Yesterday's digital SLR cameras for today's amateur enthusiast?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mike anderson, Jan 20, 2006.

  1. Yesterday's digital SLR cameras for today's amateur enthusiast?

    At 'Steve's Digicams' they list something called: best Amateur Digital
    SLR cameras. I would love to have an, entry level, digital SLR of
    decent quality but $1000-2000 it way over my limit. Even when they are
    sold used on eBay they are far over my budget.

    Back to my original question; could anyone recommend a good digital
    SLR camera, from yesterday or today, one that one might find used
    below $500?

    Some requirements: a good manual focus. Interchangeable lenses is also
    a plus.

    Any help would be most appreciated,
    mike
    mike anderson, Jan 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. mike anderson

    Scott W Guest

    mike anderson wrote:
    > Yesterday's digital SLR cameras for today's amateur enthusiast?
    >
    > At 'Steve's Digicams' they list something called: best Amateur Digital
    > SLR cameras. I would love to have an, entry level, digital SLR of
    > decent quality but $1000-2000 it way over my limit. Even when they are
    > sold used on eBay they are far over my budget.
    >
    > Back to my original question; could anyone recommend a good digital
    > SLR camera, from yesterday or today, one that one might find used
    > below $500?
    >
    > Some requirements: a good manual focus. Interchangeable lenses is also
    > a plus.
    >
    > Any help would be most appreciated,
    > mike

    You might take a look at a used Canon 10D.

    Scott
    Scott W, Jan 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. mike anderson <> wrote:
    >Back to my original question; could anyone recommend a good digital
    >SLR camera, from yesterday or today, one that one might find used
    >below $500?
    >
    >Some requirements: a good manual focus. Interchangeable lenses is also
    >a plus.


    One camera you might want to look at is the Nikon D1 series. It
    was built as a professional model, hence the quality and
    functionality is high. Of course if you buy a 6 year old camera
    that was worked to death by a pro that is a _negative_ point. So
    the trick is finding one, owned by an amateur, that isn't worn
    out.

    It has all the bells and whistles of a pro model. The light
    meter works with older manual lenses, as does the electronic
    focusing aid (the viewing screen, however, does not have a micro
    prism focusing aid). It has things like mirror lockup,
    adjustable rate continuous shooting, x sync on opening or
    closing shutter curtain, etc, etc. Of course it uses the vast
    array of great Nikon lenses... as well as every less expensive
    lense ever made in a Nikon mount.

    However, it is 1999 technology too. While it has ISO settings
    for 200 through 1600, only the 200 is useful (even 400 is too
    noisy to use). It makes a 2.7 mega pixel image (2012x1324). It
    won't do real Through The Lens (TTL) metering with a flash.

    That is perhaps an ideal starter if you want professional
    quality and functionality to explore various aspects of digital
    photography, but are not going to be making large prints. For
    8x10s and anything you'll want to put on a web site, for
    example, it does just fine. It also provides a nice upgrade
    path if you find that photography is worth a larger investment.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd Davidson, Jan 20, 2006
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    Floyd Davidson <> wrote:
    >However, it is 1999 technology too. While it has ISO settings
    >for 200 through 1600, only the 200 is useful (even 400 is too
    >noisy to use). It makes a 2.7 mega pixel image (2012x1324). It
    >won't do real Through The Lens (TTL) metering with a flash.


    The D1 is supposed to do TTL flash metering using the 28DX, 50DX, and the
    80DX.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
    Philip Homburg, Jan 20, 2006
    #4
  5. mike anderson

    Bernd Steyer Guest

    "mike anderson" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:...
    > Back to my original question; could anyone recommend a good digital
    > SLR camera, from yesterday or today, one that one might find used
    > below $500?


    Pentax istD, istDs
    Bernd Steyer, Jan 20, 2006
    #5
  6. mike anderson

    SMS Guest

    mike anderson wrote:
    > Yesterday's digital SLR cameras for today's amateur enthusiast?
    >
    > At 'Steve's Digicams' they list something called: best Amateur Digital
    > SLR cameras. I would love to have an, entry level, digital SLR of
    > decent quality but $1000-2000 it way over my limit. Even when they are
    > sold used on eBay they are far over my budget.
    >
    > Back to my original question; could anyone recommend a good digital
    > SLR camera, from yesterday or today, one that one might find used
    > below $500?
    >
    > Some requirements: a good manual focus. Interchangeable lenses is also
    > a plus.
    >
    > Any help would be most appreciated,
    > mike


    Wait a couple of months.

    With Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic entering the market, prices are poised
    for a fall. Canon and Nikon have been recovering their ROI for a while,
    and now the bottom feeders are arriving.

    Maybe The KM 7D will be closed out soon, now that KM is exiting the
    market, but Sony is taking over so the lenses will still be available.

    A used Canon 10D may be your best bet.
    SMS, Jan 20, 2006
    #6
  7. (Philip Homburg) writes:

    > In article <>,
    > Floyd Davidson <> wrote:
    > >However, it is 1999 technology too. While it has ISO settings
    > >for 200 through 1600, only the 200 is useful (even 400 is too
    > >noisy to use). It makes a 2.7 mega pixel image (2012x1324). It
    > >won't do real Through The Lens (TTL) metering with a flash.

    >
    > The D1 is supposed to do TTL flash metering using the 28DX, 50DX, and the
    > 80DX.


    Does it do it any better than the D100 or the Fuji S2? Might as well
    count it as "not", then.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 20, 2006
    #7
  8. mike anderson

    Cordovero Guest

    Nikon 5D. New with body only isn't much more than $500. Used with kit lens
    should be just below.
    C

    "mike anderson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Yesterday's digital SLR cameras for today's amateur enthusiast?
    >
    > At 'Steve's Digicams' they list something called: best Amateur Digital
    > SLR cameras. I would love to have an, entry level, digital SLR of
    > decent quality but $1000-2000 it way over my limit. Even when they are
    > sold used on eBay they are far over my budget.
    >
    > Back to my original question; could anyone recommend a good digital
    > SLR camera, from yesterday or today, one that one might find used
    > below $500?
    >
    > Some requirements: a good manual focus. Interchangeable lenses is also
    > a plus.
    >
    > Any help would be most appreciated,
    > mike
    Cordovero, Jan 20, 2006
    #8
  9. mike anderson

    Cordovero Guest

    Pardon me: I meant the D50.

    C

    "Cordovero" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:FaAf.1074$...
    > Nikon 5D. New with body only isn't much more than $500. Used with kit
    > lens should be just below.
    > C
    >
    > "mike anderson" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Yesterday's digital SLR cameras for today's amateur enthusiast?
    >>
    >> At 'Steve's Digicams' they list something called: best Amateur Digital
    >> SLR cameras. I would love to have an, entry level, digital SLR of
    >> decent quality but $1000-2000 it way over my limit. Even when they are
    >> sold used on eBay they are far over my budget.
    >>
    >> Back to my original question; could anyone recommend a good digital
    >> SLR camera, from yesterday or today, one that one might find used
    >> below $500?
    >>
    >> Some requirements: a good manual focus. Interchangeable lenses is also
    >> a plus.
    >>
    >> Any help would be most appreciated,
    >> mike

    >
    >
    Cordovero, Jan 20, 2006
    #9
  10. "mike anderson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Yesterday's digital SLR cameras for today's amateur enthusiast?
    >
    > At 'Steve's Digicams' they list something called: best Amateur Digital
    > SLR cameras. I would love to have an, entry level, digital SLR of
    > decent quality but $1000-2000 it way over my limit. Even when they are
    > sold used on eBay they are far over my budget.
    >
    > Back to my original question; could anyone recommend a good digital
    > SLR camera, from yesterday or today, one that one might find used
    > below $500?
    >
    > Some requirements: a good manual focus. Interchangeable lenses is also
    > a plus.
    >
    > Any help would be most appreciated,
    > mike


    Nikon D50, I paid just over $ 500.00 for the body (new) including a Nikon
    2-year extended warranty and a decent bag.
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Jan 20, 2006
    #10
  11. In article <-b.net>,
    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >Does it do it any better than the D100 or the Fuji S2? Might as well
    >count it as "not", then.


    I don't know. I don't have access to a D100 or an S2. I can borrow an 28DX,
    so if there are specific test scenarios that are supposed to fail, I can
    try them.

    From reading the manuals, I am not impressed with Nikon's flash systems.
    There is an endless amount of voodoo, and hardly anything that sounds
    like a good user interface.



    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
    Philip Homburg, Jan 20, 2006
    #11
  12. (Philip Homburg) writes:

    > In article <-b.net>,
    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > >Does it do it any better than the D100 or the Fuji S2? Might as well
    > >count it as "not", then.

    >
    > I don't know. I don't have access to a D100 or an S2. I can borrow an 28DX,
    > so if there are specific test scenarios that are supposed to fail, I can
    > try them.
    >
    > From reading the manuals, I am not impressed with Nikon's flash systems.
    > There is an endless amount of voodoo, and hardly anything that sounds
    > like a good user interface.


    I find that the SB-28 works wonderfully well on an N90. It was a real
    breakthrough in flash automation for me -- worked very well both
    bounce and direct, including outdoors, without burning out the main
    subject. (And I had previously used an Olympus OM-4T with with very
    good for the period TTL flash.)

    On the Fuji S-2, and from very limited experience plus other people's
    reports on the D100 as well, the SB-28 and the SB-80DX produce very
    bad results. I frequently use flash exposure compensation as high as
    +2 to get decent pictures, in situations where the N90 would have hit
    it perfectly (including, a few times, using them side-by-side at the
    same events).

    My understanding is that the reflectivity of the digital sensors
    somehow doesn't work out with the old TTL circuitry, and it takes the
    new iTTL in the newer cameras and the SB-800 flash to do a good job.
    I haven't tried those, yet.

    I also find the Nikon flash stuff trivially simple to use, myself.
    I'm not doing anything terribly arcane -- on-camera, mostly bounce,
    very often with manually selected zoom and with flash exposure
    compensation. That seems like the basic stuff to me.

    What I find exposes very badly on an S-2 compared to an N-90: Set the
    flash straight up for bounce off a white ceiling, with the fill card
    full extended. Select ISO 400 and TTL flash, matrix metering. Shoot
    a person, head and shoulders, or perhaps two people talking, using a
    lens in the 28-70mm range (real focal lengths, not "equivelents"). I
    find I *very* often need up to 2 stops compensation to get this to
    come out right. Luckily with digital and histogram display, it's
    fairly easy to do flash essentially in manual mode, as I originally
    learned to.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 20, 2006
    #12
  13. In article <-b.net>,
    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >I find that the SB-28 works wonderfully well on an N90.


    My experience with a Metz 60-CT2 on an FE2 is that works very well.
    However, I only tried tricky flash situation with print film. And with
    print film, you can overexpose quite a bit to get the balance between
    flash and ambiant light right.

    The problem with digital, is that you basically cannot over expose, so
    you have to reduce the exposure of ambiant light as you increase the
    amount of flash.

    >On the Fuji S-2, and from very limited experience plus other people's
    >reports on the D100 as well, the SB-28 and the SB-80DX produce very
    >bad results.


    The SB-28 is no going to do TTL flash on the D100, you need an SB-28DX for
    that.

    >My understanding is that the reflectivity of the digital sensors
    >somehow doesn't work out with the old TTL circuitry, and it takes the
    >new iTTL in the newer cameras and the SB-800 flash to do a good job.
    >I haven't tried those, yet.


    The SB-80DX combined with a D1 (and I assume that that is the case with the
    D100 as well) does TTL flash metering using pre-flashes. Reflectivity of
    the sensor does not take part in that process.

    This is unlike the S2, which does meter TTL flash off the sensor. If it
    doesn't work on the S2, then is probably not the same reason that it doesn't
    work on the D100.

    In my (limited) experience, an SB-28DX on D1 tends to overexpose. Reducing
    the flash output by 0.5 or 1 stop is required to get fill-in flash
    that looks good.

    >What I find exposes very badly on an S-2 compared to an N-90: Set the
    >flash straight up for bounce off a white ceiling, with the fill card
    >full extended. Select ISO 400 and TTL flash, matrix metering. Shoot
    >a person, head and shoulders, or perhaps two people talking, using a
    >lens in the 28-70mm range (real focal lengths, not "equivelents"). I
    >find I *very* often need up to 2 stops compensation to get this to
    >come out right. Luckily with digital and histogram display, it's
    >fairly easy to do flash essentially in manual mode, as I originally
    >learned to.


    I'll try that some time.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
    Philip Homburg, Jan 20, 2006
    #13
  14. mike anderson

    Mark² Guest

    mike anderson wrote:
    > Yesterday's digital SLR cameras for today's amateur enthusiast?
    >
    > At 'Steve's Digicams' they list something called: best Amateur Digital
    > SLR cameras. I would love to have an, entry level, digital SLR of
    > decent quality but $1000-2000 it way over my limit. Even when they are
    > sold used on eBay they are far over my budget.
    >
    > Back to my original question; could anyone recommend a good digital
    > SLR camera, from yesterday or today, one that one might find used
    > below $500?
    >
    > Some requirements: a good manual focus. Interchangeable lenses is also
    > a plus.
    >
    > Any help would be most appreciated,
    > mike


    Your is not a bad plan.
    Believe it or not... B&H still has brand new Canon 10Ds in stock...
    -Un-opened brand new...for $799.
    If you can buy them new for $799, I'm sure you can get them well below that
    used...but you might decide it's well worth the extra cost to have FULL
    warranty, and freedom from worry over buying used...

    The 10D is a great DSLR, and at that price, you'll have an extremely good
    digicam for half what it cost when it came out. The 10D is what I still
    use, and although I look forward to an eventual doubling of megapixels...my
    10D is producing very nice images at very large print size.

    This two-shot panorama is on my wall, printed to about 40" long.
    http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235344/original
    Image quality is great...even upon close inspection.

    Here's the link to the B&H page for it:
    http://tinyurl.com/72n83

    -Mark
    Mark², Jan 21, 2006
    #14
  15. mike anderson

    Denton Guest

    whow..what lens did you use?? have a new Rebel XT with kit lens 50mm 1.8.And
    a 24mm prime lens has been ordered and would dearly love to get that kind of
    results.
    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:JHhAf.15012$V.9618@fed1read04...
    > mike anderson wrote:
    >> Yesterday's digital SLR cameras for today's amateur enthusiast?
    >>
    >> At 'Steve's Digicams' they list something called: best Amateur Digital
    >> SLR cameras. I would love to have an, entry level, digital SLR of
    >> decent quality but $1000-2000 it way over my limit. Even when they are
    >> sold used on eBay they are far over my budget.
    >>
    >> Back to my original question; could anyone recommend a good digital
    >> SLR camera, from yesterday or today, one that one might find used
    >> below $500?
    >>
    >> Some requirements: a good manual focus. Interchangeable lenses is also
    >> a plus.
    >>
    >> Any help would be most appreciated,
    >> mike

    >
    > Your is not a bad plan.
    > Believe it or not... B&H still has brand new Canon 10Ds in stock...
    > -Un-opened brand new...for $799.
    > If you can buy them new for $799, I'm sure you can get them well below
    > that used...but you might decide it's well worth the extra cost to have
    > FULL warranty, and freedom from worry over buying used...
    >
    > The 10D is a great DSLR, and at that price, you'll have an extremely good
    > digicam for half what it cost when it came out. The 10D is what I still
    > use, and although I look forward to an eventual doubling of
    > megapixels...my 10D is producing very nice images at very large print
    > size.
    >
    > This two-shot panorama is on my wall, printed to about 40" long.
    > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235344/original
    > Image quality is great...even upon close inspection.
    >
    > Here's the link to the B&H page for it:
    > http://tinyurl.com/72n83
    >
    > -Mark
    >
    Denton, Jan 21, 2006
    #15
  16. mike anderson

    Mark² Guest

    Denton wrote:
    > whow..what lens did you use?? have a new Rebel XT with kit lens 50mm
    > 1.8.And a 24mm prime lens has been ordered and would dearly love to
    > get that kind of results.


    I used Canon's 16-35 2.8 L...but there's a lot more to it than the lens.
    :)
    Most people shoot Haleakala in the morning, since everyone raves about the
    sunrise.
    -What they don't think about is the fact that at sunrise, they are shooting
    into the sun, meaning all that beautiful lava rock color is in shadow (Ask
    Annika-Bret about this). The BEST time (in my view, anyway) is just before
    sunSET...after a rare rain to clear the air and enable amazing
    colors/clarity (it doesn't rain often at the TOP, though tons of rain falls
    at lower elevation on Maui, of course).

    Then it takes a tripod, and good choice of spots...and waiting for the light
    to be right...then hoping the weather gods give you nice clouds other
    elements, etc. :)

    Bottom line:
    It's not automatic no matter what camera you have, but your Rebel XT is
    every bit as capable of capturing this kind of clarity. The question really
    comes down to being there, seeing it, and then figuring out how to capture
    it.
    I don't claim to be an expert, but what you DO with your camera and lens is
    always going to go farther toward capturing these images...than simply
    having "the right lens," etc.

    Your 50mm and 24mm primes are more than enough, and your 2 extra MPs don't
    hurt.
    But that's just your gear. Most of it is up to you.
    -Mark


    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    > news:JHhAf.15012$V.9618@fed1read04...
    >> mike anderson wrote:
    >>> Yesterday's digital SLR cameras for today's amateur enthusiast?
    >>>
    >>> At 'Steve's Digicams' they list something called: best Amateur
    >>> Digital SLR cameras. I would love to have an, entry level, digital
    >>> SLR of decent quality but $1000-2000 it way over my limit. Even
    >>> when they are sold used on eBay they are far over my budget.
    >>>
    >>> Back to my original question; could anyone recommend a good digital
    >>> SLR camera, from yesterday or today, one that one might find used
    >>> below $500?
    >>>
    >>> Some requirements: a good manual focus. Interchangeable lenses is
    >>> also a plus.
    >>>
    >>> Any help would be most appreciated,
    >>> mike

    >>
    >> Your is not a bad plan.
    >> Believe it or not... B&H still has brand new Canon 10Ds in stock...
    >> -Un-opened brand new...for $799.
    >> If you can buy them new for $799, I'm sure you can get them well
    >> below that used...but you might decide it's well worth the extra
    >> cost to have FULL warranty, and freedom from worry over buying
    >> used... The 10D is a great DSLR, and at that price, you'll have an
    >> extremely
    >> good digicam for half what it cost when it came out. The 10D is
    >> what I still use, and although I look forward to an eventual
    >> doubling of megapixels...my 10D is producing very nice images at
    >> very large print size.
    >>
    >> This two-shot panorama is on my wall, printed to about 40" long.
    >> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235344/original
    >> Image quality is great...even upon close inspection.
    >>
    >> Here's the link to the B&H page for it:
    >> http://tinyurl.com/72n83
    >>
    >> -Mark
    Mark², Jan 21, 2006
    #16
  17. mike anderson

    Brian Guest

    Philip Homburg wrote:

    <snip>

    > My experience with a Metz 60-CT2 on an FE2 is that works very well.
    > However, I only tried tricky flash situation with print film. And with
    > print film, you can overexpose quite a bit to get the balance between
    > flash and ambiant light right.
    >
    > The problem with digital, is that you basically cannot over expose, so
    > you have to reduce the exposure of ambiant light as you increase the
    > amount of flash.


    Hi Philip,

    I have read the above part of your post 3 times and I am trying to
    understand what you are saying? Why would you be "overexposing" to get a
    balance between ambient and flash? I assume you are talking about fill
    flash here with a backlit subject? If this is not the case, please
    disregard the rest of my response that follows.

    If you are talking about a backlit subject, to look natural, the flash
    exposure should be less than the ambient backlit exposure. You should be
    "correctly" exposing the background and slightly underexposing the
    subject with fill flash (1/2 or 1/4 ratio). In real life, if you had the
    sun behind you and I looked at you, you would appear slightly dark to
    the naked eye. This is only natural, the light is not shining on you, it
    is behind you.

    I just cannot figure out what has to be overexposed? I would love to
    hear more.

    Regards,
    Brian.
    Brian, Jan 21, 2006
    #17
  18. In article <43d24c5d$0$5922$>,
    Brian <cooloox_at_optusnet.com.au> wrote:
    >I have read the above part of your post 3 times and I am trying to
    >understand what you are saying? Why would you be "overexposing" to get a
    >balance between ambient and flash? I assume you are talking about fill
    >flash here with a backlit subject? If this is not the case, please
    >disregard the rest of my response that follows.


    I guess I have to disregard the rest of your response. No, what typically
    happens is that a room doesn't have a nice white ceiling that would allow
    you to illuminate the whole room with your flash.

    So, a direct flash is required. Now, in many cases (with fast enough lenses)
    you can get quite a bit of light from the ambiant lighting to avoid a
    completely dark space behind the subject. So, dial in enough ambiant light
    for the shadows, and illuminate the subject with your flash.

    There are also lots of less extreme cases, where the subject just happens
    to be in the shadow without a strong backlight situation. With normal
    exposure of the subject and some flash, it quite possible to go over
    the 100%.

    Then there is the problem that the TTL flash metering on film bodies
    is center-weighted (and a D1 with non-AF lenses also uses center-weighted).
    This also is likely to result in overexposure.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
    Philip Homburg, Jan 22, 2006
    #18
  19. mike anderson

    dwight Guest

    "mike anderson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Yesterday's digital SLR cameras for today's amateur enthusiast?
    >
    > At 'Steve's Digicams' they list something called: best Amateur Digital
    > SLR cameras. I would love to have an, entry level, digital SLR of
    > decent quality but $1000-2000 it way over my limit. Even when they are
    > sold used on eBay they are far over my budget.
    >
    > Back to my original question; could anyone recommend a good digital
    > SLR camera, from yesterday or today, one that one might find used
    > below $500?
    >
    > Some requirements: a good manual focus. Interchangeable lenses is also
    > a plus.
    >
    > Any help would be most appreciated,
    > mike


    Recently bought the Canon Rebel XT. The camera was listed at full price, but
    with a 10% off coupon from the store. Also used the store credit card, which
    gave me 0% interest financing through 2008. Timing is everything, but it
    just worked out that way - I'd have bought the camera anyway.

    Now, I know this doesn't answer your question, but it is another approach to
    managing larger purchases. In this case, I could stretch payments over 24
    months, if I wanted to, without paying a penalty. (This only works out if
    you're not going to be replacing what you bought within that time, but you
    probably wouldn't.) To me, 0% financing is a no-brainer for those things
    that I just "gotta have now."

    dwight
    dwight, Jan 22, 2006
    #19
  20. In article <5q251gl6lhgr2p7clj8d8ab6m1@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
    Philip Homburg <> wrote:
    >In article <-b.net>,
    >David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>What I find exposes very badly on an S-2 compared to an N-90: Set the
    >>flash straight up for bounce off a white ceiling, with the fill card
    >>full extended. Select ISO 400 and TTL flash, matrix metering. Shoot
    >>a person, head and shoulders, or perhaps two people talking, using a
    >>lens in the 28-70mm range (real focal lengths, not "equivelents"). I
    >>find I *very* often need up to 2 stops compensation to get this to
    >>come out right. Luckily with digital and histogram display, it's
    >>fairly easy to do flash essentially in manual mode, as I originally
    >>learned to.

    >
    >I'll try that some time.


    I played with the SB-28DX a bit this afternoon. Sorry, I forgot the
    exact test (and the D1 doesn't really support ISO 400 either).

    In general it does seem to work. Both with the flash as main light source
    and with a combination of ambiant and flash. The flash at the appropriate
    angle for bouncing worked fine for the still life (and interior shots)
    I tried.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
    Philip Homburg, Jan 22, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    792
    Silverstrand
    Sep 7, 2006
  2. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    723
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  3. SLR and SLR like cameras

    , Aug 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    394
    Prometheus
    Aug 31, 2005
  4. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Best Amateur Digital SLR (under $1,000)

    newcamz.blogspot.com, Jul 22, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    478
    J. Clarke
    Jul 23, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    757
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page