Questions and answers

m102486 said:
Whats a nice old mechanical Film SLR, I'm Planning to buy one. I've searched the web many say that Nikkon's F2 or F3 is really nice? Any suggestions or experiences with old mechanical Film SLRs? :)
Click to expand...

Agree with what everyone else has said. The technology is obviously superseeded so it isn't as important which brand/model you get, rather the condition. Get one that you like the feel of and that is in good nick.

Buying from a reputable shop is a good idea, obviously. They should be able to help you check it out and should even let you put a roll of film through it before you buy. As for lenses, open them up, hold them up to the light and look for any fungus, dirt etc and check that the aperture leaves move smoothly through each f stop.

Another option is to buy a big kit that someone is selling all at once, you can get some decent bargains that way.

Having said all that, I used my old man's Canon AE1 for some time and can say it's a pretty tough old unit.

Edit: I forgot to mention light seals. Where the camera back seals against the body. If they need replacing a good shop will replace them before re-selling, otherwise that's a good reason to put a roll of film through - to check for light leaks.
 
Last edited:
vikiradTG2007 said:
Any tips for landscape photography during a cloudy and dark day? In terms of aperture, shutter speed, ISO...
Click to expand...

Low ISO, small aperture (big number) and shutter speed to correspond. Really, there isn't possible to say what you should use. Try and try again.

:)
 
hansvonaxion said:
Agree with what everyone else has said. The technology is obviously superseeded so it isn't as important which brand/model you get, rather the condition. Get one that you like the feel of and that is in good nick.

Buying from a reputable shop is a good idea, obviously. They should be able to help you check it out and should even let you put a roll of film through it before you buy. As for lenses, open them up, hold them up to the light and look for any fungus, dirt etc and check that the aperture leaves move smoothly through each f stop.

Another option is to buy a big kit that someone is selling all at once, you can get some decent bargains that way.

Having said all that, I used my old man's Canon AE1 for some time and can say it's a pretty tough old unit.

Edit: I forgot to mention light seals. Where the camera back seals against the body. If they need replacing a good shop will replace them before re-selling, otherwise that's a good reason to put a roll of film through - to check for light leaks.
Click to expand...

I tried the AE1, my friend also has 1, it is a good camera. maybe I'll get the same one. I was a bit disappointed at the prices the shops were selling other better cameras like the Nikon F2 at all most 200 dollars( too expensive, I think) but it was fun camera hunting. I'm taking my time to look for a bargain haha. :)
 
How would you go about recreating the old-camera effect such as in this picture:

0176Dec_5.jpg


There's got to be a way to do something similar in photoshop.
 
try playing with curves and contrast for the "whiteness"
as far as the noise/scratches etc, the filters won't give you quite that effect, better to try and find something white with similar marks and scan it, then add it as a multiply layer over the top of your original
 
Browsing the net for lenses, I kinda came across a question I can't really answer from the top of my head. I have asked google and browsed forums, but I haven't found a definitive answer yet:

Does a full-format lens have a different focal length on a crop-format camera?

The question came up when I stumbled over a lens suitable for full-format sensor cameras. Combined with the knowledge that such a lens has a different focal length on a full format camera, I asked myself whether it will "lengthen" when I put it on my DX-sensored Nikon?
 
Last edited:
No, it doesn't. What is different is that the full format lens has a different field of view, ie. how much of your surroundings get in the shot, on full frame and crop.

For instance, if you buy a Canon 50/1.8 II, that is a full frame lens. All lenses marked 'EF' are full frame lenses in the world of Canon. If you put it on a Canon XSi, you will get the field of view of an 80mm lens on full frame.

This is because the smaller sensor uses a smaller area of the lens circle, and we have what's called crop factors to get an idea of the differences. Canon APS-C uses a crop factor of 1.6x, Canon APS-H (The Canon 1D series) uses a crop factor of 1.3x. Nikon, Sony and Pentax APS-C uses 1.5x, Sigma uses something like 1.73x or something (not sure at all) and fourthirds (Oly, Panasonic) uses 2.0x.

The focal lenght does not change.
 
The actual focal length doesn't change, but the effective focal length and field of view do. The "effective focal length" is the focal length that would be required to achieve the same field of view on a 35mm frame.

Eg.: 50mm on a Nikon DX (crop frame) is an effective 75mm (same field of view as 75mm on an FX/film camera).
 
Yeah, I'm kind of getting there right now. I haven't embraced the concept completely yet, but I think time will make me understand. Thanks! :)

EDIT: okay, let me rephrase. I'm interested in the Sigma 150-500mm at some time in the future. This lens is good for film format sensors. So if I put it on my 1.5 crop camera, will the effective field of view be the same as a lens solely suitable for crop cameras that only does 100-333?

EDIT #2: here's what I'm talking about. The following text is taken out of a review of the Sigma 100-300mm f/4.0 lens, which is suitable for film format cameras:
Sigma has a vast number of tele zoom lenses in their lineup but the Sigma AF 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM APO DG is a bit special here because it has something of a "consensus" lens. Apart from positive test results out there and here in PZ it is fairly frequently mentioned in forums as an viable option when it comes to suggesting an affordable, yet reasonably fast and high quality tele zoom lens. Nonetheless it doesn't really sit in an overly popular niche because it is flanked by faster xx-200mm f/2.8 and longer xxx-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lenses or in other words: it is not really fast enough for portraits and yet not long enough for wildlife photography. However, the latter may not be true when using the lens on APS-C DSLRs where the field of view is equivalent to 150-450mm - during the film era many photographers would have lusted after such a lens. At around 1000 EUR/US$ it isn't exactly cheap anymore but it remains within reach of many amateurs.
Click to expand...
Are they wrong? Or am I just stupid?
 
Last edited:
No, it's field of view will be like a 225-750mm on film.

Another point of interest is that the smaller sensor in effect gives you more DOF. It's not the sensor doing so, it's what the sensor forces you to do with the lens.

DOF is an equation that comes from three factors. Focal length, aperture and focal distance, i.e. how close you are to what's in focus. With a cropped sensor, you need to go further back than you would with a 50mm lens on a full frame camera.

As you get less DOF when you get closer (macro photographers usually struggle to get enough DOF), this means more DOF, given that the other factors are the same. :)
 
Damn, I still can't wrap my head around this! :?

Now my brain hurts! :blowup:

EDIT: okay, I think my question is this: when the manufacturer of the lens says 150-500mm, do the numbers relate to a full format sensor? And if so, are lenses for crop sensors classed the same?
 
Last edited:
To simply answer your questions: yes and yes. Pretty much every DSLR in the market is based on the 35mm film format, where the "full frame" is 36mm x 24mm. To avoid confusion with the smaller sensors, all of the lenses have their focal length markings based on what the focal length would be on a full frame or film camera, so you can calculate the effective focal length / field of view based on the camera / sensor that you're going to use.

Canon example: a 28-70mm zoom.
Full frame (5D, 1Ds): 28-70mm
"Semi-crop" 1.3x (1D): 36.4-91mm
"Full-crop" 1.6x (consumer models): 44.8-112mm

Nikon example: a 28-70mm zoom.
Full frame (D3, D700): 28-70mm
Crop bodies 1.5x (D40, D90, D300 etc.): 42-105mm

Doesn't matter if the lenses are crop lenses (Nikon DX, Canon EF-S, Sigma DC etc.) or not, the focal lengths are still the same even though the lens itself is "cropped" for a smaller sensor. A Sigma 10-20mm would be a 10-20mm lens if it worked properly on a full frame camera, but since it's only meant for crop cameras, it gives 16-32mm on a Canon 1.6x body and 15-30mm on a Nikon 1.5x body.
 
So given I use a crop-only 50-150mm lens and a full-format 150-500mm lens, they will fit together perfectly at the 150mm end? The only "disadvantage" will be that I do not fully use the 150-500 on my crop camera, so I'm wasting a fair bit of money and hurl around a lens that's bigger and heavier that it would need to be for me? And according to that, why are there no smaller and cheaper telezooms for crop cameras?
 
Umm, the 50-150 is exactly that: a smaller and cheaper telezoom for crop cameras. It's basically the equivalent of the popular 70-200mm telezoom on full frame cameras, because with the 1.5x crop the 50-150mm has the field of view of a 75-225mm lens.

And what makes you think you're not fully using your 150-500mm tele? With the smaller field of view on the 1.5x crop sensor, you're basically getting a 225-750mm superdupertele.
 
Raparperi said:
And what makes you think you're not fully using your 150-500mm tele? With the smaller field of view on the 1.5x crop sensor, you're basically getting a 225-750mm superdupertele.
Click to expand...
My idea when saying this was that if Sigma were to make a 150-500 as a crop-only-lens, it would be smaller, lighter and cheaper. And since my sensor will only ever see the center of the lens elements, it technically could be smaller, lighter and cheaper for my purposes. If it would be a 150-500 crop-lens, it would still represent a 225-750mm tele for a full frame in theory.

Also, the longest crop-tele I found was the Nikkor 70-300mm.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the Nikkor 70-300mm (any version of it) isn't a crop tele, they all work on full frame as well.

And the reason for so few specialized crop tele lenses might be that there's not enough market for them. 70-200mm is basically the shortest and most widely used tele zoom and it's "crop equivalent" is the 50-150mm (or 50-135mm to be exact), and making longer crop equivalent lenses than that is basically pointless, because you can just move on to the longer full frame lenses, which already exist.

For example, if you wanted roughly the 150-500mm equivalent but in a smaller size, you'd just get the 70-300mm which gives you 70-300 x 1.5 = 105-450mm which in my book is close enough. Smaller size, smaller price and even the apertures are larger.
 
Yeah, but 400+ Euros is a bit too much for a piece of plastics. Then, I'd rather spend more and get a proper lens. Maybe the Sigma 120-400, being inbetween?

Also, I am confused again. If the 70-300 becomes a 105-450, doesn't the 150-500 become a 225-750 on my crop cam? The idea is this: I want the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 behind my Tamron 17-50 2.8. But 150 just ain't enough, so I will need something longer. Also, I was thinking of "lengthening" the 50-150 with a teleconverter. I think I'm gonna go with the 50-150 2.8 for now and get a longer lens when I actually need it.

EDIT: Anyway, I think I understand this now. All focal lengths are in reference to a film format camera. On a crop camera, their length is multiplied by the crop factor. But since they all are multiplied, it doesn't matter whether is is a crop-only or a full-format lens, als their focal lengths relative to each other remain the same. The only difference to a full format lens is that the crop lens will give you black corners when you put it on a full format camera. Thanks guys, giving +rep if I can! :)
 
Last edited:
the Interceptor said:
My idea when saying this was that if Sigma were to make a 150-500 as a crop-only-lens, it would be smaller, lighter and cheaper. And since my sensor will only ever see the center of the lens elements, it technically could be smaller, lighter and cheaper for my purposes.
Click to expand...

The "S" in EF-S stands for "short back focus", which means that the rear element of the lens is closer to the image sensor than on regular 35 mm SLR cameras. The proximity of the rear element to the image sensor greatly enhances the possibilities for wide angle and very wide angle lens, enabling them to be made smaller, lighter (containing less glass), faster (larger aperture) and less expensive. Most current Canon EF-S lenses are wide angle.
Click to expand...

The advantages are found at the wide end.
 
epp_b said:
Another weather question: I'll be going on a trip soon to the mid-east United States near the coast where it is very humid. It will be a short trip, probably less than three days. What can I do to make sure it doesn't cause any damage in the form of mold, mildew, condensation, etc. to my D40 and lenses?

I'll be in an air conditioned building when I'm not outside.
Click to expand...

you'll be fine IMO, the number of times ive gone from winter outdoors then into a swimming pool with my camera is many....each time my lenses and stuff have fogged over. just gotta leave em out to warm up then they are fine.

also i've had my kit on boats, hanging off boats getting splashed, hanging out of cars, standing in the surf etc etc without much in the way of water proofing (tesco carrier bag elastic banded to the lens barrel) ... all is well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top