is my favorite way of expressing my feelings (my problem is that in real live with real people my Calvinistic way sometimes offends people).

A couple of months ago I bought the Canon Pro-70 in the hope that it would satisfy my needs for more profound experimentation in the digital field. I’m sorry to say that both my wife and I have decided that my Nikon pictures even as simple point and shoot are way better than what I seem to be able to get from the Pro-70.

Should I jump on the bandwagon and go for the D30 or maybe the D1 or the new Kodak with a 6Mpixel CCD while all I need is a “good” Canon or Nikon camera with exchangeable lenses for different applications. With my Nikon I only have a fast 50mm AF lens and a 70-210mm AF zoom.

I agree with you, looking at certain posts in this forum suggest that lots of people have a lot of money and are buying all the high end stuff they can lay their hands on, from IS lenses to high capacity flash units to remote whatever gizmo stuff. I regard that as not my problem and I don’t even want to know why they do it.

I do feel that I should invest a good amount of money in some kind of a camera system and I do see myself getting real fanatic about this digital darkroom system I won’t be able to live without in the near future.

If only I could find a digital B&W system…..

To conclude this post, I believe that it is not only what we know and have learned that will give the best results, it’s not the last and most costly camera that will give the best results, a multitude of lenses will not make me shoot better pictures, a combination of all three above with a profound readiness to learn more and experiment more with what we have will finally make us do things that will please us and maybe even some of the people around us.

I believe that digital will help us speed up the learning curve however when I see that certain people have already shot more than 1000 frames in the last day or so, I have to sometimes wonder what they are trying to learn.

John

One of the great things about digital -- either cameras or scans -- is the tremendous amount of control it gives you "in the darkroom."

It's possible to get wonderful results in b&w from any digital source. You can even marry the worlds of film and digital by making digital internegs and then contact printing them in the darkroom. You can do things Ansel Adams never could have dreamed of in terms of tonal range. You can even make multiple exposures of a scene at different densities and combine them in photoshop to produce a picture with both shadow detail and highlight beyond the range of the eye. You can apply b&w filters to your pictures after the fact by adjusting the color channels and then converting to grayscale. You can burn and dodge with precision you could never imagine.

For experienced photographers, the new digital cameras will give you better results than film in many ways -- the tonal range, as long as it isn't overexposed, is tremendous. Being able to set white balance solves the color shifts from flourescents. Seeing a "polaroid" on the back of the camera means you'll be able to judge your work immediately. The limited resolution of digitals is a non-issue. The current cameras are good enough for most anything. (Good photos don't depend on ultimate detail for their impact -- even highly-detailed large format pictures, whether they're from Weston, Ansel Adams, or Sally Mann, still are good pictures at thumbnail size.)

I'm assuming in this discussion that one's goal is to produce photographs "as art", where the image is the reason you'e using whatever tools you're using, not that you need to distribute them immediately over the web, or meet a deadline, or produce a catalog. If you have needs that only an electronic camera can fufill, it doesn't really matter what the cost is. But you have to be able to justify spending that much money if your means are limited. I started this thread because I was amazed that photographers with limited experience and limited means would buy a D30 body and a slow , inexpensive zoom. While it is possible to take good pictures with such an outfit, it won't give you better pictures than you get with a film camera with a slow, bad lens.

Like many photographers, I'm a gearhead and can't stand not having the latest toy. I like buying photo stuff to play with. But we're still in the Model T stage of digital cameras. Most of the under-$1500 cameras out there will take pictures equivalent to a $150 point-and-shoot, and it's a lot harder to produce prints for the grandkids from them. Assuming you're comfortable with spending a whole lot of money for a high-end system, don't shortchange yourself anywhere down the line. Your results will be only as good as the weakest link. If you have to draw the line somewhere in the budget, buy one good lens rather than three mediocre ones.

If what I say sounds ambivalent and contradictory, it is. We're in a transition phase in photography. You can either jump in to digital with both feet and all your credit cards, or you can experiment here and there. Digital is absolutely amazing. But so is film. For you, a $2000 investment in a scanner might be better than a $5000 investment in a new digital system. In a year or two, the $3k difference will buy you a much better camera than is available now. Color negative films now are wonderful, and you can get the film processed anywhere for a dollar or two a roll without prints. In most cases, you'll only want to scan one or two shots from a take, so the time-to-computer difference won't matter. You can make pictures from the color negs in any form you want: b&w prints, color prints, slides, put 'em on coffee mugs, whatever.

Ok, I've rambled enough. Back to work.

Chuck

John Stap said:

Hi Chuck,

You said:

I'll start another debate here: I say that a photographer who
shoots a thousand pictures with only one lens will become a better
photographer than one who shoots a thousand pictures through a
dozen different ones.

my answer to that:

I’m not too sure about that statement although I think I can
see where you’re coming from. I’m almost 61 years old
and retired since one year. Photography has and still is my
preferred past time. I even make the occasional photo for a
woodworking machinery builder and other technical oriented shops.

The last 20 or so years I found myself reading all I could about
light and lighting in photography (an excellent book by Andreas
Feininger), Norman Sander’s Photographic Tone control, Kent
E. Wade’s book on Alternative Photographic processes, to name
a few. The zone system was my favorite subject and I have spent a
lot of hours on this subject.

I used a Mamiya RB67 camera and still use it occasionally for my
experimentations. I have my own well-equipped darkroom and as you
can guess, B&W is my favorite way of expressing my feelings (my
problem is that in real live with real people my Calvinistic way
sometimes offends people).

A couple of months ago I bought the Canon Pro-70 in the hope that
it would satisfy my needs for more profound experimentation in the
digital field. I’m sorry to say that both my wife and I have
decided that my Nikon pictures even as simple point and shoot are
way better than what I seem to be able to get from the Pro-70.

Should I jump on the bandwagon and go for the D30 or maybe the D1
or the new Kodak with a 6Mpixel CCD while all I need is a
“good” Canon or Nikon camera with exchangeable lenses
for different applications. With my Nikon I only have a fast 50mm
AF lens and a 70-210mm AF zoom.

I agree with you, looking at certain posts in this forum suggest
that lots of people have a lot of money and are buying all the high
end stuff they can lay their hands on, from IS lenses to high
capacity flash units to remote whatever gizmo stuff. I regard that
as not my problem and I don’t even want to know why they do
it.

I do feel that I should invest a good amount of money in some kind
of a camera system and I do see myself getting real fanatic about
this digital darkroom system I won’t be able to live without
in the near future.

If only I could find a digital B&W system…..

To conclude this post, I believe that it is not only what we know
and have learned that will give the best results, it’s not
the last and most costly camera that will give the best results, a
multitude of lenses will not make me shoot better pictures, a
combination of all three above with a profound readiness to learn
more and experiment more with what we have will finally make us do
things that will please us and maybe even some of the people around
us.

I believe that digital will help us speed up the learning curve
however when I see that certain people have already shot more than
1000 frames in the last day or so, I have to sometimes wonder what
they are trying to learn.

John

Click to expand...

Chuck Fadely said:

I've read a number of posts requesting opinions on various lenses
to use with your new D30's. That was after reading all the posts
from
those desperately seeking the camera. Probably related to the kids
standing in line to get the new Playstation.

A lot of you are contemplating buying non-Canon lenses, or if
Canon, then the slow zooms. I say, spend the money on good lenses
first,
then get the camera. Money spent on lenses will definitely improve
your pictures; money spent on the camera will just get them into
your
computer faster.

Click to expand...

What good will good lenses do if you have no camera to mount them to? ;-) You forgot to add, you can get a film camera to use with them. I know a low end SKR with highend glass will do better than a high end SLR with low end glass, but technically speaking, if you want a low end SLR digital, this one is it. What's wrong with getting an affordable, abeit slow lens until you can afford a higher end one? At least then they are still using the camera.

chuck29045 said:

Ladies and gentlemen, you're looking at spending over $4k for a
camera to shoot snapshots. If the point of the exercise is to
improve your
pictures, then spend the $4k on pro lenses, an A2 body, and photo
CD processing. You'll get MUCH better results.

Click to expand...

I have spent over $4k on 35MM equipment over the years for P&S - and if Nikon had an D-SLR at this price, I already have all the equipment needed). Of course i got the SLR because it gave me more control than a P&S

As stated everywhere, the cost of developing and immediate feedback of digital could give a better learning enviorment than film. But $4k is alot, and for learning composition, lighting, ect, a $1k digital camera is a better investment. And since it has an LCD, gives you the benefit of an SLR.

chuck29045 said:

If you are not experienced photographers, you're wasting your money
on a $3k body which entails a steep learning curve and a large time
commitment for every frame you shoot. Think about it. To shoot
film requires a couple of minutes filling out the film processing
envelope.

Click to expand...

Why would it be a steep learning curve? Set it on auto, d/l the pics to a computer, then just print them out. How is that steep? Granted it is a waste of the features, but depending how quickly you see your results, you can capitalize on them and learn as you go so to speak.

chuck29045 said:

To shoot digital requires hours working in Photoshop (oops, there's
another $600, cause there's absolutely no reason to spend that kind
of
money on a camera without having Photoshop,) to archive and tweak
each image and then hours more to print them out. It's expensive in
both time and money.

Click to expand...

If your going to any type of digital, whether a digital camera, or scanned images, you will need a program like this. But anyway you look at it, $600 is still cheaper than setting up/maintaining a real darkroom - not includung development time. And someone posted on this thread that Photoshop is included w/ the D30.

chuck29045 said:

So if you can't afford another $3k in lenses, plus Photoshop, plus
computer upgrades to handle the load, you should think twice about
buying a D30. Is it worth it?

Click to expand...

I'm not made of $$$, but have spent more than $3k in the last year on computer upgrades.

Of course I'm running a PIII55@733, 256MB ram, 60 GB hdd space, SCSI DVD, CDRW, Zip, scanner.

Of course, I haven't jumped on the bandwagon, I'm still using an S10. But that's also because my 950 and stuff was stolen and haven't found out if the insurance co will cover the loss.

One thing that never seems to get mentioned and is in my opinion a HUGE plus for digital cameras in general is the fact that processing film uses nasty chemicals that more often than not wind up in our lakes, rivers, oceans, wildlife and US!!

(good thread)

Teymoor said:

We are analog beings, seeing and hearing REAL sights and sounds.

When i become a computer, only then will digital be better than film. (I can't wait).

Click to expand...

;-) Your nervous system isn't "analog" in the sense you mean. The question of if the things you hear and see are real is moot. Discussions on AI are probably best in a separate thread ;-)

I think the original post was about the investment ratio should one put into bodies/ lenses. I think that's a valid question, but the ratio could easily be different for different media types, and it presumably depends on what you're trying to achieve. For example, if sharpness is your prime goal you'd use 6*7 and ignore the toys were discussing here.

For me, I'd like the best quality I can get, but the biggest drag with film is the lack of flexibility (without a serious darkroom you can do nothing much with it) and immediacy (I want it now and I make no apologies for that).

Digital gives me what I want, albeit at a significant price.

I wouldn't spend $3k on a film camera today because I can get pretty much the same effect with a machine which costs and weighs significantly less. I will spend $3k on a digital camera, even though it will be obsolete in a year. This is because it will give me a significant improvement on my point and shoot digital camera: something I want.

For me the lens issue is a compromise between cost, weight and quality. I can easily tell the difference between my Nikon and Tamron lenses with a 35mm slide when projected. I doubt that the D30 would be so discriminating, although I'd be pleased if it did. Once that becomes a problem, I'd upgrade the glass.

I think the original poster was making a bunch of valid points about this stuff. But if a few more people get interested in photography, if a few more pictures get taken, and if Canon make some more money, then worse things could happen.

Chuck of the D30.

chuck29045 said:

But it is only as good as the lenses on
the front and the photographer
behind. Especially the second part.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true. However for a photographer to become good he need to take a large number of photos and throw most of them away after learning from his mistakes. A digital camera will make me a better photographer faster than a film camera because shooting throw away shots is free. It helps that exposure info is recorded with every shot.

I have had a "prosumer" digicam for three months, and my photography has improved more than it did in the last ten years. The camera has full manual controls of course which helps. I am a software engineer by profession so the digital learing curve was not steep, not much steeper than learning Java. The digital post processing is why I will never go back to photo lab prints.

I agree with you as far as the lens is concerned though. If I was going to buy a D30 soon (I won't until I have had more use out of my current camera) I would get a 50mm prime lens and a wide angle prime. That should be possible for under $500.

Chuck Fadely said:

I've read a number of posts requesting opinions on various lenses
to use with your new D30's. That was after reading all the posts
from
those desperately seeking the camera. Probably related to the kids
standing in line to get the new Playstation.

A lot of you are contemplating buying non-Canon lenses, or if
Canon, then the slow zooms. I say, spend the money on good lenses
first,
then get the camera. Money spent on lenses will definitely improve
your pictures; money spent on the camera will just get them into
your
computer faster.

Ladies and gentlemen, you're looking at spending over $4k for a
camera to shoot snapshots. If the point of the exercise is to
improve your
pictures, then spend the $4k on pro lenses, an A2 body, and photo
CD processing. You'll get MUCH better results.

If you are not experienced photographers, you're wasting your money
on a $3k body which entails a steep learning curve and a large time
commitment for every frame you shoot. Think about it. To shoot
film requires a couple of minutes filling out the film processing
envelope.
To shoot digital requires hours working in Photoshop (oops, there's
another $600, cause there's absolutely no reason to spend that kind
of
money on a camera without having Photoshop,) to archive and tweak
each image and then hours more to print them out. It's expensive in
both time and money.

So if you can't afford another $3k in lenses, plus Photoshop, plus
computer upgrades to handle the load, you should think twice about
buying a D30. Is it worth it?

Click to expand...

Thanks a lot Chuck!

I do own a ton of new (4 years or less) EOS L glass. Far more than I would care to carry at any one given time.

Before I started buying lenses I was reading about the quality of the glass truly affects the end result, be it print or slide.
It is very true.
I knew there were associated costs to the digital realm.

I shoot slides exclusively an can vouch for the additional cost associated with it i.e.: trick slide projector, many, many carrousels, better projector lens, big screen, I thought it would never end.

My last purchase was a slide film/photo scanner so I could digitized my slides. This way I could upload them to the web an share them with family and friends.

For under $500 I was able to buy a HP S20 Photo Scanner and with the included software share all of my chosen photographs with all of family and friends.

I have requested feedback from one an all an they all say they are very pleased with the prints they were able to get from Ofoto.
If you want to spend a ton on the scanner go for it.

The net result is wasted money if all you want to do is send 4x6 quality photos to relatives and friends.

Sorry I strayed from the topic but, Chuck you sure reminded me of the path to debt.
I no longer the desire a D30.

I'm very happy with my system and with the 3K windfall in film and prepaid mailers, looks like I will be shooting for many, many years and saving.
I did so want the digital experance, I even tweeked up the PC to handel it.
Reality sets in!
Thanks,
Terry.

Ah, yes, you've hit the great paradox about all this. The D30 is the lowest end camera you can buy (or at least order) and is by no means a professional-level camera. Yet it has a very professional price.

I've been through multiple generations of professional digital cameras. The first one was so awful I've blocked it from memory, but it was on a Nikon body and was tethered to a huge harddrive/power pack slung over one's shoulder. Every two years since then, something better has come along, each about half the cost of the preceding generation. The current D2000/DCS520; D1, 660, etc produce very nice pictures but from what I can see, the D30 image quality is better. However, the mechanical package it comes in is not as good.

A set of lenses will have a lifespan measured in decades under amateur use. But a digital body you buy now will have a lifespan measured in months. It will be obsolete faster than your new computer. Digital photography has obtained critical mass and the development cycle for new cameras will be mind-boggling for the foreseeable future. Two years from now a D30 will seem to be a crude antique.

Chuck

Gene said:

What good will good lenses do if you have no camera to mount them
to? ;-) You forgot to add, you can get a film camera to use with
them. I know a low end SKR with highend glass will do better than a
high end SLR with low end glass, but technically speaking, if you
want a low end SLR digital, this one is it. What's wrong with
getting an affordable, abeit slow lens until you can afford a
higher end one? At least then they are still using the camera.

Click to expand...

This is very true. Conventional wet labs, particularly for E6, were very toxic. Home darkrooms are pretty nasty as well. However, modern one-hour labs have pretty controlled emissions and recycle most of their effluent.

On the other hand, the factories to produce computers & chips, as well as the computers we throw out when they've become to slow for us, are also major sources of pollution. Anyone out there know the relative amounts of heavy metals in a junk PC versus a one-hour lab's waste stream?

Chuck

Jaye said:

One thing that never seems to get mentioned and is in my opinion a
HUGE plus for digital cameras in general is the fact that
processing film uses nasty chemicals that more often than not wind
up in our lakes, rivers, oceans, wildlife and US!!

Click to expand...