Camera suggestions for RR pics

On 11/8/2007 12:49 PM Steve Caple spake thus:


Correct; for 35mm, a lens wouldn't be considered to be a fisheye until it was down around 10mm or so. 36mm very slightly wide-angle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Good evening Steve;

True, at best it would be a moderate wide angle equivalency. A fisheye is minimum 16mm, the more expensive would be 7 to 8. At least in the Rokkor lens lineup produced by Minolta.
Cheers, John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

lens lineup produced by Minolta.<
Do they still make Rokkor lens. Minolta is now combined with Konica, as in Konica Minolta so was just curious. Rokkor lens used to be one of the best!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jon Miller wrote:

Konica/Minolta has gone bye-bye in the camera market.
--
Jack N2MPU
Proud NRA Life Member
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/10/2007 11:00 AM Jack spake thus:

>

Yes, we know that. The question remains, what happened to Minolta's manufacturing operations: are they still running under a different name? Is the factory that made Rokkor optics still operating?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How long ago. As I have all these neat Minolta lens I checked with Best Buy a year or so ago about a digital Minolta body and they looked it up and quoted around $1500.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That would be what is referred to as NOS (new old stock). K/M hasn't made anything new in at least two years. I believe Sony inherited the technology and assets. Depending on how old your old Minolta lenses are, they may not work with a digital body. What Best Buy told you was something they have left in their stock they can't get rid of. If you do buy it, don't be surprised if you need some form of support for it and can't get it, at least not from the manufacturer.
--
Jack N2MPU
Proud NRA Life Member
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Good evening Jon;

To my knowledge, Minolta ceased producing the Rokkor lens lineup years ago. I can't recall which name their auto focus lenses were produced under.
When considering purchasing a digital SLR, Minolta was my first choice. Unfortunately, their cameras were too expensive.
Cheers, John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: : Do they still make Rokkor lens. Minolta is now combined with Konica, as : in Konica Minolta so was just curious. Rokkor lens used to be one of the : best! :     Two years ago, I believe it was, Konica-Minolta transferred their camera operations technology to Sony.
    Sony is not doing anything with film cameras, and certainly not the old Minolta MF technology.
                            Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Canon S2 (and I assume the S3/S5) will focus down to 0cm - 10cm in Super Macro mode! In fact the instruction book has a warning to be careful not to damage the lens when shooting Super Macro mode. This is also another reason to use an adaptor & UV filter... because unlike with an SLR once the lens is scratched you're SOL.
Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Good afternoon Doug;
wrote:

Some of those SLR lenses weren't cheap either, and I for one couldn't afford to replace too many. I like to use a Skylight 1A filter for lens protection.
The S2/S3 series seems a good choice of camera for wide angle and some close-up photography. It may be all the OP needs. I used close-up lens filters; more flexible and cheaper to replace if they get damaged. A nice feature of the filters is they could be used on any lens of their diameter as distance can be a good thing if personal safety is a concern.
Many years ago I purchased an assortment of lenses ranging from a 16mm fisheye, 50mm, 135mm, a 400mm telephoto, a doubler, as well as the set of close-up filters. Unfortunately, I now have a house, wife, cat and computer to support. :(
Cheers, John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: : Here's how I explained it to someone I'm working for, who expressed to : me that maybe the Canon 3.2 MP camera we were using wasn't good enough : and that we might need, say, a 16 MP camera. :     That is only part of it as well. The point where "more MP" is silly is when you have more MP than your lens is able to resolve.
    Most quality 35mm lenses can resolve somewhere around 200 lines/ mm. So, it would make sense that you do not need more than 200 pixels per mm on your CCD, either.
    Given the CCD's in use today, that is somewhere around 10 - 12 MP. : : I took him over to the : screen of his iMac and asked him how many megapixels he thought the : display was; after discovering that the screen resolution was set to : 1440x900, this was found to be ~1.3 MP. :     If you are going to shoot photos for a web site, then you do not need a lot of MP, certainly.
    If you are going to make enlargements, or want to enlarge just a portion of the image, then it is helpful to have the additional resolution.
    What is of most interest to me is the maximum frames/second that I can shoot. Most 35mm "pro" level film cameras could do 5 - 6 frames/second, which means you could go through a roll of 36 exposure film in 6 - 7 seconds. That got expensive...
    Digital SLR cameras are now at that level today, for around $1500.00, body only. And up, of course. Now, sustaining that kind of speed is still problematic. Most DSLR's only deliver that kind of frames/second using JPEG images, which is an inheritantly "lossy" format. So, if you want to shoot for enlargements or to enlarge just a section of the image, you are back to losing data before you can start working with it...
    You can shoot RAW, which basically takes the sensor data and shoves it into a quasi-standard (each camera maker has a different idea of how their RAW images are formatted to storage, but they more or less follow the same principals. Sorta. Basically). However, you are moving a lot more data to storage, and eventually, you will fill your storage buffer, and have to stop shooting at a high frame rate. The key for me is how quickly that storage buffer is cleared. Newer cameras can write the data faster, but there are still hardware limitations.
    As for how long does it take an AF camera to focus, that depends on the camera. Most DSLR cameras today have some kind of predictive AF mode, which calculates where a subject will be when the shutter is released. This technology was first marketed by Minolta, who sold their camera technology to Sony. Point & shoot cameras, you probably have no such luck. You also need to consider how long it takes a camera to "wake up" from a power conserving mode. Again, newer DSLR are going to tend to be faster than their older counterparts. Nothing like missing a shot because the camera was fondling itself...
    As for myself, I shoot Minolta (now Sony) DSLR's. I moved from Minolta MF bodies to the 2nd gen. AF body when Canon was thrashing around trying to get an AF camera to work even half way well, and Nikon was still thinking that AF was a passing fad. When it came to digital, however, Minolta was asleep at the wheel. Their first DSLR was a frankenstein of a mid-grade consumer AF body with an electronics package grafted (ungracefully) to the AF body. But, at 1.75 MP, it was fine for photos on a web site, and it preserved my $$$$ AF lens collection. Minolta eventually re-entered the DSLR market with a poor effort, and exited the photography business completely, which is where Sony comes in. Sony recently introduced a DSLR body that lives up to the Minolta AF legacy, and is what Minolta should have done before they took their ball and went home. In the meanwhile, of course, Canon and Nikon ate Minolta's lunch in terms of market share.
                                Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Hmmm... I wonder how much those pictures were doctored up with some good image manipulation software like PhotoShop or PaintShopPro? With the software that is available today, it is often pretty easy to make a lousy shot acceptable and a good shot great.
When MR first had digitally enhanced photos in their annual photo contest, I was a loud opponent of the practice. Not only was it difficult to distinguish between the modeler's efforts and the photographer's manipulations, it was equally difficult to decide what was even a model and what was real. While I don't think that kind of stuff belongs in a model photo contest, it can be used to your advantage in editing images for other use.
dlm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:07:23 -0500, Dan Merkel wrote:

Dye-sub printers do wonders for photos, too.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Frank A. Rosenbaum wrote:

I'm coming into this discussion late, sorry - but I just found this group (I have a question about identifying an old HO engine - but I'll post that in it's own topic).
Your most important feature almost eliminates everything under $1000 for a "full setup"... The really fast cameras are past that amount. If you truly can't live without no delay - then up your budget and get one of the really fast cameras. Otherwise you need to decide what compromise you can live with between a delay and your budget. Some of the faster focusing cameras below $1000 are - unfortunately - no longer made - as Konica/Minolta sold out to Sony - and Sony is only using Minolta's incredibly fast focus system (and other technology) in it's upper-end DSLR-series --- but alas they are way out of your budget ( the low end body alone is near your budget- with lenses and accessories - it puts it way up there).
However - having said that - there are still some Konica/Minoltas available that - while not "instant" can focus and shoot in under a second and often much faster - which -- with a little practice - renders most shots as desired. I have a low end model... very old and available for a tenth of your budget (used - the e-place) - which is a Minolta DiMAGE Z1. The Z5 is far nicer - faster, image stabilization, and more - and I saw a nice one recently (again on the e-place) for less than half your budget.
One can talk about cameras all day - the proof is in the pudding... as they say. The top 2/3 of this page was taken recently with my Z1. The bottom photos (LORAM maintenance train) taken years ago with a film camera. BTW - the video clips were also taken by the Z1.
As you can see - many different conditions, etc. even moving trains at night and ALL HANDHELD - no tripod....
http://www.glimpsesofmeridian.com
just my .02...
best regards...
--
randy guttery

A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Randy or Sherry Guttery wrote:

One additional note about these photos - they are somewhat heavily compressed jpgs - down to 20% file size of original... and presented on the page at 72dpi i.e. 675 x 900-- The originals are 2048x1536 so even an enlargement to 8 X 10 is 192dpi - and with a good printer (Epson Photo R series or such) the image quality is quite good - you need a magnifying glass under good light to see the pixels. I just didn't want someone to think the images on the glimpses page were the full quality of the camera...
best regards...
--
randy guttery

A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:28:02 -0600, Randy or Sherry Guttery

You can also go with the Minolta Z-2. Granted the Z-1 is a 3.2 MP and the Z-2 is a 4.0 MP, a little low compared to the latest greatest, but we have been happy with our Z-1, with one exception which is why I think the Z-2 is better. On the Z-1 the switching between the viewfinder and the back LCD screen is mechanical and has broken three times on our camera (repaired twice on warranty) which does not get abused at all. My camera dealer says this is common to the Z-1. The Z-2 which is almost identical except for being a 4.0 MP switches electronically which is would be my choice between the two if you can find one. BTW Sony now does the repairs.
http://ca.konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/digital_camera/dimage/dimage-z2/index.html

--

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement
of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mountain Goat wrote:

Agreed, and that's my point - if you want performance on a budget - it can be found IF you know what to look for. Sorry to hear about the problem with your Z1 - I guess I've been lucky - it has been *well* used for many years (having had several Minolta film cameras and as tough as they are - I've not been all that gentle with the Z1...

I know they were - I wasn't sure they still are (for cameras as old as the Z1). It's getting harder and harder to find parts for my XD-11 (anyone have an extra take-up spool?) - much less my SRT-101 (batteries) (grin!)...
best regards...
--
randy guttery

A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Try Radio Shack for the batteries - I can still get them for my 101 there (which I don't use much anymore as I've gone digital with a Canon EOS SLR).
--
Jack N2MPU
Proud NRA Life Member
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/22/2007 7:08 AM Jack spake thus:

Better yet, try a *real* camera store. No, I'm not talking about Ritz, or Wolf, or any of those type places; I mean a real photo shop, one that still carries film (remember that stuff).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.