I am having a Minolta chemical SLR system (Dynax/Maxxum with some lenses).
Now the logical thing would be to buy a new Sony Alpha digital camera, because they are compatible with my old Minolta stuff. I could re-use at least some of the lenses, that’s nice.
So I could bring both old chemical and new digital camera.
My question is: Do I still need the old chemical one or is digital enough? Still don’t trust the new digital stuff.
What if I want to make a bigger print of a photo, like poster size?
Any experience when moving from chemical SLR to digital?
… If I don’t need the chemical stuff anymore I could also consider Canon*** and Nikon or Pentax…
The latest generations of DSLRs are more than capable of printing poster-sized prints. Your old film camera will probably not be used after you buy digital.
CFI, if you had to put a date on the death of film photography, which year would you choose? 2009?
My film camera is buggered so I will have to replace it with one of these new devil cameras.
Feels sad that film photography and film cameras have slipped away so steadily and quietly into the void, their passing unmarked.
What we need is a massive booze up - a farewell to film photography! It’s what the Viking would have wanted.
CFI, if you had to put a date on the death of film photography, which year would you choose? 2009?
My film camera is buggered so I will have to replace it with one of these new devil cameras.
Feels sad that film photography and film cameras have slipped away so steadily and quietly into the void, their passing unmarked.
What we need is a massive booze up - a farewell to film photography! It’s what the Viking would have wanted.[/quote]
For the average person (ie. not photo pro or enthusiast) I’d say mid 2000s, maybe 2004 or 2005. I remember reading an article around that time that said with film, the average person shot 2 rolls per year (mainly Christmas, birthdays etc), but with digital, it’s the equivalent (72 photos) per week. It’s probably even more skewed now.
CFI, if you had to put a date on the death of film photography, which year would you choose? 2009?
My film camera is buggered so I will have to replace it with one of these new devil cameras.
Feels sad that film photography and film cameras have slipped away so steadily and quietly into the void, their passing unmarked.
What we need is a massive booze up - a farewell to film photography! It’s what the Viking would have wanted.[/quote]
For the average person (ie. not photo pro or enthusiast) I’d say mid 2000s, maybe 2004 or 2005. I remember reading an article around that time that said with film, the average person shot 2 rolls per year (mainly Christmas, birthdays etc), but with digital, it’s the equivalent (72 photos) per week. It’s probably even more skewed now.[/quote]
I was thinking more of professional stuff. I haven’t had any photos published (and I’m talking full page size) in a magazine since 2007, and I haven’t kept an eye on what magazines are accepting these days.
Professionally, I’d say a few years now. National Geographic had their first all digital issue in 2002 or 2003. Just last year, Asian Geographic ran a full page photo of mine that was taken on a Canon 20D that I bought in 2004. Stock agencies generally say 8-10MP as a minimum which all of the current models offer more than.
I was about to say:
Nikon for “photographers” (best layout/ergonomy according to many). Generally good in low-light, but may not fit landscape and studio photographers (as the High Resoution D3X is PRICEY).
Canon for people wanting a camera with the best new tech (As in hi-tech, for example high pixel sensors, not features, as for example many of the new 550D features exist in my 2 year old D90).
Olympus for the people wanting the smallest camera, willing to pay a little low light performance for low weight and small size. (Even my dad who last touched a SLR 10+ years ago agrees with this).
Sony for the rich kid who wants the sleekest camera you can buy for money, and can do with the “limited” choice of Sony Lenses. Or want the wonderful Zeiss Lenses (I’ve at least heard they are good…).
But I guess I know which one you are =D
(I’m envious of you, the Alpha 900/850 is a good camera from what I’ve heard and the Sony lenses look so sleek! At least compared to Nikons “lumps”).
EDIT: Hey, I though the high end alphas were expensive… they aren’t… my world is in ruins… =P Remove the “you can buy for money” part of the sony comment above.
Yeah, as wife said “money does not matter because we are in Taiwan and get 0% for 2 years” or so I will seemingly get the Alpha 850, a bit expensive, but cheap for a professional camera.
Now, I do not really need a professional camera, but full frame sounds better than APS-C (I guess) and I always liked big cameras. Remind me to order headache tablets with it (neck strain).
So I will have to leave my old chemical ones at home, though the damned things still are 100% functional and almost look like new. Using them a lot these days, saying bye bye. So soon the Minolta Dynax 505si and Dynax 600si classic will join the X-700, XD-7 and XG-2 in their eternal sleep in closet at home. Sniff.
'Til one day some no-nothing kid will sell them all on Ebay for 10 Euro. Or the town worker who had to deal with my greenish remains. Sigh. Depression kicking in…
Just be aware that older lenses may or may not offer the same results on DSLRs.
Also, some older lenses won’t auto focus, but that might not be an issue for you, as it sounds like you know what you’re doing.
You might just want to wait a wee bit if you can, as the rumour is that Sony is going to launch a bunch of new cameras sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-at-least … -3-months/
I miss my Fuji film camera with telephoto lens. You want close up? Immediate reaction. You want wide angle panoramic view? No cropping necessary. No need to change lens. Just adjust dial and presto. Pity film really can’t compare when it comes to coping with varying light conditions. But DLSR is driving me nuts, so many buttons, so many things to remember, so complicated. My Panasonic SLR-like was the best so far: no wiggling, no complications, simpel menus, but a bit time delayed. RIP my faithful camera.
Bob, let us know how you like Sony’s colors. I’m not convinced but I can be wrong. It seems a very solid machine.
[quote=“TheLostSwede”]Just be aware that older lenses may or may not offer the same results on DSLRs.
Also, some older lenses won’t auto focus, but that might not be an issue for you, as it sounds like you know what you’re doing.
You might just want to wait a wee bit if you can, as the rumour is that Sony is going to launch a bunch of new cameras sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-at-least … -3-months/[/quote]
Well, I found a review where the Sony Alpha 850 was recommended for those who still have Minolta Autofocus lenses, to my knowledge they should work well, that’s what everybody said so far. Problem would arise if you use an APS-C lens (one for Sony Alpha 500 or likewise) on the (full-frame) Sony Alpha 850, because the APS-C lenses (called DT by Sony) are not made to support the big full frame sensor (like 35mm film) at full quality.
So I hope the lenses will really work
Another thing. What image file format shall I use when I sometimes want to make 40x60 cm prints?
The camera has the following formats:
RAW, compressed RAW and 3 JPEG qualities.
Is highest JPEG enough or is compressed RAW better (they say compression does not diminish image quality)?
[quote=“bob_honest”][quote=“TheLostSwede”]Just be aware that older lenses may or may not offer the same results on DSLRs.
Also, some older lenses won’t auto focus, but that might not be an issue for you, as it sounds like you know what you’re doing.
You might just want to wait a wee bit if you can, as the rumour is that Sony is going to launch a bunch of new cameras sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-at-least … -3-months/[/quote]
Well, I found a review where the Sony Alpha 850 was recommended for those who still have Minolta Autofocus lenses, to my knowledge they should work well, that’s what everybody said so far. Problem would arise if you use an APS-C lens (one for Sony Alpha 500 or likewise) on the (full-frame) Sony Alpha 850, because the APS-C lenses (called DT by Sony) are not made to support the big full frame sensor (like 35mm film) at full quality.
So I hope the lenses will really work
Another thing. What image file format shall I use when I sometimes want to make 40x60 cm prints?
The camera has the following formats:
RAW, compressed RAW and 3 JPEG qualities.
Is highest JPEG enough or is compressed RAW better (they say compression does not diminish image quality)?[/quote]
Shoot RAW. Hard drive storage is cheap - buy a couple of 500GB drives and they’ll last you a year or two shooting RAW.
BTW, I have her here now, right in company and tried it out in lunch break with my old Minolta AF 50mm:1:1,7 lens, works like a charm. All Minolta AF lenses are supposed to work***, also third party lenses made for Minolta AF, but some old Sigma and Tokina lenses. My two should be fine though, will know it for sure later.
The a850 is a big and heavy frigate, with big curves and a silk-like… ah you know what I mean.
Feels like a Minolta entirely.
*** besides Depths-of-field calculation (D-function) which is needed for the most sophisticated ADI flash-TTL system and some extra calculation the camera can do with Sony lenses. Those functions are not really needed however, flash should switch back to normal TTL otherwise. Whatever ADI means.
Looks like you already made your decision, but since I’m gonna put my 2 cents in anyway:
I only buy Canon for a reason. The most amount of lenses, interchangable with any body, bad-ass customer support, superior build qualities, super-easy to find add-on accesories, best overall-rated post-processing engine (currently DIGIC 4)…I could go on and on…but I don’t wanna make you feel bad.
But I think if you bought the Alpha 300 or higher, you get a tilt-screen, right? Also, I think image stabilization is built into your body.
The Alpha 850 I bought does not have the LiveView and thus no tilt screen. They sacrificed that for time to market it seems.
I do not miss it as I am used to using the viewfinder and not the screen though.
Will take a look at the website.
Ah yes, wife wants a small video camera, as the Sony Alpha 850 does not have video…
[quote=“ShreddyM”]Looks like you already made your decision, but since I’m gonna put my 2 cents in anyway:
I only buy Canon for a reason. The most amount of lenses, interchangable with any body, bad-ass customer support, superior build qualities, super-easy to find add-on accesories, best overall-rated post-processing engine (currently DIGIC 4)…I could go on and on…but I don’t wanna make you feel bad.
[/quote]
Not really true. EF-S lenses don’t work on all bodies, and they are often what comes in kit form when buying a new camera.
ah you know what I mean.