• Canon AE1 Program: This was my first true SLR camera that I purchased in the summer of 1984. It was the official camera of the 1984 Olympic Games, as it said on the lens cover. I used only the standard 50mm lens with the AE1. This camera served me well during my travels in Europe and Alaska, up until 1994. The center-weighted meter was accurate although it was best used in manual mode rather than program mode. The body was rugged and reliable. Now that I think about it, I'm a little sorry I sold it, but it was time to pass it on.
  
  
• Canon Rebel XS: I chose this camera in 1994 because it was the lightest SLR available with the latest technology, such as auto focus. I planned to go backpacking, so the weight of the camera was a major factor. The Rebel XS has an all-plastic body, and is matched with two all-plastic zoom lenses, 35-80mm and 80-200mm. The 35-80 lens was O.K., but not as sharp as competing glass lenses. I only used the 80-200mm lens a few times. I once tested it on a lens resolution chart, and it rated so poorly that I never used it again.
  
  
• Nikon FM2n: I purchased this camera in 2000. I decided to switch from Canon to Nikon after comparing the results of the students in my photography class. When we took the same pictures, the Nikons consistently produced sharper images than the Canons. To be fair, some of the high-end Canon lenses are as good if not better than the Nikons. The Canon auto-focus and image stabilizing systems make the Canon cameras better suited for action photographs. The Nikons are better for landscapes and fine art. I tried an old Nikon F2, but found it to be too heavy, bulky and unreliable. I am sure that they were great cameras in their day but now they are antiques. The new FM2 is not as sturdy as the F2, but it is more portable.
  
  Nikon Lenses: I purchased a set of AIS lenses to use with the FM2, but I switched to the newer AF lenses since they are lighter and compatible with the newer camera bodies. My first lens was a 50mm f/1.4 which performs very well at all apertures. I also have the Nikon 105mm micro lens that takes fantastic, sharp pictures at close range. I planned to use it for portraits, but it is large and heavy for handheld use. Next, I bought the 70-300 cheap zoom. I know, the 80-200 is preferred, but it was too expensive and heavy. The 70-300 is easy to use handheld, but it is not nearly as sharp as my other lenses. I'll have to start saving my money for a new lens....
  
  
• Nikon N80: This is my latest camera, purchased in May, 2001. I have only used it a few times, so I don't have much to say about it. It has a complicated and confusing variety of focussing modes, exposure modes, and flash modes. I'm still not sure what mode to use when, and it will take a lot of practice to be able to make adjustments in a hurry. The FM2n is a lot simpler and easier to adjust. On the other hand, I bought the N80 because I wanted the TTL function and the auto focus for sports. I recently photographed a wedding with the N80 set on automatic/program, and the pictures came out fine. The exposures were all perfect. So, I guess it works.
  
  
• Graflex Super Graphic 4x5: I bought this 30 year-old camera for my first foray into large format photography. It works O.K., but shows its age. Apart from the surface scratches, there was a lot of wear on the parts, and I broke the rangefinder. Fortunately, I only intend to use this camera as a field camera, and I will use my 35mm for photojournalism. Without the rangefinder, the Super Graphic can still be focussed the old fashioned way, peering through the ground glass from underneath a dark cloth. The camera has an intermittent light leak that I have yet to locate and repair, but otherwise the body is sound. It has all of the front movements of a monorail camera, tilts, swings, and shifts, although it does not move as far. The rear standard is fixed, although it can be moved by adjusting the camera on the tripod in conjunction with the front standard. For landscapes, I just level the camera and use the front rise. The Super Graphic is relatively light and very compact for a 4x5, so I have kept it is my field camera rather than investing in a new Toyo or a classic Deardorff. But this may change...those wooden cameras sure look a lot nicer....
  
  Large Format Lenses: I have three old lenses for my Super Graphic: a Kodak Ektar 203mm, a Wollensak 90mm, and a Graflex 135mm. I recently checked the resolution of the lenses using TMax 100 film and a Kodak chart. The results were mostly disappointing. The Ektar could only resolve about 40 lines per inch, despite its reputation for being the best lens of its time. Only the Wollensak could do better than 56 lines per inch. I never use the 90mm for 4x5 photography, but I decided to keep it for using a roll film back with 120 size film. Since the 90mm performed well, I purchased another Wollensak, a 65mm lens to use with 120 film. I have not tested it, yet. I have replaced the Ektar 203mm with a new Schneider APO Symmar 210mm. It was a splurge, but I got a good deal from Glenn Evans in Chicago.
  
  
• Calumet Cadet 4x5 Monorail: I became frustrated with the limited movements of the Super Graphic, especially when photographing architecture, so I bought the Cadet to see what a monorail could do. I'm afraid that I do not have much good to say about it. It is the cheapest monorail that you can buy, and it shows. The rail is made of plastic, as are the knobs, and many important parts. This makes the camera light in weight, but also loose and difficult to lock tight or focus accurately. The result has been a lot of frustration due to pictures that are out of focus, or that were spoiled when the camera accidentally moved.
  
  
• Cambo 45NX: I finally gave up on the Cadet and bought this sturdier model monorail. It weighs about 10 pounds, so I will mostly use it at home or carry it only short distances from the car! All of the movements lock securely, so I do not expect to have any of the problems that I had with the Cambo. My only complaint with the 45NX is the large detents which make it difficult to make fine tilt adjustments of 1 degree or less. Also, the focussing knobs slip a little, but a geared monorail would cost more than twice as much. I had a difficult time getting the Cambo to rest securely on a tripod, due to its weight. In the end, I purchased a Bogen 3036 tripod with a 3047 head and welded the Cambo's rail clamp to the removable tripod plate!

Accessories

• Canon: My first tripod was a Canon tripod with a pan flow head. It has braces for the legs. The legs have three sections with twist locks rather than spring levers. It has performed very well for me. It holds cameras up to five pounds very steady and the pan flow head is much smoother than any ball head I have tried. Pan flow heads are usually associated with video cameras rather than still cameras, but I prefer them to the ball heads. I especially like using the handle to adjust the camera, rather than moving the camera directly. This keeps the camera secure on the tripod. With a ball head, I find that the camera works its way loose if you have to move it. Ball heads also put pressure on the tripod thread, which may cause long-term damage.
  
  
• Bogen 3036 with 3047 head. This is a very large tripod. I purchased it to hold my ten pound Cambo camera. The tripod supports the camera's weight much better than other tripods I tried, such as the 3228. However, I had to weld the monorail clamp to the tripod head plate to prevent the rail from swinging. This tripod is not very portable, but I can carry it on my shoulder for short distances when I am photographing architecture.
  
  
• Bogen 3228 with 3030 head. This is called the "wilderness" tripod because it is designed for field use. The feet have retractable spikes and the legs are covered by foam pads, making it softer to carry on my shoulder. It is a bit heavy at ten pounds, but the shoulder strap is wide and I can carry it for miles. I almost bought a carbon fiber (plastic) tripod, but they are too expensive, and less sturdy than the metal tripods.
  
  
• Vanguard mini-tripod. I bought this little tripod on eBay to use on long hikes. It was very cheap (about $30), and it is flimsy, but it actually holds a lightweight plastic camera or digital camera very well. It is less than a foot long when folded and weighs less than a pound, so I strap it to my camera bag and carry it everywhere.

Digital Stuff

Cameras

• Canon Powershot A50. This was my first digital camera. I bought it in 1999. I really liked it. It was so small and easy to use, that I carried it everywhere and used it constantly. The only trouble was that the pictures were no good. It took O.K. snapshots of people at close range, but it did not have enough resolution for landscapes, or even flowers. Compared to my film camera, it was useless. The only thing I liked about the pictures was the automatic light balance that could adjust to complicated indoor lighting much better than film. However, even though I was disappointed with its pictures, I liked using it so much that I still recommend it to novices. It is a brilliantly engineered camera that is well suited to the amateur point-and-shoot market.

Scanners

• Umax Astra 1220U flatbed scanner. This is a cheap ($125) flatbed scanner that does wonders. If I scan a document and print it with my Epson color printer, the results are better than a photocopier. This scanner is a bit slow (scans take about a minute at high resolution), but it is worth the wait.
  
  
• Umax Astra transparency adapter. This was an expensive attachment ($180, cost more than the scanner!). It is actually a new glass lid with a moving lamp. With the transparency adapter, I can scan slides and negatives of any size, including 4x5. A dedicated film scanner for that format would cost thousands of dollars, so the transparency adapter is a good bargain. The quality of the scans is good as long as the density range of the negatives is not too high. It's not a drum scanner, but for the money, you would be amazed at what it can do!
  
  
• Minolta Dimage Scan Dual. This was the first dedicated film scanner that I purchased in 1999. I bought it because it was the only 35mm scanner that I could connect to my iMac. It also was relatively cheap and had good reviews. The scanner was very easy to set up and the software was easy to learn and to use. Unfortunately, I was so disappointed with the results from scanning my first slide, that I never used it again. I have heard so much hype about the superior quality of scanning film, compared to using a digital camera, that I was expecting too much. In fact, the slide scanner only did a slightly better job than my flatbed scanner because of its higher resolution. The colors were terrible. I spent hours trying to correct the colors in my slides, and finally gave up in frustration. The Minolta scanner had a very simple color correction program, but the scans were so far off to begin with that it was impossible to correct the slide scans. I sold it on eBay.
  
  Postscript: I recently (2001) used a newer Minolta Dimage Scan Dual (II?), and it performed great. The color required very little correction. So, I guess I got a lemon, or the newer scanners are better than the old ones.
  
  
• Nikon LS-2000: After the disappointment of the Minolta, I decided to purchase a more expensive ($1500!) Nikon scanner that was highly rated. The LS-2000 does perform better than my Minolta Scan Dual. I don't think it performs much better than the newer Minoltas, so I would not recommend the upgrade this year. Anyway, the LS-2000 provides fairly accurate scans that only require a little adjustment in Photoshop. And the Digital Ice is great for removing dust and scratches. At 50 megabytes, the scanner pulls out as much information as possible from my slides, to the point where they become grainy. However, the scanned images are still "soft", and require "sharpening" to appear sharply focussed. This seems to be a problem with all film scanners. And then there are the color shifts. Because of the differences in the media, a scanner and computer cannot duplicate a slide. The computer can only create a digital facsimile. For this reason, I think that high resolution digital cameras will be the best way to create digital images.