Tanglewood Farmer wrote:
I bought my last camera at the age of 88. joe
I'm 90 and I can't remember the last time I bought gear. Anyway, I have other expensive hobbies that take charge of any extra $$ that I may have. Harry
joecichjr wrote:
but if I could pick any one, it would be that awesome Corvette.
Yep, that 'Vette is super nice! Harry PS A college friend of mine bought one - that he obviously couldn't afford. He managed to hold onto it for 6 months. Harry PS In his case, I think it was $0 down and $0 a month for 6 months. <g> Or maybe he made the first month payment. That was in the '60s.
Rick from NY wrote:
My first dslr was the 4 mp D2h and the upgrade was to the 12 mp D2x. Both were outstanding bodies in their day.
Seems amazing that I have 16x 20 prints from the paltry 4 my D2h
LOL And I thought that I was taking a chance printing "large" from that paltry 12mp from my Canon 5Dc. I guess we were both taken in by those companies that told us we needed a zillion MP to print larger than 4x5. :-) Harry
>I was wondering how others out there might feel about them.
I'm an available light photographer, never used a flash, doubt if I ever will. Of course, I've never shot on a moonless night at midnight either. <g> Harry
latebloomer wrote:
I am replacing an older Cannon Ink Jet Printer. I am thinking of an Epson EcoTank Photo ET-8500. I am concerned about getting the best quality photoprints with a tank printer. I will print some text documents, but no more than 5 pages a week. I can afford up to price of the ET-8500.
Please give me your opinion or suggestions. Thank you for your advice. It has really helped me in the past.
I've been using a Canon Pro 100 (not a Pix) and after using Epsons for years, I really like this printer's output and wouldn't go back to Epson as things stand now. I don't know anything about tank printers but if you can get the 100 with tanks, go for it. Harry PS I've had a 13x19 print from the 100 (with Canon ink) on my bulletin board forever. I's in indirect natural light, direct artificial (lots of light bulbs) and to me it looks as good as the day I put it up, hasn't faded at all. Harry
sundar wrote:
Hello,
It’s time for another Challenge! This one is 'Vintage... still works !
It is possible that everyone has a vintage item like a watch, pen, camera, car, typewriter, radio etc. that is working forever ! I’d really like for you to please share a photo of your vintage item that still works and to tell us a little about it.
For a start I have a couple of shots of my old film camera to share. Being a photography forum I thought that would be an appropriate item to share as well.
Now it is your turn. Let's see those shots of - Vintage...still works !
Please note I will be checking the posts but may not be able to comment on each post.
Thank you all in advance for your participation !
==
About the camera: Nikkormat - FTn
Nikon introduced the Nikkormat FT series in 1965.The Nikkormat FTN was produced from 1967 to 1975.
Looks like my FTN from early years of production as the later models had plastic coverings of the film advance and self timer levers. The camera uses batteries to power light meter only. In other words, it can function even without batteries !.
It is working as it should even today and am sure it will outlive me!
Hello, br br It’s time for another Challenge! Thi... (
show quote)
My first 35mm camera was a Voightlander, bought through the PX in Korea. My second was a Nikkormat, same place. Moved to Canon for some unknown reason after I got back to the states
User ID wrote:
Once you’ve lost your fear of high ISO, a huge chunk of UHH “discussion” suddenly reveals itself as toatal nonsense. Enjoy.
When I was in college, shooting dance and theatre, I always shot at 1/125. That stopped all but the fastest motion, like a swinging hand or foot. If timed properly (and I finally learned to do just that), it would stop most jumps. And with Tri-X. If the scene was poorly lit, I would shoot at 800 instead of 400. Of course, my problem was stopping movement, not shake as I was a kid way back then with steady hands. I'm 90 now and 1/125 seems to handle my hand shake. Harry
I'm 90 and when my camera becomes too heavy for me to hold steady, I'll quit. It's about having a life!
Harry PS I can think of a couple of things that are better than photography: drinking and sex. At 90, sex is a little hard to come by but I can still appreciate a good single malt. My favorite after all these years is still Talisker matured in Amoroso wood. It's nice to do a shot every once in a while!
therwol wrote:
> Look forward, not backward if you're going to be in this for a while.
Well, I'm 90 so I think that I'll just stick with my obsolete equipment. Harry
[quote=srt101fan]What is the most difficult aspect of photography?
>What is the most difficult aspect of photography?
Taking pictures! Harry
BTW, wasn't "mupes" one of George's problems? (MPG = mupes per gig) Harry
>More apt would be trading your old sedan in on something with anti-lock brakes, built in nav system and improved fuel economy.
WOW! Mirrorless is ALL THAT? Maybe I should get one in case my 5D stops working - or even if it doesn't. I mean that I really like the idea of anti-lock brakes on my camera! :-)
Harry PS Don't usually get lost so I don't think I need nav and I'm more than satisfied with my 35mpg! <g>
[quote=Thomas902]Typo?
>Ever think of bringing something of substance & merit to the table Bill?
OUCH - Now that is cold! But I love it. After everything is said, a spade is still a spade! :-) Sometimes I think we get too polite around here. As I was told many years ago when I was in college, "He doesn't suffer fools gladly!" And of course, I was guilty as charged. <g> As an UG, I was older than most, having served three years in the military. Thus I hung around mainly with grad students who were more my age. Those guys got me up to speed in a hurry. I remember one bespectacled woman - but that's another story!
Harry
I have two daughters. I've left each of them a maiden name and a good education. What more do they need? Harry