advertisement


Sorry I know I am boring (another lens ?)

Paul,

... the Canon EOS 5D caught me eye. Not because I would see myself switching brand but because this is the first time I noticed anyone had introduced a full frame sensor, as it were. Has Nikon done this also?
Click to expand...
Canon has made full-frame cameras for a few years now, first the 11MP 1Ds, then the 16.7MP 1Ds Mk II. The 5D is their first affordable model -- affordable only in the sense that the body costs less than a used car. It's still a lot of money for an amateur.

Kodak used to make two full-frame bodies, one in Nikon mount and one in Canon mount but they are out of the game now. Nikon has yet to produce a full-frame body. Whether they ever will is anyone's best guess.



Also, do sensors keep clean these days or do they still attract dust?
Click to expand...
They don't attract dust, but if dust falls on a sensor it usually shows up in the picture. Olympus has a ultrasonic sensor shaker that apparently helps keep the sensor spotless, so if dust is an issue you may want to go with one of their models. Derek can advise there.



These two were both part of my not bothering with digital yet but when it happens I will have little excuse left.
Click to expand...
Just take the plunge. Digital SLRs are now good enough that you don't have to make excuses for them.



I do like the idea of getting my manual Ai etc. lenses straight onto a digital body one day.
Click to expand...
The D2H, D2Hs, D2x and D200 give full matrix metering with AI and AIS Nikkors.

Joe
 
Joe Petrik said:
The D2H, D2Hs, D2x and D200 give full matrix metering with AI and AIS Nikkors.

Joe
Click to expand...

If only I knew what that meant.

I'm like iGary. Only I am several years behind him (although I did know that his doughnut backgroud effect was because of the lens, I was just too shy to pipe up because his Imperial Vukness intimidates me).
 
Alex,

If only I knew what that meant.
Click to expand...
In plain English it means that Nikon's three most expensive D-SLRs (four if you include the recently discontinued D2H) will work more or less fully with all old manual-focus F-mount lenses, except for the really, really old ones. This is great news for blokes like me, who happen to have a sackful of old manual-focus F-mount lenses, except for the really, really old ones.



I was just too shy to pipe up because his Imperial Vukness intimidates me.
Click to expand...
Just post a picture of a hot bird and His Imperial Vukness will cut you some slack.

102384250_5aa038d477.jpg


Well, something like that.

Incidentally, that picture was taken in 1992 on film... glorious film. (Digital is great, but I will rue the day film disappears.)

Joe
 
Auric,

Have to say that the new 105 Micro looks nifty, but for now I'll stick with old faithful, which was used to take the hummingbird pic above.

f2a200mmf4if.jpg


Joe

P.S. If Gary buys one, we'll have to dub him iMacro "Nano" Gary
 
Joe, I know exactly what you mean.

My system is built around a trusty and very well used OM2n but due to advancing age, receding eyesight (and hairline) plus the scarcity of pre-loved OM glass a move to a modern autofocus system (olympus or not) is on the cards. As I enter the third age perhaps I should make a D200 with some modern glass coupled with a little point and shoot something hidden in my back pocket my base system for the next twenty years?
Any ideas?
 
Groan.

I just do not understand, what makes a lens macro, that one goes to 105 mm, I have a lens that does that but where does the macro come into it?

I should by the end of the evening have enough money for my AF 50mm so that will be nice.
 
Thanks Alex, from that I gather that a. you don't want a macro zoom, and B the ratio 1:1 means macro?

And C. I won't be affording to do macro hehe.
 
No hang on I get it 1:1 means 'real life' for a given focal length?

Damn it, why does it have to be so complicated.
 
If I come into a stupid amount of money I might get a decent macro lens, but not a zoom. I have little interest in photographing beetles and flowers in minute detail tbh, I'll be unleashing the deluge of shite that are some of my photos on you all soon enough.

From what I understand, 'doing macro' means being able to focus on tiny things with the focal point quite close to the lens, certainly closer than 'non-macro' lenses.
 
garyi said:
a. you don't want a macro zoom
Click to expand...
There is such a thing as a good macro zoom. This almost does 1:1 (it will with an adaptor) and is very sharp. It also means that I don't have to carry a bag full of lenses.

Heath
 
AlexG said:
From what I understand, 'doing macro' means being able to focus on tiny things with the focal point quite close to the lens, certainly closer than 'non-macro' lenses.
Click to expand...

Macro IIRC is the photographing of an object of a ratio of 1:1,where the objects size is a least life size on the negative and up to 10:1 where it becomes Micro.

Although I have macro lenses for most work I used manual/auto bellows,ring flash and a decent enlarging lens like this one . . . . . . . . . .
Apo-RodagonDf475mm.jpg
 
igary.

it's not at all complicated. the only reason it seems to be is because you've bought into the jargon of prosumer marketing. a macro lens lets you focus very close to the subject. that's it! nothing else! nothing f*cking complicated.

vuk.

p.s. i find it odd that you purchased a camera that's inferior (for purposes of photography) to the oly e-10. did the e-10 break down on you?
 
Auric,

As I enter the third age...
Click to expand...
Is that the Age of Aquarius?


...perhaps I should make a D200 with some modern glass coupled with a little point and shoot something hidden in my back pocket my base system for the next twenty years?
Any ideas?
Click to expand...
I really know only Nikon kit well, so if you're OK with such narrow advice I think the smart money is on a D200 and couple of Nikkors (zoom or prime) to suite your needs and any decent 200-300 pound digicam thingie for point-n-shoot.

I followed the P&S market closely for a while, when my wife was interested in getting a digicam, but I haven't paid much attention since then. For what it's worth, she's happy with her Canon G3, so whatever the current iteration of that camera is ought be worth a look. Knowing Canon's penchant for launching new models as often as most people change their panties, the current model is probably up to G23 by now.

Joe
 
Gary,

I just do not understand, what makes a lens macro
Click to expand...
Macro simply means that the lens in question (whatever its focal length) can focus close enough that the object you're photographing will appears actual size (1:1) or half size (1:2) on the film or sensor. (1:1 seems to be the norm now, but in my day 1:2 was standard, with the ability to go 1:1 via an extension tube or teleconverter.) Of course, once you enlarge the image on screen or print it will appear larger than life.


___________________

Vuk,
i find it odd that you purchased a camera that's inferior (for purposes of photography) to the oly e-10. did the e-10 break down on you?
Click to expand...
The D50's viewfinder isn't great, but neither is the E-10's. The D50 has much less noise at any ISO than the E-10. The D50 will take all sorts of glass, including Voigtlander, Zeiss and Nikkor, whereas the E-10 comes only with what is glued on the camera. In what what is the D50 inferior?

Joe
 
from what i recall, the viewfinder on the e-10 allowed one to take alright pictures.

vuk.
 
Vuk,

From DP Review:

The E-10's viewfinder is a real TTL type, in the path of the lens is a permanent beam splitting prism which directs 50% of the light up into the viewfinder this gives you a real TTL view. We measured the viewfinder as being 92% accurate (providing a view equivalent to 2080 x 1580 pixels of the final image). While I commend Olympus for giving us a TTL viewfinder I'm troubled by a few things:

The size and round shape of the eyepiece often leads to visual vignetting at you find yourself "dodging" the camera left, right, up and down to get the viewfinder view just right (something I've not found with other digital SLR's), I'm not sure how users of corrective glasses would go on.

The other thing I found a little strange is there doesn't seem to be a particularly well defined focusing screen, I found my eye focusing THROUGH the lens rather than at the point where the camera was focused.

I also found it a little disconcerting that there seems to be some distortion of the image into the viewfinder, if you aim the camera straight at a subject then gently angle it up and down there's visible distortion of the image (it looks like barrel distortion), obviously this never effects the final image but it's something that's unexpected.
Click to expand...

It seems that the E-10 has a lot of the same problems as the D50/D70 class of finder.

Joe
 
DP review is the just about most useless place in the world to find out about a camera.

vuk.
 
I agree the DP-R is less than ideal, but are you disagreeing with Phil Askey's findings about the E-10 finder?

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top