Buying a 35 mm camera
a...@ucla-cs.uucp
an Nikon F and 3 lenses (28, 50, 135 mm), and an external meter.
Im signed up for a portrait photograph class and plan to go for
two weeks to a photogenic country. Im considering buying Nikon
because I liked them. The cameras under consideration are the FG 20
or N2000 body, the lenses are 35-105 zoom or 35-135 zoom.
Does anybody out there have experience, + or -, with these parts?
How about experience with cheaper lenses, like Vivitar zooms?
Thanks
Love this free advice I can get without leaving my home.
Arthur Goldberg
3680-D Boelter Hall
UCLA Computer Science Department
LA, Ca. 9024
(213) 825-2864 / 820-6081
art@ucla-cs
Munach Rvi'i
Why don't you just use what you've got? Excellent camera body and lenses.
Unless the camera body was not working and the estimated repair expense was
over $100, I'd recommend that you use your current equipment !!!!!!!!!!!!
The most important hardware for your upcoming class stands BEHIND the camera!
To answer your question more specifically,
if you have older Nikon lenses, they will require a retrofit job on the mount
to work with newer Nikon camera bodies in automatic mode. If you have REALLY
OLD lenses (before 1968), Nikon may not be able to do the retrofit, although
there are several companies that do a very good custom retrofit job. (I have
had such work done both by Nikon and others - old lenses are great with new
bodies when I needed ADDITIONAL camera bodies!)
andyc
># Written 10:37 am Mar 2, 1986 by ucla-cs!art in hplsla:net.rec.photo
># ---------- "Buying a 35 mm camera" ----------
>
>...because I liked them. The cameras under consideration are the FG 20
>or N2000 body, the lenses are 35-105 zoom or 35-135 zoom.
>
>Does anybody out there have experience, + or -, with these parts?
>How about experience with cheaper lenses, like Vivitar zooms?
As I am heavily invested in the Nikon system, with a very reliable "old" FE
and more lenses than I care to mention, I regret to say that the pros I know
have had very bad things to say about the FE-2, the FM-2 and they snort at
the FG-20. The word is that the F3 and FA are the only models worthy of
consideration!
Some people have found the Vivitar Series I lenses to be very fine optically,
but I still prefer the "feel" of a Nikkor. Also, I have heard several stories
of Vivitars (and Kirons) jamming and/or falling apart.
Keep in mind all these is hearsay! Personally, I find the clunk the mirror in
the FG-20 makes when it returns to be quite objectionable. I haven't gotten
my hands on a N2000 to say much about it.
andy @hplsla
****the opinions expressed in here are solely those of the author****
Chuck Ferrara
and have been very pleased with the sharpness. I used it on top of Mt.
Washington with Kodachrome 25 on a crisp, clear day , last winter and as
far as I could tell, the grain of the film is the only limiting factor
on the sharpness. If you plan on traveling to some urban areas on your trip,
you should consider a focal length below the 35mm. you mentioned, because
there won't be anywhere to step back if you want to get more into your pictures.
Here are a list of other things you might want to consider about this
particular lens:
1) Are you planning to use it in low light situations? If so, this is definitelythe lens for you. If not, an f/3.5 lens is a little slower, but a lot lighter.
2) If you like to use polarizers, you MUST buy a thin model (Tiffen makes
a good one for $30) or you will experience severe vignetting problems at
28 mm.
3) Buy a metal screw on lens cap. I busted 2 filters before I got one. It's
a heavy lens (1.5 lbs.) , which means it has a tendency to bang around
harder and jar snap on lens caps loose.
4) Only the sturdiest tripods can support it's weight.
5) You'll definitely look like a tourist if you carry this monster on
your camera.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Ferrara PAR Microsystems
UUCP: decvax\!mcnc\!duke\!adiron 220 Seneca Tpk.(Rt. 5)
(315) 738-0600 (ext. 676) New Hartford, NY 13413
Jordan Hayes
>Im signed up for a portrait photograph class and plan to go for
>two weeks to a photogenic country. Im considering buying Nikon
>because I liked them. The cameras under consideration are the FG 20
>or N2000 body, the lenses are 35-105 zoom or 35-135 zoom.
Zooks. You have an F and are gonna get an N2000? That camera is
a toy, and those lenses are seriously entry-level crud. You know,
though, Nikon has gone to pot. They are moving NPS from San Francisco
to LA, and will not be putting another pro camera out to replace the
F-3 ... the pro services they supply are all going towards still
video. ED-IF lenses will continue to be excelent, though ...
/jordan
Jordan Hayes
>
>As I am heavily invested in the Nikon system, with a very reliable "old" FE
>and more lenses than I care to mention, I regret to say that the pros I know
>have had very bad things to say about the FE-2, the FM-2 and they snort at
>the FG-20. The word is that the F3 and FA are the only models worthy of
>consideration!
I know plenty of pros that use the FM-2.
The FE-2, may be flaky, but the FM-2 is as solid as they have made.
/jordan
Jorge Olenewa
>
>Does anybody out there have experience, + or -, with these parts?
>How about experience with cheaper lenses, like Vivitar zooms?
I used to own a 35-105 zoom Nikkor f3.5-4.5. My experience with this lens
is:
- it may be OK for portraits if you want to include a little more than
just head and shoulders. The lens only focuses down to 1.4m (4.6ft). You
can turn the macro ring slightly and focus closer but the image quality
deteriorates apreciably.
- it is NOT a very sharp lens especially at large apertures which is OK
in the case of portraits but don't try to compare the image quality with
that of your 135mm which by the way would be my choice for portraits
together with your F model Nikon. If you want to use the 135mm with a
newer body and if it is an older Nikon lens and you want to take
advantage of the auto exposure, check with your local Nikon rep., some or
all of the older lenses can be modified (change the rear mount) so that
they can be used with auto exposure systems.
- the 35-105mm is subject to FLARE so always use a hood and small
apertures (otherwise it degrades the image quality badly) and watch out
for backlighted shots. I suspect you will see many of the same problems
with the 35-135mm.
- if you must have a zoom, consider spending a the extra money for the
more expensive 35-70 f3.5 (not the f3.3 to 4.5). I have been told it is
the way to go in Nikon zooms although I have not tried one.
- my experience with Vivitar is limited to an 80-200mm which optically
was a very acceptable lens but mechanically no lens in this category will
compare to a Nikkor (consider how long your other Nikon lenses have been
around).
Hope this helps. Cheers,
Jorge L. Olenewa
Gernamation Inc.
351 Steelcase Rd. West "What a way to come to California!!!!"
Markham, Ontario L3R 3W1
Jorge Olenewa
Would all of those people out there who said that they heard bad things
about the Nikon FE-2 from the pros please elaborate ? What do they say is
wrong with it ?
I own an FE-2 which has been pretty good to me so far. I am presently
buying an F3 and have considered selling the FE-2 and buying an FA but
the excessive amount of electronics on it, frankly turns me off.
I rarely use a camera on auto exposure mode; I shoot a lot of K64 and
bracket extensively; program mode on the FA has intrigued me for use in
"tricky" situations (???).
Do you know of any difference in the center-weighed exposure metering
system between the two (i.e.: is FA more accurate ?) disregarding of course
the AMP metering for this purpose.
I also own the following Nikkor lenses: 24mm f2, 50mm f1.4, 105mm f2.8
Micro and 180mm f2.8 ED.
Any comments on all of the above would be very much appreciated.
Cheers,
--
Jorge L. Olenewa
Mail: Genamation Inc. Phone: (416) 475-9434
351 Steelcase Rd. W
Markham, Ontario. UUCP:
Canada
L3R 3W1 {allegra,linus,ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!genat!jorge
Jordan Hayes
I own an FE-2 which has been pretty good to me so far. I am
presently buying an F3 and have considered selling the FE-2 and
buying an FA but the excessive amount of electronics on it,
frankly turns me off ... I rarely use a camera on auto exposure
mode; I shoot a lot of K64 and bracket extensively; program
mode on the FA has intrigued me for use in "tricky" situations.
If you "rarely use a camera on auto exposure" why do you have an
automatic camera ?!? Look, if you bought an FE-2 to use in manual mode
(which, somehow, I don't believe ...), you got sold some blue sky. I
have some land in Florida for you. Seriously, how can you justify using
an automagic camera mainly in manual mode? How can you justify trading
it in for an FA?
I'm SURE that if you shoot Kodachrome that you're going to bracket a
lot, especially if you wind up using auto mode ... that's a good way to
spend a lot of money. Better than bracketing "extensively", why don't
you save some money on film and buy yourself a good meter to find out
how to expose *correctly* ... note: this is not a dig on bracketing ...
I do so when needed, but if you're spending a lot of time (and money!)
bracketing, you're wasting a lot of both.
/jordan
{ucbvax,lll-crg,nike}!jordan
Jorge Olenewa
>
>With a 35-105 zoom, you can include the whole person if you wanted to!
>Besides 4.6ft is awful close for taking portraits 8-). The macro
>feature of any lens is not guranteed to work if only "enabled partially".
>
Of course, but, for classical "head and shoulders" portraits where all
you want to include is "head and shoulders", you will need to be able to
focus down to about 1m (3 ft.) with a 105mm lens check your numbers or
better yet, check your viewfinder 8-).
>I used my Nikon 35-105 zoom heavily in shooting slides for a multi-media
>show using two projectors, where precise focus and sharpness is a must
>(unless you want to make people squint 8-) ). I have never seen this
>defect with slides produced by others using this lens (I know of two
>others who used this lens). Fixed focal length vs. zoom lens sharpness
>is, I believe at this current date and time, a matter of debate.
I agree, this is a matter of debate. Now I do not have the exact numbers
and I do not mean to be "picky" (I have never run a resolution test) but
the 35-105mm will most certainly resolve less lines than the equivalent
fixed focus lenses and suffers from other problems too such as pincushion
distortion etc... In a multimedia show, two different things happen: a)
the resolution of slide projectors is usually infinitely better than
anything else such as Television (no matter how good the system) and since
the wide angle lenses for multiple projector systems are not that good
(truthfully speaking) regardless of how much they cost and considering the
interference from light levels, graininess of screen, etc., the difference
between slides taken with a variety of lenses is not going to be that
noticeable (granted that there may be exceptions).
The 35-70 Nikkor f3.5 is most definitely not a Series E lens (Series E
lenses do not carry the Nikkor name) check the prices!!!
>
>I bought this lens for the flexibility offered by the focal lengths, and
>because I wanted a good intermediate to wide angle lens. The focal lengths
>are also the most handy for my applications (I hate carrying alot of
>heavy glass 8-) ).
>
I think, and I am glad that we agree on most points. This was the
reason I bought the lens in the first place. I just was not satisfied
with the overall results and decided that fixed focus was the way to go
for my needs. Just as a sideline, I found out that these lenses sell
more than any other Nikon. Some pro's have purchased them and have had
problems such as flare, pincushion etc. Some are satisfied with what the
lens does anyway and decide to keep them, others don't keep them. I
guess it's a matter of personal choice.
Anyway, I hope other people on the net enjoyed this discussion as much as
I did and I hope someone finds it useful.
Jorge Olenewa
>In article <25...@genat.UUCP> jo...@genat.UUCP (Jorge Olenewa) writes:
>
> I own an FE-2 which has been pretty good to me so far. I am
> presently buying an F3 and have considered selling the FE-2 and
> buying an FA but the excessive amount of electronics on it,
> frankly turns me off ... I rarely use a camera on auto exposure
> mode; I shoot a lot of K64 and bracket extensively; program
> mode on the FA has intrigued me for use in "tricky" situations.
>
>If you "rarely use a camera on auto exposure" why do you have an
>automatic camera ?!? Look, if you bought an FE-2 to use in manual mode
>(which, somehow, I don't believe ...), you got sold some blue sky. I
>have some land in Florida for you. Seriously, how can you justify using
>an automagic camera mainly in manual mode? How can you justify trading
>it in for an FA?
Maybe, just maybe, you misread my questions, but here goes anyway.
First of all the FE-2 is not an "automagic" camera. It has an auto
exposure mode (aperture priority) and is in this sense, directly equivalent
to an F3. It does not have a "program" mode so I do not think this
makes it an automatic camera the way you seem to mean it. If you are an
experienced photographer hobbyist or pro, you probably understand the
advantage of having an auto exposure mode such as aperture priority AE
when you are shooting in situations where your bacground is fairly
constant and occupies either most of the frame or at least the center of
the frame in the case of Nikon's center weighed metering (see photometers
below). My reason for buying an FE-2 originally was (if you care to
know) that I did not think I would get serious enough for an F3 and
because of the large difference in the amount of information in the
viewfinder between that and any other Nikon product available at the
time.
>
>I'm SURE that if you shoot Kodachrome that you're going to bracket a
>lot, especially if you wind up using auto mode ... that's a good way to
>spend a lot of money. Better than bracketing "extensively", why don't
>you save some money on film and buy yourself a good meter to find out
>how to expose *correctly* ... note: this is not a dig on bracketing ...
>I do so when needed, but if you're spending a lot of time (and money!)
>bracketing, you're wasting a lot of both.
>
Now wait a minute there. How can I bracket a lot using auto mode?
Wouldn't the camera adjust the shutter speed automatically everytime I
changed the aperture? Surely you are not expecting me to be using the
exposure compensation dial to bracket, are you? It would probably take
me five minutes to shoot a single scene? 8-)
Conventional meters are OK if you are shooting people. Spot meters are
Grrreat if you are shooting complex and/or distant scenes. TTL meters do
an excellent job if you are prepared to learn how to use them properly.
And one of the first things I learned in Photography is that film is a
lot cheaper than a re-shoot (don't you agree?), besides what I meant by
bracketing extensively was shooting 2 or 3 frames for every frame that I
cannot be sure of the result. When I have time to think and examine the
image on the viewfinder, and I am shooting a stationary subject, that is
often the most bracketing I will do (photography is not an exact science
remember?). If you have learned to measure the quality of light and
colour any better than that you better start teaching because a lot of
will pay good money for that kind of knowledge. Conversely, what do you
do when you have to shoot fast? Again, film is cheeeep!
I am not going to get into exposure latitude here which is another reason
for bracketing no matter how good a meter you have (gray scales et al)
but I did not say I spent a lot of money or that I waste film.
Anyway I thank you for responding and once again hope others on the net
will find this informative and useful.
Jordan Hayes
How can I bracket a lot using auto mode? Wouldn't the camera
adjust the shutter speed automatically everytime I changed the
aperture? Surely you are not expecting me to be using the
exposure compensation dial to bracket, are you?
Uh ... yes. Or, alternatively, the "poor man's auto bracket" would
involve changing the EI of the film ...
The Nikon ec-thingy is about the best designed one I've seen (and I
hate them!) ... when, on occasion, I've needed (or been forced) to use
an FE or FE-2, I've found it to be very fast. If you're going to
bracket with an auto camera, that's what you've got to do.
/jordan
{nike,ucbvax,lll-crg,usenix}!jordan
Jorge Olenewa
I feel I owe you an apology since that paragraph was meant to be
sarcastic. As I had said in my original article, I seldom use my FE-2 in
auto mode, but......let's not start this all over again.
I completely agree with you on both counts that the Nikon ec-thingy is
the best designed and that I too hate using the blasted dial except when
using it for setting permanent under or over exposure for certain kinds
of film or scenery (e.g.: when shooting snowscapes). It is quicker and
simpler to use than changing the film speed dial.
On the whole, I hope you will give the FE-2 another (honest) try. Try to
learn about it's features, consider the accuracy of the info you get when
looking through the finder and experiment a bit with the center weighed
metering. I used to gripe about the same things you do until I decided
that it was worth learning more about them since I had already bought the
camera and was stuck with it (after all life is an experience isn't it?).
I am sure that you will not be disappointed.