Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best camera for $500 or less ??

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 5:50:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

What is the best camera for $500 or less ?

I know there are different kinds of cameras, but if you had a $500
American dollars budget for a camera (including all needed accessories)
what would you get? Let's say you were leaving to spend a year in
another country and that was all you could spend on a camera before
leaving.

More about : camera 500

Anonymous
March 6, 2005 6:00:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

"Red Haze" <redhaze@wozzzzzzzzzzzz.org> wrote in message
news:422a6200$1_5@x-privat.org...
> What is the best camera for $500 or less ?
>
> I know there are different kinds of cameras, but if you had a $500
> American dollars budget for a camera (including all needed accessories)
> what would you get? Let's say you were leaving to spend a year in
> another country and that was all you could spend on a camera before
> leaving.

I would spend a little more and get a digital rebel...
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 6:27:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

Buy a used camera. Or wait until the 350D hits the market in large
quantities and buy a 300D for less than that.

"Red Haze" <redhaze@wozzzzzzzzzzzz.org> wrote in message
news:422a6200$1_5@x-privat.org...
> What is the best camera for $500 or less ?
>
> I know there are different kinds of cameras, but if you had a $500
> American dollars budget for a camera (including all needed accessories)
> what would you get? Let's say you were leaving to spend a year in
> another country and that was all you could spend on a camera before
> leaving.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 7:07:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

"Red Haze" <redhaze@wozzzzzzzzzzzz.org> wrote in
news:422a6200$1_5@x-privat.org:

> What is the best camera for $500 or less ?
>
> I know there are different kinds of cameras, but if you had a $500
> American dollars budget for a camera (including all needed
> accessories) what would you get? Let's say you were leaving to
> spend a year in another country and that was all you could spend
> on a camera before leaving.

You didn't specify film or digital...since you crossposted into both
digital and film groups, I guess it doesn't matter.

For the best image quality and medium flexibility in that price
range - NEW, get a film SLR like the Nikon N80 with the mediocre kit
lens, and buy a Nikkor 50mm/1.8 prime. The 50 is a terrific lens,
and the cheap zoom will give you wide angle and medium-telephoto
convenience.

For maximum flexibility and respectable image quality, Panasonic
Lumix FZ15 digital ZLR and a *big* memory card.

Of course, there is always the used market, but I'm not really a fan
of that route.

--

Bill
March 6, 2005 2:20:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

At the moment, your price range doesn't reach the (new) DSLR range and
certainly not with all the accessories you need. If your budget cant be
upped, but you want to go digital, there are several DSLR style cameras,
witch let you get the feel of some of the features. In this price range you
could get a brand new Fuji S5000 and have loads of money to spare (as they
are around $260 from ebay), witch boasts 10x optical zoom all the way down
to close up macro mode. If you want to use all your budget you could go for
the s7000 (around 480), or any of the many other slr style cameras.
Hope this helps.
j

"Red Haze" <redhaze@wozzzzzzzzzzzz.org> wrote in message
news:422a6200$1_5@x-privat.org...
> What is the best camera for $500 or less ?
>
> I know there are different kinds of cameras, but if you had a $500
> American dollars budget for a camera (including all needed accessories)
> what would you get? Let's say you were leaving to spend a year in
> another country and that was all you could spend on a camera before
> leaving.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:09:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

If you have $500 to spend, I heard you can get a Nikon D70 (normally a
$1000 - $1200 camera) for that price on Amazon.com. Can't beat that.

GTO wrote:

> Buy a used camera. Or wait until the 350D hits the market in large
> quantities and buy a 300D for less than that.
>
> "Red Haze" <redhaze@wozzzzzzzzzzzz.org> wrote in message
> news:422a6200$1_5@x-privat.org...
>
>>What is the best camera for $500 or less ?
>>
>>I know there are different kinds of cameras, but if you had a $500
>>American dollars budget for a camera (including all needed accessories)
>>what would you get? Let's say you were leaving to spend a year in
>>another country and that was all you could spend on a camera before
>>leaving.
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:09:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:09:30 GMT, Bruce Coryell <bcoryell@chesco.com>
wrote:

>If you have $500 to spend, I heard you can get a Nikon D70 (normally a
>$1000 - $1200 camera) for that price on Amazon.com. Can't beat that.

If only it were true.
>
>GTO wrote:
>
>> Buy a used camera. Or wait until the 350D hits the market in large
>> quantities and buy a 300D for less than that.
>>
>> "Red Haze" <redhaze@wozzzzzzzzzzzz.org> wrote in message
>> news:422a6200$1_5@x-privat.org...
>>
>>>What is the best camera for $500 or less ?
>>>
>>>I know there are different kinds of cameras, but if you had a $500
>>>American dollars budget for a camera (including all needed accessories)
>>>what would you get? Let's say you were leaving to spend a year in
>>>another country and that was all you could spend on a camera before
>>>leaving.
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:13:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

"Woodchuck Bill" <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9610EB6965047WoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4...

> For the best image quality and medium flexibility in that price
> range - NEW, get a film SLR like the Nikon N80 with the mediocre kit
> lens, and buy a Nikkor 50mm/1.8 prime. The 50 is a terrific lens,
> and the cheap zoom will give you wide angle and medium-telephoto
> convenience.

The Nikon F80/N80 is an excellent film SLR! The 50mm F1.8 is dirt cheap (a
bargain) and has legendary sharpness. If film is your thing, this combo is
great.
grol
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:13:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

"grol" <grolschie@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote in
news:QvJWd.7226$1S4.774057@news.xtra.co.nz:

>
> "Woodchuck Bill" <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9610EB6965047WoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4...
>
>> For the best image quality and medium flexibility in that price
>> range - NEW, get a film SLR like the Nikon N80 with the mediocre
>> kit lens, and buy a Nikkor 50mm/1.8 prime. The 50 is a terrific
>> lens, and the cheap zoom will give you wide angle and
>> medium-telephoto convenience.
>
> The Nikon F80/N80 is an excellent film SLR! The 50mm F1.8 is dirt
> cheap (a bargain) and has legendary sharpness. If film is your
> thing, this combo is great.
> grol

Just as I suggested, but I suggest he pay the few extra bucks for the
cheap kit lens too, so he can shoot at 28mm if he needs to go wider
than 50. He should be able to pick up the N80 kit and the 50mm/1.8 for
$500 or less if he is in the USA, brand new.

--

Bill
March 7, 2005 1:41:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

Red Haze wrote:
> What is the best camera for $500 or less ?
>
> I know there are different kinds of cameras, but if you had a $500
> American dollars budget for a camera (including all needed accessories)
> what would you get? Let's say you were leaving to spend a year in
> another country and that was all you could spend on a camera before
> leaving.

For my style of photography, the Coolpix 5000 with the accessory wide
angle lens and the accessory AA battery grip and a big CF card probalby
sell for about $500 on ebay.

The WC-E68 lens gives the camera the 35mm eq. of about a 19mm lens.
Without it, the built in lens is 28mm eq.

With a fresh charge, it will take hundreds of photos, including ample
LCD time and generous flash.

If the "other country" was going to severly limit my ability to read the
CF card or charge the batteries, I might revise and extend my remarks.
If your photographic needs are considerably different from mine, then my
choices might not be relavent for you.

Bob
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:19:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

> Red Haze wrote:
>> What is the best camera for $500 or less ?
>>
>> I know there are different kinds of cameras, but if you had a $500
>> American dollars budget for a camera (including all needed accessories)
>> what would you get? Let's say you were leaving to spend a year in
>> another country and that was all you could spend on a camera before
>> leaving.
>
> For my style of photography, the Coolpix 5000 with the accessory wide
> angle lens and the accessory AA battery grip and a big CF card probalby
> sell for about $500 on ebay.
>
> The WC-E68 lens gives the camera the 35mm eq. of about a 19mm lens.
> Without it, the built in lens is 28mm eq.
>
> With a fresh charge, it will take hundreds of photos, including ample
> LCD time and generous flash.
>
> If the "other country" was going to severly limit my ability to read the
> CF card or charge the batteries, I might revise and extend my remarks.
> If your photographic needs are considerably different from mine, then my
> choices might not be relavent for you.
>
> Bob


I now somebody that bought a Coolpix (not sure of the model) with a Nikon
wide angle supplementary lens, it got in the way of the flash and made an
annoying shadow. He sold it.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:19:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <BE523D85.16EE1%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
wrote:

> I now somebody that bought a Coolpix (not sure of the model) with a Nikon
> wide angle supplementary lens, it got in the way of the flash and made an
> annoying shadow. He sold it.

Oh, yeah? Well, I know a guy (me, actually) who read the specs BEFORE
buying the WA lens and knew it would interfere with the built-in flash.
Said so in black in white. What was your point?
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:19:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <BE523D85.16EE1%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
wrote:

> >> I know there are different kinds of cameras, but if you had a $500
> >> American dollars budget for a camera (including all needed accessories)
> >> what would you get? Let's say you were leaving to spend a year in
> >> another country and that was all you could spend on a camera before
> >> leaving.
> >
> > For my style of photography, the Coolpix 5000 with the accessory wide
> > angle lens and the accessory AA battery grip and a big CF card probalby
> > sell for about $500 on ebay.

Since the request was in a 35mm forum, don't you think he wanted to
know about a film camera?

For this scenario, the camera should be:
1. A brand available and serviceable in the destination country
2. Should take a battery that's easy to get AND has a long service life.
3. As mechanically simple and reliable as possible
4. Either very easy to use or familiar to the user.
5. Of high enough quality to be used for irreplaceable shots.

For ME, the answer would be a Nikon FM3a, even if a lens and flash
would take it somewhat over $500.

If the $500 was absolute, perhaps "demo" or slightly used equipment
would suffice. Or, (obviously) a similar camera from another
manufacturer.
March 7, 2005 8:19:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

Unspam wrote:


> I now somebody that bought a Coolpix (not sure of the model) with a Nikon
> wide angle supplementary lens, it got in the way of the flash and made an
> annoying shadow. He sold it.
>

Besides the fact that this behavior is fully documented, and the fact
that the firmware disables the built in flash when you let it know that
its' there, (besides those things), there aren't very many flashes of
any sort that will cover 19mm, especially not built in ones!!

Bob
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:19:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

Unspam wrote:

>
> I now somebody that bought a Coolpix (not sure of the model) with a Nikon
> wide angle supplementary lens, it got in the way of the flash and made an
> annoying shadow. He sold it.

It's very common in SLR's for some lens/shade/flash combos to result in
"flash vignetting", it's no surprise that such would happen with a zlr
as well. Usually, the manuals warn when such might might happen.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
March 7, 2005 8:19:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

Scott Schuckert wrote:

>
> Since the request was in a 35mm forum, don't you think he wanted to
> know about a film camera?

Check your headers!

>
> For ME, the answer would be a Nikon FM3a, even if a lens and flash
> would take it somewhat over $500.
>
> If the $500 was absolute, perhaps "demo" or slightly used equipment
> would suffice. Or, (obviously) a similar camera from another
> manufacturer.

Presumably since he's comparing film offerings to digital, then you need
to make an assumption about the cost of a year's supply of film, as
well. My FM2 sold for about $200 on ebay. My 35mm f/1.4 went for less.
That would still leave $100 for film. Maybe he'll have some kind of
income to cover the cost of film over the course of the trip though, so
it doesn't need to count...

Bob
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:19:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <_M1Xd.11316$5T6.1166@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, bob
<not@not.not> wrote:

> Check your headers!

Yes, I know he crossposted. But given the paucity of details in the
original post, I responded to the forum where I saw it.

Besides, I'm old enough so that "camera" without qualifier still
implies analog rather than them new-fangled digital thingies <GRIN>

Plus, most of the post applies either way. And I STILL wouldn't depend
on digital for a year away from civilization (He didn't say where he
was going.)
March 7, 2005 8:19:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

Scott Schuckert wrote:
>
> Plus, most of the post applies either way. And I STILL wouldn't depend
> on digital for a year away from civilization (He didn't say where he
> was going.)

Yeah, I noticed that. He might be visiting the USA or the UK for a year,
or he could just as easily be going to Tibet.

Since he didn't specify any kind of hardships I guessed a G7 country.
Maybe an exchanage student or a temporary work assignment.

Bob
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:36:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Unspam wrote:
[]
> I now somebody that bought a Coolpix (not sure of the model) with a
> Nikon wide angle supplementary lens, it got in the way of the flash
> and made an annoying shadow. He sold it.

I think you will find that /any/ camera which offers an 18mm or 19mm
equivalent FOV by means of an add-on lens will have some blocking of the
built-in flash.

David
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:54:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

> In article <BE523D85.16EE1%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I now somebody that bought a Coolpix (not sure of the model) with a Nikon
>> wide angle supplementary lens, it got in the way of the flash and made an
>> annoying shadow. He sold it.
>
> Oh, yeah? Well, I know a guy (me, actually) who read the specs BEFORE
> buying the WA lens and knew it would interfere with the built-in flash.
> Said so in black in white. What was your point?


My point? What do you think, moron? You are obviously an idiot who buys
cameras that don't work properly and doesn't seem to mind.
March 7, 2005 9:54:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <BE5253D8.16EE8%unspam@mail.com>, unspam@mail.com says...
> My point? What do you think, moron? You are obviously an idiot who buys
> cameras that don't work properly and doesn't seem to mind.
>

The camera worked exactly as it was intended.
So did the add on lens.

What failed to work was YOU.. You didn't read the disclaimer on the paperwork
that came with the lens.

Almost all add-on lenses cause some problem or other with the day to day
operation of the camera. If you had read the copy, you would have known.

So you didn't like the way it worked, so whats your point??

Other than giving you the oportunity to call someone obviously smarter than
you a moron, do you have any point whatever?




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:54:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <BE5253D8.16EE8%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
wrote:

> My point? What do you think, moron? You are obviously an idiot who buys
> cameras that don't work properly and doesn't seem to mind.

Sigh... Look, the fact that a device can't be used with all options or
accessories simultaneously doesn't make it defective. It's just not
100.00% idiot proof.

Try learning to fly sometime; it will give you a wonderfully different
perspective about mechanical devices. Most aircraft will cheerfully
allow you to rip the unretracted landing gear off through excessive
airspeed, or blow up the engine through excessive manifold pressure.

Why? Because it's designed on the assumption that you're a qualified
operator who's read the manual; and that you might have a good reason
for exceeding recommendations in some circumstances.

If an aircraft were designed so that it was impossible to fly it
incorrectly, it would be a very different and less useful machine. And
so would the Coolpix.
March 7, 2005 9:54:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

Scott Schuckert wrote:
> In article <BE5253D8.16EE8%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>My point? What do you think, moron? You are obviously an idiot who buys
>>cameras that don't work properly and doesn't seem to mind.
>
>
> Sigh... Look, the fact that a device can't be used with all options or
> accessories simultaneously doesn't make it defective. It's just not
> 100.00% idiot proof.

Yeah! Like the high beam headlights (brights) and foglights don't come
on at the same time in my truck. Maybe I should take it back!!!

Oh, and the CD player won't come on at the same time as the radio. Cheap
b*******!!!

And get this: if you drive around in 4wd on dry pavement it tears up the
tires and performs poorly!

I think I'll sue someone ---

LOL
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:17:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

> In article <BE5253D8.16EE8%unspam@mail.com>, unspam@mail.com says...
>> My point? What do you think, moron? You are obviously an idiot who buys
>> cameras that don't work properly and doesn't seem to mind.
>>
>
> The camera worked exactly as it was intended.
> So did the add on lens.
>
> What failed to work was YOU.. You didn't read the disclaimer on the paperwork
> that came with the lens.
>
> Almost all add-on lenses cause some problem or other with the day to day
> operation of the camera. If you had read the copy, you would have known.
>
> So you didn't like the way it worked, so whats your point??
>
> Other than giving you the oportunity to call someone obviously smarter than
> you a moron, do you have any point whatever?
>
>
>
It wasn't *my* camera dumbass, as explained previously if you took the time
to read it. If you're so smart why did you buy a lens that interferes with
the operation of the flash, halfwit?
March 7, 2005 10:17:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

Unspam wrote:

>
> It wasn't *my* camera dumbass, as explained previously if you took the time
> to read it. If you're so smart why did you buy a lens that interferes with
> the operation of the flash, halfwit?
>

You obviously don't understand what you're talking about.

The Coolpix 5000 is an accessory for the WC-E68, not the other way
around. It's a bonus that there's a flash built in for those rare
occasions when the WC-E68 is not in use, but it certainly isn't a
significant part of the camera.

Here's a test: Name any other photographic system that will give you a
field of view equal to 19mm on 35mm film for under $500. If you can come
up with any other alternatives, then can you verify that it has a built
in flash that is not affected by the lens?

Didn't think so.

Bob
March 7, 2005 10:17:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <BE525931.16EEF%unspam@mail.com>, unspam@mail.com says...
>
>
> > In article <BE5253D8.16EE8%unspam@mail.com>, unspam@mail.com says...
> >> My point? What do you think, moron? You are obviously an idiot who buys
> >> cameras that don't work properly and doesn't seem to mind.
> >>
> >
> > The camera worked exactly as it was intended.
> > So did the add on lens.
> >
> > What failed to work was YOU.. You didn't read the disclaimer on the paperwork
> > that came with the lens.
> >
> > Almost all add-on lenses cause some problem or other with the day to day
> > operation of the camera. If you had read the copy, you would have known.
> >
> > So you didn't like the way it worked, so whats your point??
> >
> > Other than giving you the oportunity to call someone obviously smarter than
> > you a moron, do you have any point whatever?
> >
> >
> >
> It wasn't *my* camera dumbass, as explained previously if you took the time
> to read it. If you're so smart why did you buy a lens that interferes with
> the operation of the flash, halfwit?
>
>

I didn't, I always read up on my purchases BEFORE laying down my money.

I have a camera whos "Built in" lens interferes with "built in flash" in
certain macro photography. The manual warned me, Common sense let me figure
it out without the manual.

So it appears that everyone that doesn't agree with your assesment of a
situation is a moron or a dumbass... Interesting.

You sir, whether you mean to be or not, are a troll.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:43:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

Scott Schuckert wrote:
> In article <BE5253D8.16EE8%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>My point? What do you think, moron? You are obviously an idiot who buys
>>cameras that don't work properly and doesn't seem to mind.
>
>
> Sigh... Look, the fact that a device can't be used with all options or
> accessories simultaneously doesn't make it defective. It's just not
> 100.00% idiot proof.
>
> Try learning to fly sometime; it will give you a wonderfully different
> perspective about mechanical devices. Most aircraft will cheerfully
> allow you to rip the unretracted landing gear off through excessive
> airspeed, or blow up the engine through excessive manifold pressure.
>
> Why? Because it's designed on the assumption that you're a qualified
> operator who's read the manual; and that you might have a good reason
> for exceeding recommendations in some circumstances.
>
> If an aircraft were designed so that it was impossible to fly it
> incorrectly, it would be a very different and less useful machine. And
> so would the Coolpix.

Yes, then you would be flying an Airbus aircraft....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:12:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:

> Unspam wrote:
> []
> > I now somebody that bought a Coolpix (not sure of the model) with a Nikon
> > wide angle supplementary lens, it got in the way of the flash and made an
> > annoying shadow. He sold it.
>
> I think you will find that /any/ camera which offers an 18mm or 19mm
> equivalent FOV by means of an add-on lens will have some blocking of the
> built-in flash.

You mean people actually use that little bitty flash that comes with most
cameras? Perhaps they like red-eyes and photographing people really close.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
March 8, 2005 2:17:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott Schuckert <not@aol.com> wrote:

> Yes, I know he crossposted.
> ...

Gasp! Thread drift in a cross-post!

> Besides, I'm old enough so that "camera" without
> qualifier still implies analog rather than them
> new-fangled digital thingies <GRIN>
> ...

Heck, I'm old too. Never shot film. I'm lernin' to use $6000 wirth
of new-fangled digital thingies, "glass" tubes, dozens of small
over-priced doohickys. The thought of FILM never enters my mind.
Except here. And when I want 2' x 3' prints. Mounted, not Framed.

I think I even came up with an interesting formula:

camera bags owned = (#of cameras + #of lenses) * 2

Never shot film. Should I switch while I can still afford it? If I
stay in the same 35mm "system" I can continue to use the glass tubes
and doohickys, but what about medium and large format? <GRIN>

Jeff
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:49:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

> Unspam wrote:
>
>
>> I now somebody that bought a Coolpix (not sure of the model) with a Nikon
>> wide angle supplementary lens, it got in the way of the flash and made an
>> annoying shadow. He sold it.
>>
>
> Besides the fact that this behavior is fully documented, and the fact
> that the firmware disables the built in flash when you let it know that
> its' there, (besides those things), there aren't very many flashes of
> any sort that will cover 19mm, especially not built in ones!!
>
> Bob


Bounce flash?
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:50:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

> Unspam wrote:
>
>>
>> It wasn't *my* camera dumbass, as explained previously if you took the time
>> to read it. If you're so smart why did you buy a lens that interferes with
>> the operation of the flash, halfwit?
>>
>
> You obviously don't understand what you're talking about.
>
> The Coolpix 5000 is an accessory for the WC-E68, not the other way
> around. It's a bonus that there's a flash built in for those rare
> occasions when the WC-E68 is not in use, but it certainly isn't a
> significant part of the camera.
>
> Here's a test: Name any other photographic system that will give you a
> field of view equal to 19mm on 35mm film for under $500. If you can come
> up with any other alternatives, then can you verify that it has a built
> in flash that is not affected by the lens?
>
> Didn't think so.
>
> Bob


To be honest, I don't give a flying f**k
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:51:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

> In article <BE525931.16EEF%unspam@mail.com>, unspam@mail.com says...
>>
>>
>>> In article <BE5253D8.16EE8%unspam@mail.com>, unspam@mail.com says...
>>>> My point? What do you think, moron? You are obviously an idiot who buys
>>>> cameras that don't work properly and doesn't seem to mind.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The camera worked exactly as it was intended.
>>> So did the add on lens.
>>>
>>> What failed to work was YOU.. You didn't read the disclaimer on the
>>> paperwork
>>> that came with the lens.
>>>
>>> Almost all add-on lenses cause some problem or other with the day to day
>>> operation of the camera. If you had read the copy, you would have known.
>>>
>>> So you didn't like the way it worked, so whats your point??
>>>
>>> Other than giving you the oportunity to call someone obviously smarter than
>>> you a moron, do you have any point whatever?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It wasn't *my* camera dumbass, as explained previously if you took the time
>> to read it. If you're so smart why did you buy a lens that interferes with
>> the operation of the flash, halfwit?
>>
>>
>
> I didn't, I always read up on my purchases BEFORE laying down my money.
>
> I have a camera whos "Built in" lens interferes with "built in flash" in
> certain macro photography. The manual warned me, Common sense let me figure
> it out without the manual.
>
> So it appears that everyone that doesn't agree with your assesment of a
> situation is a moron or a dumbass... Interesting.
>
> You sir, whether you mean to be or not, are a troll.
>
You sir. Are a throwback!
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:51:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

> In article <BE5253D8.16EE8%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My point? What do you think, moron? You are obviously an idiot who buys
>> cameras that don't work properly and doesn't seem to mind.
>
> Sigh... Look, the fact that a device can't be used with all options or
> accessories simultaneously doesn't make it defective. It's just not
> 100.00% idiot proof.
>
> Try learning to fly sometime; it will give you a wonderfully different
> perspective about mechanical devices. Most aircraft will cheerfully
> allow you to rip the unretracted landing gear off through excessive
> airspeed, or blow up the engine through excessive manifold pressure.
>
> Why? Because it's designed on the assumption that you're a qualified
> operator who's read the manual; and that you might have a good reason
> for exceeding recommendations in some circumstances.
>
> If an aircraft were designed so that it was impossible to fly it
> incorrectly, it would be a very different and less useful machine. And
> so would the Coolpix.

You are a nutter
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:54:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

> Unspam wrote:
>
>>
>> I now somebody that bought a Coolpix (not sure of the model) with a Nikon
>> wide angle supplementary lens, it got in the way of the flash and made an
>> annoying shadow. He sold it.
>
> It's very common in SLR's for some lens/shade/flash combos to result in
> "flash vignetting", it's no surprise that such would happen with a zlr
> as well. Usually, the manuals warn when such might might happen.
>
>

I must be in the Nikon Coolpix appreciation society judging by the defensive
nature of your comments, or maybe you bought one and are really pissed off
that you wasted your money and are now trying to justify it.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:54:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

Unspam wrote:

> I must be in the Nikon Coolpix appreciation society judging by the defensive
> nature of your comments, or maybe you bought one and are really pissed off
> that you wasted your money and are now trying to justify it.

1) You don't read very well, do you?

2) I own no Nikon products (oh, yes, 1 loupe, which is actually made by
somebody else for them).

3) As I said, with certain combos of lens, lens hoods and flashes, it is
inevitable.

4) You would have to know somehting about photography to understand
that, and obviously that's not the case with you.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:55:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

> Scott Schuckert wrote:
>> In article <BE5253D8.16EE8%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> My point? What do you think, moron? You are obviously an idiot who buys
>>> cameras that don't work properly and doesn't seem to mind.
>>
>>
>> Sigh... Look, the fact that a device can't be used with all options or
>> accessories simultaneously doesn't make it defective. It's just not
>> 100.00% idiot proof.
>
> Yeah! Like the high beam headlights (brights) and foglights don't come
> on at the same time in my truck. Maybe I should take it back!!!
>
> Oh, and the CD player won't come on at the same time as the radio. Cheap
> b*******!!!
>
> And get this: if you drive around in 4wd on dry pavement it tears up the
> tires and performs poorly!
>
> I think I'll sue someone ---
>
> LOL

Woe, you are really unlucky
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 4:10:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:41:33 -0500, bob <not@not.not> wrote:

>Red Haze wrote:
>> What is the best camera for $500 or less ?
>>
>> I know there are different kinds of cameras, but if you had a $500
>> American dollars budget for a camera (including all needed accessories)
>> what would you get? Let's say you were leaving to spend a year in
>> another country and that was all you could spend on a camera before
>> leaving.
>
>For my style of photography, the Coolpix 5000 with the accessory wide
>angle lens and the accessory AA battery grip and a big CF card probalby
>sell for about $500 on ebay.
>
>The WC-E68 lens gives the camera the 35mm eq. of about a 19mm lens.
>Without it, the built in lens is 28mm eq.
>
>With a fresh charge, it will take hundreds of photos, including ample
>LCD time and generous flash.
>
>If the "other country" was going to severly limit my ability to read the
>CF card or charge the batteries, I might revise and extend my remarks.
>If your photographic needs are considerably different from mine, then my
>choices might not be relavent for you.
>
>Bob


You can buy a new Coolpix 5400 for under $250 if you consider the $200
rebate. A fast 512MB card is about $50. Check Pricegrabber
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 4:11:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:19:03 GMT, Unspam <unspam@mail.com> wrote:

>
>
>> Red Haze wrote:
>>> What is the best camera for $500 or less ?
>>>
>>> I know there are different kinds of cameras, but if you had a $500
>>> American dollars budget for a camera (including all needed accessories)
>>> what would you get? Let's say you were leaving to spend a year in
>>> another country and that was all you could spend on a camera before
>>> leaving.
>>
>> For my style of photography, the Coolpix 5000 with the accessory wide
>> angle lens and the accessory AA battery grip and a big CF card probalby
>> sell for about $500 on ebay.
>>
>> The WC-E68 lens gives the camera the 35mm eq. of about a 19mm lens.
>> Without it, the built in lens is 28mm eq.
>>
>> With a fresh charge, it will take hundreds of photos, including ample
>> LCD time and generous flash.
>>
>> If the "other country" was going to severly limit my ability to read the
>> CF card or charge the batteries, I might revise and extend my remarks.
>> If your photographic needs are considerably different from mine, then my
>> choices might not be relavent for you.
>>
>> Bob
>
>
>I now somebody that bought a Coolpix (not sure of the model) with a Nikon
>wide angle supplementary lens, it got in the way of the flash and made an
>annoying shadow. He sold it.


That lens and even the lens hood/filter holder obstruct the flash and
about 2/3 of the viewfinder.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 4:12:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:08:24 -0500, Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net>
wrote:

>In article <BE5253D8.16EE8%unspam@mail.com>, unspam@mail.com says...
>> My point? What do you think, moron? You are obviously an idiot who buys
>> cameras that don't work properly and doesn't seem to mind.
>>
>
>The camera worked exactly as it was intended.
>So did the add on lens.

Correct. Nikon intended for it to have diminished functionality.
>
>What failed to work was YOU.. You didn't read the disclaimer on the paperwork
>that came with the lens.
>
>Almost all add-on lenses cause some problem or other with the day to day
>operation of the camera. If you had read the copy, you would have known.
>
>So you didn't like the way it worked, so whats your point??
>
>Other than giving you the oportunity to call someone obviously smarter than
>you a moron, do you have any point whatever?
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 4:14:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 13:53:35 -0500, Scott Schuckert <not@aol.com>
wrote:

>In article <BE523D85.16EE1%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> >> I know there are different kinds of cameras, but if you had a $500
>> >> American dollars budget for a camera (including all needed accessories)
>> >> what would you get? Let's say you were leaving to spend a year in
>> >> another country and that was all you could spend on a camera before
>> >> leaving.
>> >
>> > For my style of photography, the Coolpix 5000 with the accessory wide
>> > angle lens and the accessory AA battery grip and a big CF card probalby
>> > sell for about $500 on ebay.
>
>Since the request was in a 35mm forum, don't you think he wanted to
>know about a film camera?

It was crossposted to a digital newsgroup.

>
>For this scenario, the camera should be:
>1. A brand available and serviceable in the destination country
>2. Should take a battery that's easy to get AND has a long service life.
>3. As mechanically simple and reliable as possible
>4. Either very easy to use or familiar to the user.
>5. Of high enough quality to be used for irreplaceable shots.
>
>For ME, the answer would be a Nikon FM3a, even if a lens and flash
>would take it somewhat over $500.
>
>If the $500 was absolute, perhaps "demo" or slightly used equipment
>would suffice. Or, (obviously) a similar camera from another
>manufacturer.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 5:11:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

"bob" <not@not.not> wrote in message
news:w_2Xd.11334$5T6.3872@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> Scott Schuckert wrote:
> > In article <BE5253D8.16EE8%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
[SNIP]
>
> And get this: if you drive around in 4wd on dry pavement it tears up the
> tires and performs poorly!
>

That's what a viscous coupling center diff. is for... ;-)


Peter
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 7:01:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm bob <not@not.not> wrote:
>
> Here's a test: Name any other photographic system that will give you a
> field of view equal to 19mm on 35mm film for under $500. If you can come
> up with any other alternatives, then can you verify that it has a built
> in flash that is not affected by the lens?

Actually, yes, and there are many, all of them giving far superior image
than a coolpix 5000 too. Or did you mean 'when bought new'? even so, you
can probably get that with f55 + lens. possibly even when bought with a
add-on flash not affected by the wide angle (though there has to be a bundle
for that).

>
> Didn't think so.
>
> Bob

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 10:25:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:
[]
> You mean people actually use that little bitty flash that comes with
> most
> cameras? Perhaps they like red-eyes and photographing people really
> close.

Perhaps they like paying for and lugging round chunky add-on flash units
even less?

David
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 11:01:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:

> Michael Meissner wrote:
> []
> > You mean people actually use that little bitty flash that comes with
> > most
> > cameras? Perhaps they like red-eyes and photographing people really
> > close.
>
> Perhaps they like paying for and lugging round chunky add-on flash units
> even less?

I dunno, I find the picture quality of onboard flash units to be dreadfull when
used indoors (used outdoors as fill flash they aren't bad). All that is
missing is having the subject holding a number up to get that mug shot
experience :-)

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:35:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

> Unspam wrote:
>
>> I must be in the Nikon Coolpix appreciation society judging by the defensive
>> nature of your comments, or maybe you bought one and are really pissed off
>> that you wasted your money and are now trying to justify it.
>
> 1) You don't read very well, do you?
>
> 2) I own no Nikon products (oh, yes, 1 loupe, which is actually made by
> somebody else for them).
>
> 3) As I said, with certain combos of lens, lens hoods and flashes, it is
> inevitable.
>
> 4) You would have to know somehting about photography to understand
> that, and obviously that's not the case with you.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.


Test me
March 8, 2005 2:22:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

Sander Vesik wrote:
> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm bob <not@not.not> wrote:
>
>>Here's a test: Name any other photographic system that will give you a
>>field of view equal to 19mm on 35mm film for under $500. If you can come
>>up with any other alternatives, then can you verify that it has a built
>>in flash that is not affected by the lens?
>
>
> Actually, yes, and there are many, all of them giving far superior image
> than a coolpix 5000 too. Or did you mean 'when bought new'? even so, you
> can probably get that with f55 + lens. possibly even when bought with a
> add-on flash not affected by the wide angle (though there has to be a bundle
> for that).
>

The *built in* flash on the f55 does not cover 19mm, which was unspam's
complaint.

The add on flash that you could use on the f55 would work just as well
on the coolpix.

Canon's 20mm lenses run nearly $400. Setting aside the silly flash
issue, can you name any of these "many" $500 systems with 19mm lenses
and good image quality? I might like to buy one.

Bob
March 8, 2005 2:23:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

Unspam wrote:
>
>>Unspam wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I now somebody that bought a Coolpix (not sure of the model) with a Nikon
>>>wide angle supplementary lens, it got in the way of the flash and made an
>>>annoying shadow. He sold it.
>>>
>>
>>Besides the fact that this behavior is fully documented, and the fact
>>that the firmware disables the built in flash when you let it know that
>>its' there, (besides those things), there aren't very many flashes of
>>any sort that will cover 19mm, especially not built in ones!!
>>
>>Bob
>
>
>
> Bounce flash?
>

Name the camera that has that built in.
March 8, 2005 2:23:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

Unspam wrote:
>
> To be honest, I don't give a flying f**k
>

In that case why are you posting so much about it?

Or do you only not care now that you've been shown how silly your
complaints are?
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:26:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <BE529999.16F06%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
wrote:

> You are a nutter

Your insightful and detailed criticism has wounded me to the quick. I
withdraw from the field in shame.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:34:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <Or7Xd.12975$IK6.1540@fe04.lga>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> Yes, then you would be flying an Airbus aircraft....

That was probably intended to be humorous, but is exactly on target.
The software that caused that notorious crash was intended to keep the
pilot from doing something stupid, and overrode his control inputs.

Note that automobiles are trying to become idiot proof. Some recent
SUVs will take control of the throttle or brakes if they "think" you're
going to roll the darned thing. You won't catch me riding in 'em.
!