TL;DR: My bitching has very little to do with the lens and everything to do with the brand, Minolta's aren't worth the investment because they don't have the proper support and are usually expensive and difficult to find.
Minolta lenses are just that, lenses. The brand does not automatically define the quality of the glass, however a lens is useless without a camera to use it. Basically, I'm fucked in that respect. Although, after some digging I've found ONE dirt cheap Minolta body for 15$. That's barely more then what the lens cost so fuck it, I'll get that.
Post Your Photos
Created 17 years ago2007-08-06 23:50:34 UTC by
Archie
Created 17 years ago2007-08-06 23:50:34 UTC by
Archie
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-01 06:21:16 UTC
Post #299656
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-01 07:09:36 UTC
Post #299657
So in short, fuck Minolta lenses. Buying a Minolta lens and then realizing you have to buy a Minolta along with all it's accessories is like buying a old mouse and finding out you have to buy a Apple II and all it's proprietary shit.I don't quite realize why you are now trying really hard to get into photography, but you bought a video camera.
Although, after some digging I've found ONE dirt cheap Minolta body for 15$. That's barely more then what the lens cost so fuck it, I'll get that.Ah common... Why are you investing in garbage when you could save a bit more money and get a decent camera. It can be a bridge or even an older DSLR like Nikon D40.
Although I recommend you get a bridge. Really nice bridges are around 500$, but you can get decent ones at about 300$.
Have you seen my photos? They're all made with a Nikon P100. The single most annoying thing is that you get the small sensor, 1/2.3 inch, so the resolution isn't as good as DSLRs, but you have very high flexibility.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-01 07:28:20 UTC
Post #299658
I don't quite realize why you are now trying really hard to get into photography
Why are you investing in garbageI don't quite understand your backwards logic.
Very obviously if I was trying to 'get into photography' seriously, then I would not be 'investing into garbage'. I would be investing into the shit you suggest of paying upwards of +500$ for DSLRs I don't need. For me a simple film camera is sufficient so long as it's a SLR, getting a digital is only an added bonus. For me the Minolta is fine just so long as it's cheap enough, and fortunately by some godsend I've found one that is cheap. I'm just trying to get away from this bullshit compact digital camera shit I've been putting up with for how fucking long. Just unusable garbage.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-01 07:29:49 UTC
Post #299659
You could get a Canon AT-1 for less than $100. I'd love to have one myself, and I'll get one as soon as I can spare $100.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-01 07:47:06 UTC
Post #299660
Yeah I've been looking at a rather large selection of film SLR cameras [They're usually extremely cheap, thus why I'm looking at them] and I believe the AT-1 was on my list, however it had something like 3 lenses with it so it cost something like 160-180$.
Also as for the video camera, well like I said before, I wanted to get a half decent 'photo' camera [Not for the sake of 'getting into photography', to get away from fucking point-and-shoots] and apparently they didn't have the camera in store, and the only other choices were more shitty compact-point-and-shoots, or some decent looking Camcorders.
I wasn't really inclined to just simply leave the store and spend the rest of my birthday searching around for a freaking camera, it didn't matter that bloody much to me. And considering the camcorder first of all looked half decent [All I had for video before that point was my shitty compact Kodak easyshare with a whopping 15 fps 640x480 'movie mode'] and there wasn't much else that was truly useful so I bought it.
I swear to god if somebody compostited a book combining all my posts it would cost 300$ in shipping to buy it.
Also as for the video camera, well like I said before, I wanted to get a half decent 'photo' camera [Not for the sake of 'getting into photography', to get away from fucking point-and-shoots] and apparently they didn't have the camera in store, and the only other choices were more shitty compact-point-and-shoots, or some decent looking Camcorders.
I wasn't really inclined to just simply leave the store and spend the rest of my birthday searching around for a freaking camera, it didn't matter that bloody much to me. And considering the camcorder first of all looked half decent [All I had for video before that point was my shitty compact Kodak easyshare with a whopping 15 fps 640x480 'movie mode'] and there wasn't much else that was truly useful so I bought it.
I swear to god if somebody compostited a book combining all my posts it would cost 300$ in shipping to buy it.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-01 11:07:09 UTC
Post #299664
Buy a cheap, preferably used, DSLR (I'm thinking like a D60, or equal) and learn the basics of photography, stop trying to justify the purchase of a crappy video-camera to yourself, start shooting (raw) for real.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-01 16:09:23 UTC
Post #299676
</discussion>
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-01 17:19:40 UTC
Post #299679
Please don't tell me that's your justification for RAW, there's block compression artifacts everywhere.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-01 20:14:30 UTC
Post #299685
One of Boomers pictures is better then all your 'Pictures' combined, you know, the things you call Pictures, that in most cases reek of Photoshop, I think that there is pretty sad.
Anyways, I got my pinhole camera back! The person who stole it took it home for a whole week to take shitty photos, I found them stacked on top of my camera. I'd take a picture of the inside, but I have photo paper in it right now, next week, I'll take an inside picture, and one of the Positives we are making. And were also going to start using Cameras, I'll post a picture of the one I'm using, not sure what type it is though :/ Hope it takes pictures like Boomers and Strikers.
Pinhole Camera, made from a Quaker Oats thing.
Camera I'm going to be using soon.
[Right Click > View Image] For bigger pics.
Anyways, I got my pinhole camera back! The person who stole it took it home for a whole week to take shitty photos, I found them stacked on top of my camera. I'd take a picture of the inside, but I have photo paper in it right now, next week, I'll take an inside picture, and one of the Positives we are making. And were also going to start using Cameras, I'll post a picture of the one I'm using, not sure what type it is though :/ Hope it takes pictures like Boomers and Strikers.
Pinhole Camera, made from a Quaker Oats thing.
Camera I'm going to be using soon.
[Right Click > View Image] For bigger pics.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-01 21:35:10 UTC
Post #299687
It's a SLR so it's pretty set that should churn out photos on par with Striker's and Boomer's, but for the most part all you truly need is good composition.
You're also going to need to have a decent piece of glass in front of the film too, cheaper glass means less sharpness and worse quality.
You're also going to need to have a decent piece of glass in front of the film too, cheaper glass means less sharpness and worse quality.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-02 17:32:05 UTC
Post #299710
This one is taken with my cellphone:
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-02 20:58:48 UTC
Post #299719
Crollo, you have no excuse.
@Brendanmint: Try higher ASA film, to make shorter exposures
@Brendanmint: Try higher ASA film, to make shorter exposures
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-02 21:49:02 UTC
Post #299721
Also color would probably go well too, unless you're aiming for a strictly vintage look.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-05 19:39:06 UTC
Post #299784
Fuck point-and-shoots.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-06 03:33:44 UTC
Post #299792
You stole Dobson's Canon FT?
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-06 05:09:43 UTC
Post #299793
Indeed. No idea who he is though, "J. Dobson" is either James or John Dobson, and both of them are Europeans, nobody local. So how the hell did I get a J. Dobson's camera in a local thrift store?
[I'm relatively certain that J. Dobson is James or John because they're the only two I could find after 5 pages of searching for generic J. Dobson photographer.]
[I'm relatively certain that J. Dobson is James or John because they're the only two I could find after 5 pages of searching for generic J. Dobson photographer.]
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-06 05:11:35 UTC
Post #299794
I hope you start making good use of it and stop posting crap pictures that look all alike. No offense of course.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-06 14:16:39 UTC
Post #299796
I don't get it, if all I take are bad [presumed] photos, then why the fuck'd I get a SLR? Not being hostile, just wondering.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-06 15:04:16 UTC
Post #299797
DiscoStu probably meant that you should start going outside. All of your pictures are of objects on a table or something taken indoors.
Your pictures are not ugly from my point of view. Actually, I quite enjoy your style. But YOU ALSO HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE.
Your pictures are not ugly from my point of view. Actually, I quite enjoy your style. But YOU ALSO HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-06 15:13:06 UTC
Post #299798
I can't even take those types of photographs due to the focusing range not being short enough, but I mean everybody suggesting me to get a DSLR when I'm very clearly extremely amateurish is like suggesting buying a 13 year old a RED ONE when he asks for a video camera. Whatever, not trying to stir shit up it just seems odd to me.
With that aside, this thing is fucking amazing, for somebody who's only ever used a piece of shit Kodak Easyshare his entire life this thing is, to me, on par of getting a RED EPIC.
This is vintage 66' but it still works perfectly, completely mechanical minus the meter, so you never have to worry about batteries. The longer I go without stuffing some freaking film in this thing the closer I get to killing myself by dry firing it constantly.
With that aside, this thing is fucking amazing, for somebody who's only ever used a piece of shit Kodak Easyshare his entire life this thing is, to me, on par of getting a RED EPIC.
This is vintage 66' but it still works perfectly, completely mechanical minus the meter, so you never have to worry about batteries. The longer I go without stuffing some freaking film in this thing the closer I get to killing myself by dry firing it constantly.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-06 15:16:07 UTC
Post #299799
everybody suggesting me to get a DSLR when I'm very clearly extremely amateurishNot everyone. I suggested a bridge :D.
Why are you investing in garbage when you could save a bit more money and get a decent camera. It can be a bridge or even an older DSLR like Nikon D40.
Although I recommend you get a bridge. Really nice bridges are around 500$, but you can get decent ones at about 300$.
Have you seen my photos? They're all made with a Nikon P100. The single most annoying thing is that you get the small sensor, 1/2.3 inch, so the resolution isn't as good as DSLRs, but you have very high flexibility.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-06 15:44:52 UTC
Post #299800
Ah yes, bridge cameras were definitely an option, but I would personally PREFER a SLR for the interchangeable lenses and the optical viewfinder, I fucking hate focusing using a LCD. If I couldn't get a SLR I definitely would have gotten a bridge.
You should try a film slr sometime Striker, they're extremely cheap and I think you could come up with some great photos given the massive 'sensor' size and vast choices of lenses.
Why is this entire page discussing me. :<
You should try a film slr sometime Striker, they're extremely cheap and I think you could come up with some great photos given the massive 'sensor' size and vast choices of lenses.
Why is this entire page discussing me. :<
Too much talk, not enough photos
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-06 16:18:10 UTC
Post #299801
The reason I'm not getting a cheap SLR and I desire a DSLR is because developing film is expensive and a time consuming process until I get the photos.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-06 16:22:39 UTC
Post #299802
Do you not have any labs that can develop film for you? It really isn't exactly what I would call expensive unless you're developing it yourself.
I think it's something like 3$ a roll, including digital copies [scans] of the developed photos.
I think it's something like 3$ a roll, including digital copies [scans] of the developed photos.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-06 16:31:20 UTC
Post #299804
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-06 22:52:45 UTC
Post #299811
There was an absolutely stunning sunset recently - one of the best I've ever seen, so naturally I got on my bike with my camera.
Massive dump incoming:
^^ I love how noticeable the change in the colour of the light is between these two shots, and they were taken within less than two minutes of each other.
Massive dump incoming:
^^ I love how noticeable the change in the colour of the light is between these two shots, and they were taken within less than two minutes of each other.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-07 02:45:08 UTC
Post #299815
who is the old dude? that picture is great!
also love the barbed wire one.
great shots!
also love the barbed wire one.
great shots!
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-07 04:19:10 UTC
Post #299817
Great shots indeed.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-07 05:22:28 UTC
Post #299818
It's my dad. I bumped into him cycling back from work.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-07 05:52:37 UTC
Post #299819
So what sort of camera shot these?
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-08 23:49:41 UTC
Post #299845
Panasonic DMC-FS42. Metadata is your friend 
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-09 01:24:17 UTC
Post #299847
I'm not sure if March 2010 really counts as 'recent'.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-09 08:06:26 UTC
Post #299852
I can only assume the DSLR's date&time wasn't correctly set.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-09 17:16:18 UTC
Post #299863
DSLR? Panasonic DMC-FS42?
haha. And nah, he's referring to the folder structure.
haha. And nah, he's referring to the folder structure.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-09 22:25:02 UTC
Post #299871
Oh right. Too lazy to actually save them to my HDD when my browser can display them full-size correctly
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-09 22:34:51 UTC
Post #299872
Why would you save them to the HDD? Get a browser that can display metadata properly :P.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-09 23:07:45 UTC
Post #299873
...oh.
Didn't know about that feature.
Didn't know about that feature.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-11 05:46:27 UTC
Post #299895
Loving the shallow depth of field.
And before you prissy thrift throw your fizzy fits Disco, these are only test shots, although I do kind of like them as actual 'photos'.
[TWIMC: These shots are not completely representative of the film quality or the camera quality, as these are taken through the viewfinder so the quality may be affected and the hud elements remain.]
And before you prissy thrift throw your fizzy fits Disco, these are only test shots, although I do kind of like them as actual 'photos'.
[TWIMC: These shots are not completely representative of the film quality or the camera quality, as these are taken through the viewfinder so the quality may be affected and the hud elements remain.]
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-11 16:02:25 UTC
Post #299902
Decent practice shots. I hope you do start using film rather than shooting digital photos through the viewfinder. It's more pleasing to do so. And then there's the mystery of not knowing whether your photos came out good until you develop the film. Do you know how that works? Developing? Or maybe you're too young for that?
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-11 16:48:54 UTC
Post #299905
Yeah it's kind of a double edged thing, taking [digital] through the viewfinder allows me to get a very rough idea of how the final image would come out should I shoot it on film, and of course film looks a lot better, but has to be developed before you can see whether or not the shot you took is shit. Still, the camera has a metering system built in so I'm not particularly concerned about wrecking images.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-11 18:43:12 UTC
Post #299907
You could, of course, look through the viewfinder as a speedier procedure to obtain the exact same information.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-11 21:27:39 UTC
Post #299912
The viewfinder does not show what your image will look like post processed or cropped or anything like that. It shows you what the raw image will look like.
Film isn't reusable, so I take some [LQ] digital images at different angles, etc, then go through them all, and pick the best one, post process it, and if it looks good in the end I'll use the film. If there are severe problems processing it, then oh well, just delete the image from the memory card and start over. But if you did that with film, you've just wasted however many shots.
Am I being over-thorough? Probably. But you're paying +15$ a roll so I don't exactly feel inclined to shoot something and go "Aw fuck it'd look a lot better if I shot it at this angle!"
Film isn't reusable, so I take some [LQ] digital images at different angles, etc, then go through them all, and pick the best one, post process it, and if it looks good in the end I'll use the film. If there are severe problems processing it, then oh well, just delete the image from the memory card and start over. But if you did that with film, you've just wasted however many shots.
Am I being over-thorough? Probably. But you're paying +15$ a roll so I don't exactly feel inclined to shoot something and go "Aw fuck it'd look a lot better if I shot it at this angle!"
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-11 21:33:04 UTC
Post #299913
I can't decide whether you're trolling or just being stupid. You can see lighting, angle, framing, DOF, and everything right from the viewfinder - that's what it's there for. The only thing it doesn't show you is the final exposure. But you still have the built-in light meter as a guide for that. Taking a photo of the viewfinder won't show you the final exposure either.
Also, $15 a roll? Don't complain. There's cheap film for less than $5 so you can use that for practicing. Good film can cost over $100.
[edit] Ninja edit eh? Still you don't have to pay for full-sized copies of all shots. That's what contact sheets are for.
Also, $15 a roll? Don't complain. There's cheap film for less than $5 so you can use that for practicing. Good film can cost over $100.
[edit] Ninja edit eh? Still you don't have to pay for full-sized copies of all shots. That's what contact sheets are for.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-11 22:09:22 UTC
Post #299914
The viewfinder does not show what your image will look like post processed
The viewfinder does not show what your image will look like post processed
The viewfinder does not show what your image will look like post processed
Better? Despite showing the raw image it does not show you whether or not your image with be usable when shoved through post processing. Oh hey as it turns out this lighting setup is completely unusable [when worked with digitally, it appears perfectly fine when looking through the viewfinder!], so I waste a bunch of negatives, only to find out that increasing the contrast post production only degrades the quality. I also love how you suggest I just buy 'cheap' film when I can do the exact same fucking thing completely free of any charge or problems whatsoever, that's not solving the problem, it's sidestepping it.
I'm not sure if you really realize this or not, but I don't post raw images. They almost always HAVE to have a contrast increase [Ask Archie, actually don't, he doesn't really give a shit], maybe some lighting correction [Tungsten lights], always cropping to avoid having useless space in the image, they're never just straight off the camera, or in this case film. I've wasted enough DIGITAL SPACE taking pictures that looked perfectly fine until I attempted to change it digitally.
Why not just post the raw images? Well while I'm sure film churns out some pretty good raw images, there is ALWAYS room for digital improvement. And more importantly there is usually a lot of wasted space in the raw that I often crop off, I fucking hate shooting anything with a square format.
The viewfinder does not show what your image will look like post processed
The viewfinder does not show what your image will look like post processed
Better? Despite showing the raw image it does not show you whether or not your image with be usable when shoved through post processing. Oh hey as it turns out this lighting setup is completely unusable [when worked with digitally, it appears perfectly fine when looking through the viewfinder!], so I waste a bunch of negatives, only to find out that increasing the contrast post production only degrades the quality. I also love how you suggest I just buy 'cheap' film when I can do the exact same fucking thing completely free of any charge or problems whatsoever, that's not solving the problem, it's sidestepping it.
I'm not sure if you really realize this or not, but I don't post raw images. They almost always HAVE to have a contrast increase [Ask Archie, actually don't, he doesn't really give a shit], maybe some lighting correction [Tungsten lights], always cropping to avoid having useless space in the image, they're never just straight off the camera, or in this case film. I've wasted enough DIGITAL SPACE taking pictures that looked perfectly fine until I attempted to change it digitally.
Why not just post the raw images? Well while I'm sure film churns out some pretty good raw images, there is ALWAYS room for digital improvement. And more importantly there is usually a lot of wasted space in the raw that I often crop off, I fucking hate shooting anything with a square format.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-11 22:11:18 UTC
Post #299915
That's because you're taking them wrong. I've posted plenty of straight-out-of-the-camera photos that are just perfect - look at page 10 for example. I suggest you first learn the basics of photography instead of attacking me for trying to help you.
I'll just stop arguing with you about photography, it's pointless.
I'll just stop arguing with you about photography, it's pointless.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-11 22:13:12 UTC
Post #299916
No thanks, I don't take photography seriously so I don't feel inclined to 'learn the basics'.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-11 22:31:28 UTC
Post #299918
Then stop wasting your time and money.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-11 23:39:11 UTC
Post #299919
I've posted plenty of straight-out-of-the-camera photos that are just perfect - look at page 10 for example.Is that so? Perfect, as in, post production could not improve them any further, correct?
Looking at these images raw it feels as though you've put a colored filter over the entire image, the images sometimes are severely flat.
And here are images that don't have enough detail for decent contrast, and get destroyed through the process of post production. Maybe you should learn the basics of photography yourself, because this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about:
26 of your photos on page 10 required post production work for bearable contrast, vs 6 photo's that already had decent contrast. I'm not seeing 'plentiful' figures here Disco, so before you insult my photographic ability, how about getting yours in check first, okay.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-12 01:56:44 UTC
Post #299923
What the fuck. Seriously, what the fuck.
I liked those photos as they were, without that gross overdone contrast.
I'm not even going to argue with you.
I liked those photos as they were, without that gross overdone contrast.
I'm not even going to argue with you.
Posted 13 years ago2011-10-12 02:19:26 UTC
Post #299924
ITT: Crollo waves his e-penis around.
You must be logged in to post a response.