Gary Naka

An interesting discussion item.

I talked to an engineer once, and he told me that too much accuracy is a practical problem.

Example, if you have a lab grade digital thermometer that has 0.01 degree accuracy.

You might end up "trying" to get the temp EXACTLY to say 68F +/- 0.01 degree.

When in practice +/- 2 degree F is "good enough."

Why, cuz the developer table for developer X has negligible time difference for until there is a 2 degree difference.

So why go through the extra effort to nail the temp to 0.01F ?? Because the accuracy of your thermometer tempts you to do so.

So, for a digital thermometer, I would ignore anything below the decimal point.

Different developers have a steeper or shallower temp/time curve, you have to study the developing table for YOUR developer, to determine how much accuracy you really need.

When I was processing B&W film regularly for my studio I used Weston dial thermometers that I calibrated once a month with a Kodak process thermometer (mercury). Unless I dropped them they never deviated by more than 1/2 degree F over that period of time. I still use that Weston occasionally and my film comes out well.

I found dial thermometers just more convenient to use. No batteries, no switches, always ready to go.

They respond quickly vs. some of the liquid thermometers, especially the ones which are inside a glass bulb.

As @AJG said, as long as you calibrate it against a "reference" thermometer, you are fine.

Depends on what YOU consider a portrait, and what lens you need for that.

Back in the film days, for head and shoulder, it was a Nikon 105.

But it really depends on how big the group (number of people), how tight the shot (full length to tight face), and how far you are from the subject.

Environmental portraits are wider, to include whatever environment or object the subject wants in the pic.

I've used from 24mm up to 300mm.

I did an indoor multi-person family portrait with a 24. My back was literally up against the wall. If I had a 20 I would have used it.

I shot a portrait across a fish pond, with a 300.

With a film camera, I usually set the lens at 10 ft. and use a small aperture. That's a 28mm lens. I shoot from the waist. The results are often quite good. And a nice thing about a film camera: no one can demand to see your shots.

Oh but they can and will.

They will say that you just don't want to show it.

"what is this film stuff."

I realize this is a relatively ancient post, but I'm curious if you are still putting some - or any - of your old mirror lenses to use these days? And how they are holding up? I do have a hidden agenda: I'm considering buying one of the ones you mentioned - the Spiratone 500mm Minitel M - for a relatively low-price, and then adapting it to use on my Olympus E-M1 via a nifty combination adapter-and-speedbooster, which should give it a slightly faster aperture (f/5.6 as opposed to f/8) and reduce its focal length to a tidy 350mm. Is yours still working well?

I've used mine (Nikon 500 reflex) to shoot tennis, on a Nikon D7200.

BUT, I learned, with the relatively shallow DoF, if the player is moving towards/away from me, I found it difficult to follow focus. I think one of the problems is that the screen of the D7200 is NOT as easy to manually focus as my F2. And that is with the light easy to focus Nikon reflex on a tripod with a gimbal head.

For stationary, or left/right moving, or slow moving subjects, focusing the mirror works fine.

These lenses are OLD. Like over 40 years old.

The lube in the focusing mechanism could be dried out, and STIFF to focus. That would make any focus tracking DIFFICULT.

I have one that has to go in for a CLA for just that reason. STIFF to focus.

Why bother with a speedbooster?

For 350mm, I would use the Olympus 75-300.

For the cost of some of those speedboosters, you could buy a 75-300.

In my case, I got the 500 reflex for the REACH of the 500, in a small package.

Thank you, everyone, for your replies and suggestion.

 

After some discussion, we have decided to take this route that I am going to lend him my 18-55 for the time being.

Today, at a photo fair, he tried his hands on the 20mm f1.8G and 24mm f1.8G, and he instantly fell in love with the primes. He is even thinking of going back to full manual focus as he feels that he can wield far more control of the scene.

 

Thank you all again.

I wish him good luck in his hobby.

Is the "Pre Capture" also available on the Z6ii?

The Z9 is too rich for my blood, but the Z6ii is within reach.

Interesting. Thanks Shun for the history lesson.

 

I was still shooting F100 then. ;-) I remember a friend bought a D1 and sent me some bird images she shot in Florida. I thought it was so cool.

 

Just as a side note, It appears Julia Roberts did not research into holding a camera lens properly for the film. Unless she was doing something else other than getting ready to shoot, this is awkward. ;)

[ATTACH=full]1423654[/ATTACH]

Unfortunately, as stiff as the zoom ring is on some/many lenses (ALL my Olympus lenses), that is how I have to hold my zooms, in order to have enough leverage to quickly move the zoom ring. I have to grab the zoom ring, and use my arm to turn the zoom ring.

Not good, as I lose a lot of left hand support of the lens. It is hard to support the lens with the left hand, when my left hand is on the side (at 9 O-clock) rather than below the lens.

To put my hand below the lens, the zoom ring has to be light enough to easily turn with my fingers. Like my Nikon 70-200/4 :D

Hello friends and fellow photographers

 

This is for my son who is extremely interested in street and candid photography. He mainly uses my old D90 coupled with my AF-D 50mm lens or AF-S 55-200 Dx lens. Sometimes he uses my D7200 with the same lenses. I am planning to gift him a lens for his photographic journey, and together we have short-listed the following.

 

AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.8 G ED

AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8 G ED

AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.8 G

AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 G ED

AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 D

AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 D

AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 D

AF Nikkor 35mm f/2 D

20mm f/2.8 Nikkor

 

It would be a great help if the members here may comment on these lenses and point me to the best possible lens, keeping the price in mind.

 

Thank you all in advance.

So WHAT is your budget? "keeping price in mind" tells us nothing.

To some of us $500 USD is expensive, to others $2,000 is expensive.

You have to tell us what YOU want to spend.

Because as you can see above, you are getting recommendations across a wide price range.

So go and buy a fast zoom....see above..;)

Not so cut and dry.

Is the zoom range of the Tokina 11-20/2.8, Sigma 18-35/1.8 or Tamron 17-50/2.8 enough, or in the right focal range?

The OP said "keeping price in mind."

At $700+ the Sigma 18-35/1.8 is NOT an inexpensive lens. Even used at KEH it is $550.

Especially when you can get the Tamron 17-50/2.8 at KEH for about $200.

Today, for a general purpose lens, I would choose a zoom rather than a fixed prime. The zoom is just more flexible.

IMHO, the advantage of a prime is in LOW light, where the larger aperture helps the exposure.

I would go with the older 18-70.

It came standard on the D70, and I LIKED that lens a lot.

It gives a moderate 18mm wide angle, so good for those wider shots.

It gives a moderate 70mm tele, so good for those longer shots. And a bit longer reach than the 18-55.

Alternate is the newer 18-55, but it does not have the reach of the 18-70.

Or the Tamon 17-50/2.8, the model one WITHOUT VC/IS. This lens is faster than the others, and he may not need a fast prime.

A second lens that I would get him is the DX 35/1.8.

This gives him a lens to use in low light conditions, when the zoom is too slow.

Good luck Joseph! I just received the coveted Olympus OM-1 from them two days ago.

Received my OM1, but it is on the shelf, until I finish my taxes.

I am impressed.

But, holding it for less than a minute for a promo picture (as is holding it in a store for a few minutes) is VERY different than holding it in the field for MANY minutes.

Give me an 800 mirror instead.

Nikonos was the holy grail of UW photography in its day. Even though I never owned one I was a little saddened to see Nikon discontinue the line.

I was hoping to one day be able to get one, for shooting in RAIN.

Today I have an Olympus TG digital for that.

For walking around, the 35-105 is fine, and though I have heard sample variation was worse for this than for most Nikons, mine was quite OK in sharpness and aberration, at least for film. And it is a nice range. Its unhappiness is mostly ergonomic. These days if you're using an AI camera or later, you might instead look for the 28-105 AFD. They're pretty cheap these days I think, and quite decent performers, with a 1:2 macro which, while not great, is not awful, and because it's a two-touch zoom, it's much easier to use on a tripod. The front element rotates with zoom but not with focus.

 

When I had the 35-105 I found it OK most of the time, and carried a bit of masking tape for when I wanted to put it on a tripod and shoot a mushroom or something.

• If it is a manual zoom, I want a 1-ring zoom. I don't want to be shifting back and forth between the zoom and focus rings.
  I've been spoiled by the 1-ring handling of the 43-86 and 80-200/4.5. :)
  But I have rarely been working on a tripod with the lens pointed down where the weight of the zoom mechanism would cause the lens to change zoom.
   
  
• If it is an autofocus lens on an autofocus camera, then a 2-ring zoom is OK. I will be 99+% on the zoom ring, and rarely be manually focusing the lens.
  
• But I don't know about an AF or AFD lens on a manual camera. I do not like the feel of the focus ring on my two AF zooms, in manual focus mode. Feels lose and sloppy, compared to the focusing on my pre-AI and AI zooms.
  

Interesting above. Back in film days I bought used both the 35-105 and the 80-200 F4. They were about contemporary in manufacture, but they could have been made by different manufacturers they were so different. The 80-200 was nice to use - hyperfocal and constant aperture, tight and sharp. The 35-105, though optically decent on film, was temperamental, variable aperture, variable focus, ergonomically clumsy, with a chronically loose zoom. Ok as a walking-around lens, a varifocal lens with a loose zoom is virtually useless on a tripod, especially for macro (or pseudo-macro with the somewhat clumsy feature on the lens) unless you taped it down. Both these lenses have front elements that rotate with focusing, too, which makes polarizers difficult, especially with the floppy 35-105.

 

I used both extensively when filming, but neither gets that high on the favorite lens list now, though the 80-200 comes closer.

I started with the 43-86 and always wished for just a little more zoom range, a little wider and a little longer.

Which is why the 35-105 looked attractive. But from your comments, maybe not.

43-86 when I was shooting film.

I think today it would be the 35-105

The other is the 80-200/4.5.

Smaller/lighter than the f/4 and f/2.8 lenses, and the zoom/focus ring is smooth and light.

I suggest the dive forums.

Personally, I think it will either be

1) a waterproof P&S like an Olympus TG, or

2) you will be limited by what cameras the dive case/housing that you can find, are made for.

You mean International Camera Technicians?? I had heard of them when I lived on the East Coast. When we moved to Mountain View, California in year 2000, I used to walk by their store in downtown frequently until they moved maybe 10 years ago. Didn't realize that they changed hands and are in San Diego now.

ICT moved from downtown Mountain View to an industrial area of MV, then another move to a different part of MV. Probably for down sizing and lower rent. I think the downtown operation was pretty big. The later shops were essentially one-man shops.

Manfred retired in Jan 2021.

I did not know about the retirement and sale until after it happened. :(

I still own a few film SLRs for sentimental reasons: an FE from 1978 and is the first Nikon body I have ever bought, after a Nikkormat FT3 from 1977, the year before. Sadly, I sold the FT3 way back in 1989. Still have an F5, and F4 that is no longer functional and an F100. I probably haven't shot film since around the time I got the D300 in 2007. I also haven't used that D300 in years.

And with International Camera sold and moved down to San Diego, no local repair shop to do a CLA.

On the D7500, that lens (and any other without a CPU) won't meter as the camera is lacking the Ai follower tab. Might not be an issue with macro but probably worth mentioning.

 

Those are rather ineffective at macro focus distances.

Argh, another reason to look for a used D7200 when mine wears out.

If the resolution of the print is finer than what your eye can see, it does not matter. You can't see the pixels.

YEARS ago I did a company group pic with a 6MP camera, and printed a 16x20 for display.

If you did not stick your nose up to the print, and looked at it from about 5 feet away, it was just fine.

This is similar to half tone printing in newspapers and magazines.

They only print BLACK ink, grey is created by using smaller dots of black on white paper, so that your eye thinks grey.

Look at a magazine picture with a magnifying glass, and you can see the dots.

It isn't just resolution.

How low would the max ISO be, 6400?

Interesting thread. I'm primarily an outdoor photographer and I look for "good light" to make my photos, so I would hardly ever go above ISO400. But as Barry said, horses for courses. I read about shooting sports in semi darkness and I just think it's a different world. But it's good that modern gear makes it possible.

I was shooting golf, outdoors, a few days ago.

At 3pm, light was good, and life was good.

But, 3 hours later, as the sun went down behind the hills, the green of the final hole was in shadow.

I was at ISO 8000, 1/250 sec, f/2.8, :(.

And it kept getting worse, till I gave up shooting, and did not shoot the final foursome.