Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Digital photography

This is topic Digital photography in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005466

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 05-15-2008, 04:41 PM:

I've really been getting into photography lately. Specifically, concert photography. I have friends who are in bands here in Atlanta, and take photos of their shows all the time. But as you can imagine, shooting in the low-light bar atmosphere is very difficult at times. I played around with a friend's SLR camera yesterday, and I really loved it. I've been thinking of getting one for a while now, but there is sooo much research I need to do first. Especially on lenses! How do I interpret lens specifications to know whether a particular lens will do what I need it to do?

Any photography buffs out there know of any good resources for my research?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-15-2008, 09:01 PM:

Ken,

Shooting in low light situation with digital cameras is a lot more easier than film cameras and I do a lot of work commercially with existing light when I photograph fitness shows. Some of the newer professional models such as the Nikon D-300 allow you to shoot using speed as high as 1800 ISO with no trace of noise. I am still currently working with a D-200 model and is getting excellent results with it. Some of the newer lenses for SLR digital cameras have VR (Vibration Reduction) features and they are ideal for low level light photography and I highly recommend them.

-Claude

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-15-2008, 10:48 PM:

Just like cinema lenses, photographic lenses have a speed (f/number) and a focal length. Faster lenses (lower f/number) are more expensive and are generally more useful for low-light situations than slower lenses. Zooms are generally slower than primes (fixed-focal length lenses).

I'm a film guy; for concerts in small/medium venues, I've had good results with a 35mm camera and a 50mm f/1.8 lens. A wider lens (35mm or 28mm, maybe) would also be useful. I've only really done B&W concert photography and I really like Tmax 3200 pushed to 6400 ASA for the purpose. It's grainy as hell, but the look "works" for this sort of subject matter.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-15-2008, 11:19 PM:

Concert photography is very tricky. Since crowds can really get packed in tight there's a good chance you'll be stuck in one place for the entire shoot -unless you have a press pass, backstage access, etc.

If you're stuck shooting from one place you'll need a lens with the right balance of "reach" (zoom level or prime fixed focal length) and the right amount of speed -bigger aperture. As apertures get bigger your exposure times and ability to "stop action" (not get motion blur) is improved. The best, very fast lenses cost a hell of a lot of money. But bigger apertures also deliver lower depth of field and greater chance of missing proper focus. As focal lengths extend out to "tele" levels you'll need longer exposure times. Professional level D-SLR camera bodies can deliver much higher ISO speeds (like ISO 3200 and ISO 6400) and lower noise levels when operating at high ISO speeds. High ISO speed can counteract a long exposure time.

I wish I had about $20,000 or so to sink into even better camera bodies and even better lenses. I'm jealous of those fellows you see on the sidelines of NFL games with giant 400mm f2.8 lenses weighing 12 pounds.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-16-2008, 04:02 PM:

No matter what you do go with Nikon for either film or digital. I went with the Canon EOS Rebel xti(because its lighter) and although it has some advantages in low light levels because of it's CMOS sensor the rest of the camera is a hunk of junk. You absolutely have to have the higher end "L" series Canon lenses to get any good glass at all!!! This is not true with Nikon lenses whose normally priced and even older lenses are far superior to Canon's similar priced present day optics. I will soon be getting rid of my EOS for a Nikon.

Mark

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 05-16-2008, 07:28 PM:

If you're getting rid of it, would you like to sell it to me? Gotta start somewhere. [Big Grin]

Funny...I looked at my original post, and I did not mention it, but the Rebel XTI is the exact camera I'm looking at getting. Did you read my mind or something? I did notice how very expensive lenses for it are, but since I haven't looked at other cameras yet, I haven't priced other manufacturer's lenses. Yeah, not too crazy about paying as much as or more for a lens than the camera itself.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-17-2008, 01:36 AM:

Before you buy any camera, go to a real camera store and test drive a number of models. I'd say try at least Nikon and Canon, Pentax is worth a look if you are just shooting recreationally. The most important aspect of the camera is ergonomics. Canon and Nikon are going to be trading the lead in tech for a thousand years to come, but one camera will just feel right in your hands. For me, Nikon makes the best camera, and I recommend the D80 very strongly for someone with a decent budget. As for lenses, do not overlook the third party manufacturers. Tamron makes very high quality optics, although the build quality is mediocre. Sigma makes good lenses with a solid build, although quality control is suspect of late.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 05-17-2008, 11:10 AM:

When I bought my Nikon D70 years ago I found Digital Photography Review to be very helpful in my decision - they have some good reviews and comparisons of many cameras.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-17-2008, 07:37 PM:

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Before you buy any camera, go to a real camera store and test drive a number of models.

Ya know... I did just that. Here in SLC we have a camera store called Pictureline that also has a rather large rental department. I tried out two different Canon's and one Nikon. I settled on the Canon because it was lighter and seemed to be as durable as the metal body cameras. Actually I have no doubt that it IS as durable... perhaps MORE durable! Again... my biggest gripe is the Canon glass. Unless you go into the higher priced "L" series the optics quality is simply appaling. Heck, I used to work for Canon back in the late 70's! They made great optics back then, even the 50mm 1.8 had good glass, just a crappy plastic helicoid. Not so today! I think they sink so much of the price of a lens into the cost of the ultrasonic crap and the servo focus stuff. Personally, I'd be much happier with an all manual digital camera. You say it CAN BE MANUAL. Sorry, its just not the same. Try focusing one of these crappy lenses(that I spent a ton of money on) manually sometime. What a joke! So far the only decent wide angle I've found is the 17 to 40mm F4. Not a very fast lens by any standard but oh man sharp as a tack. I've also tried the 16 to 35 f2.8 and its not near as sharp. Also, don't forget the conversion factor with this digital camera... its 1.6 times the longest and shortest focal length on the zoom!

Ken,
I'll sell my EOS and lenses but not till I can afford a full sized imager type digital camera. Probably early next year. I can guarantee you that it'll be a Nikon!

Another hint for you. Don't waste your time shooting JPEG's. LIke JOe says... "JPEG sucks beyond belief". Once you see and work with a RAW file you will never go back to jpeg except to distribute your photos. With what ever camera you go with be sure it'll shoot RAW files. You can batch convert what ever RAW files you shoot later on to JPEG. There are at least 50 reasons to shoot only RAW files!

Mark

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-17-2008, 09:51 PM:

Mark, your comments about manual focusing tell me you need to switch to Nikon ASAP. Not only are most decent autofocus Nikkor lenses of a high build quality, all Nikon bodies accept the vast majority of manual focus lenses. The only ones that will not mount are those referred to as "non-AI" ( aperture indexing), which were made pre-1977 and are easy to avoid. Granted, the camera obviously won't autofocus, and only the higher end models will meter light, but if you are looking for real manual focus, that is the way to go.

Also, regarding RAW vs. JPEG, if you absolutely must shoot JPEG, give the Fuji cameras a look. They accept Nikon lenses and flashes and produce the best JPEGs of any camera on the market. The biggest drawback is that the S5 still goes for ~$1700, and the other models can only be had used.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-17-2008, 11:50 PM:

Most non-AI Nikon lenses can actually be converted to AI, but it usually isn't cost-effective to do the conversion. There are plenty of good AI and AIS lenses available at reasonable prices now.

The Nikon lens situation has become rather complicated; basically, it's as follows:

- non-AI manual focus lenses are basically not useful on most recent (1980-present) Nikon bodies, with the exception of the F2 and F3 (and maybe F4)

- AI and AIS lenses will work on all Nikons, but won't meter with the newer consumer-type bodies; there is some distinction between AI and AIS that I don't remember, but it's irrelevant to most bodies

- AF lenses will work on all bodies, but will only autofocus on autofocus bodies

- G-type lenses do not have an aperture ring and are basically useless on older (pre-autofocus) bodies

- DX-type lenses only have enough coverage for the smaller digital sensors and are basically useless on film cameras

There is more to it than this, but the F-mount situation has become somewhat fragmented over time.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 05-18-2008, 12:31 PM:

quote:
There are at least 50 reasons to shoot only RAW files!

Such as?

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-18-2008, 06:22 PM:

Scott, not to hijack this thread into a discussion of Nikon glass, but I'd like to add to what you've said.

Firstly, non-AI lenses can be converted to AI'd at home for free, if you own jeweler's screwdrivers and a file. So, it is cost effective if you already have the lens or want some specialty lens, but since such old optics perform very poorly on digital cameras, trying to save money by buying and converting them is foolhardy. Also, non-AI lenses can be safely mounted to the F2, F3, F4, FM, and FT3 off the top of my head.

Nextly, the only difference between AI and AI-s lenses is if you have an FA, which is an expensive and relatively unreliable, albeit historically significant manual focus film body.

Also, in response to what Ken said a few posts back, I feel it is imperative to spend more on the lens than most consumer cameras cost. The camera will be obsolete in a couple of years, whereas the lens may not be for decades. Also, the lens has more to do with the quality of the final image than modern bodies, since the sensors are very good for the most part. Do you have Schneiders and Iscos, or crap Chinese lenses on your projectors? Why?

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 05-19-2008, 12:25 PM:

So, for those of you that have done some looking, what is a good entry-level digital SLR?

The Canon's have a lot of mindshare in the public, and I have to admit that I've been so happy with my PowerShot G2 that I'd gravitate to the Xsi almost immediately.

My brother does portrait photography and loves his Fuji S2, which uses Nikon lenses, if I recall correctly.

I remember doing some looking into the lower-end Nikon's and I seem to remember that the lowest-price ones lacked something that seemed like it would be a necessary feature. Maybe the auto-focus drive post for so-equipped lenses? I'm going to have to go back to DPReview and check that out again...

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-19-2008, 03:37 PM:

I haven't been using RAW as much as I should. I'd almost forgotten that I could shoot RAW stuff on my camera. I can think of a lot of pictures that would have been better with the after-the-fact processing available in RAW.

Here are some links that explain the advantages.

http://www.dlcphoto.com/RawFormatWorkflow/RawFormatHomePage.htm#anchor341628

http://blogs.oreilly.com/digitalmedia/2006/10/why-shoot-raw.html

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

http://photo.net/learn/raw/

...It seems to me that RAW would be very useful in your low-light shooting conditions. How skilled are you with Photoshop? If the answer is "not much" then start practicing now.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 05-19-2008, 03:57 PM:

Scott, the Fuji SLRs do indeed use Nikon lenses, but the controls on the older S2 and S3 models are relatively complicated, and they are quite slow in focus speed, frame rate, etc. I love my S2, but it is not a camera for the uninitiated. Regarding the bottom end Nikons, the D40(x) and I believe the new D60, they do indeed lack an internal autofocus motor, but for that market, that is a largely superfluous mechanism. The sub-$800 range SLRs are purely consumer, and that demographic uses the cheap, variable aperture zooms almost exclusively. I believe all of Nikon's current such lenses have the built in autofocus motor, which is faster, quieter, and more energy efficient. Most of the high end pro zooms also have this feature, it is just the old designs (unfortunately including most fixed focal lengths) that lack it. This in-lens autofocus motor is denoted by the AF-S designation.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 06-01-2008, 07:51 AM:

I decided upon the Nikon D60. Would've gotten the D80, but I just didn't have the extra money right now. The package I bought came with the 18-55mm AF VR and 55-200mm AF VR lenses. I also ordered a 50mm f/1.8 for those low-light situations. I'll be using that lens at a show next Saturday, so I can't wait to see how well it works.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-01-2008, 10:03 AM:

Ken,
Good choice! I think you'll like it alot. A friend of mine has the D-60 and loves it. They did have a super deal going on them so you got a great deal there!

Mark

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 06-01-2008, 07:22 PM:

Congrats on the purchase, Ken -- I think you'll have a lot of fun with it.

Depending upon how much light there is on the stage, you might find it a bit hard to get great results. I do a fair amount of concert photography, but I do it for the groups, so I'm able to shoot with flash. In practice, I always shoot about a third of the show without flash as well, but half the time it's near impossible, even at ISO1600.

The higher-end Nikon D300 and the D3 get very impressive (low-noise) results at ISO6400, giving one another two stops. That's the difference between shooting at 1/30th of a second (barely possible) and shooting at 1/7 of a second (not possible hand-held).

I think you'll find most of the time that you'll be shooting at 200mm, which is the equivalent of 300mm on the D60, due to the DX sensor size.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 06-06-2008, 06:21 AM:

Actually, I purchased a 50mm f/1.8 lens to use in my low light situations. Great results at ISO 800 and 1600. I shot a show Wedensday night and didn't use the flash at all. There are, unfortuneatly, two downsides. It is a fixed focal length, so I can't zoom at all. And the lens does not have an internal auto focus servo; it relies on the focus servo on the camera, which the D60 does not have! So I'm stuck with manual focus with this lens. We'll see how that goes. I may just end up taking the D60 back and getting a D80.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 06-11-2008, 10:28 PM:

That's right - the D40 and the D60 have to use AF-S lenses, they cannot use AF lenses because it doesn't have the servo and screw so the lenses have to have a built-in motor.

It's been rumored for a while that Nikon is going to start replacing all of the AF primes with AF-S versions, but it hasn't happened as yet.