anisshah

<p><i>"20ft at F/11 is MY answer, for MY gear."</p></i>

<p>Thanks again, William, for the helpful explanation. I mostly use a 28-75 zoom or 35mm prime at f8 to f11 and hyperfocal distance (around 5m for the prime or 3-4m with the zoom at 28mm). Unfortunately, this hasn't always worked out well, probably because (as you and David have pointed out) it <i>"leaves infinity on the boundary of acceptable and unacceptable sharpness".</i></p>

<p>Regards,</p><p>Anis</p>

<p><em>"So my answer is for landscape work with your camera and lens: 20ft and F/8." </em><br>

Thanks, William. That is easy to remember.<br>

I notice that 20 feet (6m) is in fact the hyperfocal distance at a FL of 30mm on 1.6x crop (according to the DOF calculator at http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_depth_of_field3.php.<br>

What would you recommend for an equivalent FOV on full-frame (actually 135 film)? DOF seems to fall off rapidly beyond a FL of 35mm on full-frame according to the calculator.</p>

<p>Some examples:</p>

 

<p><a href="http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html">great-photographers-on-internet</a></p>

 

<p><a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/11/great-photographers-on-the-internet-part-ii.html">great-photographers-on-the-internet-part-ii</a></p>

 

<p>:-)</p>

200 mm? If you mean 20 mm, wouldn't that be a bit too wide?

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p><i>"when shooting tight portraits say rom waist and up at 200 mm - how long is the working distance then ? - roughly</p></i>

<p>If 'waist and up' = 4 feet, working distance = 20-25 feet for vertical shots at 200 mm on a 'full-frame' camera (add another 10-12 feet if in 'landscape' orientation).

<a href="http://www.rhymes.org.uk/a32-i-do-not-like-thee-doctor-fell.htm">Doctor Fell</a>

<p><i>"With digital your learning curve is more steep than analogue, because of the immidiate feedback and all the exposure data in the exif."</p></i>

<p>I would expect the learning curve to be <b>less</b> steep with digital because of the immediate feedback (including exif data).</p>

<div></div>

<p><i>"Find out what the course requirements are or suggestions from the instructor are first."</p></i>

 

<p>+1</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<a href="http://www.shutterbug.net/refreshercourse/lens_tips/177/index.html">8 Useful Filters</a>

<a href="http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Guide-to-colour-temperature">Guide-to-colour-temperature</a>

<" Am i correct?">

 

Yes, but you'll lose some sharpness at f22 because of diffraction. A wide-angle lens (28mm or even 35mm) would give you similar DOF at a larger aperture (i.e., before diffraction effects become significant).

And on your film SLR, 28mm@f11 has a similar hyperfocal distance (6-7 feet) with 'acceptable' depth of field from around 3 feet to 35 feet.

<"When shooting for max D.o.F using hypefocal charts where the idea is to get half the distance in focus that is in front of the subject, do you focus manually?">

 

Just had a look at your previous thread on this subject. If your lens has no distance markings (e.g., the 18-55 kit lens), you might as well use autofocus, try to estimate subject distance, and use the corresponding settings from your chart. If your subject is roughly 6 feet away and you dial in f8, zoom out to 18mm and focus on the subject, everthing from around 3 feet to 75 feet should be relatively sharp.

<can you still use the focal points ... from the camera's automatic focus? ... film camera (canon 300v)>

 

Try A-DEP mode.

<p>This link may be helpful: <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index2.html#avflash">Av mode

flash</a></p>

<p></p>

<p>Also, you may want to change the setting for Custom Function I-7 (flash sync speed in Av mode. 0: auto 1:

locked to 1/250)</p>

I think Gmail has a 10 MB cap on attachments. Perhaps zipping the files would work.

Bob, please correct me if I'm wrong. I think the 60/2.8 would work in the macro range if mounted on an extension tube.

I had a similar problem using film (Superia 200) for pictures of my son in the swimming pool last weekend and was wondering whether it would have helped to meter separately for main subject and background and then average the readings.

"For low-light shooting is the 85mm at a significant advantage? "

 

I'd be interested to know too. Would one be likely to obtain shutter speeds around 1/90 with the 85/1.8 in low light? Would f1.8 still be an advantage if one needs to use flash anyway?

Thanks, Franklin.

 

I've read that the F6 writes the exposure data to a CF card whereas the N90 and F100 use a cable and the F4 and F5 imprint the data between frames.

 

For the F4/F5, would one need to read the data off the film strip with a magnifying lens?

 

Also, would the software for the 1v (or F100) work on more recent operating systems ke Vista and Leopard?