# What camera are you using?



## Baron (Oct 16, 2010)

For most high end work it has to be the Hasselblad.  With sensors that can be set between 50 and 60 megapixels, the HD60 is truly in a class of its own.  This camera is really a joy to work with and the images it produces are incomparable.  







This is my camera of choice for most high end professional work.  If you're not a pro this one is quite a strain on the budget though.

When Sony took over the Minolta company I took great interest.  As a less weighty SLR than Nikon, and Canon and a camera that fitted neatly into the hand and produced great images, I was very fond of the Minolta.  I was among the first to get my hands on the Sony Alpha 100 when it came out and I wasn't disappointed.  Combining many of the features of Nikon and Canon, it's a much lighter camera, in the Minolta tradition, and gives great quality pictures.  It also has a range of lenses produced by Carl Zeiss, the company producing lenses for the Hasselblad.  

The Sony is much cheaper to buy than a Nikon or Canon and is an equal to both.  This is definitely my camera of choice for the more day to day work.  I used the Sony Alpha to shoot the cover picture for my latest poetry collection, Dining with Gods:






If you're looking for an affordable DSLR that will give you professional quality, the Sony  is certainly my recommendation.


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 16, 2010)

This has always suited me:


----------



## Baron (Oct 23, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> This has always suited me:


 
I thought this would be more your style:


----------



## garza (Oct 23, 2010)

As it was in the days of film, the Hasselblad continues to be the best. If I were engaged in projects requiring large, high quality prints, that would be my camera of choice and I would just have to live with saying goodbye to so many of my favourite portraits of the Queen. 

For some years now I have been satisfied with a Canon EOS D60, For my purposes it serves well and the ready availability of a wide range of Canon lenses is an advantage. Recently I bought a Sony CyberShot, which is the digital equivalent of xO's box camera. It's not bad for a basic point-and-shoot pocket camera that I can carry everywhere. There are pocket cameras that are on the threshold of being serious cameras, but the little Sony comes complete with the assurance that if it's lost, stolen, or damaged the monetary investment thus lost will not cause serious concern.

My two all-time favourite cameras are the two I bought in pawn shops as a kid and grew up with, the Speed Graphic and the Leica iiif. Both are securely locked away now. I gave up the Speed Graphic when getting 4x5 film began to be a hassle. When I was a kid you could buy it over the counter at local photo shops. I reluctantly, almost tearfully, set the Leica aside when I bought the Canon and went digital.

I really hate seeing that picture of the Hasselblad. At my age and with the limited use I would have for it, there is no way I can justify the cost. And yet...


----------



## Eluixa (Oct 23, 2010)

I have a Nikon D40. It was expensive enough, and though I'd love to try more cameras, I can't justify the price I'd have to pay to trade out or own more. It serves my purpose but I am not totally happy with the color on certain occasions. Could be part of the problem is me though. I need more practice.


----------



## Baron (Oct 23, 2010)

garza said:


> As it was in the days of film, the Hasselblad continues to be the best. If I were engaged in projects requiring large, high quality prints, that would be my camera of choice and I would just have to live with saying goodbye to so many of my favourite portraits of the Queen.
> 
> For some years now I have been satisfied with a Canon EOS D60, For my purposes it serves well and the ready availability of a wide range of Canon lenses is an advantage. Recently I bought a Sony CyberShot, which is the digital equivalent of xO's box camera. It's not bad for a basic point-and-shoot pocket camera that I can carry everywhere. There are pocket cameras that are on the threshold of being serious cameras, but the little Sony comes complete with the assurance that if it's lost, stolen, or damaged the monetary investment thus lost will not cause serious concern.
> 
> ...


 
For photo-journalism the Hasselblad is incomparable, as it is for advertising and fashion work.  It can produce a billboard size image that's as sharp as an 8x10.  For fine detail there's nothing that can match it.


----------



## Baron (Oct 23, 2010)

Eluixa said:


> I have a Nikon D40. It was expensive enough, and though I'd love to try more cameras, I can't justify the price I'd have to pay to trade out or own more. It serves my purpose but I am not totally happy with the color on certain occasions. Could be part of the problem is me though. I need more practice.


 
It could be you or it could be the camera.  Different makes and models have different colour castes.  It's worth Googling a few reviews to see if others report that problem.  There are some digital cameras which produce results so dependent on Photoshop correction that I wouldn't entertain them.


----------



## Eluixa (Oct 24, 2010)

I don't photoshop, so don't know if it would improve anything. Frankly, I'm lazy and either like what I take or I don't. I was just taking pics at the beach early this summer, and my dad's little camera wound up having the better color for the sky and ocean.  His is either a little Olympus, or Canon, not sure. 
Still, I liked all the skin tones. Mine does good people.


----------



## JosephB (Oct 24, 2010)

I have a few cameras. The one I use the most is a Fuju S602z, that I bought for work several years ago. I bought it, because at the time, I couldn't afford a new SLR system with interchangeable lenses. I chose it because  it has a really sharp optical zoom lens, I can sync it to my studio flash and it has complete manual override of exposure settings. It's still a great camera and since most of what I shoot is for the web, the 6 mega-pixels, which was the most you could get at the time, is more than adequate.

When I was in high school, I bought a complete film SLR systems used -- a Minolta X700 with two bodies, several lenses, motor drives etc. It still works great and I shoot with it occasionally. Some of the older lenses, like the rokkor 80mm portrait lens, are amazingly sharp.

I also have my grandfather's Pentax H3 system from the 60's. I had it serviced several yeas ago -- cleaned, the shutter re-timed etc. and it works like a charm. It has several lenses as well, filters etc. -- all in great shape.

I have a Bronica S2A 2 1/4 film medium format camera I bought in college and it's a beast. Sounds like a car door slamming when you release the shutter and occasionally doesn't release at all. I haven't shot with it since college. The guy who did my Pentax died recently, so I'm not sure where I could get it serviced if I wanted to use it. It's a pretty cool old camera and I have a Polaroid back for it too, which I've never used.

I had a 4x5 large format studio camera at one point. It wasn't very good, kind of student grade and the lens was mediocre. I sold it. I also had a Graflex Speed Graphic, one of those big 4 x 5 press cameras. I sold it too, but I wish I hadn't. Oh well.

I collect old cameras too. None of them work, and you can't get film for most of them. Things like Kodak Duoflex and Brownie Hawk-eye with the big bowl flashes. The only one that works and that I've shot with is the Argus C3 rangerfinder. I don't think it was a very good camera to begin with. Anyway, they look cool and make good decorations. One  of my office walls is lined with them, along with some old projectors, Viewmasters -- anything cool and optical, including a very cool kid's slide projector from the 50's that has wings like an old Cadillac. My wife tries to steer me away from flea markets etc, because she knows I can't resist buying something in the way of an old camera etc. even though most of what I pick up is in the 20-40.00 range. Sometimes less.


----------



## Baron (Oct 24, 2010)

I've a pretty good selection of cameras, Joe, but the two mentioned in the OP are those that I use professionally.  My father was a keen photographer and all of his equipment passed on to me.  My favourite of these is a Leica M6 Gold.  It's in perfect condition, although unused for a while.  Photoshop has largely replaced the darkroom these days so it's rare that I use anything other than digital.


----------



## JosephB (Oct 24, 2010)

Yeah, that Hasselblad makes me drool. The guys I shoot with who use ‘blads just have the digital backs, so I’ve never seen one.

  And I need to look into the Alpha at some point. From what I understand, you can use old Minolta A-mount lenses on it, and with an adapter, even the Rokkor lenses I mentioned that I have – which would be pretty cool. The one I have really fills the bill for most things, so at this point, it's a difficult purchase to justify with my CFO/wife.


----------



## Baron (Oct 24, 2010)

Sony took over Minolta, which helped my decision because I've always liked Minolta cameras.  I already had a good selection of Minolta lenses so that made the Sony an easy choice.


----------



## garza (Oct 28, 2010)

Baron - I agree with you on the technical side about Hasselblad, and for many people in many applications it was and is the only choice. I was never happy using one, though looking at the photo of the digital version makes me want to run out and spend a lot of money. 

There was only one camera that I trusted in the field, the little iiif I'd had since I was about 12. I found it in a pawn shop for 35 dollars. By the time I was in the field, literally, and surrounded by angry people shooting at each other, the iiif had become part of my hand. I had three lenses for it by that time, 80, 50, and 28, and had used the camera and all the lenses so much that I had only to think 5.6, 250, for it to happen, and most times I never thought of the numbers consciously. The viewfinder had a -4 lens and was my eye. I almost never wore glasses in the field. That basic camera was all I needed for seeing and for shooting. I also carried an M2 later but gave it to a friend who's own camera had an unfortunate encounter with a Warsaw Pact round. 

The photo is seen first in the eye of the photographer. The camera is merely a tool. I have known people with the finest equipment who could never capture the moment. That iiif knew what I wanted because I'd taught it, and it always delivered.


----------



## Baron (Oct 28, 2010)

It really depends on what you want to achieve.  There's a slightly wider tolerance in what daily newspapers will accept compared with what the glossies will take.  In my end of the business, which is mostly involved with fashion and the music industry, then the clients invariably pay for high end stuff.  I appreciate that a good photographer with a cheap camera will still get better results than a bad photographer with an expensive one.  The Hasselblad is really a tool for professionals though and putting the right tools in the right hands is what this one is about.

I still have a soft spot for the Leica, it was my father's favourite and it certainly did no harm in the hands of Tony Armstrong-Jones and Patrick Lichfield.


----------



## The Backward OX (Oct 28, 2010)

Name-dropper.


----------



## garza (Oct 28, 2010)

But of course Tony Armstrong-Jones had certain other advantages working for him as well.


----------



## garza (Oct 28, 2010)

I thought some of you might be interested in seeing a picture I took this morning with my newest camera:






What makes this image interesting is its history. Just before I went to Belmopan to cover the passage of Hurricane Richard one of the the Village kids brought me a camera he'd dug out of the mud and trash at the dump. It's an elderly, two megapixel, Kodak Rapid Share. When I returned home yesterday I cleaned the dirt off and put a pair of fresh batteries in the camera and discovered that everything on it works but the display, which is damaged and only shows the centre of the picture. The photo here is one I made shortly after sunrise this morning standing in my front garden and is about 50 percent of the original picture area. For those from urban areas such as Snakebite River who may not readily understand the elements in a rural scene, I have provided a second copy with labels.






I'm not promoting Kokak, but I think it's pretty amazing that a camera that has been lying in the dump for at least a couple of weeks, according to the kid who found it, still functions at all.


----------

