panos_voudouris

You can also focus before you give them the camera and then set the lens to manual. They will always press the button all the way and the lens will not have time to focus.

"why i am considering digital is because i need not worry about slide / print film. you can understand the problems for an amateur when using slide films. Can i stick with print films and hope to get pictures published?"

 

Sulfi, supposing you get interesting photos you can get them published, whether they are in slides, prints or digital. However, your fear of slides indicates that you are lacking in the actual photo taking technique. If you cannot measure exposure correctly (which I assume is the fear with slides) it shows that you still have some way to go before getting stuff published (unless you already have a deal going on!).

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I am just indicating that perhaps you should first spend some time polishing your technical skills because your creativity alone will not be sufficient. In this regard, digital will certainly be more helpful as it will give you instant feedback and you will be able to work on your skills. A DSLR is a good idea then. Perhaps you'll be lucky and find a 2nd hand body for less money.

 

On the other hand, slides can be a great tool too. You can buy some 20 rolls of Sensia for £100 (including processing from 7dayshop) and spend a couple of weeks learning how to shoot. Spend another £50-£60 for a lightbox and a GOOD loupe (try the Jessops Pro 4x Loupe for £40) and you'll learn a lot about composition, exposure and how sharp your lenses are. You'll then have another £700 left to buy as much film as you want.

 

Good luck!

Panos

Don't get me wrong, I am not a snob or smart@ass, but have you had stuff published before? I think not, because if you did you wouldn't be asking that question.

 

Anyway, keep the F65, you have a 50 1.8, get a fast 24mm or 28mm (or a f/2.8 zoom) and some 400 film and go out shoot some photos. London can be dark with overcast weather and dark alleys and you will need all the speed you can get. Besides, £900 won't get you that far with DSLRs or MF.

 

Panos

OK, thanks.

Hi,

 

I am looking into a 135mm f/2.8 SF. I already have a 28mm 2.8 and a

50mm 1.8 and though these two are enough for 95% of my photos, I

would like something longer for travel photos and the occasional

portrait. I decided that this is probably the length I need but I

need some info on the following:

 

a) Will the lens work well with a TC? It would be really convenient

if I could get good results with a Tamron 1.4x or 2x TC.

 

b) It would be interesting if I could use this lens with extension

tubes to get the occasional almost-macro shot (head shot/partial head

shot). Does anyone know what the working distance would be be for 1/2

and 1/1? How can I calculate what extension tubes I need for 1/2 and

1/1? Has anyone used the SF with extension tubes?

 

The only other lenses I considered (and can afford) are the 85 f1.8,

100 f2 (max price I can afford) and Tamron 90 macro. I tried a 85mm

1.8 and a Tamron 90 macro and found them too short so 100mm wouldn't

make that much more difference. The 135mm L is out of the question.

 

Many thanks,

 

Panos

Aaaaand I just noticed that you mentioned the 135sf...oh well. :-) As for which lenses...you might want to consider the 35mm as well. Wide enought to fit the kid and the hospital room but not too wide to get "that" wide-angle look.

May I just add that there is a Canon 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus. It is sharp and has a soft-focus switch so that you can have slightly softer results if you think that it is too sharp. It is also the cheapest short telephoto Canon makes (cheaper than 85/100). Try http://www.photodo.com to check the sharpness of lenses.

 

In general I very rarely find a salesperson knowing what the talk about. I think the best was when I went into a shop and asked for the price of a EOS 3. The person then asked me what brand it was and when I asked to see one (which they had on the shelf behind him) I had to guide him (yes...one up...yeap, two left...no that's a Nikon...that one).

 

Panos

To me it was simple. I went into a shop, asked for a 30 and the F80. I played with them for a minute or two and the 30 felt much better in my hands. They both have more or less the same features. Go to a shop and play with them for a while.

K64 is good but not good for everything! I like it and use it for a lot of things but then it is slow and reciprocity is ridiculous. So for some occasions I might use K64, on others I might use Velvia, Sensia, E100G, negatives or b&w or just draw on a piece of paper. It's just a film, not a religion so stop acting as if it is one (that's for people on both sides).

 

Would any of you use Velvia for portraits? Would you use K64/200 for that 10 minute night shot? You can't use a screwdriver for driving a nail into the wall.

 

Panos

In fact, you don't even get what you pay for. Where I get my film from, Kodak Ultra/High Definition cost more than Superia, Royal Supra and Reala!

 

Panos

No. The front element on this particular lense is quite deep so I do not see a reason to put a filter in front of it. The filter will only cause more flare, present a bigger surface for dirt to sit on and be more trouble taking care not to scratch it. You'd be better off buying a cheapo rubber hood for flare and shock protection.

 

Of course, it is a completely different matter for other lenses, like my 28mm f/2.8 which I do protect with a UV, as the front glass is so far out I could easily scratch it by placing the lense cap on.

 

Panos

I have been using Royal Supra all the time for the last 4-5 months (have shot about 30 rolls so far). I haven't tried NPS or other fuji professional stuff but that is mainly because I cannot get a decent fuji lab around here and do not want to go the mail order route. On the other hand, the Kodak lab I use can process RS perfectly. On RS now (bear in mind that I can only judge from the prints as I do not have a film scanner):

 

I use the 200 version. Never had any grain problems with it. On the other hand, I never had anything printed above 7x5. Compared to Reala: I've only shot a couple of rolls or Reala and really did not like it (I'd rather have NC which is a film I really like).

 

The skins tones are very good. The colours are vibrant and saturated but greens are lacking a tiny bit. It is a higher contrast film compared to NC/Reala. I shot a few rolls in very dull conditions in the World Rally event in Wales in November and the colours were really great with all blues, reds, yellows and skin coming out fantastic.

 

What I like about RS:

* Price. More expensive than Superia but (much) cheaper than Fuji pro stuff and Portra and even Kodak Max (!!!).

* Excellent skin tones

* I can have it processed in my local Kodak lab consistently well

* 1/3 faster than 160 films

 

In general I find it a very nice general purpose film which, for a person in a budget like me and you, gives an excellent balance between price/performance and can be processed at non-pro prices without problems.

 

Also, I shot so far one roll of 800 (again, night stage in Cardiff at the rally) and found the grain to be very controlled. I shot a roll of Fuji 800 press that night as well and found the two films very similar but liked the RS colours better (again, blues, reds and yellows are great).

 

I tried the 400 version and found that it does not handle underexposure that well so you get grainier pictures much quicker than with the 200 version if you underexpose it. You might want to try rs400 it at 320 and see what happens. Given that my lenses are f2.8 or faster I did not bother with 400 again.

 

Finally, I had a couple of reprints made in a Fuji lab and found a slight reddish cast, especially on skin tones. It might have been the operator but you might want to check this as you say you want to stay with a Fuji lab.

I really doubt that there will not be any places to develop film in a couple of years! What about all these people who have film cameras and those who are still buying them? The pros might buy digital but not everyone in the snapshot market is prepared to fork out hundreds of dollars/pounds/euros for a digital p&s when they can have the same photos with their £50 p&s.

<i>Why would you even consider buying a film camera when the DSLRs today are as good or better?</i>

 

<p>For me its simple: because a new EOS30 costs £320 while a 10D costs £1150. Also, a 24mm costs £300 while a £15mm, which is what you need on a 10D, costs £600. And since I like most of my photos printed (even the bad ones), I really don't save that much on film as prints at shops/inkejets are not that cheap.</p>

 

<p>So, since I shoot about 60 rolls a year, I estimate that a 10D will pay off its initial cost in at least 3.5 years but by then it will be full of sensor grime, while my 30 will still be just fine. Of course, by then I will have bought a 1V-HS for £500! After I get the 1V, then I can then get a digital as a back-up body (or is it the other way around?). :-)</p>

No. But I set it to green mode whenever I give the camera to someone else to take photos.

I have the same lenses and was considering the same thing over Xmas. However, I find that I use the 50 most of the time and the 28 when I want the perspective or cannot back up to fit everything in the frame. For me, the benefit of the primes is size and weight. The total size and weight of both the lenses is less than that of the zoom. The quality is, I guess, better but that is not such an issue for me as I do not enlarge to more than A4 and I do not shoot slides. (I am speaking from a film perspective: EOS 30). For a 10D the actual quality differences might not even be there due to the smaller sensor size but I wouldn't know.

 

Anyway, my advice is that I would not trade anything in a shop without trying ebay first. I have sold stuff near their original price when the shops would give me nothing for them: eg a Canon 28-80 sold for £50 on ebay when the shops would give me £15 for it (and it was mint!).

 

Panos