The first one has a deep perception of Depth, (a wide distance range of in or near in focus) therefor wide-angle lens, the 2nd a narrow perception of Depth, a very narrow focus range, therefor telescopic lens???? Did you paint the fence between shots? My compact is taking much more impressive close-by protraits than my SLR
^^^ thats the case with mine. But then my minimum focal length is 18mm (on the slr) ..... assuming you mean 'close up' macro shots
Nearly - you're confusing perspective and depth of field. Lets start with perspective; ignore what's in focus and what isn't for now. You'll notice from the two JD shots that although the bottle is the same size, the first shot includes a lot more of the background since you're shooting much closer with a wide angle. Wide angles are known to exaggerate or expand perspective; often making for more dramatic shots. The shot with the tele lens on the other hand has the opposite effect - very little of the background included in the photo; this is known as compressed perspective, and happens because the field of view of a tele lens is much less than a wide angle. On to depth if field; this refers to the "depth" of the subject that's in focus, and is basically dependant on the aperture size being used (F number), your distance from the subject, the sensor size and the focal lenth of the lens and (we'll not worry too much about the last two for now). The larger the depth of field, the more will be in focus in front and behind the subject. A deep depth of field is often desirable for landscapes and architecture etc, where you want everything in focus. This requires a small aperture (large f/ number) such as f/16. Conversely, a shallow depth of field is desirable for portrait shots, where the out of focus background helps to emphasise the subject and isolate them from their surroundings. For this you might use anything between f/1.2 and f/4. Regardless of aperture, the closer you are to your subject, the shallower the depth of field will be. Think that about covers it; I'm sure our learned frind N/B will pull me up on any errors lol, I think the difference in fence colour is because the first shot underexposed (on account of the snow in shot) and I had to pull the levels up a bit in photoshop. What makes the shots with your compact better than the SLR? Is it because more is in focus? Because of their larger sensors SLRs give much shallower depth of field than compacts, so perhaps you're not quit nailing the focus and that's putting you off. Oh yeah, thanks for the other shots - now I finally know what that blue bit of plastic with all the holes that came with my breadboard is for The amount of magnification you can get for macro doesn't really correlate with focal length alone.. minimum focal distance also plays a big part. A good cheap way into macro is with extension tubes on your existing lens. These allow you to focus much closer. I got a decent set off ebay from Hong Kong for about 60; not quite as conveinient as a proper macro lens, but much cheaper
For the 5D, I use the following: EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM (absolute Swiss-Army Knife of a lens, and the 17-40mm f4L is almost as good for half the price) EF 35mm f2 (very cheap, very small and just sharp enough - perfect reportage lens) EF 50mm f1.4 USM (vastly superior to the all-plastic 50mm f1.8, and still cheap) EF 85mm f1.2L II USM (I hire this often, it's a jewel but the new Zeiss 85mm f1.4 Planar looks like an amazing prospect) EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM (one of Canon's biggest bargains, mark my words) Rangefinders are an acquired taste and tbh they rule out a good few 'types' of photography even with interchangeable lenses (Leica/Contax G/Voigtlander) - for example, Macro and Telephoto, motor-driven Action and anything requiring high-speed Flash sync. However, what they do give you is the ideal personal travel camera. Unobtrusive, small and very very quiet. Because the aperture blades are 'stopped down' all the time, manufacturers can make very compact fast prime lenses. On fixed-lens rangefinders like my Canon and the original Konica Hexar, the shutter action is so light that you can hand-hold the camera down to ludicrously low shutter-speeds. Of course, as the high-ISO performance of full-frame DSLRs improves, this becomes more of a moot point, but the cameras are growing in size, and many people still don't like carrying around a camera even the size of a 5D, let alone a 1Ds-series. As for the FD-Mount Canons; Aside from the frankly awesome T90, they have aged very very badly indeed in comparison to Nikon - the used lens market is tiny, and the glass simply isn't as good as Nikon AI-S series prime lenses. Bodies suffer from squeaky shutters, and they simply can't match Nikon. In short, if you ever feel the urge to get an MF 35mm film SLR, buy a Nikon FM/FM2/FM3A, FE/FE2, or F3/F3HP. Or, can if you find one for sensible money, keep your eye out for the sublime Contax S2b. The Zeiss glass that goes with it is truly exemplary, and not as expensive as you'd think.
Thanks for your persistance in trying to explain this Mike. I still can't get my head round it, will give it more thought when less tired tho. Although i believe that my 18 - 55 lens doesn't vary the perception of depth that much, so it's not that important (Yet ). I need to concentrate on the white-balance and composition. Although i don't learn much from the P mode on the camera.....You only vary the exposure, but the exact combination of shutter time, apperture is determined by the camera. It's difficult to know when to use the flash too, it seems you get sharper photos with, even if there is enough natural light to do without. I can't image trying to learn how to use an SLR with 35mm I think my compact was doing better inside upto 1m distance with the flash, i was using the SLR without, which was probably a fault.
Sounds like some nice glass - I also have a 35/2 amongst other things, as well as a 50/1.8 (although the earlier one that's similar in build to the 35mm). Think the entry level primes are excellent value for money. I bet the 16-35 is great on a 5D, although it's not particularly useful on a crop body unfortunately. One of the things that draws me to full frame is the avalability of fast wide angle lenses. I love what the 85L is capable of on full frame bodies; can see why it's the stuff of legends I hear the 100 macro is a great lens as well.. would have one if I had the money - currently using tubes on the 50mm. I was considering a 100/2 a while ago but lack of funds put an end to that.. I can certainly see the appeal of rangefinders but definitely think SLRs are a more rounded tool; would love to have a go at some street stuff with one at some point though. How do you find you get on with the effects of the offset viewfinder etc? I wasn't aware that MF Nikons were so much better - I'll certainly bear that in mind should I feel the urge for something classic. Suppose Nikon or Zeiss glass could be used with my DSLR with an adaptor as well, should I feel the need Not to worry - sure it'll come with time, fiddling and a bit of learning on the interweb You're right about the 18-55; you should still see a fair bit of difference though - why not try it for yourself? As for the settings, try having a go on aperture priority (Av) - you set the aperture and the camera determines the shutter speed. Many find this the most versitle setting for most stuff. Although it's good to get white balance spot on to start with, it's no big thing as you can correct it afterwards if you shoot RAW.. composition and style should come with practice and experimentation. Unfortunately I find that my logical and decidedly un-creative head just resorts to the thirds rule all the time Flash photos often tend to look sharper for some reason. When not using flash are you following the 1/(1.5*f) rule for shutter speed? This is a basic rule of thumb to avoid shakey shots - shutter speed should be no less than 1 divided by 1.5 times the focal length; for example a 50mm lens would require a minimum shutter speed of 1/(1.5*50)=1/80 sec. Flash can be handy but usually only when it's a decent one bounced off a reflector, wall or ceiling; on camera flashes tend to give very stark images with lots of shadow. Aaaanyway, I'll shut up now and let you get on with it
SLRs are indeed much more versatile systems, but I don't like taking pro SLRs on holiday, or day trips. Feels like I never get a day off. To me, a good Rangefinder is a luxury object, my 'private' camera. It only does a few things, but does them very well - for example, the 21mm Distagon lens for the Contax G will forever outperform virtually every SLR wide prime because the rear lens element can get so much closer to the film plane. Fuji have exploited this for years with the GX617, and the Mamiya 6 & 7 remain rvery very desirable cameras for those wanting to use wider lenses. The parallax thing doesn't bother me as I'm usually on a 40mm (Canon) or 45mm (Contax G2) lens and mostly shoot things that are at least 15 feet away from me. The 'casual' nature of the camera, typically vague viewfinder markings (see pic below) and the fact you're shooting 35mm film (that you might not bother processing for a month) all contributes to pictures that don't rely on ultra-critical framing. Another wonderful type of camera that allows for similar behaviour is the Medium-Format TLR. I had a Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar years ago, it was lovely. Whisper-quiet shutter, and the most midtones you'll ever see in your life. Downside was that solid blacks and clean whites were only possible with really hard Flash. Low-contrast Zeiss (Pre-T*) lenses at their best. Lastly, bear in mind that using 'foreign'-mount lenses (with adaptors) on your DSLR will slow its operation down to an utter crawl. Manual Focus is fine, but manually stopping down for both metering and exposure is tiresome, and quickly rules out many types of photograph. It's discussed endlessly on amateur forums and lens-testing sites, but I can honestly say I've never known a pro to even bother doing it. Shame, as I'd love a 25mm Zeiss Distagon for my 5D.
Love that viewfinder image I can see the old skool appeal of a rangefinder for casual stuff if you're used to using an SLR for work - would certainly be a chore lugging a 1 series camera about for family snaps. Conversely, I try and take my SLR everywhere I'd like a compact for shooting parties etc but am too attached to the shallow depth of field and low light performance of the SLR. So with pretty standard lenses the parallax issue isnt too bad? I suppose it's not like you're hanging a 400mm lens off the end and chasing wildlife. I've not had any experience of medium format, I can see the appeal but I'm too much of a lover of conveinience tbh. Sounds like it has a similar charm to rangefinders and other older gear.. while modern stuff is great at what it does, it can be a bit clinical. I hear you on the foreign lenses.. I'm aware of the drawbacks and agree that they'll certainly limit practicality, but the avalability of fast, relatively cheap glass is still appealing though.
Happy with the D40 Thinking of investing in a new lens tho. I would like to get better low light without flash photos than my 18 -55mm F3.5 - 5.6 gives me. I was up the school a while back and this burd (pro) had a 5D with a large ??? lens, she could get much better (normal) photos than me. With any reasonable shutter speed (for the action) my photos were dark, hers were normal. So i've been considering these 50mm lenses: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018af.htm F1.8 130 quid, no AF on D40 or this: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f18.htm F1.8 200 quid AF on D40 or this: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4_n15/ no AF on D40 F1.4 200 quid, no AF on D40 or this: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/ F1.4 300 quid, AF on D40 But would like to know what you guys think? Cheers Mark
There's probably many more options too, like this: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_35_1p8g_n15/ 35mm F1.8, does AF on D40. i dunno
I bought the F1.8 50mm lens (130) and it's excellent. I used it on my D70 and now my D300 and cannot fault it for the money. (However, it's my only prime lens and I sometimes forget there's no zoom!) It makes a good head and shoulders portrait lens and at F1.8 is good at blurring backgrounds. I wouldn't like to have manual only focus, but that is a decision only you can make. The F1.4 lens is faster, but a lot more bucks for that extra speed.
And so the bug has bitten - from this day forward you'll probably find a crack habit would be cheaper
I think anything less than the sigma's gonna be compromise where can i get one cheap? in a shop, in Kent prefrably? It's a shame when an old nikkor with manual focus and apperture is dirt cheap, but pretty much the same quality. The good thing about the good lenses seems to be that you don't loose much on them when you want to sell, and they can be used on newer cameras
Depends what you want it for, you will probably find you want to go wider with both of thise, why not have a look at this: http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1020682
I've got the 18 -55 Nikon kit lens, what i want is better low light performance, which is why i'm considering f1.4's and 1.8's, f2.8 doesn't seem like much of a step forward.... I am prepared to give up zoom ease, for better low-light performance. The two can't be combined, from what i read into the specs.....
IMO a well balanced kitbag should have (amongst other things) a decent standard zoom for the majority of work and a selection of primes for low light. A 50/1.8 is certainly a good cheap way to get into primes
