<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On upgrading cameras and life through a lens</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gonedigital.net/2011/05/12/on-upgrading-cameras-and-life-through-a-lens/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gonedigital.net/2011/05/12/on-upgrading-cameras-and-life-through-a-lens/</link>
	<description>Nigel Whitfield’s digital TV &#38; technology blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 16:23:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nigel</title>
		<link>http://gonedigital.net/2011/05/12/on-upgrading-cameras-and-life-through-a-lens/comment-page-1/#comment-3847</link>
		<dc:creator>Nigel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 10:13:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gonedigital.net/?p=1029#comment-3847</guid>
		<description>Good point; hadn&#039;t thought of that - still too wedded to the old ways! :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good point; hadn&#8217;t thought of that &#8211; still too wedded to the old ways! <img src='http://gonedigital.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://gonedigital.net/2011/05/12/on-upgrading-cameras-and-life-through-a-lens/comment-page-1/#comment-3833</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 16:59:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gonedigital.net/?p=1029#comment-3833</guid>
		<description>Having no metering isn&#039;t as bad with digital as with film. Exposure bracketing costs nothing. More importantly, the rear screen will immediately show the results of your guesswork.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having no metering isn&#8217;t as bad with digital as with film. Exposure bracketing costs nothing. More importantly, the rear screen will immediately show the results of your guesswork.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nigel</title>
		<link>http://gonedigital.net/2011/05/12/on-upgrading-cameras-and-life-through-a-lens/comment-page-1/#comment-3755</link>
		<dc:creator>Nigel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 May 2011 10:22:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gonedigital.net/?p=1029#comment-3755</guid>
		<description>Unfortunately, the D90 is also restricted to fully manual mode, with no metering when using old lenses. It&#039;s a great camera; I&#039;ve had some portraits of myself done with one. But I&#039;d either be reduced to carrying a light meter, or estimating exposures in my head, which is a shame.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately, the D90 is also restricted to fully manual mode, with no metering when using old lenses. It&#8217;s a great camera; I&#8217;ve had some portraits of myself done with one. But I&#8217;d either be reduced to carrying a light meter, or estimating exposures in my head, which is a shame.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rowan</title>
		<link>http://gonedigital.net/2011/05/12/on-upgrading-cameras-and-life-through-a-lens/comment-page-1/#comment-3749</link>
		<dc:creator>Rowan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 14:42:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gonedigital.net/?p=1029#comment-3749</guid>
		<description>Avoiding the &#039;spray and pray&#039; style of photography is something that many keen amateurs (and even pros) struggle with in this digital age.  There are many blogs written giving ideas to form good habits such as limiting yourself to 3 shots in a day etc to make you think about getting the shot right first time.  Some even suggest using a film camera! 

If the D7000 is out of your price range then it may be worth looking at the D90.  That is an older model (nearly 3 years old now I think) but it is still a &#039;current&#039; model in the range.  As the OAP of the range it is now being sold at bargain prices.  As of today it is listed body only on amazon for £550.  http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod723.html gives the current best prices along with a history - a good site for researching camera prices.  I&#039;m not sure exactly what its capabilities are with old manual lenses, but it is in many ways the D7000&#039;s predecessor and it certainly has the body focus motor for old lenses without focus motors.  It doesn&#039;t have the same high ISO capability of its newer siblings, but it is a very highly respected camera and could be worth investigating rather than waiting years to save up for the newer models.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Avoiding the &#8216;spray and pray&#8217; style of photography is something that many keen amateurs (and even pros) struggle with in this digital age.  There are many blogs written giving ideas to form good habits such as limiting yourself to 3 shots in a day etc to make you think about getting the shot right first time.  Some even suggest using a film camera! </p>
<p>If the D7000 is out of your price range then it may be worth looking at the D90.  That is an older model (nearly 3 years old now I think) but it is still a &#8216;current&#8217; model in the range.  As the OAP of the range it is now being sold at bargain prices.  As of today it is listed body only on amazon for £550.  <a href="http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod723.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod723.html</a> gives the current best prices along with a history &#8211; a good site for researching camera prices.  I&#8217;m not sure exactly what its capabilities are with old manual lenses, but it is in many ways the D7000&#8242;s predecessor and it certainly has the body focus motor for old lenses without focus motors.  It doesn&#8217;t have the same high ISO capability of its newer siblings, but it is a very highly respected camera and could be worth investigating rather than waiting years to save up for the newer models.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon</title>
		<link>http://gonedigital.net/2011/05/12/on-upgrading-cameras-and-life-through-a-lens/comment-page-1/#comment-3748</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 13:49:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gonedigital.net/?p=1029#comment-3748</guid>
		<description>&gt;&gt; ... as they snap every inch of the inside of a cathedral, rather than standing and marvelling in awe at their surroundings.

Couldn&#039;t agree more. Not only that, but as you&#039;ve hinted at, without some decent lenses you typically won&#039;t get anything that captures more than a tiny bit of the scene. I&#039;ve tried using a cheapish digital camera to take pictures of the inside of my properties, but you just cannot get any sense of size as it just doesn&#039;t have the wide angle needed to capture more than a small view of the room.

Personally I tend to snap away, but not so much on the basis that a few might turn out, more on the basis that I tend to shake the camera, or not quite get the framing right, and so I&#039;ll snap several similar ones so I can select the best (and I *DO* delete a lot) later.

My &quot;other camera&#039; is a completely manual FED4 - on the shelf and covered with a lot of dust. I recall that when I did use it, the subjects would usually have got bored before I&#039;d finished setting it up !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt; &#8230; as they snap every inch of the inside of a cathedral, rather than standing and marvelling in awe at their surroundings.</p>
<p>Couldn&#8217;t agree more. Not only that, but as you&#8217;ve hinted at, without some decent lenses you typically won&#8217;t get anything that captures more than a tiny bit of the scene. I&#8217;ve tried using a cheapish digital camera to take pictures of the inside of my properties, but you just cannot get any sense of size as it just doesn&#8217;t have the wide angle needed to capture more than a small view of the room.</p>
<p>Personally I tend to snap away, but not so much on the basis that a few might turn out, more on the basis that I tend to shake the camera, or not quite get the framing right, and so I&#8217;ll snap several similar ones so I can select the best (and I *DO* delete a lot) later.</p>
<p>My &#8220;other camera&#8217; is a completely manual FED4 &#8211; on the shelf and covered with a lot of dust. I recall that when I did use it, the subjects would usually have got bored before I&#8217;d finished setting it up !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

