digital cams used on manual
Ivan
in manual mode. I always had excellent results especially when exposing the
film for moods and effects and exposing specific areas of the scene to
saturation. Of the people here who were the same with manual cameras, are
you finding that digital cameras are as easy to use in manual? By easy I
suppose I mean "consistent predictable results".
I guess the main reason I'm asking this question is because I still plan on
purchasing good Nikon glass for my film cameras now that I'm older and have
more disposable income. But at the same time I will be buying a digital
Nikon soon. I know that you loose most of the auto features the digital
bodies have by using lenses of older generations. Auto focus I hope is not
one of them, but exposure metering I might prefer to forego if results are
similar to film cameras.
Also, on the subject of lenses for digital, I'm noticing a big emphasis on
zoom lenses. I never was a fan of zooms. Are zooms becoming more of the
norm for professionals in the scenic or portrait fields? I do a lot of
still life and (my own) family portraits using studio strobes, so the
wandering f-stop of zooms often places a speed bump in my creative process.
aahhh, enough babbling for now....anyone care to comment?
Ivan
Gene Palmiter
the pro level...and you should find you can do most anything you want. There
will be some differences. Those dramatic black and white images? Even more
dramatic! The darks can be too dark and the lights blown out completely. If
necessary you can shoot two pics, one for the lights and one for the darks
and put them together in Photoshop (Photoshop will now be your darkroom...at
the pro level...don't waste time learning anything lesser...let the flamers
begin!)
I have come to hate autofocusing...it messes up too many shots. I just got
some photos of a really sharp brick wall...though the girls in front of it
were a bit blurry.
Zooms became important with 35mm because of the need to crop in the camera.
The resolution of digitals being limited makes it even more important to get
in as close as possible. Nobody says you have to use them...and in the
studio...where you can move things around as much and as long as you
like...use a prime. Who's to say you can't.
"Ivan" <mr_jerk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10adikr...@corp.supernews.com...
David Dyer-Bennet
> As a long time user of 35 mm Nikon film cameras I much preferred to use them
> in manual mode. I always had excellent results especially when exposing the
> film for moods and effects and exposing specific areas of the scene to
> saturation. Of the people here who were the same with manual cameras, are
> you finding that digital cameras are as easy to use in manual? By easy I
> suppose I mean "consistent predictable results".
> I guess the main reason I'm asking this question is because I still plan on
> purchasing good Nikon glass for my film cameras now that I'm older and have
> more disposable income. But at the same time I will be buying a digital
> Nikon soon. I know that you loose most of the auto features the digital
> bodies have by using lenses of older generations. Auto focus I hope is not
> one of them, but exposure metering I might prefer to forego if results are
> similar to film cameras.
Um, "older generations" of lenses in the Nikon line don't have
autofocus. AIS, AI, and pre-AI lenses, to be specific.
The question of metering with the older lenses is a design choice in
the body. The D1 and variants meter with older lenses. I believe the
D2 does as well. Don't know about the Kodak-made Nikon-mount cameras.
The D100, D70, and Fuji S1 and S2 do not meter with AIS and
older lenses. I use AIS lenses frequently on my Fuji S2 -- there's no
need to meter each shot, examining the histogram from a test shot
tells me a lot *more* than a meter reading does, and I've shot (still
shoot, very occasionally -- 4x5) with meterless cameras before (I used
a Leica M3 as my main camera from about 1973 to 1977) and trained my
eye well enough to know when the light changes on me.
Oh, you probably meant to sensibly ask about whether the focus
indicator in the viewfinder functions with older lenses, when you said
"autofocus". It does on my Fuji S2, and I understand that it does on
all of them.
> Also, on the subject of lenses for digital, I'm noticing a big emphasis on
> zoom lenses. I never was a fan of zooms. Are zooms becoming more of the
> norm for professionals in the scenic or portrait fields? I do a lot of
> still life and (my own) family portraits using studio strobes, so the
> wandering f-stop of zooms often places a speed bump in my creative process.
The more expensive zooms tend to be fixed-aperture, and it's those
that are more likely to be used by professionals. The Nikon 80-200
f2.8 has been considered a pro-grade lens since at least 1994 (when I
first used one; never have owned one). And is cheaper than buying the
Nikon 85mm, 105mm, 135mm, and 180mm all f2.8 or faster, at least last
I checked. (Of course you can get the 85, 105, and 135 faster than
f2.8 in primes if you want, too.)
Zooms have gotten better (I got my first zoom in about 1975, when I'd
been photographing "seriously" and doing my own developing and
printing for about 7 years). Good zooms are still big and heavy.
Come to think of it, I've still got that first zoom. It's a Tamron
Adaptall, and I had it in Pentax screw mount originally, and then
switched to Nikon mount. I think I've still got the Nikon mount on
it, so I could actually mount it on my S2 (or my F). It was a slow
85-210, something like f4-5.6, but it was very nice and sharp
otherwise. I should try it again some day.
Prime lenses are lighter, and often better than a zoom especially for
flare resistance. And often faster, which can be important for
viewfinder brightness as well as for actual exposure.
And variable-aperture zooms are, as you say, a problem for non-TTL
exposure determination. (Digital solves the studio strobe problem, at
least; I hardly touch my flash meter any more, I just shoot test shots
and examine the preview and histogram.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/>,<http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
David Dyer-Bennet
> So much depends on the camera. But, you plan on entering the digital game at
> the pro level...and you should find you can do most anything you want. There
> will be some differences. Those dramatic black and white images? Even more
> dramatic! The darks can be too dark and the lights blown out completely. If
> necessary you can shoot two pics, one for the lights and one for the darks
> and put them together in Photoshop (Photoshop will now be your darkroom...at
> the pro level...don't waste time learning anything lesser...let the flamers
> begin!)
I agree, gotta have it. It's layering tools aren't touched in the
only other program worth considering (Picture Window Pro; which has
many excellent features and is less than $100, but which is certainly
not a professional replacement for Photoshop).
> I have come to hate autofocusing...it messes up too many shots. I just got
> some photos of a really sharp brick wall...though the girls in front of it
> were a bit blurry.
Not that I ever did that when focusing manually, heavens no!
I switched to autofocus in 1994 when a weekend rental and a lot of
test shooting showed me it would definitely help me for the kind of
shooting I did.
Ron Hunter
Optical laws are the same, and light still has to get to the sensor,
just as it did for film, so most of the mechanics are the same. For the
uses you named, zoom is irrelevant, you can just adjust the distance to
the subject. In your world of controllable light, shadow, and distance,
manual adjustments to a digital camera should be the same as for film.
For those of us who capture the moment in a dynamic and unpredictable
world, autofocus, and exposure are more important.
Mark Johnson
Manual is generally what I prefer. But sometimes for action,
especially close, an auto-focus beam can save a photo for you. It just
depends.
But, generally - manual, and RAW mode.
As for digicam or dSLR and various lenses, you have to judge. There
are different focus planes, different effects of 'flattening' and
foreshortening. It just depends. But if look for it, you can see the
differences.