bustah
Guest
bfto?
what is bfto? and what bore rifles are they using? looks fun
what is bfto? and what bore rifles are they using? looks fun
Scuff
Registered user
Re: bfto?
BFTO is the Bisley Field Target Organisation . We shoot sub 12 ft/lbs air rifles and therefore the sport is open to anyone incl kids etc as you do not need a firearms cert.
It is great fun, and surprisingly difficult to master.
bustah said:
BFTO is the Bisley Field Target Organisation . We shoot sub 12 ft/lbs air rifles and therefore the sport is open to anyone incl kids etc as you do not need a firearms cert.
It is great fun, and surprisingly difficult to master.
B Murr
Registered user
I've always found Canon lenses to be that little bit warmer, something I favour. Nikon seems a little cool and Carl Zeiss a little expensive but would get it if I had the bucks. For some reason I never tried Minolta. Had a pentax system a few years back(LX) but found that they weren't making the grade in autofocus territory when I got fed up with wasted shots or wasted time in focusing.
Can nyone recommend a canon for me to move to that will not cost the earth? Presumably it will use my EOS lenses24mm,35, 50 and 70-210
Can nyone recommend a canon for me to move to that will not cost the earth? Presumably it will use my EOS lenses24mm,35, 50 and 70-210
nadeem
Guest
The 20D if your budget will stretch to it or the 350D if not...
this shot taken yesterday with the 20D and a 70-200mm EFS F4 USM lens from a distance of approx. 150 feet (handheld)...
this shot taken yesterday with the 20D and a 70-200mm EFS F4 USM lens from a distance of approx. 150 feet (handheld)...
nadeem
Guest
Scuff said:
Thst's an excellent image...the Canon F 2.8 Lens is on my wish list at the moment...although a few folk have been suggesting the Sigma F 2.8 as welll
B Murr
Registered user
I had the sigma F2.8 when it came out first. I was using it on the pentax LX and found that on the trannies you could see some vignetting/fall off in light towards the corners. Probably wouldn't show up with print films, not sure how digital would cope, presumably you can crop the image slightly to eliminate it. Go for the canon if you can.
Scuff
Registered user
nadeem
Guest
Thanks Graham
I've had a look on dpreview a few times, J718 HSL is looking for a new camera...hopefully he'll find the site useful...
I've had a look on dpreview a few times, J718 HSL is looking for a new camera...hopefully he'll find the site useful...
roddy
Registered user
J718 HSL if your looking for a digital SLR, and don't want to break the bank,
consider the D60 and 10D they maybe 6megs and have older focus systems, which is not a problem in my book as there fast enough for general stuff, if your taking photos of the MotoGP for example you just need to remember to pre focus.
but there brilliant cameras that can be bought quite cheap nowadays, check out 7daysop.com they were doing reconditioned 10D for a good price
I have a D60 using a 28-135 USM IS Canon lens and the quality of image is as good as I've seen for the latest 8meg cameras.
Roddy
consider the D60 and 10D they maybe 6megs and have older focus systems, which is not a problem in my book as there fast enough for general stuff, if your taking photos of the MotoGP for example you just need to remember to pre focus.
but there brilliant cameras that can be bought quite cheap nowadays, check out 7daysop.com they were doing reconditioned 10D for a good price
I have a D60 using a 28-135 USM IS Canon lens and the quality of image is as good as I've seen for the latest 8meg cameras.
Roddy
B Murr
Registered user
thanks graham and roddy for pointers on info re digital camera. 
I'm from completely different class, but the only format i'd recommend for taking SERIOUS still photography is film and medium format (MF). The optimum are 6x6 and 6x7. Go and figure why 
You can buy small home lab for nothing nowadays do get things done your own and cheap.
And if you get used to, there's no compromise for MF from digital till at least 2020. Typical 6x6 MF gives you 500MegaPixel equivalent on detail on normal film and with no discusting noise the digitals have. Shooting MF on negative film gives you 7EV steps of contrast, shooting on B&W gives you 9EV or even more. While your digital normally gives 5EV and you always need to add contrast for them coz images look like liquid shit if they are from pure CCD from typical daylight conditions, thus lot of details are blown away into completely shadows and overexposured highlights if you add even a bit contrast. Yeah, you may bracket the images +/- few EV steps - i.e. take the same pic from the tripod three times with different exposures, and then fek with them in PhotoShop to get highlights and shadow details correct, but it's pointless and time consuming. For me they look tastless crap in the end mostly anyway if you view them a bit larger. Even the highest-end CCD's dynamical range really is poor and lot of noise they have that camera's software tryes to handle and reduce on every shot, there's no excuse for that price they cost.
For quick still-life shots i'd recommend the light and quick 35mm pro film quick autofocus cams, though, you don't get that excellent detail and enlargement quality as on MF, but you can work considerably faster. Though, i do still life with my fully manual MF too, i just want this way.
For boring dudes, want to take pictures that look all the same bullshit at the pics you see on the net and from tastless dudes every day - go get ANY digital you like, wheather it's D2X or G5. It's sorted then anyways, you belong into gray mass the moment you get one, it won't get any better if you have more expensive digital camera, i promise you, you only have better lenses, MPs and software per price.
Anyways, what ever you go with, have fun!
Cheers, Margus
You can buy small home lab for nothing nowadays do get things done your own and cheap.
And if you get used to, there's no compromise for MF from digital till at least 2020. Typical 6x6 MF gives you 500MegaPixel equivalent on detail on normal film and with no discusting noise the digitals have. Shooting MF on negative film gives you 7EV steps of contrast, shooting on B&W gives you 9EV or even more. While your digital normally gives 5EV and you always need to add contrast for them coz images look like liquid shit if they are from pure CCD from typical daylight conditions, thus lot of details are blown away into completely shadows and overexposured highlights if you add even a bit contrast. Yeah, you may bracket the images +/- few EV steps - i.e. take the same pic from the tripod three times with different exposures, and then fek with them in PhotoShop to get highlights and shadow details correct, but it's pointless and time consuming. For me they look tastless crap in the end mostly anyway if you view them a bit larger. Even the highest-end CCD's dynamical range really is poor and lot of noise they have that camera's software tryes to handle and reduce on every shot, there's no excuse for that price they cost.
For quick still-life shots i'd recommend the light and quick 35mm pro film quick autofocus cams, though, you don't get that excellent detail and enlargement quality as on MF, but you can work considerably faster. Though, i do still life with my fully manual MF too, i just want this way.
For boring dudes, want to take pictures that look all the same bullshit at the pics you see on the net and from tastless dudes every day - go get ANY digital you like, wheather it's D2X or G5. It's sorted then anyways, you belong into gray mass the moment you get one, it won't get any better if you have more expensive digital camera, i promise you, you only have better lenses, MPs and software per price.
Anyways, what ever you go with, have fun!
Cheers, Margus
what film camera
tsiklonaut i know from your previous post,s that you use a kiev film camera, and your pictures are always impressive, would you recommend one of these cameras to someone like me , a complete beginner? i have looked at many digital cameras and like you i am less than impressed with the picture quality of most of these , even the very expensive one,s do not compare very well with a good film camera. the kiev,s look like very good value for money? maybe a medium format camera to get me started? thank,s
tsiklonaut i know from your previous post,s that you use a kiev film camera, and your pictures are always impressive, would you recommend one of these cameras to someone like me , a complete beginner? i have looked at many digital cameras and like you i am less than impressed with the picture quality of most of these , even the very expensive one,s do not compare very well with a good film camera. the kiev,s look like very good value for money? maybe a medium format camera to get me started? thank,s
nadeem
Guest
A new 22MP Mamiya digital medium format camera is due out September...
Re: what film camera
No!
It'll be complete disaster for you then. You only have 12 shots per film roll on 6x6 MF - thus it really is for pros.
Get the cheap digital that has manual mode as i did on my beginning. Have it for one year or few seasons and practice steam out of you just shooting on every direction and practice, experiment, try different angles, think composition etc etc! Pop them into computer and adjust billion different ways and get the emotion. It's great fun with digital at first!
Then in time your amount of shots will reduce considerably, you start to think only one shot forward and you hate having billion photos in folders of computer that only have few good shots at the best.
I think then is the time to move over to film which comes spontanously to you anyway then if you really look for quality to be added into your speciefic taste of photography. You have very few shots, but dominant amount of them satisfy you.
Though, always leave digital aside as secondary camera for further experimenting.
Margus
mr moto said:tsiklonaut i know from your previous post,s that you use a kiev film camera, and your pictures are always impressive, would you recommend one of these cameras to someone like me , a complete beginner? i have looked at many digital cameras and like you i am less than impressed with the picture quality of most of these , even the very expensive one,s do not compare very well with a good film camera. the kiev,s look like very good value for money? maybe a medium format camera to get me started? thank,s
No!
It'll be complete disaster for you then. You only have 12 shots per film roll on 6x6 MF - thus it really is for pros.
Get the cheap digital that has manual mode as i did on my beginning. Have it for one year or few seasons and practice steam out of you just shooting on every direction and practice, experiment, try different angles, think composition etc etc! Pop them into computer and adjust billion different ways and get the emotion. It's great fun with digital at first!
Then in time your amount of shots will reduce considerably, you start to think only one shot forward and you hate having billion photos in folders of computer that only have few good shots at the best.
I think then is the time to move over to film which comes spontanously to you anyway then if you really look for quality to be added into your speciefic taste of photography. You have very few shots, but dominant amount of them satisfy you.
Though, always leave digital aside as secondary camera for further experimenting.
Margus
Re: Re: what film camera
i have a small 2 megapixel camera , that i have only just bought and the picture quality is very dissapointing, even after messing about with it on the computer, i understand what you say about taking time to think about my shot,s and composition , i will keep practising, maybe buy myself a better camera at christmas. thank,s for the quick reply
now that was a fast replyTsiklonaut said:No!
It'll be complete disaster for you then. You only have 12 shots per film roll on 6x6 MF - thus it really is for pros.
Get the cheap digital that has manual mode as i did on my beginning. Have it for one year or few seasons and practice steam out of you just shooting on every direction and practice, experiment, try different angles, think composition etc etc! Pop them into computer and adjust billion different ways and get the emotion. It's great fun with digital at first!
Then in time your amount of shots will reduce considerably, you start to think only one shot forward and you hate having billion photos in folders of computer that only have few good shots at the best.
I think then is the time to move over to film which comes spontanously to you anyway then if you really look for quality to be added into your speciefic taste of photography. You have very few shots, but dominant amount of them satisfy you.
Though, always leave digital aside as secondary camera for further experimenting.
Margus
i have a small 2 megapixel camera , that i have only just bought and the picture quality is very dissapointing, even after messing about with it on the computer, i understand what you say about taking time to think about my shot,s and composition , i will keep practising, maybe buy myself a better camera at christmas. thank,s for the quick reply
Kievaholic
About Kiev cameras.
They are one of the best value in MF market, but i wouldn't recommend them. Coz they're shiite mechanical quality. USSR didn't had much quality control you know on factory. They say about 2 from 10 cameras produced are excellent, 5 good and 3 complete shiite.
Lenses are OK. It has Pentacon Six bayonet (acctually, the camera is USSR copy from Pentacon Six), so it takes Zeiss optics produced in their golden times - Carl Zeiss Jenas with outstanding quality. But the Kiev body may fail you as it has done on me various times and i sent it back to Ukraine for repair or done minor repairs my own, and it can get dissapointing sometimes.
I'm just poor student spending most of my hardly earned money on
, so i had no choice but Kiev.
But if you do have a bit money, then get yourself a proper Pentax 67, Bronica SQi or GS-1, Rollei 6001/6003/6008 series with handgrips all are EXCELLENT quality cameras, just like made by God himself. Their lenses are plain excellent, costy, but you'll buy them once in a lifetime.
Mamiya and Contax has mostly studio stuff, from 6x4.5 to 6x7. Hasselblad 6x6s is the ultimate studio tool. But without handgrips they're bulky for motorcycle, backback and handheld shooting for me. Also if you want MF in a bit lighter way (coz MF is massive equipment afterall!), considering Pentax 645 is an greate idea too - very good handheld MF camera .
The rest comes in time - what film, lens and technique you prefer to use.
Margus
About Kiev cameras.
They are one of the best value in MF market, but i wouldn't recommend them. Coz they're shiite mechanical quality. USSR didn't had much quality control you know on factory. They say about 2 from 10 cameras produced are excellent, 5 good and 3 complete shiite.
Lenses are OK. It has Pentacon Six bayonet (acctually, the camera is USSR copy from Pentacon Six
), so it takes Zeiss optics produced in their golden times - Carl Zeiss Jenas with outstanding quality. But the Kiev body may fail you as it has done on me various times and i sent it back to Ukraine for repair or done minor repairs my own, and it can get dissapointing sometimes.I'm just poor student spending most of my hardly earned money on
, so i had no choice but Kiev.But if you do have a bit money, then get yourself a proper Pentax 67, Bronica SQi or GS-1, Rollei 6001/6003/6008 series with handgrips all are EXCELLENT quality cameras, just like made by God himself
. Their lenses are plain excellent, costy, but you'll buy them once in a lifetime.Mamiya and Contax has mostly studio stuff, from 6x4.5 to 6x7. Hasselblad 6x6s is the ultimate studio tool. But without handgrips they're bulky for motorcycle, backback and handheld shooting for me. Also if you want MF in a bit lighter way (coz MF is massive equipment afterall!), considering Pentax 645 is an greate idea too - very good handheld MF camera .
The rest comes in time - what film, lens and technique you prefer to use.
Margus
Scuff
Registered user
Tsiklonaut, I have to say that while you are right that film still has the edge in terms of quality, most people are not pros. Digital allows an immediacy that cannot be had with film. Cost saving is another major issue, no more films to buy and no more D&P costs which will soon cover the extra cost of a digital camera. Photographers can just print out the shots they want, either at home or 'Boots'.
Times are moving on whether we like it or not. Even Nikon has stopped producing compact film cameras.
I have been earning well out of photography for many years. Most of my product shots are not done with the 'small' medium format film, I prefer 5x4 or 10x8. My RZ gear is used for 'snaps' Most agencies are happy to accept digital files from the top digital cameras such as the EOS 1ds mkII. But if the shot is that unrepeatable one of the queen kissing one of her guard - it would be accepted if it was taken on a camera phone!!!
Film will never go away, but for most people digital is a much more sensible option.
I do enjoy my digital darkroom. It's much less smelly and less dark than my old darkroom.
I would prefer people to learn and enjoy photography, and don't really care what kit they use. But if they are just starting up, there is no way I could justify reccomending a film camera, they are swiftly becoming the domain of the Pro with a specific requirement.
Times are moving on whether we like it or not. Even Nikon has stopped producing compact film cameras.
I have been earning well out of photography for many years. Most of my product shots are not done with the 'small' medium format film, I prefer 5x4 or 10x8. My RZ gear is used for 'snaps'
Most agencies are happy to accept digital files from the top digital cameras such as the EOS 1ds mkII. But if the shot is that unrepeatable one of the queen kissing one of her guard - it would be accepted if it was taken on a camera phone!!!Film will never go away, but for most people digital is a much more sensible option.
I do enjoy my digital darkroom. It's much less smelly and less dark than my old darkroom.
I would prefer people to learn and enjoy photography, and don't really care what kit they use. But if they are just starting up, there is no way I could justify reccomending a film camera, they are swiftly becoming the domain of the Pro with a specific requirement.
I couldn't agree more. It's the eyes that do the pic, not the equipment afterall.
It's pointless to search for ultimate quality equipment if having no equivalent use for it...
It's pointless to search for ultimate quality equipment if having no equivalent use for it...
AdyJ
Guest
Scuff said:
At this moment in time it's easy to be swayed by digital and be very dissapointed.
Unfortunately for the enthusiastic first timer, the marketing hook used by all manufacturers of x number of million megapixels is the only hook that persuades many into the digital realm, with ne'er a thought to the quality of the optical component, or the capability of the firmware and processing electronics.
Having cut my teeth with film, I'm very glad that I've had the opportunity to have used film for a good number of years and be able to appreciate the qualities of Fuji Velvia for example as a wonderful film for excellent saturated colours, or a well balanced Kodak slide film, for ace quality, and a learning tool for how *not* to expose a film at the correct speed/aperture.
After playing around with a good number of compact digitals (that I was fortunate enough to not to have bought with work's money!), and to have had reaonable results and appreciated the convenience, I took the jump to digital SLR.
Have I looked back? Yes, to compare. Do I still use film SLR? No.
I have been really happy with the results of my Nikon D100 (by no means cutting edge in 2005!).
With the plethora of excellent digitals (both compact and SLR), within the reach of many, I'd say go digital. If it gets you taking more photographs that you would not have otherwise taken due to not having a film loaded at every possible convenience, then great!
It won't improve your photography,as the camera is not the all.
I still find it intensely annoying when the first question following the viewing of an excellent photograph is 'wow, what camera have you got?'!
It denegrates the skill of the amateur in being able to frame and correctly expose a shot, or even be in the right place at the right time.
Don't know that I'm, going anywhere with this really, so it's not an opinion more than an inane blathering!
For those who may be swayed by the megapixel revolution, and are immediately expecting magical great shots: do not be fooled by a '6 (or more) megapixel camera' from a proported 'leading manufacturer'!
That's quite enough yakking for now...
AdyJ
Guest
AP
For those who are interested, there's quite a good Digital SLR roundup in this weeks Amateur Photographer.
For those who are interested, there's quite a good Digital SLR roundup in this weeks Amateur Photographer.
