Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

lens for both digital and film-based camera

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 9:45:36 PM

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

hi, all

i own both a Minolta Maxxum 5 SLR camera and a Canon A510 digital
camera. I was hoping to find a lens can work with both models

since I read somewhere that Tamron SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di LD lens can be
mated with both film-based and digital cameras. can i buy this lens
and fit onto both my cameras? is it possible?
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 12:25:29 AM

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

<xiongnu@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1123634736.817869.321280@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> hi, all
>
> i own both a Minolta Maxxum 5 SLR camera and a Canon A510 digital
> camera. I was hoping to find a lens can work with both models
>
> since I read somewhere that Tamron SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di LD lens can be
> mated with both film-based and digital cameras. can i buy this lens
> and fit onto both my cameras? is it possible?

Just in the case you are NOT a troll...

Look at the lenses on your two cameras.
Now ask yourself a question.
I won't tell you what question to ask.
Just think for a fraction of a second as you look at them, and the answer
should be more than clear to you.

Film SLR lenses can be used on identical-mount, same brand DSLRs in most
cases.
Can you figure out what's wrong in your situation?
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 5:13:44 AM

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

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:25:29 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> Just in the case you are NOT a troll...
>
> Look at the lenses on your two cameras.
> Now ask yourself a question.
> I won't tell you what question to ask.
> Just think for a fraction of a second as you look at them, and the answer
> should be more than clear to you.
>
> Film SLR lenses can be used on identical-mount, same brand DSLRs in
> most cases.
> Can you figure out what's wrong in your situation?

Maybe not. It's hard to get a good look at the lenses since it
gets pretty dark under the bridge. :) 
Related resources
August 10, 2005 9:35:59 AM

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

In article <FseKe.60316$Eo.28073@fed1read04>,
Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>Film SLR lenses can be used on identical-mount, same brand DSLRs in most
>cases.
>Can you figure out what's wrong in your situation?

He doesn't have compatability and price lists for lens mount adapters?
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 9:36:00 AM

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

"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:3ngKe.37969$bp.28609@fed1read03...
> In article <FseKe.60316$Eo.28073@fed1read04>,
> Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>Film SLR lenses can be used on identical-mount, same brand DSLRs in most
>>cases.
>>Can you figure out what's wrong in your situation?
>
> He doesn't have compatability and price lists for lens mount adapters?

Uh...no.
The troll is talking about the ultra low-ball point-and-shoot Canon A510
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_a510....
(which happens to be a nice little low-price camera, BTW)...and the full SLR
Minolta Maxxum 5.

He's a troll, or a...well--let's be kind...less than logical person.
I'll give him the benefit of doubt and figure he's a troll.
:) 
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 11:49:44 AM

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

xiongnu@my-deja.com writes:
>i own both a Minolta Maxxum 5 SLR camera and a Canon A510 digital
>camera. I was hoping to find a lens can work with both models

The A510 is not a SLR, it's a small point&shoot camera. It is equipped
with a zoom lens, and this cannot be removed to install another lens,
no matter what the other lens is. So, no, you cannot use a SLR lens
with the A510.

You *may* be able to get telephoto and wideangle adapters for the A510.
These are not "lenses" in the usual photographic sense, since they do
not produce real images. They are really afocal magnifying systems,
like a telescope or binoculars, and mount *in front of* the existing
lens. These adapters are not used on SLRs, because they are optically
inferior to simply changing the lens to one of the focal length you
want.

>since I read somewhere that Tamron SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di LD lens can be
>mated with both film-based and digital cameras. can i buy this lens
>and fit onto both my cameras? is it possible?

This lens may be able to be used on multiple *SLR* cameras from
different manufacturers, because of the way Tamron uses adapters to
match their lenses to different camera lens mounts. However, the
adapters are mostly intended to be attached to the lens and left in
place semi-permanently.

Dave
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 2:29:50 PM

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

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:25:29 -0700, Mark² wrote:

> Just in the case you are NOT a troll...
>
> Look at the lenses on your two cameras. Now ask yourself a question.
> I won't tell you what question to ask. Just think for a fraction of a
> second as you look at them, and the answer should be more than clear to
> you.
>
> Film SLR lenses can be used on identical-mount, same brand DSLRs in most
> cases.
> Can you figure out what's wrong in your situation?

Hullo Mark!

How was the holiday?
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 2:29:51 PM

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

"Rox-off" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.08.10.08.29.53.974000@empirerods.com...
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:25:29 -0700, Mark² wrote:
>
>> Just in the case you are NOT a troll...
>>
>> Look at the lenses on your two cameras. Now ask yourself a question.
>> I won't tell you what question to ask. Just think for a fraction of a
>> second as you look at them, and the answer should be more than clear to
>> you.
>>
>> Film SLR lenses can be used on identical-mount, same brand DSLRs in most
>> cases.
>> Can you figure out what's wrong in your situation?
>
> Hullo Mark!
>
> How was the holiday?

It was great!
We left not really knowing exactly where we were going, which is often how
we do these things.
We drove from Southern California all the way into Canada, and all over the
western coastline.
Over 3300 miles in all (over 5300 kilometers), plus about 100 miles with our
vehicle on ferries.
We saw rain
forrests...deserts...mountains...oceans...lakes...rivers...bays...butterflies...killer
whales (orcas)... dolphins...elk...bear (about 7 feet away from me, but not
a brown/grizzly)...and on and on.

I was, frankly, dissappointd with most of my images from the trip, largely
due to the bright sun throughout the entire time. Bright sunlight is
horrible for heavy rainforest shooting, and boring for most other shots with
no clouds/weather. Weather was pleasant though, and it was great to be
utterly free to do whatever for two weeks. I'll try to post some shots
eventually, but they might not be too pretty...

Biggest photo disappointment:
I spent over 20 minutes with a bear that was as close as 7 feet from me. I
had been struggling to shoot his picture due to all the tall berry pushes
and coming darkness. Finally, I figured out where he would like emerge from
the bushes, so I prefocussed, and waited for about two minutes, from a
distance that would give me a full-frame head shot. Sure enough...he not
only popped out just where I thought he would, but he turned and looked at
me for about 5 seconds in a perfect pose!
The disappointment was...I clicked the shutter...nothing. Clicked it
again...nothing. He was still holding the pose when I clicked a third
time...before I realized my 1GB card was full. :(  I was VERY unhappy. It
was great to spend such a long time with the single bear though. I wasn't
expecting to find him. Actually, I was trying to get a better view of 6
huge male elk that were eating the berries we had just been picking, when
this bear popped up on his hind legs to look at me. :)  And BTW--contrary
to what all the movies with evil bears imply, standing on their hid legs is
NOT an aggressive move. They have poor eyesight. When they stand, they are
just trying to get a better look at. Recently, my brother-in-law's brother
returned from a fishing trip to Alaska--where they had supposedly "HAD to
shoot a grizzly bear." Why did they shoot it? Because (and he told this
part ignorantly and ominously) the bear was "standing on it's hind legs!!!"

This made me sick, because I knew at that point that in all likelihood, they
needless killed the bear.
It makes a better story for them though, and I'm sure they have the movies
to blame for their misconception (not to mention their failure to educate
themselves before fishing in the wilds of Alaska).

Anyway... I had a great trip.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 2:29:52 PM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:JzjKe.60364$Eo.46455@fed1read04...
>
> "Rox-off" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
> news:p an.2005.08.10.08.29.53.974000@empirerods.com...
>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:25:29 -0700, Mark² wrote:
>>
>>> Just in the case you are NOT a troll...
>>>
>>> Look at the lenses on your two cameras. Now ask yourself a question.
>>> I won't tell you what question to ask. Just think for a fraction of a
>>> second as you look at them, and the answer should be more than clear to
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Film SLR lenses can be used on identical-mount, same brand DSLRs in most
>>> cases.
>>> Can you figure out what's wrong in your situation?
>>
>> Hullo Mark!
>>
>> How was the holiday?
>
> It was great!
> We left not really knowing exactly where we were going, which is often how
> we do these things.
> We drove from Southern California all the way into Canada, and all over
> the western coastline.
> Over 3300 miles in all (over 5300 kilometers), plus about 100 miles with
> our vehicle on ferries.
> We saw rain
> forrests...deserts...mountains...oceans...lakes...rivers...bays...butterflies...killer
> whales (orcas)... dolphins...elk...bear (about 7 feet away from me, but
> not a brown/grizzly)...and on and on.
>
> I was, frankly, dissappointd with most of my images from the trip, largely
> due to the bright sun throughout the entire time. Bright sunlight is
> horrible for heavy rainforest shooting, and boring for most other shots
> with no clouds/weather. Weather was pleasant though, and it was great to
> be utterly free to do whatever for two weeks. I'll try to post some shots
> eventually, but they might not be too pretty...
>
> Biggest photo disappointment:
> I spent over 20 minutes with a bear that was as close as 7 feet from me.
> I had been struggling to shoot his picture due to all the tall berry
> pushes and coming darkness. Finally, I figured out where he would like
> emerge from the bushes, so I prefocussed, and waited for about two
> minutes, from a distance that would give me a full-frame head shot. Sure
> enough...he not only popped out just where I thought he would, but he
> turned and looked at me for about 5 seconds in a perfect pose!
> The disappointment was...I clicked the shutter...nothing. Clicked it
> again...nothing. He was still holding the pose when I clicked a third
> time...before I realized my 1GB card was full. :(  I was VERY unhappy.
> It was great to spend such a long time with the single bear though. I
> wasn't expecting to find him. Actually, I was trying to get a better view
> of 6 huge male elk that were eating the berries we had just been picking,
> when this bear popped up on his hind legs to look at me. :)  And
> BTW--contrary to what all the movies with evil bears imply, standing on
> their hid legs is NOT an aggressive move. They have poor eyesight. When
> they stand, they are just trying to get a better look at. Recently, my
> brother-in-law's brother returned from a fishing trip to Alaska--where
> they had supposedly "HAD to shoot a grizzly bear." Why did they shoot it?
> Because (and he told this part ignorantly and ominously) the bear was
> "standing on it's hind legs!!!"
>
> This made me sick, because I knew at that point that in all likelihood,
> they needless killed the bear.
> It makes a better story for them though, and I'm sure they have the movies
> to blame for their misconception (not to mention their failure to educate
> themselves before fishing in the wilds of Alaska).
>
> Anyway... I had a great trip.

BTW--Before I'm accused of being some enviro-extremist who would rather die
than shoot abear...no. I carry two 44 magnums with Alaska's heaviest loads
that won't blow up my guns...when I travel alone into the uninhabited wild
regions of Alaska. The main reason for the guns is that I usually travel
with my wife...who would never let us tent-camp alone in the Alaskan boonies
without protection. -It's true that women tend to fall subject to
aggressive bears far more than men (natural reasons for this). :) 
But...When someone shoots a bear, it is assuredly because THEY screwed up,
and is nothing to brag about. Embarrassment should be the reaction. One's
own foolishness, and/or ignorance is almost universally the cause of bad
situations with bears in the wild (this excludes bears that have been
repeatedly fed near people, and lost their fear, etc.... That too is human
error, but can sometimes lead to attacks on people who did nothing wrong).

It's a whole different story with black bears compared with brown/grizzly
bears. They are FAR less inclined to attack you, and can be scared off.
You might startle a grizzly, but you can't run them off...unless they
"agree" to it. :) 
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 4:36:10 PM

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

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:14:21 -0700, Mark² wrote:

>> How was the holiday?
>
> It was great!
> We left not really knowing exactly where we were going, which is often how
> we do these things.
> We drove from Southern California all the way into Canada, and all over
> the western coastline.
> Over 3300 miles in all (over 5300 kilometers), plus about 100 miles with
> our vehicle on ferries.

That is a LOT of driving! That's like way more driving than I would ever
like to do. Mind you, I suppose driving in SA is a lot different to
driving in your neck of the woods.

My dream holiday is to one day drive the US flat in an RV, but then I
would limit the driving to a couple hundred miles a day and of course I
would like to do this over the course of an entire year. My brother-in-law
did this in the early 90's and he had a totally amazing time. Incredible
stories.

> We saw rain
> forrests...deserts...mountains...oceans...lakes...rivers...bays...butterflies...killer
> whales (orcas)... dolphins...elk...bear (about 7 feet away from me, but
> not a brown/grizzly)...and on and on.

Did you see William? ;-)

> I was, frankly, dissappointd with most of my images from the trip, largely
> due to the bright sun throughout the entire time. Bright sunlight is
> horrible for heavy rainforest shooting, and boring for most other shots
> with no clouds/weather. Weather was pleasant though, and it was great to
> be utterly free to do whatever for two weeks. I'll try to post some shots
> eventually, but they might not be too pretty...

Dare I say the "N" word? ;-) I can understand your frustration though,
because the lack of dynamic range in DSLR's of all makes is a big problem.
We went down the coast a few weeks ago and I took my D70 with me, but all
the beach shots tended to be very stark because of the high contast.
Either you're getting the sand and the ocean well exposed and blowing the
skin tones, or the other way around. I did take some shots with my FM2,
but haven't had the roll processed yet.

> Biggest photo disappointment:
> I spent over 20 minutes with a bear that was as close as 7 feet from me.
> I had been struggling to shoot his picture due to all the tall berry
> pushes and coming darkness. Finally, I figured out where he would like
> emerge from the bushes, so I prefocussed, and waited for about two
> minutes, from a distance that would give me a full-frame head shot. Sure
> enough...he not only popped out just where I thought he would, but he
> turned and looked at me for about 5 seconds in a perfect pose! The
> disappointment was...I clicked the shutter...nothing. Clicked it
> again...nothing. He was still holding the pose when I clicked a third
> time...before I realized my 1GB card was full. :(  I was VERY unhappy.
> It was great to spend such a long time with the single bear though.

Eish (Zulu slang for "Wow!"). I recently bought a 40gig FlashTrax thingy
and I'm very happy with it. Stick your card in, press copy and it
transfers all the files from the card onto the hard disk and into a folder
with today's date. Very handy.

<snip>

> This made me sick, because I knew at that point that in all likelihood,
> they needless killed the bear.
> It makes a better story for them though, and I'm sure they have the
> movies to blame for their misconception (not to mention their failure to
> educate themselves before fishing in the wilds of Alaska).

Are bears not an endangered species? I know that if you get caught
shooting an endangered animal (e.g. rhino) in certain parts of Africa you
will end up in jail. Other animals may be hunted, but there has recently
been public outrage at the practice of "canned" hunting, where trophy
hunters from the US and Europe pay a lot of cash for the privilege of
shooting a Lion. Trouble is they shoot them in the confines of a fenced
area, plus they shoot from a vehicle, which is a big no-no.

> Anyway... I had a great trip.

Glad to hear it!

--
Save photography | shoot some film today!

email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 6:16:22 PM

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

thank you

i'm pretty much a photography novice, would like to learn more though

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000UXH4...*

will this boost A510's ability for extra lens?

i'm also thinking buying an extra lens for my minolta camera, most
likely Minolta AF 75-300/f4.5-5.6 lens, do you know if it'll fit onto
some better digital cameras?
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 6:21:42 PM

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

i expect some simple straight answer, not from someone who thinks
everyone else is as smart as he thinks he is

and i'm amazed the way you managed turning my thread into something
completely different (a real troll for lack of a better word)...
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 8:10:49 PM

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

<xiongnu@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1123708902.310476.134210@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>i expect some simple straight answer, not from someone who thinks
> everyone else is as smart as he thinks he is
>
> and i'm amazed the way you managed turning my thread into something
> completely different (a real troll for lack of a better word)...

You need to understand that we do, indeed, get posts like yours from trolls,
and they get very old.
Others here also thought yours was a troll post.
I did, in fact, answer your question in spite of my suspicion.

If I hurt your sensibilities, I apologize.
It seemed rather a strange question, given the huge differences in
construction and lens size/type between the two cameras you mentioned. It
is usually a given that users of film SLRs are at least somewhat familiar
with lens differences of this magnitude. You weren't and that's fine. We
all start somewhere.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:48:16 AM

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

xiongnu@my-deja.com writes:

>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000UXH4...*

>will this boost A510's ability for extra lens?

This is required for mounting either filters or "conversion lenses" on
the A95. The A95 doesn't have any means to mount these directly on the
end of the zoom lens. This adapter mounts to the camera body (after a
trim ring is removed) and provides a standard thead mount that projects
beyond the end of the A95's lens barrel.

You can use this to mount filters, closeup lenses, and wide/tele
converters. It's not going to allow you to mount a SLR lens in a way
that can be used for normal photography, since the main lens is still
there.

>i'm also thinking buying an extra lens for my minolta camera, most
>likely Minolta AF 75-300/f4.5-5.6 lens, do you know if it'll fit onto
>some better digital cameras?

Again: A Minolta SLR lens will probably fit current Minolta film and
digital SLR cameras. It will *not* fit SLRs from any other manufacturer
because the lens mount is different. And you CANNOT use it on any
point&shoot camera, either film or digital, because P&S cameras do not
have interchangeable lenses.

Dave
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 4:41:23 PM

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

thank you

i'll keep it in mind

I'm old-fashioned. I didn't buy a digital camera until earlier
this year. I bought my Minolta SLR a few years back but haven't been
taking full advantage of it.

Can anyone tell me which camera takes better pictures? Film-based
camera or digital camera? Film-based cameras seem can develop pretty
big size of positive pictures. But digitial cameras seem can only
print up to a point without losing resolution, I believe for 4MP
digital camera can only print up to 8'x6'.

Any thoughts?
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 6:54:25 PM

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

On 11 Aug 2005 12:41:23 -0700, xiongnu@my-deja.com wrote:

>thank you
>
>i'll keep it in mind
>
>I'm old-fashioned. I didn't buy a digital camera until earlier
>this year. I bought my Minolta SLR a few years back but haven't been
>taking full advantage of it.
>
>Can anyone tell me which camera takes better pictures? Film-based
>camera or digital camera? Film-based cameras seem can develop pretty
>big size of positive pictures. But digitial cameras seem can only
>print up to a point without losing resolution, I believe for 4MP
>digital camera can only print up to 8'x6'.
>
>Any thoughts?

Nonesense!
4 MP cameras can pring up to over 12' on a side. Easily.
The problem is in finding a wall that size to display the prints on.

--
Bill Funk
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 7:20:35 PM

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

i knew someone going to pick on me for this

alrite, let me correct myself:

I believe for 4MP digital camera can only print up to 8"x6"

happy?
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 8:37:43 PM

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

On 11 Aug 2005 15:20:35 -0700, xiongnu@my-deja.com wrote:

>i knew someone going to pick on me for this
>
>alrite, let me correct myself:
>
>I believe for 4MP digital camera can only print up to 8"x6"
>
>happy?

Sort of. :-)
You really could spend some time searching these things out for
yourself. I know this isn't often received kindly, but knowledge you
find for yourself is usually more valuable than knowledge gotten
cheaply.
In this case, you don't even know what types of cameras you have. A
quick perusal of, for example, dpreview.com would show that the Canon
A510 won't take the lens that would fit on the Minolta.
I recommend also a basic book on cameras, that will explain the
differences between the different types of cameras, and the ins and
outs of what accessories the different types and brands and models
will accept.
Also, a book that covers digital photography will be a great help.
There is no hard and fast rule that says 4MP will only print to 8x6".
Using a graphics program like, for example, Paint Shop Pro and a
decent printer will let you experiment for yourself to see what you
can print with a given MP to suit your own needs. While there are some
thta will tell you that a minimum of 6MP is needed for an 8x10, they
may not be reflecting your own needs, but rather theirs.
Your original post shows that you don't understand the basics of
digital photography; this is not a flame, but a statement of fact. Get
the knowledge you need first, then go for the extras.

--
Bill Funk
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 9:39:53 PM

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

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
news:rpnnf1pi0hjsie5cocmg1k86ehd0u38213@4ax.com...
> On 11 Aug 2005 15:20:35 -0700, xiongnu@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>i knew someone going to pick on me for this
>>
>>alrite, let me correct myself:
>>
>>I believe for 4MP digital camera can only print up to 8"x6"
>>
>>happy?
>
> Sort of. :-)
> You really could spend some time searching these things out for
> yourself. I know this isn't often received kindly, but knowledge you
> find for yourself is usually more valuable than knowledge gotten
> cheaply.
> In this case, you don't even know what types of cameras you have.

Careful... When I answered his original question by suggesting he take a
look at his two cameras and ask himSELF a couple of questions, he got his
knickers in a knot.

It seems that it is now officialy offensive to suggest that people think
things through.
:( 
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:08:10 AM

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

<xiongnu@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1123789283.092475.146250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> thank you
>
> i'll keep it in mind
>
> I'm old-fashioned. I didn't buy a digital camera until earlier
> this year. I bought my Minolta SLR a few years back but haven't been
> taking full advantage of it.
>
> Can anyone tell me which camera takes better pictures? Film-based
> camera or digital camera? Film-based cameras seem can develop pretty
> big size of positive pictures. But digitial cameras seem can only
> print up to a point without losing resolution, I believe for 4MP
> digital camera can only print up to 8'x6'.
>
> Any thoughts?

The cheapest dslr is 6mp. Thats good enough for 10x8. I have actually gone
bigger. 8mp can get you 10x12. Although i know of people who have used
photoshop to get to A3.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:08:11 AM

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

ian lincoln wrote:
> <xiongnu@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1123789283.092475.146250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>thank you
>>
>>i'll keep it in mind
>>
>>I'm old-fashioned. I didn't buy a digital camera until earlier
>>this year. I bought my Minolta SLR a few years back but haven't been
>>taking full advantage of it.
>>
>>Can anyone tell me which camera takes better pictures? Film-based
>>camera or digital camera? Film-based cameras seem can develop pretty
>>big size of positive pictures. But digitial cameras seem can only
>>print up to a point without losing resolution, I believe for 4MP
>>digital camera can only print up to 8'x6'.
>>
>>Any thoughts?
>
>
> The cheapest dslr is 6mp. Thats good enough for 10x8. I have actually gone
> bigger. 8mp can get you 10x12. Although i know of people who have used
> photoshop to get to A3.
>
>
It also depends on the lens. A Digital Rebel with an L lens will take a
better picture than a 20D with standard lens.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 9:05:54 AM

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

thanks for the reply

well, i'm not totally blind.

i got a idea but i need someone to confirm on that. because with all
these extra camera add-ons, who can be totally sure what camera can or
can not do? i had bought a book together with my first SLR camera a
few years ago but haven't gotten into it. the reason for my rekindling
interest on photography is due to my recent week-long vacation to
Yellowstone. i got some cool pictures on my Digital camera but yelling
for better ones. so i decided to pick up the hobby and be ready for my
next field trip. and during this learning and equipment-garthering
process, it would be better if i could get some professional advice.
if someone think it's stupid and unworthy questiones, he can choose to
ignore it and move on to answer some 'wiser and more thought-through
questions' instead of mine, no offense to anyone.

thanks again for taking time answering my question
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:39:05 PM

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

xiongnu@my-deja.com wrote:

> thanks for the reply
>
> well, i'm not totally blind.
>
> i got a idea but i need someone to confirm on that. because with all
> these extra camera add-ons, who can be totally sure what camera can or
> can not do? i had bought a book together with my first SLR camera a
> few years ago but haven't gotten into it. the reason for my rekindling
> interest on photography is due to my recent week-long vacation to
> Yellowstone. i got some cool pictures on my Digital camera but yelling
> for better ones. so i decided to pick up the hobby and be ready for my
> next field trip. and during this learning and equipment-garthering
> process, it would be better if i could get some professional advice.
> if someone think it's stupid and unworthy questiones, he can choose to
> ignore it and move on to answer some 'wiser and more thought-through
> questions' instead of mine, no offense to anyone.
>
> thanks again for taking time answering my question
>
Canon EOS 300D. The best bang for the buck for someone in your situation.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:43:54 PM

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

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:54:25 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

> On 11 Aug 2005 12:41:23 -0700, xiongnu@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>thank you
>>
>>i'll keep it in mind
>>
>>I'm old-fashioned. I didn't buy a digital camera until earlier
>>this year. I bought my Minolta SLR a few years back but haven't been
>>taking full advantage of it.
>>
>>Can anyone tell me which camera takes better pictures? Film-based
>>camera or digital camera? Film-based cameras seem can develop pretty
>>big size of positive pictures. But digitial cameras seem can only
>>print up to a point without losing resolution, I believe for 4MP
>>digital camera can only print up to 8'x6'.
>>
>>Any thoughts?
>
> Nonesense!
> 4 MP cameras can pring up to over 12' on a side. Easily.
> The problem is in finding a wall that size to display the prints on.
Neither of my cameras can do that - I have to use a printer.
--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 3:28:37 PM

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

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 08:39:05 -0400, Paul Bielec <no@spam.com> wrote:

>xiongnu@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> thanks for the reply
>>
>> well, i'm not totally blind.
>>
>> i got a idea but i need someone to confirm on that. because with all
>> these extra camera add-ons, who can be totally sure what camera can or
>> can not do? i had bought a book together with my first SLR camera a
>> few years ago but haven't gotten into it. the reason for my rekindling
>> interest on photography is due to my recent week-long vacation to
>> Yellowstone. i got some cool pictures on my Digital camera but yelling
>> for better ones. so i decided to pick up the hobby and be ready for my
>> next field trip. and during this learning and equipment-garthering
>> process, it would be better if i could get some professional advice.
>> if someone think it's stupid and unworthy questiones, he can choose to
>> ignore it and move on to answer some 'wiser and more thought-through
>> questions' instead of mine, no offense to anyone.
>>
>> thanks again for taking time answering my question
>>
>Canon EOS 300D. The best bang for the buck for someone in your situation.

Too late; he already bought a DSLR.
He jumped in the deep end, and now wants swimming lessons, and thinks
this is the way to do things.

--
Bill Funk
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 12:49:06 AM

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

amazon.com has it for $799, seems amazon doesn't carry it anymore, it
just sells it through 3rd parties

also, it doesn't take Secure Digital memory card

is it a true statement that DSLR always costs more than film-based SLR?
that's the impression i got when look at DSLRs
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 12:51:03 AM

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

really?

where you got that from?
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 6:18:17 AM

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

<xiongnu@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1123904946.000144.64810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> amazon.com has it for $799, seems amazon doesn't carry it anymore, it
> just sells it through 3rd parties
>
> also, it doesn't take Secure Digital memory card
>
> is it a true statement that DSLR always costs more than film-based SLR?
> that's the impression i got when look at DSLRs

If you compare them at similar market targets...yes.
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 9:55:14 AM

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

On 12 Aug 2005 20:51:03 -0700, xiongnu@my-deja.com wrote:

>really?
>
>where you got that from?

From you:
"hi, all

i own both a Minolta Maxxum 5 SLR camera and a Canon A510 digital
camera. I was hoping to find a lens can work with both models"
--
Bill Funk
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 1:39:12 PM

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

but maxxum is a not digital

and a510 is not SLR

so where's 'too late; he already bought a DSLR.' come from?!
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 1:47:03 PM

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

oh ok

according to this paragraph from space.com, DSLR is inferior to
film-based SLR in terms of taking astronomy pictures...


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Photographing meteors

The Perseids are an excellent meteor display to attempt to photograph.
Meteor photography is popular. However, the chance of your recording a
meteor is enhanced by using a fast lens (f 2.8 or better) and ultrafast
film (ISO 400 to 1600). It makes no difference whether the camera is
clock-driven or fixed on a tripod.

If your camera has an electronic shutter see if it also has a long time
exposure mode that doesn't draw current. Otherwise, put in fresh
batteries and plan on replacing them the next day. Mechanical shutters
are preferable for long time exposures for this reason.

If all you have is a digital camera, then give it a try. Otherwise, use
a film-based camera instead. The reason for this is that digital
cameras suffer from thermal noise during exposures of more than a
second or so.

In a dark sky, exposures of 10 to 20 minutes long can be made, but
should be kept much shorter if background light threatens to fog the
film. Slight moonlight, twilight or city glow can be tolerated, as
they have little to do with the efficiency of a particular lens-film
combination in recording bright meteors.

A successful photograph has many added values if an observer has
witnessed and described the same meteor. Also, the chance of obtaining
a good meteor picture can be increased by pointing the camera well away
from the radiant.
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 9:22:03 PM

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

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 05:55:14 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

> On 12 Aug 2005 20:51:03 -0700, xiongnu@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>really?
>>
>>where you got that from?
>
> From you:
> "hi, all
>
> i own both a Minolta Maxxum 5 SLR camera and a Canon A510 digital
> camera. I was hoping to find a lens can work with both models"
That had slipped my mind; they have these lenses at our local 'Dollonds'
but of course they do call them a specific name Magnifying Lens.
--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 9:38:04 PM

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

On 13 Aug 2005 09:47:03 -0700, xiongnu@my-deja.com wrote:

> according to this paragraph from space.com, DSLR is inferior to
> film-based SLR in terms of taking astronomy pictures...

> If all you have is a digital camera, then give it a try. Otherwise, use
> a film-based camera instead. The reason for this is that digital
> cameras suffer from thermal noise during exposures of more than a
> second or so.

Many of the better P&S and DSLRs have a noise removal option that
subtracts this noise from the image, and it works very well. The
main drawback is that it lengthens the exposure time. Do you know
if the advice from space.com was written recently? It seems like it
may have been written several years ago possibly even before
relatively inexpensive DSLRs became available.
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 11:22:09 AM

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

On 13 Aug 2005 09:39:12 -0700, xiongnu@my-deja.com wrote:

>but maxxum is a not digital
>
>and a510 is not SLR
>
>so where's 'too late; he already bought a DSLR.' come from?!

Oh, so sorry!
Exchange "SLR" for "DSLR."
You (and pretty much everyone else) got the message.
Which is, you don't know much about cameras, and don't want to put the
effort into learning any more than just what will serve your immediate
purposes.

--
Bill Funk
funktionality.blogspot.com
!