Easy to use DSLR body for an ol' geezer

[MorseCode]

G'day all,

i"m posting this around to a couple of forums in hopes of getting advice that will put me on the right track.

Background: I had a great Nikon F2 and FM2 film bodies and decent AI-S glass that did me well for over 25 years. After they were stolen in 2005, State Farm's full-replacement policy bought me a Nikon D200, Nikkor 18-200 and 12-24 zooms and a bunch of accessories. Long story short, I haven't taken a sharp clear shot since.

I'm gettin' on in years, have hands like big-ol' ham hocks, arthritis in my fingers and can't see anything closer than 10' without strong reading glasses (i.e. the fighter-plane heads-up displays in most DSLRs are unreadable to me because I don't bring reading glasses when I'm taking pictures of mountain ranges, etc).

The D200 looked great in the store and on paper but in my hands it's just too much camera. The menus are confusing and no matter how well I think I understand, I put the camera down for a few months and when I pick it up again, I've forgotten everything. What's worse, the @$# thing thinks for itself (won't release the shutter if it doesn't think it's in focus). Now, I've got a decent eye for composition and for more than two decades a needle-match exposure meter yielded some awesome photos. Nowadays there's just too much going on and half my time behind the viewfinder is spent exploring (and subsequently cussing out) the darned menus.

What's worse, its images are all just ever so slightly fuzzy around the edges or a smidge less than crisp. I never experienced that with my manually-focused AI-S lenses. Don't get me started with having to futz with 500 images in Photoshop or some other post-processing software. I wanna shoot crisp, clean pictures of places I've been to on holiday and get some nice kitty pictures once in a while. That's about it. And if a meteor is about to come crashing through the neighbour's roof, I wanna turn on whichever camera I have, point it at either the meteor or the house and just shoot without having to worry about which auto-focus sensor is engaged and what's in menu-item fourteen.

Bottom line: In the digital world, is there anything even close to what I got from my beloved F2/FM2 pair? For close to $3k I'd honestly expected better quality, not technotoys.

If I gotta start over again, what direction would you suggest I look into? Sincere Thanks in advance!

 

[IainD]

Hi!

The Pentax dslrs are well regarded for simplicity and clear menus. There will probably be no real need to use Photoshop if you go straight for jpegs from the camera.
A large view finder is often an advantage. The Canon 7D is good for this.

It will turn out to be a case of trying a camera till you find the best for your needs. At the price you mention, the Canon 7D would be a good choice to look at, or even a Nikon D700. It is full frame and the older lenses you have may even work with it. Have a look!
IainD

 

[Tom_N]

I'm gettin' on in years ... and can't see anything closer than 10' without strong reading glasses

Would the diopter control on the DSLR viewfinder (or a clip-on reading eyepiece) be of any help with this?

Now, I've got a decent eye for composition and for more than two decades a needle-match exposure meter yielded some awesome photos.

You can use a D200 in manual exposure mode. The camera will even give you a meter reading (though not necessarily in match-needle form), which you may be able to use if you can solve the diopter adjustment problem.

What's worse, its images are all just ever so slightly fuzzy around the edges or a smidge less than crisp. I never experienced that with my manually-focused AI-S lenses.

This is what happens when you've got an autofocus system that may not focus on precisely what you THINK it should be focusing on, combined with a viewfinder that makes it hard to judge precise focus. The D200 is actually pretty good for a crop-sensor DSLR; it's got a much better viewfinder and a more sophisticated autofocus system than many entry-level DSLRs.

Two things you could try are shooting with fast glass whenever possible (to let more light into the viewfinder), and installing an upgraded focusing screen from a place like Katz Eye (sp?). Some of those screens restore features that used to be standard in the film SLR days.

 

[MorseCode]

Well, I've tried the 7D and the D700; again, great cameras but far too complicated for me and unless I have no other choice, I don't want to spend that kind of money again. I had an insurance settlement last time, after all! This time it's out of my pocket so I have to be far more frugal. Ideally, I wish I could get a Nikon body that took my existing lenses but that behaved like my old FM2 but I know such a beast doesn't exist.

I'm saddened by the fact that for all the wizardry that goes into modern SLRs nobody is giving a second thought to old guys like me who want very simple technology in the camera body but allow for some awesome glass. I'll happily spend $200 on a stereo but $2000 on speakers. Same goes for a camera body and lenses respectively. A better analogy is my other hobby of amateur radio. Hook a $10,000 radio up to a $50 antenna and you get $50 performance. Hook a $50 radio up to $10,000 worth of antenna and get $10,000 worth of performance.

 

[Tom_N]

Another possibility with fuzzy images is that your camera/lens have a front-focusing or back-focusing problem.

There are simple tests you can do for this at home - usually involving setting the camera up on a tripod, and taking pictures of a test printout, with the camera in a certain autofocus mode and very precisely aimed. I think you'd need to get help from someone with better vision to get an accurate result from these tests, but if they indicated problems with the equipment, a repair might fix the problem.

 

[Tom_N]

Well, I've tried the 7D and the D700; again, great cameras but far too complicated for me and unless I have no other choice, I don't want to spend that kind of money again.

Unless the D200 is too heavy to be comfortable for you, or you decide to "trade up" to a full-frame DSLR, I don't see a reason for you to change cameras.

All of them are going to have lots of items in the menus. All of them are going to let you ignore most of those items. Some of them are going to have better viewfinders and external controls, and the D200 is one of those.

If you want to burn money, we can suggest a dozen good cameras or more. But I don't think they're going to get you anything more than what you already have.

 

[MorseCode]

I'm gettin' on in years ... and can't see anything closer than 10' without strong reading glasses

Would the diopter control on the DSLR viewfinder (or a clip-on reading eyepiece) be of any help with this?

Not really because of what I shoot. I only haul out the heavy gear when I'm on holiday in a location I want to remember, and that's almost always landscapes and cityscapes. My reading glasses are a major hindrance in that regard. I have excellent distance vision but if I want to muck about with the viewfinder I need glasses and things just get to be a PITA. I've missed too many shots as a result.

Now, I've got a decent eye for composition and for more than two decades a needle-match exposure meter yielded some awesome photos.

You can use a D200 in manual exposure mode. The camera will even give you a meter reading (though not necessarily in match-needle form), which you may be able to use if you can solve the diopter adjustment problem.

I've used the camera in manual mode and it does work well but I must wear glasses or it won't work. I usually just find myself setting it in Aperture Priority mode and for the most part it does exposures acceptably well. I'm not shooting any tricky lighting for the most part. What gets confusing is that sometimes the mode changes to SP, Auto or Manual; then I have to go find a pair of glasses, re-set everything and by then the shot is gone. Or other times, it won't focus properly and the shutter refuses to fire. Just too many damned settings to master. I like the old idea of "set it and forget it" as well as my old photojournalism teacher's favourite motto: f/8 and be there.

What's worse, its images are all just ever so slightly fuzzy around the edges or a smidge less than crisp. I never experienced that with my manually-focused AI-S lenses.

This is what happens when you've got an autofocus system that may not focus on precisely what you THINK it should be focusing on, combined with a viewfinder that makes it hard to judge precise focus.

THIS. Autofocus is the bane of my photographic existence at times. I'm used to simple manual focus lenses with great big bloody thick rubber grips that I can rack back-and-forth and get precision accuracy in relatively little time. Not foolproof, but over 1000 images I focus and shoot more will be in precise focus with my old AI-S glass than with this new whiz-bang computer-controlled wonderglass.

Two things you could try are shooting with fast glass whenever possible (to let more light into the viewfinder),

I'd LOVE to get faster glass. I'm hesitant to spend another nickel on photo equipment, though, until I somehow get a viable solution to what's plaguing my shooting now. Whether it's a new simple body (preferred solution) or some kind of computer genius rigging my camera up to disable 95% of the crap I'll never use...whatever it takes. Once I get that solved, I'll look into faster lenses. I made the mistake of listening to Ken Rockwell's hideously-misleading review of the 18-200 lense when it first came out and I'm regretting it every time I take the camera out for a spin.

and installing an upgraded focusing screen from a place like Katz Eye (sp?). Some of those screens restore features that used to be standard in the film SLR days.

I really like the sound of this! I wasn't aware that screens in the D200 were interchangeable. thanks for the tip!

 

[Tom_N]

http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/

 

[AnandaSim]

G'day all,

G'day

I'm gettin' on in years, have hands like big-ol' ham hocks, arthritis in my fingers and can't see anything closer than 10' without strong reading glasses (i.e. the fighter-plane heads-up displays in most DSLRs are unreadable to me because I don't bring reading glasses when I'm taking pictures of mountain ranges, etc).

I empathise. I wear multi-focals. Actually short sightedness was not a difficulty - just wear glasses and all is fine. However, far sightedness (reading glasses) are a pain because the reading glasses don't work at all distances. This affects looking at the LCD.

But remember the Nikon FM2? Never did have an LCD. So if you are "cool", ignore even looking at the LCD - refrain from the temptation of review - the FM2 never had review.

The D200 looked great in the store and on paper but in my hands it's just too much camera. The menus are confusing and no matter how well I think I understand, I put the camera down for a few months and when I pick it up again, I've forgotten everything.

Is there a GREEN AUTO or a "P" with AUTO ISO? If there is leave it at that and don't change any setting except EV. My camera has reset profiles - that means I can store 2 profiles - I can then proceed to change settings and if I quickly want to return to "standard", I just go three clicks in the menu. Same menu position, no other place.

What's worse, the @$# thing thinks for itself (won't release the shutter if it doesn't think it's in focus).

That's good, isn't it? However on my camera if I am stubborn I can set it such that it will shoot even when it does not consider in focus.

Now, I've got a decent eye for composition and for more than two decades a needle-match exposure meter yielded some awesome photos. Nowadays there's just too much going on and half my time behind the viewfinder is spent exploring (and subsequently cussing out) the darned menus.

Yes but why? Resist the devil. DO NOT LOOK at the LCD screen after every shot.

What's worse, its images are all just ever so slightly fuzzy around the edges or a smidge less than crisp. I never experienced that with my manually-focused AI-S lenses.

Camera damaged? Lens damaged? Didn't point it in the right focus point? How many focus points have you got it set on?

And if a meteor is about to come crashing through the neighbour's roof, I wanna turn on whichever camera I have, point it at either the meteor or the house and just shoot without having to worry about which auto-focus sensor is engaged and what's in menu-item fourteen.

If it is a meteor, AF will be at infinity. If you set it to Green AUTO (assuming your camera has one) or "P" with Auto ISO - you don't need to do anything else

Of course it won't be the bestest image but when you shot the FM2, there had to take a deep breath, fling the focus ring to infinity, check then match needle and adjust - that would have been slower than this. And remember you were younger then too.

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com
https://sites.google.com/site/asphotokb

'There are a whole range of greys and colours - from
the photographer who shoots everything in iA / green
AUTO to the one who shoots Manual Everything. There
is no right or wrong - there are just instances of
individuality and individual choice.'

 

[kiwigirl]

I love my Panasonic L1 for its sheer simplicity. Not a scene mode in sight! Just an aperture ring and shutter dial, and ISO and WB settings and that lovely Leica lens!

It may be only 7.5 MP but takes lovely shots and doesn't need a degree to work it. It's a real 'retro' model (from 2006), but rather a heavy old brick though!

 

[zackiedawg]

How about this for an idea - why don't you experiment with the idea of going back to the way you did it before with the film camera? Eschew all the auto modes, gizmos, etc of the digital camera - switch it to M (Manual) mode, turn off all special modes and auto selectors, find some nice legacy manual glass that has a good traditional manual aperture ring and focus ring, choose your own settings, take the photos, and don't look at them on the LCD until you get home and load them to the computer. If you can't well see the camera's meter for manual metering guide, you can go by old hard and fast rules or personal judgment, or even get an external light meter. Just like in the film days, you may get home and find you missed a few shots, and you select the ones that worked out...maybe that will actually be fun.

You can help your output a little bit if you play around with the in-camera settings (often in the picture or photo settings area of the menu) just the one time, to tune the sharpness, contrast, color, and saturation to where you want it.

While I think many of the intelligent features of modern digital cameras can be very reliable, useful, and a good photographer can still work with them and contorl them once you get the hang of them, you may just have more fun or feel more comfortable shooting as you did with film cameras, using your instinct and skill to manually set up all aspects of the shot. It's worth a try at least!

--
Justin
galleries: http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

 

[MorseCode]

But remember the Nikon FM2? Never did have an LCD. So if you are "cool", ignore even looking at the LCD - refrain from the temptation of review - the FM2 never had review.

Oh, the review part I don't generally look at very hard. It's what's in the viewfinder that I'm talking about now. That info is just too small for me to see clearly. The old Nikon needle-match was all the info I ever needed back in the day. I never even looked at the shutter-speed and aperture indications in the viewfinder. I set them on the camera before putting it in front of my face, matched the needles by feel and presto.

Is there a GREEN AUTO or a "P" with AUTO ISO? If there is leave it at that and don't change any setting except EV. My camera has reset profiles - that means I can store 2 profiles - I can then proceed to change settings and if I quickly want to return to "standard", I just go three clicks in the menu. Same menu position, no other place.

Yes, there is an auto-exposure mode (P), as well as Ap, Sp and full manual. I don't mind using Ap/Sp, and in fact they're quite handy. My problem is the geezer-factor kicks in if I've left the camera alone for a few weeks, and I am so intent on getting the shot that I just ignore all the settings, frame, focus and fire - with predictably-horrid results. I'd like to have less toys to worry about. After all, the whole purpose of a camera is to admit x amount of light for y amount of time. Everything beyond that immediate functionality just gets in the way!

What's worse, the @$# thing thinks for itself (won't release the shutter if it doesn't think it's in focus).

That's good, isn't it? However on my camera if I am stubborn I can set it such that it will shoot even when it does not consider in focus.

I don't like being over-ridden by some piece of inanimate technology, even if it's right and I'm wrong - Sometimes I'd rather have a picture of a fleeting thing that's perhaps less than perfect than have no picture at all. Manual overrides are fine if you remember where they are and how to enable/disable them. For those kind folks reading this forum who still have sharp minds, I'm envious. I can remember phone numbers and details from my teenage years clearly but as me what I had for supper last night or what TV shows were on....

Yes but why? Resist the devil. DO NOT LOOK at the LCD screen after every shot.

I generally do not. I wait until I've downloaded into Lightroom.

What's worse, its images are all just ever so slightly fuzzy around the edges or a smidge less than crisp. I never experienced that with my manually-focused AI-S lenses.

Camera damaged? Lens damaged? Didn't point it in the right focus point? How many focus points have you got it set on?

I just received the body and the 18-200 back from Nikon after a thorough cleaning and repair. I will try it next week after I get back from a business trip and hope for the best.

And if a meteor is about to come crashing through the neighbour's roof, I wanna turn on whichever camera I have, point it at either the meteor or the house and just shoot without having to worry about which auto-focus sensor is engaged and what's in menu-item fourteen.

If it is a meteor, AF will be at infinity. If you set it to Green AUTO (assuming your camera has one) or "P" with Auto ISO - you don't need to do anything else

Of course it won't be the bestest image but when you shot the FM2, there had to take a deep breath, fling the focus ring to infinity, check then match needle and adjust - that would have been slower than this. And remember you were younger then too.

The "younger" part can't be denied! I shot overnight police-blotter stuff for a Toronto newspaper in the 80s. Got a few awards, a lot of front-pages and a myriad of small 1x2" inside pics. Exposures weren't perfect, focus was usually great but sometimes not ideal but on balance I got far more usable images then than I do now shooting non-time-critical stuff.

I don't want to spend money I don't have to spend, but if that's the only way I can accomplish my goal of getting crisp razor-sharp snapshots then that's what I'll have to do. I just can't help but feeling that I'm trying to shoot a gopher with a bazooka.

 

[MaryGierth]

How about a used Nikon d40, entry level dslr with the 18-55vr kit lens. The thing takes excellent jpegs in all the auto modes.

Many photographers have prop/semi pro camera bodies and a second smaller camera when they want something lighter or smaller to carry around.

With this minimal investment you can learn dslr photography with an easier to use dslr.

 

[palincss]

Yes, there is an auto-exposure mode (P), as well as Ap, Sp and full manual. I don't mind using Ap/Sp, and in fact they're quite handy. My problem is the geezer-factor kicks in if I've left the camera alone for a few weeks, and I am so intent on getting the shot that I just ignore all the settings, frame, focus and fire - with predictably-horrid results. I'd like to have less toys to worry about. After all, the whole purpose of a camera is to admit x amount of light for y amount of time. Everything beyond that immediate functionality just gets in the way!

It sounds as though P (programmed auto-exposure) is exactly what you want. No need to ever consult the settings in the viewfinder, and you'll find for most circumstances the programmed choices will end up being either entirely satisfactory, or exactly what you would have chosen for yourself anyway.

That leaves focus. I don't know your camera (mine's a Panasonic LX5) and have no idea what the story is with autofocus on yours, but it seems from what you've written that either autofocus isn't working right or for some reason you can't work manual focus satisfactorily on your current computer - or both.

I don't like being over-ridden by some piece of inanimate technology, even if it's right and I'm wrong - Sometimes I'd rather have a picture of a fleeting thing that's perhaps less than perfect than have no picture at all. Manual overrides are fine if you remember where they are and how to enable/disable them. For those kind folks reading this forum who still have sharp minds, I'm envious. I can remember phone numbers and details from my teenage years clearly but as me what I had for supper last night or what TV shows were on....

This I just don't understand. If your camera is anything like the LX5, you select a mode from the PASM dial and you select a focus mode - in my case, from a sliding switch that lets you choose between manual, auto and macro-auto. Yes, you do need to check to see they weren't bumped out of position, but forget what they are and how to work them? I don't see how. What "over-rides" are you talking about?

How does manual focus work on your camera? Is there something you can set to M and a ring on the lens you can turn for manual focus? I believe Nikon dSLRs can use lenses going back to the 1970s Nikon film SLRs. They certainly have the right control on the lens for focus, and also have depth of field scales for zone focus.

 

[palincss]

With this minimal investment you can learn dslr photography with an easier to use dslr.

I'm not at all certain entry-level dSLRs are "easier to use" for one who has lots of experience with a film SLR. If you intimately know the old controls - shutter speed knob right next to the shutter release, aperture control ring on the lens to set f/stop and focusing ring on the lens - many of the entry level cameras, allegedly "easier to use," are in fact much harder.

They're not like cameras at all. They seem more like video games crossed with some kind of radiation therapy device or particle beam weapon, and all the "real" camera controls are hidden under a layer of menus. What's more, there's so much lost motion and slop in the manual focus control the lenses feel like they're broken. And then there are those "scene modes." What in God's name is "pet mode" or "aquarium mode," and what does something like that have to do with cameras?

A real "easy to use" digital camera, for those coming from manual film SLR backgrounds, would have the traditional controls in the traditional places. Those controls necessary to account for the differences between film and digital, such as white balance and ISO, would have simple dedicated buttons that brought up short, obvious menus, and training for such a user would concentrate on showing the relationship between what they already know and the digital counterpart, and how it's adjusted on this particular box.

Does that sound like the typical "entry level" dSLR? Not to me.

 

[MaryGierth]

With this minimal investment you can learn dslr photography with an easier to use dslr.

I'm not at all certain entry-level dSLRs are "easier to use" for one who has lots of experience with a film SLR. If you intimately know the old controls - shutter speed knob right next to the shutter release, aperture control ring on the lens to set f/stop and focusing ring on the lens - many of the entry level cameras, allegedly "easier to use," are in fact much harder.

They're not like cameras at all. They seem more like video games crossed with some kind of radiation therapy device or particle beam weapon, and all the "real" camera controls are hidden under a layer of menus. What's more, there's so much lost motion and slop in the manual focus control the lenses feel like they're broken. And then there are those "scene modes." What in God's name is "pet mode" or "aquarium mode," and what does something like that have to do with cameras?

A real "easy to use" digital camera, for those coming from manual film SLR backgrounds, would have the traditional controls in the traditional places. Those controls necessary to account for the differences between film and digital, such as white balance and ISO, would have simple dedicated buttons that brought up short, obvious menus, and training for such a user would concentrate on showing the relationship between what they already know and the digital counterpart, and how it's adjusted on this particular box.

Does that sound like the typical "entry level" dSLR? Not to me.

Have you ever used a Nikon d40?

There is no aquarium mode, nothing I would consider slop in manual focus. Given the subjects he's interested in - he could get beautiful pictures using a few auto settings such as landscape, AV/P, portrait.

I think if he were to get results he was pleased with it may give him the motivation he needs to adjust to the layout of the newer cameras.

I don't think he's that old that he can't learn some new tricks. My 96 year old father has a face book account, skypes, texts and spends quite a bit of time learning todays newest technologies. You're never too old or too stuck in your old ways to adapt, even with physical limitations.

 

[BobSC]

What's worse, its images are all just ever so slightly fuzzy around the edges or a smidge less than crisp. I never experienced that with my manually-focused AI-S lenses.

There are two factors:

1) The lenses you mention are probably soft in comparison to the lenses you had. Sell them and buy some sharp lenses like the 35 f/1.8 or the 50 f/1.4. Or just buy some AI-S lenses and have a split image view screen put into your camera. I don't know how the D200 works, but with the d3100, with AIS lenses the aperture ring works the way it's supposed to and then you just use the thumb wheel for shutter speed.

2) The camera, by default, produces a soft image. Get the manual and find out how to dial up the sharpness. Most dslr users prefer to apply the sharpness in photoshop after they do other editing, but if you don't want to do editing, just change the default settings in the camera. You only need to do it once.

 

[Skipper494]

Full frame D700, go for it!

 

[MaryGierth]

I don't think he's that old that he can't learn some new tricks. My 96 year old father has a face book account, skypes, texts and spends quite a bit of time learning todays newest technologies. You're never too old or too stuck in your old ways to adapt, even with physical limitations.

I also think that once you are getting photos you are happy with you should plan on using post processing software. Some of the programs are easy and enjoyable to use and you can take your good photos and make them look better. This stuff is not beyond the capability of an old geezer.

I just think you got off on the wrong foot with too much camera and not the best lens for image quality.

 

[Jim Cockfield]

A better analogy is my other hobby of amateur radio. Hook a $10,000 radio up to a $50 antenna and you get $50 performance. Hook a $50 radio up to $10,000 worth of antenna and get $10,000 worth of performance.

I dunno about that. I can remember participating in a Civil Defense contest years ago, where I used a CW Transceiver with a wire hanging out of a Window for an antenna (with a home made antenna tuner that was just a variable capacitor and inductor (wire wrapped around a larger ceramic insulator using an alligator clip to it for adjustments) mounted a piece of board.

I had the longest contact in the contest (Brisbane Australia, and I was in Savannah, GA). That antenna (wire, home made tuner) probably didn't cost me $10 to build.

I didn't have the luxury of setting up a nicer dipole at the time (of course, that probably wouldn't have cost me any more to do either).

From my perspective for your issues (and I'm not convinced the lens has anything to do with it anyway), I'd go with the analogy that it's better to use a $1000 scope with a $100 rifle versus a $100 scope on a $1000 rifle. ;-)

--
JimC
------
http://www.pbase.com/jcockfield