Having fun with my "other" lenses on my D70

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Sheldon, Jan 29, 2005.

  1. Sheldon

    Sheldon Guest

    Even though I have to use my older Nikon lenses in Manual mode, it's really
    nice to be able and reach out and touch someone. The 80 to 200 works great,
    and the single control for focus and zoom is always a nice touch. And my
    500 mirror is now a 750! Pretty incredible. Can't wait to get my other
    lenses back from the guy who's converting them to AI so I can use those,
    too. I'll have a 55 micro to play with, and an 85 1.8. I got the 28mm
    converted, too, but that one is definitely lame compared to the rest.

    I still need to learn how to work with RAW images and make them "pop."
    Someone here recommended a Web site that takes a RAW image from start to
    finish. Pretty amazing what you can accomplish when you look at the
    original image compared to the finished product.
     
    Sheldon, Jan 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sheldon

    Ed Ruf Guest

    Thom Hogan's D70 eBook does this with Capture.
     
    Ed Ruf, Jan 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Can you repost the like?

    Thanks
     
    Robert R Kircher, Jr., Jan 29, 2005
    #3
  4. Sheldon

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    It's still 500mm, but a crop that would be the angle of view of a 750mm
    lens on a full-35mm-frame camera.
    I am not as easily impressed, as I know that the comparison has a lot to
    do with the limitations of the lens, and the capture medium. After all,
    the crop lowers the number of lines that can be resolved in the focal
    plane. If your crop is a 1.5x factor, then the resolution, in terms of
    lines per fraction of the picture, is divided by 1.5 in the center of
    the image. Also, if you had a lower-res DSLR, like one of the 2.7MP
    Nikons, you are still going to get less subject detail than if you shot
    with the same lens on a film camera with hig-res film, or a full-frame
    DSLR with a much smaller pixel spacing (like the 1Ds mkII).
    --
     
    JPS, Jan 29, 2005
    #4
  5. Sheldon

    Alan Browne Guest

    Getting "pop" from a photo has more to do with light and exposure at shoot time
    than manipulation in photoshop. The best caught photos need the least manipulation.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 29, 2005
    #5
  6. Sheldon

    Sheldon Guest

    manipulation.

    That I'm aware of. Garbage in. Garbage out.
     
    Sheldon, Jan 29, 2005
    #6
  7. Sheldon

    Sheldon Guest

    Sheldon, Jan 30, 2005
    #7
  8. Sheldon

    Sheldon Guest

    Yes, I understand that. But, the illusion is still impressive. :)

    Is it safe to assume that the distortion is exactly the same regarding focal
    length whether you use a digital with a multiplication factor or a 35? For
    example, many would consider a 105mm the perfect portrait lens. Therefore,
    is the distortion factor, or lack of it, the same whether there is a
    multiplication factor or not? In other words, is a 105 still the perfect
    portrait lens on a DSLR, assuming you thought it was the perfect lens on a
    35mm camera?
     
    Sheldon, Jan 30, 2005
    #8
  9. Sheldon

    Sheldon Guest

    Yes, I finally went out and did some shooting today. Realized I went a bit
    too far with my exposures, assuming what I was getting in the display was
    what I would see on my computer. I'll figure it out. At least my mistakes
    don't cost me film and processing.
     
    Sheldon, Jan 30, 2005
    #9
  10. Sheldon

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    No.

    It's the lens-to-subject distance that creates the big noses and such.

    If your nose is six feet from your lens, then your ears might be 6.4
    feet from the camera. Not much difference in magnification. If your
    nose is .4 feet from the lens, then your ears are .8 feet from the
    camera; twice as far away, so the nose looks big.

    What concerns you hear is the angle of view; 70mm will give the same
    angle with a 1.5x-crop-DSLR as a 105mm on a 35mm camera, so that is what
    you'd use.
    --
     
    JPS, Jan 30, 2005
    #10
  11. Sheldon

    JPS Guest

    In message <>, I,
    All those references to "camera" should be "lens".
    --
     
    JPS, Jan 30, 2005
    #11
  12. Sheldon

    Ken Tough Guest

    I'd thought the same (until I noticed all the fungus inside. Oh the
    penalties of living in the tropics).

    How do you typically meter in Manual? (I'm talking about non-AI)
    Do you use the histogram and take a few test shots? What's the
    advantage of AI, does that give the camera aperature feedback/control?
     
    Ken Tough, Jan 30, 2005
    #12
  13. Sheldon

    Sheldon Guest

    I think AI stand for Automatic Indexing. Early lenses have an aperture ring
    that reaches beyond the lens mount, making it impossible to use on the D70.
    Metering was done by linking the aperture ring to the camera with a tab and
    pin. Later lenses and cameras did away with this by notching the aperture
    ring to link to the camera, and doing away with the tab sticking up on the
    ring. It's those notches that work around the components sticking out on
    the lens mount on the D70, and is the reason you can't use pre AI lenses on
    the camera. Even though an AI lens will physically fit and work on the D70,
    it will not connect to the metering system in any way (no CPU in the lens to
    link to the camera). Shutter speed is set in the camera and aperture is
    controlled by turning the aperture ring on the lens. Unfortunately, the
    depth of field preview does not work at all.

    As for metering, you can either set the ISO and transfer the general
    exposure you get from your AF lenses, or I just use an external light meter.
    Just like the good old days, the hand-held meter works just fine. I
    normally use an older Sekonic attached to one of those retractable keychains
    that clip on your belt. For difficult situations I use a higher-end
    Sekonic. At least if you're off you don't have to wait for the processing
    to see it.
     
    Sheldon, Jan 30, 2005
    #13
  14. Sheldon

    Sheldon Guest

    I get it. :)

    --

    Sheldon



     
    Sheldon, Jan 31, 2005
    #14
  15. Sheldon

    paul Guest


    True but I always seem to be shooting in low light, hand held in the
    field and post-processing lets me recover shots to a usable quality that
    would have been simply impossible otherwise. Counting on good lighting
    is ideal but not always a physical possibility.

    Meanwhile I'm working on learning to expose correctly <grin>.

    Usually the default contrast & sharpening with jpeg is going to be just
    right, sometimes it'll ruin an image. Using RAW lets you decide but it
    is a whole lot of work. jpegs with all the adjustments turned off are
    very bland (like a blurry brown murk filter was used) for most real
    world lighting conditions so there are normally adjustments made to make
    the pics pop in-camera. If you relied on perfect lighting & no
    adjustments, jpeg fine could do a very reasonable job but if you want to
    adjust, RAW certainly gives more control.

    It's certainly fair to say you'd rather be selective about only shooting
    ideal lighting and taking the time to expose perfectly than spend a
    bunch of time in front of the computer. Personally I'm on the go in the
    field and enjoy tinkering at home though adjusting all manually is too much.

    An ideal workflow would be to shoot in RAW and batch versions unadjusted
    and auto-contrast... scroll through those & choose the best and for the
    rare ones than need more work, go back to the RAW to manually adjust.
     
    paul, Jan 31, 2005
    #15
  16. Sheldon

    Alan Browne Guest

    Shooting in low light does not prevent correct exposure. Relying on the
    camera's meter can be misleading. Tripod and cable release are essential. Use
    the histogram to adjust the exposure such that the histogram does not have much
    in the way of 'wasted' bins on the right. Low ISO if possible with longer exposure.
    To reitterate, low lighting is not "bad" lighting, it just requires the
    appropriate exposure. DSLR's give you very fast feedback on the exposure.

    Go in your backyard on moonlit night and you can take photos of flowers that
    look quite nice. Tripod and time is all it takes.

    An ideal workflow would be no workflow! It would be nice if everything came out
    of the camera requiring nothing more than a crop and size to print...

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 1, 2005
    #16
  17. Sheldon

    paul Guest


    I'm out bushwhacking in the brush at dusk with a friend & no time to set
    up a tripod. I'm talking hand held.


    High contrast in the shadows with a bright sky is bad lighting. I'm out
    photographing plants and cannot wait till the sun changes. I'm not
    necesesarily looking for good photo opportunities but looking for rare
    plants and need to shoot them where they are and move on.


    I'd rather adjust than return another time of day when lighting is ideal
    or carry a tripod. This is another reason for me to get a faster lens.

    Also RAW files always need some adjustment. They look awful without at
    least deault contrast enhancement. Even pretty blue skys and sunlit
    landscapes look muddy.
     
    paul, Feb 1, 2005
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.