BitWrangler wrote on 2023-11-12, 17:40:

This though... sell a kidney now in case there's one production run ever? wait for original price to slide down a bit? wait for knockoffs? https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/samellos/im-back-film

Micro 4/3 sensor plus a frontal 0.45 wide angle? No thanks. I love the idea though. There have been previous hoaxes about this kind of thing apparently. When I finally got into digital (c. 2015/16) I was disappointed this had never been done as Amateur Photographer ran articles about pretty much this back in the late 90s iirc. I honestly thought it must already exist (in FF form). And anyway, you'd have a new sensor in an old mechanical camera. Service guys are getting old and retiring etc.

I would say, forget this and get a secondhand Sony A7 series, some a remarkably cheap now. Short flange distance, adapters exist for a vast range of old (film era) lens mounts. Then you get a real FF sensor and all the gubbins.

But hey, it's your money and you have to do what gets you going =)

Edit: Just seen it's only £580... 🤣.... quite tempted just for a giggle tbh

I took lots of shots over the year so I know what I'm getting and slowly learning about the settings.

The cams I just bought can take either EF or EF-S lens so this is a bonus. One of the cameras I bought off ebay is a kit was described as non-working is EOS 40D has the 15-55mm lens and battery charger which are compatible with EOS 50D which I also bought, described working.

Panasonic can keep theirs. I have two cams despite are compact with some zoom, cannot handle indoors on macro too well and need so much light that glare is a problem, and not sharp even when they were new and when shot normally, looks cheap. And shutter is slow no matter what forcing you to hold it very steady. No better than average film camera and one of model of mine was $350 when new. I had looked through the panansonic models on wiki. Even it is incomplete, confusing models, their segmentation is too extreme and so many models. Goes like this for Panasonics you want good one, you have to gonna spend over 400 while the even better ones shot to atmospheric price. While the sub 350 dollar ones is no better than anything else. That is for 2012 or older models.
The FZ-1000 is bridge cam but costs way too much for a old model from 400 to 600 for a fixed lens camera, does not make sense, even I can find good price on Canon SX60 HS for bit less.

I know this as my decreased father had a Nikon with decent lens were pretty decent and my brother is into good cameras too.

Cheers,

ratfink wrote on 2023-11-12, 19:26:

Micro 4/3 sensor plus a frontal 0.45 wide angle? No thanks. I love the idea though. There have been previous hoaxes about thi […]
Show full quote

BitWrangler wrote on 2023-11-12, 17:40:

This though... sell a kidney now in case there's one production run ever? wait for original price to slide down a bit? wait for knockoffs? https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/samellos/im-back-film

Micro 4/3 sensor plus a frontal 0.45 wide angle? No thanks. I love the idea though. There have been previous hoaxes about this kind of thing apparently. When I finally got into digital (c. 2015/16) I was disappointed this had never been done as Amateur Photographer ran articles about pretty much this back in the late 90s iirc. I honestly thought it must already exist (in FF form). And anyway, you'd have a new sensor in an old mechanical camera. Service guys are getting old and retiring etc.

I would say, forget this and get a secondhand Sony A7 series, some a remarkably cheap now. Short flange distance, adapters exist for a vast range of old (film era) lens mounts. Then you get a real FF sensor and all the gubbins.

But hey, it's your money and you have to do what gets you going =)

Sony A7 is nice but not affordable. Starts at 500 CDN and up.

Cheers,

I'm looking at an A6500 or similar APS-C E-mount body eventually.

I have an A6000, a Metabones V adapter and some EF/EF-S lenses, but the A6000's AF does not play nice with the adapter. I also have a Viltrox EF-NEX IV wich is actually better than the Metabones on or two lenses, but not the point of being consistently usable. Focus peaking on an EVF is meh for me (though much better than nothing) and it's not like I can fit a split prism focusing screen on a mirrorless camera 😉 .

pentiumspeed wrote on 2023-11-12, 19:58:

Sony A7 is nice but not affordable. Starts at 500 CDN and up.

Cheers,

Sure, I wasn't responding to you - for that I suggest looking at Olympus EM5II with 14-150 lens, seemed to tick a lot of your boxes.

I was suggesting the A7 (can be obtained here in the UK for about £300) as a better alternative to the kickstarter that was linked above.

Good luck whatever you decide 😉

Ohh, I see!

Cheers,

pentiumspeed wrote on 2023-11-12, 19:30:

The FZ-1000 is bridge cam but costs way too much for a old model from 400 to 600 for a fixed lens camera, does not make sense, even I can find good price on Canon SX60 HS for bit less.

Canon SX60 HS is a good bridge camera but is not on par with FZ1000: the sensor (1/2.3", 6.17 x 4.55 mm) is only a quarter in area of the latter (1", 13.2 x 8.8 mm). Canon's response to FZ1000 was G3 X but the aperture is a stop slower in the telephoto end (5.6 vs. 4).

Panasonic FZ1000 (and its Mark II) is the second best bridge camera series one can buy with a reasonable price; I had been using it from Jan 2016 to Oct 2022. Sony RX10 Mark IV is THE best, with longer reach, sharper lens, and -- most important -- on-sensor phase detection focusing, but it has been and still is priced at ~US$1600, which is hefty, if not outrageous.

Then one day I spotted an used RX10M4 with original box and all accessories, plus a battery charger (the battery can be charged in-body and during shooting so the charger is optional and not included in the box), for 45% less than MSRP. I rushed to the store (which I frequent a lot) the next morning when it opened and, after inspection, grabbed it in no time.

Gave the FZ1000 to my Mom, but she basically stopped traveling after COVID pandemic and the death of my maternal grandmother so the camera is still in box for a year or so.

I already purchased EOS series cameras, one of them uses EF, and other two uses EF-S to play with.

But need to find either EF or EF-S lens for macro or buy another decent daily camera, aka "bridge camera" or something else.

Macro pictures. At work and at home I take lot of macro pictures that has items that is about 1cm to 10cm across.

Definitely no compact cameras even with zoom this time, since I knew what they are capable of since I own two, both worn out from use.

Cheers,

I don't know anything about photography, and I am content to stick with my phone's camera, but since people in this thread know about the subject, then can anyone tell me how close we are to having idiot-proof cameras? I mean cameras where you don't need to understand and alter any settings or functions to compensate for whatever light/shadow/flare/ambience/exposure/etc conditions, and instead you just point the camera at where you are looking, press the button, and the resulting image looks like how the scene looked to your eyes at the moment you took the picture.

For example, when I try to take a night picture of the sky, then the moon and stars end up looking *much* less clear in the my photo s than they did to my eyes. This happened a while ago (during a Lunar eclipse, or something), and then a few months back when someone was shooting green lights into the sky. Trying to photograph rainbows during the day never seems to work well, either.

And yes, I could just read up on a guide to photography, but as I say, I'm not too bothered. I'm just curious as to how far we are from cameras that can capture a 1:1 image of what your eyes are seeing, without needing any camera-adjustments by the user first.

The human retina, when dark adjusted can pick out a single photon, camera sensors lose single photons in thermal noise, unless you do a long enough exposure that that one spot where a single photon keeps appearing gets brighter than the rest. So that part is still to come. The rest though, phone cameras are kinda close.

What you need is this:

https://bjoernkarmann.dk/project/paragraphica

Kerr Avon wrote on 2023-11-13, 21:14:

And yes, I could just read up on a guide to photography, but as I say, I'm not too bothered. I'm just curious as to how far we are from cameras that can capture a 1:1 image of what your eyes are seeing, without needing any camera-adjustments by the user first.

What you "see" is actually heavily post-processed (i.e. "Photoshopped") by YOUR BRAIN.

Funny.

I picked up 4 digital cameras from ebay. Rebel XT and EOS 50D both have compact flash pins bent, The donor 40D comes with 18-55mm lens and battery, and charger, manual, camera bag and cool thing, works! Which I'll use battery and lens for 50D. Cheaper this way.

The high end full frame 1Ds body needs some goodies but can wait.

Like watch, yes my hobby too, lots of screws and parts, and expert at soldering because this is my hobby and main job, was TV tech now Cell phone and consoles repair, this will not be a problem for me.

I now want to get a EF-S and EF macro lens about a inch to 5 inches from subject. What do you recommend, even with bellows for macro?
Related to macro thing; Long ago, around 2004-5, when I was shopping for my first digital camera for upcoming travel, was at camera shop showed me ways to get stuff inexpensively. Yes I did buy a proconsumer zoom camera there and served me well.

The inspiration came from my decreased father who had a SLR film camera with decent lens. My brother had been into cameras and even had a full frame camera (large format I think 4x5) once, also and developed films and pictures.

Cheers,

BitWrangler wrote on 2023-11-13, 21:33:

The human retina, when dark adjusted can pick out a single photon, camera sensors lose single photons in thermal noise, unless you do a long enough exposure that that one spot where a single photon keeps appearing gets brighter than the rest. So that part is still to come. The rest though, phone cameras are kinda close.

I didn't know that the eye was so sensitive, that is amazing. I do know that some creatures have much better eyesight than humans, sight is a fascinating topic.

ratfink wrote on 2023-11-13, 23:09:

What you need is this:

https://bjoernkarmann.dk/project/paragraphica

That is interesting (though it looks like something from a bad episode of Doctor Who!), thanks.

dormcat wrote on 2023-11-14, 05:04:

Kerr Avon wrote on 2023-11-13, 21:14:

And yes, I could just read up on a guide to photography, but as I say, I'm not too bothered. I'm just curious as to how far we are from cameras that can capture a 1:1 image of what your eyes are seeing, without needing any camera-adjustments by the user first.

What you "see" is actually heavily post-processed (i.e. "Photoshopped") by YOUR BRAIN.

Ah, that does make sense. Thanks.