So I'm looking through my holiday pics, and they're ... ok ... I could 
blame myself for their slight crapness, but I'd much rather blame my 
Fuji FinePix 9500, as that would absolve me of blame ... other decent 
digital cameras I've tried seem so much easier to use for sports 
photography, and the lens isn't interchangeable on this one either, so 
what sort of money do I have to spend to get something good for 
sports/motorsports photography?

I'm thinking Nikon, as I've always got on with their stuff more than 
Canon, but maybe there's a stand-out Canon I should look at, or even 
something else ... is £500 for the body alone enough to get something 
decent?

And then what lens?  From experiments with my own kit, I was thinking 
something zoom-ish in the 300-500mm range (or equivalent) - am I heading 
in the right direction?

Help!
-- 
Bear
2002 Yamaha R1
Saab Aero Sport

On 2 Sep, 14:39, Bear  wrote:

> I'm thinking Nikon, as I've always got on with their stuff more than
> Canon, but maybe there's a stand-out Canon I should look at, or even
> something else ... is £500 for the body alone enough to get something
> decent?

I'm thinking it's time to get another DSLR myself, and I've heard good
things about the Canon EOS 1000D.  Price is pretty good too, £350-ish
for the body.

What say the FOAK?

Bear wrote:
> I'm thinking Nikon, as I've always got on with their stuff more than 
> Canon, but maybe there's a stand-out Canon I should look at, or even 
> something else ... is £500 for the body alone enough to get something 
> decent?
> 
> And then what lens?  From experiments with my own kit, I was thinking 
> something zoom-ish in the 300-500mm range (or equivalent) - am I heading 
> in the right direction?

I've got a Nikon D40 and it's absolutely fine. They're peanuts to buy 
now (250 quid or so), as they're last year's thing, but 500 quid for a 
body alone will easily get you something semi-professional.

Lens-wise, I have the standard kit 18-55 zoom lens and a 55-200. I 
picked up a 70-300 VR zoom a few months ago (all Nikon lenses) and it 
seems absolutely fine. That's equivalent to 450mm on 35mm so probably 
around the size you're looking for. Anything longer than that and 
you're starting to talk serious money.

If only my ability was anywhere near as good as the camera.

-- 
ogden

GSXR750 K4
RGV250 VJ22

On 2 Sep, 14:39, Bear  wrote:

> I'm thinking Nikon,

Good man.
Nikon is "The One True Way".


>
> And then what lens?  zoom-ish in the 300-500mm range (or equivalent)

Multiply the focal length of a "digital lens" by 1.4 or 1.5 for the
equivalent 35mm focal length.

On 2 Sep, 14:39, Bear  wrote:
> So I'm looking through my holiday pics, and they're ... ok ... I could
> blame myself for their slight crapness, but I'd much rather blame my
> Fuji FinePix 9500, as that would absolve me of blame ... other decent
> digital cameras I've tried seem so much easier to use for sports
> photography, and the lens isn't interchangeable on this one either, so
> what sort of money do I have to spend to get something good for
> sports/motorsports photography?
>
> I'm thinking Nikon, as I've always got on with their stuff more than
> Canon, but maybe there's a stand-out Canon I should look at, or even
> something else ... is £500 for the body alone enough to get something
> decent?
>
> And then what lens?  From experiments with my own kit, I was thinking
> something zoom-ish in the 300-500mm range (or equivalent) - am I heading
> in the right direction?
>
First off, bodies. I'm a Nikon man; others are Canon fiends. Horses
for courses.

Buy the bodies used. Used bodies, especially digital ones, fall out of
bed price-wise. My D100 body was something like £2k when first
launched. I paid about £1500 with a decent lens when I bought mine.
Now, used, they sell for a couple of hundred quid. D200 bodies are
dirt cheap right now, too, because the D300 has come out. Check out
Ebay's completed auctions.

So what? You're still getting an awesome piece of kit and as someone
once told me: "A camera is just a light-proof box. The money is in the
lens."

Lenses, *good* lenses, hold their value much better and you might as
well buy new. But a quality 300-500mm zoom will be in the "few
thousand quid" bracket. My 80-200 F2.8 lists at £1500.

If you buy a good non-digital lens (new or used) then when you put it
on a digi body, you get a 50% increase in focal length, so my zoom is
up to 300mm on my D bodies, which is very useful.

And buy better than you think you need, which means more expensive.
High-end Nikon products have that happy knack of making you wince when
you cough up for them, and then after a couple of years you think:
"That was a really good buy, actually. Bargain, almost."

"Bear"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.2327525253b184e398a1c3@news.individual.de...
So I'm looking through my holiday pics, and they're ... ok ... I could
blame myself for their slight crapness, but I'd much rather blame my
Fuji FinePix 9500, as that would absolve me of blame ... other decent
digital cameras I've tried seem so much easier to use for sports
photography, and the lens isn't interchangeable on this one either, so
what sort of money do I have to spend to get something good for
sports/motorsports photography?

I'm thinking Nikon, as I've always got on with their stuff more than
Canon, but maybe there's a stand-out Canon I should look at, or even
something else ... is £500 for the body alone enough to get something
decent?

And then what lens?  From experiments with my own kit, I was thinking
something zoom-ish in the 300-500mm range (or equivalent) - am I heading
in the right direction?

Help!

Nikon D80 kit with 18-135mm lense, very very good.

"ogden"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.232762db110425169896b7@reader.motzarella.org...

>If only my ability was anywhere near as good as the >camera.

Ditto
-- 
Vass

>"TOG@Toil"  wrote in message 
>news:4edcf1f8-c843-435e-a2ac-4e9874029500@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>On 2 Sep, 14:39, Bear  wrote:

>. The money is in the lens.

seconded
-- 
Vass

In article <4edcf1f8-c843-435e-a2ac-4e9874029500
@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, TOG@Toil says...
> On 2 Sep, 14:39, Bear  wrote:
> > So I'm looking through my holiday pics, and they're ... ok ... I could
> > blame myself for their slight crapness, but I'd much rather blame my
> > Fuji FinePix 9500, as that would absolve me of blame ... other decent
> > digital cameras I've tried seem so much easier to use for sports
> > photography, and the lens isn't interchangeable on this one either, so
> > what sort of money do I have to spend to get something good for
> > sports/motorsports photography?
> >
> > I'm thinking Nikon, as I've always got on with their stuff more than
> > Canon, but maybe there's a stand-out Canon I should look at, or even
> > something else ... is £500 for the body alone enough to get something
> > decent?
> >
> > And then what lens?  From experiments with my own kit, I was thinking
> > something zoom-ish in the 300-500mm range (or equivalent) - am I heading
> > in the right direction?
> >
> First off, bodies. I'm a Nikon man; others are Canon fiends. Horses
> for courses.

Yeah I've always liked Nikons.

> Buy the bodies used. Used bodies, especially digital ones, fall out of
> bed price-wise. My D100 body was something like £2k when first
> launched. I paid about £1500 with a decent lens when I bought mine.
> Now, used, they sell for a couple of hundred quid. D200 bodies are
> dirt cheap right now, too, because the D300 has come out. Check out
> Ebay's completed auctions.

What about reliability and faults though?  Or are they fairly 
bulletproof these days?

> So what? You're still getting an awesome piece of kit and as someone
> once told me: "A camera is just a light-proof box. The money is in the
> lens."

True.  At higher zoom levels my 9500's lens really shows its 
limitations.

> Lenses, *good* lenses, hold their value much better and you might as
> well buy new. But a quality 300-500mm zoom will be in the "few
> thousand quid" bracket. My 80-200 F2.8 lists at £1500.
> 
> If you buy a good non-digital lens (new or used) then when you put it
> on a digi body, you get a 50% increase in focal length, so my zoom is
> up to 300mm on my D bodies, which is very useful.

Ah ok ... that's a lot more money than I wanted to spend TBH, but I 
guess I could try and see ... tell me, do Nikon digital cameras have a 
mode to support the old-style manual focusing?  I much prefer it to the 
auto-focus thing, but I need the old style 2 semicircle focus aid to 
feel comfy ... is that all old hat now?

> And buy better than you think you need, which means more expensive.
> High-end Nikon products have that happy knack of making you wince when
> you cough up for them, and then after a couple of years you think:
> "That was a really good buy, actually. Bargain, almost."

£1,500 to £2,000 is a lot for something that'd get used only a few times 
a year, but I'll give it some thought, thanks ... don't think I'm not 
tempted :)
-- 
Bear
2002 Yamaha R1
Saab Aero Sport

In article , ogden 
says...
> Bear wrote:
> > I'm thinking Nikon, as I've always got on with their stuff more than 
> > Canon, but maybe there's a stand-out Canon I should look at, or even 
> > something else ... is £500 for the body alone enough to get something 
> > decent?
> > 
> > And then what lens?  From experiments with my own kit, I was thinking 
> > something zoom-ish in the 300-500mm range (or equivalent) - am I heading 
> > in the right direction?
> 
> I've got a Nikon D40 and it's absolutely fine. They're peanuts to buy 
> now (250 quid or so), as they're last year's thing, but 500 quid for a 
> body alone will easily get you something semi-professional.
> 
> Lens-wise, I have the standard kit 18-55 zoom lens and a 55-200. I 
> picked up a 70-300 VR zoom a few months ago (all Nikon lenses) and it 
> seems absolutely fine. That's equivalent to 450mm on 35mm so probably 
> around the size you're looking for. Anything longer than that and 
> you're starting to talk serious money.

Ok that's not too bad then, thanks.

> If only my ability was anywhere near as good as the camera.

That's my issue, but I genuinely think the kit's holding me back too - 
pre-focusing, for example, is a total pain on the Fuji, as is manual 
focus.
-- 
Bear
2002 Yamaha R1
Saab Aero Sport

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:51:05 +0100, "Nige"
 wrote:

>Nikon D80 kit with 18-135mm lense, very very good. 

Nikon I'd say D80 body, 16-85 VR and 70-300 VR would cover most of
your options, good midrange kit that'll do anything you could throw at
it.

Or in Canon flavour (which I'd go for, as I've already started on that
path) 40D, 17-18 IS and 70-300 IS... which then gives you the chance
to add a 300 F4L IS when you want to splash a few grand..

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:51:05 +0100, "Nige"
 wrote:

>very very good. 

Nige's quoting, otoh, very very bad.

-- 
Pip: B12

On 2 Sep, 16:03, Bear  wrote:
> In article <4edcf1f8-c843-435e-a2ac-4e9874029500
> @x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, TOG@Toil says...
>
>
<snip>
>
> What about reliability and faults though?  Or are they fairly
> bulletproof these days?

I've never had any Nikon go wrong. Ever.
>
> > So what? You're still getting an awesome piece of kit and as someone
> > once told me: "A camera is just a light-proof box. The money is in the
> > lens."
>
> True.  At higher zoom levels my 9500's lens really shows its
> limitations.
>
> > Lenses, *good* lenses, hold their value much better and you might as
> > well buy new. But a quality 300-500mm zoom will be in the "few
> > thousand quid" bracket. My 80-200 F2.8 lists at £1500.
>
>
> Ah ok ... that's a lot more money than I wanted to spend TBH, but I
> guess I could try and see ... tell me, do Nikon digital cameras have a
> mode to support the old-style manual focusing?  I much prefer it to the
> auto-focus thing, but I need the old style 2 semicircle focus aid to
> feel comfy ... is that all old hat now?

Manual focusing, yes, that's an option on all SLRs, I think, but not
like the old FE/FM format.
>
<snip>
>
> £1,500 to £2,000 is a lot for something that'd get used only a few times
> a year, but I'll give it some thought, thanks ... don't think I'm not
> tempted :)

As others say, the D80 is superb VFM. Buy the body used, and you'll
have more money to spend on the lenses.

In article <213b40ab-2a3e-4fc2-b3c6-498d284e41e1
@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, TOG@Toil says...
> On 2 Sep, 16:03, Bear  wrote:
> > In article <4edcf1f8-c843-435e-a2ac-4e9874029500
> > @x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, TOG@Toil says...
> >
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > What about reliability and faults though?  Or are they fairly
> > bulletproof these days?
> 
> I've never had any Nikon go wrong. Ever.

heh.  Ta!

> > > So what? You're still getting an awesome piece of kit and as someone
> > > once told me: "A camera is just a light-proof box. The money is in the
> > > lens."
> >
> > True.  At higher zoom levels my 9500's lens really shows its
> > limitations.
> >
> > > Lenses, *good* lenses, hold their value much better and you might as
> > > well buy new. But a quality 300-500mm zoom will be in the "few
> > > thousand quid" bracket. My 80-200 F2.8 lists at £1500.
> >
> >
> > Ah ok ... that's a lot more money than I wanted to spend TBH, but I
> > guess I could try and see ... tell me, do Nikon digital cameras have a
> > mode to support the old-style manual focusing?  I much prefer it to the
> > auto-focus thing, but I need the old style 2 semicircle focus aid to
> > feel comfy ... is that all old hat now?
> 
> Manual focusing, yes, that's an option on all SLRs, I think, but not
> like the old FE/FM format.

Yeah see now that was the focus method I liked best ... seemed to work 
best for my brain, but hey ho, I'll just have to drag myself into the 
21st century.

> <snip>
> >
> > £1,500 to £2,000 is a lot for something that'd get used only a few times
> > a year, but I'll give it some thought, thanks ... don't think I'm not
> > tempted :)
> 
> As others say, the D80 is superb VFM. Buy the body used, and you'll
> have more money to spend on the lenses.

I'll have to look into secondhand lenses as well I think ... I take what 
you say about them being not much cheaper secondhand, but any saving on 
that kind of money is useful ... it's just a hobby for me, not something 
I want to plough loads of money into, as with, say, bikes.
-- 
Bear
2002 Yamaha R1
Saab Aero Sport

Bear wrote:
> In article , ogden 
> says...
> > Bear wrote:
> > > I'm thinking Nikon, as I've always got on with their stuff more than 
> > > Canon, but maybe there's a stand-out Canon I should look at, or even 
> > > something else ... is £500 for the body alone enough to get something 
> > > decent?
> > > 
> > > And then what lens?  From experiments with my own kit, I was thinking 
> > > something zoom-ish in the 300-500mm range (or equivalent) - am I heading 
> > > in the right direction?
> > 
> > I've got a Nikon D40 and it's absolutely fine. They're peanuts to buy 
> > now (250 quid or so), as they're last year's thing, but 500 quid for a 
> > body alone will easily get you something semi-professional.
> > 
> > Lens-wise, I have the standard kit 18-55 zoom lens and a 55-200. I 
> > picked up a 70-300 VR zoom a few months ago (all Nikon lenses) and it 
> > seems absolutely fine. That's equivalent to 450mm on 35mm so probably 
> > around the size you're looking for. Anything longer than that and 
> > you're starting to talk serious money.
> 
> Ok that's not too bad then, thanks.
> 
> > If only my ability was anywhere near as good as the camera.
> 
> That's my issue, but I genuinely think the kit's holding me back too - 
> pre-focusing, for example, is a total pain on the Fuji, as is manual 
> focus.

I bought my DSLR after a trip to Fairford with a couple of compact 
digitals. After four hours of pointing and hoping I figured it was 
worth five hundred quid to end the pain.

The 70-300 lens was about 300 quid, btw. So you could pick up a D80 and 
18-135 kit for a shade over 600 notes, add the 70-300 lens and you've 
got a combo that'll cover you for pretty much everything for under a 
grand.

-- 
ogden

GSXR750 K4
RGV250 VJ22

"ginge"  wrote in message 
news:k7lqb4h1ljm6p5lrh72e9v6krj46cv9ad9@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:51:05 +0100, "Nige"
>  wrote:
>
>>Nikon D80 kit with 18-135mm lense, very very good.
>
> Nikon I'd say D80 body, 16-85 VR and 70-300 VR would cover most of
> your options, good midrange kit that'll do anything you could throw at
> it.
>
> Or in Canon flavour (which I'd go for, as I've already started on that
> path) 40D, 17-18 IS and 70-300 IS... which then gives you the chance
> to add a 300 F4L IS when you want to splash a few grand..
>
>
not forgetting the must have 10-20 (not for the OP's sport shots obviously)
-- 
Vass

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Big Dave
 saying something like:

>On 2 Sep, 14:39, Bear  wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking Nikon,
>
>Good man.
>Nikon is "The One True Way".

Bullshite.
They're all fucking good these days.
-- 
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
 How much more suspenseful can you get?"
 - House

"Grimly Curmudgeon"  wrote in message 
news:g9jnlp$4vq$4@registered.motzarella.org...
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember Big Dave
>  saying something like:
>
>>On 2 Sep, 14:39, Bear  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm thinking Nikon,
>>
>>Good man.
>>Nikon is "The One True Way".
>
> Bullshite.
> They're all fucking good these days.

You've got a Canon haven't you?

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bear 
saying something like:

>Ah ok ... that's a lot more money than I wanted to spend TBH, but I 
>guess I could try and see ... tell me, do Nikon digital cameras have a 
>mode to support the old-style manual focusing?  I much prefer it to the 
>auto-focus thing, but I need the old style 2 semicircle focus aid to 
>feel comfy ... is that all old hat now?

Nearly every dSLR will support manual focus legacy lenses, but there are
a couple of Nikon bodies that don't - not being a current Nikon user I'm
not 100% sure, but I'll find out what they are.

That said, if you have a Nikon and use it with manual lenses you can
score some really excellent glass for a fraction of the price of current
AF lenses. With some models you might have to replace the focusing
screen if you really want split-circle focusing - otoh, I took out an
aftermarket split-circle focusing after finding it was a total pita. 

Bear in mind, with film cameras you were focusing wide open so the split
was clear and the camera stopped the lens down as you shot - with a dSLR
if you manually focus at your chosen aperture the split will often
darken to the point of unusability. The way round that is to stick to
wider apertures or to buy a Pentax K10D or K20D which will work
perfectly happily with older K-A fully manual lenses and stop down
exactly the same as the film cameras. The Pentaxes also have built-in
shake reduction which is something Canon and Nikon will not do for years
yet, preferring to stick the customers for extra money on the lenses.
-- 
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
 How much more suspenseful can you get?"
 - House

In article <g9jol6$4vq$5@registered.motzarella.org>, Grimly Curmudgeon 
says...

> That said, if you have a Nikon and use it with manual lenses you can
> score some really excellent glass for a fraction of the price of current
> AF lenses. With some models you might have to replace the focusing
> screen if you really want split-circle focusing - otoh, I took out an
> aftermarket split-circle focusing after finding it was a total pita. 
> 
> Bear in mind, with film cameras you were focusing wide open so the split
> was clear and the camera stopped the lens down as you shot - with a dSLR
> if you manually focus at your chosen aperture the split will often
> darken to the point of unusability. The way round that is to stick to
> wider apertures or to buy a Pentax K10D or K20D which will work
> perfectly happily with older K-A fully manual lenses and stop down
> exactly the same as the film cameras. The Pentaxes also have built-in
> shake reduction which is something Canon and Nikon will not do for years
> yet, preferring to stick the customers for extra money on the lenses.

Thanks for that - very educational.  I don't like Pentax, so I think I'm 
just going to have to drag myself into this century.
-- 
Bear
2002 Yamaha R1
Saab Aero Sport

"Bear"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.2327525253b184e398a1c3@news.individual.de...
So I'm looking through my holiday pics, and they're ... ok ... I could
blame myself for their slight crapness, but I'd much rather blame my
Fuji FinePix 9500, as that would absolve me of blame ...

Snip

Help!

http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.fredmiranda.com/
http://luminous-landscape.com/

May be of some use.

In the end whatever you get will be more than adequate but I found that the 
camera was just the start .... budget for more, much more!
Lenses, if you buy budget ones it won't be long before you are writing
"I could blame myself for their slight crapness, but I'd much rather blame 
my (lenses)....."

Then there's bags, tripods, monopods, filters, sensor cleaning kit, cable 
releases, and so on. Joy of joys.
Then there's the printer..........

However, I'd say that the most important thing about buying a camera is how 
does it feel to you? I can't get on with these small dSLRs, but if/when you 
try one, ask the camera shop seller to put the biggest lens that you are 
likely to use on it. Try it in the vertical, too and ask to have a grip 
fitted and see if you prefer that, it's likely another 100 quid or so but 
can make a huge difference to how the camera feels. There's a world of 
difference carrying, holding and shooting with a (for example) kit lens and 
a 100-400 IS fitted, especially if you have to carry it around all day.
Smaller bodies can make shooting with large lenses rather more difficult 
than a larger body and if you find it a pain to use you're not likely to use 
it as much as if it's a pleasure.

HTH
Cheers
DP

SV650 for fun
Yamahaha Townmate Shaft drive for work

www.capture-light.co.uk

In article , Addenuff 
says...
> 
> "Bear"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.2327525253b184e398a1c3@news.individual.de...
> So I'm looking through my holiday pics, and they're ... ok ... I could
> blame myself for their slight crapness, but I'd much rather blame my
> Fuji FinePix 9500, as that would absolve me of blame ...
> 
> Snip
> 
> Help!
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/
> http://luminous-landscape.com/
> 
> May be of some use.

Ta - the DP review one was what encouraged me to buy the Fuji, so I 
screwed the pooch there :)

> In the end whatever you get will be more than adequate but I found that the 
> camera was just the start .... budget for more, much more!
> Lenses, if you buy budget ones it won't be long before you are writing
> "I could blame myself for their slight crapness, but I'd much rather blame 
> my (lenses)....."
> 
> Then there's bags, tripods, monopods, filters, sensor cleaning kit, cable 
> releases, and so on. Joy of joys.
> Then there's the printer..........
> 
> However, I'd say that the most important thing about buying a camera is how 
> does it feel to you? I can't get on with these small dSLRs, but if/when you 
> try one, ask the camera shop seller to put the biggest lens that you are 
> likely to use on it. Try it in the vertical, too and ask to have a grip 
> fitted and see if you prefer that, it's likely another 100 quid or so but 
> can make a huge difference to how the camera feels. There's a world of 
> difference carrying, holding and shooting with a (for example) kit lens and 
> a 100-400 IS fitted, especially if you have to carry it around all day.
> Smaller bodies can make shooting with large lenses rather more difficult 
> than a larger body and if you find it a pain to use you're not likely to use 
> it as much as if it's a pleasure.

Good advice, thanks.
-- 
Bear
2002 Yamaha R1
Saab Aero Sport

Big Dave wrote:
> 
> "Grimly Curmudgeon"  wrote in message 
> news:g9jnlp$4vq$4@registered.motzarella.org...
>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>> drugs began to take hold. I remember Big Dave
>>  saying something like:
>>
>>> On 2 Sep, 14:39, Bear  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm thinking Nikon,
>>>
>>> Good man.
>>> Nikon is "The One True Way".
>>
>> Bullshite.
>> They're all fucking good these days.
> 
> You've got a Canon haven't you?
> 
yes - and your point is ?    ;-)

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Big Dave"
 saying something like:

>>>Good man.
>>>Nikon is "The One True Way".
>>
>> Bullshite.
>> They're all fucking good these days.
>
>You've got a Canon haven't you?

Fuck off with yer sectarian shite.
-- 
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
 How much more suspenseful can you get?"
 - House

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:07:42 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
 wrote:

>>>>Good man.
>>>>Nikon is "The One True Way".
>>>
>>> Bullshite.
>>> They're all fucking good these days.
>>
>>You've got a Canon haven't you?
>
>Fuck off with yer sectarian shite.

From Season Three of The Wire:

McNulty: Can I get a Jameson's?
Barman:  Bushmills do?
McNulty: That's protestant whisky!

Brilliant stuff.
-- 
Champ

Two standard issue crutches
To email me, neal at my domain should work.

Bear  wrote:

> I don't like Pentax,

Pentaxes (plural) are the only cameras that have ever broken on me.

-- 
BMW K1100LT  Ducati 750SS  Yamaha XT600E  Honda CB400F
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bear 
saying something like:

>Thanks for that - very educational.  I don't like Pentax, so I think I'm 
>just going to have to drag myself into this century.

Ok, if you want to go Nikon, here's a useful chart of manual lens
compatibility...
http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html
(there's a better one somewhere - I'll find it)


Or, if Canon - basically any Canon EF will fit a later digital body and
you have the option of using adapters for nearly the whole manual lens
world on a Canon body [1] - something Nikon lacks a bit due to the
differing lens register distances.

[1] Avoid earlier Canon FD, Minolta, Konica as too short; but M42,
Pentax K, Yashica/Contax, Nikon and several others will fit via
adaptors. Totally manual only, but there are some stunning lenses out
there for not a lot of dosh. 
-- 
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
 How much more suspenseful can you get?"
 - House

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Champ  saying
something like:

>>Fuck off with yer sectarian shite.
>
>From Season Three of The Wire:
>
>McNulty: Can I get a Jameson's?
>Barman:  Bushmills do?
>McNulty: That's protestant whisky!
>
>Brilliant stuff.

I'm watching the final series now - excellent.
-- 
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
 How much more suspenseful can you get?"
 - House

On 2 Sep, 14:39, Bear  wrote:
> So I'm looking through my holiday pics, and they're ... ok ... I could
> blame myself for their slight crapness, but I'd much rather blame my
> Fuji FinePix 9500, as that would absolve me of blame ... other decent
> digital cameras I've tried seem so much easier to use for sports
> photography, and the lens isn't interchangeable on this one either, so
> what sort of money do I have to spend to get something good for
> sports/motorsports photography?
>
> I'm thinking Nikon, as I've always got on with their stuff more than
> Canon, but maybe there's a stand-out Canon I should look at, or even
> something else ... is £500 for the body alone enough to get something
> decent?
>
> And then what lens?  From experiments with my own kit, I was thinking
> something zoom-ish in the 300-500mm range (or equivalent) - am I heading
> in the right direction?
>
> Help!


In true UKRM tradition I'll recommend what I have the Canon 40D body
is slightly over your budget of £500 but is an excellent camera and I
can confidently say you'll never need to upgrade it. It can operate in
many modes from full auto point and press to full manual. Focussing is
done by the lens not the body and there is a considerable difference
between types in terms of speed and noise, you really want a lens with
USM.   http://photonotes.org/lookup/ give comparisons between all the
canon bodies and lenses. The 17-85mm lens that often comes with the
body is very good for the money but not in the same league as the L
series lenses.
The EF 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 DO IS USM is much smaller, lighter and cheaper
than other zoom lenses with similar focal lengths and gives great
results. The only downside is the zoom movement is quite heavy.
Because of the way the body 'crops' the image this will be roughly
equivalent to a 110-500mm lens
As mentioned elsewhere the 10-22mm lens is also excellent and the
three lenses between them give a massive focal range.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Nicknoxx@googlemail.com saying
something like:

>but is an excellent camera and I
>can confidently say you'll never need to upgrade it.

Heh.
-- 
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
 How much more suspenseful can you get?"
 - House

"Grimly Curmudgeon"  wrote in message 
news:g9jrsu$9jn$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember "Big Dave"
>  saying something like:
>
>>>>Good man.
>>>>Nikon is "The One True Way".
>>>
>>> Bullshite.
>>> They're all fucking good these days.
>>
>>You've got a Canon haven't you?
>
> Fuck off with yer sectarian shite.

You really DO have a Canon don't you?
I used to work in a camera shop. You could always spot the Canon owners by 
their inferiority complex and hang up about Nikons.

"chrisu"  wrote in message 
news:esGdnSVkfbsi7CDVnZ2dnUVZ8sednZ2d@bt.com...
> Big Dave wrote:
>>
>> "Grimly Curmudgeon"  wrote in message 
>> news:g9jnlp$4vq$4@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>>> drugs began to take hold. I remember Big Dave
>>>  saying something like:
>>>
>>>> On 2 Sep, 14:39, Bear  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm thinking Nikon,
>>>>
>>>> Good man.
>>>> Nikon is "The One True Way".
>>>
>>> Bullshite.
>>> They're all fucking good these days.
>>
>> You've got a Canon haven't you?
>>
> yes - and your point is ?    ;-)

Canon owners have an inferiority complex

Grimly Curmudgeon  writes:

> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember Nicknoxx@googlemail.com saying
> something like:
>
>>but is an excellent camera and I
>>can confidently say you'll never need to upgrade it.
>
> Heh.

Do we give him two weeks or three?

-- 
Morini Corsaro 125 | CB450K4 | XL250 Motosport | 900SSD | R1150RT
Laverda SF2 | Harley FXD                       BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10
The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html
"Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar

Grimly Curmudgeon  writes:

> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember Bear 
> saying something like:
>
>>Thanks for that - very educational.  I don't like Pentax, so I think I'm 
>>just going to have to drag myself into this century.
>
> Ok, if you want to go Nikon, here's a useful chart of manual lens
> compatibility...
> http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html
> (there's a better one somewhere - I'll find it)
>
>
> Or, if Canon - basically any Canon EF will fit a later digital body and
> you have the option of using adapters for nearly the whole manual lens
> world on a Canon body [1] - something Nikon lacks a bit due to the
> differing lens register distances.
>
> [1] Avoid earlier Canon FD, Minolta, Konica as too short; but M42,
> Pentax K, Yashica/Contax, Nikon and several others will fit via
> adaptors.

Indeed, which is why I'm toying with the idea of getting a Canon dSLR.

> Totally manual only, but there are some stunning lenses out
> there for not a lot of dosh. 

<Looks at Contax/Zeiss 85/1.4>

Stunning lens yes, but not a lot of dosh is relative. Mind ewe, I
vaguely seem to remember that this lens retailed at something like 1600
quid when new.

-- 
Morini Corsaro 125 | CB450K4 | XL250 Motosport | 900SSD | R1150RT
Laverda SF2 | Harley FXD                       BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10
The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html
"Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:39:03 +0100, Bear wrote:

> So I'm looking through my holiday pics, and they're ... ok ... I could
> blame myself for their slight crapness, but I'd much rather blame my
> Fuji FinePix 9500, as that would absolve me of blame ... other decent
> digital cameras I've tried seem so much easier to use for sports
> photography, and the lens isn't interchangeable on this one either, so
> what sort of money do I have to spend to get something good for
> sports/motorsports photography?

I'm a Canon user and this is a cracking deal

http://hotukdeals.com/item/237361/canon-400d-299-99-sainsburys/

I also use manual focus lenses on the front. I have a superb 200mm SMC 
Takumar F4 which I picked up for £70 in mint condition, I also have a 
50mm Zeiss 1.7 Planar ( legendary lens )  and a selection of other lovely 
old russian lenses. I use a AF conf chip adaptor which even with the 30 
odd year old lenses confirms the zones in focus as you manually turn the 
ring.

fair enough if Nikon is your thing, the only consideration is that you 
should invest in whichever Lenses you prefer as the body will come and go.

Timo Geusch wrote:
> Grimly Curmudgeon  writes:
>
>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>> drugs began to take hold. I remember Bear 
>> saying something like:
>>
>>> Thanks for that - very educational.  I don't like Pentax, so I think I'm
>>> just going to have to drag myself into this century.
>>
>> Ok, if you want to go Nikon, here's a useful chart of manual lens
>> compatibility...
>> http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html
>> (there's a better one somewhere - I'll find it)
>>
>>
>> Or, if Canon - basically any Canon EF will fit a later digital body and
>> you have the option of using adapters for nearly the whole manual lens
>> world on a Canon body [1] - something Nikon lacks a bit due to the
>> differing lens register distances.
>>
>> [1] Avoid earlier Canon FD, Minolta, Konica as too short; but M42,
>> Pentax K, Yashica/Contax, Nikon and several others will fit via
>> adaptors.
>
> Indeed, which is why I'm toying with the idea of getting a Canon dSLR.
>
>> Totally manual only, but there are some stunning lenses out
>> there for not a lot of dosh.
>
> <Looks at Contax/Zeiss 85/1.4>
>
> Stunning lens yes, but not a lot of dosh is relative. Mind ewe, I
> vaguely seem to remember that this lens retailed at something like 1600
> quid when new.

To be fair, the build quality of the Canon is not as good as a Nikon & I 
have owned a few of each. Nikon win every time to me.

-- 


Nige, 'It's all about the speed'

Range Rover Td6 Vogue
BMW K1200S
Suzuki GSX-R1000 K3 (coming soon)
Focus ST3

Timo Geusch wrote:
> Grimly Curmudgeon  writes:
>
>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>> drugs began to take hold. I remember Nicknoxx@googlemail.com saying
>> something like:
>>
>>> but is an excellent camera and I
>>> can confidently say you'll never need to upgrade it.
>>
>> Heh.
>
> Do we give him two weeks or three?

It wasn't me you know?

-- 


Nige, 'It's all about the speed'

Range Rover Td6 Vogue
BMW K1200S
Suzuki GSX-R1000 K3 (coming soon)
Focus ST3

entwisi wrote:
snip

  I also have a
> 50mm Zeiss 1.7 Planar ( legendary lens )  

I thought it was the 1.4 that was legendary.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Big Dave"
 saying something like:

>You really DO have a Canon don't you?
>I used to work in a camera shop. You could always spot the Canon owners by 
>their inferiority complex and hang up about Nikons. 

You really are full of shit.
Yes, I have a Canon - currently. I will probably have a Pentax next.
I also have various other makes and in the past I've had Nikons.
Go blow that out of your pipe, Colombo.
-- 
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
 How much more suspenseful can you get?"
 - House

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Timo Geusch
 saying something like:

>> Totally manual only, but there are some stunning lenses out
>> there for not a lot of dosh. 
>
><Looks at Contax/Zeiss 85/1.4>
>
>Stunning lens yes, but not a lot of dosh is relative. Mind ewe, I
>vaguely seem to remember that this lens retailed at something like 1600
>quid when new.

That's a cracker, yes, but you only need to spend that money on a Zeiss
if you really want a Zeiss label.
Not for peanuts, but a Helios 40-2 is a good rival to that and a lot
cheaper, but even a year ago they were fetching half what they are now.


<sidetrack>

Like so much else in photography the whole subject of lenses is shrouded
in bullshit and loud opinions. Imo, all that counts is the image and
it's not important what made it, except in a technically curious sense.

Once I re-discovered GDR and Russian lenses my options expanded greatly.
I'd known about them before, but never bought one, because what I had
suited me well enough and prices were nothing like as low as they are
now. Allowing for a certain variation in quality, depending on whether
the lens was originally for export, Party officials or home sale, it's
still possible to pick up superb Zeiss copies (and improved copies) for
peanuts.

Last year I snatched a Tair-11A for a tenner - it's one of the sharpest
135s I've seen or used - now they sell for 60~80quid as people catch on.
Many of the Zeiss Jena lenses were lanquishing fetching next to
buggerall until recently, now plenty of dSLR owners realise they are kin
excellent vfm and they can get over previous predjudice that arose from
them being E.German and Commie lenses because they have that magic Zeiss
name, even if it's not W.German Zeiss.

</sidetrack>
-- 
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
 How much more suspenseful can you get?"
 - House

Vass wrote:
> "ogden"  wrote in message
> news:MPG.232762db110425169896b7@reader.motzarella.org...
> 
>> If only my ability was anywhere near as good as the >camera.
> 
> Ditto

AOL, substituting most things for "camera".

Grimly Curmudgeon  wrote:

[..]
> Like so much else in photography the whole subject of lenses is shrouded
> in bullshit and loud opinions. Imo, all that counts is the image and
> it's not important what made it, except in a technically curious sense.

Absolutely, and the same goes for the body too. No good having the top
pro equipment if you're shit at taking photos (not that I'm suggesting
any of you are).

I've always stuck with Olympus as a brand, and currently have an E510.
The kit lenses that are supplied are regarded as some of the best there
are. But then Zuiko lenses always were good.

Which leads onto your other point...

> Once I re-discovered GDR and Russian lenses my options expanded greatly.
> I'd known about them before, but never bought one, because what I had
> suited me well enough and prices were nothing like as low as they are
> now. Allowing for a certain variation in quality, depending on whether
> the lens was originally for export, Party officials or home sale, it's
> still possible to pick up superb Zeiss copies (and improved copies) for
> peanuts.
> 
> Last year I snatched a Tair-11A for a tenner - it's one of the sharpest
> 135s I've seen or used - now they sell for 60~80quid as people catch on.
> Many of the Zeiss Jena lenses were lanquishing fetching next to
> buggerall until recently, now plenty of dSLR owners realise they are kin
> excellent vfm and they can get over previous predjudice that arose from
> them being E.German and Commie lenses because they have that magic Zeiss
> name, even if it's not W.German Zeiss.

.... I also stayed with Olympus because I had a few old lenses that I
could still use, albeit using an adapter in manual mode only (they also
work in Aperture Priority mode too).

I kept my Zuiko 50mm F1.4 lens, but also have a Zeiss Jena 70-210 zoom I
got for my 21st birthday. They still turn out a good photo, and in a
blind test (done in this very forum) nobody could tell them apart from
the new 'digital' lenses.

I also have a Vivitar 75-250, but that isn't in the same league.

-- 
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>

TOG@Toil wrote:
>
> So what? You're still getting an awesome piece of kit and as someone
> once told me: "A camera is just a light-proof box. The money is in the
> lens."

TBF, a body was just a light-proof box when you were using film.  Nowadays, 
you have a 10 megapixel sensor that isn't replaced after every shot, and all 
the associated electronics.  There's plenty to go wrong.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember thewildrover@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
saying something like:

>I've always stuck with Olympus as a brand, and currently have an E510.
>The kit lenses that are supplied are regarded as some of the best there
>are. But then Zuiko lenses always were good.

And that leads me on to Olympus (total memory blank about Oly when
writing before). I nearly bought one and was considering it again
recently with their anti-shake, but the one thing that puts me off is
the small sensor. I find the 1.6 crop factor of the Canon a pita, a 2x
crop factor would drive me nuts. If they'd bring out a smaller c.f. cam
with s.r. at a decent price I'd probably have one. I still use my OM-1
and have recently added a couple of Zuikos to the stable - lovely glass,
indeed.
-- 
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
 How much more suspenseful can you get?"
 - House

Grimly Curmudgeon  writes:

> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember Timo Geusch
>  saying something like:
>
>>> Totally manual only, but there are some stunning lenses out
>>> there for not a lot of dosh. 
>>
>><Looks at Contax/Zeiss 85/1.4>
>>
>>Stunning lens yes, but not a lot of dosh is relative. Mind ewe, I
>>vaguely seem to remember that this lens retailed at something like 1600
>>quid when new.
>
> That's a cracker, yes, but you only need to spend that money on a Zeiss
> if you really want a Zeiss label.

There I'd disagree. I spent that kind of dosh (actually I didn't, I
bought it used and got a cracking deal) because I wanted what is
generally acknowledged as one of the best short tele/portrait lenses of
all time.

That, and the fact that I do have a couple of Contax bodies and the
Zeiss lenses are massively better than the Yashica ones. So it's not
about the label here.

Of course if it comes to bolting them to a digital body, I have more
choice but with the Contaxen, I haven't. And I like those cameras.

> Not for peanuts, but a Helios 40-2 is a good rival to that and a lot
> cheaper, but even a year ago they were fetching half what they are
> now.

Call me a myopic cunt, but I somehow fail to see how the Helios would be
a good rival to the above mentioned lens at less than half the focal
length?

> Like so much else in photography the whole subject of lenses is shrouded
> in bullshit and loud opinions. Imo, all that counts is the image and
> it's not important what made it, except in a technically curious
> sense.

I'd agree. OTOH I'm working on the assumption that I want reasonable
quality gear including lenses simply because I'd like to ensure that the
limit on the image quality is only found behind the lens.

Well that, plus the fact that I have a couple of very high-quality
bodies which I bought because I can work them intuitively - the label on
the body was secondary, but then again, if I have something like a
Contax RTS why stick a coke bottle bottom in front of it?

> Once I re-discovered GDR and Russian lenses my options expanded greatly.
> I'd known about them before, but never bought one, because what I had
> suited me well enough and prices were nothing like as low as they are
> now. Allowing for a certain variation in quality, depending on whether
> the lens was originally for export, Party officials or home sale, it's
> still possible to pick up superb Zeiss copies (and improved copies) for
> peanuts.

Yup, if you can fit them to your camera and you're willing to try a few,
there are a couple of cracking ones out there.

> Last year I snatched a Tair-11A for a tenner - it's one of the sharpest
> 135s I've seen or used - now they sell for 60~80quid as people catch
> on.

That's a pretty good deal.

> Many of the Zeiss Jena lenses were lanquishing fetching next to
> buggerall until recently, now plenty of dSLR owners realise they are kin
> excellent vfm and they can get over previous predjudice that arose from
> them being E.German and Commie lenses because they have that magic Zeiss
> name, even if it's not W.German Zeiss.

They are good, *if* they fit your camera :).

-- 
Morini Corsaro 125 | CB450K4 | XL250 Motosport | 900SSD | R1150RT
Laverda SF2 | Harley FXD                       BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10
The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html
"Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar

platypus  wrote:

> TOG@Toil wrote:
> >
> > So what? You're still getting an awesome piece of kit and as someone
> > once told me: "A camera is just a light-proof box. The money is in the
> > lens."
> 
> TBF, a body was just a light-proof box when you were using film.  Nowadays,
> you have a 10 megapixel sensor that isn't replaced after every shot, and all
> the associated electronics.  There's plenty to go wrong.

That's very true. It hasn't yet, though, not on my two Nikon DSLRs.


-- 
BMW K1100LT  Ducati 750SS  Yamaha XT600E  Honda CB400F
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."

Grimly Curmudgeon  wrote:

> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember thewildrover@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> saying something like:
> 
> >I've always stuck with Olympus as a brand, and currently have an E510.
> >The kit lenses that are supplied are regarded as some of the best there
> >are. But then Zuiko lenses always were good.
> 
> And that leads me on to Olympus (total memory blank about Oly when
> writing before). I nearly bought one and was considering it again
> recently with their anti-shake, but the one thing that puts me off is
> the small sensor. I find the 1.6 crop factor of the Canon a pita, a 2x
> crop factor would drive me nuts. If they'd bring out a smaller c.f. cam
> with s.r. at a decent price I'd probably have one. I still use my OM-1
> and have recently added a couple of Zuikos to the stable - lovely glass,
> indeed.

Well, I'm not going to bleat on about it, again! This is as good a site
as any for info regarding Oly sensor stuff.

<http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/sensor-size.html>

I can't say I've ever been disappointed with the results of the Olympus
4/3 system. There are a number of advantages - you don't get the
overhang at the back being a problem for a start, so all legacy lenses
will fit.

The anti-shake on the E510 is very good indeed, and they've done some
work with the noise as well - although there are many opinions about
noise anyway.

These were all taken with either an E500 or E510:

<http://gallery.mac.com/andrewhewitt1#100040>

-- 
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>

In article <1imojmn.u649bx1riuogiN%totallydeadmailbox@yahoo.co.uk>, The 
Older Gentleman says...
> platypus  wrote:
> 
> > TOG@Toil wrote:
> > >
> > > So what? You're still getting an awesome piece of kit and as someone
> > > once told me: "A camera is just a light-proof box. The money is in the
> > > lens."
> > 
> > TBF, a body was just a light-proof box when you were using film.  Nowadays,
> > you have a 10 megapixel sensor that isn't replaced after every shot, and all
> > the associated electronics.  There's plenty to go wrong.
> 
> That's very true. It hasn't yet, though, not on my two Nikon DSLRs.

Looking at body prices on eBay, there doesn't seem to be much of a 
saving over list, so ATM I think what I'm going to do is buy a 
reasonable body (D80 I think), with a *reasonable* Sigma or similar lens 
(circa £500 for 50-400mm or whatever it is), and then see how I get on.  
If I like the pics I'll then buy a Nikon long lens ... somewhere around 
the £1,500 mark ATM.

Camera shops to buy from - are Jessops any good, or are they the 
Motorcycle City of camera dealers?
-- 
Bear
2002 Yamaha R1
Saab Aero Sport

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 08:29:47 +0100, Bear 
wrote:

>Camera shops to buy from - are Jessops any good, or are they the 
>Motorcycle City of camera dealers?

They're carphone wherehouse.

Try Jacobs if you have one.

"platypus"  wrote in message 
news:CCjvk.52140$E41.46978@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Vass wrote:
>> "ogden"  wrote in message
>> news:MPG.232762db110425169896b7@reader.motzarella.org...
>>
>>> If only my ability was anywhere near as good as the >camera.
>>
>> Ditto
>
> AOL, substituting most things for "camera".
>
not feeling the love here
-- 
V

In article , ginge says...
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 08:29:47 +0100, Bear 
> wrote:
> 
> >Camera shops to buy from - are Jessops any good, or are they the 
> >Motorcycle City of camera dealers?
> 
> They're carphone wherehouse.

heh.  Lovely typo :)

And yes, I suspected that, ta.

> Try Jacobs if you have one.

There are no fewer than 4 stores in central London, so that's do-able, 
thanks.  And they're slightly cheaper than Jessups if you order online, 
so I may go to the shop and try stuff, then either order online or 
convince them to give me the same price in person.
-- 
Bear
2002 Yamaha R1
Saab Aero Sport

ginge wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 08:29:47 +0100, Bear 
> wrote:
> 
> > Camera shops to buy from - are Jessops any good, or are they the 
> > Motorcycle City of camera dealers?
> 
> They're carphone wherehouse.
> 
> Try Jacobs if you have one.

Bet where should he go to buy a camera after he's eaten the cream
cracker?

-- 
Chris

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Timo Geusch
 saying something like:

>> That's a cracker, yes, but you only need to spend that money on a Zeiss
>> if you really want a Zeiss label.
>
>There I'd disagree. I spent that kind of dosh (actually I didn't, I
>bought it used and got a cracking deal) because I wanted what is
>generally acknowledged as one of the best short tele/portrait lenses of
>all time.

Oh, there's no doubt of its excellence and if I had the dosh spare I
would buy one just for the sake of having it. High quality like that is
still/always worth the premium.
My point was really related to Zeiss and Soviet history - in that there
are still plenty of early Soviet lenses made with Zeiss machinery and
technicians on the used market, but the supply is being soaked up now
and FSU sellers have rapidly latched on to their value - the days of
picking one up for next to nothing are pretty much gone.

You'll know this, but this is for the benefit of others reading - the
Soviets improved on the original designs as time went on, producing some
(not all, but some) lenses that rivalled the best the West made at the
time - or since, for that matter.

One of the best 50-ish primes I've come across is the humble Helios 44
58/2 fitted to millions of Zenits over the decades - get a good one and
it will blow you away - not surprising as it's a direct and later
improved copy of the Zeiss Biotar. Currently fetching a fiver on a good
day.

>That, and the fact that I do have a couple of Contax bodies and the
>Zeiss lenses are massively better than the Yashica ones. So it's not
>about the label here.

For so many it is though, and that's fine by me. There's room for
everybody. Actually, it's good - the label chasers can get on with it
while I ferret out the good cheap ones, the sleepers.

>> Not for peanuts, but a Helios 40-2 is a good rival to that and a lot
>> cheaper, but even a year ago they were fetching half what they are
>> now.
>
>Call me a myopic cunt, but I somehow fail to see how the Helios would be
>a good rival to the above mentioned lens at less than half the focal
>length?

Ok, all right, you myopic cunt.
The Helios 40 and 40-2 are 85/1.5; 40 is just a Soviet model number.
http://tinyurl.com/674w76  - down at the bottom of the page. Depends on
taste, as always, but I rather like the results from them. I found an
ultra-cheap source of the same glass, but more variable. More on that
later; I have the lens in M42 but have to piss around with the mount a
bit.
-- 
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
 How much more suspenseful can you get?"
 - House

Grimly Curmudgeon  wrote:

> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember thewildrover@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> saying something like:
> 
> >These were all taken with either an E500 or E510:
> >
> ><http://gallery.mac.com/andrewhewitt1#100040>
> 
> I rather like several of those and that's more about the photographer
> than the equipment, but the swan's arse is blown out severely, not that
> that's particularly an Oly shortcoming - they all tend to do that, sir.

Aye, any subject like that is notoriously difficult to get right.

But you spotted my point, taking good pictures isn't *all* about the
equipment. Some of my most interesting shots were with a pocket 110.

Thanks.

-- 
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>

Champ  wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 15:05:29 +0100, thewildrover@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
> 
> 
> >...taking good pictures isn't *all* about the equipment. 
> 
> I'd go so far as to say it's rarely about the equipment.

Indeed, although, as said many times, having some good glass does help
with the technical quality of an image.

-- 
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Big Dave 
 typed
>
>Multiply the focal length of a "digital lens" by 1.4 or 1.5 for the
>equivalent 35mm focal length.

Why *is* that?

I'm fully prepared to accept that it's the case. But why?

I demand an explanation.

-- 
Wicked Uncle Nigel - "He's hopeless, but he's honest"

My position was (and, to be honest, largely remains) one of complete ambiguity.

Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote:
> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Big Dave 
>  typed
>>
>> Multiply the focal length of a "digital lens" by 1.4 or 1.5 for the
>> equivalent 35mm focal length.
> 
> Why *is* that?
> 
> I'm fully prepared to accept that it's the case. But why?
> 
> I demand an explanation.

Because the digital sensor is smaller by a factor of 1.4 or 1.5
than a 24x36 mm frame.

I'll just whoosh myself, shall I?

-- 
'07 FJ13AW  '99 EX250-F13
OMF #7

Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote:
> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Big Dave
>  typed
>>
>> Multiply the focal length of a "digital lens" by 1.4 or 1.5 for the
>> equivalent 35mm focal length.
>
> Why *is* that?
>
> I'm fully prepared to accept that it's the case. But why?
>
> I demand an explanation.

The sensitive area in digital cameras is smaller than the 24mm x 36mm IIRC 
of 35mm film cameras.  Therefore you get an effect that could be interpreted 
as either cropped-down or telephoto.  In theory, this should reduce 
vignetting and give more scope for lens movements.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Wicked Uncle Nigel
 saying something like:

>>Multiply the focal length of a "digital lens" by 1.4 or 1.5 for the
>>equivalent 35mm focal length.
>
>Why *is* that?
>
>I'm fully prepared to accept that it's the case. But why?

Because a (say) 100mm lens is a 100mm lens whatever you mount it on,
but...
the smaller digital sensor on most dSLRs doesn't intersect the full
field of the image plane and you then, in effect, blow that image up to
a full image and you get a multiplication factor of ... 1.3 or 1.4 or
1.5 or 1.6, depending on the exact size of the sensor.

A full frame digicam is exactly the same as 35mm film, obviously, so you
get back the use of all your wide angle lenses.
-- 
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
 How much more suspenseful can you get?"
 - House

Mick Whittingham  wrote:

[..]
> >For the situations you describe though yes, it's a super bit of kit, as
> >a "does it all in one package" solution.  However, as 99% of my
> >photography is motorsports, its limitations are becoming annoying.
> 
> I can see that. The most annoying thing I've found with all the digital
> cameras I have and the Canon EOS 35mm is the delay between pressing the
> button and taking the shot.
> The Olympus was excellent for 'capturing the moment'.

I had an OM40 until I got the E500 a couple of years ago, but it took
until I got the DSLR before I sold the OM40. I can't say I miss it
really, the faffing about with films, and waiting for the processing,
not to mention the variable nature of the processors, was too much
fiddle for me.

The E510 I have now is just as good in all respects, and better an many
others, although it does lack compactness (it's not as bad as some of
the Canons and Nikons though). I have an Olympus Mju for bunging in my
pocket too.

> >As an update, I've been looking at eBay prices for D80 and D300 bodies
> >... there really doesn't seem to be a huge saving by buying secondhand,
> >maybe 10% or so.  It also struck me that the next time I'll want to use
> >this is next racing season, probably the NW200, therefore I should hold
> >off, as the kit can only get cheaper between now and then, and keep
> >looking for those rare eBay bargain auctions.
> 
> I really should look to selling the bits with my Canon EOS and flash.

I wanted an E1 body for a while, but they never got cheap enough either.

-- 
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>

TOG@Toil wrote:
>  
> Buy the bodies used. Used bodies, especially digital ones, fall out of
> bed price-wise.
> 
> So what? You're still getting an awesome piece of kit and as someone
> once told me: "A camera is just a light-proof box. The money is in the
> lens."

This isn't so true for digital cameras, as the body is both the
lightproof box and the film.

Buy the body used, fine, but only after making sure that there are no
dead pixels in the sensor. It's much less likely to be a problem these
days, but it still happens.

In article , Simian 
says...
> TOG@Toil wrote:
> >  
> > Buy the bodies used. Used bodies, especially digital ones, fall out of
> > bed price-wise.
> > 
> > So what? You're still getting an awesome piece of kit and as someone
> > once told me: "A camera is just a light-proof box. The money is in the
> > lens."
> 
> This isn't so true for digital cameras, as the body is both the
> lightproof box and the film.
> 
> Buy the body used, fine, but only after making sure that there are no
> dead pixels in the sensor. It's much less likely to be a problem these
> days, but it still happens.

The thing is, I'm used to secondhand electronics being *much* cheaper 
than new (like 50-60% of original value), for fairly obvious reasons, 
but with camera bodies, especially Nikon, on eBay at least, you don't 
seem to get much of a saving ... for example, as D300 body runs to about 
£927 new, from Jacobs, whereas on eBay a good, low-usage (less than 
2,000 frames taken) D300 body seems to go for anything between £800 
(rare) to £975 (!), the average being about the £850 mark ... that 
doesn't strike me as a fantastic deal, given the likely warranty hassles 
should anything go wrong.

You can save a *bit* more by buying from Taiwan or Hong Kong, but not 
heaps, and I don't fancy taking that chance with the thick end of 
£1,000.

Lenses seem to be similarly overpriced, secondhand, at least the later 
spec, Nikon AF ones are (the newer, SWM/VR units, at any rate) - you 
just don't seem to save much, and have all the risk of buying something 
secondhand.  It *might* be fine, but the hassles if it isn't don't bear 
thinking about.

I've decided to wait until I need need such a unit (next racing season, 
so Spring 2009) and probably buy new then.
-- 
Bear
2002 Yamaha R1
Saab Aero Sport

Bear wrote:
> 
> The thing is, I'm used to secondhand electronics being much cheaper 
> than new (like 50-60% of original value), for fairly obvious reasons, 
> but with camera bodies, especially Nikon, on eBay at least, you don't 
> seem to get much of a saving

[snip] 

> I've decided to wait until I need need such a unit (next racing
> season, so Spring 2009) and probably buy new then.

...for less than second hand now, probably.

ebay prices are all over the place compared to what I'd expect most of
the time. Last year I sold a 10 year old CD player for more than half
the new list price, and only 50 quid or so more than I paid for it as
an end of line display model. At the same time I sold a 12 year old amp
for near enough what I'd paid for it second hand 10 years ago.

I know money was worth more back then, but still...

In article , Simian 
says...
> Bear wrote:
> > 
> > The thing is, I'm used to secondhand electronics being much cheaper 
> > than new (like 50-60% of original value), for fairly obvious reasons, 
> > but with camera bodies, especially Nikon, on eBay at least, you don't 
> > seem to get much of a saving
> 
> [snip] 
> 
> > I've decided to wait until I need need such a unit (next racing
> > season, so Spring 2009) and probably buy new then.
> 
> ...for less than second hand now, probably.

I would think so, yes, especially if Nikon bring out a direct 
replacement for the D300 between now and then and dealers want shot of 
stocks ... I can't see me ever out-performing a D300, or needing more 
functionality than it has, so I think that's the one for me.

> ebay prices are all over the place compared to what I'd expect most of
> the time. Last year I sold a 10 year old CD player for more than half
> the new list price, and only 50 quid or so more than I paid for it as
> an end of line display model. At the same time I sold a 12 year old amp
> for near enough what I'd paid for it second hand 10 years ago.
> 
> I know money was worth more back then, but still...

I was given a brand-new pair of FT boots a while back, and punted them 
out on eBay - they made about 90% of new value, which amazed me ... who 
on earth is so pikey that they'd risk all the hassles of an eBay 
transaction going bad for the sake of £10?  Makes no sense at all to me 
I have to say.  I think some eBayers don't even bother to check what the 
new price of something is.

Which reminds me - I've got loads of stuff hanging around that should go 
on eBay ... must got around to doing that sometime soon.
-- 
Bear
2002 Yamaha R1
Saab Aero Sport

On 2008-09-08 10:00:04 +0100, Bear  said:

> In article , Simian
> says...
>> Bear wrote:
>>> 
>>> The thing is, I'm used to secondhand electronics being much cheaper
>>> than new (like 50-60% of original value), for fairly obvious reasons,
> 
>>> but with camera bodies, especially Nikon, on eBay at least, you don't
> 
>>> seem to get much of a saving
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>>> I've decided to wait until I need need such a unit (next racing
>>> season, so Spring 2009) and probably buy new then.
>> 
>> ...for less than second hand now, probably.
> 
> I would think so, yes, especially if Nikon bring out a direct
> replacement for the D300 between now and then and dealers want shot of
> stocks ... I can't see me ever out-performing a D300, or needing more
> functionality than it has, so I think that's the one for me.

D300 is an excellent camera, I moved up from a D40 which I outgrew very 
quickly but that next step up to D700/D3 range just isn't worth it for 
me.

In article <2008090810073750073-guig@yerawathamecom>, guig says...

> D300 is an excellent camera, I moved up from a D40 which I outgrew very 
> quickly but that next step up to D700/D3 range just isn't worth it for 
> me.

Thanks for that ... looking at the specs, reading some reviews, and then 
mulling it over, I thought that I'd *maybe* find the D80 to be pushing 
it a bit, but there was no-way I'd outgrow a D300, hence me selecting 
that one as the way forward.
-- 
Bear
2002 Yamaha R1
Saab Aero Sport

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:30:06 GMT, Bear  
allegedly wrote:

> I thought that I'd *maybe* find the D80 to be pushing 
> it a bit

What do you think will be the limiting factors of the D80?

I'm in a similar position to you, and want to replace my trusty and much 
liked F90x.  My heart wants the D300, but my head points out that I could 
get 2 D80s for that price.


I was kicking myself earlier in the year - I was in Canada and passed by a 
camera shop, and thought the prices looked cheap, so that evening looked 
up some UK prices.  This was at a time when I knew very little about the 
DSLR market, and Nikon's range.  Amazon had the D200 listed for £440.  I 
went back to the shop and saw that the Amazon price was pretty good.  So 
back on the net later that day to find the prices had jumped up to £650 
and there they hovered, and seemingly have stayed.  You snooze, you lose.

In article , Switters 
says...
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:30:06 GMT, Bear  
> allegedly wrote:
> 
> > I thought that I'd *maybe* find the D80 to be pushing 
> > it a bit
> 
> What do you think will be the limiting factors of the D80?

Reading the reviews, the D300 came across as a semi-pro machine, whereas 
the D80 isn't ... the D300 gives you more control over everything, as 
well as more detailed resolution, and faster shutter speeds.

Obviously, I'm the limiting factor in this particular chain, but I 
already bought too low/amateur once, with the Fuji 9500, and I don't 
wish to repeat the mistake.

> I'm in a similar position to you, and want to replace my trusty and much 
> liked F90x.  My heart wants the D300, but my head points out that I could 
> get 2 D80s for that price.
> 
> I was kicking myself earlier in the year - I was in Canada and passed by a 
> camera shop, and thought the prices looked cheap, so that evening looked 
> up some UK prices.  This was at a time when I knew very little about the 
> DSLR market, and Nikon's range.  Amazon had the D200 listed for £440.  I 
> went back to the shop and saw that the Amazon price was pretty good.  So 
> back on the net later that day to find the prices had jumped up to £650 
> and there they hovered, and seemingly have stayed.  You snooze, you lose.

That's pretty rare though isn't it?  Normally they bring something out 
at a price and it either stays there, or drops.
-- 
Bear
2002 Yamaha R1
Saab Aero Sport

Simian  wrote:

> 
> > I've decided to wait until I need need such a unit (next racing
> > season, so Spring 2009) and probably buy new then.
> 
> ...for less than second hand now, probably.

My local independent camera shop has got a used D2X body in, looks
immaculate, wiv box and stuff, for £750.

Must resist.


-- 
BMW K1100LT  Ducati 750SS  Yamaha XT600E  Honda CB400F
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."

Bear  wrote:

> I think some eBayers don't even bother to check what the 
> new price of something is.

Too right. Two weeks ago, I sold a perfect nick headlight rim for a 400
Four. It went for £31.

The buyer had obviously never heard of Dave Silver, who sells them new
for £19+VAT....


-- 
BMW K1100LT  Ducati 750SS  Yamaha XT600E  Honda CB400F
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."

The Older Gentleman wrote:

> Simian  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > I've decided to wait until I need need such a unit (next racing
> > > season, so Spring 2009) and probably buy new then.
> > 
> > ...for less than second hand now, probably.
> 
> My local independent camera shop has got a used D2X body in, looks
> immaculate, wiv box and stuff, for £750.
> 
> Must resist.

<finger in ears mode>

Lalalalala

-- 
Morini Corsaro 125 | CB450K4 | XL250 Motosport | 900SSD | R1150RT
Laverda SF2|Harley FXD                         BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10
The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html
"Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar

Bear  wrote in uk.rec.motorcycles ..
> 
> > ...for less than second hand now, probably.
> 
> I would think so, yes, especially if Nikon bring out a direct 
> replacement for the D300 between now and then and dealers want shot of 
> stocks ... I can't see me ever out-performing a D300, or needing more 
> functionality than it has, so I think that's the one for me.

The replacements the D700, which is a D300 with a full size sensor on it 
and a few other improvements.

The good news about full sized sensors is the people upgrading to them will 
need to replace all their DX format lenses, resulting in prices for the DX 
glass coming down, and bargains for D70/80/200/300 users :)

-- 
frag
Microplanet Gravity Beta version : http://www.ukrm.co.uk/gravity
Want a free, spam filtered @ukrm.co.uk email addy or free news access?
Email iwantstuff@ukrm.co.uk

Bear  wrote in uk.rec.motorcycles ..
> 
> Reading the reviews, the D300 came across as a semi-pro machine, whereas 
> the D80 isn't ... the D300 gives you more control over everything, as 
> well as more detailed resolution, and faster shutter speeds.

Don't forget the D200 and D300 do not have ANY of the "hand holding" scene 
modes that the lower cameras do have.

They *force* you to learn about ISO and shutter speed and all the rest of 
photographys dark secrets most people thought they'd never have to worry 
about again.

For the first few months (until I got pissed off and really learned that 
stuff) I was taking crap shots a lot of the time and wishing I'd got those 
simple "night time/sunshine/overcase/hills/portrait/etc" quick modes.

-- 
frag
Microplanet Gravity Beta version : http://www.ukrm.co.uk/gravity
Want a free, spam filtered @ukrm.co.uk email addy or free news access?
Email iwantstuff@ukrm.co.uk