(TEST PHOTO)







so, anyway, i absolutely adore this awesome Digital SLR!! i was just at the TRI-CITIES, WASH. COSTCO just yesterday, and saw that they have an exclusive D-5000 set that includes the camera body, two lenses, a carrying case and a set of instructional DVDs, for $1099. i'm working on a way to afford it by november. you guys will be the first to know about it, via some pics of my system, when i finally get it. wow, what an INCREDIBLE unit. the look and feel of classic Japanese SLR quality. hell, as you can see, Danny, the owner and admin of his Anime and life in Japan site, WWW.DANNYCHOO.COM just got himself one. everything he's shown of it tells me that it's a DAMN GOOD Digital SLR, and that it will not disappoint...

Frankly, the cameras have gone the way of audio, IMHO. That was about the cost, if not less, of a comparable F2A setup back in the day. Nothing inherently wrong with digital but as with audio, just not the same.

digital is just so convenient, thats why I use it.

I have a belief that that is most people's reason. I shot the Canon A-1 at my nephews graduation a couple weeks ago but I used a digital for the family pics. My take on the digital is that with a 2gig card anyone can call themselves a "pro" along the lines of "even a blind pig will eventually find a truffle". Had a rift on another site that started when I said all the talk about digital cameras failed to take into account the printer. Don't know where a self described "pro" was coming from but the next thing I know he was telling me to "shut up and listen." When I did he said nothing so I did. Left when the mod called out my name.

I bought a little 7 megapixel canon for 130 two years ago, and it takes pretty nice shots, I just put it on auto and fire away, I used to have a nice camera, and there was a bunch of manual selections, which I had now Idea how to use, and I assume the real nice digital cameras have the same manual options, and I bet if you knew how to use them you could probably get some real nice photos out of the deal.

elroy

btw I think nikon is is way overrated, kinda like infinity and bose are, but I have nothing to back that up with.

That's the beauty of digital, firing away. Not saying anything is wrong with that. Yes, it does help to know the all technical aspects. What I didn't stay around to reply to is that you can immediately see what you shoot and correct if needed. WTF! What kind of pro is that? The only place that is valid is a studio product shoot and maybe inside shots of a wedding, though I wold be embarrassed if I kept telling the party to "hold it" while I checked the screen.

Cameras are more like fly fishing, better have a damn good pole but the reel could be a tuna can. Nikon was known for their lenses and the F bodies were built to match. Competition for Leica.

I think the high end real expensive are that, high end, and most times you get what you paid for.

I still have a "Everything Manual" Zenit EM Russian camera. I loved the EM in spite of all it's quirks. Perhaps this was because my first real camera; it looked, felt and smelt like a real camera.
Contrary to digital, you had to be deliberate and patient to take a picture. Despite, or perhaps because of, the Zenit's crude mechanical nature and tractor-like engineering it made a great learning tool. I learnt a little about photography because I had to if I wanted to get a good shot, and the embarrassment of not getting a good shot after lugging this monster around was not an option.
Digital cameras, even, and sometimes especially, the modest models, are technological marvels that want to do everything for you and often take a lot of persuasion to be convinced to let the picture taker set anything manually.
Focus, aperture, shutter speed - why learn any of it when a computer inside your camera knows it all already?

A few Zenit links:
http://anusf.anu.edu.au/~aab900/photograph...meras/zenit.htm

http://www.commiecameras.com/sov/35mmsingl...zenit/index.htm

http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/fs12/