T1B

Just scored a used konica minolta A2 off feebay. I have been looking for a digital camera that I can do the focusing with for some time now. My old olympus C720 absolutely sucked arse at taking indoor basketball shots of the kids. The A2 has a really good viewfinder and manual focus rings just like an SLR. I was tempted to go the DSLR route, but, they are still a bit pricey and you have to carry a backpack full of lenses with you. This thing ain't no shirt pocket camera, but, it's still alot lighter than a DSLR with multiple lenses.

Any of you fukks have any experience with this rig?

Oh, and yeah, I know there is a geek forum, but, I'd prefer this actually be read sometime this year.

the geeks and fags in the tech forum usually respond quickly.

they like that place and like to help. i would have posted this there.

yeah, I might get actual helpful tips and stuff there, but, I'm looking more for the "maybe you'll actually be able to see your cock with that sweet 7X optical lense" kinda stuff.

I know all about this device. Had you posted this in the tech forum, I could've helped you out.

So, how's about you do it here. Mix in some smack if you like such as....

...the stabilized CCD is an awesome feature to have if you wanna zoom in on something while your boyfriend is packing your fudge.

bbq, magoo, happy now?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27647" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh, sorry. Don't know squat about that camera.

you could atleast make some shit up or googlesdale it.

lazy fukk.

This isn't Craig's list, you homo simpleton.

RACK you for getting a great deal on a great camera.

This is one of the best digital SLRs on the market and if you got one used for a decent price you have
big time .


There....isn't that what you were trolling for?

:P

Why, yes, it was mikey. Thank you. One thing though, it ain't an SLR. If you re-read my post, you'd notice that I said I almost went with an SLR.

The A2 looks alot like one though. It actually has a manually operated zoom ring, not those slow extremely gax zoom buttons. It also has a manual focus ring just like an SLR except that it is fly by wire.

The thing that makes this camera really cool is that it has a 1 megapixel electronic viewfinder which is 4X as much as any other. This level of resolution makes manual focus practical with this camera. It is the next best thing to an optical viewfinder with split prism like you get with SLRs. I tried a few other point and shoot cameras with manual focus, but, they were worthless as the viewfinders just didn't have the neccessary resolution.

Hopefully I'll get pictures as nice as Sam gets with his cheapp camera. That fukker claims he's no photog expert and that he has a cheap camera. I guess he's just some kind of photog idiot savant. Too bad he ain't as good a lawnmower pilot.

People take photographs ... cameras don't.

Enjoy your techno-masturbatory sensation, though.

orcinus wrote:People take photographs ... cameras don't.

Enjoy your techno-masturbatory sensation, though.

Back in the days of film, this statement was more true than today. With digicams you have a very wide range in quality.

A good photographer will still take a better photo than a shit one, but, you gotta have decent gear to start with.

Bullshit. Orc is correct.

Some of the best pics I have seen are from good photogs regardless of the cost of their gear. There is skill in the eye of the talented.

Did either of you dipshits read my reply?

You ever try to take a pic of your kids basketball game indoors? Good luck trying to get a point and shot camera to focus on a moving kid 50 feet away with mediocre lighting.

Photography skills or dumb luck can get you good shots, but, if you are using a crappy point and shot camera in less than optimal light, you are gonna have problems. You can't just will a mediocre point and shoot digicam into good shots.

Can you get good shots with a cheap one? Yes. A scenery shot or fairly close up shot of something not moving quickly, with good light may come out well.

Fine, fine...I just hope all of this doesn't end with smackaholic in frilly panties giving AP a run for his megapixels.

What about this faggot?

smackaholic wrote:Did either of you dipshits read my reply?

You ever try to take a pic of your kids basketball game indoors? Good luck trying to get a point and shot camera to focus on a moving kid 50 feet away with mediocre lighting.

Photography skills or dumb luck can get you good shots, but, if you are using a crappy point and shot camera in less than optimal light, you are gonna have problems. You can't just will a mediocre point and shoot digicam into good shots.

Can you get good shots with a cheap one? Yes. A scenery shot or fairly close up shot of something not moving quickly, with good light may come out well.

I took this pic with my "Point and shoot" Canon while driving on a freeway at 75 miles an hour at sunset. The effective speed (from the cameras perspective) of the oncoming cars (that are clearly visible in the shot from about 50 -75 feet away) would be around 150 mph, or so.

Your kid must run REAL fast. :D

You should check with Clavensdale for the exact speed differential, though. I only estimated, but I'm sure he has a friend who can determine the speed of both african and european laden and unladen swallows by watching them flicker past.

Notice the lack of blurriness:



Now, that was not my best pic. I like this one a little better. Same camera, but I wasn't driving, I was stopped. The trees are at least 75 feet away and not moving , and I zoomed in a bit:



Both pics were taken at the lowest setting on the camera. File size around 30kb.

What can I say? I like sunsets and my camera is awesome.

Just because the camera is a point and shoot, doesn't mean it is a piece of shit.

Judging from those shots, I'd say you have a fairly decent one that does a respectable job in low light. As for closing speed, it means jack shit. Speed across the line of sight is all that matters. You could take a pic of a 95 mph fastball coming straight at you and it would come out OK. Take the same pic with the same settings as it wizzes past and it will be a blur.

As for focus, those are both scenery shots where the focus is at infinity, so it doesn't matter. Try this, bush. Go to a kids indoor bball game and try to get a zoomed in shot of a particular kid 80 feet away. Maybe you'll get lucky if you take enough and one will be in focus, but, I doubt it. Sometimes you just have to have the ability to manually focus for this type of shot. This gives you a few options in the digital world, either a DSLR which uses old school mirror optics which is still the best way to do it, or a higher end point and shoot which also gives you manual focus capability. Trouble with most of them is that you are trying to focus using a shitty resolution electronic view finder or lcd. My camera has electronic viewfinder over the rest of the point and shoots. It has almost 1 megapixel. Others are 250k or less.