orpheus

October 5, 2009

Oh, and one minor thing, some of the MF lenses have gone through SEVERAL if not MANY iterations and versions...it would be good to do some research into which particular ones are the gems and which ones were the bad ones...I have some reliable sources here and there if u are interested. I think the 135 f/2.8 MF has gone through like at least 4-5 changes in the last 20 years. 8)

October 5, 2009

There's many reasons why a company may stop making a lens. Off the top of my head, the largest factor I would deduce is the fact that a newer, better variation or upgrade version of it is available. In the case of the 105mm f/2.5, it was commonly thought of as one of the best portrait lenses (due to its focal length, bokeh, sharpness, colour rendition, etc.). But the newer designs came out with AF 105 f/2 DC and 135, which were specifically designed for portraiture (with it's defocus area control), which would make the older design obsolete (not in terms of quality, but in terms of functionality). Of course, many other factors like the onslaught of AF and AF-S body designs made MF lenses much less 'profitable'. Although, if you look at the nikon website, even today, MF lenses are still made and sold brand new, which means they still do have their applicable areas.

Lens build I would say in this case is minor, in the sense that I doubt you would use it to the point of it breaking apart or in precarious locations. More so probably would be it's ability to retain value. I don't know too much about the quality of this Samyang 85 lens, and wouldn't be knowledgeable enough to make comments, so by all means, if you find reliable sources and good testing and reviews and the general (non-profit) public agrees it's a good lens, then you could look into it, but know that you wouldn't be able to resell it out at anywhere near its purchase price down the road.

But I agree with you, 1.4 to 2.5 would be a significant loss of around 1.5stops. You'd have to see whether that is what you want or not. The other difference of course would be 85mm to 105mm, but if u were going for 105 f/2.5, i'd recommend just going up to MF 135 f/2.8. The difference in focal length would be more worth it for the stop difference. I bought my 135 f/2.8 (used and battered up) for like $100, but the optics of it were still clean and sharp and great to use.

October 5, 2009

Hahaha....nono, the math part was just me being crazy (and if you happen to be a math or physics or engineering type of person). If it looks too complicated, ignore it. You don't need it.

And I agree with Wouter, You'd be much better off with an actual Nikon lens, especially if budget is a concern. Nikon lenses will hold their value WAY better than almost all off-brands apart from a few exceptionally well designed ones (like the Tamron 90mm macro lens, or the Sigma 30mm 1.4 which have retained their value quite well too).

If you don't mind me asking, you don't happen to live in the Vancouver, BC, Canada area do you? I wouldn't mind lending you different lenses to try out for ur endeavours if you were local (but i remember you not being in this area...)

October 5, 2009

Most teleconverters (Nikon mount) should work, with some exceptions where there is a lens portrusion (usually those designed for 300mm or above). What you have to be careful of though is not all teleconverter and lens combinations work well. Some degrade the quality of the lens (sharpness, contrast, colour, etc.) by a lot. Furthermore, if you get a 2x converter, it'll (on the average) cut out 2-stops of light, so ur 1.4 will effectively become a 2.8 (and possibility slightly worse). And judging from ur need of MORE light gathering to freeze action rather than being actually closer, I'd probably not recommend going for that teleconverter...2-stops is a lot.

If you wanted to go for 170mm, i'd probably recommend getting a AF or MF 180mm 2.8 (400-800, depending on condition) or a MF 135mm 2.8 (150-300) or as wouter suggested, the MF 105mm 2.5...All of them would be way better than an 85 with a teleconverter combo.

If you want to check out the framing, i'd recommend going to the pool when less people are there, and shooting using ur those focal lengths using direct flash at ISO 400-800 with an aperture of f8. Then go back to the computer and crop to the area that you would want composition-wise, and see if that level of noise and level of detail is enough.

The reason for this 'experiment' is to see IF you got a sharp picture (since there is flash) at an ISO and focal length that you might be getting, would you be sufficiently ok with the cropped image. The reason for the smaller aperture is to increase the quality of the image that might otherwise be 'crappier' with ur zoom lens' quality, so it'll approach a bit more closer to the actual quality of the lenses u are getting (minus the whole shallower DOF feel).

So say you adjusted ur zoom to 85mm and u shot a sharp shot of it with flash at the pool. Go back and you crop it on ur screen to what you want (ideally), then u look at it and say, "hey, that's not that bad", then the 85 would already be sufficient for you....but say you say, "whoa, it's so pixelly now and the image is so small..." then u might need a bit more, like 105 or 135...repeat experiment again using the other focal lengths, until one achieves the resolution, quality, and size that you need.

Technically, if you are mathematically gifted and understand optics well, it's possible to do the cropping part without actually testing it. i.e. you 'estimate' the resolution of image that you need (e.g. 200dpi for a 4x6 print, u need 1200x800 image), u've been using 250mm focal length to shoot ur daughter most frequently, ur sensor is 6MP (3000x2000), you can calculate back what angle of view is needed from the area of the minimally needed cropped image to what is available on your sensor, then u can figure out what is the minimal focal length you need. If this was totally too much, you can ignore this last paragraph...hehehe 8)

October 5, 2009

An added bonus also will be your viewfinder will be a lot brighter (so will help with your manual focusing in the dim light), although still small...8)

October 5, 2009

Basically, you'll need to work in M mode. The shutter speed will be controlled on the body, just like shutter-priority (S mode), but the aperture will register "--" on the LCD display, and will actually be set by the aperture ring on the lens itself (anything non-G lens has an aperture ring on the lens mount end of the lens with tick marks showing the major f-stops (1.4,2,2.8,4,5.6,etc.). You can 'part' stops by delicately turning to inbetween tick-marks.

October 5, 2009

Basically, you'll need to go on full manual (M mode). No metering, no autofocus. So either you need an external meter (or pre-meter using a lens that you have), are good at 'eyeballing' lighting, or experiment (way better with digital since u can see the results, than film). It may be tough if the light is constantly changing, but if it's for your swimming pool application which is consistent lighting almost all the time, it should be a breeze (as I mentioned before, once you get the exposure right, it'll be like that 'forever')...8) We can go through a detailed run-through one time if you want to know how (it can be tested even with the lens you have right now).

Peter

P.S. There is the limitation, though, of post AI lenses...pre-AI lenses will screw up ur camera (just make sure it is at least an AI or AIS lens...)

October 4, 2009

Hehehe...That's what I was mentioning before. IF the swimming movement allowed for easy prefocusing (or if you plan to put some time into practicing manual focusing), then MF lenses (like the one you mentioned) would open up a whole BIG range of possibilities for low budget, high quality, large aperture, lenses...8)

October 2, 2009

Ed,

Well, I think to properly give sound suggestions, it's important to really understand your situation and what your expectations are and what is available at your disposal. 8) So no thanks needed. I just hope I didn't overwhelm you with stuff, I just realized how long it was after I finished writing it...hehehe

I totally agree with you. I think taking into account the lens/body investment in the whole scheme of the family financial planning is important. If that is the case, I may even encourage that you go for a better lens rather than a body, as lenses (especially Nikon, rather than off-brand) tend to keep their value better, whereas digital bodies depreciate quite quickly.

Yeah, if you plan to need to retain autofocus, then you'll be somewhat limited by Nikon's very limited line-up of AF-S lenses (particularly in the prime lens department). And unfortunately, you are right, it does refer to an AF lens at that price and not AF-S. They don't have an 85mm AF-S (they really should). I'd only go down the AF route if you are upgrading to at least a D80 or D90 then. That also throws out the whole MF idea...hehehe.

As for the flash idea, it's good you have an SB-400 and SB-600. I guess you have tried bouncing the flash before and found it acceptable in terms being 'frowned upon', but unsatisfactory in terms of its effectiveness (either the ceiling was too high, or the reflectance of the ceiling or fixtures was not enough). Although to be sure, I just wanted to clarify you weren't on Auto-ISO, and had manually switched the ISO to 400 if not 800, as using a flash would default the shutter speed to 1/60 (unless you're on SLOW sync or on M or S mode), and would cause the ISO to drop to the lowest setting. This would reduce the exposure in the image drastically (2-3 stop difference, i can't remember what the lowest ISO was on D40x).

And with that in mind, I was actually wondering about two things to better understand the scenario. What type of swimming does your daughter do? And secondly, are there any balconies or higher up 'viewing points' (even if it's farther) in the indoor pool. I know some community centre or college indoor pools have balconies or glass hallway viewpoints on a second level. That might give some alternate options in terms of flash placement (if you get an inexpensive radio trigger or use your SB-400 pointed up to optically trigger your SB-600, since you have an optical trigger you mentioned).

And finally, I can totally understand you wouldn't want to stand out like a sore thumb in the crowd of parents...hehehe. And your daughter probably wouldn't want that either...hehehe. I'll keep my ideas to more 'inconspicuous' methods. (i.e. ignore the crazy light funnel #5 suggestion...hahah)

Peter

October 2, 2009

Oh, and of course, the crazy suggestion #5 is assuming your daughter wouldn't be blinded either...8) I'm not sure what the 'swimming' is like...8)Oh, and the AF 180mm f/2.8 would be a nice budget used lens (if u're range is between 500-800). No AF on D40x, but would AF on the D90 (abeit a bit slow). But if it works out with the parallel swim plane, do consider MF lenses. You have a lot more options and better prices!

October 2, 2009

Hi Ed,

I'm not an usual poster around here, but happened to be reading about your dilemma and thought I'd throw in a few cents.

Recapping from what I've read, your key points were:

1. You want to take action-freezing shots (ideally, or at least blur free photos) from the edge of an indoor pool to the middle of it (25m or 50m standard length pools, I'll assume an average of 37.5m lengths, so about 18m [50ft] to the centre from the edge).

2. You are dimly lit by high ceiling (approximating 15-30ft high) halogen lighting fixtures, which on the negative-side, is not bright, but on the good side, is constant even lighting (which others have mentioned).

3. Coaches and judges frown upon (and discourage) the use of flash because it flashes into the eyes of all the swimmers (I'm guessing you are referring to direct on-camera flash more since you didn't list out additional flash equipment).

4. Your shots will be largely of 'motion' (you mentioned the splashes and the arm motions), so hand-held, motion-shake blur will be the least of your worries (hence VR and monopods may not be particularly useful).

5. Budget is a significant concern.

6. Most important of all, these shots mean a lot to you, and both a 'challenge' for your photography skills, as well as a meaningful capture of this aspect of your daughter's life (to swim with judges and competitions and such probably means your daughter spends quite a bit of time training and swimming in this pool).

If I didn't miss anything, then from those 'requirements', I'd suggest the following:

1. I won't recap what others have said about the advantages of the bodies, D90 and D300 and D300s, since they covered it quite well, about the noise, ISO, and AF capabilities.

2. In terms of lenses, I think first you need to identify what focal length you 'minimally' need.

Yes, 200mm and 300mm are great, but if you can't (because of price considerations), what would be acceptable? And say, we throw in cropping, what minimum final image dimension do you want (say for prints or just emailing)? A 'crappy' 300mm, may have worser details, then a cropped 'sharp' 85mm or 135mm.

The reason why the focal length plays a big factor is that it'll have a direct impact on the max aperture vs. focal length costs, as well as options available to you. For example, if a cropped image was alright, I'd even recommend an 85mm f1.8, the lens design is amazingly sharp, and u'd have 1.5 stops even more than the 2.8's (since you need the highest shutter speed possible), although honestly, the few elements in the design actually give it an extra 1/2 stop of light too (not all apertures on all lenses are actually equivalent, they are pretty close, but between a prime lens with a high light gathering abilities, together with few elements, it actually has less light loss compared to a poorly designed zoom lens with multiple lens elements). My 85mm f1.8 at f2.8 usually registers an extra 1/3 to 1/2 stop faster shutter speed in comparison to my 80-200 or my 50mm f/1.4. It's price is quite reasonable used (like between 250-350).

Of course, that's under the assumption that you can survive without AF, since D40x requires AF-S lenses. I don't know how your daughter actually swims, but if it's always parallel to the film plane, then u could always prefocus at that fixed distance and just fire away. Of course, if your daughter's swimming is either erratic movement or constantly movement towards or away from you, then it would be harder (if not impossible with the D40x viewfinder). If you also did get a D90, then all the AF lenses would still focus as normal.

If AF was really negotiable, I'd even go as far as looking into MF lenses. 135mm f2.8 or 85mm 1.4, among others, used would all be possible options to give you much better low light performance. Of course, for a D40x or D90, you would lose metering, but as we outlined in the requirements, the lighting is relatively uniform and is consistent in the middle of the pool, so you can set your camera to M mode (manual) and experiment with the right shutter speed until one gives you the right exposure, then you're set "forever". MF lenses are great for your case b/c of that aspect, and for best bang-for-the-buck, since budget was also a concern for you. There's a lot of cheap (but high quality lenses) lying around on eBa_ , KE_, and craigslis_, among other places...8)

3. Another thing you can consider is shooting in RAW, and underexpose it by max 1 stop...it'll produce more noise (when pushed in post-editing), but in shooting RAW, the noise is more uniform and not as affected by the compression that is prevalent in JPEG output, so you can always use good noise reduction programs to produce a better image that way. Unfortunately, that'll require you to get more into post-editing and learn more about the "dark" (light) room...8) But since you're looking for the best possible ways of getting more out of your camera, this is definitely one area you can look into.

4. You mentioned that flash was not an option, because it 'flashed' into all the swimmers eyes. There's two things you can consider. First, you could invest into an SB-600 or SB-800 and see if you can bounce it onto the ceiling, which would be away from 'direct' flashing. I understand the ceiling is pretty high from your description, but at full blast, together with a bumped up ISO, it might just reach enough to help freeze the motion. It might also be more acceptable since the lighting would be coming from the same direction as the actual lighting in the room. Hopefully the ceiling is a light colour, or perhaps the light fixtures on the ceiling have a large enough area to act as reflectors.

5. Finally, another CRAZY flash idea is to get an SB-600 or SB-800 and experiment to create a custom light funnel. You can set the flash at maximum zoom to focus the beam of light, and with a light funnel, you can concentrate the flash so it is directed at only your daughter. If you're knowledgeable in Physics, you can even apply a fresnel lens to make the flash into a 'spotlight'. That way, it won't affect other swimmers (of course this is assuming some sort of parallel arrangement of swimmers) and not like synchronized swimming where they are in a close-knit group. Of course, your apparatus would be the focus of a lot of eyes. Your daughter may not appreciate the attention...hehehe 8)

So it makes a big difference in terms of the exact details of what you are hoping to capture, together with weighing your expectations of the final image output, as well as the level of compromise and budgetting you want to deploy. Hope some of those suggestions are helpful!

Peter

October 28, 2004

Thanx for all your help! Here's the result of one of the scans of the 4x5 slides (ultra low res)...<div>

</div>

October 28, 2004

Thanx for the help! Here's the result of one of the scans of one of the 4x5 slides (Ultra low resolution)<div>

</div>

September 30, 2004

Hi,

Just wanted to draw on the experience of all of you out there. I'm

taking a group photo of about 300-350 people. If weather permits,

outdoors would be perfect and require the least amount of "hassle".

But it is necessary to take the picture on that day, so if it does

rain, I need a plan B. This would involve keeping everyone inside

and lighting up a stage. Here are the requirements and specs of the

situation indoors:

Natural light level: f4 @ 1/15 sec ISO400 (pretty dim)

Format needed: Large format, as they require an enlargement of

relatively large proportions.

Required aperture estimated: f16 to f22

Minimum shutter speed: 1/15 sec

Setting: a large stage with steps

Film: Portra 400NC

I have very little experience with indoor strobe lighting. I'm

guessing I'll need some pretty powerful strobe lights (4800ws?) and

probably quite a few of them (3-4?) to get enough light for this. I

live in Vancouver, BC., so if anyone has any good suggestions for

rental places, as well as if anyone has any experience that they

could shed on this situation, that would be much appreciated. I'm

currently considering renting Speedotron 4803cx power packs along

with the 4800ws heads. Unfortunately, I need to learn quickly how to

hook all this up and what cords or stuff I should look for. The

flash sync on my large format camera uses a bipost connector.

Thanx,

Peter

P.S. I did not even consider continuous light sources b/c I don't

believe they'll be strong enough, as well as pose a fire hazard

(children will be there...8) )

September 30, 2004