tom_barrance

<p>A quick heads up on my new free filmmaking site <a href="http://www.learnaboutfilm.com">www.learnaboutfilm.com</a> which could be useful for photographers who are getting into video. The aim is to be simple, clear and understandable, with the focus on telling stories through film rather than on the gear. Feedback (comments, suggestions, feature requests) would be much appreciated - it's a 'work in progress' at the moment. </p>

<p>It partly depends what kind of shooting you are doing. If you need a heavy-duty camera with fast handling, go for the 7D. For me, the 60D is much better. It's significantly lighter but still feels solid, and the articulating screen is really useful. </p>

<p>I'm thinking of replacing my Nikon D300 (great camera but heavy) with a Canon 550d/T2i as I want to shoot video using my old manual focus Olympus lenses. I don't need the D300's fast handling for the kind of work I do. <br>

Comparing the cameras on DX0mark, performance seems pretty similar despite the 550d's 18MP sensor. The only area where the D300 is way ahead is colour sensitivity. Am I likely to notice the difference in the real world or is it just theoretical? </p>

<p>I'm looking for an affordable point and shoot with HD video for children to use in schools. A lot of people use the Flip Mino HD which won't take stills, but I think a still camera with video capability might offer better value (and would certainly have a better lens). By affordable I mean not much more than £200 UKP (that's about 230 euros or 300 US dollars) and preferably less. Easy to use controls are important. </p>

<p>I haven't used Kodachrome for decades (and never with Nikon) but I assume it's still the same: to get saturated colours you need to underexpose by at least half a stop.</p>

<p>I'm a recent switcher from film as well. I really like my 16-85. It's compact (not that light, though) and the VR helps with low light. It's very sharp for a zoom lens, and it goes as wide as I'd want to go.<br>

I wouldn't use it for architectural photography because there is some distortion (doesn't affect the kind of pictures I take). It also has vignetting which can be noticeable if you shoot a scene with an even background colour, particularly if you boost the contrast. <br>

Bear in mind that high ISO (eg 1600) on the D300 will give much better quality than the equivalent ISO on film, which means that you may not need your lenses to be as fast. <br>

I also have the 50mm 1.8 which is cheap and so small and light that it's worth carrying as well. Being a prime lens it's sharp and has no perceptible distortion or vignetting. </p>

 

<p>Has anybody used the Dicapac waterproof cases? I'm thinking of getting one for my D300 so I can use it for canoe trips etc - not underwater, just so the camera doesn't get wrecked if it gets splashed or falls in the water. I can't justify the cost of a housing designed for diving. </p>

I'm planning to produce greeting cards by gluing 6x4 prints to 5x7 card blanks. What glue (easily available in the UK) would people

recommend?

I think the image quality is going to be very similar. The advantages of the D300 are great ergonomics and very solid build (though at a

cost in extra weight).

Examples:

Ricoh GR1s - tiny, light, simple, tough, good TTL flash.

I was given a battered but mechanically sound OM4Ti last year. Unfortunately the LCD meter display started deteriorating not long after I

got it (the camera had been used in the tropics which might have something to do with it) and is now illegible. I think the display may have

peeled away from its backing as it started at the top edge.

 

Just wondered if anyone else had encountered this problem and knew whether it would be possible to get it repaired - eg if I got a broken

body off eBay? A recommendation for a UK repairer would be good.

 

I'd like to get it working again as a carry-around camera - with the 85mm f2 mounted it's lighter than my Nikon D300 body, and I really miss

using that lens.

Why do people on this rangefinder forum keep suggesting he get an SLR camera? Because he said he'd 'like a smaller 35mm camera' and

'may end up with another SLR'.

 

I think the Olympus OM suggestion is a good one - unless you need a mint OM3 or OM4Ti they are reasonably priced and the lenses are

outstanding. In other discussions I've seen Leica users recommending them as a modern equivalent.

If you don't mind autofocus, the Ricoh GR1 series - with a fixed 28mm lens - are wonderfully small, light, and well-designed. The TTL flash

is good. Only trouble is that the autowind can be noisy, and good ones go for quite a high price.

If you've got a Jacobs nearby that's where I bought my D300. Better price than Jessops, more knowledgeable staff, and they threw in a

2Gb memory card when I asked them.

 

Jessops staff I have found both ignorant and patronising (when I wanted to compare the size of a D40 with my OM4Ti the salesman looked

at my camera in disgust and said "THIS is digital, sir.")

A good reason to keep a film camera. My little GR1s - 35mm but all electronic - fell in a river with me in Honduras. I

wrapped it in a towel in the sun to get it to dry out. Three days later it was working fine.

I'm using Aperture on an ordinary MacBook and it struggles - it works, but the cooling fan goes full blast when I do a large import which

suggests that the processor is working at full capacity. I think a Pro would be a much better bet, but as I don't really need to edit images

on the go I'm going to get an iMac desktop.

I have the 1.8. The bokeh isn't very nice (or maybe I'm spoilt - I'm used to using an 85mm Zuiko which is outstanding).

Your method seems pretty close to the way I used to use a grey card with a manual film SLR. You could also set it to

aperture priority auto, note the shutter speed it gives you, and then set that with the camera on manual.

 

If you want to be really accurate you need to hold your card where your subject is going to be, though this probably won't

be that different to the light falling closer to the camera if it's fairly flat fluorescent light.

 

If I was trying to get the WB spot on I'd also hold a white card under the light and do test shots with the different

fluorescent options until you get one that looks neutral.

 

If both lenses are 2.8 and Nikon the exposure should be exactly the same.

'Many' types of photography being the operative word. It entirely depends what kind of photography you are going to do. I'm

not doing huge prints of landscapes or studio portraits so I don't need razor sharpness: for me it's more important to have

the camera with me as often as possible and to frame and shoot quickly. The point I'm making is that you don't need a lot

of kit to use the camera effectively, and you should buy accessories as and when you find you need them.

If you buy a VR lens you may not need a tripod - I've used one once since I've had the D300 (for shooting a time-lapse sequence). I've

been amazed at how versatile the camera and the one lens (16-85) is. (I use a 50mm as well when straight lines are important).

Depends what you want to do with it. I'd say get at 16-85 lens, a good bag, a couple of big CF cards, and get out and use the camera.

Spend your time taking photographs and only buy kit as you learn that you need it.

Unless you're shooting architecture the 16-85 is a terrific lens. As someone who's always used primes until switching to

film with a D300 I've been knocked out by the image quality and the convenience of the VR. The 24mm equivalent makes a

big difference to me compared with 28mm equivalent.

85mm f/2 is the only reason I still can't give up film completely.

There is a solution to the battery leakage problem, but it's ugly. Here's the link:

http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-100.html

 

I've done it on my OM2SP and it works fine (I've used tape rather than a tripod

screw to fix the box to the camera). I've just ordered an AAA rather than AA battery

box as it'll be smaller and neater.

 

The alternative is to find a broken OM4T or OM4Ti on Ebay and use the circuit out

of that. I have no idea how to do this...

 

I also use a D300 but I'm keeping my old OMs purely because I want to keep using

my 20-year old 85mm f2 lens (the image quality is wonderful, and an OM4T with that

lens weighs less than the D300 body.)