paul_butterworth1

<p>Thanks for your replies and suggestions people - I really like Jim's idea of using transparency film - I didn't think of this. It was also suggested in another forum to do the same sort of thing but externally tethered to a tablet - I was thinking of getting the new iPad, so maybe this option could be good, though is it possible to live view on an iPad? I'm not sure. Maybe I'll just use the iPad to double check the captured images.</p>

<p>Hi there,<br>

I'm in the market for a new camera for a project I'm looking to undertake. Having just moved into a new house, I came across some old pictures of the local area from 100 years ago and I'm wanting to find the exact locations of these pictures and take a look at them a century later.<br>

I'm wanting to morph old to modern as a video eventually as my final result and as such I'd really like to capture the image as pixel perfect with the original's position as I can, so I think the best solution to this would be if I could line the image up exactly on the digital camera's LCD to take the shot. Are there any camera's that can do this? and also, could you recommend me one with a high resolution screen to improve the accuracy - I can spend upwards of £1000 if necessary, so the better the quality the happier I will be.<br>

Finally, I know these old images will have been taken with at least a 35mm camera, maybe medium/large format, but I presume as long as I use a zoom of equivalent to 24-70mm then I should be able to get most focal lengths that were used despite the different sensor sizes - is this right or will the different sensor sizes affect the position of objects / buildings in the frame?<br>

Many thanks in advance for your replies - I can't wait to start this project, so I hope you can help :)</p>

<p>Hi guys, thanks for all the suggestions. I've been thinking about it and doing more research and I've looked at all your responses and decided to go down the Pentax route after all - I guess they're just too irresistible to me! I'm sure one day I'll own a Canon or a Nikon, but for now I'm sticking with Pentax, it's what I've shot all my life so far since I was 5 years old! lol (though technically that was a Chinon :P)</p>

<p>I've just ordered a Pentax k20d after reading some good reviews of it, and I'm going to pair it with a Pentax 16-45mm f4, again after reading some good reviews, so hopefully I'll be set with them two :) What do you think of my choices guys?</p>

<p>I'm looking to shift into a different type of photography, I've mostly been shooting portraiture and street up until this point, but as I'm finding myself taking my camera out more and more, it tends to be the occasional landscape shots that really capture my eye, be it dusk/dawn shot, a waterfall, or just the way the low-light paints unpredictable colours into sky - I'm compelled to investigate further and I'm hoping to make some large prints too.</p>

<p>This is why I'm writing this post. My research seems to be going well, but ultimately I'm interested in more opinions around the subject. My main restriction is price (as it is for most people I think) and my main aim is to get maximum image quality with a sharp, high resolution and minimal noise - I'm looking at a budget of £500 maximum (approx $800 USD).</p>

<p>Obviously, this means I'll be shooting almost exclusively with low ISO, which in turn will mean I'll have longer exposure times in low-light conditions and will be mostly on a tripod. From my research I've been drawn to several different cameras and I've read really good things about the Canon EOS 550D with it's kit lens 18-55mm, which would give me around 29mm - although I'd really like to go a lot wider than this.</p>

<p>Another camera that has very mixed reviews is the really rather old Kodak DCS Pro 14n, which has a massive plus point with the lack of AA filter, high resolution and full frame, opening up a wide range of old Nikkor glasses, though the fact that they don't meter isn't great - but I should be able to get the camera and a 24mm Nikkor AIS just in budget, though I've read bad things about long exposures with this camera.</p>

<p>As I'm a Pentax ME Super shooter at the moment, with no good wide glass, I'm happy to adopt an entirely new setup for this new adventure, so really I'm open to opinions. Like I say, my main priority is sharp, maximal resolution with minimal noise, and bulk and ease of use are relatively low on my list, as I'll be using this setup exclusively for tripod landscape work. I'm happy for any suggestions that are going to get me the sharpest possible results for high quality print work at around A3 / A2. If it's practically impossible to get the quality I require at my current price point, then I'll just have to save up!</p>

<p>Thank you all in advance for any help :)</p>

<p>Interesting looking website, I've not seen that one before - I'll have to investigate - thanks for the link :)</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

Thank you all for your responses, and very thought provoking they are aswell. The widget on dpreview was especially useful and exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. From looking at that it's clear to see the effect a larger sensor has with noise reduction at higher isos, but really it's not a huge difference at lower isos, which really does make me question how large I need it to be for the work I'm interesting in shooting, which at the moment is primarily landscapes, and what I'm looking to shoot in the future when I can afford a longer lens or two, wildlife.<br>

I'm thinking to be honest for the landscape work, as I mostly just shoot on daytrips with friends, that a smaller sensor would be fine as it's mostly low iso work, and even when shooting wildlife with long slow lenses, it should still be ok as long as the light is good. I think an upgrade would only be necessary if I intend to shoot when the light goes down. Anyway, to cut to the chase, the reason I got onto all of this was for the purchase of a new camera system in the future, and I'm torn between a superzoom with a tiny sensor and a DSLR with a big sensor but less zoom and a lot more cost.<br>

I suppose my next question would be about density, as someone mentioned previously the density of the MP on the sensor affects pq also, so would I be better off with an older camera with a less densely packed sensor, or do all the added benefits of a more modern camera (such as the image stablisation) make up for the density?</p>

<p>Hmmm... I don't think I appreciate the complexity of it all. Firstly let me try to explain my definition of the "equivalent". In this test I would think that (changing the length) the FX is simply at 28mm, the DX about 18mm and the P100 at 4mm, and if all the camera's were set to the same settings (iso, aperture, etc), and all shot at say 10MP, would the image quality (i know it's a subjective word) suffer, and more importantly how.<br>

I'm not talking about perspective or other photographic elements, though they do interest me, but more about the technical quality of the images. I also know that it's not purely down to sensor size, but to do with the engine of the camera too, but again, from what I've read the size of the sensor makes a huge difference.<br>

If there are no visual examples online then I'm interested to debate the differences too.</p>

<p>So here's what I'm trying to find and I'm struggling. I'd like to see a visual comparison of different sensor sizes. So, for example a scene shot with a d700 at 300mm, then the same again with d300 at 300mm equivalent and the same again with p100, all at the same resolution. Does anyone know if there is anything like this on the web? I know that everywhere says that larger sensors increase picture quality, but I've never actually seen it, I've only read the technical reasons why.</p>

<p>Any help or links would be awesome :)</p>

<p>ah yes, I meant 340mm f2, rather than 240mm. I've got to admit - this whole "stop" business confuses me, if a 2x goes up 2 stops that simply means that it's doubled and same goes for 3x and tripled?</p>

<p>Still a 340mm f2.4 and 510m f3.6 both still sound mightily impressive. Would the picture quality just be too poor?</p>

<p>Hmmm... just noticed that there are 3x teleconverters too, wouldn't that make it somewhere along the lines of 510mm f2.8? That can't be right can it? Am I getting my f-stops mixed up here?</p>

<p>So, I was just thinking about a really good lightweight DSLR for nature photography and I was wondering if this combination was possible to create a 240mm f2 effective lens:</p>

<p>Olympus EP-2 (or any m43 camera - I chose this for it's stabilisation and excellent EVF)<br>

m43-FD adaptor<br>

Canon 2x Teleconvertor<br>

Canon FD 85mm f1.2 lens</p>

<p>So would this make a 340mm f2 lens due to the double doubling of the four-thirds system and the teleconvertor. Also, would it be better to use a Canon TC or an Olympus one and does it actually make a difference?</p>

<p>So, what do you think of this combo?</p>

<p>Right chaps, I've had a lot of thinking to do recently and I've done so much research that my head really started to hurt. If anything the conclusion I've reached so far is that wedding photography is really darned annoying and requires rather pricey kit to get the best out of it. A few points that were most recently made and the last post by David has really hit home hard about the lab fog, I really hadn't considered this and it's put me off film completely (for weddings at least), though I have been enjoying shooting my ME Super so much that I think I will continue for fun.</p>

<p>I'm still very undecided what to do about my wedding photography as this is a big stumbling block for me, not just what David said, but I've also had many other things to consider recently, plus I've just moved jobs which will eat up a lot more of my time. I think I may turn my head to simple wildlife photography for fun for a while, which still leaves me interested in the 85mm f1.2 FD lens, though I'm wondering if it would be possible to combine it with a 2x TC and a four thirds system for a lightweight 340mm f2? (is that the right f-stop)</p>

<p>I'm still toying with the idea of the FD camera and I'm happy now that I know that it would either be a T90 or a F-1 of some kind, but I'm going to put that idea to one side for now. Thanks to everyone for their help with this and I'm very sure I'll be back asking more questions on these forums soon! I will certainly continue to browse as some of the work on here is exceptional! ttfn</p>

<p>Well, I was planning to sell my setup for the Canon FD system - mainly because of the better quality and better prices, not to mention the crazy high speed lenses. To answer Alan again about the wedding pictures, for close ups I was intending to use the Canon FD 85/1.2 which looks like an amazing lens. I'm currently considering the F-1n as the best option mainly for the weatherproofing. Does anyone know if it's still weather resistant when used with the accessories, primarily the Motor Drive?</p>

<p>Hi guys, just wanted to quickly post and to say thank you for all your contributions, especially Alan. I'm still not sure what I'm leaning towards, truth be told. If anything it makes me think more about AF with a wide angle and then split image MF with a zoom. I'm currently shooting my 85mm f1.4 with my Pentax ME Super and the split image does make a huge difference when I have time to compose a shot, and makes an even bigger difference when I add my 2x tele-converter into the mix (170mm f2.8 for £200 isn't too shabby imo), but doesn't seem to make a huge impact with wide angle lenses, which for some reason I just didn't think about before.</p>

<p>Going off topic a little bit, does anyone know whether the Sigma 20mm/24mm f1.8 lenses will work with old film cameras with AF. One that popped up during my research, but I dismissed a little early due to loving the look of the Canon FD range, was a Minolta Dynax 9 and one of the aforementioned Sigma lenses, but I'm not sure if these digital designed lenses would even work. Maybe that's a question for a different topic though!</p>

<p>Anyway, for now I shall continue to practice with both my digital and my film Pentaxs and see how it feels :)</p>

<p>Ah another post whilst I was writing, I certainly wasn't ignoring your post there Alan, in fact I love it - pretty much exactly what I wanted, a list of points and words about the weatherproofing (something I've struggled to find). It's also made me realise that I need to express how I envisage shooting with this equipment.</p>

<p>I may well show my naivety with this, but here is how I'd hope to shoot. I want to frame my subject with my eye to the viewfinder (preferably throughout), I'd like to be able to focus (very accurately) on the subject and be able to have very little DOF (lots of isolation). I'll just clarify another reason that I was attracted to manual focus, the ability to focus of the main subject then be able to move them to the outside of the frame easily, should I choose to do so. I hope that makes sense. Onwards, after focussing I'd like to be able to read a light meter reading for my in focus subject (and not the rest of the scene), or basically to be able to point my camera at an object within the frame and work out what the correct shutter speed should be to light that object, then I want to be able to lock that shutter speed, and shoot - and if it's a particularly important event such as the kiss at a wedding ceremony, then I'd like to have the ability to take several shots in succession quickly.</p>

<p>That's it - I think that all makes sense, and I know that all sounds quite simplistic, but the important part of this is to compress this process into the smallest amount of time - just a few seconds. I think focussing is the longest part of this process, hence why an aid like split image may be very useful and I appreciate that AF may be an even better option. The shutter speed selection is also very important and I would imagine that either aperture priority (I'm not interested in shutter priority) with a AE Lock button, or simply a meter in the viewfinder with a dial, would be the fastest way to do this - though my lack of experience leaves me pondering as to the best option with this.</p>

<p>Once again, thank you for the replies and keep them coming! :)</p>

<p>Wow Michael, I have to say that that was a very comprehensive reply and very enjoyable to read too. The more I read, the more I'm beginning to realise that AF might in fact be better for professional work - I just don't know - I'm also enjoying reading through the "Autofocus craze?" thread elsewhere on these forums. All my technical research has led me to FD and it's easy entry level prices. I can get a dream lens that's MF for a fifth of the price of its AF brethren.</p>

<p>But should I even be looking at manual focus? I really think opinion is split on this subject. I know film fans and Leica shooters will almost certainly say yes, but in professional (in my case I'm wanting to be a wedding photographer in the long run) use, I'm starting to feel worried that I'd miss focus on those candid "spur of the moment" shots, although I'm pretty sure that the traditional "set-up" shots would be easier, and more often than not, better even in manual focus. Could my budget-pro setup of a, let's say, New F1 w/ 24mm f1.4l be used consistently as a pro wedding tool to get in focus shots? That's what I really need to find out - am I even skilled enough to pull this off, I'm not sure. But anyway, I'm starting to think out loud in this thread now!</p>

<p>Anyway, I think New F1 definitely has to be added to my shortlist from Michael's glowing praise of it from the previous post. So, now I have New F1, T90, T70, AE1P and so many more decisions to make! lol</p>

<p>This is all keeping me thinking, as is reading more of the threads on these forums in greater detail, I've got a feeling registering on these forums is going to eat up a lot more of my spare time! I'm not complaining though! :)</p>

<p>Hi guys, thanks for the responses so far. I have looked at both the T90 and the T70, both look very nice cameras. I was slightly put off by the amount of automatic features initially and their digital LCD operations, but if they're the best for my criteria, then I'll give them another look. My local camera shop actually has the T70 w/ 50mm f1.8 in at the moment for £50, and I had a quick play, though I was slightly overwhelmed by the amount of modes and the controls, but I'm sure it wouldn't take much time to get used to.</p>

<p>To JDM first of all, I'm very aware that I need to get better at the art of photography itself, and I suppose the catalyst to change equipment so early was as much my lust for the 24mm f1.4l as well as the focussing systems. I've never really enjoyed AF, but my experience with it isn't yet enough to fully rule it out, I just feel quite in control enough and using it with my friend's 20D w/ 70-200 lens, it was constantly locking up and refusing to fire the shutter - it really infuriated me. Also, there's no way I could afford a 24mm f1.4 in AF, maybe a Sigma 20mm/24mm f1.8, which is something I've considered. Though I'm still edging towards MF.</p>

<p>Finally Dave, thank you for the advice, and I know about the 24/2.0 as the cheaper option, but I love shooting wide open and fast and despise changing lenses, the 24/1.4l seems like a really good "one lens" solution for how I want to shoot - perhaps I'm just a bit strange though! lol</p>

<p>Keep the advice coming though - I really want to be convinced at one particular camera by the end of this thread - hopefully!</p>

<p>Hi there,</p>

<p>Long time reader, first time poster. I've recently been trying to get into photography and about 4 months ago I got my first DSLR. I chose the Pentax K-x as I also inherited my Dad's broken Chinon CG-1 and a few lenses and accessories. I also decided to purchase a Falcon 85mm f1.4 lens to go with the package and have been relatively happy with it. Recently though, I took it to a wedding as an assistant and when I looked back at my shots, there were far too many out of focus for my liking. This is because all my lenses are manual focus and I'm quite new to focussing on a digital camera - there don't seem to be many focus aids besides the green light. Having grown up with my Dad's Chinon (before I broke it), I really miss the split image focussing and thus I'm very tempted indeed to return to the world of film.</p>

<p>Another factor in my decision is the price of the lenses, especially the "defunct" FD mount lenses, which just seem to be plummeting, and the final nail in my digital coffin is that I can't afford full frame and I really want to shoot fast and wide. All of these factors have led me to FD cameras and I've been researching them for the past week or so. I've also bought myself a Pentax ME Super to play with and get me used to film again (it's amazing how much you forget about when you've been using digital for the last decade or so).</p>

<p>Right, enough of the back story, here's my main problem. After going back and forth between many different models of FD to have as my main shooter, I'm still unable to make a decision and I'm hoping that the great people and their knowledge here at photo.net will be able to help.</p>

<p>My ideal camera would have the following features:</p>

<ul>

<li> 1. Weatherproofing</li>

<li> 2. Continuous shooting (maybe around 2fps)</li>

<li> 3. Split Image Focussing</li>

<li> 4. AE Lock</li>

<li> 5. Centred Metering</li>

</ul>

<p>I may add to that list as I do more research, but I'm pretty sure that's what I want at the minute. My budget is around £700 and that includes the price of my main lens (24mm f1.4l) that I desire. If anyone knows a wider, faster lens in any other format that I could afford (I can't afford Leica ;)) then I'm all ears too. Also, are the FD lenses weatherproof in general, I'm particularly interested in the aspherical "L" lenses.</p>

<p>Finally, regarding the AE Lock, this is a recent addition to the list after getting my ME Super as I find the digital method of inputting the shutter speed pretty much unusable. I guess simple analogue shutter speed dial could work, but I don't want to have to move my eyes from the viewfinder when framing a shot.</p>

<p>I hope all this makes sense and I don't just sound like a useless novice. I've tried to do my research before posting this question, but I am still just getting used to the SLR world, so please any help at all from anyone would be greatly appreciated :)</p>

<p>Paul.</p>