adam_l2

<p>My favorite lens is an old Olympus 50mm 1.4 from 1970. I'm considering getting one of the new Pen cameras and an OM adapter and using it as a portrait lens for documentary-style shooting. How well do these old manual lenses work on the Pen cameras? Can you hit focus quickly and accurately?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Adam</p>

And it's a big advantage for me to get to know these ai nikkor lenses shooting stills, because again I get to spend a lot more time with them with a lot less risk involved. Then when I go to shooting cinema with them they're like old friends, I hope.

Kim, thanks for the tip. Dan, I appreciate your response and your perspective. I agree that, in situations where you can stop down a bit, af works fine. It could be that old habits die hard, but I think it's more a matter that for certain kinds of shooting, mf is just better. The kind of shooting I prefer to do falls into that category. Perhaps yours doesn't. Af works fine for me for most of my shots as well, but the 20 percent or so where mf is preferable outweigh the very slight advantage af has in the others.

 

With the bowling example you cite, stopping down more wasn't an option. Even if it was, isn't there something to be said for having the option to focus on a point in space, whether to anticipate or split focus? Af can't do that as far as I can tell. No doubt having both option available at all times is best, but that costs way way more. For me, losing the advantages of af is outweighed by the advantages of gaining mf. Like I mentioned, I never mourned the lack of af with my OM-1, nor did I wish for it. On the other hand, every time I shot I wished I had aperture priority at least, if not full auto when I was feeling lazy.

 

I find the ai focus okay in some situations but only if the framing remains constant. If the subject is turning, for instance, and the framing is fluid, I personally can't keep switching the af point fast enough to keep up. Not even close.

 

Another factor for me, which may not apply to many others here, is that I need to keep up my manual focus chops for motion picture shooting. I get a lot more opportunity to shoot stills, so it's a great time to practice, and not as much is lost if I screw up.

Make sure you get it from a reputable seller you can return it to if necessary. I bought one from Adorama and returned it after a week and a half for full refund. On the other hand, they called the day after I ordered trying to sell me things I didn't need. I think bhphoto has a similar return policy.

 

BTW, I returned mine because at 50mm I prefer my 50mm 1.4 Not even sure why but comparing several portrait shots there was just something very subtle going on. I can't say the prime is any sharper (can't say it isn't either) but somehow it feels more transparent. Very very subtle difference, and if I had more money to play with I would have kept the zoom.

Charles, if I already had a full range of nice canon lenses with decent MF rings (especially the full-time MF that the better lenses have) then I would do exactly as you suggest. The one advantage the older lenses have is a longer focusing draw, which can be useful when shooting open or close to open.

 

But what I have instead are a nice range of Nikon ai primes which I'd like to get intimately familiar with. :)

As an example, I was recently doing a shoot of two kids at a bowling alley, using the 20d and 50mm 1.4 af. F-stop ranged from wide open to closed down 3 stops, but mostly closer to open. Shots ranged from close-ups to full body shots. The kids were bowling and I was grabbing what shots I could of them. Many times this involved anticipating focus to a spot they were about to move into (and no I don't find the follow-focus feature very useful unless there's lots of dof to play with and the subject isn't moving too fast relative to the framing) or else it involved picking a focus point between the two kids so they both fell into focus. In other words, I needed the camera to focus on a spot where nobody actually was. Another situation is shooting informal portraits of people or pets where again I have very limited dof and may need to quickly pick a focus point where nothing actually is, or intuitively split the difference between the two eyes, with no structure on the face that happens to lie exactly in the plane I need, and/or the focus dot isn't exactly where I need it to be in the split-second I have to grab focus. I almost never pose a shot, so even a close-up portrait is often an action shot.

 

This is not even to mention the frequent times when the af gets confused in low-light.

 

Plus the fact that I have all these MF lenses that I want to play with. :)

 

Bottom line is that I'm missing shots that I wouldn't miss with my OM-1. And with the OM-1 I never felt any need for autofocus.

Thanks everyone for your very helpful answers. I didn't realize I could set up the 20d that way. I'll definitely go that route instead of the nikon.

 

One thing I don't understand is how the metering will work. With the adapter, in aperture priority, if I turn the aperture ring does the camera recognize the adjustment and compensate the shutter speed? Will I be giving up anything metering-wise compared to using an ai lens on the 200d? I'm not clear on the subtlties of ai versus fully manual lenses and how they work with dslrs. I jumped to the 20d and af lenses straight from my OM-1.

 

Thanks,

Adam

I've been using a 20D with af lenses. I've been really happy with the camera

and the lenses except I'm getting really sick of not having good manual focus

capabilities. Autofocus is a nice option to have but when it's at the cost of

good manual focus I have to say that for me it seems like a poor trade. For

fast-moving and/or low-light informal portrait work I think manual focus is

far preferable.

 

I've recently aquired a small collection of Nikkor ai prime lenses for another

purpose (digital cinema) and I'd like to switch to a dslr that I can use them

on, and that can accept a good focusing screen like katz eye. I can't afford

a 5D. The Nikon d200 with katz-eye seems like the best bet, but I hate to

give up the decent high iso of the 20D. I don't have any experience with the

d200 so I say that purely based on reputation.

 

Any suggestions?

After calibrating with Monaco Optix XR, my Dell 2405 is still way too bright -

as other Mac users have reported as well. So it's posted on Craigslist, and

now I'm researching what to replace it with. So far this is the only one in

my price range that seems to get consistently good marks. Any thoughts?

Just got this lens. So far I'm very impressed with it. However, the zoom

action feels kind of cheap. Is that just the way these lenses are? It feels

tight in the middle (harder to turn) and then very easy to turn at either end

of the range. Just wondering. After many years of only using a couple sweet

Zuiko lenses, I'm still getting used to these newer digital-era lenses.

Just to start trouble:

 

People here keep bringing up the opinion that ef-s lenses are are a poor

investment because low-price full-frame bodies will soon make 1.6 sensor

bodies obsolete. Maybe they're right, but I don't think so. Here's some

reasons why:

 

An efs kit can be much smaller than a full frame kit that covers the same

range. Very important where portabilty is a concern. This I think is the

biggest factor. Having a smaller, lighter kit that can still deliver stellar

results can be huge for some photographers.

 

If Canon continues to invest in ef-s, several more intriguing lenses could

made. As others have suggested on this site, fast ef-s primes with IS could

be very very cool.

 

Sensor technology will continue to improve, and while full-frame sensors will

always be superior, there may be a point where sensors are so good that the

lens will be the limiting factor, thus making the differences practically

irrelevent, at least for resolution. Full-frame sensors may still have the

edge at that point for sensitivity and latitute, but the smaller sensors

should continue to improve in those areas as well.

 

Faster burst rates. Faster continuous rates. Longer battery life.

 

That's my list for what it's worth.

Thanks everyone. I think I'll skip the warranty, and the filter for now and take my chances. Will use the hood though, and will pick up a filter at some point for more risky situations. Oh - and I think I'll skip adorama next time as well.

 

P.S. Can anyone with a 17-55 confirm if a thin filter is required?

Thanks for the advice in my Canon 17-55mm or Primes thread. I decided to get the zoom, and ordered it

from adorama online. So a saleman calls me today to "very highly recommend" a tiffen filter set, especially

for the uv for lens protection (but also tried to tell me I need the warming filter, which I certainly don't),

and a Mack warranty. So I'm wondering what ya'll have to say about these. My video camera lives with a b

+w mrc, so I've looked those up as well. If I do get a uv, does this lens require a thin one?

Thanks! That answers my question.

Thanks Peter. I do also need a wide angle, which is one reason the zoom is seeming like a reasonable option.

Is a PowerBook really insufficient for printing? I'm selling my G5 Quad because I don't need it this year for video editing, which is why I got it in the first place, and I also developed a need for portability. I didn't consider that I might need the Quad for photo-related purposes.

After reading tons of posts and reviews, I'm leaning towards getting the Canon

17-55mm for my 20D. I'm hoping some of you wise and experienced souls will

read my reasonings and advise me on whether they make sense.

 

I currently have a 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8.

 

I like the 50. If it was 55 I'd love it. I used to shoot portraits with a

100mm on my OM-1, because it's all I had besides a 50, and I liked it a lot

but found it slightly long for my taste. The 50 on the 20D (80mm equivilent)

I find just a little short. So I presume that 55mm (88mm equivilent) will be

perfect.

 

I really love my 85, both for the quality of the images and what it does with

the out-of-focus areas. If the 17-55mm is comparable then that means a lot to

me. When people say that it's sharp, L-quality, has nice bokeh, I wonder how

it compares to the 85mm 1.8. Is it as good? Better? I have no idea.

 

I shoot a lot of low-light, often pushing the limits of the lenses and the

20D. Mostly I shoot informal portraits of people. I've resisted buying a

zoom because every stop counts for me. 2.8 I know is fast for a zoom, but

it's a lot slower than 1.4, which itself doesn't seem enough sometimes. I've

never used IS, and I'm aware that it doesn't effect motion blur from slow

shutter speeds, but I'm still hopeful that in some regards it can make up for

the lack of f-stops.

 

Getting something to cover wide angle and normal is another factor. If I

stick with primes, I could get the 28mm 1.8 for a normal, but then I'd need to

get one of the superwide zooms I guess. I don't know that I'd really use the

extreme wide end very often, and they're slow with no IS. Don't know of any

reasonable primes for the wide end.

 

So the 17-55mm would give me a perfect portrait length, and wide angle and

normal, making it the perfect walk around lense and covering most situations I

find myself in. The IS would a least somewhat make up for the loss of speed

compared to a fast prime, so depending on how it works for me I may be able to

take it into my low-light people situations.

 

Anyway, sorry I'm not more coherent. Hope you can Help.

 

Adam

Brad, have you calibrated the Dell with Monoca Optix XR or similar when hooked to a mac? I'm wondering if doing so would get me "good enough for now", considering that I already have the Dell, which I love as a desktop but can't afford to keep just for that. I don't yet have a calibrator, but plan on ordering one, I guess the Monaco, this week, if not today.

Thanks everybody,

Adam

Brad, any model # on that?

Godfrey, thanks for the link and the info. Very helpful. Patrick, that seems like a very good point. I have a Dell 24" lcd. With macs, it's not possible to adjust it properly. There's no brightness or contrast control, and even if there were I don't know how good it is for critical image work. I have no idea how well it can be tweaked with a calibrator. Any recommendations on an economical option for a monitor? BTW, I live in a tiny place, so even though a crt may be better, an lcd, if good enough, would be more appropriate.

Hi all. I'm new to the digital darkroom process. Based on this and other

forums I've decided to get the Epson r2400. I shoot raw with a Canon 20d, and

edit on my 15" Powerbook. I have the Fraser Camera Raw book, and I'm starting

to get the workflow down. I've read a little on color management - just enough

to feel overwhelmed. I'm wondering if anyone can give me advice specific to my

workflow, including advice on what calibration tools to get, which books or

articles to read, profiles to use, etc.

Thanks,

Adam