SV650.org - SV650 & Gladius 650 Forum
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

SV650.org - SV650 & Gladius 650 Forum (http://forums.sv650.org/index.php)
-   Idle Banter (http://forums.sv650.org/forumdisplay.php?f=116)
-   -   SLR's v Bikers (http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=106300)

laMon 12-03-08 08:23 AM
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

Viney 12-03-08 08:26 AM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Other than a snappy camera, whats a SLR?

sarah 12-03-08 08:31 AM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viney (Post 1444570)
Other than a snappy camera, whats a SLR?
Single-lens reflex

Lozzo 12-03-08 08:54 AM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Self Loading Rifle.

gettin2dizzy 12-03-08 08:56 AM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
+ 1 (400d)

the_lone_wolf 12-03-08 08:58 AM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Sports Light Racing...

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/1001537...claren_Car.jpg

laMon 12-03-08 08:59 AM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy (Post 1444589)
+ 1 (400d)
is that canon d400? if so me too,

so that's 2,

stewie 12-03-08 09:07 AM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
I have a panasonic bridge camera, dunno if that counts though.

Lozzo 12-03-08 09:08 AM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
i really really really want one, does that count?

Biker Biggles 12-03-08 09:23 AM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Sloane Ranger?

stewie 12-03-08 09:24 AM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by missyorkie_chris (Post 1444602)
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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stewie (Post 1444607)
+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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy (Post 1444618)
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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Nikon D50 - free, courtesy of my employer :D

Ceri JC 12-03-08 10:23 AM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceri JC (Post 1444659)
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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
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..

Grinch 12-03-08 10:44 AM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
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 <- for examples of the photos I took with my Minolta SLR.

Beenz 12-03-08 10:47 AM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceri JC (Post 1444659)
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.

Grinch 12-03-08 11:02 AM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Never developed my own film before, I was thinking about a changing bag, but I know nothing about it all.

stewie 12-03-08 11:25 AM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grinch (Post 1444683)
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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceri JC (Post 1444659)
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

Raf 12-03-08 12:53 PM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
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.

Grinch 12-03-08 12:59 PM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
If I remember correctly baglux do a special camera bag.

G 12-03-08 01:32 PM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
I have a fuji bridge camera with a threaded lens for m wide angle lens :cool:

Does everything i could ever want it to

Nutter 12-03-08 02:01 PM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceri JC (Post 1444659)
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

laMon 12-03-08 04:18 PM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by laMon (Post 1445023)
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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by laMon (Post 1444569)
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.

Dan 12-03-08 06:30 PM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy (Post 1445026)
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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRCSixtyThree (Post 1445229)

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
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Yep i have a canon 350d and a few lenses.

Dan 12-03-08 08:02 PM
Re: SLR's v Bikers
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigersaw (Post 1445240)
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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:44 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.