you don't need to be an early adopter to lose money on digital cameras
every new version is twice as powerful at half the price
If you are waiting for the point where prices can't go any lower, you
haven't reached there yet and digital photography in the consumer space is
now 20 years old (and analogue photography, outside of very few niche areas,
has completely disappeared)
I'm reasonably confident my Lumix GX8 is currently held back by the lens
(I have a medium grade tele and a F1.7 prime - can't afford anything
else in the m4/3 format.
The sensor captures a very wide dynamic range by my previous standards
(you can pull a sky down several EV to bring clouds and blue out of
virtually nothing whilst the original exposure was generally good -
Lightroom makes isolating sky for selective exposure compensation pretty
easy - that's before you get to real HDR with multiple shots).
Tele lens can pull reasonable focus with reasonable depth of field
(though I think it could do a bit better on the focus).
Prime is a so-so lens, good for being a compact and reasonable in caves
where it can just about pull off a non flash photo with acceptable noise.
I'm sure, side by side, a really expensive DSR body with a bigger sensor
of course would beat it into the ground - but for hobby work, as I said,
I think money on lenses is better spent. Of course, at that point you
really are selling yourself into a lens mount format.
They'll keep getting better of course, but at some point, one has to
say: "this is good enough - I'll use it till it blows up..."
So why are we hearing adverts for black and white Ilford film and indeed
colour film. is it like vinyl and cassette versions of Paul McCartneys new
album, ie another marketing ploy in this case knowing loads of 35mm cameras
are in drawers only needing batteries and I know some shops are doing
processing, probably not on site though.
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
Yes, it was a complex process, unlike other colour slide film, and
seemingly very temperature sensitive. At the end, there was just the
one Lab left in Armpit Nebraska or wherever it was that had the
franchise to develop kodachrome.
We went to the Azores for our honeymoon in 2004, and I took a couple of
even then out-of-date rolls of kodachrome which I thought ought to be
OK, but the colours were a bit off. Last ones I ever took.
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web
page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had
I started with Panasonic lenses on the basis they were most likely to
behave nicely with things like image stabilisation (well the tele anyway).
But I'd be interested in trying some alternatives - maybe second hand. I
could probably dry run some at the London Camera Exchange on the Strand
as I walk past it 3 times a week :)
I can't see much going wrong with a non stabilised lens (focussing is a
fairly basic operation) and I have sensor stabilisation too.
Is Olympus the generally best maker of lenses or is there another brand
I should look at too?
Near co-incidence. I bought mine in May 2004 from Jessops. (While I was
in the shop a man attempted to snatch Hil's bag by putting his hand
through the open car window. She screamed and he ran away.)
The camera was a Nikon Coolpix and I can't remember the cost but it was
around £700 I think.
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:00:31 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:
Was it a 3.2Mpxl Coolpix? I bought mine 11 months after that for 230
Dollars Canadian (exactly £100 at the then current exchange rate -
strangely, just what my brother paid for his in the UK at just about the
That seems one Hell of a price drop in just a matter of 11 months even
compared to DerbyBorn's $350 price tag (I wonder what that was worth in
Pounds Sterling at the time? I'm guessing somewhere round the 200 quid
Similar here, although pre 2000 IIRC - a Coolpix 950 (the one with the
articulation in the middle that allowed the camera bit to rotate
independently of the grip and LCD- very good for getting shots from odd
ISTR it was £700+ for a 2MP camera. I got it for a particular web based
job, and was not expecting it to be much good for "proper" photography,
but in fact was actually quite impressed with it, and used it way more
than anticipated. Must get round to updating it one day! ;-) (its taken
most of the photo's of my DIY projects - although I do a number with my
phone these days)
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.