rob_hanssen

<p>Thanks for all the responses.</p>

<p>In reply to some: I was thinking about the SQ-B with the waist-level viewfinder. I can handle some exposure estimates and would like to learn more about them. As said before, I would also like something different than my Canon 30D (which will remain my main picture machine, for now). The Bronica would be for fun, creative stuff and for getting to know film.</p>

<p>I'll keep you updated. My plan is to make this my birthday present - less convincing the wifey...</p>

<p>In case anyone wants to see the pics from the Agfa ( http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00a68L ) - not intended to be a cross-post, just for who's interested.</p>

<p>And another one</p>

<p>Bigger version of these scans can be found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/robenjoyce/sets/72157629149848716/with/6808177724/</p><div></div>

<p>A friend gave me an old camera that turned out to be a Agfa Billy Igetar 7.7 (produced in Germany between 1933 and 1942 according to Camerapedia). It's a medium format 6x9 folding camera. Apertures are 7.7, 11 and 16. Shutter speeds are 1/100, 1/50, 1/25 s and bulb. There are two focus distances (2-5 m, and 5 m-infinity)</p>

<p>I bought some film and took some pictures to see if it was actually working, and lo and behold: it produces pictures. The pictures show that the camera needs some work, though. Having no experience with mechanical cameras (or film at all), I was wondering what all I need to do. It seems that the short focus distance needs some work (I'll attach some pics) and the lens needs cleaning. Any advice how to the the former and what to do on the latter in order to not make the issue worse?</p><div></div>

<p>A friend gave me a very old folding MF camera. It turned out to be a (pretty well functioning) Afga Billy 7.7 (production 1933-1942, 6x9, 120 film). Although it can take "picture with character" (i.e. low contrast, specks, limits in speed/aperture combinations, limited focusing ranges), I would like to see what an actual quality medium format system can do.<br>

<br /> I looked at KEH for starters and found that the Bronica SQ system is well regarded and within budget (I think, would be $500-700). To make sure, some questions:<br>

-What do you think of the SQ (I'd like to try the square format for a change from EOS Digital)<br />-What do I actually need? I thought: body with view finder, 120 back, 65 mm f/4 lens. Am I wrong and do I need to add more for a basic functional setup?<br />-Any watchouts? I would buy EX and EX+ to start.<br />-How is KEH and how does it compare to other sites?<br>

My main applications would be landscapes and my kids (mostly full-body and busy in activity, so no telephoto required yet)<br>

Thanks for helping me out,<br>

Rob</p>

<p>I've been looking at the Tokina 11-16 since it came out some years ago and I think I've convinced myself to trade in some of my other lenses for this one.</p>

<p>However, it seems to be an impossible lens to get. It's either insanely expensive (>$1000, via Amazon) or out of stock (B&H, Adorama). </p>

<p>What's going on here? Is the supply so low, demand real high or does Tokina have any problems that I should know about? Related to the lens: does anyone have experience with the 11-16 that should reinforce my desire to buy (or completely kill it)?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Rob</p>

<p>@Jerry: the organizers of the dog sledding are pretty strict in their clothing requirements. Skisuits/insulated bibs, snowboots, multiple layers, etc. They reserve the right not let someone participate that isn't protected from cold.</p>

<p>I'll bring some extra batteries, as it seems the cold doesn't do them too much good in keeping the charges.</p>

<p>I'll be travelling to Calgary next week, mostly to visit one of our customers. In order to improve customer relationship, we are going to do some dog sledding near Banff. I'd like to take some pics.<br>

<br /> I have an old Canon 300D + 28-85mm f/3.5-5.6 that I wouldn't mind to have damaged in cold weather, but I'd love to bring my 30D + some nice primes for better pictures.<br>

Any tips on how to deal with cameras at subzero degrees C and snowy conditions?</p>

<p>Back to the original question: any type of composition or photo will require its own unique focal length/subject distance/DoF combination. The concept of a walk-around lens is ludicrous in that respect... but it's often the best we can do.</p>

<p>The advantages of primes are clearly the size of the lens and big aperture, while the advantage of a zoom would be in versatility.</p>

<p>When my son was a little baby (unable to move), I would have the 50mm f/1.4 glued to my 30D. Now that he's a little bigger (17 months and running), I've switched to my 28mm f/1.8.</p>

<p>Typically what I do in situation where I have lot of time is to meter the background in Av, transfer the numbers to Manual mode and reduce flash level by one or two stops. This gets me a good balance between exposure in the foreground and background.<br>

Be aware that this does not work for all situations.</p>

<p>I usually shop photography stuff online because reviews and test usually turn out pretty good predictors of what would like to achieve with them. This is true for lenses, cameras and flash guns.</p>

<p>Bags on the other hand is very hard to test online. I'm looking for a new bag (old one's too small) and have looked online at the Crumpler bags. It seems that the 7 Million Dollar and Brazilion Dollar Home bags are pretty much what I'm looking for. My only problem is that I've never seen these bags. Does anyone have an idea where I could find a store that sells Crumplers in the South Caroline Upstate?<br>

I'm also interested in any experiences that you might have with the Crumpler bags.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Rob</p>

<p>As for the aesthetic and technical qualities of this photo. I totally agree with the people above. This was more meant as a fun photo to test the quality of the lens and to get some over-the-top shots to actually accentuate the purple fringing. Please see this as an entry into lomographic photography and certainly not the end-point.<br>

Thanks for all the comments.</p>

<p>I wast just trying my latest lens addition, a Diana F+ mount 20mm fish-eye (for medium format) converted to Canon EF mount on my Canon 30D.<br>

After uploading to flickr and some minor processing, I noticed that the giraffe in this picture was very pronounced compared to the background and foreground. Can't quite get my brains on it why it seems so sharp, while in reality the technical aspects of this lens/picture aren't that good.<br>

Any comments?<br>

<a title="Giraffe by Rob, Joyce & Alex, on Flickr" href=" title="Giraffe by Rob, Joyce & Alex, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4032/4432593459_4e65d58d11.jpg" alt="Giraffe" width="333" height="500" /> </a></p>

<p>I have an order on the way from B&H that has the Diana-to-Canon converter and the 20mm fish eye lens. Does anyone have some examples of what can be achieved with this combo?</p>

<p>The lomography.com website states that the equivalent focal length of the 20mm is about 38mm on FF and 60mm of APS-C. Is any of the fisheye effect still there?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Rob</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Any indication on the ISO speed to use? I generally <strong><em>do</em></strong> like to go over 800.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be <strong><em>don't</em></strong> of course.</p>

<p>Tomorrow, we'll have a charity basket ball tournament <a href="../sports-photography-forum/00TezU" target="_blank">at work</a> in a church gymnasium. To help raise money, I'd like to make some nice <a href="../sports-photography-forum/00TezU" target="_blank">photos</a> of the people playing. Having never shot indoor sports before (also not to experienced in outdoor sports as well), I would like to have some info about sports shooting.<br />I have a Canon 30D, a couple of primes (28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8macro) and zooms (12-24 f/4, 70-200 f/4L, 70-300 f/3.5-5.6IS).<br />Which lenses would be the ones to use to get full body coverage on a basketball field (see my ineptness with the sport - I don't even know the size of the field :-))<br />I usually shoot in aperture priority mode - is that the right one or do I need to switch to shutter priority to ensure motion freeze?<br />Any indication on the ISO speed to use? I generally don't like to go over 800.<br />Thanks,<br />Rob</p>

<p>Tomorrow, we'll have a charity basket ball tournament at work in a church gymnasium. To help raise money, I'd like to make some nice photos of the people playing. Having never shot indoor sports before (also not to experienced in outdoor sports as well), I would like to have some info about sports shooting.<br>

I have a Canon 30D, a couple of primes (28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8macro) and zooms (12-24 f/4, 70-200 f/4L, 70-300 f/3.5-5.6IS).<br>

Which lenses would be the ones to use to get full body coverage on a basketball field (see my ineptness with the sport - I don't even know the size of the field :-))<br>

I usually shoot in aperture priority mode - is that the right one or do I need to switch to shutter priority to ensure motion freeze?<br>

Any indication on the ISO speed to use? I generally do like to go over 800.<br>

Thanks,<br />Rob</p>

<p>

<p>I have both lenses (bought the 70-300 first). Both lenses are remarkeble pieces of optics and have their strengths and weaknesses.</p>

<br>

 

<p>The 70-300 has its zoom range, reach and IS. But the rotating focus ring can be a nuisance. Also above 200mm, you don't want to go below f/8 - image quality suffers @f/5.6. The focus is not FTM, which I think is a minor yet essential disadvantage.</p>

<br>

 

<p>The 70-200L has massive image quality and sharpness (even wide open), FTM but no IS. Canon unfortunately doesn't provide the (expensive!) tripod collar. It's heavy but handholdable and a feather compared to the f2.8 siblings.</p>

<br>

 

<p>What remains is the reason why you need the lens and the places you'll be using it. The shiny white 70-200L will attract lots of attention, while the black 70-300IS is a little less conspicuous.</p>

</p>

<p>To get back to Rainer T's remark:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As a rule of thumb ...<br />D / fl =(roughly)= S1 / S2<br />where D = distance to subject, fl=focal length, S1=size of subject, S2=size on sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>a little reshuffling of my derived formula<br>

f = d*M/(M+1)^2 combined with M>>1 gives you d/f ~ M, so basically we're using the same equation.</p>

<p>Everybody, thanks for all the input!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have rarely seen a problem more over-intellectualized than this discussion, and I have spent all of my life in Academia.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You haven't seen over-intellectualization until you hang with the engineers :-). Compared to many other discussions I've had, this one didn't even involve writing custom software...</p>

<p>Hector, some improved definitions (because mine were indeed wrong, thanks)<br>

<img src="http://wwwrestler.chem.tue.nl/~rob/lensmodel.jpg" alt="model for lens" /></p>

<p>A couple of my colleagues are turkey hunters and I might be able to join to do some shooting (me with camera only, though). To get a useful estimate what lens to bring, I got into the math of the laws of optics. The results so far:<br>

<br />definitions:<br />d = distance between sensor and object<br />f = focal lenght<br />b = distance between sensor and focal length point<br />v = distance between focal length point and object<br />M = de-magnification as defined by b/v<br>

1) 1/f = 1/b + 1/v<br />2) d = b + v<br />3) M = b/v <=> b = Mv<br />1/f = 1/v + 1/Mv = (M+1)/Mv <=> f = Mv/(M+1)<br />d = (M+1)v <=> v = d/(M+1)<br />=> f = M*d/(M+1)^2<br>

Assuming I would like to fill half the height of the APS-C sensor (landscape orientaion) with turkey (height ~ 80 cm), the de-mag factor M would be 1.6/0.015 ~ 100x. For portrait, this would be 1.6/0.022 ~ 72<br>

Plugging this into the formula for f gives the following table for distance vs. focal length<br />d (m) ; f @ M=100x; f @ M=72x<br />5; 46; 68<br />10; 93; 135<br />20; 185; 270<br />30; 278; 405<br />40; 370; 540<br />50; 463; 676<br />(sorry about the table, can't get it to look good)<br /><br />Assuming I take pictures from about 30 meters, I'd have to use a 300-400mm focal length lens. Does this sound like a reasonable approximation?<br />Thanks,<br />Rob</p>

<p>After catching 'prime-fever', my 30D has been glued to several of my primes (50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.8macro) and I noticed that for some pix, the focal lengths are a little too tight. The most logical extension of my collection would be a lens in the 30mm range (24-35).<br>

<br /> Considering my budget (the 24L and 35L are out), I'm looking at the following lenses<br /> Canon 28/1.8<br /> Sigma 30/1.4<br /> Canon 35/2<br>

I've heard many good and bad things about the sigma (focussing is main issue) that I'm tempted to go for the Canon 28. How are the current (last 2-3 months) experiences with the Sigma lens wrt front/backfocussing? How are the experiences with the Canon lenses?<br /> Thanks,<br /> Rob</p>

<p>Please have a look at the picture in this <a href=" to Flickr</a> . After taking and reviewing, I found this to resemble a photoshop edit where the people are pasted into the landscape. Having taken the photo myself, I know this is not the case :-).<br>

Can anyone explain why this is and how I can prevent it? More info: Canon 30D, Tokina 12-24 @ 22mm, f/9. 1/250s, fill-in flash to prevent shadows in the faces.</p>