[uneet]

Originally Posted by thelightening

Guys, Nikon d3100 for 29999Rs or Canon 550D for 35999Rs , which will be the best buy? I am novice and would like to seek advice from experts

550d is a better camera. If you have the budget than go for this only.

[honeybee]

Originally Posted by Aroy

You are prime candidate for older manual focus Telephotos. Browse KEH for pre owned lenses. Here are some.
Nikon Manual Focus 300 F2.8 ED INTERNAL FOCUS AIS (122/39 DROP-IN)(BUILT IN HOOD) WITH CAPS 35MM SLR MANUAL FOCUS TELEPHOTO LENS - KEH.com
Nikon Manual Focus 300 F2.8 ED INTERNAL FOCUS AIS (122/39 DROP-IN)(BUILT IN HOOD) WITH CAPS 35MM SLR MANUAL FOCUS TELEPHOTO LENS - KEH.com
Nikon Manual Focus 600 F4 ED INTERNAL FOCUS AIS (39) (BUILT-IN HOOD) WITH HOOD EXT, CAPS, CASE, 35MM SLR MANUAL FOCUS SUPER TELEPHOTO LENS - KEH.com

By the way, as the focal length increase, the speed decreases and the cost increase. If you want a fast lense say 400mm/F2.8 it would cost as much as a 600mm/F4.

I understand that, however I have no idea what would be an indicative price range. I got my camera for Rs. 7000, including a Vivitar hot-shoe mounting flash. Quite a decent piece for indoor photos. The lens is short zoom, though I don't remember the exact focal lengths. It's good enough for portraits at close up distances, or indoor photography.

Would you say about 2K to 3K would be a good price for a lens that has the same speed but around 1.5x to 2x zoom?

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by honeybee

I understand that, however I have no idea what would be an indicative price range. I got my camera for Rs. 7000, including a Vivitar hot-shoe mounting flash. Quite a decent piece for indoor photos. The lens is short zoom, though I don't remember the exact focal lengths. It's good enough for portraits at close up distances, or indoor photography.

Would you say about 2K to 3K would be a good price for a lens that has the same speed but around 1.5x to 2x zoom?

If you require a telephoto lenses, avoid zooms. They are slower and more expensive. Further most of the wild life shots, require the longest lense you have (even then you rarely get the image in full frame), hence not much utility for a zoom. Where it covers, the Nikon 70-300 zoom is excellent lense, beyond that a prime telephoto.

[honeybee]

The distances (for the monkeys at least) that I am talking about are about 10-20 feet. With my existing lens, I can't get a good close up of a baby monkey in its mother's lap from about 20 feet. If I could get it using a tele zoom at f3.5 I guess I am getting what I want.

With a zoom I won't have to carry two lenses. Also if I am not able to get a good enough frame, I won't have much leeway in changing the distance between the camera and the subject. With a prime tele I shall still have to carry my short zoom.

So though a prime tele will be better and also cheaper, I am willing to sacrifice some of it to get the flexibility of not having to move around.

Any idea on indicative prices? I shall be hunting for the lens at some of the camera repair shops, so knowing a ballpark would be helpful.

And I shall still remember your advice. If I do get to pick up a prime tele, I shall give it serious thought.

[shajufx]

Honeybee (are you a fan of that brand ? ), your question and answers here are going in two different directions I feel. Are we not talking about your Film SLR and a tele lens that can come handy within 3 to 4k ? As of today, I dont know anybody seriously shooting wild life or birds with a 35mm format cam.

First of all you will need DX body to get the benefit of so called 70-300 and such lenses. Secondly there are no tele primes that come within 1 lakh (used). Getting the face shot of monkeys etc you will need atleast a 400mm to start with, unless you have some hypnotic powers to call them near the cam and make them smile for you Probably the question is not that clear about what you want and in what budget. May be that could be clarified first.

[honeybee]

Let me recap my posts here, to clarify once and for all what exactly I need and how much I am willing to pay for it:

I have a Nikon FE 35mm SLR with a short zoom and a Vivitar flash with Auto Thyristor (with a rotating head). This equipment cost me INR 7,000/- last year. The camera body is older than me and I guess the lens and flash aren't much younger. Going by the build, condition and working, I expect they will still be useful to my grandkids provided 35mm film is available then.

My requirement is I want to fill the frame with a closeup of a monkey's face from about 10 feet distance. I am sorry if that sounds blunt, but that's the best I can put it.

I would prefer a zoom over a prime because I won't want to move myself around. I obviously can't order the monkeys around either.

My budget is approximately 2K, stretchable under certain conditions.

Now, before the advent of the digital camera, I believe people shot wildlife or birds with 35mm cameras, so I don't see why I can't do it.

If I got the whole equipment at 7K, and as film cameras have already gone out of fashion, I have reason to believe there will be tele zoom lenses lying around with people who want to sell them off just to get rid of them. So I believe my budget is realistic.

I hope I am clear now.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by honeybee

...Now, before the advent of the digital camera, I believe people shot wildlife or birds with 35mm cameras, so I don't see why I can't do it.....If I got the whole equipment at 7K, and as film cameras have already gone out of fashion, I have reason to believe there will be tele zoom lenses lying around with people who want to sell them off just to get rid of them. So I believe my budget is realistic.

Off course you are more than clear. Before someone pick up on that point let me clear what I meant. My point is not the possibility or impossibility of 35mm film camera for birding or wildlife. Its about the cost of doing it. Digital cameras use continuous shots for birds in flight or animals on the move. You can delete what you dont want, you can also recompose better or even do lot of things on the field itself. Film you will not know whats the outcome until you get a print and its expensive on a regular go. Old lenses are not that cheap as you think, there are many lenses that still work very well with latest digital cams, and they sell like treasures these days. If you find some old lenses that are 1.8 or 2.8, let me also know, I am searching for a 20mm f/2.8D and not lucky to find someone selling it. Bodies have gone outdated but lenses last like a lifetime. Open to correction if there is any non-sense in what I posted. I dont want to misguide someone in any form.

[honeybee]

No, it's not mis-guidance, but I see a haste in people for writing off the older, mechanical cameras. Don't take it personally, as when I shopped for my camera, almost everyone I talked to had the same opinion. Even the photographer from whom I bought the Nikon. However given a choice I would stick with the Nikon FE than buy a digital camera.

The only difference between the Nikon FE and a modern digital camera is probably the film. The photographer from whom I bought the camera has a motor drive, which allows continuous shooting of a few frames. It's like a short burst of three to five frames. And I am not looking to capture flying birds or jumping monkeys, so it still doesn't matter to me.

For me, it's basically a choice between better photographs vs better photographer. I choose the latter. The way I am learning photography (by making mistakes and even at the cost of losing frames) I don't think I would have paid as much attention to it had it been a digital camera.

.

[amitk26]

Honeybee ,

Since you have a Nikon Film Camera with F mount the lenses are still useful for Nikon DSLRs so there is no reason for a fast tele lens to go ultra cheap like the Camera and Kit lens you got. You could have expected that in case of Canon FD mount film camera though as the lenes do not fit on Canon EOS mount.

Modern 70-300 Tamron / Sigma lenses fit your need and budget but they will not fit the cam you have because they do not have aperture ring and aperture is set using electrical contacts.

Secondly you can not use old M42/ OM / PK or other mount lens on Nikon becuase they will not focus to infinity so ruled out for tele usecase.

However your requirements do not seem to be too demanding so any Nikon F mount 300 mm lens with manual aperture setting will work. But these are hard to find and will not be at throwaway price.

My suggestion would be that instead of spending big money on manual aperture lens in F mount save the money and buy a DSLR body at low budget.

Check your PM for a suggestion

Amit

[typeOnegative]

@Honeybee, a while back I had seen a 300mm Soligor made for Nikon film cameras - on eBay. Reviews of that lens were good. Please check though eBay as well.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

Oh k, is it due to the 'curvature' of the front element of the lens? Anyways, will borrow one and try it out, before buying. Thank you guys!

No, it isnt due to curvature.
ITs due to the unfortunate fact that we have something called a sun lighting the sky, and when you have just one sun, unlike tatooine, certain areas of the sky at 90 degrees from the sun will have maximum polarization.

So when you shoot with UWA and polarizer you will get part of your sky ink blue, part nice blue, and part dirty non polarized blue.

On certain times of the day you will see an ink blue band running in the skies.

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

Oh k, is it due to the 'curvature' of the front element of the lens? Anyways, will borrow one and try it out, before buying. Thank you guys!

Not really due to curvature.........

Think of lens`s AOV being larger than polariser`s polarised band...

Just check this image. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/imag...-polarizer.jpg

With a normal lens, the darker blue will be spread evenly all around but being UWA, it has more in frame and as such banding appears.

Originally Posted by shajufx

Prasad, we are one family here, if you feel offended about my comment, its quiet normal and makes it clear that we all are vulnerable human beings. But here we are trying to share and take whatever benefits to our daily life each other.

So, I kneel beg and request your forgiveness for all the non-sense I have caused or going to cause, take it easy, life is short, dont hide your treasures, but share them all !

If I can put my $0.02 worth, prasad mentioning Aus prices is pretty good. Reason being consumers in Aus get the lucky chance to pay almost twice for what a person in US will pay. for example, D3x had a US launch price of 8K while AUS launch price was 13K, including conversion and shipping and 5yr platinum Mack warranty would still cost less than 10K AUD to get one from US. I paid $4200 AUD for my D700 about 6 months back. I can get same from US for about $2300 AUD but I was able to claim it all on tax so no issues for that.

Now you mentioned Grey prices in India being on par with US grey prices, well prices in AUS are still cheaper, that doesn't make sense. US grey prices should be almost half of what cameras/lenses are being sold in AUS.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

No, it isnt due to curvature.
ITs due to the unfortunate fact that we have something called a sun lighting the sky, and when you have just one sun, unlike tatooine, certain areas of the sky at 90 degrees from the sun will have maximum polarization.

So when you shoot with UWA and polarizer you will get part of your sky ink blue, part nice blue, and part dirty non polarized blue.

On certain times of the day you will see an ink blue band running in the skies.

Sorry to be rude but it has nothing to do with UWA lenses, as the blue band seen by eyes will also appear without CPL and on normal lenses.

Would love to be proven wrong though.

[amitk26]

Ok thanks a lot Tanveer and Rajib I just dropped the idea of picking CPL for my Sigma 10 20 , I searched some more about banding on net and reason seems to be similar to what TSK has written.

But who cares for reason when I am happy that I saved a big chunk considering that 77 CPL ranges from 4.5K to 10K .

I got the lens in my hands today , took some indoor shots and one thing I could notice is that at F4.0 this lens needs much more light then Canon Kit lens even if I bring shutter to 1/8 it is lot less bright then kit lens at F3.5 - 5.6.

Now I need to learn to use this lens because using it first time was too awkward.

About the prices and countries well I think we should discuss more on photography and less on gear and it's price.

[typeOnegative]

Originally Posted by typeOnegative

@Honeybee, a while back I had seen a 300mm Soligor made for Nikon film cameras - on eBay. Reviews of that lens were good. Please check though eBay as well.

I do not think it is present on eBay anymore. I was interested in picking this up, but got to know that it would not sit on my DSLR.

[lucifer1881]

I am posting this thread with the intention of sharing with fellow photography enthusiasts my reasons for not shooting RAW anymore. I realise that RAW vs. JPEG is as vociferous an online debate as film vs. digital.

Unlike most photography novices who took to the hobby in the last two years or so I started with film. One fine day as I was walking down RP Road, Secunderabad I came across a photography shop. On an impulse I walked in. The man there asked me what I was looking for. Having no clue, and not wanting to sound like an idiot, I said I was looking for a film SLR. To this day, I have no clue why I said that. Perhaps I did not wish to actually spend money buying anything so I asked for the one thing that I thought would not be available.

I was wrong. The man stocked very decent used film SLRs. I picked up the Canon 50N for Rs. 5000 including a 28-80mm lens with Hoya UV filter, batteries and the camera case. And thus began my foray into photography.

Over the next year and few months I got to know my camera. Read guides for dummies. Most of my pictures sucked. Well, they did not suck at the time but now when I look back at them I know they suck. But I was definitely getting better. Getting the hang of framing and composition. Fiddling with the different settings on the camera and making notes of the settings to make a study when the prints finally arrived. I was getting there. Yeah, I was getting there.

9 months ago, I convinced my wife to fund my DSLR purchase. I bought the Canon 1000D, the cheapest DSLR money could buy. I stuck with Canon since I was used to the Canon metering system courtesy the film camera. Also, any lenses I would invest in would work on the film camera as well.

So it went on for a few months. I fiddled around with my camera. Learnt a few things. Shot in RAW almost exclusively and spent an inordinately insane amount of time post-processing the RAW and converting it to JPEG. About a month or so ago, I was finally comfortable with the camera. I had a fairly decent idea of the kind of pictures I would get with my camera for a given set of conditions. I was also quite familiar with White Balance, something I had greatest trouble trying to get the hang of.

Over time I realised that all this business of post processing for simple things like converting to JPEG or adjusting white balance was simply taking too much time. Surely there was a better way of doing this all. And that is when I stumbled upon the holy grail of photography – get it right in-camera.

It is an easy concept to understand. But mighty tough to implement. The advantage is clear – you get more time to do what you love doing, which is taking photographs, instead of spending all that time on your computer adjusting white balance or saturation. Great pictures are not made on the computer. They are made by being out there clicking.

When this simple truth dawned upon me, I made a decision. To never shoot RAW again. When you shoot RAW, the temptation to be slightly lazy while shooting is too great. There is always this thing playing at the back of your mind that even if the shot is not perfect, it can still be improved in post. RAW lets you recover a stop or two, or change the white balance. So you may not always set your camera up properly when you shoot.

My Ooty trip was the first major expedition where I completely shot in JPEG. I paid attention to camera settings, especially white balance, saturation and exposure. I clicked almost 1000 shots. 601 of them turned out to be keepers. I deleted the rest. I never had such a huge hit rate with RAW.

Yes, one swallow does not a summer make. But this is a good beginning. By forcing myself to pay attention while shooting, I not only shot more but I also shot better. I have posted quite a few pictures of Ooty on this forum on my Ooty travelogue thread. Except for re-sizing and copyright information, there is no post processing. And for that I used a batch processing program.

I will be honest. Saving time in post was not my original intention when I moved to JPEG. It was disk space. I have a 250 GB drive out of which my photographs occupy 37 GB. On an average, I add 2 GB of photographs each fortnight. Each RAW image is almost 10 MB in size. The jpegs are less than half that. The space savings are huge. Also, I can shoot that much more on the memory card before I fill it up. Needing to change memory cards often may make you miss those photo moments. For example, a 2GB card would let me shoot about 140 RAW images before it ran out. Now I can shoot almost 300. I got a 4 GB card recently and that lets me shoot upto 800 jpegs at a time. When I am on a road trip, or on a jungle safari this is a bonus.

Yes, there are some images which do need post-processing. But those are few and far between. Besides, I have realised that with most photo editing software you can do almost everything with a jpeg image that you can do with the RAW format, even white balance adjustments.

RAW has yet another problem. Each camera manufacturer as its own RAW format. Nikon’s RAW may not open with Canon’s DPP software and vice-versa. That is not it. Proprietary file formats do not get long-term support. How many of us today can actually open a file created by the Lotus spreadsheet application? Or a Wordstar file? 15 years ago, these were the applications of choice. Who is to guarantee that 15 years from now I will still be able to see .CR2 (Canon’s current RAW format) files? If I cannot see my images, then I might as well not shoot them.

There is one reason one may still wish to shoot RAW – redundancy. There is always a back-up in case your jpegs get corrupt. There is a way of managing that too. Store your in-camera jpegs in a different location. Make copies of them when you post-process. Better still, make the folder of your in-camera jpegs read-only. So there is no way you can actually edit any of its contents.

Digital RAW is not really RAW, is it? 10 MP RAW will remain 10 MP RAW. In the next few years, 15-20 MP cameras will become common. 10 MP RAW cannot get better than 10 MP. If you want true RAW, shoot film. A 35mm film has resolution comparable to 25-30 MP. As scanning equipments improve, you can always re-scan your negatives and get better resolution images. If you want even more resolution, shoot 4x5 film. But that is a debate for another thread.

I would very much like to hear what my fellow photo enthusiasts have to say on this.