Hey Photographers: Less artsy, more fartsy...

[krupa]

10 minutes ago, alfriday said:

My mirrorless camera has all but replaced my SLR.  There are a few subjects where the SLR still would be my first choice, but not many.  With adapters, I can use all my Leica and Nikon lenses.  To me, the SLRs are getting too bulky for general/travel photography.  I started with a Canon 35mm in the 70s.  It was light and manageable.  Even without a battery pack, the pro SLRs are bigger and bulkier than my Mamiya 7.  

I only have a Nikon D3200 which I'm still really happy with.  (Happy enough anyway that I don't want to drop the $$$ to upgrade.)  It's very light compared to a friend's D7200 and with a shoulder/sling strap, very easy to carry around for the day.  I don't make huge prints (biggest was 24x30, I think) and the image quality is good enough, especially for travel pictures.  

[Buckeyebowman]

Some time back on another web forum, there was a thread about a new Nikon camera, I don't remember the model, but it was one of the "superzoom" cameras. The capability of that thing was amazing to me! Phone cams are convenient and have their place, but I can't see them having the capabilities of the better DSLR's whether mirrored or not.

I haven't really kept up with the photography like I used to, but I still have my first "good" camera. A Minolta srt101 that is totally manual! Not an automated function on it! I used it to take interior pics of cathedrals in Milan, Italy with ambient light. No flash! They came out great.

That's my frustration with my cheap "point and shoot" camera w/autofocus. If I want to take a pic of a deer or turkey or whatever in the woods it has plenty of zoom. But if there are saplings or anything else in the way, the damned autofocus doesn't know what it's supposed to focus on!