photo gear ?

[evaddek]

PHD Hugh
That means a flea can go from my dogs tail to his head in-----well it must be fast!
dave

[evaddek]

RudyRockville MD
Thanks for the good info.I have used supra 100 for a while now. Its hard to find good film now that most photoshops are gone..I order from B&H now and will place order for 200 Kodachrome. I use their mailers also and your right about turnaround. I use a 28-70 f2.8 nikon most of the time for that low light problems.
thanks again dave

[Hugh Jampton]

I done some ciphrin:

At 50 miles an hour a train moves 3 and a half inches in 1/250 of a second.
This is a linear relationship, so it's easy to work out how far a train at any speed will move for any shutter speed.

[M636C]

Jamie,

I think Canon had to produce a camera with the small CCD that had the same lens focal length range as a 35mm camera. They had built a 22-55mm for the APS SLR, but that didn't give the wide angle range they needed. The only way of getting this range without going to a much more complex and expensive lens - the so-called "inverted-telephoto" like the Sigma 19-35 mm which can be used with 35mm but relatively costs much more - was to modify the 22-55mm to have a wider angle. To do this the rear element had to be further back, and the modifying the structure of the Digital Rebel was the easiest and cheapest way. This is only a problem if you have an earlier Digital camera that can't take the lens (and want one). By the way, the 22-55mm is out of production. If anyone has one they don't want, I'll buy it as the next best thing!

Peter

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Evaddek:
To answer your question whether 100 speed film will work on moving trains the answer is it depends. If you are photographing an oncoming train, and if you have enough light (if you are in a desert on a sunny day) then100 speed film will work. After all I have seen photos of moving trains taken with a 64 speed film, and they were clear and sharp. I personally prefer a 200 speed slide film because of its speed and its all-weather capability. I have been using Kodachrome 200 since it first came out in the late 1980's, and I like the color rendition in that it tends to emphasize the red end of the light spectrum. Further, it is not too grainy.

My problem with Kodachrome is processing. Kodak used to have a lab in Rockville, MD which gave me 24 hour turn-around service when they processed Kodachrome film. However, they stopped processing Kodachrome film in Rockville several years ago, sending it to Fairlwn, NJ instead. Kodak closed their Rockville lab nearly 2 years ago, and the turn around time for processing is now 2 weeks regardless whether I send it in themail or drop it off at a nearby camera store.

[jchnhtfd]

Peter -- yeek! why on earth did Canon do that? I wasn't aware of that. What a nuisance. And one does need a pretty wide angle for cab interiors and those loco terminals where there always seems to be a wall or inspection pit of some durn thing in the way!

[M636C]

A note for Jamie:

The 18 -55 lens that is shipped with the Digital Rebel (EOS 300D) has a rear element that prevents it fitting any other Canon camera made so far. All 35mm lenses, and lenses for Canon APS EOS cameras will fit the digital cameras. I find that 28mm gives a wide enough view for normal purposes, but is a bit lacking for cab interiors and really dire situations in locomotive terminals.

Peter

[Big_Boy_4005]

Gee Mudchicken, I run out of memory before I run out of batteries.

I only have one card, and no laptop to download to. I don't usually dump bad shots because the small screen is kind of hard to see in certain lighting conditions, and I might have caught something good.

For the cost of porcessing 3 rolls of 36, I can get another card. My trips are always short, usually a couple of hours max, and 50 miles or less.

I'm really starting to fall in love with my digital. Its light, small, quick, easy and cheap, and I can crop the output the way I want when I get home. I can save it forever on CD or even share it with everyone in less time than it takes to process a roll of film.[:D]

P.S. This is my 800th post! [:)]

[Anonymous]

A Minolta 370 w/ 50mm
A Canon Rebel 2000 w/ 28-80mm zoom
lens for the Minolta: 28-70mm zoom, 135mm, 75-205mm zoom.
And Kodachrome 64 all the time, yet i have also tried Kodaks Elite-Crome 200, not bad but not as good as the K64
-justin franz

[Modelcar]

Thanks for the info Jamie....and as for prints, for my own personal use...print film prints are going to last as long as I will...maybe longer.

[mudchicken]

evaddek:

As long as you have sufficient light and can bum the f-stop up to 1/250 sec or better, you are OK...faster film only starts to loose detail as it gets "grainy".....

This old dinosaur keeps a digital (Minolta Dimage S414)with him at all times (work or play), but still shoots Kodachrome 64 slide film when out 'fanning so that I can keep it & recover it years from now using a Minolta X-700/XGM with 35-70 & 35-200 lenses and a motor-drive film eater. Digitals are nice, but they all go thru batteries faster than Sherman marched to the sea....

Personal opinion: print film won't last as long and is a waste of $$$ in this day and age. If you want prints, lots of them and fast -go digital. If you want quality and long life, think Kodachrome slides....Ed. Jamie, Joe & Dome all have very valid points.

[evaddek]

I'm still a film user (love that smell) and use 100 speed all the time ,I'm wondering if this will work on moving trains or should use something faster? 100 works great on 1000ft. lake freighters! I have had a digital nikon for two years and have used it two or three times but just don,t like the results.

[jchnhtfd]

I think the digital Rebel has the small chip... let me go find out... yup. Small chip. All Canon lenses fit all Canon bodies, however. However, the apparent effective focal length in terms of image size is the same as a lens with a focal length 1.6 times that of the focal length shown (that is, the image coverage on the digital Rebel -- which is a magnificent camera, by the way) is less than what you would get with the same lens on a regular Rebel. A digital Rebel using a 30 mm 'wide angle' will produce the same image as a standard 35 mm camera using a 50 mm 'normal' lens.

Note that I put 'normal' in quotes -- what is 'normal' for a 35 mm is, for example, a whacking great telephoto for, say, a Minox -- but would be a superwide for, say, a Rollei or Hasselblad.

what's normal?

[Modelcar]

....Can't one use his normal 35mm lenses from film Cannon cameras over on the new Cannon Digital Rebel...? Including wide angle....

[jchnhtfd]

Domefoamer -- quite right about the lack of ultra-wide and wide angle lenses for high end digital; in fact, the problem is worse than it seems at first, since almost all high end digital cameras use a chip smaller than a 'standard' 35mm size, and so the effective focal length of any lens attached needs to be multiplied by 1.6 or thereabouts (that is, a 100 mm lens shoots like a 160). Help is on the way, at the very top end of top end digital, with chips coming from Canon and Nikon which are about the same size and aspect ratio as the 'standard' 35mm size. But you don't even WANT to know what they cost...

[domefoamer]

The best camera is the one most enjoyable to use, because you will use it more often. So rrnut282 and I would bring out our old Olympi and savor the precise light meters and wonderfully bright viewfinders of our OMs. But wait, the best camera is the one you actually use the most! Given the price of shooting film in serious quantity, as successful pros have always done, that means digital is best. Especially for techniques like panning, where instant feedback via review helps you find the right balance of motion and shutter speed. But there's one huge problem remaining with digital-- the lack of wide-angle lenses.
Most of my train photos aren't run-bys. I shoot while riding on the train. A few years ago, when I had an opportunity for a cab ride aboard an F7 through the Royal Gorge, I decided it was time to buy my first new camera in years. It remains my one indespensable shootin' iron on any train ride: the Voigtlander Bessa, with 15mm Color Heliar.
For $400 new, you get a bare-bones plastic box with shutter and light meter. Not even a rangefinder! But it gets better. This camera's worth is justfied mostly by the Leica thread carved inside its lens mount. The 15mm Heliar (Japanese) is far cheaper than the Leica equivalent, and Popular Photographer called the Heliar the best ultrawide lens they'd ever tested (Circa 1994). Attach a matched viewfinder to the body to frame your shots, or not. I find the width of my eyeglasses works pretty well to define the width of the shot. At such a short focal length, focus is rarely an issue. Good thing, since you must approximate and set the distances. The lens has none of the light falloff at the edges that plague other ultrawides. It's so sharp that you can easliy crop out enlargements to match 20mm or 24mm lengths. Biggest handicap is, it's hard to use filters, but it can be done. I suppose it may be the last film camera I still use, someday...

[jchnhtfd]

Got to admit if I had to have just one camera now, I'd use my Canon A70 -- and do; it's small enough to go in a coat pocket (where it rides most of the time!). The rest of the gear is nice to have -- but as Ed said up there, you can have the best gear in the world, and if you don't have the 'eye', it's just expensive paper weights -- and some really fabulous pictures have been taken with very very simple cameras. By way of excuse, we have the fancy stuff because my son is a theatrical photographer (pro), among other things -- and he 'loans' me his obsolete gear!

[Nora]

We recently got a Minolta Dimage A1 digital camera (& Ed, thanks for the info about your camera a couple months back, it helped us in making our choice). I really like it, I've been playing around with it a lot trying to learn everything it does. Although at the rate I'm going I'll need a new hard drive or an awful lot of CDs before too long.

--Nora

[rrnut282]

I still use my Olympus OM-4T with its spot meter and through-the-lens flash metering system to get just the exposure I want, not what some chip programmer thinks I should use. I use it with a 50mm F1.2, a 28-85mm and 80-200mm zooms. Until I find an affordable digital with most of these features, I'll still use film.

[Modelcar]

....Great pic's John. I like the way one can see the grade change on the other side of the bridge.

[Anonymous]

I use a Hewlett-Packard Photosmart 945. This is a 5.3 Megapixel camera, built in 300mm zoom, and while it isn't a SLR, with an adapter, it will accept additional glasses on top of its own, plus telophoto lenses. It also has an adjustable shutter speed (16 - 1/2000 sec.), aperature (F2.8 - F11.3), and film speed (100, 200, 400). Shoots in full color, black and white, and sepia.

Here are some of my recent photos.
To see more of my photos click on the link:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=2955

Click on either photo to see a larger version.

[Wdlgln005]

Have you seen any of the Mars photos? The rovers carry a 1MP camera! What is needed is a quality lens with a sharp focus. For railfans, a high shutter is needed for moving equipment, or fast adjustments for slower or static subjects. For model work, you need a macro capable of copying a business card. Depth of field becomes important.

[Modelcar]

...Big Boy: how about some tips on how to install a photo on the forum here as you did above....and again, that really is a nice one...

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I still have 2 Pentax K 1000, 35 mm, SLR bodies and an f/2, 50 mm lens. I recently bought 2 Pentax ZX-50 bodies, a Pentax 35 - 80mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 zoom lens, which is auto focus, and I kept my 70 - 210 mm Tokina Zoom lens from the K - 1000's. I also bought a Pentax 50 mm f/2 autofocus lens for one of the ZX 50 cameras, and I use it as a "rainy day" lens when I need more light. I also have a Sony Hi 8 camcorder which I use to videotape trains at the same time I photograph them with my 35 mm cameras.

[Modelcar]

....How true Ed....and Big Boy, that's a real nice shot. I would think it took some doing to keep the snow from upsetting the lens opening. and making the pic dark. [8D]

[edblysard]

Funny, reading through all these post, I realized we have mentioned equipment that, if we totaled it all up, would be over 10 grand...
I used to sell cameras for a dept store.
One day, back in the late 70s, a young man came in to pick up his photos.
I was looking through them with him, some fantastic shots of a motorcross race, the shots looked as if he was standing at the bottom of one of the jumps, with the racers airborn just coming off the top off the hill, doing cross ups and one handed jumps.
I asked him what camera he used, expecting him to have some really nice stuff, and one heck of a telephoto lens.
He told me I wouldnt believe him, but he used a Kodak 110.
No way, he would have to be standing in the track to get those shots, and a 110 dosnt take any other lenses.
He went to his car, and returned with a broom handle, that had a old shelf bracket on one end, and a junk accelerater cable off a motorcycle taped to it length wise, running down the handle.
The 110 screwed on the bracket, and the cable tripped the shutter button.
The thing was held together with duct tape and wood screws.
He would stand on the sideline, and when the racers were coming up the hill, he would stick the broom handle out in the track, and hit the shutter just as they crested the hill, guessing at where to point.
It worked, really well in fact, he ended up selling quite a few of his photos to a local motorcross shop for their calander.

Moral of the story?
You can own $4500.00 worth of Nikon 35mm, and still take just snapshots, or $29.00 worth of Kodak 110 and a free broom handle and take sellable photos.
I guess it would be that it really dosnt matter what the equipment cost, or how many do-dads, bells and whistles are on the camera, it all boils down to the person behind the viewfinder, and how they approach taking the photos they want.

Ed

[JoeKoh]

I have a pentax 35 mm zoom. it works for now. want to get a digital when I can.
stay safe
Joe

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by talbanese

Holy Cow!!! Nice equipment!! I just use a Kodak DX3900 Digital camera. It's 3.1 Mp. I use Adobe Photoshop Elements to edit the photo as well as create fast web galleries.

I can't afford the super cameras.

I have the DX4330 model, also a 3.1 Mp but with a 10x zoom. I use an ancient copy of Corel Photohouse to crop and resize images for posting.

I haven't used my old Minolta since, though I have a lot of different lenses for it. I know that I can order CD's when I get the film developed, but digital is much quicker, cheaper and easier than film.

Here's one that I took recently with the digital. By the way, once cropped and compressed, this image is only 51.2K bytes on the web. Click on it to enlarge it![:)]

[evaddek]

thank you for the quick replys.
Its nice to see a few people still use film!
I have tried digital cameras but find my results are just not the same.
the old dog new tricks thing.
thanks again
dave