[morphsci]

Quote:

Originally posted by Russ Arcuri Right -- I said that Canon was the only manufacturer to make tilt/shift lenses; the Nikons you mention offer only one of those two movements -- shift, I think. No tilt.

You are absolutely correct. I was under the impression that only shifting was involved in perspective control and tilting was for DOF manipulation. I could be wrong since my photography at work is almost entire close-up and macro and away from work it is purely for enjoyment.

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Quote:

I spoke to a salesman on the phone today and he recommend the Nikon because it has a selective program built in so that when taking a picture it'll select which object is important in the frame and put it into focus.

All modern AF cameras support this, but it's not foolproof. I wouldn't rely on it when taking pictures for a class, but it can be useful for snapshots. Just be sure you like the camera's selection before pressing the button. Quote:

Originally posted by morphsci I was under the impression that only shifting was involved in perspective control and tilting was for DOF manipulation. I could be wrong since my photography at work is almost entire close-up and macro and away from work it is purely for enjoyment.

No, you are correct that tilting is useful mostly for DOF manipulation, but DOF manipulation can be useful occasionally in architectural photography as well, especially if you're using the camera vertically rather than horizontally. In any case, for straight on horizontally-oriented architecture shots, the Nikon perspective control lenses will indeed allow you to avoid converging verticals. But if you're taking a picture of a structure from far off center and relatively close, turning the camera vertically and tilting for DOF is a useful technique.

 

[AdamP88]

One word of warning on the Canon EOS 300/Rebel 2000 (I've owned one for over half a year now). It is, by SLR standards, a fairly small camera, and the grip may be uncomfortable to guys with large hands (aka me at 6'5"

). There is a nice (and relatively cheap) fix to this problem, though. Canon sells a battery pack (BP-200 - around $20 at B&H, I believe) that extends the grip, making it much more comfortable, as well as including a vertical shutter button and grip. An additional bonus is that you can use regular AA batteries instead of the more expensive lithium batteries, and you get more battery life with the battery pack as well (no film advance motor, though). Another bonus that you may either like or dislike is that it gives the camera body a bit more heft. The EOS 300 body is very light - which is nice if you just want to toss it in a bag for snapshots. I prefer a more solid-feeling body, and the battery pack adds just the right amount of weight for me. It really is a fantastic addition to the camera, and I've tried going back to just the regular camera and I can't stand it. The battery pack should be mandatory for the EOS 300.

That said, I've really enjoyed using the EOS 300. Unfortunately I was on a tight budget and didn't research lenses enough, so I just went with the kit which included a 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 zoom, which is average at best (although it seems to perform nicely around 50mm). But the camera itself is quite a bargain for the features it includes. I'd used my dad's EOS 10s previously, and though the 10s cost much more and was geared towards semi-pro to pro users, the EOS 300's feature set held up fairly well in comparison.

Of course, the 10s has a MUCH better grip, a much faster film advance rate (5fps), more options for auto-exposure bracketing, etc, and a better focusing system, especially in low light situations (and better visual feedback of focusing, although the 300 does have 7 focus points rather than 3 on the 10s), better flash-sync capabilities, and more... but the EOS 300 still packs a punch for the price. Too bad my dad still likes to use the 10s.

Maybe I could pry one of his Bronicas away from him and learn medium format shooting...

 

[raymondlin]

Russ, I've found a Canon that come with a 28-105 lens and within my price range bt the lens is made by Sigma, is that the right lens? Or does it have to be made by Canon and is it the same one you've mentioned?

http://www.jessops.com/search/viewpr...WORD_SEARCH=N&

Adam - I don't think I mind the EOS300 being small, I am not that tall/big (5"7), but thanks for the tip, I will get one of those battery pack when I exhausted my AA batteries supply. I bought loads when there was a sale and got about 5 packs left.

 

[Russ Arcuri]

No, as I mentioned previously, I wouldn't recommend a third-party lens. You should be able to do well in the photography class with just the 50/1.8 if the Canon 28-105 is not within your price range. In fact, the 50/1.8 will offer the following advantages over the 28-105:

1. It's lighter.
2. It's sharper -- you'll be able to make bigger enlargements with it.
3. It's much faster -- this means you can work with it in much lower light due to it's much wider maximum aperture.
4. You can blur backgrounds more with it, due to it's wider maximum aperture.
5. It throws a higher-contrast image on the film than the 28-105.
6. It's less expensive.

The 28-105 has the following advantages over the 50/1.8:

1. It works at a wide range of focal lengths. This is the primary reason why most people go with a zoom over a fixed-focal length lens, but as you gain more experience with photography you'll find that this isn't such a big deal after all.
2. It's a USM lens -- this means that it's nearly silent when autofocusing, and it focuses VERY quickly -- almost instantaneously. You can buy a 50/1.4 lens with this feature, but it's actually more expensive than the 28-105! The 50/1.8 focuses pretty quickly anyway, though it's not silent. It makes a whirring/buzzing noise as it does so.
3. The manual focusing ring on the 28-105 is a bit easier to use than the manual focusing ring on the 50/1.8.

In any case, I really don't think you can go wrong with either lens. Just avoid third-party lenses like Tamron and Sigma for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

 

[raymondlin]

Thanks, I have opted for the Canon 28-90USM kit package (£295/$415), Since the body itself cost £250/$350 so I think it'll be a good lens to start off with. I did see a package from a mail order company selling a EOS300 with a 28-105 for £400/$560 but I can't stretch that far right now so I'll get that at a later date.

I asked about the tilt/sfift lens and they are EXPENSIVE! £1400/$2000 for a lens! I guess I'll get one when I am fully quailfied architect and with a bit more money.

On the way out of the shop I did see a Canon EOS100 for £160, how good is that camera, I couldn't find anything about it in my magazine. I guess it's a older design but is it a better body? It looks heavier and better built.

 

[Russ Arcuri]

One of my camera bodies is an EOS 100 (Actually, the North American model is called "Elan.") It's a good camera, though it lacks some of the features found on newer designs. It was discontinued in 1993 or 1994. The EOS 100 is special for one reason in particular: it's probably the quietest-operating SLR ever created. The film advance, shutter, etc. are all much quieter than most SLRs, even newer designs.

As to the lens -- you will, of course, be able to get through your photography class with it. You'll get much better image quality with it if you're rigorous about technique -- almost all lenses are sharpest when stopped down two stops from maximum aperture. Since maximum aperture on the 28-80 varies from f/3.5 - f/5.6 depending on focal length, you'll want to shoot at f/6.7 - f/11 from a tripod for maximum sharpness. You may have particular assignments that would require you to shoot at different apertures, but if not otherwise specified, you'll get the best results following these guidelines.

Put away $20 per week in a drawer, and in a month you'll be able to buy that 50/1.8. You'll realize one of the advantages of that lens the first time you use it -- it too is sharpest about 2 stops down from maximum aperture. Since maximum aperture is f/1.8, your best sharpness will be around f/3.5 - f/5.6. In other words, you'll get your sharpest images with the 50/1.8 at the same apertures that the 28-90 starts operating at. If you don't understand the gist of what I'm saying here, you will once you've gotten a certain way through the class. Good luck.

 

[raymondlin]

The lowest aperture of the 28-90 lens is f/4.0 but I'll follow your advice and use the f/6.7 - f/11 when taking most pictures. Thanks for all your advice, I would have bought the Canon EF-M otherwise and would have wasted $300 on it with the sigma lens. I'll stick with Canon lens from now on and stay away from third party lens, already got a Bag & tripod (given one by a friend at uni) so all I need now is a flash (Canon again? anyone in particular?) and some films and off I go.

I'll start saving for the 50/1.8 (I just realized what the 1.8 meant!)

 

[Audio-Me]

I'll need to get a flash too, I think I'll get a Quantaray manual flash ($15). I don't take many shots that require a tripod, so I'm not worried about that right now (although I probably should get one for portraits and studio shots, want to give night scenes a try as well)

I use the following film:
b&w - AGFA APX 400
color - Kodak Gold 100, Fuji NPH 400

 

[Russ Arcuri]

You should find out whether your photography class is going to cover flash photography. Many "intro" classes actually prohibit flash use.

There's a flash built in to the camera body that's suitable for fill-flash duty, but it's a terrible choice as the primary light source for indoor shots. Positioned so close to the lens, redeye is likely, even with the redeye reduction feature enabled. Plus, it's not terribly strong.

This is actually another good reason to get the 50/1.8 or 35/2.0 -- you can take many more pictures without flash, since the lens lets in so much more light. I took the following picture as a quick snapshot with the 50/1.8 at f/1.8, using only available light streaming through a window to the right of the subject. (She's my daughter, age 16 months.) I thought the picture came out wonderful, and cropped it square. The only thing that really annoys me is the out-of-focus rectangular blob on the right side of the frame. These kinds of things are unavoidable in a snapshot-type situation -- if I had repositioned to eliminate the distracting elements in the background her expression would have changed and I'd have lost the shot.

 

[raymondlin]

Russ, what body did you take that picture with, from what I've read so far, it seem to me that the lens is more important then the body. The quailty of the shot and the different thing you can do with the camera are only limited by the lens.

That shot is wonderful, that black square, is that your monitor?

Russ, any tips on how do maintain the camera? is cleaning the lens with a glasses cloth good enough and can I use those spray for glass on it? and most importantly, what if I find dust on the prints and it turns out the mirror in the body has dust on it, how will I clean it? at the dealer or try a blower?

 

[Audio-Me]

Top priority accessory - glass protective uv filter. I have a generic one, works perfectly fine, you don't need a fancy name brand one, lol.

Get a good bag, I have a decent one made by Lowepro, its got room for a camera with a small zoom lens, and room for two others with a front zip and side pockets.

As for dust on the mirror, that's what body and lens caps are for.

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Quote:

Originally posted by raymondlin Russ, what body did you take that picture with, from what I've read so far, it seem to me that the lens is more important then the body.

Yes, and the photographer is far more important than either the body or the lens. Well-meaning people will tell you "wow, you must have a great camera" when you show them your work. But a good photographer can take a great photo even with a crappy camera. Quote:

That shot is wonderful, that black square, is that your monitor?

Thanks. The dark rectangle is an out-of-focus grate over a heating vent. Like I said, I would have preferred to find a different perspective that eliminated the vent, but I liked her expression at that moment. It was taken with an EOS Elan (100) and the 50/1.8 lens. Quote:

Russ, any tips on how do maintain the camera?

Sure -- "maintain" it as little as possible. Quote:

is cleaning the lens with a glasses cloth good enough and can I use those spray for glass on it?

Neither. Avoid getting the lens dirty and you can avoid cleaning it. Modern camera lenses have thin anti-reflective coatings on their surfaces; you want to avoid scratching or removing them. A bit of dust on or inside the lens has absolutely no effect on picture quality. This is because the dust (sitting on the lens elements) is so far out of focus compared with your photographic subject. Lots of dust can have an effect on the pictures -- by diffracting light and decreasing contrast. But dust on the lens will not show up as dust in a photo. If you must clean a lens, use a Lenspen. These have a soft brush on one end to gently brush away dirt/dust. Only use the other side of the lenspen (the soft tip) if you have a fingerprint or something on it, and only after you've removed hard particles with a blower or soft brush first. If the lens is so filthy that even a lenspen won't work, Kodak lens tissues with a bit of Kodak lens cleaning solution will work. Never spray fluids onto the lens itself; moisten the lens tissue and then use it to clean the lens. Quote:

and most importantly, what if I find dust on the prints and it turns out the mirror in the body has dust on it, how will I clean it? at the dealer or try a blower?

Can't happen. First, dust on the mirror has no effect on the image put on film. The mirror is used to show you what you're taking a picture of when composing shots. When you press the shutter release, the mirror swings up out of the way to allow light from the lens to hit the film plane. That's why the image in the viewfinder of an SLR goes black for a short time when the picture is taken. Trying to clean the mirror might cause dust to get behind the mirror onto the film plane, where it will affect the pictures.

Second, you can easily screw up your camera if you start poking around inside. The shutter curtains are particularly fragile; touch them the wrong way and you've ruined the shutter. Also, it's nearly impossible to clean a focusing screen correctly -- if you see dust in the viewfinder, ignore it. Trying to remove it from the patterned screen will only result in more contamination. Finally, if you scratch the mirror (which is VERY delicate), you could screw up the metering system. I gave instructions above for the proper way to clean a lens if you must clean it. I won't give instructions for cleaning a focusing screen or reflex mirror because they have no effect on picture quality and you run a high risk of damaging the camera by trying.

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Quote:

Originally posted by Audio&Me Top priority accessory - glass protective uv filter. I have a generic one, works perfectly fine, you don't need a fancy name brand one, lol.

A protective UV filter can be useful, but it is possible that it will degrade some images. You're adding two air/glass surfaces, which could increase flare in high-contrast shooting situations. For 99% of the pictures you're likely to take, it will have no effect.

You can reduce the possibility of flare due to the filter by getting a multicoated filter. As Audio & Me mentioned, you don't need to get one of the top-name boutique filters for this purpose. Tiffen or Hoya are fine, and can be found for reasonable prices. I've never seen a generic UV filter with good multicoatings, so this is one case in which you have to go with a 'brand' name, though Tiffen and Hoya are priced very reasonably.

 

[Persiflage]

Quote:

Originally posted by Russ Arcuri Can't happen. First, dust on the mirror has no effect on the image put on film. The mirror is used to show you what you're taking a picture of when composing shots. When you press the shutter release, the mirror swings up out of the way to allow light from the lens to hit the film plane. That's why the image in the viewfinder of an SLR goes black for a short time when the picture is taken. Trying to clean the mirror might cause dust to get behind the mirror onto the film plane, where it will affect the pictures.

Heh, I had one particularly interesting example of this. The SLR I've been using for a while (my Dad's old Canon) has a dead ant stuck somewhere in the body, between the mirror and the viewer. It's very close the the center of the shot. I forgot to mention it to my High School Photo teacher before he examined my camera, and it startled him when he looked through it.