nail33

<p>"Guess" is the key word here. There is no way of knowing. Ask anyone with FD lenses (esp. those who just bought them before Canon abandoned the format). A more meaningful question would be how long will my equipment (discontinued or current) continue to take pictures. Probably beyond one's lifetime. My Canon A1 that I bought new will continue to take pictures until they stop making film for it, or it breaks. My current Canon 400D will probably work until my computer can't recognize it, or it breaks. All things must come to an end. I only upgrade or change when it seems practical for me for whatever reason.</p>

<p>I shot color slides since the early 80's with a Canon A-1 that cost $500 for the body alone. You can now get that camera with accessories for as little as $5 on ebay. I knew little to nothing when I first started with this camera and it seemed to automatically take great pictures for me. I changed to digital a few years ago when the cost of processing and buying the film became prohibitive for me. I have yet to see any of my digital images match the beauty and quality of my old slides, even though I know a great deal more about exposure. With film it's difficult to practice because of the cost; with digital I can take pictures to my hearts content, and continue to learn by trial and error almost for free. I can't imagine that any modern high quality film camera would not be better than my A-1 for exposure control. You also have the benefit that I did not have (with your digital) as to how to get the exposure right. I used Kodachrome 25 for my slides, and in my opinion, it was the greatest film ever made. Alas, it is no longer made, but I'm sure some of the newer slide films can come close to its quality. Good luck with your quest for getting back into film. I'm sure the quality of the pictures you take will far surpass those of digital, but you will have to be careful not to make too many mistakes (exposure) to keep the cost down. I will envy you every time I look at my old slides on the projector.</p>

<p>I totally agree with Geoff, a round sensor would be perfect. None of the image would be wasted, and you could crop to your heart's content, or have the camera settings / photo editor settings do it for you automatically.</p>

<p>I don't know if you'd be interested in a "fish-eye" type lens, but I use a Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 on my XTI when I go hiking, for landscape shots. The "fish-eye" effect is not very severe on the XTI because of the 1.6 crop factor, especially with wide views of the mountains. It is quite fast, which is a plus in low light. The lens is manual, but that's not much of an issue since you will usually be focused at infinity. You can buy this lens (with appropriate adapter) new for around $100-200 on e-bay. If the distortion ("fish-eye" effect) in some of the pictures is annoying, it can be corrected during PP with various software programs (such as PTlens). Bob Atkins has reviewed this lens and I think he was impressed considering its cost. Here's the link:<br>

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/fisheye.html</p>

 

<p>Thank you for your responses.<br>

Alan: The explanation of how the eye/brain adapts is quite fascinating. Thanks for all the information.</p>

<p></p>

<p >I noticed that most lightboxes for viewing slides use a 5000K light source, whereas most slide projectors use a 3300K bulb as a light source. I am assuming that 5000K is the proper value of a light source to view slides when the light passes through the slide, and directly to your eye. I'm guessing that when a 3300K light source passes through a slide and onto a white projector screen, the image is reflected back to our eyes as 5000K (because of the white screen). Is this correct? If not, then why the difference in K values between a projector and a lightbox?</p>

<p > </p>

<p></p>

<p >What a wonderful investment my 30+ year old FD lenses turned out to be. On ebay, they're not worth what it costs to ship them! Maybe they'll be worth something 100 years from now as an antique. What they did for me in my film days however, is priceless.</p>

 

<p>This is about as cheap as it gets for non-TTL:<br>

http://scubajunkie-mymind.blogspot.com/2009/09/yongnuo-rf-602-review-couple-of-years.html</p>

 

<p><!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --></p>

<p >Thank you for your responses.</p>

<p >Nathan & Jim:</p>

<p >Your probably right about the EF-S lenses, but I'm still smarting from the burning that Canon gave me when they left me high and dry with my FD lenses. I spent many hundreds of dollars on Canon FD lenses, including their wonderful 50mm f1.4 which can now be bought on e-bay for $9.99. Hopefully I'm a little smarter and wiser now. I'm betting the FF will be around longer than APS-C. I realize every format is a risk, but these FD paperweights that are now gathering dust, make my stomach churn every time I see them. I paid over $500 for my A-1 body in the early 80s (a lot of money when I was a kid) and took wonderful Kodachrome ASA 25 slide pictures with my FD lenses. I have yet to take a picture with my digitals that can compare. Now Kodak has abandoned their finest film. I moved to digital when the cost of film became prohibited compared to digital. I had hoped though, some of my camera equipment could be used with the newer gear. Wrong! Not even my Canon flash. Whoops, I forgot, my tripod still works. I'm surprised they didn't change the thread size so that wouldn't work either. Oh my God! I just looked on e-bay again and saw my same Canon A-1, with three Canon lenses, Canon flash, and camera case, for $5.50. I think I'm going to throw-up. Sorry about the rant, but I think you can see where I'm coming from when I say I'm leery about buying EF-S lenses.</p>

<p><!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } A:link { so-language: zxx } --><br>

<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } A:link { so-language: zxx } --></p>

<p >I have a XTi (400D) and am currently using a Zenitar 16mm f2.8 fish-eye for my wide angle lens. It works very well considering the price (a real bargain), but it's a pain to d-fish some of the badly distorted pictures. Most though, are fine as is.</p>

<p >I'm planning to upgrade and possibly buy the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, as it will also work on a FF (at 15-16mm) which I may move up to in the future. I know it gets great reviews, and many say it's better (and cheaper) than the Cannon 10-22mm. I'm not interested in EF-S lenses. Most quality super-wide primes (which I would prefer) for crops are too expensive (ie. Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM). Many of the owners of the Tokina consider it to be a prime because of the short zoom range.</p>

<p >My question is about Samyang lenses. Is anyone familiar with their quality and reputation? I just saw this news clip on Dpreview about a “soon to be released” Samyang 14mm f2.8. Here's the link:</p>

<p ><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09091801samyung14mm.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09091801samyung14mm.asp</a></p>

<p >It says that it will work on both crop and FF cameras and will be under $400. I know that it is probably a manual focus, but I don't find that an issue with super-wide lenses. Should I consider this lens, or is Samyang junk compared to Tokina? Thanks in advance for your responses.</p>

 

<p><!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --></p>

<p >Richard:</p>

<p >I think your pictures look great. If you feel that the pictures you took accurately portray the scene, than I doubt RAW would have made much difference for you. On the other hand, if the picture was off for some reason, RAW gives you more latitude to make repairs. You should take a picture in RAW + JPEG mode, and if you think the JPEG is perfect to you, post both pictures on this forum. This way, the experts in this forum could take the RAW image information and show you what could be done to (maybe?) make the picture look better in a way that wouldn't be possible with just the JPEG. I think this would be a better way to answer your question.</p>

 

<p><!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --></p>

<p >I understand the reason for a petal shaped lens hood (on cameras), as it produces the maximum shielding from stray light while still remaining relatively compact. Why is it then most expensive movie cameras (mobile TV cameras, high end camcorders, movie studio cameras, etc.) use rectangular shaped hoods for their lenses? Just curious.</p>

<p><!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --></p>

<p >Frank:</p>

<p >Sorry to interrupt this thread, but does 72 dpi also hold true for a HD monitor capable of 1080 resolution?</p>

 

<p><!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --></p>

<p >I have the Zenitar 16mm 2.8 that I use for my wide angle lens on my Canon XTi. I must have gotten a good copy, as it's quite sharp, and focus at infinity is spot on. So far, I haven't had many problems with flare, with this lens or my others (Canon 50/1.4 and 100/2.8 macro (w/neutral filters but no hoods)). Perhaps I've just been lucky. I'm assuming that I'm most apt to get flare with the Zenitar, as the front element protrudes beyond it's built in hood (on the short sides). I was just curious if anyone in this forum has made or adapted a better hood for this lens (or any other similar 'fish-eye' type lens), when used on their non-FF cameras. I would also assume that the hood w/c/sh/ould be designed with the crop factor applied (16mm x 1.6 crop factor = 25.6mm). Thanks in advance for your input.</p>

 

<p><!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --></p>

<p >Bob: I hope someone can answer your question, as I too would like to fool Canon's DPP program since they refuse to allow for third party lenses. I have the Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 fish-eye lens, and I assume that if I could get DPP to think it was Canon's 15mm fish-eye, it could correct for vignetting, distortion, CA, etc. I am also assuming that the 1mm difference between the two lenses wouldn't affect the visual results of DPP's corrections that much.</p>

<p >Bob: You also said "If you do something like convert a fisheye image to a rectilinear image (which you can't do in DPP)". Isn't Canon's 15mm fish-eye in DPP's database? If it is, and it doesn't convert the image to a rectilinear image, what type of conversion does it do?</p>

<p><!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

<p >If you're looking for something that's wide, fast, and cheap, then the Zenitar 16mm 2.8 will work quite well. It is a manual focus, but that's not usually a problem with such a wide lens. The barrel distortion can be easily fixed with most photo editing programs. If your friend ever does go full-frame, it can be used as a fish-eye. This lens can be found on Ebay from around $100-200 new. Bob Atkins has a review of this lens.</p>

</p>

I recently had my Window's XP crash and had to reinstall the OS, and reinstall all my Canon programs. I use

Zoombrowser and EOS Utility to download my pictures from a card reader. Before the crash, my pictures would

automatically be downloaded into a separate, dated folder in “my pictures”. Now, when I download pictures, I no

longer get separate folders. They all go into “my pictures” in one (ever growing) batch, no matter the date. I

checked the preferences in EOS Utility, and the box is checked (by default) to create a separate, dated folder in

“my pictures”. So, what happened? Why aren't I still getting separate folders created for my downloads? I thought

the default settings would do this, as I don't remember ever having changed them in the past. If I need to change

some settings, please tell me how to get my separate folders back. What's happening now is very inconvenient, to

say the least. All my Canon programs (Zoombrowser, EOS Utility and DPP) have been updated to the latest versions.

Thanks for your help.

I recently had my Window's XP crash and had to reinstall the OS, and reinstalled all my Canon programs. I use

Zoombrowser and EOS Utility to download my pictures from a card reader. Before the crash, my pictures would

automatically be downloaded into a separate, dated folder in “my pictures”. Now, when I download my pictures, I

no longer get separate folders. They all go into “my pictures” in one big file, no matter the date. I checked the

preferences in EOS Utility, and the box is checked to create a separate, dated folder in “my pictures”. So, what

happened? Why aren't I still getting separate folders created for my downloads? I thought the default settings

would do this, as I don't remember ever having changed them in the past. If I need to change some settings,

please tell me how to get my separate folders back. What's happening now is very inconvenient, to say the least.

All my Canon programs (Zoombrowser, EOS Utility and DPP) have been updated to the latest versions. Thanks for

your help.

I have a 400D and use a Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 “fish-eye” as my wide-angle lens. If you don't mind manual focus, this lens is a bargain (around $125-150). With a crop factor of 1.6, the distortion isn't usually all that bad, and you can always fix that when you PP. Bob Atkins has a review of this lens.

To William W (Retired):

 

Thanks for coming back to my post. I was worried that you would be upset with me for having posed the first question so poorly, as you spent so much time with your response. I am glad that I was a little bit clearer the second time around. I really like your suggestion in your second post. I also play the piano and your analogy to it was perfect. The more one practices, the less one has to look at the keys. I will try to set the camera in advance so I can easily go up or down 1 or 2 stops with Av and Tv giving me a quick 4 stop range and bump the Iso if need be. I will also practice being able to work the critical buttons without having to leave the viewfinder. Great advice. Thanks again.

 

To Keith Lubow:

 

I will try to set the camera in advance as the lighting situation changes so I will be closer to an ideal setting for those quick shots when they arise. Thanks

I would like to thank you all for the input to my question and I would like to respond to two of you in particular.

 

To Kari Vierimaa:

 

I did get a good copy of the Zenitar. This is truly a bargain lens. I wish more people that were on a budget would be advised to look into buying one. The distortion is not that bad on a small sensor camera, and if necessary, can be easily corrected during PP. My film camera is a Canon A1, so I am used to manual focus. Fortunately, the Zenitar is almost always set to infinity, as trying to manually focus with the xti is nearly impossible. I do not know why Canon could not have made the viewfinder as bright as the A1 and/or with some type of focus screen. I know there are after market products to solve this problem, but I do not think Canon should have let this become a problem to start with.

 

To William W (Retired):

 

I used the term, normal picture, to avoid getting a response like the one you made. Perhaps a quick shot would have been a better term to use. I used to take slides with my Canon A1 and would, as you say, manipulate the camera settings to achieve the results that I was looking for (i.e. nice bokeh in a portrait shot, the sense of speed in an action shot, etc.). There were, however, times when I did not have time to compose my shot properly so as to capture the moment. For those times, I would set the camera to an automatic mode and I was usually satisfied with the results (at least it was better than no shot at all). The drawback with film was that mistakes became costly and I had to be much more careful with the shots I took. Now that I have gone digital, I take a hundred times more pictures because they are basically free after the initial cost of the equipment. I take RAW pictures with my camera now that I do the developing (PP). Unfortunately, when using RAW, you can not use the full automatic setting on the camera. That is why I was asking for a general ideal setting for the camera, and which of the three settings I should adjust first (Iso/Av/Tv) for when I do not have time to properly compose the picture and manipulate the camera to get the results I would like. Sometimes a good picture is better than a perfect picture versus losing the moment and getting no picture at all. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I still try to do everything you say when I can, but I need more experience with this camera to achieve the results I would like with every shot I take. Your response was very thoughtful and I appreciate it very much.

I am somewhat of a newbie, which you can tell by this question. I have a

Canon xti with a Zenitar 16mm f/2.8, Canon 50mm f/1.4, and a Canon 100mm f/2.8

macro. From what I have read on various photo forums, most lenses have a sweet

spot around an aperture of 8-11. Given this, I strive to take normal pictures

with an Iso of 100, an aperture of around 8, and a shutter speed high enough to

prevent blur when handheld (roughly 1/focal length x 1.6 for crop factor). I

realize that these settings can only be used under ideal conditions. Using a

tripod takes the shutter speed out of this equation, provided the subject matter

is not moving, but I generally only like using the tripod when I am doing macro

photography. I have also noticed that I get red spots (noise I assume) in my

photos when viewed at 100% if I bump the Iso to high levels. So my question is:

when you take handheld photos, which of these parts of the equation (Iso/Av/Tv)

do you tend to sacrifice first, to get an acceptable photo? I assume when

handheld, you probably can not go with a slower shutter speed (Tv). I thank you

in advance for your advice.

Thank you all so much for all your answers and input. I realized from the first response that I should have thought a little bit more before I posed this question. It never dawned on me that you would of course have to have a petal shape on the outside of the lens when going from a round image (lens) projected onto a rectangular surface (sensor). That's what happens when I ask a question before I really think it out. Some things are so obvious that you can't see them until someone else points them out. You guys are the best and this site is a great place for information. Thanks again.

I've tried searching here for an answer to this question but to no avail. It's a

newbie question, so please excuse me if it's stupid. What's the advantage of a

petal style hood vs. a round hood? I have noticed that petal style hoods (4

blades) are positioned vertical and horizontal to the camera body. I assume this

is so you can take a picture vertically or horizontally with one of the petals

always being directly overhead so as to block out the light source from above

(to prevent glare or CA?). But what if the light source is 45 degrees to the

subject where the petal style hood is at its minimum protrusion. Wouldn't a

round hood work better at all light source angles provided both style hoods have

the same depth? I'll thank you in advance for your responses. I've posted other

questions here before and you have all been very helpful. Thanks.

I have a canon xti with a canon 50mm f/1.4 USM of which I am quite pleased.

Unfortunately, I didn't have the knowledge when I bought it regarding the 1.6

crop factor. I like to take indoor pictures occasionally and this lens is

terrible for tight quarters. I wish I had purchased the kit lens with the camera

when I had the chance. Hind sight is always 20/20. I prefer prime lenses, and if

I had the kit lens I would be able to figure out what focal length would satisfy

me. I went ahead and ordered the Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 fish-eye, which many people

on this site, as well as others, rant and rave about because of it's low price

and fairly good optics. This should produce a focal length of 25.6mm if I'm

correct. I realize that it has to be used as a manual lens, but I'm used to that

with all my FD lenses for my A-1. One of the problems I've read about this lens,

and most other fish-eyes', is the inability to put a protective filter on the

front. It comes with a very short lens hood; too short to do any good as far as

protection is concerned. My question is: Because of the 1.6 crop factor,

shouldn't I be able to make a larger lens hood that would better protect the

lens? Because the image projected is larger than the sensor, the lens hood

shouldn't show up in the picture as a dark ring on the outer edges. I'm assuming

I'll have to d-fish and/or crop some of the pictures anyways. Plus, the larger

lens hood should help reduce flare, which I guess is notorious with fish-eyes.

Am I making any sense, or am I way off with this line of thinking. Thanks in

advance for your help.