Help With Upgrading To A DSLR

Have you considered looking at second hand. I have noticed a number of Minolta zooms in the 75-300mm range recently.

I have, yes – and I may make a bid for one or two on eBay, but they usually quickly exceed the price I’m willing to pay – I certainly couldn’t afford a ton, or even half of that, and I like to take pictures now – rather than budget forever and a day.

One of the problems is that Minolta mount AF lenses are useable on both digital and analogue cameras, so remain in demand if in good condition.

Anyway, who knows? I might get some money in the future that I can apportion to this.

It’s really great that you don’t have to print your photographs these days, and can view on any number of TVs, computer monitors, projectors, web sites, etc., etc.. I post some of mine on my website, so that others can have a look, if they’re masochistic enough to want to do so.

Thanks to those of you who have made constructive comments.

Regrettably my 100-300 lens is unserviceable, so the camera is unusuitable for aviation photography any longer, and I don’t intend spending any more money on it. I have two smaller lenses, so the camera will be fine for portraits and such.

Have you considered looking at second hand. I have noticed a number of Minolta zooms in the 75-300mm range recently. Indeed I picked up a very useful Sigma EX of that range with a proper Macro feature for under a ton recently. Yes I have read as far as your satement about finances and have genuine empathy by being in a similar boat. Lack of shooting oportunities by not being able to drive myself around anymore frustrate me.

I also picked up a second hand Minolta f8 Reflex 500 which on the Sony Alpha or Dynax 7D is brilliant as I no longer have the physical strength to aim the monstrous 50-500mm zoom all over the sky.

I have to save carefully to be able to take advantage of these second hand offerings and this is why I have not given in and moved to Canon or Nikon. It is a shame that Minolta are out of the picture as IMHO (with the exception of the size of range of lenses) they produced better kit.

Incidentally, I started taking photographs in about 1974 – with a Zorki 4K- click. I doubt you’ll find anything from that period that requires as much attention to take pictures, as that does. The Minolta could never surpass the quality of photographs I took with that…

That Zorki is one interesting looking camera. I started in 1967 with a cheap Halina 35mm with an unreliable built in light meter (I soon bought a Weston Master V which I still have) and fixed lens, there are two shots on my web site taken with this, Simons Sircus and Hunter T8s + Bucc’ and Harvard on the line at Heron Flight in 68.

Then in 68 I purchased my first SRT101 – brilliant for its day, better than any Canon at that time and I still have one which works OK, also an X700.

Regrettably my 100-300 lens is unserviceable, so the camera is unusuitable for aviation photography any longer, and I don’t intend spending any more money on it. I have two smaller lenses, so the camera will be fine for portraits and such.

Robbo – forget trying to draw me into some kind of punchbag conversation with you. It’s not going to happen. Clearly you believe you’re right, and I am well aware of the advantages of dSLRs vs Bridge/Prosumers, as I have acknowledged on more occasions than you care to credit me for.

At no time have I ever said that the opposite is true, merely encouraged those that want to discuss the subject, and try bridge/prosumer accordingly. There’s absolutely nothing wrong, or to be afraid of in that. They work, and work well, if you’re prepared to spend the time and effort to learn both their limitations and their strengths.

The 2CR5 batteries cost £13 or thereabouts at Jessops, although I’m sure you could get some cheaper elsewhere. Even so, I couldn’t find cheaper than old stock at £5.90. The charger & Li-ion 2CR5M cost approximately £18 including delivery.

Incidentally, I started taking photographs in about 1974 – with a Zorki 4K- click. I doubt you’ll find anything from that period that requires as much attention to take pictures, as that does. The Minolta could never surpass the quality of photographs I took with that – although one would have thought that the opposite was true.

Unfortunately, I have to live on incapacity benefit, and don’t have the luxury of being able to afford several hundreds of pounds on any kind of suitable body/lens combination. I have priorities that lie elsewhere – like food, clothing, a roof over my head.

With regard to digital noise – yes, I think there is a problem there – BUT, I try to process my photographs such that an image is best viewed at the size I set the image in – and if I want a larger image than, say, 1280×768 I’ll go back to the original and completely reprocess – rather than try to stretch an image. I don’t, these days, print many images. I don’t expect my pictures to be downloaded and stretched either, and certainly not printed.

I’ve now got a S6500fd, and I am very pleased with the improvement, so far, over the S5x range. It came direct from Fuji, as a reconditioned one, so I think it has had a bit more TLC than a factory item.

Feintly aviation related example @ 1280×768 – [click!] I’ve chosen this one, which was taken at near full zoom, because of the wide dynamic range within the extremes of contrast – I hope you like it!

I’ll get some 35mm film, which I’ll get processed to CD, rather than printed, to see how it comes out.

Is there any preference with regards film/iso that I should try that works well when processed like this, and for this type of photograph? A good processing company? Can I specify RAW or will I only get jpegs?

Assuming that you would like to use the film for aviation photography, I would advise to look for films with the finest grain possible. For slide film that would be one of the ISO 100 films from either Fuji (Provia 100F or Sensia II) or Kodak.

My preference would be for a colour negative film as it has a wider latitude than slide film. In my experience a good (and cheap!) choice would be Fuji Superia 200. It’s grain is almost as fine as Superia 100 or Reala 100. Conditions permitting you can overexpose Superia 200 by about 2/3 stops, which will provide you with even finer grain and better colour saturation. No modification of development required!

Is there any preference with regards film/iso that I should try that works well…

I would look at Fuji Provia 400F, this can be pushed by 1 or 2 stops, i.e. 800 and 1600 ISO(3 stops were advertised at one time but not recommended).

I had one of those film tidy bags from Lowepro with three compartments and a pouch.

I had saved some old Kodak film canisters and used these labelled with 800 or 1600 to take the exposed cassets to prevent processing mistakes.

A good processing company? Can I specify RAW or will I only get jpegs?

I would have thought TIFF would be best but then I only ever had my film returned uncut (this after sloppy work at one processor when frames were cut short and on a slant at that) and cut and scan my own.

I wouldn’t mind betting that you could obtain a good second hand film scanner at a reasonable price. If you do look for one with ICE, ROC and GEM facilities of which I find the first two useful at times, but then I do have some 40 year old images.

Glad to hear of somebody still willing to give film a go. I often think that at some point in the not to distant future there will be a shortage of pictures of this period when most digital images taken have been lost through corruption, media failure or lack of hardware as standards move on.

I’ve decided to resurrect my Minolta Dynax 500si & Sigma 100-300mm lens. Ordered a new rechargeable battery & charger for it (it uses 2CR5Ms).

I’ll get some 35mm film, which I’ll get processed to CD, rather than printed, to see how it comes out.

Is there any preference with regards film/iso that I should try that works well when processed like this, and for this type of photograph? A good processing company? Can I specify RAW or will I only get jpegs?

I’ve also used the Minolta range and after experiencing problems with my Dynax 9 have gone digital. Still having my Minolta’s led me to buy a Sony Alpha so that I could use the same lens. Although some of the Sigma lens don’t fit, I have to say that I’m most impressed with the Alpha. If you shop around you can purchase the Alpha for less than £500.

I’ve decided to resurrect my Minolta Dynax 500si & Sigma 100-300mm lens. Ordered a new rechargeable battery & charger for it (it uses 2CR5Ms).

I’ll get some 35mm film, which I’ll get processed to CD, rather than printed, to see how it comes out.

Is there any preference with regards film/iso that I should try that works well when processed like this, and for this type of photograph? A good processing company? Can I specify RAW or will I only get jpegs?

Rob, when doing this kind of conversion always specify the Canon RAW format because the colour comes out so much better.

Joking aside (because it’s not healthy to laugh quite so hard), if you use an application called Vuescan with a film/slide scanner you can obtain something akin to a raw file. I’m not aware of anyone offering this sort of service commercially but you may strike lucky.

The batteries in 500si’s last for ages, why bother going to the expense of a charger etc when ordinary batteries are as “cheap as chips”? You’ll need all your spare cash for film processing.

Cheap/budget dSLRs don’t offer any really significant advantage in my experience.

Please could you give us an idea of this “experience” and how you’ve come to this conclusion? I only ask because without exception, everyone I’ve talked to who’s actually used a cheap DSLR disagrees with you and sees it as a massive step up. The only people I hear agreeing with you are those who have no experience of the cameras they’re poo-pooing.

I’ve decided to resurrect my Minolta Dynax 500si & Sigma 100-300mm lens. Ordered a new rechargeable battery & charger for it (it uses 2CR5Ms).

I’ll get some 35mm film, which I’ll get processed to CD, rather than printed, to see how it comes out.

Is there any preference with regards film/iso that I should try that works well when processed like this, and for this type of photograph? A good processing company? Can I specify RAW or will I only get jpegs?

Try upgrading to Nikon

I use a Nikon D200 and use VR lenses. I have a WT3 fitted (wireless LAN) fitted to the camera and thus are able to see exactly what I have taken on my laptop.

I use the software supplied with the camera for most of my touching up of the images (PictureProject), although I also use Adobe Photoshop CS2 when I want to get serious.

I have found that previewing on the screen on the back of the camera was not good enough, hence using the WiFi to get the image to the laptop PC gives a nice big screen to see what you ACTUALLY have got in the image (is it really as sharp as you want.) I very occasionally use an unsharp mask, but try and avoid any sharpening. I used to sharpen images a lot, but then found that I could take photos that didn’t need it.

I am afraid I have been using Nikon for a long time and I prefer their equipment compared than a lot of other brands.

BEWARE a lot of their software has problems working with Windows Vista (Nikon don’t seem to have their act in order with Vista and this is a real big problem if you purchace aq new PC.)

Agreed, that’s why I suggest running them through Neat Image first – but of course, if you can afford £1000 for a better quality camera and lens combination, then that’s what you should do.

Cheap/budget dSLRs don’t offer any really significant advantage in my experience. It’s a matter of diminishing returns on higher expenditure.

I have to say, though, that given the choice I would much prefer a dSLR with a 300mm lens. I’d rather like to have both, actually.

Running them through NeatImage only applies more processing, again reducing quality.

Cheap DSLR’s in my experience offer huge advantages over the Fuji Sxxxx’s and similar ‘full function’ point and shoots. They’re quicker, produce less noise and you have many options to use different lenses according to your needs. You don’t need to spend £1000 either. A 350D and EF 75-500 or the Nikon equivalent would set you back probably something like £550.

I shoot with a variety of cameras ranging from my K800i mobile phone and my film SLR to my Canon A540, 350D and 30D. I still have my S5500 as well. They all have their own little benefits, and sometimes when I’m not shooting aviation, I’ll take a shot on my phone instead of using my 30D because I’m after a certain look as opposed to technical ‘correctness’. In aviation photography, however, the technical standards of your shots will be analysed if you’re uploading to any of the major aviation photography sites, and there is no questioning the average modern DSLR will provide technically superior photos to a camera like the S9500. Even if you don’t intend to upload, there is only one way of getting a high technical level of image quality, and that is to purchase a technically good camera. Processing simply isn’t the way to do it and in most cases will only make your images look worse.

Paul

Agreed, that’s why I suggest running them through Neat Image first – but of course, if you can afford £1000 for a better quality camera and lens combination, then that’s what you should do.

Cheap/budget dSLRs don’t offer any really significant advantage in my experience. It’s a matter of diminishing returns on higher expenditure.

I have to say, though, that given the choice I would much prefer a dSLR with a 300mm lens. I’d rather like to have both, actually.

There is a way it can be fixed. Load the image into Painshop Pro or Photoshop and use the Unsharp Mask to pull the pixels back into each other – sharpening the image.

The problem is that the shots from the Fuji are also relatively noisy, and sharpening, unless done selectively will only makes this worse because you also sharpen the noise. If higher image quality is needed, no amount of processing in PS will give you that. A technically superior camera and lens will!

Paul

There is, it is agreed, a problem with the S9500’s over-softness.

There is a way it can be fixed. Load the image into Painshop Pro or Photoshop and use the Unsharp Mask to pull the pixels back into each other – sharpening the image.

You could also ask Fuji to take a look at it for you, if it is still in warranty.

The S9500 was replaced pretty quickly by the S9600.

I downloaded the first of you entries on MyAviationPhoto – 001051145 and it all came together quite well when I pulled it together using PsPro.

My Unsharp Mask settings were:

Radius 1.50
Strength: 50
Clipping: 5

It is better to apply lower settings, such as this, repeatedly, rather than use high settings and try to do it in one go – although your image only needed one application to look reasonable to me.

Only apply the Unsharp Mask to images that are at the size/resolution you want to present the photo in. So crop and shrink first.

Another thing you could do is to use Neat Image (free to download and use for personal items) to reduce the noise a little. However, use this tool before cropping and shrinking.

Hi Adam,

Having looked at your shots they do seem to have that ‘Fuji Sxxxx softness’ look to them! I decided to go DSLR when I thought I was getting the best shots I technically could from my S5500, and the difference between my results on the Fuji compared to my 350D was staggering. Much sharper and cleaner. Not to mention the fact the 350D outperforms the S5500 in every respect, making the whole process of taking the actual photo much easier!

I can almost guarantee after using the Fuji, a 350D even with a basic lens like the 75-300 USM will improve the quality of your work. You clearly have an excellent eye for composition and a good understanding of exposure, so getting a DSLR may be the logical step to take. Nikon are also well worth investigating. There may be some good deals around on the D50 that might be worth taking advantage of.

Hope that helps. Feel free to email me at [email]paulmnichols@hotmail.com[/email] if there’s anything else I may be able to help with!

Paul

Hi Paul

Many thanks for your response. My main concern is the softness of the images. I have visited the Fuji website and it appears other users have the same problem.

I am trying to balance out whether it is worth upgrading to a DSLR for what I want. I am after better quality, sharper images. At the moment I am trying to work out whether this is my skill or the camera that needs to be improved.

If you get a chance, please feel free to check out my images on myaviation.net. These have all been taken with the S9500

Many Thanks in advance

Adam

Hi, Adam.

The number of pixels a camera has isn’t really a measure of its quality. The Nikon D50 is only 6 MP, but you’ll almost certainly get ‘technically’ better shots from the D50 with a reasonable lens than a complex point and shoot like the S9500.

Can I ask how your results are disappointing you? Are you having problems with noise? Exposure? Colour? There may be a way of improving the results you’re getting from your Fuji instead of spending loads of money on a DSLR!

Paul