Camera gear

NervousPete · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:33

40mm? That IS strange.

Release a £200 f/1.8 20mm prime please Nikon, ta.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:17

Very odd size. At that price though I think it will be sitting in the shadow of the Tamron 90mm (which works on FX bodies too).

Should be a lovely portrait lens though...

Decca · **Joined:** 23rd Jun, 2010 **Posts:** 2282

Did I link this thread? I don't think I did http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums ... p?t=335466 Dis Fucking Guy.... My last reply in it was using what the good people at SA said about him. He really is a prize dickhead, not just in this thread but pretty much everywhere he posts. He has "blads" and pro canon gear but his flickr waves from "oh god no, you used a fucking Hassleblad for that" to predictable but ok.

also

Quote:

My personal opinion and that is all that it is, is that provided that processing is provided by the college (both the ones I went to had a free 2 hour E6 processing facility) then the use of film can have a beneficial learning effect, as the latitude of E6 film is much lower than that of any other medium. I would also want the learner to learn using an SLR with a 50mm standard lens to encourage composing images with a prime rather than the zoom control on their camera. The problem with digital for learning is there is no pain attached to it's use, cock up a couple of rolls of film and you will soon learn to get it right the next time.

I will also probably upset a few people when I say that I believe the majority of DSLR users spray and pray, especially when learning. And to be honest there are many instances when this has always been the case even with hardened professionals hence the use of large film backs which held large spools of film for sport photography etc. Or when an image just has to be obtained, Patrick Litchfield once admitted to taking almost 3000 images (200 films of 12 on 120 E6) to ensure he had 13 images for the Perelli Calander as that was considerably cheaper than having to go back on location with a full crew and models for a reshoot. Chimping or inspecting an image to make sure it was okay is also not something new, although it previously required the use of a poloroid back.

The other reason I believe people spray and pray is the large amount of clicks mentioned when cameras are being sold. I bought my latest 5DMk2 in early Feb, to date it has taken a total of 614 images, occasionally we see Amatuer owned cameras in the classifieds having taken many 10s of thousands of images, I would be really curious to know how many of them were 'truly keepers'.

I think there is a place for both film and digital images, but if I was teaching I would prefer it was done with manual only film SLRs with a standard prime only at the beginning, they could then take what they have learned and move on to digital having learned the basics without the aid of AF, Matrix Metering, Auto Exposure Modes and Zoom lenses.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16636

I think people who learned using only film have an inherent snobbery and literally can't stop themselves from sneering at people learning with digital.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49244

I think you should have to learn by taking a watercolour artist around with you and telling him to paint the view you're after.

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38653

I think you should learn by taking thousands of shit photographs until you find one you like.

The camera you use is irrelevant

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16636

DavPaz wrote:

I think you should learn by taking thousands of shit photographs until you find one you like.

The camera you use is irrelevant

I think as long as you are learning what you did wrong with all the rubbish ones it's probably a much faster way to learn.

It's like learning to fly using a simulator, you can get pretty good pretty quickly by crashing a lot. Learn with the real thing and you have to take lots of very careful baby steps.

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38653

So, digital is like a film camera simulator?

Decca · **Joined:** 23rd Jun, 2010 **Posts:** 2282

God damn it, got offered a 50mm AF 1.8 for £80 and he will pay for next day postage. :facepalm:

I'm saving for the tamron 17-50 and I'm now back to £0.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49244

STOP BUYING LENSES.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:26

Buy an Aztec Camera.

Decca · **Joined:** 23rd Jun, 2010 **Posts:** 2282

No! Yes I've been through a few lenses but I've bought them cheap and sold them all on for a profit. It's how I managed to get the money together for the D300 + gear I bought. I have no problem with selling the stuff I buy, at one point I was down to the 35mm - I don't even own the 18-55mm kit lens anymore.

Out of the lenses I have now the ones I use most are the 35mm and the 70-300mm, the 50mm will fit in that slot nicely. I may end up selling the primes and a couple of zooms when I have the Tamron 17-50 if it's as good as they say it is.

GazChap · **Posted:** Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:43

Craster wrote:

I think you should have to learn by taking a watercolour artist around with you and telling him to paint the view you're after.

The world isn't bla...

BLACK.

BLACK!

BLAAAAAAAAAAAACK!

What's for tea, mother? Maggots on toast?!

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16636

markg wrote:

I just ordered one of these:

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/premium-8x ... 52mm-17323

I fully realise that it's not going to make great pictures but it's only a fiver looks pretty fun just for messing around with.

This just arrived.

These two are with my 18-55 VR kit lens, the first without the filter as close as I could get it to focus:

and this one with the filter, again as close as I could get:

It seems to produce a very shallow depth of field though I expect this could be improved a bit with a tripod and smaller aperture.

In conclusion it's well worth it if you want to have a mess around with some macro shots but aren't bothered enough to actually spend any money.

kalmar · **Posted:** Wed Jul 13, 2011 13:21

Oh that's cool. That's a lens I can justify shelling out for

What's the circuit by the way?

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16636

It's a small RC receiver.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16636

Couple of crops here of the same area from each image:

Zardoz · **Posted:** Wed Jul 13, 2011 13:33

Excellent results for the price.

kalmar · **Posted:** Wed Jul 13, 2011 13:35

I get pretty similar results to that using a compact camera (or phone) pointing down a 10X microscope, but it's quite fiddly. This sounds like it's worth a try.

Decca · **Joined:** 23rd Jun, 2010 **Posts:** 2282

50mm 1.8D (fx)is here, not had chance to test it properly but it can focus in close

Decca · **Joined:** 23rd Jun, 2010 **Posts:** 2282

50mm 1.8 G rose test by Learnin' Curve, on Flickr

First impressions (edit: not just from that one picture, I did do more), quite soft at 1.8 big, improvement at 2.5 - ni surpise there, all the reviews said as much. It's fast to focus but rather twitchy when doing close ups. Colours are fantastic, bokeh is quite glass like. I'm impressed so far but the light was cloudy but ok, so I've no idea how it will react to sunlight yet.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Mon Jul 18, 2011 15:35

The bokeh looks very strange, Decca. There's strong edged shapes to the left had side that look almost like bubbles.

Decca · **Joined:** 23rd Jun, 2010 **Posts:** 2282

I checked on the other subjects at 1.8 and there does not seem to be any flaws with the lens

This is nef to jpg with no adustments at f 3.2, exp comp was set in camera at -1/3 ev, needs bringing up by about 0.15

NEF RAW test shot 50mm by Learnin' Curve, on Flickr

Zardoz · **Posted:** Mon Jul 18, 2011 16:49

Decca wrote:

I checked on the other subjects at 1.8 and there does not seem to be any flaws with the lens

No, didn't look like that, thankfully. Can you see what I mean though? Maybe it was a sharpening setting in your raw conversion or something? :shrug:

The last shot doesn't have that effect at all.

Decca · **Joined:** 23rd Jun, 2010 **Posts:** 2282

*goes back over import - it's not the sharpening although it looks like it should be.

ok I wrote a thing, it made no real sense unless I went back out and took a picture of the bench to show where it was going all Alice in wonderland so here's another example.

same again but eff one point eight by Learnin' Curve, on Flickr

Edit: hang on the WB is the same in those two and they were taken 5 seconds apart - the colour difference is somewhat fucked up isn't it?

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49244

You've lost tons of sharpness on that flower.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Mon Jul 18, 2011 17:10

That strange effect is back too.

Decca · **Joined:** 23rd Jun, 2010 **Posts:** 2282

it really does seem to turn into a different lens at 2.8 - not really a fair test as it's all been up close.

Decca · **Joined:** 23rd Jun, 2010 **Posts:** 2282

ok checked flicker groups and everyone has this strange effect wide open, I've even seen it at 2.2 and not on close up

Young 'Un by Truebritgal, on Flickr

behind his head. (also there was one that people were saying "lovely macro shot" at, if he had tubes then it shows if he didn't have then I know about 30 more fucking idiots than I did half an hour ago*)

It's not a lens killer by a long shot, but you seem to have to watch that there are no lines in there wide open (it really is very soft there as well). It seems to hold it's bokeh better than the other lenses I have used at f 3-5 though which is a big plus for me with animal portraits (2.8 for cats, 3.2-4.0 for dogs). Going to enjoy using this lens me thinks.

* it was a flower from above, and depressingly bad for the number of comments on it.
**grumbles about having shit to do all day before the holidays start

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

The f-stop watch:

MaliA · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:52

Why don't you have light meters on lens caps? It'd make lots of sense.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16636

MaliA wrote:

Why don't you have light meters on lens caps? It'd make lots of sense.

Attention, mods. Kissyfur's been hacking accounts again.

MaliA · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:10

markg wrote:

MaliA wrote:

Why don't you have light meters on lens caps? It'd make lots of sense.

Attention, mods. Kissyfur's been hacking accounts again.

It's a good idea. You've always got a lens cap, and it'd fit in there, or, at least, not significantly increase the size and you won't need the other bit of kit then.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16636

I guess I'm thinking of modern digital cameras but they nearly all have pretty advanced light meters built in. The ones that people use separately in studios and suchlike don't really lend themselves to being lens cap-shaped.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:16

I find the light meter in the camera is enough.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

Bag advice!

Can anyone suggest a bag I can use to go on holiday with? I need something to carry through as hand luggage.

I usually fly with the biggish Crumpler laptop bag that Zardoz sold me a while back, but now that I have the DSLR (and I'll probably take my GF1 as well) I think I need something a little more designed around the camera. I was eying up that Lowepro that Zardoz bought recently but I think the "backpack" bit of the bag might not be quite big enough.

I'm likely to be carrying:

Nikon D5000 + 18-55 lens
Panasonic GF1 + 20mm lens (would go in a lens pocket in a normal camera bag with the adjustable velcro bits I think)
iPad
Kindle
the usual plethora of travel documentation
Gorillapod
smaller accessories -- chargers, lens filters, lenspen, memory cards, camera remote, iPad connection kit, etc

The accessories can go in the hold if I'm overweight (stupid charter flights have a 5 kg limit, and two cameras plus the iPad and Kindle is already 3 kg). They're relatively expensive for how much they weigh though, and I don't trust airlines not to lose stuff, so I'd rather they were in my hand luggage.

Does anyone have a particularly bag they'd recommend? Would all that fit in the Lowepro Fastpack 100? Another option would be to put the D5000 in a small fitted padded case and throw that in my Crumpler, but I'm not convinced it'd fit. The camera is quite bulky.

Decca · **Joined:** 23rd Jun, 2010 **Posts:** 2282

It should fit into a Lowepro Fastpack 200, I have one and did the pretend kit fitting thing, I doubt you will end up with much room to spare though.
If you get a backpack make sure you get a raincover with pull strings as it will stop any sticky fingers in the airport.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

Hmm, Kata Ergotech Sensitivity V Backpack looks promising (and had a #reviewPage1" class="postlink">glowing review from CNet).

I'm a bag nerd, by the way. Hence the over-analysis.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Tue Jul 19, 2011 15:12

Yeah I think the Fastpack 200 would do you (if not there's a 250 or 300), if I remember correctly the 200 has a notebook compartment that the 100 doesn't have. Look at them in Jessops, then buy from Amazon.

Trooper · **Joined:** 4th Mar, 2010 **Posts:** 22391

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

I'm a total nerd, by the way. Hence the over-analysis.

FTFY

Your's sincerely.

Pot.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

Trooper wrote:

FTFY

Truth accepted. I'm even worse with bags though.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Hmm, Kata Ergotech Sensitivity V Backpack looks promising (and had a #reviewPage1" class="postlink">glowing review from CNet).

I ordered this. The Lowepro Fastpack 100 and 200 don't have laptop bits to put the iPad in and the 250 looks rather oversized for what I want. I nearly bought the Kata 3N1-11 or -22, but they were a bit more expensive. I can always send this Sensitivity back to Amazon if it's not good for what I want.

Oh, and the one I bought was the last one Amazon had -- I think this is a discontinued model.

Decca · **Joined:** 23rd Jun, 2010 **Posts:** 2282

Some detective work has been done on the 1.8's bokeh.
Asked on SA and after the standard, ignore what was written, don't bother checking the pictures and explain what DOF is post it was clocked that there are two versions of this lens with very different mounts. The writing on them reads:

1.
Nikon AF
Nikkor

2.
Nikon AF Nikkor

I have 2 which seems to be the newer version of the lens, all the reviews and test shots you see are of 1, it is looking like it's only the newer version with the kaleidoscope bokeh wide open. It does look like the new version is built better than the old though. Investigations continue.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:23

There are three 1.8ƒ 50mm's now.

The original 1986 version (AF), the 2002 version (AF-S) and the latest one this year the G (AF-S).

Decca · **Joined:** 23rd Jun, 2010 **Posts:** 2282

narp, four. There are most certainly two versions of the AF D

Older: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-50mm-F1-8-AF-Nikkor/dp/B00006HA9W/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1311096185&sr=8-2
Newer: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-50mm-F1-8D-Nikkor-Lens/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311096185&sr=8-1

look at the mount, they are not the same lens but have the same name.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:10

You can see the differences on the focus ring too. So the old one has better Bokeh and is £25 cheaper?

Not that it's on my lens list...

NervousPete · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:46

Picking up my new lens this evening, the 85mm f/1.8d.

Hope it satisfies!

Zardoz · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:54

Excited for you! Think you've made a good choice there.

And those other lenses will be in your bag soon enough.

NervousPete · **Posted:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 23:38

ATTENTION!

I now have my new lens.

First impressions:

Reviews say it's a very light lens, but either I've been screwing feathers into my camera up to this point or it's pretty weighty. Build is plastic with metal mount and of good quality. Very good second hand condition. Aperture ring is cool, minimum aperture is f/16. The focus ring is light - some say it feels a little too loose, well I agree it's very easy to move but I don't think it feels overly loose, just a different sort of right. It's a little bigger than the 35mm prime. Lens hood is metal, but is a screw in one, not a bayonet. It also doesn't reverse mount for ease of storage. Yuck. Autofocus is a little noisy but pretty damn fast. It doesn't hunt too much in low, low light which is nice.

Anyway, a trip to the park tomorrow lunchtime I reckon to put it through its paces!

Zardoz · **Posted:** Thu Jul 21, 2011 0:13

Nice one, Pete.

Had a dabble with Lightroom tonight, I've been using Aperture so far. The raw processing is pretty much the same but the wealth of extra features in Lightroom look very appealing. I'll put a few cards worth of shots through it and decide wether to make the switch or not.

Be Excellent To Each Other

Camera gear

Who is online