Opinions on this please

voltamadan

Hi guys, first thread in this forum-could you give your opinions on this?



its a DSC-F505, and there is a 2nd hand one for a good price (I'll be doing a trade) in a cash-converter. any thoughts on it? I would just be using it for the handiness of a digital camera, (completely amateur) so should i go for a compact one instead? or is the SLR shape worth it?

davej

This probably isn't a bad camera for its day, but it's 5 years old and things have moved on a bit since then i'd wager...

davej

sci0x

What price are you getting it for volta?

rymus

davej wrote:

This probably isn't a bad camera for its day, but it's 5 years old and things have moved on a bit since then i'd wager...

davej

things move on in 5 months with such gadgetry.. While 2.1mp aint exactly the best megapixelage around (what's considered standard now anyway? 3.2? 4?), you could do worse, providing of course youre getting it for a decent price. Nice lens... how much are memory sticks compared to CF/SD/MMC these days?

voltamadan

hey guys, thanks for the feedback. I've checked up on it and yep its pretty old, it came out in 1999. The price is AUD$699 which is app. 400 Euro but I'll talk that down + like I said its a trade (2 bikes/HiFi/Gamecube:**** i need to sell fast!) so I will only be paying about 100/150 euro cash

The one thing I am hesitant on is the 2.1mp-I told that to a guy I know and he was like: oh no way, don't touch it you need at least 3.0. He said it would mean the pictures I print off would be small, but that sounds a little crazy to me. I know this came out when digital cameras just took off, but that can't be right.

So as long as the picture size is fine/clear enough (remember this is completely amateur/pics of nights out/holidays etc) then I think I'll go for it.

So 2.1's not so bad?

thanks again

DotOrg

€400 for a 4 year old camera is madness in my opinion. you could get a much better quality camera for the same price

look at: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=347906&is=REG
for example

DotOrg

or on ebay the highest priced one is currently €40

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30004&item=3837054291&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

K!LL!@N

You're giving up a lot of stuff for a pretty outdated camera.
Definitely don't go giving up any money for it.
If you don't need the things you're swapping well maybe that's not so bad, you're trading stuff you don't want for something you do.
Up to you really.

I still reckon you'd get decent enough pics from that camera, though you could get much better with something newer.
Also, i'd check out the prices for sony memory sticks.

Killian

Jim

Ok, it might still be useable, but think of it about a year down the line. Overpriced doorstop.

rymus

under no circumstances pay anything like 400 quid for that camera. Like Jim said, you'll probably outgrow it within a year and then it'll just be the camera you wasted 400 quid on.

gs39t

I just bought the updated version of that - the F717. 5mp, 5 optical. Certainly no complaints about it. Not sure just how different the old model is though

EDIT: Whoops...disregard - looks the same, i guess there's a 505, 707, 717...

Farmer

I've got the 717 as well from komplett at komplett It's now replaced by the 828. You should really read the review on dpreview.com - bear in mind that it was written when the cam was released - thgen read the review on it's replacements - the 707 and then 717 and see what was fixed with each release.

Shutter lag is greatly improved in the newer versions - I'ld imagine it would be relatively slow on the older cameras and would drive you crazy if you need speed, eg for photographing kids or animals or for rapid continuous shooting

Memory sticks aren't a prob - also from komplett or others-but check if the 505 can read the larger sizes

They are big cameras (great f2 lens) and are somewhat heavy for hauling to the pub or party

If you don't mind the weight, i can recommend the 717 but something more compact, like thw Olympus 750 or 765 might suit better

voltamadan

wow, thanks for all the info guys-The more I read up on this (great links too ) the more it seems I'm getting a raw deal. I'm going up on Sat to have another look-I also found out its the F505V, an updated version with 3.1 mp and thus a year younger. I think me and this shop are going to have a nice long haggle before I do anything. Thanks again! I'll post how I get on

FinoBlad

Just completely off-topic, are you really hung up on a digital camera?
For €400 you'd get a great film camera. Films days look to be numbered, which in my mind is another great reason to buy a film camera. Most labs will give you your shots on CD for a few €s.

K!LL!@N

I think a novice would be mad to go out and spend €400 on a film camera.
Why pay for film when you can get just as good prints from a decent digicam.
Digicams are great for learning.
Take a pic, look at it on the lcd if it's terrible take some more.
Or just go around shooting everything and decide what's good and what's not when you get home.
Then go and decide what's good enough to get printed.
I can't think of anything more frustrating than taking a load of pics on film, getting them developed, finding out they're all crap and having paid for the privilege.

Killian

DotOrg

I can't think of anything more frustrating than taking a load of pics on film, getting them developed, finding out they're all crap and having paid for the privilege.

until a couple of years ago for the past 150 years or so that's what all photographers did and we quite enjoyed it ;-)

FinoBlad

K!LL!@N wrote:

I can't think of anything more frustrating than taking a load of pics on film, getting them developed, finding out they're all crap and having paid for the privilege.

Would you believe a photographer learns more from his bad pictures than from his good ones. True, its frustrating but very rewarding when u get it right and I've seen people learn photography from scratch, some using film more using digital. The digital learners get better results for the first few weeks but after that the film people come on stronger. Some of the greatest photographers never uses auto exposure, autofocus etc.

Dont get me wrong I love digital [i use both] but with a budget of 400 notes that voltamadan has, I couldnt recommend a digital camera if you wanted take up photography.

If you just want snaps from down the pub it doesent matter what you buy really.

K!LL!@N

DotOrg wrote:

until a couple of years ago for the past 150 years or so that's what all photographers did and we quite enjoyed it ;-)

Killian

K!LL!@N

FinoBlad wrote:

Would you believe a photographer learns more from his bad pictures than from his good ones. True, its frustrating but very rewarding when u get it right and I've seen people learn photography from scratch, some using film more using digital. The digital learners get better results for the first few weeks but after that the film people come on stronger. Some of the greatest photographers never uses auto exposure, autofocus etc.

Dont get me wrong I love digital [i use both] but with a budget of 400 notes that voltamadan has, I couldnt recommend a digital camera if you wanted take up photography.

If you just want snaps from down the pub it doesent matter what you buy really.

I agree that a photographer learns more from their bad shots than their good.
That's exactly why i think digital is better.
You can learn from your mistakes without having to pay for the privilege.
For a complete novice surely it's better to be able to go out and take as many shots as they like without having to worry about the cost of film and the cost of getting them developed.
Also the number of shots you can take with digital, without having to lug a bag of film around with you.
You're not really giving any reason why film is better for a beginner?
I do agree that autoexposure and autofocus do take away from the skill.
But there are camera's out there for under €400 that have perfectly good manual settings.
My camera for example, the kodak dx6490, has manual features for everything except focus.
This camera can be gotten for under €400.

Anyway, i'm sorry for hijacking the thread.
Perhaps a discussion about this topic in another thread?

Killian

FinoBlad

I dont think anyone will mind us hijacking!

You're right I havent explained properly, I'm not sure if I can even *scratches head* but i'll try

>surely it's better to be able to go out and take as many shots as they like without having to worry about the cost

Not really, I dont agree or maybe I do up to a point. Digital seems infinite, you can keep shooting, check what you got, delete what ye dont like, carry on. Film sortof forces you to analize more, its more finite, frustrates you if you get it wrong. You get a print of every crapy photograph you've taken. You can lay them down before you, see whats right, whats wrong, see a theme develop. Sometimes i think its like learning to shoot with a machine gun instead of a rifle.
I can go out with my canon 10d with a 1gb card, fill the card. I also have a medium format camera that takes 12 shots on one roll of film. Quality arguments aside, every single time I'll bag better photos with one roll of film. Its just the whole approach. Sorry if this is crap explanation

Also the number of shots you can take with digital, without having to lug a bag of film around with you.
>my camera bag weighs nearly one and a half stone so the film weight is the least of my probs :eek:

K!LL!@N

I do understand what you're saying but i still think digital would be better for a beginner on a limited budget.

You get the money together for the camera, you don't want to have to keep pouring money into just to take the pics.

In a way it's like going out and buying a really nice guitar without any strings and any time you play something on the guitar you have to put on new strings.

Personally the cost has always been a factor in my not getting in to photography sooner.
I was always interested in it, but couldn't afford a decent camera and the constant fillm/development costs.
Now finally i've got a nice digicam, and i can go and get prints of photos i specifically want.
I can still learn from my mistakes, it just doesn't cost me an arm and a leg.

It's also easier for me to learn, because i can come along to somewhere like this and post my pics and get opinions and advice.

I think the frustration of spending money on crap shots would put off a lot of beginners.

Killian

FinoBlad

K!LL!@N wrote:

I think the frustration of spending money on crap shots would put off a lot of beginners

Thankfully it hasnt up to now. I have a darkroom so that keeps the costs down.

BTW there are lots of places for advice, the film people go to
APUG a land where digital barely exists.

Enjoy your photography

K!LL!@N

FinoBlad wrote:

Thankfully it hasnt up to now. I have a darkroom so that keeps the costs down.

BTW there are lots of places for advice, the film people go to
APUG a land where digital barely exists.

Enjoy your photography

See, you have your own dark room.
You're making my point for me.

Killian

FinoBlad

this is going nowhere killian, a film changing bag, a tank and some reels would cost about €50, theres several darkrooms for hire around town, cheap as chips but not for the lazy

SOL

If you want I'll sell you a far better camera for 400 euro, or even better just go in to conns or the camera exchange, it probably eats batteries for breakfast tbh you would be better getting a 4-5 mp and digitally zooming because ccd;s that old will have far more problems, noise etc and new you get a guarantee

Raskolnikov

K!LL!@N wrote:

Why pay for film when you can get just as good prints from a decent digicam.
Digicams are great for learning.
Take a pic, look at it on the lcd if it's terrible take some more.
Or just go around shooting everything and decide what's good and what's not when you get home.
Then go and decide what's good enough to get printed.
I can't think of anything more frustrating than taking a load of pics on film, getting them developed, finding out they're all crap and having paid for the privilege.

That's precisely one of the reasons why learning on a film camera is better. When you've got a film camera you're far less inclined to waste film just shooting any old stuff. As was already pointed out, you might waste lots of film getting to grips with the camera but in the long-run you'll learn more and start producing great photos.

K!LL!@N wrote:

I think a novice would be mad to go out and spend €400 on a film camera.

I spent about €400 on my film camera set-up. An ancient Canon A1 + Grip and Power Winder, a powerful off-shoe flash, tripod, 3 quality prime lenses (by prime, I mean of a fixed focal length rather than a zoom lens) and a bag of assorted films. It'd be a insult to professionals to say that I can take professional-quality photographs, but the quality of the film equipment that I have, means at least I have the capability to come very close to it. My A1 can advance film at 5 fps, 5 AE modes, 1/1000/sec shutter speed and it's built like a tank, they are 30 years old after all. Thanks to my powerful flash, I never get red eye, I can diffuse the flash, rotate and tilt it, bouncing it for softer and harsher light depending on circumstance. Best of all though is the quality of lenses that I have. Because everyone is abandoning the old manual focus and film format I can get some fantastic lenses for half nothing. The optical quality on my lenses is superior to yours, more elements, super-spherical-coating to reduce lens flair, greater contrast, less barrel distortion, vignette, etc, etc.

I dare you to try and find a photographer who uses the Kodak that you use, my A1 on the other hand is still the camera of choice for thousands of professionals out there. If you're looking for a camera to take quick and easy snaps and aren't too worried about the underlying technology of the camera than the lower-mid digital cameras are fine. If you want to learn and DSLR is out of your price-range then film is the best way to go.

voltamadan

ok the results are in. After looking round shops, the net, and all your posts, I've decided to give it a miss. I was looking in places that had lovely little digitals that'd fit in your pocket for miles less money considering all the pros of buying new. I'll just have to wait til I get back to Dublin to buy one-I reckoned with the lense on the 505 I just wouldn't use it enough i.e bringing it out to pubs/on holidays etc. I've also run into some guys who'll probably take all the stuff I have off my hands so that is also good. Thanks for all the info, you've all been very helpful

ps hijacked? more like derailed

adnans

good for you voltamadan.

<deleted by mod>..... digital cameras are great. it's free to take as many photos as you want, they don't take up any space, there are no stinky chemicals, negative binders, contact sheets, or lab fees; there's no dust, darkroom, or expensive paper, and you can easily send your pictures to all your friends.

adnans



<mod>Now, now. Be nice. It's quite possible to get your point across without resorting to insulting people.</mod>

FinoBlad

Great language indeed from a mod!

Samson

FinoBlad wrote:

Great language indeed from a mod!

I personally don't have a problem with the use of bad language. Very few people are offended by bad language per se in this day and age.
However, when used in a offensive/derogatory manner (as above), it has no place in this forum.