Thinking about a new camera

[Farmer X]

I've said before that the phone I use to take my MTo photos is getting increasingly recalcitrant. It's only a matter of time before I shoot it. I have been thinking of getting a dedicated camera to replace it.

I had a Canon PowerShot that I liked a lot, but it was left behind when I was tossed out of my house back in 2013. It was replaced with a Nikon Coolpix L28, which wasn't quite as good. Against all odds, the Coolpix is still with me, and still works.

Since I liked the Canon so much, I made it a point to check out the two Canon DSLR jobs on offer when I recently visited the hock shop. What a disappointment to see that both used a rechargeable battery! Some additional research led me to believe that DSLRs, generally speaking, don't do well with alkaline cells. Being able to run on alkaline cells is a non-negotiable requirement for future purchases of battery-powered items other than a cell phone. (Unless they use light or an engine-driven alternator or generator to recharge, that is. And I'll dump the cell phone the nanosecond it becomes practical to go through life without one.)

So, unless someone can come up with a compelling DSLR that runs okay on alkaline cells, or a means to power one without that damned rechargeable battery, I'm probably looking at point-and-shoots. For what should be obvious reasons, film cameras are out of the question. (Can one even get 35mm film anymore?)

So, what do y'awl think? Keep the Coolpix? Buy a newer point-and-shoot? Or just deal with a DSLR or mirrorless camera?

[Barry Rowland]

I actually have a Canon Rebel 35mm film camera that I've played with for awhile.  There's a growing retro market for film cameras, so the film is out there but it ain't necessarily cheap.  The camera wasn't bad at al.  I always wanted one, and found this one during the lockdown for $20.

That being said, it's so nice to have immediate pics and editing!  The great thing about a DSLR is that you have so much capability with them as far as shutter speed, filters, zoom lenses, etc.  For what we do here, as well as in 99 percent of real life photography, a point and shoot does the trick.  They're also usually a lot less bulky and expensive.

[Farmer X]

It's so nice to have immediate pics and editing!

Having to have film developed is one downside with that medium. It used to be that every drugstore had a photo lab. I think many still do, but they're all digital. And having the film developed, only to find that you hovered your finger over the lens, was a bummer.

Sure, I could develop film myself. But I won't. I'm not willing to fork over the money for the needed equipment. And I have no idea how toxic the chemicals used in that process are.

I do like having control over aperture setting, shutter speed, and focus. But it looks like a newer point-and-shoot may be the way to go.

[Barry Rowland]

  completely buddy.  I developed film years ago, but I'm not doing it anymore.  I remember working on a drug store in the mid 80s and sending film out to have it developed! 
I do miss Photohuts 

[PitCarver]

I really miss using my old 35mm cameras.
I remember back near the end of the last century, the Boss Lady and I took a trip to Washington DC, for a photo exposition.   I carried around 10-15 pounds of camera gear all around DC.
Got several decent digital cameras since then, no DSLR's though.  Now, I can get more photo taken/editing done on my phone, than I could even have imagined back all those years ago.
Have fun on your search.  You'll look back on it, in the future, with fond memories.

[Farmer X]

I can believe the 10-15 pounds of camera gear. Those old cameras were beastly!

I took a photography course during my first trip through college, and the instructor showed off his Rollei 35T. That little thing was about the size of a pack of cigarettes, yet it had all the manual adjustments. I was so enamored of it that a few years later, I bought one on eBay. This was before PayPal took off, and I was so antsy to get that camera that I sent the money order overnight! It was pretty nifty, and I wish I still had it.

Now that I think about it, I wonder what became of my parents' old photos and negatives.

[PitCarver]

Yep.  Back then I was young and healthy.

Get back from vacation and take 10-15 rolls of film to Wolf Camera.  Picked them up the next day too.

I've still got all my old 35mm's. Only a few even needed batteries.   Light meters and the ever present f-stop card were all that was necessary.

[Farmer X]

F-stop card? That's one I've never heard.

[PitCarver]

I know that Kodak used to print the guide on the inside of the box.  Gave you the shutter speed, f-stop settings for various lighting situations.
  [ You are not allowed to view this attachment ]  
  [ You are not allowed to view this attachment ]  

I would always make sure to pick up the plastic cards whenever I saw them to keep in my camera case.
  [ You are not allowed to view this attachment ]  
  [ You are not allowed to view this attachment ]  

[Grant Lamontagne]

I have to keep my eye out for one of those.  They look extremely handy!

Def

[Farmer X]

  Now if I could only find a DSLR that runs okay on alkaline cells...

[PitCarver]

Now if I could only find a DSLR that runs okay on alkaline cells...

I had an old Pentax that used mercury cells, which had already began to be harder to find by the time I got it.
Did some figuring out and made me an adapter that fit a smaller diameter alkaline cell.

[Farmer X]

I've heard of that being done with a Regency TR-1 (the first transistor radio). They originally used a now-obsolete 18V battery. Enthusiasts will get them going by taping the requisite number of coin/button cells together and using a nail, screw, or bolt to bridge the gap.

[bruto]

On batteries for old cameras a lot depends on the camera.  Pentax owners are lucky because their meters are not voltage-sensitive, and though they once used 1.35 volt mercury cells, modern 1.5 volt cells work fine.  Many other cameras are not like that, and modern cells will make the meters read wrong, so you need either to get voltage adapters, recalibrate them, or buy relatively expensive zinc-oxide batteries that don't last long.

For many years I used a big old Nikon F (actually had a couple so i could use different speeds of film) and recalibrated them for modern batteries.  Then the size of the batteries became difficult to find, and unfortunately those old Nikons also can't use smaller batteries with just an O-ring (score another for Pentax here), because one contact is on the side rather than the end, so I had to make little brass rings.  They're retired now, and I'm using a DSLR.

There's very little in point and shoot cameras these days, as phones have just about taken over that market. And I doubt much of anything can be had that doesn't run on rechargeable batteries.  I'd keep the Coolpix if it's working well,  and look around for used cameras that might do the job.  I know Canon made a few relatively capable P&S cameras that used regular batteries, although most did not.  It will be hard to find anything recent that does. 

ABout the only P&S camera you can still get is the Olympus Tough, an expensive waterproof P&S that uses a rechargeable battery.  It has all sorts of nice features and takes good pictures, but it damned well ought to since it costs about $500.

If you're looking at used cameras, you might try KEH.Com, or MPB. 

[Farmer X]

I looked at B&H Photo's offerings not too long ago, and I seem to remember a decent amount of point-and-shoots that could run on alkaline cells. I'll look again when time permits. The Coolpix seems to be working okay, so it'll stay with me. Finding photo editing software for my PC (and later Raspberry Pi) will bump up a few spots on thr priority list.

[bruto]

If your main job in photo editing is for decent small prints and edits for the web, and not the super fine-tuning that professional photographers use, consider a couple of freeware programs.

One that does really quick batch processing, file type changing and the like but with pretty poor processing features is Irfanview.  A free program that's been around for many years.  It's one of the nicest programs to use as a default viewer. It includes a "save for web" option that chops unnecessary fat off an image to make it possible to post on forums with strict size limits. It will do a little correction and sharpening and the like, but not much if there are real issues with the initial image.  It will crop too, but only freehand, so it's hard to preserve the original aspect ratio if that's important to you.

For pretty sophisticated processing including decent sharpening, look at Faststone Image Viewer..  I generally start off in Faststone, do whatever processing and resizing needed there, and then if posting to a web forum or the like, send it to Irfanview's "save for web" option.  If the picture is a quickie and if it doesn't need tweaking, Irfan alone can do the resizing and saving very easily.  Faststone has numerous features for color correction, highlight and dark area control, etc., clone and heal, and other stuff that can be handy if you need to tweak an image.

These programs are quite un-intrusive and don't put unneeded junk in your system.  I'm not entirely sure about Faststone, but Irfanview is entirely portable, and can run off a USB stick.  Irfanview is very fast, and its bulk operations are very efficient (for example, take a whole folder of pictures and resize them all at once, etc.)

There are some others that are pretty good, but not as quick and easy to use, more useful if you shoot Raw rather than JPG images.  Nikon has free programs for their stuff, that allow you do do all sorts of things with Raw images, like changing exposure, color balance, picture control, etc. There's an open source one called Raw Therapee, and a sort of Lightroom clone called Darktable. They're quite powerful, take a bit of learning, and probably more than you need, but they're free to try.

[Farmer X]

My photo editing usually isn't more than increasing clarity and sharpness, correcting exposure, resizing/rotating, and adding a watermark. Sometimes I need to correct color balance. (That's especially true when my subject is blue.) I will look into the freeware programs. Thanks for the tip!

[Chako]

I do not visit the forums as much as I should, Hence the somewhat late reply. I know there are many battery grips that come with a AA battery sled. You can use 2 of the rechargeable batteries, or pop 8 or so AA cells into the carrier and slide that into the battery grip for alternate power. I have several of those but never found the need to use AA batteries out in the wild, so they basically take up space in the photography storage cabinet.

I just got a steal of a deal on a Canon R100. No official battery grip for it but did notice somewhere in Europe, someone is producing one via 3D printer that allows for a pair of different rechargeable batteries to be used instead.

https://www.custombatterygrips.com/store/grips-for-canon-eos-r100?srsltid=AfmBOopdVPyygdfDEKyPFGN752CbCHoTHn3utxdlIg8owcBn4DCbwbFw

So if you absolutely must go the non-rechargeable way,  then possibly look for a camera with a battery grip add-on that will allow you to power the camera via AA cells.

[bruto]

A small correction to my post above.  It seems Irfanview no longer includes the plugin for "save for web" in its latest versions, owing to some licensing dispute.  However, the program in question, called "RIOT," is still free as a standalone, and whatever other programs you end up using, that's a really handy one to have.  You can set it up as a desktop shortcut and simply drag a picture in, and it will do the "save for web" downsizing.  Slick little program and the price is right.

[Farmer X]

@Chako: I'll look into those sleeves. Could wind up being a pretty good solutiion.

@Bruto: I've downloaded Irfanware. Thus far, I haven't had a chance to play around with it too much, but it seems like a solid program.

[Farmer X]

I've now worked with Irfanware a little more extensively. I've found it lacks a good means to correct exposure, which is a key requirement for me. And for reasons unknown to me, it wouldn't recognize that there were photos in my phone's DCIM folder. Next time I fire up the PC, I'll seek out Faststone. Other freeware/open-source options were suggested in another thread. I remain somewhat optimistic that I'll be able to find a photo editing program that works okay.

[Farmer X]

Next time I fire up the PC, I'll seek out Faststone.

Okay, it turned out to be four-plus months later...but I have downloaded and experimented with FastStone. It seems like it'll work. The photo below was edited with FastStone.

  [ You are not allowed to view this attachment ]