The right camera
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thought about filters is a good one. It has happened to me too and I get much sharper pictures without on my 18-200VR. Amazing how many people will spend a fortune on a lens only to fit a filter that gives what is costs. Sadly, that is often near s*d all.
Doing your own sensor cleaning is something I am not prepared to do, as the risks are significant. A few simple precautions will help keep the problem down to such an extent that you should not really have to do it. I do think that all of this guff about dust removal systems on cameras is over egging the pud a bit. Great idea, but overdone by the marketing dept. to make you think that you can't survive without it.
1. Think about where you are going to change lenses. If it is full of dust or airborne matter, then don't do it. Find somewhere better.
2. Hold the camera face down while changing lenses.
3. Remember to clean the rear face of the lens and its surroundings with a blower or brush prior to affixing the lens. A lot of dust can get into the box this way, so plan for it.
4. Keep the camera in a bag when not in use. Dust gets everywhere and into the body through cardslots, battery doors and so on. If you get it into the viewfinder, then learn to live with it as it can be a major stripdown to get to it. Keep caps on sync sockets, remote sockets, etc. While you are at it, empty your camera bag every few months and remove toenail clippings, pet hairs and other FOD hazards
5. Even if dust is there, you will only really see it at certain apertures and you can easily clone it out with many software packages. Some, will let you map the dust and remove it automatically, though I have not used this method myself.
6. If little Timmy is within 6 feet of your precious equipment, then poke him in the eye. Even more so, if you are not sporting filters on the end of the lens. At least, that might make you feel more cheerful.
Conan
Doing your own sensor cleaning is something I am not prepared to do, as the risks are significant. A few simple precautions will help keep the problem down to such an extent that you should not really have to do it. I do think that all of this guff about dust removal systems on cameras is over egging the pud a bit. Great idea, but overdone by the marketing dept. to make you think that you can't survive without it.
1. Think about where you are going to change lenses. If it is full of dust or airborne matter, then don't do it. Find somewhere better.
2. Hold the camera face down while changing lenses.
3. Remember to clean the rear face of the lens and its surroundings with a blower or brush prior to affixing the lens. A lot of dust can get into the box this way, so plan for it.
4. Keep the camera in a bag when not in use. Dust gets everywhere and into the body through cardslots, battery doors and so on. If you get it into the viewfinder, then learn to live with it as it can be a major stripdown to get to it. Keep caps on sync sockets, remote sockets, etc. While you are at it, empty your camera bag every few months and remove toenail clippings, pet hairs and other FOD hazards
5. Even if dust is there, you will only really see it at certain apertures and you can easily clone it out with many software packages. Some, will let you map the dust and remove it automatically, though I have not used this method myself.
6. If little Timmy is within 6 feet of your precious equipment, then poke him in the eye. Even more so, if you are not sporting filters on the end of the lens. At least, that might make you feel more cheerful.
Conan
Interesting thought re the filters, I use a 'skylight' or circular polariser on 99% of my shots, and don't seem to get a problem. Yup a filter does give what it costs, mine seem to cost £
Regarding changing the lens CtL's comments are spot on, but he missed a vital one. Turn the camera off! Otherwise static electricity can attract dust and assorted s###e onto the sensor. I do take care when changing lens' but if you're sensible it can be done almost anywhere. About the only place I would hesitate to change a lens is in a dust storm, or after a significant change in heat/humidity. But I've changed in rain,fog and snow with no problems.
Regarding changing the lens CtL's comments are spot on, but he missed a vital one. Turn the camera off! Otherwise static electricity can attract dust and assorted s###e onto the sensor. I do take care when changing lens' but if you're sensible it can be done almost anywhere. About the only place I would hesitate to change a lens is in a dust storm, or after a significant change in heat/humidity. But I've changed in rain,fog and snow with no problems.
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice one Jump - You are so right - That one is something that I missed. I always do it as a natural process and only stopped to think when you wrote that :-)
Conan
Conan
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Croydon
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conan, if you consider it less risky for some minimum wage ex burger-flipper to do a sensor cleaning job that you could easily do yourself then I think you're chucking money away. The risks of cleaning your sensor are absolutely minimal and I've only heard of one problem that's happened from anyone doing their own cleaning (a mate knocked the power off whilst cleaning and trashed his shutter).
Lots of people have now realised that it's easy to do and you usually get better results than "professional" cleaning. The only time I've had a "professional" sensor clean done I had to send it back several times because it simply wasn't clean, much to the annoyance of the lab, but they were obviously happy to settle for a lower standard than I was. Every DSLR I've owned has come with factory installed dust so it's a simple fact of life to get the sensor wand out and give it a sweep. Using pre-made swabs is a waste of money, it's far more cost effective (and controllable) to use a spatula - see This site for instructions.
I took the Hoya Pro UV filters off all my lenses last year and I'm far happier with the results after doing so.
Lots of people have now realised that it's easy to do and you usually get better results than "professional" cleaning. The only time I've had a "professional" sensor clean done I had to send it back several times because it simply wasn't clean, much to the annoyance of the lab, but they were obviously happy to settle for a lower standard than I was. Every DSLR I've owned has come with factory installed dust so it's a simple fact of life to get the sensor wand out and give it a sweep. Using pre-made swabs is a waste of money, it's far more cost effective (and controllable) to use a spatula - see This site for instructions.
I took the Hoya Pro UV filters off all my lenses last year and I'm far happier with the results after doing so.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just don't even begin to worry about cleaning the sensor in your camera - it's really easy. Well, you're not really cleaning the sensor itself, simply cleaning dust off the glass in front of the sensor. Lehmans (a company recommended earlier) market a number of sensor cleaning devices with full instructions so no point in paying them, or Canon, £25 when you can do it yourself in 2 minutes flat (incidentally, Canon service centres in several other countries do this job for free). I've done it a good number of times in the past but my "L" lenses have a rubber gasket which presumably provides a more effective seal than my other lenses and dust has not been such a problem lately. I apply all of the tips above, even the "switching off" bit, although this has been effectively argued as unneccessary by techies elsewhere..
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know - but I still feel twitchy. I had a shutter fail in D200 number three and that was a pricey job indeed for Nikon to fix. (I was laughing - it was their camera) Mind you, in over two years, I have never had to have a sensor cleaned anyway 
Conan
Conan
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Suffolk
Age: 46
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to everyone for your advice, I am now a proud owner of;
Nikon D70s
Nikon Nikkor AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5~4.5G IF ED lens
Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro lens
and a load of accessories that will probably take me ages to work out what they do!!!
I'll keep you posted with the results!!
Rick
Nikon D70s
Nikon Nikkor AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5~4.5G IF ED lens
Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro lens
and a load of accessories that will probably take me ages to work out what they do!!!
I'll keep you posted with the results!!
Rick
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to everyone for your advice, I am now a proud owner of;
...and I have just bought a D200 and am now looking for gold-dust otherwise known as the Nikon AF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6G DX VR lens.
Canon EOS5 goes into retirement.
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your wait will be worth it. It isn't a bad lens and certainly useful for walkabout. Waited six weeks for mine and eventually got it for £479. The D200 certainly doesn't complain about it which is a lot more than can be said about many lenses.
Conan
PS Jessops have allegedly got into a bit of a tiz with Nikon this last few days and have withdrawn all D200s from sale, even though they might have stock. The lenses might be included in this embargo - I don't know.
Conan
PS Jessops have allegedly got into a bit of a tiz with Nikon this last few days and have withdrawn all D200s from sale, even though they might have stock. The lenses might be included in this embargo - I don't know.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 73
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a bit of a play with the Canon 100-400 but I feel it is not the lens for me. I would like to know the general feeling of using a "prime" lens for airshows etc. I use the camera for wildlife (mainly birds) and aircraft photos.
For the canon buffs.........for my 350D I was thinking of getting a Canon 300mm L f/4 IS USM which I tried and liked. if I add a 1.4 coverter it will give me 420mm and still keep all the auto functions but drop 1 stop. Adding a 2.0 converter you loose the auto focus. I was not that keen on the 400mm L although it would be a cheaper option.
All comments wellcomed!
For the canon buffs.........for my 350D I was thinking of getting a Canon 300mm L f/4 IS USM which I tried and liked. if I add a 1.4 coverter it will give me 420mm and still keep all the auto functions but drop 1 stop. Adding a 2.0 converter you loose the auto focus. I was not that keen on the 400mm L although it would be a cheaper option.
All comments wellcomed!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Croydon
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 400 f5.6 L is a very good lens and it's not a bad price. The 300 with a 1.4 extender will probably be a little more flexible although it's the more expensive option.
The 100-400 is a very capable lens if it's not used as a trombone.
The 100-400 is a very capable lens if it's not used as a trombone.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 73
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The 100-400 is a very capable lens if it's not used as a trombone"
Yes that was the one thing that worried me with the 100-400, when shortening the lense you could feel a little bit of air comming out of the battery and cf compartments, the salesman did not believe me until he tried it for himself. I dare say that can't be good for dust!
The 400's min focus distance is 3.5meters, where the 300's is 1.5meters which is a plus for some wild life shots. Also the 300 has IS (400 does not) which would be handy in certain situations.
I've never used a "prime" lens and would like to know how they are at taking shots at air displays.
Yes that was the one thing that worried me with the 100-400, when shortening the lense you could feel a little bit of air comming out of the battery and cf compartments, the salesman did not believe me until he tried it for himself. I dare say that can't be good for dust!
The 400's min focus distance is 3.5meters, where the 300's is 1.5meters which is a plus for some wild life shots. Also the 300 has IS (400 does not) which would be handy in certain situations.
I've never used a "prime" lens and would like to know how they are at taking shots at air displays.
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Primes can be wonderful at airshows, but the freedom to frame is either (a) Limited by fixed focal length in that the natural framing point is sometimes fixed to an area that suits the lens and not the display. With a good and powerful zoom, you pick that point of interest and also the best lighting, as it changes through the course of the day.(b) You can't get in close enough (unless your zoom is limited to that same focal length!)
Primes will nearly always offer better absolute quality though. A cheap prime will beat a cheap zoom and an expensive prime, will also beat an expensive zoom. Modern zoom lenses are fabulous, but their flexibility means a few compromises along the way. I think that we have to thank the peerless quality of primes for pushing the design and quality of zooms though.
You have to make your choices accordingly, but as a rule of thumb, lenses are happiest at mid everything - zoom and aperture - so juggle your options and see where the currves of affordability and expectation cross.
Conan
Primes will nearly always offer better absolute quality though. A cheap prime will beat a cheap zoom and an expensive prime, will also beat an expensive zoom. Modern zoom lenses are fabulous, but their flexibility means a few compromises along the way. I think that we have to thank the peerless quality of primes for pushing the design and quality of zooms though.
You have to make your choices accordingly, but as a rule of thumb, lenses are happiest at mid everything - zoom and aperture - so juggle your options and see where the currves of affordability and expectation cross.
Conan
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Suffolk
Age: 46
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone have any ideas why I am not getting a sharp picture useing the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro lens, every pictures seems blurred around the edges.
When I use the Nikkor 18-70mm lens, the pictures are alot sharper and crisper than the bigger lens.
When I use the Nikkor 18-70mm lens, the pictures are alot sharper and crisper than the bigger lens.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: up North
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would echo what Conan has said.
I have a basic rule of primes for statics and zoom for action but it by no means written in stone. Sometimes the limitation in viewpoint of static aircraft means awful framing with the primes that you may have to hand and the zoom is the better option.
When I moved over to medium format I was limited to three primes - zooms being way out of my price league. Airshow work proved the most frustrating and it brought home to me just how much a zoom is used - but it also showed me that zooms can make you lazy. Instead of moving around to frame a shot the temptation is simply to stand still and zoom to frame. A prime gets you thinking again and you start the old gray cells churning out thoughts about composition. You take far fewer shots because you spend more time in composition but you end up with a higher proportion of good ones.
Since this thread began I have also taken the plunge and bought, initially, a D50 with the probability of getting a D80 body. I am impressed with the camera and I think it was a good decision - I will certainly take more photos with it and that cannot be a bad thing. What I must accept is the loss of quality - there is just no way a digital image can compare to a 6 x 6 image taken with a first class prime lens in terms of quality. I don't expect it to either - different tools are used for different tasks. The D50 will give speed and versatility needed for aviation work, the Hasselblad can never be touched for landscape and portrait work.
Having said that there are, yet again, situations in which medium format scores over digital 35mm in aviation. For air to ground work 6 x 6 was superb and could be blown up to 4ft murals for display with little loss of detail. Enough though - we could discuss tools and specific application of them until the cows come home.
Am I pleased with the D50? Yes - and I'll be getting the D80 in the near future. I'll be using a zoom too as this will be apt for the use I will be putting to the camera. It won't replace the Hasselblad but it will be a very suitable complement to it.
I have a basic rule of primes for statics and zoom for action but it by no means written in stone. Sometimes the limitation in viewpoint of static aircraft means awful framing with the primes that you may have to hand and the zoom is the better option.
When I moved over to medium format I was limited to three primes - zooms being way out of my price league. Airshow work proved the most frustrating and it brought home to me just how much a zoom is used - but it also showed me that zooms can make you lazy. Instead of moving around to frame a shot the temptation is simply to stand still and zoom to frame. A prime gets you thinking again and you start the old gray cells churning out thoughts about composition. You take far fewer shots because you spend more time in composition but you end up with a higher proportion of good ones.
Since this thread began I have also taken the plunge and bought, initially, a D50 with the probability of getting a D80 body. I am impressed with the camera and I think it was a good decision - I will certainly take more photos with it and that cannot be a bad thing. What I must accept is the loss of quality - there is just no way a digital image can compare to a 6 x 6 image taken with a first class prime lens in terms of quality. I don't expect it to either - different tools are used for different tasks. The D50 will give speed and versatility needed for aviation work, the Hasselblad can never be touched for landscape and portrait work.
Having said that there are, yet again, situations in which medium format scores over digital 35mm in aviation. For air to ground work 6 x 6 was superb and could be blown up to 4ft murals for display with little loss of detail. Enough though - we could discuss tools and specific application of them until the cows come home.
Am I pleased with the D50? Yes - and I'll be getting the D80 in the near future. I'll be using a zoom too as this will be apt for the use I will be putting to the camera. It won't replace the Hasselblad but it will be a very suitable complement to it.
Oc, I have seen a few very tasty shots from the 400f4's, for the shots I've done where wildlife is concerned the wildlife doesnt seem to come particularly close, so if you're getting subjects closer than 3.5m you're quite lucky. The birdy on the previous page was taken at 400mm at about 10ft/3ish meters away which pretty much fills the frame, to give you an idea of what I get. Its a small UK garden bird, tip to tail its probably no more than 6 inches.
'A prime gets you thinking again and you start the old gray cells churning out thoughts about composition. You take far fewer shots because you spend more time in composition but you end up with a higher proportion of good ones.'
Absolutely true, you have to be prepared to 'miss' shots too, as you're stuck with what you've got. It is an excellent way to get your head round framing shots too. If you want to see what we mean, then set a zoom lens at the largest focal length or the smallest, and dont move it. Go and spend a day not touching it, (if you do, wash your hands afterwards), and it'll sharpen up your picture taking skills, especially composition, within the day!
Not been to an airshow for years, but when I did, I used to use the zooms pretty much as fixed telefotos. Haven't had the opportunity to use mine yet in that field.Mind you that was in the days of coalburners with no AF, and you had to take sacks of coal around, to fire them up. Tell that to the youf of today, drone drone drone......
'A prime gets you thinking again and you start the old gray cells churning out thoughts about composition. You take far fewer shots because you spend more time in composition but you end up with a higher proportion of good ones.'
Absolutely true, you have to be prepared to 'miss' shots too, as you're stuck with what you've got. It is an excellent way to get your head round framing shots too. If you want to see what we mean, then set a zoom lens at the largest focal length or the smallest, and dont move it. Go and spend a day not touching it, (if you do, wash your hands afterwards), and it'll sharpen up your picture taking skills, especially composition, within the day!
Not been to an airshow for years, but when I did, I used to use the zooms pretty much as fixed telefotos. Haven't had the opportunity to use mine yet in that field.Mind you that was in the days of coalburners with no AF, and you had to take sacks of coal around, to fire them up. Tell that to the youf of today, drone drone drone......
Last edited by jumpseater; 1st Oct 2006 at 23:38. Reason: edited to make sense, well, there was always going to be a first time.....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 73
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks everyone for your input, I think I'll do a little more research before I take the plunge.
I may revisit the 100-400 as a friend of mine does nothing but rave about it. Also I may consider the 70-200L f2.8 IS USM with an 1.4 ext., ideally I'd like up to 400mm but feel the 2.0 ext. may degrade the quality too much.......and of course my wife would have a fit if she knew the price!
Jumpseater..... I occasionally take shots of some of our native birds that are smaller than a sparrow from about 9ft, they are usually trying to hide in the local bush.
Thanks again!
I may revisit the 100-400 as a friend of mine does nothing but rave about it. Also I may consider the 70-200L f2.8 IS USM with an 1.4 ext., ideally I'd like up to 400mm but feel the 2.0 ext. may degrade the quality too much.......and of course my wife would have a fit if she knew the price!
Jumpseater..... I occasionally take shots of some of our native birds that are smaller than a sparrow from about 9ft, they are usually trying to hide in the local bush.
Thanks again!
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref, there will be some differences between lenses and sometimes marked. If you are shooting RAW or to a lesser extent JPG, then you can use a bit of Unsharp mask in your favourite editing program to bring it all back.
Sometimes, users of DSLRs get the feeling that their initial shots are maybe a bit flat, or lacking in saturation. This is actually not what it may seem! All it is, is that you now have complete control over the image in a way that isn't really possible with other cameras. Once you get your image into an editing package, you can really bring your shots to life and in your own way, not that chosen by the manufacturer.
You might find on the D70, that exposures sometimes seem a little dark. This is because the camera is trying to preserve the highlights rather than blow them out. Agaiin, you have complete ontrol here and can alter things as you see fit. I reckon the D70 comes out at about half a stop dark sometimes, but those highlights are precious - once you have lost them on a digital camera, they have gone forever - so the conservative approach pays dividends.
Conan
If you want to shoot straight out of the box with JPGs, then the myriad of controls in camera will get you what you need, although it might take a short time to get into the groove.
Sometimes, users of DSLRs get the feeling that their initial shots are maybe a bit flat, or lacking in saturation. This is actually not what it may seem! All it is, is that you now have complete control over the image in a way that isn't really possible with other cameras. Once you get your image into an editing package, you can really bring your shots to life and in your own way, not that chosen by the manufacturer.
You might find on the D70, that exposures sometimes seem a little dark. This is because the camera is trying to preserve the highlights rather than blow them out. Agaiin, you have complete ontrol here and can alter things as you see fit. I reckon the D70 comes out at about half a stop dark sometimes, but those highlights are precious - once you have lost them on a digital camera, they have gone forever - so the conservative approach pays dividends.
Conan
If you want to shoot straight out of the box with JPGs, then the myriad of controls in camera will get you what you need, although it might take a short time to get into the groove.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
I haven't read the entire thread but I'm in a similar position to the origonal poster.
I have used digital cameras obviously (who hasn't these days?) but I've stuck with 35mm far too long really. I eventually got the Pentax Spotmatic that I always wanted when the 35mm price dropped right down, but despite the brilliant optics, times had moved on and I realise now that it is a very very dated camera. In the past I have been a keen photographer, having owned several nice cameras and even getting into developing at one time. Now, however, I'm sold on the idea of a nice digital camera in the sub £500 range that will accept my old lenses. I have various, but my favourites are the Super Takumar 50mm and a Vivitar 500mm mirror. These are both 42mm threaded and the others are the same or Pentax K.
So? What would be your choice of camera to utilise these lenses?
Thanks in advance ... SS
I haven't read the entire thread but I'm in a similar position to the origonal poster.
I have used digital cameras obviously (who hasn't these days?) but I've stuck with 35mm far too long really. I eventually got the Pentax Spotmatic that I always wanted when the 35mm price dropped right down, but despite the brilliant optics, times had moved on and I realise now that it is a very very dated camera. In the past I have been a keen photographer, having owned several nice cameras and even getting into developing at one time. Now, however, I'm sold on the idea of a nice digital camera in the sub £500 range that will accept my old lenses. I have various, but my favourites are the Super Takumar 50mm and a Vivitar 500mm mirror. These are both 42mm threaded and the others are the same or Pentax K.
So? What would be your choice of camera to utilise these lenses?
Thanks in advance ... SS