jeffrey_winn

Willy,

Life is a series of compromises. In a perfect world, one would be able to get a 24/300 zoom for you camera that takes perfect photos at all focal lengths and also weighs only 6 oz. But, we all know that a super zoom will cover the different focal lengths, but at a compromise in photo quality.

I think getting the 70-210 zoom with young kids is a good idea. I also have young kids at home, and I find I use my 80-200 zoom all of the time. When my kids were very small, I could use any lens, and zoom with my feet for the picture that I wanted. But, as they got a little older all of my photos started looking the same. When I approached with the camera, they would stop playing, and just start mugging for the camera. I wanted more candid photos of the kids playing, and the zoom enabled me to do this. I often get a few pictures of them playing in the back yard while they are absorbed in play, and they didn't even notice that I was there with a camera.

I also think you will find uses for a zoom in the 70-200 range as your kids begin different activities. For example, if they are playing T-ball, you can stay on the side lines and still get a decent picture of them playing short stop. I've used my zoom for sports as well as at Dance recitals, because you never know where you will end up seated. Without the zoom, I would have never been able to get any pictures as my daughter would have been too far away without the zoom.

If you can get a zoom at a good price, it should be worth giving one a try.

Take care,

Jeff

Katie,

I would agree with most of the recommendations presented, but you must buy any additional lenses based on what you are taking photos of, or what you think you will be taking pictures of. I think you can't miss by adding a 70/80mm to 200/210mm zoom to you kit. See SMP article on lenses on the home page for a better discussion of this type of lens, and others. I have a 80-200mm f4.0 zoom and use it a lot. I have small children and I like the ability to stand off from them and take their picture while they continue to play. I found with my 50mm lens, they would stop playing and start to shout "Cheese" at the camera whenever I got close. But, with the zoom I can stand off and get the photo that I want and they didn't even know that I took the picture. These lenses are pretty reasonable in price as well.

I would also second the motion for some sort of wide angle. I have the 28mm f2.8 and I love it. On a trip to Disney World with kids in tow, I used this lens a lot more then I would have guessed. This lens is also pretty inexpensive. I don't have a 24mm, so perhaps someone else could add something here.

I also have a 28-90mm f2.8/3.5 zoom, and I have mixed feelings about it. I like the range that it covers, and it takes a pretty nice picture. But, this lens is a lot bigger then I like to use. It weighs about the same as my T-70, if not more, and beats me up when I drag it around on the camera all day. But, often I'm at a function with the kids, and I can't control my seating position. This lens has save the day, more then once. For example, I can zoom in to get the picture that I want at a dance recital, where my 50mm just can't get close enough.

I'm looking for either an 85mm or 100mm lens to round out my primes. I can't make up my mind on one of these, but I believe that this is a very useful range. My plan of attack is to use the primes as much as I can for the faster speed, and better quality glass. But keep the zooms for different occasions, such as a dance recital where I have no idea what distance I'll be from the action, or when I only want to take the camera and one lens. If you are thinking along these lines, a zoom or two couldn't hurt.

I hope this helps you. Take care and take a lto of pictures!

Jeff

Several years ago I debated dropping my Canon T-70 and upgrading to an autofocus system. I looked at all of the features on the newer cameras, and I had dreams of these new cameras delivering wonderful pictures every time. I picked up the phone and I made a call to an Uncle who has enjoyed photography for years, and I thought that he would direct me toward the best new camera system for my needs.

Guess what? He burst my bubble, and laughed at what I was looking at. All of the great photos that he has produced over the years was done with a mid-1960's Nikon, and a few good lenses. He didn't have a pro body, but rather one of the consumer ones sold back then. ( I can't remember the model that he used then, and still uses today.) As we discussed the different features of his camera, my T-70 suddenly seemed very modern and full of features. By the end of our conversation I realized that I was chasing the dream of better pictures via newer and modern equipment, rather then concentrating on the photography process. I have retained my Canon T-70 FD camera, and I've actually added to my system.

The only problem that I run into with my camera, is I miss a few photos due to lack of Autofocus. My kids are young and always on the run. Keeping them in one place for more then a few seconds can be difficult. As they get older, sports photos of them will probably be a problem for the same reason. But, almost everything else that I do works fine.

Jeff

Georg,

I'm not familar with using a finder, or that this was an option for this camera. Would I be correct to say that this finder attaches to the hot shoe, and you look through it for distance information of some sort? Do you focus this finder in a way similar to an SLR lens, or does it provide distance information in some other way?

I also want to get a skylight filter to protect the front element, as well as help with the photos. What size filter is this lens? On the camera it isn't listed like other lenes that I have. I also would like to run a roll of BW film through the camera, or perhaps a better roll of color film. The film I used was the cheapest Fuji film that I could find, 100 ISO consumer stuff that was in a drawer for a time. I didn't even know if the camera would work, so why waste money on good film and processing. Additionally, getting soaked probably didn't help the film much. But, I was very happy with the overall results.

Thanks again to everyone who has helped me on this project!

Jeff

Greetings,

In an earlier post I had a number of questions about the Sekonic L-

98 light meter. Well, I found a battery for the L-98. I was using

this light meter with a 1.5 volt battery, but finally found the

required 1.35 volt battery at Ritz Camera. The package lists this

battery for several older cameras, and light meters. I hope this

information will help someone who has been having the same trouble

that I've had with finding the correct battery.

After I placed this battery into the meter, it started working as

advertised. I hope to do a few more tests with this meter compared

to my Canon T-70. I hope that the reading are a lot closer then

before, and that these reading will aid me in the future.

Jeff

Greetings,

I just got back my first roll of film from the Voigtlander Vito II

that I acquired from my grandfather. Overall, I was happy with the

results, but I did make a number of mistakes. Actually, I made the

same mistake a number of times.

The Good: Most of the photos were properly exposed, and showed

pretty good detail for an old camera that has been stored in a dusty

box in the basement for many years. I took a few photos under

different situations, and learned a bit about the strengths and

weaknesses of the camera and it's lens. Namely, this camera is best

suited for outdoor daylight photos, and mainly closer snapshots. I

took a few photo's from a boat of some kids tubing. They were about

50 feet behind the boat riding on the tube, and they were just too

small in the prints. But, overall the photos came out much better

then I expected.

The Bad: Using the distance scale on the lens will take me more time

to get used to then I thought. I had several photos where the main

subject was out of focus. But, the background was in focus. For

example, I took a photo of my son and he is out of focus, but the

books behind him are sharp. I did this several times. I guess I must

think about the distance scale more, and also remember that it is

listed in meters not feet. I also must think about the relationship

of the aperture to the depth of field when I set the focus.

The Ugly: On our boating trip we were caught in a thunderstorm. We

stopped on a small island to get off the water as the storm raged

overhead. I placed the camera in a storage compartment on the boat

that I thought was waterproof. Well, guess what? After the storm

passed the camera was sitting in about a half inch of rain water. I

drained the water from the camera and developed the film, and after

letting the camera dry I think I haven't done any serious damage.

Below I'll hopefully upload a few photos from the camera. I haven't

uploaded anything on this site before so I hope it works out.<div></div>

Mike, Gene and Dave,

Thanks again for the quick and informative response. I'm currently using a 1.5 volt battery as I search for a 1.35 volt battery or a recommended 1.4 volt hearing aid battery. I knew that this difference in voltage would cause a difference in the reading, but I really didn't know how much.

I like th idea of adjusting the reading by two stops, because this is a relatively easy fix. If I'm correct, all I need to do is take a reading of say f-16 and 1/125 sec, and change this to f-8 and 1/125 sec. ( Is this correct???) Perhaps, I can adjust the ASA setting on the meter to be closer to the readings of the Canon T-70. In this case, I can just use the actual reading from the meter, and don't worry about the correction.

The Canon T-70 has a good meter, which is the usual center weighted averaging type. It also has a smaller spot type meter that takes into acount about 12% of the viewing area. This isn't a true spot meter like those found on pro cameras, but it does a nice job in tricky lighting situations. I think I'll do another few tests using the meter, and I'll try a few relalistic subjects. For example, I'll meter a few trees or something with a mixed colors to see if the Sekonic and the Canon meters are closer. Additionally, I'll try using the two stop correction, and also play around with the ASA setting to see if I can find something that works well.

Thanks again for all of the help!!!!!!!

Jeff

Greetings,

In another message, I posted that I just received an older

Voigtlander Vito II and a Sekonic L-98 meter. Well, I have a few

questions about the meter.

It was suggested that I go outside and compare the readings from the

meter to my Canon T-70. It was also suggested that I use the garage

door or some other large stationary object, and see what I get. Well,

I just returned from outside and the meter in the camera and the

Sekonic are giving different reading. At first I believed that the

meter was way off, but now I'm not so sure.

The Canon T-70 with a 50mm f 1.8 lens calls for f-11 and 1/500sec

against a white metalic garage door. I also metered f-8 and 1/250

against the red brick wall in bright sun. I also used the spot meter

for this reading and it was the same f-8 and 1/250 sec.

The Sekonic calls for f-11 and 1/1500 against the garage door. Next I

metered f-8 and 1/1000 sec for the red brick. I also did a close

reading from the brick, bringing the meter about 3 inches away and it

called for f-8 and 1/750sec.

To add to the confusion, it is a bright sunny day with a few small

overhead clouds, and these measurements were taken off a white

metalic door and red brick wall. Using the Sunny 16 rule, I should be

using f-16 and 1/100 sec shutter speed. Which is correct? I just got

back two rolls of film from my Canon T-70 and everything was exposed

properly. Is there that much latitude in modern films, or am I using

the Sunny 16 rule incorrectly? Is this the correct way to test the

Sekonic meter, or should it be a mixed scene?

Any advice on using this meter will be greatly appreciated.

Jeff

Lynn, Mike, Gene, and everyone else who has helped,

I did get a copy of the owners manual for the camera and also the light meter. Both were helpful. I think I understand the camera pretty much, and the way the meter should work. But I'm not too sure about the meter's accuracy.

When I depress the switch to activate the meter, I do get a reading, but I'm not too sure how accurate it is. I'm currently running a 1.5 volt battery, and haven't had the time to get the recomended 1.4 volt battery. I've also noticed that the reading seems to hunt a bit. Tomorrow I hope to do a few tests comparing readings off the Sekonic meter to my Canon T-70.

I did look up the Sunny 16 website and have a copy that I'll keep with the manuals. It seems so simple, yet such an elegant solution to not having a meter. I took my two kids out for a walk this afternoon, and I took a few quick snapshots using the Sunny 16 rule. In fact, I hope to finish off this roll of film soon, as I can't wait to see the results.

Has anyone ever used a flash with one of these camera's before? This Voigtlander has what appears to be a hot shoe on top of the camera, although it probably only holds the flash in place. I have that old Sun Pak 7 that don't think will work. But, I was wondering if my old Vivitar Auto Thyristor 2800 will work with this camera. The camera has a what's described as a flash contact in the owners manual, and this is listed as a PC connection from the flash manual. I have the old PC cord for the Sun Pak 7 flash, but it is a different two pronged connection for the Vivitar PC connection. Perhaps I need to wait to get the photo's back from a few outdoor daylight shots before I get too carried away.

Take care , and thanks again for all of the help.

Jeff

Thanks for the advice!

I'm really having a lot of fun with this camera, and I hope the first roll of film turns out OK. For now I really don't trust the meter, and I've used my Canon T-70 as a meter. For now this works, but I can't see dragging along a SLR as a meter just to use this camera. But, I'll replace the 1.5 volt battery that I picked up from Radio shack with one closer in voltage.

Can someone please refresh my memory on the sunny 16 rule. Is it f-stop of 16 and shutter at 250? My primary camera is the Canon T-70, and the different program modes handle all of the shutter and aperature tasks. In fact, I hope that using the Voigtlander camera will make me a better photographer, as I'll be forced into making more decisions in the photography process.

To be honest with everybody, I thought that this camera would just end up as a paperweight, as it was pretty rough looking when I took it out of the old box. It hasn't been used for 15 years, and it may have been in that old box for 25 or more years. But, I took my time cleaning up the camera, and I hope the shutter and everything else works properly.

In the box with the camera was another vintage camera. It is a Braun Nornberg Paxette. This camera has really been beaten up, but the shutter fires when depressed. If I can get a few good photo's from the Voigtlander, I will attempt this camera next.

Finally, I found an old electronic flash in the same box. The flash is a Sun Pak 7, and I have no idea of it's status. This flash can be used with internal batteries, or by a cord and household electrical current. I'm a little cool on the idea of using this flash plugged into the wall, but I'll have to see if it works with batteries.

I'll try to post a few photo's from this camera when I get them developed. I sure I'll have a few more questions on the best way to use this camera.

Thanks again for all of the help.

Jeff

Greetings,

I just received an old Voigtlander Vito II camera and an old light

meter to go with it. This equipment was from my grandfather and was

in the basemnet for about 15 years after his death.

Anyway, I cleaned up the camera, and it appears to be working. But,

I'm not so sure about the light meter. I put in a new battery, a 1.5

volt instead of the 1.35 volt mercury battery that the camera called

for. The needle swings, and it appears to work. But, will the meeter

be accurate with a different battery? Additionally, will one of these

old light meters remain accurate over time? I've read that they lose

their accuracy, and should be replaced.

I plan to use this camera and light meter together, if I can. Any

suggestions on how to proceed will be appreciated.

Thanks,

Jeff

Thanks for al of the advice. I just got one roll of the Polaroid film back, and I'm not really that impressed. I'll have to take a close look at the negatives, as the origional packing material is already gone. I had this roll developed at the usual one hour place which uses Kodak paper. The photo's looked dull or blah overall. Most were just the usual snapshots, without any tricky lighting, etc. I'll have to look closer and see if I can determine if the problem was operator/photographer induced, or if the problem is in the film.

Thanks again for all of the good advice!

Jeff

Greetings,

The other day my wife came home from the store with two big packages

of 35 mm film that she picked up on sale. I was wondering if anyone

could advise me on this film. The first package of film was from

Walmart, and it had the Walmart brand on it's lable. The second

package of 35 mm film she bought somewhere else. But, the brand name

on this film was Polaroid.

My questions are relatively simple. Are either of these films worth

the lower price? Is the Walmart film actually made by Kodak or Fugi,

and then just repackaged? Has anyone else used the 35 mm Polaroid

film and liked the results?

Between my wife and I we shoot about 3-4 rolls of film a month.

Strictly amature stuff, but we do enjoy getting the great shots on

occasion. In the past, we have mainly stuck to either Kodak or Fugi.

In fact, we have probably used Kodak for about 75% of the shots taken

over the past five years. I have a Canon 35 mm SLR, and my wife uses

a Nikon. We usually just get 4 X 6 prints, but we occasionally get 5

X 7 or 8 x 10 prints made.

Thanks in advance,

Jeff

I'll givw your idea a try, but I'm now leaning towards using the camera and flash in program mode and letting the flash take care of the exposure. Additionally, I think I'll try to take a few photo's without any flash.

Thanks again for your help.

Greetings,

I have a question about the Canon T-70/299T and using fill flash. I

know that I can use the camera and flash together in the program

mode for daytime fill flash. But, I've wanted to use it another way,

and I'm not sure that I understand the way the camera and flash work

together.

I live near the beach, and I want to take a few photo's around

sunset of my family. I've read several places on Photo.net that the

best way to do this is to take a meter reading of the sky and beach

with the camera, say 125/f4. Then switch to manual, set this into

the camera and add the fill-flash. Well, unless I'm doing something

wrong I can't do the above, because when I turn the flash on, the

camera will automatically set to the sync speed of 1/90 sec, even in

manual.

Should I just leave the camera and flash in program, and let the

camera automatically set everything? Can I use another flash? I have

a Vivitar 2800 Auto Thyristor flash that I've used in the past, and

can set this flash and the camera on manual. But, the T-70 camera

manual lists the sync speed for other Flashes as 1/60 sec. Will

using a higher shutter speed of say 1/125 sec will screw up the

photo? Will I really gaining anything over the 299T in program?

I've had my T-70 since about 1985, but just picked up the 299T

recently. I've been pleased with using the the T-70 and 299T in

program mode and also in F-number set mode. But most of my photo's

haven't had that wonderful background of the beach at sunset. I'm

hoping to use the indirect light just as the sun sets, and just a

touch of flash to fill in the details without blasting out the

background. Am I approaching this the right way, or have I made an

easy shot to difficult by playing around with the fill flash?

Thanks in advance!

Jeff

Thanks everybody!

I'm still considering a few different options. For one, I've been planing for some time to get a 100mm lens for photo's of the kids. This by itself won't solve the versatility problem, but will give me another option.

I'm also interested in one of the mega zooms, such as the 35-200. But, I don't want to have a monster lens dragging me down while I'm out and about. I like the idea of the versatility of the great zoom range, but wonder if I'd be happy with it's size. (I guess I need to get my hands on one to get a better idea of it's size.)

At Disney, many of the rides didn't allow the use of flash photography, as the flash can interupt the sensors on all of the creatures. Additionally, many of the stage shows didn't allow flash photography. So, I definitely would like as fast a lens as possible. In the future, I imagine that I'll be at different performances of one sort or another with the kids, and they also won't allow the flash to be used until the end of the show. So, I guess I want it all. -- A lens that goes from 24-300, f 1.8, and weighs only 3 oz!!!!!!

I'll continue to research this a bit, and report later. Thanks again for all of the good info!

Jeff

I just returned from five fun-filled days down in Orlando to visit

with the "Black Rat." You know, that guy named Mickey Mouse. Anyway,

after chasing the kids, ages 5, 3, and 16 months all over every inch

of every theme park Disney ever dreamed of, I realized that I need

to rethink my lens selection. Instead of draging my camera bag with

the Canon T-70, a 299T flash, a 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8, and a 80-200mm

4.0, some extra film, a few snacks, and a few extra dipers, I need a

smaller and simpler setup for traveling.

My thoughts are for a zoom lens to cover the basic shooting

distances. In the future, I would like to head out of the hotel

without dragging all of the different lenses, yet not be stuck with

just one basic 50mm lens. I'm thinking of a zoom of some sort.

I found that I used the 28mm and the 50mm lens most of the time. In

fact, I was surprised at how much I used the 28mm lens. To get a few

quick snapshots of the kids attacking some poor creature like

Captain Hook, or Goofy, the 28 mm lens worked out well. But, during

a few of the shows, I was happy that I had my 80-200mm lens.

So, should I look into one of those magical 28-200mm zooms? Should I

seek a high quality zoom of say the famous Canon 35-105 3.5? Would

the Canon 35-70 do the trick? Should I just settle for the 50mm and

realize that I'm on vacation, and that I won't get every shot.

I also did an informal survey of the cameras at the Disney Parks.

Overall, I'd have to say that the number one 35mm SLR was the Canon

Rebel. There must have been thousands there. Additionally, I saw a

lot of older Minolta's. It seemed that every time I turned around, I

saw an older Minolta. I also saw a lot of 35mm point and shoot of

every manufacturer, and a few Digital cameras. But, 35mm cameras

easily outnumbered the digitals by 10-1, or more. Many of the 35mm

cameras were one time use cameras, but most were point and shoot

types.

Let me know what you think of my lens delema. Should I go for a

zoom, or just relax and realize that I won't get all of the shots

that I think I should.

Jeff

Thanks for the help. That was a good website with info on the flash. I think I'll pick one up and give it a try.

Jeff

Greetings,

I've had a Canon T-70 for a number of years, and one of my goals for

the new year is to improve the quality of my photo's. One of my

biggest problems is with flash photography. I don't have the

dedicated Canon 277T for my camera. Instead I've had a Vivitar 2800

Auto Flash. This flash has worked well for years, but it forces me to

use manual flash and the 1/60 sinc speed, vs. the 1/90 sinc speed for

the Canon flash. Would it be worth while getting a Canon 277T flash,

or even a 299T? Doing so would enable me to use the auto features on

the camera with the flash. Additionally, I understand that these

flashes will allow me to perform daylight fill-flash easier. Also, my

maual doesn't address the 299T flash. Does this flash work in auto

with the T-70?

Thanks for the help!

Jeff

Thanks for all of the good advice. I'm off for the store, and I hope to pick up a few of these films and give them a try.

Jeff

Greetings,

I'm off for a 7 day cruise, and would like any advice that you could

pass along to a rookie for photo's down in the Carribean. I've

already picked up a few rolls of the usual stuff, (100 for daylight,

400 for other) but I was interested in trying something to really

bring out the colors of the area. Could someone recommed one of the

new color saturation films, or point me in the right diretion.

I'm using my old, but trusted Canon T-70 manual camera if this

information helps.

Thanks in advance.

Jeff

Mark W., Gregory, Scott, and Joe,

Thanks for all of your help! All of you collectively sold me on the value of the 28mm 2.8. I can't see not getting one now, so I'll start shopping around. I've always seemed to like the 35-105, but at the going prices I think I'll hold off for now. But, the 35-70 3.5-4.5 seems to be a good lens for the photos that I'm currently taking. I'll start looking for one of these as well. I really like the idea of the light weight and small size of the 35-70. The Canon FD-25 Extention Tube also sounds interesting, although I've never used any of these before.

Thanks again for all of your help. In the future I'll post what I picked up, and what I think.

Jeff

Greetings,

I've had a Canon T-70 since the mid 1980's and I've used just a Canon

50mm 1.8, and a Vivitar 80-200 4.0 lens. I mainly take pictures of my

family, vacations etc. and these lenses have worked well. But, I seem

to find that I need a wide angle on ocasion, or get a little closer

then the 50mm will allow. Would anyone recommend the Canon FD 35-70

lens as a general all around lens? Is there a big difference between

the 2.8-3.5, the 4.0 or the 3.5-4.5? Would I be better off with the

35-105 3.5? Would a 28mm or 24 mm prime lens be a better answer? What

about other lens manufacturers? Where is the best place to get one of

these lens KEH, E-bay, etc.?

I'm not a pro, but I enjoy getting a few good photo's of my kids. I'd

like to expand on what I can do, but I would like to keep things

relatively simple. Anyway, thanks for all the help in advance!

Jeff