No, I am not Ken Rockwell

Last week, I bought a Nikon D40 refurb from Cameta Camera on ebay. It cost me $242. I've paid more for film SLRs, to be honest about it. Why would a someone that's a fairly adept photographer buy the low-hanging Nikon fruit? I mean, shouldn't I be buying a D300 or at least a D90? I already have a well-used D70s that I bought new back in 2005, so why would I want yet another 6 MP DSLR? Well, my daughter Marjorie leaves for 3 weeks in Japan on May 9. She has a D50 that I bought for her in 2006. The D50 was giving her the odd problem, which might be caused by some dirty AF contacts...or not. So, it's basically insurance should she need another camera body before she leaves. In the time I have had the D40 (which I originally poo-poohed as a beginner's DSLR when it came out), I have to say that I have enjoyed shooting with it. For one, it's small and lightweight - meaning it's also a great travel camera. Two, the rear LCD is really nice for chimping, and the control layout is pretty easy to deal with. Three, it can take even old non-AI manual lenses (although anything NOT AF requires manual exposure, which isn't a big deal)--so I have been shooting with my 180mm 2.8 AIS lens...and it's fun. What about only 6 megapixels? I'm not printing murals, and 6 MP is just fine for almost anything I'd use this camera for. The only drawback with the D40 and its siblings, is that it requires AF-S lenses for autofocus. If you are in the market that the camera was intended for, that's not usually a problem. But if you are like me, with quite a few older AF-D lenses, having those autofocus would be a nice feature..but not a deal killer. But that's typical Nikon -- leaving some features out that probably won't matter to many, but irritating to others. That said, look for another low-hanging fruit review of the Canon 1000D in the near future.

So, yes, the D40 is a nice lightweight camera that I would recommend for travel, vacations, and just carrying around. I like the color saturation options, including the option of shooting in B&W. It's considerably lighter and more compact than my D70. It takes a new battery, the ENL-9. Photos? Yes, here are a few...

Taken with the 180mm 2.8 ED AIS manual lens. Damn, what a fine lens!!

With the 35mm 1.8 G AF-S DX lens.

Taken in b&w mode, 35mm 1.8 DX lens.

As I said, it's a fun camera.

Vintage Canon - The AL-1

As you may have noted over the past four months, I have been acquiring and using a number of vintage (and some not vintage) Canon SLRs. Back in February I purchased a Canon AL-1 QF camera. The QF refers to the "Quick Focus" system on the camera. No, not auto-focus, but a green LED indicator to tell the photographer when the subject at the center of the viewfinder is in focus. Not really as gimmicky as it sounds, since that is what modern AF cameras do. Useful? I believe so, especially for someone that wears glasses. The AL-1 appeared in 1981, and is one of the A-series of Canons that take modern batteries and the FD lens mount.

The battery door was loose, so I used gaffer tape to keep it closed.

The AL-1 features:
focus confirmation
Aperture-priority and manual modes
Self-timer
Takes 2 AAA batteries
1/60th sec flash sync
ability to use a power winder

Overall, a fairly compact and basic SLR with standard features that make it a competent amateur-level camera. I found it a delight to use, and while not a Canon A-1, it would make a good backup camera. Also, for street shooting, it's a winner. You want simplicity and A-P exposure is what I like.

A few images:
Somebody's cousin...

early March

Main Street

with 50mm macro

With 50mm 1.4 lens --

Classy, to the end. Peter Gowland, 1916-2010.

I read in today's New York Times that Peter Gowland, the famous glamour photographer, died at the age of 93 on March 17. According the the obituary, it was from complications from a fall. Mr. Gowland published over two dozen books on pin-up and glamour photography, and his images were always well-done. Not only was he an accomplished photographer and author, but he also designed and sold the twin-lens Gowlandflex. This was a giant twin-lens reflex that was available in 4x5 and 5x7 sheet film sizes. Gowland was actively photographing and making cameras until shortly before his death.

To say that Peter Gowland was an institution would be a fair assessment. There's nothing wrong with liking beautiful women, but it takes some real talent and great technique to make a titillating, but not tawdry photograph. He was a master of pin-up and as much an icon as the many Hollywood starlets he captured on film. A long life lived fully. Classy until the very end. You can check out the Gowland website and get a lot more information about his work and tips for shooting glamour, too.

What's in Your Camera Bag?

Not what's ON your camera bag, as in the photo above. Photographers often put more thought into acquiring a camera bag than they do buying a new appliance. Camera bags can be very utilitarian, such as the Domke F2 bag, or very specialized, such as some of the photo backpacks or camera sling-packs that are now popular. I prefer the Tamrac bags because I like the simple design and flexibility of adjusting the inner dividers. With digital, there are more small bags that are perfect for a P&S camera and a battery and a few memory cards, but can't carry much else. I like to have bags that will accept a variety of cameras:
There is a Holga, a Nikon Coolpix 995 and a Nikon N80 in this bag. Film - both 35mm and 120, memory cards, extra batteries, filters, etc. That was for a long weekend when I was traveling with a group and I could take only 1 camera bag.

Of course, for an extendend trip, I don't travel as light:


I think I have about a dozen bags with different cameras and camera systems ready to go. The Tamrac backpack has the Pentax 6x7 system. That camera and lenses are heavy enough that after a number of years, I realized that it was too damn heavy to sling over a shoulder (my bad one, especially). The backpack is perfect for it. The Domke F2 bag is perfect for the "blad and a few lenses, backs, etc.

I have a small Tamrac bag that looks more like a purse -- but it holds a Minolta light meter, gaffer's tape, filters, tools, and so on. Sort of like a photo toolbox. It goes in the car when I am on a longish trip, too. Back in 2003, Adrienne, Jorie, and I went on a long trip to NM. I forget exactly how many camera bags we had, but there were a few. This photo of just the Nikon gear I took, probably required several bags...


Looking back on that trip, I took way too much. I think it takes those kinds of experiences to make one a better photographer. I don't regret taking all that stuff, since most of it got used. But in the end, some of the most memorable photos were taken by a Holga and an Argus C-3. If I were doing that trip again, I would greatly simplify the gear and reduce the number of bags. Today, I would probably have three bags: One with a 35mm SLR (or DSLR) with a 28-105 lens, 50mm, and 80-200 (or thereabouts). A lensbaby, and maybe even one more wide-angle lens or a dedicated macro lens. One small bag with a rangefinder camera (Minolta 7s) and some film. Another bag would possibly have a TLR and a toy camera or two. Or something like that. I forgot about the 'blad...

Some thoughts on the Canon EOS (film) SLRs

I've been a pretty dedicated Nikon user for the past 10 years, ever since I got serious about photography. Canon, pffft.... Well, I am sure Canon users said the same about Nikon. However, when it comes down to images, you can't tell what camera was used to take the photo. So, really, aside from the idiosyncrasies of any particular camera system, it comes down to personal preferences, and whether or not a system provides the flexibility one needs. In favor of Nikon, the lens mount has changed little in 50 years, as has been reiterated many times. Canon, on the other hand, departed from the breech-lock FD-mount and went to a new AF lens mount that basically made anyone buy all new lenses, or search for an adapter. The good news, is that the Canon EF-mount has a lot of adapters available for other systems. Not so for Nikon. Nikon lenses don't seem to have the two-tier system that Canon has. Canon's cheap lenses do feel cheap. Their L-series lenses are pro-level and command a higher price, as well. So, the two stalwarts of the SLR wars each offer something for somebody. I won't discuss the DSLRs as I have not used one of Canon's models.


However, lately, I have added a couple of Canon EOS film cameras to my "collection." I previously blogged about my inexpensive Canon Rebel-G. Well, a little while ago I bought a Canon EOS Elan II body on ebay for $10.52 + shipping. That camera has turned out to be a real gem, as I like its ergonomics, control layout, and the viewfinder is nice and bright. Obviously the mid-level camera in the EOS film lineup, and a significant upgrade from the Rebel series. It also works with a Nikon adapter, so I will try out some Nikkor lenses on it.

A little note on the the Rebel-G. I bought a 50mm 1.8 lens for it, and the combo must be one of the most lightweight SLRs out there. I did some shots with it last weekend, and it was a lot of fun to use.



and with the 24-50mm Sigma lens:


In the end, the Canon Rebel SLRs are perfectly capable of providing excellent results. You really can't go wrong with Nikon or Canon, and the digital deluge is causing excellent film cameras to be sold at a fraction of their original cost. Black and white film has never been better, and these cameras are certainly a lot lighter and a breeze to shoot with.