rosen@gypsy.UUCP (07/01/85)
[-----] I am in the market for a good 35mm camera. My primary concern is that the camera be an automatic, but I also would like to play around with it manually once I learn how to use it. I also want really crisp sharp pictures (doesn't everybody? :-) ). I am very impressed with some shots that I have seen from a Nikon FE-something. Is there a large preference towards Nikon? I'd also like to keep it under $300. Any suggestions? I am more or less a novice, but I want something that will be flexible. Steve Rosen Siemens Research and Technology Laboratories Princeton, NJ USENET: {ihnp4|princeton|adrvax}!siemens!rosen ARPA: princeton!siemens!rosen@TOPAZ
johnm@python.UUCP (J. Montgomery) (07/03/85)
I've used many different 35mm slr's over the years (Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, and Nikon) and have several general comments: The general level of quality is high, especially optics. I don't think it's fair to say one brand is "better" than another. There are differences in features, accessories, and available lenses. If you need fast telephotos, perspective control lenses, long macro lenses, etc. you should check what each manufacturer provides. Most have a little booklet on this that I usually get free at my photo dealer. It's also worth noting that Tamron makes excellent lenses with interchangeable mounts, so their lenses can be used on most major brands (the Tamron 90mm macro and 35-80 zoom are especially good). It is very fashonable these days to have programmed exposure systems. I think this is a bit overrated. I have a program mode camera (Minolta X-700) and found after a bit that was always using it in aperture priority mode. I don't recommend choosing a camera on the basis of programmed exposure systems. It IS very important to have a good viewfinder/exposure display system, and here there is lots to choose from between different brands. Some use digital display, some analog, some LEDs, some LCDs, etc. There are different types of focusing screens, some can be interchanged, some cannot. I think it's very worthwhile to find a good dealer who can explain the non-obvious differences and let you look through the various models of interest. (A side comment here: although I am close to NYC, I do some of my photo shopping at a local NJ dealer that lets me handle the equipment, take it home over the weekend, and doesn't pressure me to buy it if I don't like it. Of course, you pay for this and that's a choice that's up to the individual.) I'll put in one product plug here. I've recently started using a Nikon F3HP. Although it is quite expensive, I recommend looking at it if you wear eyeglasses, or have difficulty seeing through other slr's. It is the only slr I have used which lets me see all four frame edges with glasses on, and it is the only one I know which shows the full frame in the viewfinder. I like this very much. The image in the finder also seems brighter than others. (My only connection with Nikon is being a satisfied customer.) To give a balanced perspective, let me mention that the Nikon F3 is large and heavy by contemporary standards (in addition to being very expensive). I would love having a Nikon HP finder on my OM-1. Some people, however, find the OM-1 hard to use because it is so small... The Nikon FE and FM strike me as quite good value for the money and can use the same lenses as the F3 (but not the HP finder). I have not worked with them, so I can't comment on them in detail. It's certainly worth a little research, both at home and in the photo store. You will enjoy your new camera more if you can see through it, if it's not too heavy for you, if you can get the lenses you want for it, etc. -- John Montgomery Bell Communications Research ...{allegra, ihnp4, decvax, ucbvax}!bellcore!python!johnm
jans@mako.UUCP (Jan Steinman) (07/09/85)
In article <145@python.UUCP> johnm@python.UUCP (J. Montgomery) writes: >I'll put in one product plug here. I've recently started using a >Nikon F3HP. Although it is quite expensive, I recommend looking >at it if you wear eyeglasses, or have difficulty seeing through >other slr's. It is the only slr I have used which lets me see >all four frame edges with glasses on, and it is the only one I >know which shows the full frame in the viewfinder. The Olympus OM-4 (and OM-3?) have built-in diopter correction for eyeglass wearers so the camera can be used without glasses. Although I only use glasses for driving, (aprox 1/2 diopter correction) I find my OM-4 easier to focus than my OM-2 because I was able to fine-tune it for my shooting eye. The obvious disadvantage is that others cannot use such a camera if the correction required is gross, also, you cannot switch eyes if your eyes are very different, but I think it is a useful innovation, and makes these cameras especially of interest to eyeglass wearers. -- :::::: Jan Steinman Box 1000, MS 61-161 (w)503/685-2843 :::::: :::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans Wilsonville, OR 97070 (h)503/657-7703 ::::::
dollas@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (07/09/85)
Recently I bought a Contax 137MA which fits your bill. Its lenses are Zeiss designed and manufactured by Yashica; overall I find it a slightly better value than the Nikon FE which is an excellent camera also. For optics I believe (Leica and other exotic cameras excluded) Nikon and Contax(w/ Zeiss optics) have the best. If you want lots of features (spot metering, off-the-film metering, etc) the Olympus OM-2S is an excellent camera (and rather inexpensive for what it does). Finally, if you want to get extremely high quality optics without too many frills and at a real bargain price go for a Yashica body (such as the FX-D) with a Carl Zeiss lens (say, the Planar f/1.7 50mm). Even the 'Modern Photography' gurus suggest it as a really good combination (December issue of '84 if I recall correctly -it is a long article about the best cameras of the year). As far as the price, mail order stores in NY have very good prices (these days the Contax 137MA with the Zeis Planar f/1.7 50mm goes for < $300). Since this is no advertisment section I will not write any comments but I will be glad to send to interested readers a note with my experiences from such stores. Apostolos Dollas Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign USENET: ...!{pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!dollas CSNET: dollas%uiuc@csnet-relay.arpa ARPA: dollas@uiuc.arpa
johnm@python.UUCP (J. Montgomery) (07/09/85)
> The Olympus OM-4 (and OM-3?) have built-in diopter correction for > eyeglass wearers so the camera can be used without glasses. Although > I only use glasses for driving, (aprox 1/2 diopter correction) I find > my OM-4 easier to focus than my OM-2 because I was able to fine-tune it > for my shooting eye. The obvious disadvantage is that others cannot > use such a camera if the correction required is gross, also, you cannot > switch eyes if your eyes are very different, but I think it is a useful > innovation, and makes these cameras especially of interest to eyeglass > wearers. This is a good idea, and it is also possible with the Nikon F3HP. (Un- fortunately, my own correction is too strong for this to be useful.) -- John Montgomery Bell Communications Research ...{allegra, ihnp4, decvax, ucbvax}!bellcore!python!johnm
sasaki@harvard.ARPA (Marty Sasaki) (07/11/85)
My problem is that I have lots of astigmatism and the various viewfinder correction adjustments can't compensate for this. Even if I had a special lens ground for the viewfinder I couldn't use the camera both vertically and horizontally. Does anyone have a suggestion in this case? -- ---------------- Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp} Havard University Science Center phone: 617-495-1270 One Oxford Street Cambridge, MA 02138
ix654@sdcc6.UUCP (ix654) (07/12/85)
In article <149@python.UUCP>, johnm@python.UUCP (J. Montgomery) writes: > > The Olympus OM-4 (and OM-3?) have built-in diopter correction for > > my OM-4 easier to focus than my OM-2 because I was able to fine-tune it > > .... > This is a good idea, and it is also possible with the Nikon F3HP. (Un- > fortunately, my own correction is too strong for this to be useful.) Please, don't forget the Pentax LX, which is all too often being overlooked when professional cameras are discussed. Diopter correction was, as far as I know, introduced for the first time in this SLR. Loyal Pentax fan, E. J. Behr (UCSD, Math)
cff@uvaee.UUCP (Chuck Ferrara) (07/16/85)
In article <242@harvard.ARPA> sasaki@harvard.UUCP (Marty sasaki) writes: >My problem is that I have lots of astigmatism and the various viewfinder >correction adjustments can't compensate for this. Even if I had a special >lens ground for the viewfinder I couldn't use the camera both vertically >and horizontally. Does anyone have a suggestion in this case? >-- How about contact lenses? Buying a set would probably be less expensive than any customized modification for your camera. It would also spare you the trouble of removing your glasses to see through the view finder. I can't say I've tried it though; I'm 20-20. -- Chuck Ferrara @ U. Va. Dept. of EE; Charlottesville,Va. 22901 UUCP: ...decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!uvaee!cff (804)924-7316
howard@sfmag.UUCP (H.M.Moskovitz) (07/17/85)
> My problem is that I have lots of astigmatism and the various viewfinder > correction adjustments can't compensate for this. Even if I had a special > lens ground for the viewfinder I couldn't use the camera both vertically > and horizontally. Does anyone have a suggestion in this case? Yes. Use a regular viewfinder and wear your glasses (like I do) or get contact lenses that correct for astigmatism ( I have 30-day lenses that do). -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Moskovitz AT&T Info. Systems attunix!howard
jcjeff@ihlpg.UUCP (Richard Jeffreys) (07/24/85)
> In article <242@harvard.ARPA> sasaki@harvard.UUCP (Marty sasaki) writes: > >My problem is that I have lots of astigmatism and the various viewfinder > >correction adjustments can't compensate for this. Even if I had a special > >lens ground for the viewfinder I couldn't use the camera both vertically > >and horizontally. Does anyone have a suggestion in this case? In article <366@uvaee.UUCP> ccf@uvaee.UUCP (Chuck Ferrara) writes: > How about contact lenses? Buying a set would probably be less expensive > than any customized modification for your camera. It would also spare you > the trouble of removing your glasses to see through the view finder. > I can't say I've tried it though; I'm 20-20. I too have a lot of astigmatism and found that they do not make contact lenses that would cope with it, ( unless I wanted to have hard contact leneses at $500/pair ). I guess that Marty has a similar problem and the cost to change the viewfinder on the camera would probably be cheaper than contact lenses. -- [ It's not the end of the world....no it's not; If it's the end of the world, well so what ? - Marti Webb ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ || From the keys of Richard Jeffreys ( British Citizen Overseas ) || || employed by North American Philips Corporation || || @ AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, Illinois || ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ || General disclaimer about anything and everything that I may have typed || ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ned@SCIRTP.UUCP (Ned Robie) (07/26/85)
> I too have a lot of astigmatism and found that they do not make contact lenses > that would cope with it, ( unless I wanted to have hard contact leneses at > $500/pair ). > Richard Jeffreys That's not what I heard. I am near sighted and have slight astigmatism and have had extended wear contacts for a couple years now. My optometrist couldn't correct my astigmatism with the contacts because he claimed that the astigmatism wasn't severe enough! He said that extended wear lenses are made to correct astigmatism, but only for the more severe cases. That was more than a year ago, so they might have a broader selection now. BTW, my experience with extended wear contacts has been very good. They rarely need to be removed and are very comfortable (I don't even feel them anymore). They're the next best thing to new eyes! -- Ned Robie