From: Bruce on
On Sat, 22 May 2010 01:45:49 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>
>Of course, it wasn't just body / lens combos that necessitated multiple
>cams. There were film types as well.
>
>Bright sunlight required slow, fine grained films while faster, coarser
>films were the norm for lower light situations. Sometimes, the same film
>was loaded into two cams -- processed normally from one body and pushed a
>stop or two from a different body.
>
>There was no such thing as, "I'll just bump up the ISO for this shot."
>
>Shooting 6400 was a dream...


Anything over 800 in colour was a nightmare. The best ISO 400 films
were very good, but anything much over that was very grainy. I used
to use a Fujifilm ISO 1600 colour negative film (Japan market only)
that was better than most, but I shot my last roll of it a few months
ago and the results were very disappointing in comparison with digital
capture.

I still have stocks of Velvia 50, Provia 100 and Kodachrome 64 but I
expect most of them will go past their "best before" dates without
being used. I will make a special effort to use the Kodachrome 64
before the December 2010 cut-off date because it gives such pleasing
results, but I expect that from 2011 onwards, the only film I will be
using regularly will be black and white Kodak Professional BW400CN.

From: Peter on
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:KlGJn.4430$Z6.779(a)edtnps82...
>

> Those were the days ...
>
> Not that hardcore pro's don't still use multiple cams, but a good fast
> zoom can really cut down on the neck strain ...

I still carry at least two bodies. One for wide angle and general the other
for telephoto. There are times when you just can't change the lens fast
enough.
As for neck strain, I use an R Strap. It distributes the weight over my
shoulders and also acts as a brace to steady my non tripod shots. It easily
disengages so I can put the camera on a tip pod.

http://www.blackrapid.com/





--
Peter

From: Val Hallah on
On May 20, 6:35 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 09:01:52 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah
>
> <michaelnewp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On May 20, 4:52 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You have a good eye for subjects and composition.  It's a pity to
> >> waste your talents by using a camera that limits your creativity.
>
> >...still for GBP 270 its an excellent camera with a very long lens....
>
> No, it's a cheap camera with a very long lens that gives very poor
> results for anyone with any creativity.
>
> You are far more talented as a photographer than you are at choosing
> equipment.

cheap is good
From: Bruce on
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:55:34 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah
<michaelnewport(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>On May 20, 6:35�pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 09:01:52 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah
>>
>> <michaelnewp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On May 20, 4:52�pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> You have a good eye for subjects and composition. �It's a pity to
>> >> waste your talents by using a camera that limits your creativity.
>>
>> >...still for GBP 270 its an excellent camera with a very long lens....
>>
>> No, it's a cheap camera with a very long lens that gives very poor
>> results for anyone with any creativity.
>>
>> You are far more talented as a photographer than you are at choosing
>> equipment.
>
>cheap is good


Cheap is cheap. Based on what I saw, your camera isn't remotely good
enough for your skills.

Perhaps I was wrong, and you are as cheap as your camera? ;-)

From: DanP on
On 20 May, 18:35, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Again, great photos can be taken with pretty much *any* camera.

True, using any camera a good photographer will take some good
pictures (portraits, action, wildlife, macro, night, landscape,
candid).
But if you want to be able to take good shots in all situations you
will need a good camera.
Anyway, most good photographers own good cameras.


DanP