Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[stevie]

That`s a nice price......a very nice price.

I`d advise going to the shop & actually handling the object before laying out money, like certain things...they sometimes don`t feel right in the hand.

As to lenses, the ones already mentioned, I could add a couple more...they are real cheap & likely not the best optically, but dependent on the distance away that the Birds are they may well be better.

They do a T-mount to suit the Sony, they are ALL manual (as in totally manual).

500mm prime....approx 800mm on the 230.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/500mm-f8-0-Lens-Nikon-D100-D70s-D70-D60-D50-D40X-D3-/390209226145?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item5ada4845a1

650-1300mm Zoom..... approx 1040-2080mm on the 230
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Falcon-650-1300mm-Sony-A900-A700-A350-A300-A200-New-/390209641217?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item5ada4e9b01

The above lenses aren`t the best, but they can get you up close & personal.

I`m a Canon man, always have been, but Minolta/Sony cameras are just as good.

One thing that can be a god send is a small bean bag..... I know... 

A bag filled with dried peas, place it on a wall/boulder/fence etc & wiggle the camera down onto/into it, works as an improvised tripod/support/steady takes up no room & weighs nowt.

You`ll not regret going DSLR...

[roseway]

Thanks Stevie. I'll keep those in mind for the future.

[tonyappuk]

I must be missing an obvious point (Happening more often every day!) but I'm not sure what the advantage is of SLR operation with a digital camera. Surely what you see on the screen and in the case of my old Olympus, through the viewfinder, is whatever image is focused on the light sensing cell including the changes in image size with zooming, i.e whatever you intend to photograph. There is no parallax and no inadvertent cropping which was the bane of non SLR photography in the past.

As I say I must be missing something but I know the resident experts will put me right sharpish!
Tony

[sevenlayermuddle]

Hi Tony,

If it's any consolation, I'm missing it too.

SLR stands for Single Lens Reflex, and the 'single lens' part of that acronym refers to the fact the viewfinder shares the same lens as the negative, allowing the viewfinder to be much more accurate, compared with non-SLR film cameras which had a separate lens for viewfinder and exposure.  Another advantage was that  the viewfinder's focus would match that of the negative, making it easier to focus.

Both of these advantages seem to evaporate with digital cameras however, as the LCD screen provides a perfect reflection of what will be captured, including its focus reliably.

When I challenged my sister on the matter, she replied that SLRs can accept different lenses.  But I see no reason why a non-SLR camera shoudn't also have interchangeable lenses (old non-SLR film cameras did).  I also know that SLRs tend to have larger sensors, which will improve quality.  But I see no reason why a non-SLR camera shouldn't simply have a large sensor fitted too?

Somebody will enlighten us, I'm sure....

- 7LM

^{edit:  originally suggested that compacts could halve large sensors, but it they did, they wouldn't be 'compact'.  I meant 'non-SLR', not compact.}

[tuftedduck]

@ tonyappuk.

There is, as you say, no parallax or cropping problems when using a film camera lens on a didgcam and of course you do get what you see through the viewfinder ( given that most budget slrs only show about 95% or so of what you will finish up with because of their slightly undersized viewfinders

However, two factors come into play.
The first is the difference in area size between a frame of film and the sensor in a digicam.........the second is the difference in distance between the rear element of a lens on a film camera and the same lens on a digicam when measured from the film plane and the from the sensor.

The two combined mean that a film lens on a digicam offers a different range of focal lengths, in that it is extended by a factor of , typically, 1.5.

So, a lens designed for a film camera with a focal range of 70-300mm will, on a digicam, offer a range of 105-450mm.

That is fine for, say, photographing birds as you have an effectively longer lens to pull in those distant or small items.........but it does mean of course that you lose the wide end capability......widest now 105mm and not 70mm

The other snag about the film lens on a digicam combo is that aperture by aperture it alters the depth of field properties............you have same size apertures on a different size focal range which alters the ratio between the two and thus confuses your carefully calculated D-O-F properties, meaning that if you set f8 you will actually be working at something like f9.5

The upside of this camera-lens combo is that the sensor will be receiving light only from the central "sweet spot" in the lens which allows you to use the extremes of the aperture range without having the same concerns of edge fall off.

Lenses made specifically for digicams are of course adjusted by design and you do not get these various factors.

edit to add...oops, 7lm posted when I wasn't looking.. ........will be back on that in a mo.

[tuftedduck]

@ 7LM

SLR..........single lens reflex

This description came in fifty years when the slr replaced, in popularity stakes, the traditional old workhorse....the TLR or twin lens reflex, which had one lens for viewing and composing and a second for allowing the light onto the film.

Both of these cameras were reflexes as they had mirrors in them that reflected the light coming through the lens onto the viewing glass....the Fresnel screen.
The downside of the TLR was that when viewed on the Fresnel screen , the image was inverted both horizontally and vertically.......further, as you were using two lenses there was a distinct problem with parallax, especially when working at close distances.

These problems were eliminated in the late 1960s by the Takumara company in Japan who invented the pentaprism....a five sided prism housed in the hump on top of slrs ..........and also invented the moving mirror inside the camera body.

This combo allowed the light to enter via the lens, hit the mirror and then be reflected up through the Fresnel screen and into the pentaprism where the horizontal and vertical inversion was corrected and the light then passed through the viewfinder into the eye in the correct orientation.
As you then fired the shutter, the mirror was flipped up and out of the way, allowing the light to pass straight though onto the film plane.

You thus got on film ( or get on sensor) exactly what you saw through through the viewfinder........parallax was a thing of the past and precise composition was a doddle.

By the way.......as I say, that system was invented by the Takumara corporation who built the first slr with a pentaprism........it was called the Takumara Pentaprism Camera...later restyled as the PentaTakumar.........later shortened to Pentak...........later and finally renamed Pentax, as it still is.

The sensors on digital cameras are getting bigger, both in terms of physical size and of pixel count or resolution

Some non-slr digital cameras will accept interchangeable lens...the better quality "bridge" camers will.........but as yet they are pricey and the available range of lenses and focal lengths are as yet a little restricted. No doubt advances will be made on both fronts.

[tonyappuk]

Thanks for your usual clear exposition, TD.  It would seem to me that only extremely keen/professional photographers with an existing collection of expensive lenses would be at a disadvantage. Even they would surely have in their collection a suitable alternative lens if they needed a wide angle shot. The depth of field change is real of course but the difference is small and for the experts is relatively easy to calculate and allow for.  As a long time very amateur photographer I'll stick with me didgy!
Tony

[tuftedduck]

I think the amateur will be the ones with the problem, tonyappuk, those guys who tote around huge bags full of umpteen lenses and who are forever swopping and changing as subjects appear and disappear. Converting a whole bunch of film lenses to digi. ones must be an expensive business. 
Most professionals carry very few lenses, one, two three maybe depending on their particular discipline...........and those usually attached to their own unique bodies. They will for sure equip themselves with the correct combos.

The d-o-f ..........I tend to agree with you. That little variance on a long lens will be meaningless ( on my 600mm a move of up to three stops will not alter d-o-f sufficiently to be noticed by the naked eye). Different matter altogether on a macro lens, however, where the factor could become critical .
I only mentioned that point in case any less experienced snappers were wondering about it.

[roseway]

I used to know one of those enthusiasts, a chap I used to work with. Seemingly every other week he would proudly show us his latest whizz-bang lens, but strangely he never seemed to take any photographs. Then one day he surprised us all by inviting us into his office to show us some photographs. But it turned out that they were photos of his cameras and lenses.

[tuftedduck]

 

[tonyappuk]

 

[sevenlayermuddle]

Thanks for the explanations, TD.

It's nice to see reference to 'depth of field'.  Last time I saw that expression used, in 'What Hi-Fi', they seemed to have re-invented it to somehow be a measure of picture-quality on flat screen TVs.  Good to know there are still a few who understand.

I'm tempted by a digital SLR, as I like good things, but I'll probably resist.  In film days, I always argued that a range-finder was better anyway (unbeatable for focus in poor light), and I lived with one in preference to an SLR for well over 30 years.  Then again, I was a school-kid when I bough it in '71 and couldn't afford an SLR, so maybe I'm just finding excuses.

I used to know one of those enthusiasts, a chap I used to work with. Seemingly every other week he would proudly show us his latest whizz-bang lens, but strangely he never seemed to take any photographs. Then one day he surprised us all by inviting us into his office to show us some photographs. But it turned out that they were photos of his cameras and lenses.

[tuftedduck]

Aaahh, rangefinders.........beautiful cameras, I have an Leica one which still gets used.

You can, of course, now get digital rangefinders....Leica do one.......but they do tend to be pricey.

[roseway]

I used to have a Russian copy of a Leica rangefinder. I've no real idea what its quality was, but it was fun to use.

[tuftedduck]

Would that have ben either a FED or a Zorki ?

If a Zorki, the lens on that was reputed, at the time, to the most optically perfect camera lens ever produced. Some say it was developed specifically for use by spies when employed to copy documents........who knows if that is correct..