can anybody suggest best camera for fashion photography?

Answer 1

Contrary to the previous answer, Large format would not be a logical choice, But yes a hasselblad is a great camera for any kind of photography.

I am assuming however that if you are asking this question then you do not have any experience and would not be doing very large jobs, any kind of Digital slr with at least 12 mega pexils will do.

I prefer Nikon and Fuji but for fashion you may wish to get a Canon much faster at rapid fire shooting

Answer 2

Fashion runway photography? You'll need a fast D/SLR with a powerful external flash. If you're talking digital then the Canon EOS 1DMkII, 1DsMkII, 5D, 30D, Nikon D200, Nikon D2x, D2h or Fuji S3 should all fit your bill.

If you're talking fashion shoots (studio/outdoors) where you need to blow up your output, then it may be worth considering a medium format (contrary to the previous post, nikon and hassleblad don't do large format. Hassleblad does medium format while nikon is mostly 35mm). You can probably get by with a Mamiya, Hassleblad or Pentax for this. You can get them in either film or digital format. However, more importantly would probably be lighting which would also cost quite a bit.

Answer 3

For fancy arty-farty photography, an SLR camera is generally required...... and one photography portfolio / stock image site I've come across only allows you to join if your digital camera is a minimum of 11Megapixel quality (hope you've got an understanding bank manager).

Looking through this site (which is very good for reading up on Digital Cameras): http://www.steves-digicams.com/cameras_digpro.html
You'll find a selection of quality cameras with very scary price tags under thorough review.

I'd suggest looking at the Nikon D200
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/d200.html
+ The Fuji Finepix S3 Pro
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/s3pro.html
........ but don't look at the price tags if you're pregnant or suffer from a heart condition.

Answer 4

Top end, large format Cameras like Nikon, Hasselblad etc. will give you the results you need. Keep in mind you will shell out big bucks for a quality camera with the necessary accessories. $2,000.00 plus.

Answer 5

deviantARTforum
Username: Password: | Lost Password
Become a Deviant | Buy Art
Browse | Shop |

Chat | Forum | Services | Help
No More Ads: Subscribe to deviantART Now!
deviantART Forum: Photography: The "Best" Camera?
~FallisPhoto
Subject: The "Best" Camera? (#13608635)
Date: Apr 30, 2006, 7:26:54 PM
Advertisement In this forum I have been noticing a lot of "what's the best camera" queries. These seem to sprout up every day or so.

Generally speaking, there is no such thing. Without even getting into specific models, different kinds of cameras are better for different types of photography. When picking a type of camera first you need to think about what you will be shooting. A landscape photographer and a street photographer, for instance, will likely be using entirely different equipment. That is why there are those two sticky posts at the top of the forum wherein all those nosey questions are asked about what kind of photography you will be doing.

SLRs are good for all-around-general photography. That is to say that while they CAN do most kinds of photography, there are some of those kinds that they do rather poorly and others that they are very good at. Rangefinders are better for other kinds of photography and can outperform an SLR by a quantum leap at those. The same can be said of TLRs, view cameras, and even the much-disparaged point-and-shoot camera.

I have been collecting cameras for years now and at present have over 80 of them. I have (or have had) one or more of each of the types mentioned in this journal entry. I have had occasion to use all of them and some of them are definitely better than others AT SPECIFIC TASKS. However, NONE of them are good at all types of photography.

In general, 35mm SLRs (single lens reflex cameras) are good for nature photography, action photography, for any situation where you need to shoot quickly, they generally have more of a lens selection, and they are great for macro photography. They are not very good for architectural photography, they are only fair at landscapes, and there are better choices when shooting people. Most of them are very difficult to focus accurately when doing night photography. Below a certain light threshold, autofocus won't work.

SLRs fall into two categories: manual and automatic. In general, manual cameras are more precise and give the user far more artistic control of his images (also, the batteries last longer). Autoexposure is good under certain conditions, but not under others. It is controlled by your camera's meter, and those don't always work well. While in numerous tests even the best autofocus systems were not found to be particularly accurate (and they are easily confused), when you are shooting rapidly moving objects, or if you are trying to shoot 8 frames per second, autofocus is almost a necessity.

Again speaking in general, 35mm rangefinders are better choices for posed studio photos and people photography. They are quieter (and thus less obtrusive) and they are easy to focus in low light, making them ideal for night photography. focusing with them is deadly accurate with lenses that are 135mm or less in focal length. They work better than SLRs with wide angle and normal lenses, but not as well with telephoto lenses over 135mm. Some other cons are that few of them have through the lens metering (there are exceptions to this-- a few of the newer top end professional models) and only a handful of them have interchangeable lens capability. They do not work for macro photography because, while there are auxiliary lenses available for a few models, these don't usually work very well. There is a myth that the main reason they don't work as well for macro photography is because of parallax error. While this was a problem in early rangefinders, nearly all models made after 1970 have built in parallax compensation.

Point and shoot cameras have their place too. They are good for vacation photos, travel photography, backpacking, and any time when you don't want to deal with a lot of gear. They are also unobtrusive and are good for candid photos. The cons mainly involve loss of artistic control and the way autofocus and autoexposure can get confused in many situations.

Now speaking of point and shoot cameras, there is a fairly recent introduction to the world of photography called the APS camera. These are 24mm instead of 35mm and pretty much everyone these days who sells them is discontinuing them like they did the disc cameras. It was an interesting idea, with shutter speed, aperture and such recorded for each shot and exposure correction being automatic during processing for each frame, but these seem to be going the way of the dodo bird. Some APS cameras were SLRs instead of point and shoot, but the smaller film size pretty much ensured that the photos would be grainer and generally of lower quality than you can get with a properly set up 35mm. I don’t believe anyone ever did produce a really good professional quality APS film.

In medium format, you have the TLRs (twin lens reflex cameras), SLRs, toy cameras and rangefinders. There are also a lot of old folding cameras out there. The big advantage of medium format is that the larger negative gives you a much sharper image, particularly in enlargements, and grain is reduced substantially. When comparing the SLRs and rangefinders, you have pretty much the same pros and cons that you will find in their 35mm counterparts.

However, although medium format cameras all use 620, 120 or 220 films (all of which are the same 6 centimer wide film -- just the spool or backing paper is different), there are a number of different negative frame sizes (called formats, and measured in centimeters) that you can choose from. There is the 6x4.5, the 6x6, the 6x7 and the 6x9 (there used to be a 6x12 panoramic camera too, but I don’t think it is being made anymore). The larger frames give you sharper photos, but you get fewer photos per roll.

With a few of the SLRs you also have the option of changing backs. This means you can shoot Polaroid film, switch from color film to B&W in mid-roll, or switch from film to digital at any time. They are very versatile cameras.

In medium format, that leaves the TLRs, toys and the old folding cameras to discuss.

All TLRs are 6x6 cm square medium format (there are two exceptions to this rule - a Yashica TLR that will convert to use 35mm film and a few older models that use 127 film that is not generally available except by special order). TLRs will give you very sharp images, but bear in mind that if you want to make prints in standard sizes you are going to have to either crop them or only use part of the paper (nearly all papers, negative holders and easels come in rectangular formats). They are very good for studio and landscape photography but they are very slow in use and are thus poorly suited for shooting objects in motion. A problem that beginners have a hard time dealing with is that they have waist level viewfinders that display the image upside down and backward. This can make tracking a moving object very confusing (an object moving right to left in the viewfinder is really moving left to right). Also, there is only one model of TLR with interchangeable lenses, there is no parallax compensation, and this rules out telephoto and macro photography.

There are also several makes of toy cameras in medium format that have developed a cult following. These are generally very low quality cameras with plastic lenses and light leaks and some people appreciate the element of chance that they introduce into their photography. Some of the more popular types of toy camera are the Holga, the LOMO or Lubitel, and the Diana and the numerous clones it has spawned.

There are exceptions, but the old folding cameras are not usually very good regarding focusing. This is because most have really tiny prism or mirror viewfinders with no focusing aids. There is nothing to tell you if the camera is in focus or not. All the viewfinder does is tell you where the camera is pointed and aid in framing. Focusing a folding camera usually involves making a guess at the range and using depth of field to compensate for error. This is called zone focusing. It works well at f/8 and smaller apertures, but with larger apertures, unless you plan to use a tape measure, when accurate focusing is critical, they are poor choices. The exceptions are those cameras with rangefinders. With folding cameras these rangefinders are not usually coupled to the lens and they are slow to shoot, since you have to transfer the data from the rangefinder to the lens manually. While this won't be a problem if you are shooting portraits, you may find yourself in difficulty if you are trying to photograph a motocross race.

Large format view cameras are the ultimate in image sharpness and lack of perspective distortion. They are GREAT at landscapes, architecture, statuary and anything else that is big and doesn't move much. The large film size also makes them good for posed studio portraits when you want hyper-sharp photos with lots of detail. However, they are big, cumbersome, clumsy beasts, most can't be used without a tripod, and they require a lot more training to use. They have additional controls (rise, fall, swing, tilt and shift) which are not found on other types of cameras. By adjusting the tilt and shift, for example, you can eliminate the exaggerated perspective that you often get with other cameras. This is what makes them ideal for architectural photos. Some of the 4x5s have the option of using accessory medium format rollfilm backs. With the exception of those capable of using the aforementioned rollfilm backs, large format cameras use film that comes in sheets instead of rolls, and they have to be manually reloaded after every shot. If you want to make life-sized enlargements that will allow you to see the hairs in Cindy Crawford's mole, with no visible grain, or if you are shooting photos of a cathedral, this is what you should get.

Large format cameras generally fall into two main types: Monorail and field cameras. A monorail camera is a bit more cumbersome and it's lens board slides along a tubular rail for focusing. These are more suitable for studio work (Cindy Crawford's mole). Monorails are really too bulky for fieldwork. The field cameras fold up in a fashion somewhat similar to the old medium format folding cameras and the lens board slides along a sort of dual track for focusing. These are more suitable for fieldwork, as the name implies. Focusing is done by looking at a dim upside down and reversed image on a sheet of ground glass, which can make focusing somewhat tricky except in bright light (photographers who use view cameras often use a magnifying glass or a loupe and cover the ground glass and their heads with a dark cloth).

Now for the biggest waste of time ever: the Nikon vs. Canon debate. It's the lenses, people, not the cameras. Both Nikon and Canon make good cameras. So do Pentax, Minolta, and several other companies. The differences between the top grades of Nikon and Canon lenses are so marginal that they can't be seen without a jeweler’s loupe or in extreme enlargements that are beyond the acceptable limits of 35mm. Both are consumer level cameras. If you are that critical, get a Zeiss, a Voigtlander or a Leica; otherwise, you'll never notice the difference. That said, if you are getting an older used camera then Nikon might get the edge simply because they didn't change their lens mounting system for a very long time and there are more lenses available that will fit.

Finally let's discuss another waste of time: the digital vs. film debate. These are entirely different tools and they are designed for different tasks. As much as some people would like to believe it (and in spite of the advertising hype), they are not interchangeable.

Digital photography is a great tool for photojournalism, where it has almost entirely supplanted film photography. If you are going to show your photos on a video monitor, it can't be beat. If your photo is going to be transmitted electronically, this is what you want. In amateur art shows, where enlargements usually only average 11x14, it might or might not work well for you, depending on the camera.

On the other hand, if you are shooting competitively, for pro-level art exhibits, where enlargements can run to 5 feet by 7 feet, a digital camera is not going to be your best choice. If you do a lot of night photography, you are going to be limited as to how long an exposure you can make. After a length of time, which can be as short as ten seconds in some of the low end cameras, the sensors will overheat and start to generate "noise" (the digital equivalent of dirt on a film negative). Taking successive photos, as some people do, and putting them together in Photoshop to get the equivalent of a longer exposure, won’t work if anything is moving. In star trails, for instance, you will see dim spots that represent the time between exposures. Generally speaking, digital cameras appeal more to commercial photographers and film cameras appeal more to fine art photographers.

And that just about covers it. There are a few other types of cameras (pinhole cameras, box cameras, Polaroid cameras and etcetera), but these are the main types used for professional and amateur photography.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
~quantumrose
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13609068)
Date: Apr 30, 2006, 7:53:11 PM
awww i was going to say that the perfect camera was a pinhole as you can do nearly anything with it if you do it right. but you snagged that out of my hands with one last sentance :'(

defilately a lot addressed here. definately worth reading twice over.
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13615098)
Date: May 1, 2006, 6:22:49 AM
Well, I don't discount pinhole cameras, or the photographers that use them. I have three myself. Unfortunately, it would take a book the size of "War And Peace" to cover everything (even briefly) and I decided to stick to the main types. Heck, I could write an article twenty times as long as this just on 35mm SLRs (pentaprism vs pentamirror, different focusing screens, retrofocus lenses, potential problems with autofocus and autoexposure, DOF preview and how it works, and etcetera). I pretty much just hit the high spots. The post is aimed at beginners, and people who may not be familiar with all the different types of cameras and what they are best used for. Advanced pinhole photographers pretty much know all this stuff already.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
~eyeballman
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13609443)
Date: Apr 30, 2006, 8:14:29 PM
>> "On the other hand, if you are shooting competitively, for pro-level art exhibits, where enlargements can run to 5 feet by 7 feet a digital camera is not going to be your best choice." <<

While a dSLR may not cut the mustard in this regard, a medium format digital back will make very high quality images that can be printed very close to this size (88mp will produce a 6'x4.5' print at 150ppi). Add this fact to the fact that you can use MF backs on view cameras (I'm shooting through Schneider glass) and you've got some pretty high-quality capability. I just ran off a gallery poster (repro of a life-sized, full length portrait of John Jacob Aster in oil) that was very nice indeed. Individual brush strokes were clearly visible as was the fine crackling of the varnish...

Another advantage to MF digital is that many of the backs are cooled. The Eyelike M22 I use actually has a peltier device cooling the chip... Between this cooling, and the incredibly high quality Jenoptic CMOS sensor, almost noisless images (less than 0.001%) are produced. I routinely use exposures as long as 5sec and the noise is invisible in a 300ppi print.

Other than these exceptions at the very highest end of digital, I agree with all the points you make. Well done as always. =)

--
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin

member of *macrophoto, =onewordphoto
~bloodyclaw
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13609942)
Date: Apr 30, 2006, 8:55:47 PM
I'll be damned if the average gets an H2D though ;)
~eyeballman
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13613453)
Date: May 1, 2006, 3:23:43 AM
The average user probably isn't getting 5'x7' pieces in art galleries either though... =)

--
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin

member of *macrophoto, =onewordphoto
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13614648)
Date: May 1, 2006, 5:33:10 AM
True, but, the size of the files and the expense of the backs would be frigging awe inspiring. One look at the file sizes alone would deter most people from going that route.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13615239)
Date: May 1, 2006, 6:34:51 AM
Well, I was speaking in general terms. I didn't want to write an article the size of Churchhill's "History of the English Speaking Peoples." There are one or two exceptions to pretty much anything. I just wanted to give a brief description of the types of cameras an AVERAGE photographer (whether serious or a beginner) is likely to run into and the types of photography they are best used for. The very advanced professionals, who are making the truck-loads of money it would take to afford the kind of camera you are talking about (and the hyper expensive peripheral equipment it would take to deal with files of that size and print them out in art quality form), already know pretty much all of this.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
~End-of-Autumn
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#14249126)
Date: Jun 5, 2006, 6:36:47 AM
very good point. I do alot of photography and can only afford a Fuji S2 pro, some of the others are just way beyond me reach.

for now anyway.

great thread, very interesting, well done indeed

--
[link]
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#14252660)
Date: Jun 5, 2006, 10:28:50 AM
Thank you.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
~eduardofrench
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13610055)
Date: Apr 30, 2006, 9:04:21 PM
:clap: nice thread should be a sticky, this thread is very very informative

--
Don't look my signature :|
*Flash-MC
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13612376)
Date: May 1, 2006, 1:10:23 AM
Well done, Your right these threads are popping up way to often and its great that you took the time to put this together. Hopefully the people that need it most will actruly read it ffs. A very good read, Cheers

--
:wow: - Flash MC - "Live Today, Because One Day You Wont"
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13614677)
Date: May 1, 2006, 5:37:07 AM
Thanks. I had already done this as a journal entry, but apparently people were not finding it. I just made a few changes and updates and posted it here.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
~Iments
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13612492)
Date: May 1, 2006, 1:23:50 AM
well there's one chapter of your book on photography!

sticky sticky

--
Free Tibet.

Save $Jark.
=mauzZ
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13614176)
Date: May 1, 2006, 4:42:08 AM
:worship: well written!

sticky puhleeze :please:

--
Anton♥Vicky
"We might go in your umbrella," said Pooh. :blackrose:
~blickpunkt
You know you want it. You can get it here. [link] :penguin:
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13614705)
Date: May 1, 2006, 5:40:33 AM
Well, I don't get to say which posts are made into stickies.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
=mauzZ
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13614721)
Date: May 1, 2006, 5:42:18 AM
sadly, because from what I've read here, you're the one with the widest knowledge :)

--
Anton♥Vicky
"We might go in your umbrella," said Pooh. :blackrose:
~blickpunkt
You know you want it. You can get it here. [link] :penguin:
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13615532)
Date: May 1, 2006, 7:02:35 AM
Well, I don't know EVERYTHING -- yet. Lol!!!

Shagie, for instance, has far more in-depth knowlege about optics. There are also several people with more knowlege regarding digital cameras than I have. What I do have is a great deal of knowlege about vintage film cameras. As a collector, most of it was learned in self defence. It pays me to know as much about my cameras as possible. With 80+ cameras, I can't afford to run to a repairman every time something goes wrong and there are always a few unscrupulous people out to cheat me. If I see a camera on ebay, for instance, with a really great price and a part is missing, it is best if I know enough to notice that the part is missing, because the seller usually won't tell me. It is best to know the common problems for most cameras too, so you can ask about them when you buy, and avoid the ones that are beyond repair. Then there are the technicalities of learning to USE 80+ different cameras and their assorted systems. Anyway, a great deal of what I have learned carries over well into the newer systems.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
=mauzZ
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13615570)
Date: May 1, 2006, 7:05:18 AM
well, no one knows everything, as you said there are experts for every field of photography.
just take it how it was meant, as a compliment :)

--
Anton♥Vicky
"We might go in your umbrella," said Pooh. :blackrose:
~blickpunkt
You know you want it. You can get it here. [link] :penguin:
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13615613)
Date: May 1, 2006, 7:08:51 AM
Oh, I did. I still have SOME tattered remnants of modesty though.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
=mauzZ
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13615643)
Date: May 1, 2006, 7:10:43 AM
:D hehe okay :)

--
Anton♥Vicky
"We might go in your umbrella," said Pooh. :blackrose:
~blickpunkt
You know you want it. You can get it here. [link] :penguin:
*disassociation
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13615534)
Date: May 1, 2006, 7:02:36 AM
you should submit this as a photography new article
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13615599)
Date: May 1, 2006, 7:07:22 AM
Well, I have hopes it will be made into a sticky post. I think it will be seen by more people that way.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
`bzed
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13641081)
Date: May 2, 2006, 3:42:08 PM
I;ve just noted ^hesitation, I hope she'll stick it to the top of the forum ;)

--
one deviantART - ONE COMMUNITY
no lies - no fights - no insults
love - trust - fun
let the old deviantART become a new and better deviantART.
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13648286)
Date: May 2, 2006, 11:20:48 PM
I see she did. Good job.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
~Wimpler
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13615955)
Date: May 1, 2006, 7:33:47 AM
The best camera is the one you have with you.
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13629174)
Date: May 1, 2006, 10:40:04 PM
Not really. I have a keychain 110 camera, for example, that would meet almost no one's criteria of the best. Let's say the one you have with you that will adequately do the job that you need it to do.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
~David212
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13629212)
Date: May 1, 2006, 10:45:58 PM
and breathe

the best camera is one in the hands of the best photographer.

--
Photoshop Artistic Filters: Desguising poor Photography since 1990.
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13629516)
Date: May 1, 2006, 11:22:12 PM
The best camera is that one you've always wanted but couldn't afford to get your hands on.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
~shags3379
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13663832)
Date: May 3, 2006, 8:22:16 PM
i just bought panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30, digital SLR Camera, o you reccomend this camera for an amature hoping to go pro? feedback greatly appreciated.

--
stabbing a giraffe in the neck with a spoon ALWAYS brings u bad luck
=tisb0b
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13667844)
Date: May 4, 2006, 2:58:41 AM
I'm pretty sure from what I've read that camera is for semi-pro's although I could be wrong =) gl to you

--
clicky my DA =tisb0b =) supa secret linky [link]
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13671634)
Date: May 4, 2006, 8:47:38 AM
It is okay for someone developing his/her skills, I suppose. Judging by what I am reading, it has a fixed lens though. It has a lot of features, but if you are thinking of going pro, you are really going to need to get an SLR/DSLR camera with interchangable lens capability at some point.

Sorry, but in truth, I think a Nikon D-50 or one of the Canon Rebels would have been a better entry level choice. I think even a film SLR would have been better. You would have a much better selection of lenses with pretty much any of those. That Lumix lens is Leica BRANDED, but not really a Leica, and you are restricted to its 35mm to 420mm focal length range. There is a basic general rule of thumb for zoom lenses that the wider the range of focal lengths, the less good the lens usually is, so I would not expect a lot from that lens (35mm to 420mm is a pretty wide range). In addition, and again judging by what I am reading, although it does have a manual mode, the camera is mainly intended to be used in any of several automatic modes. In most cameras of this type, manual mode doesn't work very well. With the exception of sports/action photographers, most pros prefer to use the manual mode when they have time to do so, so this is not good.

In short, I'm sorry, but I would not recommend it for a budding pro. I'd suggest that you get what use you can out of it and move on to something better.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13671666)
Date: May 4, 2006, 8:49:54 AM
Incidentally, the time to ask is BEFORE you buy the camera.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
~Lumpichu
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#14311031)
Date: Jun 8, 2006, 12:18:34 PM
afaik it's not a SLR ;)
~eduardofrench
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13693126)
Date: May 5, 2006, 2:50:23 PM
3 stickies? ;) well deserved as the info is very detailed and it is very helpful :D

--
Don't look my signature :|
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13723594)
Date: May 7, 2006, 10:34:23 AM
You are really trying to rip the last tattered shreds of modesty from me aren't you? :)

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
~eduardofrench
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13728026)
Date: May 7, 2006, 3:25:33 PM
:lmao: hell yes!

You and Shagie are the most experienced photographers here and your help to the people of this forum is worth millions! if someone deserves that a thread like this full of correct and well argumentated info like this makes itself into a sticky is you :D

--
Don't look my signature :|
~krinx
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13719911)
Date: May 7, 2006, 5:54:02 AM
Nothing beats the original Nikon Film cameras now those are beautiful pieces of work.
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13723524)
Date: May 7, 2006, 10:29:52 AM
Nikons are very good cameras, particularly the early classic models, but there WERE better. There were Contax, Zeiss, Voigtlander, and a few other German cameras that were built better. The prices were kind of on the awe-inspiring side though. In the old days, a new Voigtlander, for instance, would cost more than many new cars did. You'd be spending an awful lot of money for very little improvement though. A Nikon would do nearly as well and wouldn't put you into debt. Also, there was fairly stiff competition in the consumer market from the Canons and the Yashicas. Pentax and Yashica were offering stiff competition with their Spotmatic IIs and TL-Xes (with Contax lenses) in the professional market. Minoltas were pretty good too, but they were over-engineered and the tolerances were way too tight. There are lots of Minolta SRTs out there that won't work, even with Minolta Rokkor lenses, because the mirror hits the back of the lens. You can't fit a sheet of paper between the mirror and the lens on most of them. When they did work, they worked very well though.

Getting back to Nikons, I don't like the FEs -- and of the FMs, I only like the FM2. The F models were great though. There seems to be a bug in the shutter linkage of many of the FEs and FMs. A little sideways pressure on the shutter release button can jam their shutters. Yeah, it is easy to unjam them, but still, Nikon has had decades to fix this bug and they haven't done it.

Nikon made some really wonderful rangefinders too. For some reason they never got into the rangefinder wars though, and they dropped out early. They never made many of them, but the few S2s they did make were pretty much on a par with their contemporary Leica and Contax models. I guess there just wasn't enough high-end market to share with Leica and Contax.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
~krinx
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13729660)
Date: May 7, 2006, 5:16:30 PM
I would have to agree I dont like the FEs and the FM2 well its my favorite, thankgod it doesnt put to bigger whole in ya pocket unless of caus you want a $20 000 lens. German engineering why is it so good all the time, why cant little NZ make some great cameras.
~FallisPhoto
Subject: Re: The "Best" Camera? (#13730579)
Date: May 7, 2006, 6:21:22 PM
I don't know why it is, but the German reputation for precision is well-earned -- at least it is regarding cameras and cars. I can't tell you why NZ doesn't make great cameras either. Do they make any cameras at all? Hell, I live in the USA, and we don't make great cameras either. We used to, but that was back in the 50s and earlier. Graflex, Ciroflex, Universal, and the rest of almost the entire American photographic industry had collapsed by around 1952. We've still got Argus and Kodak (nominally anyway; I think most of the parts are made overseas), and there is Bender (if you like pinholes), but they are not making anything I would call great. They are certainly not in the same league with Leica, Contax, Zeiss, and so on -- or even with Pentax, Canon or Nikon.

--