"Richard Freeman" <r-usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:a56Mj.6126$Q53.2136@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'm pretty happy with my Coolpix 7900, but in some more demanding
> situations
> it isn't quite up to the job (low light, action at a distance, etc).
>
A film camera can handle those more demanding situations easily, simply by
selecting the proper film. Additionally, as new films are made, you can
easily "upgrade" your film camera, by selecting the newer film. As for
"action at a distance", there are a plethora of used telephoto lens on the
market for older film cameras.
> I'm wondering what my best options are for an upgrade without spending a
> whole lot of money. I'm seriously considering going with a used camera
so
> that I can focus more on the overall performance and less on the
features.
>
There are plenty of used film cameras on the market, and there are repair
shops that are capable of maintaining them or restoring them to good
working
condition, if needed.
> I do know a moderate amount about photography/optics/etc, although I'm
> unlikely to become a serious enthusiast. Any camera I buy will spend
more
> time on a shelf than in my hands, so I don't want to overdo it.
However,
> I
> would like to be able to take decent pictures of kids concerts/etc which
> the compact digital just isn't going to handle.
>
If you already know the basics of photography, a film camera would be
perfect for you. You won't have to worry about the battery being dead when
you want to use your camera. Many of the older models either don't have a
battery at all, or use the battery only for metering. The camera can set
on
the shelf and be ready to go at a moment's notice, simply by loading a
roll
of film available at the neighborhood convenience store.
> With the Canon Xsi coming out I suspect that there might be an increase
in
> used sales of the Xti and other pretty capable cameras. Perhaps with
the
> savings on the body I might be able to invest in a better-quality lens
> (which I suspect will have a big impact on performance). Granted, some
of
> the newer DSLR cameras with live preview modes would be nice to have (I
> know the pros/cons - sometimes in family shooting situations you just
have
> to hold a camera over your head or whatever and that doesn't work well
> with
> a viewfinder).
>
Every camera that comes out will outmode some other camera. Just as the
act
of buying a new car brings it's value down to a small fraction of new, the
same is true of cameras. The only cure is the same as with cars: buy a
good
used model that has a lower price. The product will have performance
nearly
as good as a new model, but the price will be lower-- cars or cameras.
> What would people around here advocate in this kind of situation?
Should
> I
> just save up and buy something nicer? Should I consider an even older
> camera model and spend a lot more on the lens (and then maybe upgrade
the
> body at a later date)? I can't really afford to just spend a lot of
money
> for something I won't use, but if I can see the value I might spend a
> little more. The D80 actually was appealing to me (I know somebody who
is
> quite happy with theirs), but I'm not sure I really want to go into that
> budget range.
>
There are several requirements for a camera: light-tight box, method of
handling the light sensitive material, means of controlling the quantity
of
light (time and volume) that enters, and focusing the light. Of these
requirements, focusing the light is the most difficult, and the place
where
the biggest differences can be found. Don't cheap out on the glass.
> Or am I looking at this all wrong? Should I just buy a bigger camera
> without exchangeable lenses and save money with a moderate increase in
> performance? I suspect that long-term the DSLR will save money with the
> ability to recycle components, but then again I don't plan on buying
$900
> lenses either...
|
