Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

"harry" wrote in message
...

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

If you are really good at taking photos it would be worth a lot.
So, probably next to not a lot.

Chuckle, so how is it nobody sells a kit that fits in like a film but with
a digital array instead of the film?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Richard" wrote in message
news
"harry" wrote in message
...

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

If you are really good at taking photos it would be worth a lot.
So, probably next to not a lot.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:56:47 +0000, Brian Gaff wrote:

Chuckle, so how is it nobody sells a kit that fits in like a film but
with a digital array instead of the film?
Brian

Hasselblad do, but it's *very* expensive.

But they are large format cameras, not normally sized 35 mm ones.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:56:47 +0000, Brian Gaff wrote:

Chuckle, so how is it nobody sells a kit that fits in like a film but
with a digital array instead of the film?
Brian

Hasselblad do, but it's *very* expensive.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 20:21:26 +0000, Brian Gaff wrote:

But they are large format cameras, not normally sized 35 mm ones.
Brian

Nope. Medium (6cm x 6cm)

On 23/11/2016 17:56, Brian Gaff wrote:

Chuckle, so how is it nobody sells a kit that fits in like a film but with
a digital array instead of the film?

There have apparently be a few attempts at doing a kind of digital film
replacement unit, but has usually turned out to have a number of
unexpected difficulties and complications getting it to work in a
variety of cameras. One of the first problems to deal with is the
spacing between where the film can goes and where the sensor needs to be
is not a standard distance. Then there is the need to provide feedback
to the film advance detection systems that count sprocket holes etc -
again with sensors in a variety of places. Then there is the difficulty
of keeping the sensor clean.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

I'd have thought that adjustments would be needed only once, and that would
be that. OK you would need some access if you wanted to get the memory card
out of course, but apart from the inconvenience of no display, something we
never had before digital anyway, its a minor issue I'd have thought.
Software could make the response film like, that only leaves the wind on
problem. Does this really affect anything?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/11/2016 17:56, Brian Gaff wrote:

Chuckle, so how is it nobody sells a kit that fits in like a film but
with
a digital array instead of the film?

There have apparently be a few attempts at doing a kind of digital film
replacement unit, but has usually turned out to have a number of
unexpected difficulties and complications getting it to work in a variety
of cameras. One of the first problems to deal with is the spacing between
where the film can goes and where the sensor needs to be is not a standard
distance. Then there is the need to provide feedback to the film advance
detection systems that count sprocket holes etc - again with sensors in a
variety of places. Then there is the difficulty of keeping the sensor
clean.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 23/11/2016 20:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd have thought that adjustments would be needed only once, and that would
be that. OK you would need some access if you wanted to get the memory card
out of course, but apart from the inconvenience of no display, something we
never had before digital anyway, its a minor issue I'd have thought.
Software could make the response film like, that only leaves the wind on
problem. Does this really affect anything?

It does with the motor wind built into lots of the more recent film SLRs.

The reality is you would probably have to build multiple models to fit
various cameras, and even then you would not get all the features of a
true digital camera like being able to check and review what you have
just taken immediately. (although a wireless link to a phone could make
up for some of the limitations and actually add some capabilities the
digital SLRs don't have like a remote viewfinder)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 23/11/16 20:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'd have thought that adjustments would be needed only once, and that would
be that. OK you would need some access if you wanted to get the memory card
out of course, but apart from the inconvenience of no display, something we
never had before digital anyway, its a minor issue I'd have thought.
Software could make the response film like, that only leaves the wind on
problem. Does this really affect anything?
Brian

The game is not worth the candle. You can now pick up a digital body
that way outperforms a film camera for a couple of hundred, and a £100
lens today outperforms a £1000 one of 20 years ago.


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 23/11/2016 17:41, Richard wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

If you are really good at taking photos it would be worth a lot.
So, probably next to not a lot.


I had several Canon cameras ... you could change the back for a 'data
back' allowing you to superimpose numbers & text onto negative as pic taken.

Feasible to evolve that to a fullframe digital sensor ... but why would
you want it ?
Camera software has come on amazingly since 35mm days, to get that you
need more modern lenses and the new electronic bodies - so market to
sell 'digital' conversion is very very small.

Plus manufacturers have a vested interest in selling new product - they
would rather you buy a new camera.

On 23/11/2016 17:26, harry wrote:
Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

The lens is probably worth more than the camera body as long as it hasnt
got a lot of dirt or worse still fungus in it.
Check eBay for what they are fetching.
I sell 35mm cameras and lenses regularly in my local charity shop or on
eBay. Nikon lenses are always in demand but there is a good niche market
for most (not APS) film cameras and 35mm, 120, 127 and even 110 film is
available.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 7:17:21 PM UTC, Robert wrote:
On 23/11/2016 17:26, harry wrote:
Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

The lens is probably worth more than the camera body as long as it hasnt
got a lot of dirt or worse still fungus in it.
Check eBay for what they are fetching.
I sell 35mm cameras and lenses regularly in my local charity shop or on
eBay. Nikon lenses are always in demand but there is a good niche market
for most (not APS) film cameras and 35mm, 120, 127 and even 110 film is
available.

I was curious to see if you can still get APS film - no; discontinued in 2011, although there are still labs who will print from them.

APS always seemed like a solution to a non-existent problem; a bit like the MiniDisk. The panorama mode was really rubbish, just a very severe crop of a single frame.

In article ,
Halmyre wrote:
APS always seemed like a solution to a non-existent problem; a bit like
the MiniDisk.

Eh? Minidisc was brilliant. For certain things. Mainly pro or semi pro
use, as well as replacing the cassette.

--
*Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote:

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay.
These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography
students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing
number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic,
high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the rest
via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind
of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records.

"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote:

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay.
These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography
students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing
number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic,
high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the rest
via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind
of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records.

Why would photography students be required to learn using film? Learning is
about experimentation and seeing what happens if you get it wrong, and
digital has the big advantage over film that all your photos are free, so
there is encouragement to experiment. OK, so you don't learn about
film-specific things like increased grain with increased film speed,
reciprocity failure (*), push-processing to increase contrast, effect on
contrast of a print of under- or over-exposing a negative - but then you
only *need* to know about those things if you are using film.

As long as your camera has manual or semi-auto settings (ie that you don't
just use auto-everything mode all the time) then you can learn the
principles of photography more quickly and much more cheaply with a digital
camera.


(*) With film, very short or very long shutter speeds mean that the rule
"double the aperture and half the shutter speed gives the same exposure" is
no longer true - and with colour film the effect is different for the
various colour-sensitive layers, so you get a colour cast.

On 23/11/2016 19:47, NY wrote:
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote:

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay.
These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography
students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing
number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic,
high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the rest
via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind
of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records.

Why would photography students be required to learn using film? Learning
is about experimentation and seeing what happens if you get it wrong,
and digital has the big advantage over film that all your photos are
free, so there is encouragement to experiment. OK, so you don't learn
about film-specific things like increased grain with increased film
speed, reciprocity failure (*), push-processing to increase contrast,
effect on contrast of a print of under- or over-exposing a negative -
but then you only *need* to know about those things if you are using film.

If they are using film do they learn about sensor noise and why old film
lenses don't produce as good an image as a modern lens when used on a
digital camera?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 23/11/2016 19:47, NY wrote:
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote:

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay.
These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography
students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing
number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic,
high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the
rest
via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind
of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records.

Why would photography students be required to learn using film? Learning
is about experimentation and seeing what happens if you get it wrong,
and digital has the big advantage over film that all your photos are
free, so there is encouragement to experiment. OK, so you don't learn
about film-specific things like increased grain with increased film
speed, reciprocity failure (*), push-processing to increase contrast,
effect on contrast of a print of under- or over-exposing a negative -
but then you only *need* to know about those things if you are using
film.

If they are using film do they learn about sensor noise and why old film
lenses don't produce as good an image as a modern lens when used on a
digital camera?

No point in learning that when they wont be using film cameras.

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 21:27:09 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 23/11/2016 19:47, NY wrote:
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
news On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote:

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay.
These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography
students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing
number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic,
high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the
rest
via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind
of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records.

Why would photography students be required to learn using film? Learning
is about experimentation and seeing what happens if you get it wrong,
and digital has the big advantage over film that all your photos are
free, so there is encouragement to experiment. OK, so you don't learn
about film-specific things like increased grain with increased film
speed, reciprocity failure (*), push-processing to increase contrast,
effect on contrast of a print of under- or over-exposing a negative -
but then you only *need* to know about those things if you are using
film.

If they are using film do they learn about sensor noise and why old film
lenses don't produce as good an image as a modern lens when used on a
digital camera?

No point in learning that when they wont be using film cameras.

But they should learn the link between sensor noise and the speed selected as ISO which is similar to grain in film the higher the ISO the higher the grain or noise. I had to explain this to an iphone user who wasn't happy with blotchy images when zooming in in low light conditions.

On 23/11/2016 19:32, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:26:18 -0800, harry wrote:

Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

Come on, Harry. You could have just looked on Ebay.
These film cameras are AFAIK still required equipment for photography
students, so that alone should support a market in them. But a growing
number of people are going back to film for b/w usage, using classic,
high quality cameras and developing tanks for the negs but doing the rest
via film scanners and image editors and computer photo printers. A kind
of retro movement similar to the rise in interest in vinyl records.


You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then
processing it digitally?

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:33:46 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then
processing it digitally?

Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer
experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff
I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/
reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film. Most people
won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really from
the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their
obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you
wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D

On Saturday, 26 November 2016 00:14:31 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:33:46 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then
processing it digitally?

Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer
experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff
I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/
reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film. Most people
won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really from
the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their
obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you
wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D

I used to use nothing but film SLR and I don't see any upside in going back to it. Digital has been an improvement all round.


NT

On 26/11/2016 04:27, wrote:


I used to use nothing but film SLR and I don't see any upside in going back to it. Digital has been an improvement all round.


I'm not so sure. I've got a high end full frame DSLR body with some
expensive lenses. My DSLR is fantastic in low light with very useable
shots at ISO 12800 and even ISO 25600 with some tweaking in Photoshop.

However, for B&W I shoot film. I've got five 35mm bodies and one medium
format body. I found that it was very difficult to get a digital B&W
print that didn't have some sort of colour cast. I personally think that
a wet print B&W photograph has a unique quality that a digital print
can't match. I've got my own darkroom and I do love the process of
developing the film and making prints from the negatives.

The one thing that film can teach to digital users is economy. A 36
exposure roll of B&W film costs about £6 so if you are using your
shutter like a machine gun it will soon get very expensive. You have to
choose your shot carefully rather than firing off 10 shots and hoping
that one of them is good. Does that really matter with digital..... well
some DSLR bodies cost £2000 and more. They do have a finite shutter life
and if you are firing off 10 shots to get one good photo then your
expensive camera might not last as long as you hope. There's also the
matter of viewing and storing all those shots.

--

Paul Giverin

On 26/11/16 04:27, wrote:
On Saturday, 26 November 2016 00:14:31 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:33:46 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then
processing it digitally?

Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer
experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff
I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/
reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film. Most people
won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really from
the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their
obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you
wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D

I used to use nothing but film SLR and I don't see any upside in going back to it. Digital has been an improvement all round.



Wot e said.

When I find I can get better grain, better speed, and better color
rendition off digital, I know where my money is.


And then get the pictures printed professionally onto gloss paper for
the keepers at less cost...

NT



--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 26/11/2016 00:13, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:33:46 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then
processing it digitally?

Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer
experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff
I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/
reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film.

You can be just as artistic with a digital camera, no, you can be more
artistic with a digital camera as it will do all a film camera will do
and some more.
If you want a challenge take up painting or sketching you pictures 8-)

Most people
won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really from
the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their
obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you
wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D

Most people don't ride a motorbike, most people are more sensible.

On 26/11/2016 20:31, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/11/2016 00:13, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:33:46 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

You have to wonder what they think they g(r)ain from using film and then
processing it digitally?

Film photography with classic cameras is, IMV, an altogether richer
experience than digital. I use both. Digital is great for snapping stuff
I'm selling on ebay, but if I'm feeling creative and want the challenge/
reward of doing something artistic, it *has* to be film.

You can be just as artistic with a digital camera, no, you can be more
artistic with a digital camera as it will do all a film camera will do
and some more.
If you want a challenge take up painting or sketching you pictures 8-)

Most people
won't understand this line of thinking, but it's no different really from
the people who still insist on riding Harley-Davidsons despite their
obsolete, noisy and vibrational engines. "If I have to explain, you
wouldn't understand." And yes, I'm a Harley nut, too. :-D

Most people don't ride a motorbike, most people are more sensible.

Most people cannot:-

1. Drive an F1 car
2. Become PM (or President)
3. Win any lottery
4. Take really good photos, no matter how expensive the camera.

Most people don't ride a motorbike, most people are more sensible.


been riding since I was 16 no accidents but I must say they are handy for
spare parts like my new liver ...tee hee

On 23/11/2016 17:26, harry wrote:
Came across my 35mm SRL Nikon camera.
Are these things worth anything at all now?
Or just junk.

Nope. Some photo degree courses still require
possession ofa 35mm film camera.

I still have my Pentax MX that I bought 2nd hand in
1986, well used with nice brassy corners and a dent
in the pentaprism. It's been around the world,
spent 2 years in Fiji, all across the Pacific and
through South America. A pair of 1,5V silver oxide
cells last for ages. Accepts all the pre-digital
pentax lens (M42, K, Ka, KaF).

And I also have a Pentax LX, the best technical
camera by far. When loaded with Kodachrome 25
(RIP), (in sunny climes), nothing can touch it.
You can take pictures under moonlight on a tripod
because it reads the light bouncing back off the
film and just shuts the second blind when enough
light has hit the film. Has the whole range of
changeable prisms and viewfinders, plus a winder
and it cost me £169 in London Camera exchange
in 1997.

for home-developed B&W, it's just too valuable to
sell.

I might get a Pentax K1 (full frame) which looks
like it could be the Pentax replacement for the LX
and I can use all my lenses.

Students

Someone needs to know why digital cameras make such a strange retro sound

and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:08:46 PM UTC, DerbyBorn wrote:
Students

Someone needs to know why digital cameras make such a strange retro sound

and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths.

The retro noise is often partially switch-offable in the menus.
Small sensor cameras make the focal length appear longer by cropping the frame. Usually something like 35/28 ratio.

On 24/11/2016 14:13, therustyone wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:08:46 PM UTC, DerbyBorn wrote:
Students

Someone needs to know why digital cameras make such a strange retro sound

and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths.

The retro noise is often partially switch-offable in the menus.
Small sensor cameras make the focal length appear longer by cropping the frame. Usually something like 35/28 ratio.


The retro noise is usually the mirror flipping on digital SLRs as they
have the same mechanical mirrors and shutters as film cameras.

There are compact digital cameras that make a sound but that's just a
recording and can usually be turned off entirely.

My latest camera is mirror less and you can turn off the mechanical
shutter to make it silent but you have to be aware of the disadvantages
of doing so.

On 11/24/2016 2:51 PM, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/11/2016 14:13, therustyone wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:08:46 PM UTC, DerbyBorn wrote:
Students

Someone needs to know why digital cameras make such a strange retro
sound

and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths.

The retro noise is often partially switch-offable in the menus.
Small sensor cameras make the focal length appear longer by cropping
the frame. Usually something like 35/28 ratio.


The retro noise is usually the mirror flipping on digital SLRs as they
have the same mechanical mirrors and shutters as film cameras.

There are compact digital cameras that make a sound but that's just a
recording and can usually be turned off entirely.

My latest camera is mirror less and you can turn off the mechanical
shutter to make it silent but you have to be aware of the disadvantages
of doing so.



In some countries, I believe the "sound" is a legal requirement to
discourage covert photography.

In article ,
DerbyBorn wrote:
and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths

It's the same problem as TV in the early days. There were several
different types of electronic camera in use, and all had a different
'target' size. Target being the equivalent of film size. So a say 1" lens
on one would produce a different 'size' picture on another. Which made for
problems at planning stage since it wouldn't be known which type of camera
might be in use.

If you use angle of view in degrees, you get the same size picture
regardless. And the cameraman on the day can be expected to know which
focal length lens gives that particular angle on the actual camera.

--
*Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
:

In article ,
DerbyBorn wrote:
and what is meant by 35mm Eguivilant when describing focal lengths

It's the same problem as TV in the early days. There were several
different types of electronic camera in use, and all had a different
'target' size. Target being the equivalent of film size. So a say 1"
lens on one would produce a different 'size' picture on another. Which
made for problems at planning stage since it wouldn't be known which
type of camera might be in use.

If you use angle of view in degrees, you get the same size picture
regardless. And the cameraman on the day can be expected to know which
focal length lens gives that particular angle on the actual camera.


Also "Angle of View" is easily visualised in ones mind.

*Equivelant* !!
The sensor captures the same view as a a 35 mm film camera with the given focal length.

"Graham." wrote in message
...

*Equivelant* !!
The sensor captures the same view as a a 35 mm film camera with the given
focal length.

!!!!!!!! *EQUIVALENT* !!!!!!!!

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

In article , Richard
wrote:

"Graham." wrote in message
...

*Equivelant* !!
The sensor captures the same view as a a 35 mm film camera with the given
focal length.

!!!!!!!! *EQUIVALENT* !!!!!!!!

You mean the ****er can't spell? Probably using Word and because he has
it set to US English, has learnt to ignore the squiggly red lines under
misspelt words altogether.

Well, it takes a special kind of fool to post an irritated spelling
correction with a novel incorrect version of the spelling. Bit like having a
flashing neon "Kick me!" sign on his back.

"Graham." wrote in
:

*Equivelant* !!
The sensor captures the same view as a a 35 mm film camera with the
given focal length.

I realise that - but only the generation that used 35mm SLRs will be able
to visualise the effect of the lens. It is a reference to an out of date
"standard".

Yes I can usually spell - equivalent

On 28/11/16 10:34, DerbyBorn wrote:
"Graham." wrote in
:

*Equivelant* !!
The sensor captures the same view as a a 35 mm film camera with the
given focal length.

I realise that - but only the generation that used 35mm SLRs will be able
to visualise the effect of the lens. It is a reference to an out of date
"standard".

So is horsepower



Yes I can usually spell - equivalent



--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On 11/23/2016 9:34 PM, Andrew wrote:

And I also have a Pentax LX, the best technical
camera by far. When loaded with Kodachrome 25
(RIP), (in sunny climes), nothing can touch it.
You can take pictures under moonlight on a tripod
because it reads the light bouncing back off the
film and just shuts the second blind when enough
light has hit the film. Has the whole range of
changeable prisms and viewfinders, plus a winder
and it cost me £169 in London Camera exchange
in 1997.


Except for reciprocity failure.

I loved my Yashica electro 35 cc for the same reason. But with its
lowest film speed setting 25 ASA, you couldn't increase the exposure
with K II (which IMHO was the finest colour film ever made, 25 was never
as good). It needed a couple of stops at 20 seconds, IME.