View Full Version : SLR's v Bikers
just been wondering how many of you bikers have SLR's (not snappy camara's),
Am I right in thinking there are loads...
I'll start with me so;
1
Other than a snappy camera, whats a SLR?
Other than a snappy camera, whats a SLR?
Single-lens reflex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera)
gettin2dizzy
12-03-08, 08:56 AM
+ 1 (400d)
the_lone_wolf
12-03-08, 08:58 AM
Sports Light Racing...
http://img.alibaba.com/photo/100153736/Used_Mercedes_Slr_Mclaren_Car.jpg
+ 1 (400d)
is that canon d400? if so me too,
so that's 2,
I have a panasonic bridge camera, dunno if that counts though.
I gave my Olympus OM101 to a friend. I never used it once I got a decent digital.
missyburd
12-03-08, 09:20 AM
i really really really want one, does that count?
Biker Biggles
12-03-08, 09:23 AM
Sloane Ranger?
i really really really want one, does that count?
+1 but am thinking of going back to film as well :confused:
missyburd
12-03-08, 09:26 AM
+1 but am thinking of going back to film as well :confused:
hehee my mum still uses film, but she takes an absolute age getting any developed, think she has over 50 from years back that are still waiting :rolleyes:
gettin2dizzy
12-03-08, 09:30 AM
I wouldn't bother using film at all nowadays. Shoot in RAW instead if you're worried about post processing.
missyburd
12-03-08, 09:32 AM
I wouldn't bother using film at all nowadays. Shoot in RAW instead if you're worried about post processing.
My mum's just old fashioned and a technophobe, couldn't be trusted too much with anything that's got lots of buttons :mrgreen:
skidmarx
12-03-08, 09:38 AM
Canon 320D, but I can't be bothered to read the manual, so I've got the OM1 in the shop being refurbed, I love that camera and it just feels right:thumbsup:. So it's back to film for me!
ArtyLady
12-03-08, 10:04 AM
Canon EOS 350D for me...and half a C&G in photography:rolleyes: I use mine mainly for photographing horses, dogs and cats to paint from. :D
wyrdness
12-03-08, 10:14 AM
Nikon D50 - free, courtesy of my employer :D
Ceri JC
12-03-08, 10:23 AM
A mate who regularly sells his photographs and teaches digital photography is of the opinon that for most users, SLR is a 'badge' or status symbol and serves no practical purpose. His argument is that in traditional photography, SLRs have a point, but with digital, where the screen can show exactly what will be photographed, SLRs lose their main benefit. He also points out that it's usually better to spend £700 on a really good 'normal' digital camera, than £700 on a fairly entry level digital SLR; The former will usually take better pictures in most users' hands.
Not strictly my opinion and I'm sure some people on here will be quick to jump on this, but he knows a lot more about photography than me, so I don't disagree with him. :)
wyrdness
12-03-08, 10:28 AM
A mate who regularly sells his photographs and teaches digital photography is of the opinon that for most users, SLR is a 'badge' or status symbol and serves no practical purpose. His argument is that in traditional photography, SLRs have a point, but with digital, where the screen can show exactly what will be photographed, SLRs lose their main benefit.
The main advantage of an SLR is that it has interchangeable lenses, not the fact that it has a 'through the lens' viewfinder. Anyway, I pretty much always use the viewfinder, rather than the screen, for composing shots.
tigersaw
12-03-08, 10:41 AM
I've too many cameras. Nikon D40x, olympus E410 and some pocket cameras. The Nikon undoubtedly takes the best pictures, but its too much bother, and I prefer the menu's and controls on the olympus. day to day I'm generally happy with the results of the pocket cameras, I think the Nikon is the next thing on ebay..
I still have a film SLR, it does the job nicely too. The rest of the stuff I'm now taking on my 5MP phone, more then I need.
Following this -> link <- (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/thegrinch/sydneyphotos.htm) for examples of the photos I took with my Minolta SLR.
A mate who regularly sells his photographs and teaches digital photography is of the opinon that for most users, SLR is a 'badge' or status symbol and serves no practical purpose. His argument is that in traditional photography, SLRs have a point, but with digital, where the screen can show exactly what will be photographed, SLRs lose their main benefit. He also points out that it's usually better to spend £700 on a really good 'normal' digital camera, than £700 on a fairly entry level digital SLR; The former will usually take better pictures in most users' hands.
Not strictly my opinion and I'm sure some people on here will be quick to jump on this, but he knows a lot more about photography than me, so I don't disagree with him. :)
It's not the kit that makes a fantastic photo, it's the cheese that operates it.
Oh, and I use a Nikon D80 for digital.
I still pefer to use film though, the darkroom work makes a great change from sitting in front of a computer screen.
Never developed my own film before, I was thinking about a changing bag, but I know nothing about it all.
Never developed my own film before, I was thinking about a changing bag, but I know nothing about it all.
I did photography at night school some years ago, the best part of the course was when they gave us a roll Ilford FP4 B+W film and told us to go and shoot what we like cos we would be developing and printing our own films.Inevitably opening a film cannister in the dark and rolling it on to a spool for developing meant scratched film and dust marks etc but when you see a piece of photo paper coming to life with your images after its been through the various chemical baths etc..... magic, photoshop will never be able to compete on that level
Flamin_Squirrel
12-03-08, 11:34 AM
A mate who regularly sells his photographs and teaches digital photography is of the opinon that for most users, SLR is a 'badge' or status symbol and serves no practical purpose. His argument is that in traditional photography, SLRs have a point, but with digital, where the screen can show exactly what will be photographed, SLRs lose their main benefit. He also points out that it's usually better to spend ?700 on a really good 'normal' digital camera, than ?700 on a fairly entry level digital SLR; The former will usually take better pictures in most users' hands.
Not strictly my opinion and I'm sure some people on here will be quick to jump on this, but he knows a lot more about photography than me, so I don't disagree with him. :)
Perhaps, but you're not gonna learn to use the SLRs fancy bits if you don't have one to practice with.
I have a Canon 400D
I've got a Nikon D40, plenty of canons out there, good if you want to borrow lenses ;) :-$
So there are a few. I still haven't figured out a way to transport my SLR when I am out riding though as there have been various points when I wanted to stop to take a picture. Probably a tank bag might be the way to go as I don't really like the idea of having a camera in my back pack.
If I remember correctly baglux do a special camera bag.
I have a fuji bridge camera with a threaded lens for m wide angle lens :cool:
Does everything i could ever want it to
I had a film SLR (well, still have it but don't use it), then got a digital compact and used both depending on the circumstances. I recently bought a digital SLR, and now use that and the digital compact. The DSLR is great for getting brilliant shots, allowing post-processing (I always use RAW) and the ability to easily control shutter speed and aperture. On the other hand, it is big, heavy and takes time to get the best out of it, which is why I also use a digital compact if it's better suited to the occasion.
svpilot
12-03-08, 02:16 PM
A mate who regularly sells his photographs and teaches digital photography is of the opinon that for most users, SLR is a 'badge' or status symbol and serves no practical purpose. His argument is that in traditional photography, SLRs have a point, but with digital, where the screen can show exactly what will be photographed, SLRs lose their main benefit. He also points out that it's usually better to spend £700 on a really good 'normal' digital camera, than £700 on a fairly entry level digital SLR; The former will usually take better pictures in most users' hands.
Not strictly my opinion and I'm sure some people on here will be quick to jump on this, but he knows a lot more about photography than me, so I don't disagree with him. :)
A photographer friend of mine has a similar opinion. He only has an SLR because it is what people expect a photographer to have at weddings etc. Most of his 'work' is done on a compact style digital camera. :smt102
I have canon t90 film SLR which i bought in 1987 it cost me something like 600 quid then, it was that and get married or buy a bike and go back to Poland:rolleyes:.
since then I have had 2 snappy digital cameras, both Sony both great but no zoom good enough or lenses in themselves.
I still believe your eye shoots the shot, the post opp should not interfere too much.
I just ordered my Canon d400 today, So can someone explain RAW (as in uncompressed?), and how much space does it take off the card?
gettin2dizzy
12-03-08, 04:21 PM
You can't get a £700 'normal' camera; hence why people by DSLR. In laymans terms thy're far better cameras all round because the lenses are much larger allowing more light to come in, and the CCDs are larger allowing a better picture for the given resolution. Until recently DSLR didn't even display the 'live' image until the photograph was taken. I think the stance taken by your friends is just a romantic notion that film is better in the same way people think vinyl is the bees knees in quality.
gettin2dizzy
12-03-08, 04:26 PM
I have canon t90 film SLR which i bought in 1987 it cost me something like 600 quid then, it was that and get married or buy a bike and go back to Poland:rolleyes:.
since then I have had 2 snappy digital cameras, both Sony both great but no zoom good enough or lenses in themselves.
I still believe your eye shoots the shot, the post opp should not interfere too much.
I just ordered my Canon d400 today, So can someone explain RAW (as in uncompressed?), and how much space does it take off the card?
A 4GB card in a 10MP camera will take around 800 RAW pictures at full resolution. The RAW format is uncompressed and unprocessed; so you have to do post processing on this. Because of this you don't need to set any white levels etc and is compeltely lossless.
ThEGr33k
12-03-08, 04:30 PM
http://www.fmft.net/FN%20FAL%20SLR%203.jpg
A little late I know... SLR wins.
:p
Sid Squid
12-03-08, 06:08 PM
just been wondering how many of you bikers have SLR's (not snappy cameras),
Am I right in thinking there are loads...
I'll start with me so;
1
Yes, a D80 and 3 quaint old Olympus things that film goes in.
Until recently DSLR didn't even display the 'live' image until the photograph was taken.
Unless it's using a separate lens and CCD to display the 'live' image, it can't possibly be an SLR... In order to actually be a true 'reflex' camera it must use a moving mirror to focus light into either the viewfinder for composition and subsequently the lens for exposure... unless of course they're hiding a tiny CCD in the viewfinder path with further image reflection or something similar.
Do you have an example of a DSLR model with live-viewfinder image display I can take a look at?
If it IS using a separate lens and CCD then the image won't necessarily be exactly the same as that taken, which renders the live image a bit pointless.
tigersaw
12-03-08, 06:39 PM
Do you have an example of a DSLR model with live-viewfinder image display I can take a look at?
Olympus e410
It moves the mirror so the ccd becomes 'live' - bit gimmick, but works
southy1978
12-03-08, 07:40 PM
Yep i have a canon 350d and a few lenses.
Olympus e410
It moves the mirror so the ccd becomes 'live' - bit gimmick, but works
Right... I see. Having read the specs and details it seems that although they call it 'live' it is simply a momentary mirror-flap which allows the image to be displayed before capture... Not really much better than simply taking a shot and then taking it again, as far as I can tell, but I guess it's a feature of sorts.
tigersaw
12-03-08, 08:08 PM
Right... I see. Having read the specs and details it seems that although they call it 'live' it is simply a momentary mirror-flap which allows the image to be displayed before capture... Not really much better than simply taking a shot and then taking it again, as far as I can tell, but I guess it's a feature of sorts.
Doesnt have to be momentary - you can make it perminant. It adds shutter lag though as it has to come out of the mode to take the picture
Nick762
12-03-08, 09:21 PM
Used to use a Nikon 35mm SLR until I went over to the dark side a few years ago and got myself an Olympus MJU digital compact but soon found it wasn't versatile enough (no manual options). Treated myself to an Olympus E510 last summer, love it although I'm still getting to grips with its finer points.
Doesnt have to be momentary - you can make it perminant. It adds shutter lag though as it has to come out of the mode to take the picture
If the mirror flaps permanently how does the viewfinder remain active? Or does it smiply at that point display the image on the LCD?
ukgooner
13-03-08, 08:20 AM
If the mirror flaps permanently how does the viewfinder remain active? Or does it smiply at that point display the image on the LCD?
On my D300 the veiwfinder does not remain active whilst in Live View, you can either use one or the other.
I have only used it whilst playing to be honest, but then I have only had the new camera for a month.
Also love using B&W film, self developed and pictures printed in the darkroom, cannot beat it in my opinion!!
I am in the process of having a new garden shed built, half of which is to become a darkroom.
Amanda M
13-03-08, 08:38 AM
Yep. Got a Nikon D40.
joelowden
13-03-08, 09:57 AM
Fuji S2 and a few lenses.
tigersaw
13-03-08, 10:36 AM
Or does it smiply at that point display the image on the LCD?
Yup
I still believe your eye shoots the shot, the post opp should not interfere too much.
I agree, but sometimes digital cameras don't acurately render images, especially with things like white balance or in low light.
For example, I took a series of images recently at night of a floodlit structure. The white balance and colour cast on the images was wrong due to the way the camera interpretted the light, but I was able to choose a different white balance as I shot in RAW (without changing any data the camera had captured), and correct the tone of the image to relflect what was actually there. I use post-processing for that sort of thing, but definately not changing images so they are different to what that scene actually was.
I've noticed that in recent months some photography magazines have dedicated significant portions of the magazine to editing images to add a different sky, move or remove objects or in some even add in things that were never there to start with! To my mind, that's not photography.
I agree, but sometimes digital cameras don't acurately render images, especially with things like white balance or in low light.
For example, I took a series of images recently at night of a floodlit structure. The white balance and colour cast on the images was wrong due to the way the camera interpretted the light, but I was able to choose a different white balance as I shot in RAW (without changing any data the camera had captured), and correct the tone of the image to relflect what was actually there. I use post-processing for that sort of thing, but definately not changing images so they are different to what that scene actually was.
I've noticed that in recent months some photography magazines have dedicated significant portions of the magazine to editing images to add a different sky, move or remove objects or in some even add in things that were never there to start with! To my mind, that's not photography.
how different is the image shot in raw to the other ones?
The initial appearance of the image itself has little difference to those shot in jpeg, apart from the jpeg compression being visible if you zoom in a long way. However, because the RAW image has all the data the camera captured from the CCD, rather than being an interpretted file saved purley as an image without that original data, you can change how that raw data is interpretted to produce the final result. After processing I always save as jpeg, because RAW is only any use in either the camera manufacturer's software or by using a plugin compatible with that manufacturer's format of file.
The initial appearance of the image itself has little difference to those shot in jpeg, apart from the jpeg compression being visible if you zoom in a long way. However, because the RAW image has all the data the camera captured from the CCD, rather than being an interpretted file saved purley as an image without that original data, you can change how that raw data is interpretted to produce the final result. After processing I always save as jpeg, because RAW is only any use in either the camera manufacturer's software or by using a plugin compatible with that manufacturer's format of file.
cool, so assuming i don't want to change anything ie I'm happy with the image, I can simply save any of the RAW as jpegs:-D
kwak zzr
14-03-08, 05:24 PM
Sports Light Racing...
http://img.alibaba.com/photo/100153736/Used_Mercedes_Slr_Mclaren_Car.jpg
i really really want this :rolleyes:
neilfab
14-03-08, 05:25 PM
I have a Minolta Dynax 7000i complete with 'data cards' depending on what sort of shot you want to take you insert a different card and it - is supposed to - helps with the menus. A lot of faffing about for very little benfit never really used them but loved the Dynax itself.
Now have a Canon Ixus 750 and am very happy with that thank you very much.
fizzwheel
14-03-08, 05:34 PM
D40
yorkie_chris
14-03-08, 05:38 PM
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/lodge/616/l1a1.jpg
:confused: I think the SLR would win every time
rictus01
14-03-08, 06:53 PM
Canon Ixus v3 (fag packet size)
Olympus E-10 (tele/macro & wide angle lens extentions)
Canon EOS 350d ( 18-55mm/ 80-200mm/ 50mm f1.8 )
Cheers Mark.
cool, so assuming i don't want to change anything ie I'm happy with the image, I can simply save any of the RAW as jpegs:-D
Yep.
I did photography at night school some years ago, the best part of the course was when they gave us a roll Ilford FP4 B+W film and told us to go and shoot what we like cos we would be developing and printing our own films.Inevitably opening a film cannister in the dark and rolling it on to a spool for developing meant scratched film and dust marks etc but when you see a piece of photo paper coming to life with your images after its been through the various chemical baths etc..... magic, photoshop will never be able to compete on that level
No need to open the canister, use a tounge tool to pull the film out of the canister then put it onto the jobo rolls as they were self loading.
Anyway, i have an Nikon F80 SLR and Yashica TLR. Plus mabey ile get the F2 from my dad one day. still have tanks and chems in the shed for BW, a freind of mine has a proper home developing machine that does everything for you and can do colour & paper too. But he develops 5"x4" film.
ArtyLady
15-03-08, 02:13 PM
No need to open the canister, use a tounge tool to pull the film out of the canister then put it onto the jobo rolls as they were self loading.
Anyway, i have an Nikon F80 SLR and Yashica TLR. Plus mabey ile get the F2 from my dad one day. still have tanks and chems in the shed for BW, a freind of mine has a proper home developing machine that does everything for you and can do colour & paper too. But he develops 5"x4" film.
Are they your photos that you have in your avatar TSM? theyre brilliant :cool:
tactcom7
15-03-08, 02:20 PM
+ 1 contax 139 quartz that my dad gave me :)
You can't get a £700 'normal' camera; hence why people by DSLR. In laymans terms thy're far better cameras all round because the lenses are much larger allowing more light to come in, and the CCDs are larger allowing a better picture for the given resolution. Until recently DSLR didn't even display the 'live' image until the photograph was taken. I think the stance taken by your friends is just a romantic notion that film is better in the same way people think vinyl is the bees knees in quality.
The larger sensor also requires longer lens focal lengths to get the same angle of view. As such the area in focus is more selective for a given aperture (longer the focal length the narrower the depth of field), which can if used creativley produce more drama to a view rather than a postcard look.
LCD screens on the back of compact cameras do not get close to the clarity of the view through the viewfinder of an SLR and can be hard to see in daylight and very difficult to focus manually in comparison.
Horses for courses really, for something small and light to carry around with you that probably covers 95% of your needs, a compact is very hard to beat, and they can produce stunning images.
For absolute image quality (do not confuse this with the pixel count), an SLR has the edge and in the right hands (not mine) gives the option to be more creative with different lenses and lighting options.
It's the person using the camera that makes the picture though, the best camera in the world will still just produce 'snaps' in most hands. For most of us that all we want.
Personally I still prefer to use a film rangefinder but I still use digital as it is arguabely more versatile and has a much faster work flow.
For even better quality within reach of ?700, consider second hand medium format film. You'll probably not have to make the exposure and focus settings yourself though.
tigersaw
21-03-08, 05:40 PM
If the mirror flaps permanently how does the viewfinder remain active? Or does it smiply at that point display the image on the LCD?
I'll be selling my Olympus E-410 anytime now, (Virtually unused, with 2 gig extreem 3 CF card as new blah blah) for £200 if you looked at one and liked it.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.