Question for camera people - Pics in post #40

[jennielynn1970]

I asked my mom if I could borrow the expensive camera she had bought for my dad. Turns out she bought it back in 1988. Dad has also been keeping it in the basement, without any cover. Ugh.

I asked her what kind it was, also what lens she bought with it. She's annoyed my father has treated it so badly. I want to try to get some better pictures around here, and thought I'd try her/his camera.

Here's the info she sent me on it:
camera is ricoh AF-5 XR-M multi-program tri-metering system

special lens is sigma zoom-K III that K is actually a symbol, i think, and i have no idea if it can be found on a keyboard 75 ~210mm multi-coated


Is this still an ok camera?? Should I see if they will trade it in for something newer (is it even worth anything???). I don't know if lenses get antiquated, but I'm guessing the base camera could. I dunno. I'm guessing it needs to be serviced/cleaned up, as it's been gathering dust and dirt uncovered in the basement for lord knows how many years.


Any thoughts or suggestions??

[Husky_mom]

there´s this forum... photoforum... and another... I can´t remember will have to check at home... that has many pros there.. I can ask.. or you can ask.. some even buy "collectionables"...aka old cameras... some might find it quite interesting...and might give you better info about it....

[Moesha]

I think I have 2 of those cameras. (Well not exactly sure about the AF-5 part.) I don't know much about them though, but I do have tons of accessories for them! LOL I do know that some of the Ricoh lenses will work on the newer Pentax DSLR cameras. It has to do with it having a K mount or not. (That's just what I read somewhere when I was trying to decide if I should go with a DSLR that would work with lenses I might already have.) I went with Nikon because I wasn't sure what I was doing. LOL

[Catlady711]

I'm not actually familiar with that particular name brand however...

I did a search on ebay and what few are listed aren't selling even as low as $40. I only found one real reference to it from an online camera store called 'old tyme cameras' or something of that nature suggesting the camera is considered an antique to all but possible collectors.

I'm not familiar with specifics on anything other than Canon for the last 20 years so I don't know if the lens is compatible with anything else or not.

Personally if the camera has been kept in those conditions and is that age it's probably not worth more than say $20 if you can find a buyer for it that is, I'd trash it or garage sale it for $5 myself. It would probably cost you as much or more to service that one as to buy a new digital camera. That would be assuming you could find a photo place that is capable of servicing that type of older camera.

Better bet would be to save and upgrade to a point & shoot digital camera. The newer ones do a pretty darn good job. If you are really wanting something you can change lenses on then save for a DSLR. Either way stick with either Nikon or Canon as they have the best reputation, the most compatibility for lenses, and have more varieties to select from.

[jennielynn1970]

Yeah, I kind of figured it wouldn't be worth much. My mom said I could just have it and take it to the camera shop and see if they would even recommend cleaning it and all that, or what they would suggest.

I have a point and shoot digital, I think it's 5.1MP, and I would love a better one that I can actually get decent pictures with (zoom lens and all that), so maybe saving up for a DSLR would be the better idea. Although right now, saving is the last thing I can afford to do on half pay. It's trying to make it through the month unscathed from the pay cut. I was w/out pay for almost 2 months, and it finally just kicked in, as I was about to drown, lol, so I'm thankful for that. My credit cards may not be, but at least I don't have any with limits over $400 at this point (I keep telling them I don't want a higher limit.. it's just too tempting a thought right now).

I did start one of those "Orange Savings Accounts" from ING Direct. I'm putting in $15 a pay period so that will be saving up for any cat problems. Granted it will take a whil to build up, but I can always add to it once I'm back at school full time. It was nice that if you made a deposit when you opened you got $25. So, for my $5 initial deposit, I got $25!

[Catlady711]

That's great that despite your financial hardships you are doing a savings plan! That's how it's done, just one step at a time. Kudos to you.

Don't make the mistake that many people do in believing many photography myths out there.

Camera manufacturers and retailers would LOVE everyone to believe it's the CAMERA that makes great pictures. Nope, it's the person BEHIND the camera that makes great pictures! The camera is simply a TOOL to achieve that in the same way that a painter uses a brush. This doesn't mean that if we all go buy an expensive brush we'll paint better. Photography is a vision and an art.

There is a whole race out there that so many people get caught up in called the megapixel race. Megapixels only really mean how large you can print your pictures. Camera manufacturers would have you believe you have to have mega megapixels to make decent pictures and that's simply not true. Anything over 5-8 megapixels is overkill for people who don't print their pictures or very few.

For reference to both here's a link to a photographer who has a TON of info including myth busting, on his site, as well as a TERRIFIC photo gallery of his work. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

Unless a fancier (read more expensive) camera has some feature that you absolutely have to have, or need, you can quite easily make very good pictures with a simple point and shoot. Yes there are some quality differences between them because of sensor size, but in most cases with proper shooting/exposure techniques the differences will be minimal or may not even be noticable by many people.

Here's some downsized pix from my first digital camera I got in 2002. It's a Canon A40 point and shoot with a measly TWO megapixels. I still use it occasionally for it's portability, and ease of use, even though I do own a DSLR.

I don't think it takes half bad pix myself, do you?








Don't dissmiss your own digital camera on the basis of it ONLY has 5 megapixels and it's a point and shoot. It's a tool, use it to it's fullest capacity, stretch your imagination. It will open up a whole new world until you have the money for the fancy (read expensive) DSLR's and all the money sucking (trust me I KNOW this from experience) accessories. LOL

[shepgirl]

Those pictures look pretty good to me. I have a digi camera, Canon, forget how many pixels but it does take some pretty good shots if I keep remembering to change the batteries, stop moving and zoom in...lol

[Catlady711]

Those pictures look pretty good to me. I have a digi camera, Canon, forget how many pixels but it does take some pretty good shots if I keep remembering to change the batteries, stop moving and zoom in...lol

Yeah, batteries are important. lol Keeping still is what makes the sharpest pictures regardless of how expensive the camera is. A tripod is your best friend in most cases.

[Catlady711]

As a comparison of megapixels I found another pix for you guys to compare.

I'm kina a photo buff (very expensive hobby) and I'm fortunate that my hubby can get phenomenal discounts on used cameras. lol

Here's one I took with my Canon S1 point and shoot, with a measly 3.2 megapixel. This was only a step up of just over ONE megapixel.

[Catlady711]

Now, here's a quiz for you....

Which pix was taken with the 2 megapixel A40, the 3.2 megapixel S1, the 6 megapixel S3 point and shoots, or the 10.1 megapixel XTi DSLR???

Can you guess???


Bug catagory

[Catlady711]

How about guessing which megapixel camera on these?? (no there are no trick questions, I took each pix in each set with a different camera)



Fireworks catagory








Sunset catagory (yes same location, slightly different view, different year)

[Catlady711]

Ok, how about these??


Beach catagory (yes same beach, different crop, different year & weather)









I'll give you guys a couple days to make some guesses, then I'll give you the answers to which megapixel camera took which in each set. I think the answers may be eye opening.

My point is all 4 of my cameras produce equally good pictures regardless of how expensive or how many megapixels.

[Catlady711]

Oh, and for reference, I do NOT own Adobe Photoshop.

My processing program is an off brand name, and about equivilent of maybe Photoshop Elements I think, it only cost $100. I don't know how to use half of the things it does. My photo editing is minimal and consists of mostly basic stuff with mostly the auto settings in the program.

[jennielynn1970]

Wow... I never knew that the mega pixel size had to do with printing out. I thought it had to do with resolution that you saw?? I mean, if you want it to get really really up close, is that something different?

Your pics look fantastic. I would never have guessed that a lower mega pixel camera took them.

I still want to see what my mom and dad's old sucker will do. I know it's a 35mm camera, it's not digital at all. She said the lens itself was over $400 and that was in 1988, so geez, that was really expensive for back then.

If they say it's going to take a few hundred to refurb it, just for the dust and dirt, I may just choose to not do that and return it to my mom and dad. I just don't have the cash to do that, and on a fixed income it would be silly to throw money at a camera for me to just see what it does. If the circumstances were different, well, then I'd probably choose to refurb it.


As for the savings, I'm trying to do what I can. I did stop my 403b just for while I'm out of work on sabbatical. That was $75 a pay, but too much for me to absorb for these 3 1/2 months. As soon as I'm back at work full time, the 403b will go back on as a deduction. For those not familiar with retirement accounts, the 403b is a tax-sheltered annuity. Some places have 401k packages, but from what I understand with our school, because we're in education it's a 403b. I could be wrong through, cause I'm not really that up on what their differences are. I know it's taken out before taxes, and that unless I want to make an early withdrawl, which has to be for hardship, I am not taxed on the money that it's earning, investment wise. My financial planner is actually a woman who does rescue work herself, lol. I met her through Jen Luckenbach, and when Kathi started working for Lincoln Financial, I switched to her. She knows what she's doing, and keeps in contact about everything, so I feel really confident in her (unlike the last guy I had who only ever sent me a Christmas card once a year). Hopefully by the time I want to retire, I'll actually be able to afford it.

[Catlady711]

I've never been very good at figuring out financial stuff like 401k, annuities (not actually sure what it means to be honest), IRA's etc. The only thing I do with my money is CD's at my bank and savings accounts. I figure I'm better off sticking with something I understand. lol

Thank you for the compliments on my pix.

Actually most digital cameras have a 'resolution' and 'compression' setting. You should ALWAYS set your camera on the highest resolution (usually expressed in numbers like 1600x1200, 640x480, or Large, Med, Small, Best, Good etc) and the lowest compression setting you have (usually marked as something like extra fine or best). That way you are always shooting at the full capability of your camera. Yes it takes up more room on your memory cards, BUT you never know when you might take that once in a lifetime special pix you want to print as an enlargement. The time it would take to switch your settings and the shot or moment may be gone forever. Plus why spend money on a camera to only shoot it at 1/4 of it's potential? To me that's kinda like buying Ferrari but only driving it at 55mph on the way to work.

As for 'getting in close' I'm assuming you mean either a Macro function (getting close to a subject that is tiny like my grasshopper pix) or Telephoto (getting a far away subject to appear close up, like a deer standing way out in a field).

In the case of Macro that would be either built into the lens of a point and shoot or require a special lens (usually rather expensive) for a DSLR/SLR. The reason being is that any camera or lens has a set minimum distance it can focus at. Your eyes work the same way, try reading a newspaper at about 24 inches away, then try reading the same paper with your nose touching it, you can't. Your eyes have exceeded the minimum focusing distance. To read close you'd need a magnifying glass, same thing for a camera lens.

In the case of Telephoto again it's in the lens whether built into a point and shoot or a special (expensive) separate lens for a DSLR/SLR. Basically it works as binoculars do for our own eyes. Only caution I'll add here is that the DIGITAL zoom setting on ANY point and shoot camera is worthless. Only compare those type of cameras by their OPTICAL zoom. The Digital zoom basically just magnifies and crops the image, same thing you could do in a computer after the fact, but it causes loss of sharpness in your images no matter which way you do it. I always keep my Digital zoom turned off on my point and shoot cameras.

Sharpness in any camera can be drastically improved by having good light, low ISO setting (100, 50, 25 if the camera goes that low) and a tripod. This is assuming you're not shooting an active two year old running around in the rain on a dark, dreary, overcast day, in which case the tripod isn't going to be enough, you'll need flash to freeze that kinda motion.


As far as the relationship between megapixels and resolution... Here are some links to read a bit more detail about them. I copied and pasted some relevant parts for a quick summary.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

In 1999 when digital cameras were only 1.2 or 2 MP, each megapixel mattered if you were making bigger prints.

Image clarity is more dependant on how you shot the photo than on the number of megapixels. A clean shot from a 3MP camera is much better than a slightly out-of focus shot from a $5,000 12 MP camera.

A clear image can be printed any size from any modern digital camera. Sure, if you print mural size and look at it from inches away you won't have the sharpness you'd get from 4 x 5" film, but if you shot it properly, it will be sharp enough to look great when viewed from a distance appropriate to the size of the print.

So long as you have 100 to 150 DPI (dots or pixels per inch), you have plenty for a sharp print viewed at arm's length. This means a 6 MP camera can make prints 30" (75cm) wide and still look great. When was the last time you printed that big?

Today, even the cheapest cameras have at least 5 or 6 MP, which enough for any size print. How? Simple: when you print three-feet (1m) wide, you stand further back. Print a billboard, and you stand 100 feet back. 6MP is plenty.


http://digital-cameras.toptenreviews...ixel-myth-.htm

While the math says that more megapixels are better, the actual results tell a different story. Pictures taken with 3 and 5 megapixel digital cameras are usually indistinguishable from pictures taken with 8 or even 13 megapixel cameras. The New York Times published an article in February 2007 about this very concept. People were unable to distinguish between photos taken at these resolutions, even when the pictures were blown up to 16 by 24 inches. An article in the November 2002 Consumer Reports issue reported that several digital cameras actually took higher quality pictures than cameras with more megapixels.


http://www.opticsplanet.net/memory-c...-capacity.html
Picture Resolution Maximum Photo print size

less than 640 x 480 only wallet-size prints recommended

640 x 480 or 0.3 megapixel Minimum resolution for 4x6 (results will vary)

1024 x 768 or 1.2-megapixel Minimum recommended resolution for 4x6

1600 x 1200 or 2.1-megapixel Minimum recommended resolution for 8x10 or larger

2,048 x 1,536 or 3.3-megapixel Recommended resolution for 13x19 or larger


The bigger difference between DSLR's and point and shoots is the sensor size!

http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/Featu...107-99077.html

What is more important, for good picture quality in a compact camera, is the size of the sensor. The bigger the sensor, the better the photo. Bigger sensors capture more light. More light captured means better colours and contrast.

With bigger sensors, photos taken indoors without flash or when the light is failing, have less picture noise - that is the fuzziness and strange bits of colours that weren't there when you took the photo.

Sadly, compact cameras cannot have huge sensors because they need to stay, well, compact.

The sensor in a compact can be smaller than the nail of your pinky.

That is why compacts are bad in shooting in low light conditions without a flash.

In comparison, the sensor of a professional DSLR is 30 times that of a compact, which explains why DSLRs are so much bigger.

Ironically, the solution to improving photo quality in a compact is to reduce the megapixel- count.

All things being equal, having less megapixels means that each pixel in the sensor can now have more light, which in turn improves picture quality.

So now that we know that we do not need anything more than 8 megapixels for a compact, will camera makers give up the megapixel race?

Not a chance.

A film camera actually takes sharper pictures with a wider range of tones from dark to light than a digital camera can (assuming the lens is somewhat decent), although with newer technology the differences are shrinking. The advantage of a digital obviously being immediate viewing of your pix, and ease of sending them by email or online which film lacks.

As I'm quickly finding out, digital is not necessarily 'cheaper' than film. Yes I just buy a few memory cards and don't have to worry about how many pix I'm shooting, or wait for film developing. But the downside is it requires a large and fast computer if you take as many pix as I do and at a very high resolution setting from a DSLR. Then you get into the processing program which can be anywhere from $100 to photoshop's like $600 program. No digital pix ever looks it's best 'straight out of camera' as they tend to need a bit of sharpening, and sometimes a bit of contrast or saturation added even if everything else is perfect.

Then if you get into shooting like I have you end up buying a laptop for shooting 'tethered' and viewing your pix accuarately rather than the misleading LCD and histogram on the back of the camera, and a monitor calibrator so you can process your pix to industry standards so when you send it out to print the colors look right, but that's a discussion for another time. ROFL

Anyways I hope that helped with some of your questions. I'm about as into photography as I am animals (particularly cats) so I LOVE talking about either. ROFL I'm certainly no expert on either, and I don't often use alot of high tech big words, but most people seem to understand what I mean anyways. lol