Manual focus digi SLR

I was looking at some cheap manual focus only SLRs for playing around.
But what put me off was getting the rolls developed and I don't want to
setup a lab.

So I was just wondering if there are any digital SLRs that are manual
focus only and are cheap!! Well, I know the answer, there aren't.

But why?? If they made such cameras, would there be a market for them?

Also, when will entry level digital SLR (say a Canon Rebel 300D) prices
will match entry level film SLRs (say a Canon Rebel Ti or 300V).
Cheers,

Siddhartha

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
I was looking at some cheap manual focus only SLRs for playing around.
But what put me off was getting the rolls developed and I don't want to
setup a lab.

So I was just wondering if there are any digital SLRs that are manual
focus only and are cheap!! Well, I know the answer, there aren't.

But why?? If they made such cameras, would there be a market for them?
It's all about supply and demand. Demand is for cameras that do everything,
hence they are supplied cheap. As an example, Pentax's 2 entry level
cameras, the MZ-60 and MZ-M - the 60 has AF, the M is Manual Focus. I don't
know about in the USA, but here in Australia at RRP there is only a few $
difference between the 60 and the M. Because of the extra volume of the 60
and also the competitiveness of the market, it can be bought in stores quite
a bit cheaper than RRP, but the M's lower volume means that it is only
available on special order and hence full price applies.
Realistically an AF system only adds a few dollars to the cost of a camera.
When you consider the other costs associated with a DSLR, the AF components
consist of a very small portion of the price. If an AF camera cost $1500 but
the MF was $1450, I know I'd choose the AF camera every time.

Also, when will entry level digital SLR (say a Canon Rebel 300D) prices
will match entry level film SLRs (say a Canon Rebel Ti or 300V).
Never. A film camera is always going to be much simpler to produce and hence
much cheaper to produce than a digital. Film cameras have exposure control
systems, film winding systems, and that is about it. A digital camera has to
have all the same complexities of a film camera (except film winding), but
also needs to have a sensor, image processing engine, card control
circuitry, computer interface circuitry, preview screen and associated
circuitry etc etc. If you are mechanically minded, you could make a very
basic but working film camera out of a few bits of wood and metal, and a
couple of rubber bands. You can't do the same with digital.

Here's a tip if you want to lower the cost of using film. Buy yourself a
good negative scanner (eg Epson photo 2580, canon 5200, epson rx510). When
you get your film developed ask for process only. The going rate here in
australia seems to be about $2/roll, compared to about $8-$10/roll for
process+printing. Scan your negs, then you have pretty much the same
flexibility and only-print-what-you-want of digital. The cost comes down to
only a few dollars per roll and is quite affordable.
Cheers,

Siddhartha

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
I was looking at some cheap manual focus only SLRs for playing around.
But what put me off was getting the rolls developed and I don't want to
setup a lab.

So I was just wondering if there are any digital SLRs that are manual
focus only and are cheap!! Well, I know the answer, there aren't.

But why?? If they made such cameras, would there be a market for them?

Also, when will entry level digital SLR (say a Canon Rebel 300D) prices
will match entry level film SLRs (say a Canon Rebel Ti or 300V).
Cheers,

Siddhartha



All AF lenses for digi-SLRs offer manual focus. AF can be turned off.
Manual focus is easier on some lenses than others.

Mark

I take digital pictures of dogs, puppies mainly. Does anyone know the
camera with the least "lagtime". I don't care about the cost; just how fast
I can take pictures. Of course, I do know that you press the shutter part
way down first, and that is called something or other, and then there is the
actual lag time while taking the picture.

Thank you in advance,
Rosanne

I take digital pictures of dogs, puppies mainly. Does anyone know the
camera with the least "lagtime". I don't care about the cost; just how fast
I can take pictures. Of course, I do know that you press the shutter part
way down first, and that is called something or other, and then there is the
actual lag time while taking the picture.

Thank you in advance,
Rosanne

Hey Justin,

Thanks, the film scanner is a good idea. The dSLR route is expensive.
Plus I would always be scared of screwing up the camera. With a film
scanner and a cheap film SLR, I won't have much to worry about. Another
reason I want a manual focus SLR is that it will force me to more than
just point-click. The current digicam I have is the Olympus C-750. It
too has manual focus/shutter/aperture, but I tend to overlook it
because AF is there!!
Maybe I look at a Vivitar 3800N to begin with

Cheers,

Siddhartha

Hey Justin,

Thanks, the film scanner is a good idea. The dSLR route is expensive.
Plus I would always be scared of screwing up the camera. With a film
scanner and a cheap film SLR, I won't have much to worry about. Another
reason I want a manual focus SLR is that it will force me to more than
just point-click. The current digicam I have is the Olympus C-750. It
too has manual focus/shutter/aperture, but I tend to overlook it
because AF is there!!
Maybe I look at a Vivitar 3800N to begin with

Cheers,

Siddhartha

Hey Justin,

Thanks, the film scanner is a good idea. The dSLR route is expensive.
Plus I would always be scared of screwing up the camera. With a film
scanner and a cheap film SLR, I won't have much to worry about. Another
reason I want a manual focus SLR is that it will force me to more than
just point-click. The current digicam I have is the Olympus C-750. It
too has manual focus/shutter/aperture, but I tend to overlook it
because AF is there!!
Maybe I look at a Vivitar 3800N to begin with

Cheers,

Siddhartha

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 08:44:30 -0400, "Rosanne Cleveland-King"
wrote:

I take digital pictures of dogs, puppies mainly. Does anyone know the
camera with the least "lagtime". I don't care about the cost; just how fast
I can take pictures. Of course, I do know that you press the shutter part
way down first, and that is called something or other, and then there is the
actual lag time while taking the picture.



If your camera has a full manual mode with manual focus, here are a
few tricks that can drastically reduce shutter lag time.

1 Put the camera into aperture priority mode and set the aperture to
5.6 as a starting point

2. Set the zoom lens to the equivalent of 50 mm and manual focus to
roughly double the shortest distance your puppies are likely to
be--about 5-6 feet would be a good starting point. This takes
advantage of the great depth of field in small sensor digital camera.
On my camera, I'm in good focus from about 3 feet to infinity with
these settings.

3. Set the shutter speed to whatever gives you a good exposure.

4. If you have the feature, set the camera to the burst mode so you
can take multiple pictures. Again with my camera , I can take from 7
to 17 pictures in a 4 to 8 second burst depending on how I've set my
picture resolution.

5. Take test pictures and then adjust to suit your camera and tastes.

Since evey thing is now set and the camera doesn't have to do any
calculations, the shutter lag should be almost nothing

jpc

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 08:44:30 -0400, "Rosanne Cleveland-King"
wrote:

I take digital pictures of dogs, puppies mainly. Does anyone know the
camera with the least "lagtime". I don't care about the cost; just how fast
I can take pictures. Of course, I do know that you press the shutter part
way down first, and that is called something or other, and then there is the
actual lag time while taking the picture.



If your camera has a full manual mode with manual focus, here are a
few tricks that can drastically reduce shutter lag time.

1 Put the camera into aperture priority mode and set the aperture to
5.6 as a starting point

2. Set the zoom lens to the equivalent of 50 mm and manual focus to
roughly double the shortest distance your puppies are likely to
be--about 5-6 feet would be a good starting point. This takes
advantage of the great depth of field in small sensor digital camera.
On my camera, I'm in good focus from about 3 feet to infinity with
these settings.

3. Set the shutter speed to whatever gives you a good exposure.

4. If you have the feature, set the camera to the burst mode so you
can take multiple pictures. Again with my camera , I can take from 7
to 17 pictures in a 4 to 8 second burst depending on how I've set my
picture resolution.

5. Take test pictures and then adjust to suit your camera and tastes.

Since evey thing is now set and the camera doesn't have to do any
calculations, the shutter lag should be almost nothing

jpc