the Photo thread

[Lost Leopard Spot]

always makes me smile to see holiday makers taking photos through plate glass standing head on and using flash... (often in aquariums!)

... and all those flashes going off at stadia, as if it makes any difference at that distance.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

am surprised it isn't more noisy with an ISO that high....

Spookily enough, my latest roll (just back from the labs) was a fast speed, although not as high as 1500.
I used up an old Kodak 800 I had and managed to capture the first snows from a couple of weeks back.
This is Shutlingsloe in Cheshire. The snow was all gone an hour later. I think the photo nicely utilises that gritty grainy feel you get with fast film...

[thebish]

^ I think the crisp frost-edge to the wall-top is part of what makes the photo! nice one!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I agree that it's the wall the gives the composition its 'zing'. That's looking northwest and the snow had blown in on a westerly. The other side of the wall and the field below it were snow covered, but the back of the wall as you can see was clear. most of my shots were taken much further over to the right and I was trying to get the snow on both sides of the valley but none of the compositions were really working very well. It was only when I found this spot that the photos 'work'

[thebish]

I agree that it's the wall the gives the composition its 'zing'. That's looking northwest and the snow had blown in on a westerly. The other side of the wall and the field below it were snow covered, but the back of the wall as you can see was clear. most of my shots were taken much further over to the right and I was trying to get the snow on both sides of the valley but none of the compositions were really working very well. It was only when I found this spot that the photos 'work'

indeed! photography isn't really about equipment (though we all like our gadgets!) - but about composition...

[Dujon]

I couldn't agree with you more, thebish.

Surely though there are limitations to fudging an image? Prompted by this thread I spirited up some images via my favourite search engine in order to take a nostalgic tour of Tasmania (Honeymoon 1970, my only visit). It took only a couple of minutes to come across this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/47823376@N05/4915373771/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To me, whilst it's an attractive composition, this is cheating and outside the spirit of the law. What do you lot think?

[Montreal Wanderer]

I couldn't agree with you more, thebish.

Surely though there are limitations to fudging an image? Prompted by this thread I spirited up some images via my favourite search engine in order to take a nostalgic tour of Tasmania (Honeymoon 1970, my only visit). It took only a couple of minutes to come across this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/47823376@N05/4915373771/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To me, whilst it's an attractive composition, this is cheating and outside the spirit of the law. What do you lot think?

It reminds me of the twin peaks of Kilimanjaro.
Personally I wouldn't call it cheating since there cannot be any attempt to pretend it is a real photo.

[thebish]

I couldn't agree with you more, thebish.

Surely though there are limitations to fudging an image? Prompted by this thread I spirited up some images via my favourite search engine in order to take a nostalgic tour of Tasmania (Honeymoon 1970, my only visit). It took only a couple of minutes to come across this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/47823376@N05/4915373771/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To me, whilst it's an attractive composition, this is cheating and outside the spirit of the law. What do you lot think?

i don't know why this shot was made - and it's a pretty poor attempt... but none of us was talking about "fudging" an image or faking anything with sofware - just that composition is key to photography...

[Montreal Wanderer]

I couldn't agree with you more, thebish.

Surely though there are limitations to fudging an image? Prompted by this thread I spirited up some images via my favourite search engine in order to take a nostalgic tour of Tasmania (Honeymoon 1970, my only visit). It took only a couple of minutes to come across this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/47823376@N05/4915373771/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To me, whilst it's an attractive composition, this is cheating and outside the spirit of the law. What do you lot think?

i don't know why this shot was made - and it's a pretty poor attempt... but none of us was talking about "fudging" an image or faking anything with sofware - just that composition is key to photography...

You really do have triplets?

[thebish]

I couldn't agree with you more, thebish.

Surely though there are limitations to fudging an image? Prompted by this thread I spirited up some images via my favourite search engine in order to take a nostalgic tour of Tasmania (Honeymoon 1970, my only visit). It took only a couple of minutes to come across this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/47823376@N05/4915373771/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To me, whilst it's an attractive composition, this is cheating and outside the spirit of the law. What do you lot think?

i don't know why this shot was made - and it's a pretty poor attempt... but none of us was talking about "fudging" an image or faking anything with sofware - just that composition is key to photography...

You really do have triplets?

that was on another thread where were were talking about trick photography. Here - we were just talking about composition... certainly in the bit Dujon was responding to, anyway!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Help.
Being a bit lazy here, as I'm sure I could (if pushed) wade through hours of reviews, etc., or stand around in Jessops listening to sales blurbs of the techiest order, but instead I'll just pose the question and see if one of you knows the answer.

Which is the closest model (if any) in Nikon's digital range to the old (very old, now) FM2?
Digital SLR, obviously
It absolutely needs to have metal body, titanium if available.
As close to fully manual as poss. (against the tide of technology I know), or at least has a manual override to all the in-built flashy stuff, or at the very least to override focus, speed and/or aperture.
Ideally compatible with the old AI lenses.

[thebish]

Help.
Being a bit lazy here, as I'm sure I could (if pushed) wade through hours of reviews, etc., or stand around in Jessops listening to sales blurbs of the techiest order, but instead I'll just pose the question and see if one of you knows the answer.

Which is the closest model (if any) in Nikon's digital range to the old (very old, now) FM2?
Digital SLR, obviously
It absolutely needs to have metal body, titanium if available.
As close to fully manual as poss. (against the tide of technology I know), or at least has a manual override to all the in-built flashy stuff, or at the very least to override focus, speed and/or aperture.
Ideally compatible with the old AI lenses.

I don't know about the body - but pretty much all of them have total manual over-ride and you can turn off auto-focussing (which is VERY useful sometimes - with most modern nikon dslrs the auto focussing is part of the lens not the camera body...) - and Aperture mode / Shutter-speed mode where you set one and the camera does the rest are pretty much standard...

why do you want a titanium body?

I suspect it might be more useful to list the features that you want/need and then look at what is available rather than ask "what is the equivalent of the FM2?" if it is just doing manual photography (for instance) - they will pretty much all do that...


there's a discussion amongst FM2 users about the digital age here: http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00R7qe

there's a useful Nikkor lens compatability chart here: http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html

in fact - Nikonians is a great place for expert opinion on anything Nikon...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Cheers Bish. That's helpful, especially the compatibility chart.

I want a titanium body so I that it can literally withstand the kind of battering that my cameras tend to get. I've had five SLRs three of which were metal, one of which was titanium. The ones that weren't fell apart. I've still got two of the metal/titanium ones, the other (an old Russian Zenit) got nicked in India.

[thebish]

Cheers Bish. That's helpful, especially the compatibility chart.

I want a titanium body so I that it can literally withstand the kind of battering that my cameras tend to get. I've had five SLRs three of which were metal, one of which was titanium. The ones that weren't fell apart. I've still got two of the metal/titanium ones, the other (an old Russian Zenit) got nicked in India.

what on earth do you do with them?!!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Cheers Bish. That's helpful, especially the compatibility chart.

I want a titanium body so I that it can literally withstand the kind of battering that my cameras tend to get. I've had five SLRs three of which were metal, one of which was titanium. The ones that weren't fell apart. I've still got two of the metal/titanium ones, the other (an old Russian Zenit) got nicked in India.

what on earth do you do with them?!!

They go out with me into wildernessy type places, usually mountainous, rocky wildernessy type places. I usually travel as light as possible - I hate carting kit about, and so my cameras tend to sit inside on the top of daysacks, for ease of accessibility. But, however, this usually unbalances the 15 or 20l rucksacks with the camera at the top, and so, when put down (even with care), the number of times they tip over and hit a rock grows quite considerably.
I tried mollycoddling and buying padded carry cases etc. But in the end I've determined it's better to splash out initially on a rugged camera body. There was no better recommendation than having read a review by some war photographer (name forgotten) who said the Nikon FM titanium was virtually indestructible - I can confirm the FM2 titanium is awsome in that respect.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I will also add, that I noticed on one of the cameras I had (third generation Zenit, Xp12 or something like that) that not only did it get battered to bits and let in light within months of me buying it, but even when brand new and unbattered, I had problems at higher shutter speeds. 1/500 gave shake because of the lightness of the body, plus the camera flexed v v v slightly but enough to cause the shutter to be uneven which gave a strange effect to my films. I'll try and dig some out and scan them to show you (If I kept any).

[thebish]

Cheers Bish. That's helpful, especially the compatibility chart.

I want a titanium body so I that it can literally withstand the kind of battering that my cameras tend to get. I've had five SLRs three of which were metal, one of which was titanium. The ones that weren't fell apart. I've still got two of the metal/titanium ones, the other (an old Russian Zenit) got nicked in India.

what on earth do you do with them?!!

They go out with me into wildernessy type places, usually mountainous, rocky wildernessy type places. I usually travel as light as possible - I hate carting kit about, and so my cameras tend to sit inside on the top of daysacks, for ease of accessibility. But, however, this usually unbalances the 15 or 20l rucksacks with the camera at the top, and so, when put down (even with care), the number of times they tip over and hit a rock grows quite considerably.
I tried mollycoddling and buying padded carry cases etc. But in the end I've determined it's better to splash out initially on a rugged camera body. There was no better recommendation than having read a review by some war photographer (name forgotten) who said the Nikon FM titanium was virtually indestructible - I can confirm the FM2 titanium is awsome in that respect.

you travel light - but have 15 or 20 rucksacks???

[Lost Leopard Spot]

15 or 20 litre - the capacity.

[thebish]

15 or 20 litre - the capacity.

ahhhh - I'm not sufficiently outdoorsy to know that you measure rucksacks in litres!! (bloody decimalisation!!)

I presume you mean the 4 gallon rucksack??

[Lost Leopard Spot]

deuter speed-lite 15 litre daysack. Only mine's different shades of grey. So I can sneak up on bears without them seeing me.