Bogy2830 wrote:
... I don't know if I want to be bothered changing lenses.
This may be stating the obvious ...
... But, just because a person may own a camera which has interchangeable lenses does NOT mean that they ever have to change the lens which may be on the body to another one ...
One reason why cameras are often equipped with a ZOOM "kit" lens, now, is because they supersede the
first-and-often-only option (
for some people) of a 50mm lens which most 35mm cameras came with in the past.
AFAIK, pre-War LEITZ lenses were NOT coated ... so, I would presume the same is true for pre-War ZEISS lenses.
Triggerhappy wrote:
I need to use my Nikon D7100 by learning how to use something other than AUTOMATIC mode. I see video e-books and DVD guides to teach this process. Can you recommend one over the other? Is this the approach to take?
Everyone here seems to know so much and I am in awe and sometimes in the dark on understanding what you are saying in regards to photography and camera settings. I'm not so bad at composition, but really would like to take better photo. I shoot RAW.
Think about
immersion as possibly being THE most expedient learning process ...
IMO, you may simply want to take advantage of the fact that your camera body can readily accommodate a VINTAGE,
Nikon/Nikkor AI PRIME lens without modification to the lens or body.
So, you simply need to pony up for a 50mm lens of your choice OR a 55mm Micro-Nikkor lens -- either will give you the equivalent of a "short telephoto" lens.
... You may-or-may-not need to make a MENU-adjustment to indicate whether you want aperture priority, or not.
AndyH wrote:
More proof that just because you CAN do something, it doesn't necessarily follow that you SHOULD do it. Remove all of the attractive features of a high resolution smart phone by attaching it to a big hunk o'glass and remove the advantages of a good lens by attaching it to a "camera" with a sensor too tiny to make use of its capability.
Why, oh why?
Andy
Since most phones which have image capability have minuscule sensors, one might suppose that you are correct to presume that the Yongnuo "phone" would be equally handicapped ...
Since I am
an inquiring mind, I clicked through to the link ...
And, I thnk that the relevant paragraph (for us) is that the phone has an MFT
/m43 sensor.
"
Photographers can make use of an 8 megapixel camera out front but Canon's EF camera lenses can be mounted to the device's body to feed its 16 megapixel Panasonic MFT CMOS sensor, with user interfacing taking place on a smartphone-like 5-inch Full HD multi-touch display."
THAT's probably a particularly good thing for
Canonophiles!?!
I think that it could be a potentially positive trend if OTHER lens mounts are eventually adopted since it will probably force the "real" camera makers to up their game AND lower their retail prices.
dougbev3 wrote:
I have several Nikon cameras and lenses. I have been looking at getting a medium format camera just to see if I would like it better. My question is …. For those who have, would you do it again? Is it that much better?
If you are talking about
film, then while many people did not use a tripod when shooting with the various cameras available by using an auxiliary hand-grip, using a tripod should probably be included as a factor in your decision ...
... Of course, there have always been cameras like the 6x6 Zeiss Ikonta (and, 6x9 cameras before that) which were designed for "tourists" ...
The size of your enlargements should probably be a factor, too.
Portability may be a factor.
Obviously, the cost of lenses may be a factor.
Digital medium format? That probably depends mostly on how
deep your pockets are!
Laszlo wrote:
... Unless I use a tripod (which I hate) there is noticeable camera shake as you can imagine. I'm trying to decide if I should be patient and learn to like it or cut my losses and take the hit. The thing costs $1000 but I'll take $900 at this point. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
As OTHERS have said ...
YOU will probably need to
USE A TRIPOD when using the longer end of the Zoom.
Sparky54 wrote:
Hello all,
I would like to buy a fast 2.8 lens for soccer. Nikon mount, would consider any brand , focal length,but the longer the better. I would entertain any suggestions.
Thank you,
WHERE will you be standing relative to the players?!?
... along the sideline?
... in the stands?
I do NOT know how 200mm will be long enough with a full frame camera BECAUSE most of the action will be away from where you will probably be standing ...
... Yes, you can move around ... but, not that much.
IF you are planning to take pictures of a child-or-grandchild, then have him-or-her stand (
and, run around ...) in the field
AND THEN look at him-or-her/them in various places on the field (
if you don't have access to the Pitch where the game will be played then find a-park-or-an-empty-parking lot OR use the street you live on ...) ...
.... DECIDE how tightly you want to frame the person/object/
whatever to determine the field of view you want the lens to capture
... THEN, determine the maximum focal length you want for whatever "Zoom" lens you want.
Maybe a 70-200 Zoom will work for you, but I doubt it.
IF you have-or-can-borrow a "travel" camera which has an integrated SUPER ZOOM to use for your first outing/game/"test", then you can see how much magnification you will want for whatever lens you buy for your camera.
bjtanddtr1 wrote:
... My photo subjects while traveling are landscape, architecture, people, animals, museum art, flowers, etc. I love to take pictures of the smaller details on buildings (usually churches), so I extend the zoom all the way to 300. Often that is just not enough. Would it be a wise investment to get a teleconverter to extend this range? I'm not familiar with teleconverters or their function.
You may find that a set of
automatic extension tubes will let you take the pictures you want ...
... the problem is that you will lose the ability to focus at greater distances &
infinity ...
... but, installing the shortest (
¿10mm-or-
12mm?) will probably allow you to work at reasonably close-and-near distances.
Obviously, the extension tube(s) will NOT be a benefit for capturing architectural details which are not at ground level; but, it/(they) will help with many of the other subjects which you indicated that you like to take pictures of AND will probably be one of the most economical additions to your camera bag.
NB. "Automatic" does NOT mean the same thing for all extension tubes ... in some cases for Nikon/-compatible extension tubes, it will simply mean that they are "pin" coupled for manual focus Nikkor lenses; so, if you decide you want to use some extension tubes then you NEED to ensure that they have the
pins which communicate with
your Nikon lens(es) and a digital Nikon camera body ...
... Electronically coupled automatic extension tubes WILL maintain the maintain the auto-focusing/
whatever capability of the lens
for the particular lens mount which the lens/camera uses in case a non-Nikon user is reading this post.
Bipod wrote:
Have another cigarette, fella. You're going to make some oncologist rich.
Look folks, I'm a fan of old prime lenses--I even own an old zoom
from the late 1970s. And that's why I say: know the capabilities of
all your lenses--but especially old zooms.
When you change lenses, you reach for the best tool for the job from
those in your bag, right? (Otherwise, why change lenses at all? Just buy
a fixed lens camera with a modern zoom and have at it. Lots of good
pictures get taken that way.)
Zooms are not "just another lens". They are massively complex. The
ones made by paper-and-pencil design (before around 1980) ranged from
OK for some subjects to horrible--and everywhere in between. Other
than being available used for cheap, there isn't much to recommend them.
Possibly a 1970s zoom with particularly good mutli-coating might
have a lower flare than the most complex modern zooms (with 15 or more
groups!), but they only way to know would be to test it. Testing loss of
contrast due to flare is not easy. So I don't view this as reason for buying
a really old zoom.
Zooms made in recent decades are a totally different story. There's no reason
to suppose a zoom made in the last 30 years isn't just as good as one made
yesterday. There have been some minor improvements, but there has always
been a lot of variation between models.
If somebody has published tests of a lens you own, great!--read it. If not,
the only way to know immediately what you've got -- a servicable lens or
a paperweight--is to test it. Otherwise you'll find out one spoiled shot at a time.
Often abberations don't get noticed until it's too late to try a different lens.
Why take the risk? Using a zoom lens isn't manditory. Why pick
such a complicated lens if you're on a budget? The only reason I can
think of is to shoot moving subjects or portraits (where unsharpness may
actually be a plus).
I tested my 1970s zoom. It's reasonably sharp, but has some distortation.
As a result, I use it for animals, waterfalls, clouds, some sports, etc.
These subjects can move, which makes a zoom worth the lower
image quality.
Were I not still using an old film camera sometimes, I would not own tis
zoom.
Sometimes the truth takes more than one word to express--which I know
taxes the attention of people raised by the TV...
Have another cigarette, fella. You're going to ma... (
show quote)
If I were as concerned as you seem to be about how
free from aberrations the computer formulated lenses are compared with vintage, hand calculated lenses, then I guess that I would only be using those pitiful
Leitz APOCHROMATIC lenses which were designed in the 1970s rather than marvel at how computer-aided designs now allow for remarkable Zoom lenses which also benefit from the multi-coated layering which mitigates some of the complications of additional glass-air surfaces ...
... I do marvel at the resolution on some of the 'close-up' pictures which some people have posted which were taken with their Zoom lenses ...
... and, I marvel at the claims by some people that they make 16x20-or-larger (
!?!) prints ...
... But, knowing the limitations of my lenses (
and, some ARE comparatively disappointing) is all that
I need to know.
If YOU haven't used some vintage Leitz, Nikkor, or Zuiko PRIME lenses (
yes, I do remember that this began as a thread about a vintage Zoom lens) then YOU probably don't have a proper foundation from which to make your condemnation of older lenses OTHER THAN the anecdotal remarks of others OR some tests you have read about which others performed.
Bipod wrote:
Only a complete idiot would think that photo proves the lens is "good".
It only proves it was good for that (very unchallenging, from an optical
standpoint) subject.
Lenses with aberrations and flare can be wonderful for special uses
(e.g., the old "portrait lens"). So instead of being stupid, why don't we talk about
appropriate uses for an old zoom?
Darn!
I would like to think that I know the limitations of most of my lenses ...
... and, which will be better-or-best for various situations ...
... but, I guess that
I must be a "complete idiot" because I think that the
subject in the OP's "fish" picture presents a perfect,
real world situation where the corners do not need to be COPY LENS rectilinear
and the corners do not necessarily need to be in the same plane of focus as the primary object,
et cetera.
TRAVLR38 wrote:
The problem is isolating the foreground and creating a blurred background for sports (soccer, volleyball, football, etc.) with a MFT camera, Olympus OM D M10ii, to be precise. I have ordered a Zuiko Pro f/2.8 40-150 lens, but am not able to get the separation I want. This lens has marvelous IQ, but is ungainly for a walk around lens. It is well within the time period in which I can send it back. I can and am considering the Zuiko Pro f/4 12-100 lens, which also has great IQ, according to the tests done by Imaging-Resource.
...
Because I take lots of types of pictures and because I am pretty heavily invested in MFT, I don't want to spring for a full frame and a mammoth lens which I would only use for sport.
I would appreciate any advice.
The problem is isolating the foreground and creati... (
show quote)
I use an m4/3 camera and do not feel that I have any difficulty isolating the foreground from the background ...
Based on taking a lot of "sports" pics when I was in college (
early 70s), having a Zoom lens with a wideangle capability is counterproductive for the type of sports shots which you appear to want because a LONGER-than-100mm lens (
FF 200mm relative length) will greatly facilitate achieving what you want.
... If I could have afforded a 300mm lens, then I would probably have used it instead of my 200mm (
a plebeian f3.5 Canon FL) lens.
That is, if you must have a Zoom lens, then you probably want it to begin at 100mm-and-go-up-from-there.
If you feel a need to ALSO have shorter focal lengths, then the solution now-as-in-the-past is to have a SECOND camera body which will have the short "Zoom" lens.
If you don't need autofocus, then there are plenty of vintage Prime lenses which you can-buy/(use) to ascertain how long you want the focal length to be ... you just need to go 'old school' and know-the-sport and then pre-focus on the spot where you anticipate (
hope) the action will be for when you feel a need to spend more money.
BTW. On the 'short' end, you can get an inexpensive (under $20 on eBay) set of extension tubes which will allow you to focus more closely than the lens normally will ... the autofocus & autoexposure will still work as long as you choose a set which has the connecting pins.
BHC wrote:
Rants aside............
"Sheesh ...
... I guess you are the type of person who some other people might label as a "Snowflake."
Wear it with pride!"
On topic?
OK, you're p...ed at me. I'm sorry about that. So start another thread and call me every name you can think of; I won't even argue with you. You can state your opinion of me without argument!
But, for now, can we get back to this topic? As I recall, we're talking about a partially disabled hand. Perhaps I missed the OP's response as to the extent of disability. If so, please point it out to me. It may make a huge difference! Thank you.
Rants aside............ br br "Sheesh ... b... (
show quote)
???
Sorry, but it is not clear to me whether you are pointing out an OT post which was a direct reply (
as is this one to you) to
nadelewitz which
was-and-is OT (
but, so were posts made by unencumbered left handed people's remarks which ignored the OP's granddaughter's limitations which YOU apparently chose to overlook) ...
n'est-çe pas? ...
... OR, if you have chosen to take extracted comments which were originally a reply to
nadelewitz and mistakenly chosen to interpret them as being to you.
I did
call-you-out for making
your OT post which "
adds less than my first two post in this thread did."
Regardless, I'm not
'p...d at' you unless
nadelewitz is an alternate
nom de plume which you use for additional posts in this Forum AND
that is why you did-and-have not directly criticized him for his OT remarks.
Morning Star wrote:
... As to the size and weight of an m4/3 camera, I don't know the weight of all the different models, but the m4/3 I have (Oly OM-D E-M1) would be too heavy for left-handed use. Heck, it's even too heavy for right-handed use without the help of the left hand!
FWIW ...
... When I elaborated in my
second post in this thread my suggestion included using the right hand/wrist/arm to support the camera while using the left thumb to actuate the shutter.
One-handed shooting, particularly with one's left hand, could indeed be problematic for many of us.