mccamy@topcat.DEC (09/28/84)
From: "...decvax!decwrl!rhea!Topcat!McCamy" Merrimack, New Hampshire From: ROLL::USENET "USENET Newsgroup Distributor" 28-SEP-1984 01:19 To: TOPCAT::MCCAMY Subj: USENET net.rec.photo newsgroup articles >I'm looking to buy a 35mm camera. Being low on funds (~$200), >I'd like to get the most for the least. >I would appreciate any suggestions on brands and models. In >particular, I would like to keep in mind expansion, versatility, features. There are a lot of good cameras on the market. In fact any one of the well known imports will have excellent quality. So don't worry about quality. You should spend your time getting familiar with camera features. The object is to get the features you want at the lowest price. Also look at accessories that are available for the camera. Some questions you may want to be aware of include: Am I a snapshot photographer or am I going to be doing more serious shooting. - In the $100 range are some good, simple 35mm cameras that allow you to take 35mm pictures with the same simplicity as a Kodak instamatic. This kind of camera is not flexible enough for a more serious photographer. Questions for the more serious photographer: Will I be happy with the match-needle metering system? - Cameras with this system run in the low $100 range. They are somewhat of a hassle to use, but they are less expensive. They will provide a lot of flexibilty. They usually will be compatible with nearly all of the camera accessories made by the manufacturer. Will I be happy with a camera that has only a shutter-priority metering system, or has only an aperature-priority metering system? - These cameras start at about $150. - Shutter-priority means this: You set the shutter speed and then the camera will automatically set the correct aperature. This is nice for the person who thinks in terms of shutter speeds instead of aperature settings (like me). - Aperature-prority means this: You set the aperature and then the camera automatically sets the shutter speed. This is nice for the person who thinks of "depth-of-field" rather than shutter-speed. - This is a personal choice. Will I be happy with a camera that has the "program" feature? _ In addition to having either shutter-priority or aperature-priority metering systems, (some cameras have both!), these cameras also have a program mode. In this mode the camera will pick both the shutter speed and the aperature automatically. This is real nice if you're shooting quickly and the lighting conditions are changing quickly. It's also nice if you feel lazy and don't want to hassle with camera settings. The program mode does not assure perfect pictures every time. It has it's limitations, but as long as you are aware of this, you can overcome these limitations rather easily. _ You can put these cameras in complete manual mode so you have complete control over the aperature and shutter speed. - These cameras start at about $200. Do I need a shutter speed faster than 1000/th of a second? - Most 35mm cameras have 1000/th of a second. - Some have up to a 4000/th of a second. This is useful for the faster films coming out. If you like shooting fast scenes (sporting events), you may want more than a 1000/th of a second. I frankly believe a 1000/th of a second will capture just about anything you want. Other things you may or may not be interested in: - Depth-of-view preview. - Timer. - Easily changeable focusing plane (usually a feature on the more expensive cameras). - Placement of control knobs, buttons, etc. Are they conveniently placed? - There are a number of different lens mounts. The screw-in kind are a real hassle, the bayonet mount is the quickest & easiest. I own a Canon AE-1 Program camera and I love it. It has shutter-priority, program mode, and manual mode. It costs about $200. Cheaper if you look around. I would probably love any of the name brand program mode cameras, they're all very good. As any pro will tell you, it's not the equipment you use, but how you use it. The more expensive cameras usually just make getting there a little easier and more reliable.
art@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/02/86)
I believe that Im in the market for a new 35 mm camera. I own an Nikon F and 3 lenses (28, 50, 135 mm), and an external meter. Im signed up for a portrait photograph class and plan to go for two weeks to a photogenic country. Im considering buying Nikon because I liked them. The cameras under consideration are the FG 20 or N2000 body, the lenses are 35-105 zoom or 35-135 zoom. Does anybody out there have experience, + or -, with these parts? How about experience with cheaper lenses, like Vivitar zooms? Thanks Love this free advice I can get without leaving my home. Arthur Goldberg 3680-D Boelter Hall UCLA Computer Science Department LA, Ca. 9024 (213) 825-2864 / 820-6081 art@ucla-cs
SofPasuk@imagen.UUCP (Munach Rvi'i) (03/05/86)
> I believe that Im in the market for a new 35 mm camera. I own > an Nikon F and 3 lenses (28, 50, 135 mm), and an external meter. > > Im signed up for a portrait photograph class and plan to go for > two weeks to a photogenic country. Im considering buying Nikon > because I liked them. The cameras under consideration are the FG 20 > or N2000 body, the lenses are 35-105 zoom or 35-135 zoom. > > Does anybody out there have experience, + or -, with these parts? > How about experience with cheaper lenses, like Vivitar zooms? > Thanks > > Love this free advice I can get without leaving my home. > > Arthur Goldberg > 3680-D Boelter Hall > UCLA Computer Science Department > LA, Ca. 9024 > (213) 825-2864 / 820-6081 > art@ucla-cs Why don't you just use what you've got? Excellent camera body and lenses. Unless the camera body was not working and the estimated repair expense was over $100, I'd recommend that you use your current equipment !!!!!!!!!!!! The most important hardware for your upcoming class stands BEHIND the camera! To answer your question more specifically, if you have older Nikon lenses, they will require a retrofit job on the mount to work with newer Nikon camera bodies in automatic mode. If you have REALLY OLD lenses (before 1968), Nikon may not be able to do the retrofit, although there are several companies that do a very good custom retrofit job. (I have had such work done both by Nikon and others - old lenses are great with new bodies when I needed ADDITIONAL camera bodies!)
andyc@hplsla.UUCP (andyc) (03/06/86)
># Written 10:37 am Mar 2, 1986 by ucla-cs!art in hplsla:net.rec.photo ># ---------- "Buying a 35 mm camera" ---------- > >...because I liked them. The cameras under consideration are the FG 20 >or N2000 body, the lenses are 35-105 zoom or 35-135 zoom. > >Does anybody out there have experience, + or -, with these parts? >How about experience with cheaper lenses, like Vivitar zooms? As I am heavily invested in the Nikon system, with a very reliable "old" FE and more lenses than I care to mention, I regret to say that the pros I know have had very bad things to say about the FE-2, the FM-2 and they snort at the FG-20. The word is that the F3 and FA are the only models worthy of consideration! Some people have found the Vivitar Series I lenses to be very fine optically, but I still prefer the "feel" of a Nikkor. Also, I have heard several stories of Vivitars (and Kirons) jamming and/or falling apart. Keep in mind all these is hearsay! Personally, I find the clunk the mirror in the FG-20 makes when it returns to be quite objectionable. I haven't gotten my hands on a N2000 to say much about it. andy @hplsla ****the opinions expressed in here are solely those of the author****
chuck@adiron.UUCP (Chuck Ferrara) (03/07/86)
As far as your query about zoom lenses, I own a Vivitar Series 1 28 - 90/2.8 and have been very pleased with the sharpness. I used it on top of Mt. Washington with Kodachrome 25 on a crisp, clear day , last winter and as far as I could tell, the grain of the film is the only limiting factor on the sharpness. If you plan on traveling to some urban areas on your trip, you should consider a focal length below the 35mm. you mentioned, because there won't be anywhere to step back if you want to get more into your pictures. Here are a list of other things you might want to consider about this particular lens: 1) Are you planning to use it in low light situations? If so, this is definitelythe lens for you. If not, an f/3.5 lens is a little slower, but a lot lighter. 2) If you like to use polarizers, you MUST buy a thin model (Tiffen makes a good one for $30) or you will experience severe vignetting problems at 28 mm. 3) Buy a metal screw on lens cap. I busted 2 filters before I got one. It's a heavy lens (1.5 lbs.) , which means it has a tendency to bang around harder and jar snap on lens caps loose. 4) Only the sturdiest tripods can support it's weight. 5) You'll definitely look like a tourist if you carry this monster on your camera. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Ferrara PAR Microsystems UUCP: decvax\!mcnc\!duke\!adiron 220 Seneca Tpk.(Rt. 5) (315) 738-0600 (ext. 676) New Hartford, NY 13413
jordan@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu (Jordan Hayes) (03/08/86)
In article <9540@ucla-cs.ARPA> art@ucla-cs.UUCP writes: >Im signed up for a portrait photograph class and plan to go for >two weeks to a photogenic country. Im considering buying Nikon >because I liked them. The cameras under consideration are the FG 20 >or N2000 body, the lenses are 35-105 zoom or 35-135 zoom. Zooks. You have an F and are gonna get an N2000? That camera is a toy, and those lenses are seriously entry-level crud. You know, though, Nikon has gone to pot. They are moving NPS from San Francisco to LA, and will not be putting another pro camera out to replace the F-3 ... the pro services they supply are all going towards still video. ED-IF lenses will continue to be excelent, though ... /jordan
jordan@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu (Jordan Hayes) (03/09/86)
In article <9900001@hplsla.UUCP> andyc@hplsla.UUCP (andyc) writes: > >As I am heavily invested in the Nikon system, with a very reliable "old" FE >and more lenses than I care to mention, I regret to say that the pros I know >have had very bad things to say about the FE-2, the FM-2 and they snort at >the FG-20. The word is that the F3 and FA are the only models worthy of >consideration! I know plenty of pros that use the FM-2. The FE-2, may be flaky, but the FM-2 is as solid as they have made. /jordan
jorge@genat.UUCP (Jorge Olenewa) (03/11/86)
In article <9540@ucla-cs.ARPA> art@ucla-cs.UUCP writes: >the lenses are 35-105 zoom or 35-135 zoom. > >Does anybody out there have experience, + or -, with these parts? >How about experience with cheaper lenses, like Vivitar zooms? I used to own a 35-105 zoom Nikkor f3.5-4.5. My experience with this lens is: - it may be OK for portraits if you want to include a little more than just head and shoulders. The lens only focuses down to 1.4m (4.6ft). You can turn the macro ring slightly and focus closer but the image quality deteriorates apreciably. - it is NOT a very sharp lens especially at large apertures which is OK in the case of portraits but don't try to compare the image quality with that of your 135mm which by the way would be my choice for portraits together with your F model Nikon. If you want to use the 135mm with a newer body and if it is an older Nikon lens and you want to take advantage of the auto exposure, check with your local Nikon rep., some or all of the older lenses can be modified (change the rear mount) so that they can be used with auto exposure systems. - the 35-105mm is subject to FLARE so always use a hood and small apertures (otherwise it degrades the image quality badly) and watch out for backlighted shots. I suspect you will see many of the same problems with the 35-135mm. - if you must have a zoom, consider spending a the extra money for the more expensive 35-70 f3.5 (not the f3.3 to 4.5). I have been told it is the way to go in Nikon zooms although I have not tried one. - my experience with Vivitar is limited to an 80-200mm which optically was a very acceptable lens but mechanically no lens in this category will compare to a Nikkor (consider how long your other Nikon lenses have been around). Hope this helps. Cheers, Jorge L. Olenewa Gernamation Inc. 351 Steelcase Rd. West "What a way to come to California!!!!" Markham, Ontario L3R 3W1
jorge@genat.UUCP (Jorge Olenewa) (03/12/86)
Would all of those people out there who said that they heard bad things
about the Nikon FE-2 from the pros please elaborate ? What do they say is
wrong with it ?
I own an FE-2 which has been pretty good to me so far. I am presently
buying an F3 and have considered selling the FE-2 and buying an FA but
the excessive amount of electronics on it, frankly turns me off.
I rarely use a camera on auto exposure mode; I shoot a lot of K64 and
bracket extensively; program mode on the FA has intrigued me for use in
"tricky" situations (???).
Do you know of any difference in the center-weighed exposure metering
system between the two (i.e.: is FA more accurate ?) disregarding of course
the AMP metering for this purpose.
I also own the following Nikkor lenses: 24mm f2, 50mm f1.4, 105mm f2.8
Micro and 180mm f2.8 ED.
Any comments on all of the above would be very much appreciated.
Cheers,
--
Jorge L. Olenewa
Mail: Genamation Inc. Phone: (416) 475-9434
351 Steelcase Rd. W
Markham, Ontario. UUCP:
Canada
L3R 3W1 {allegra,linus,ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!genat!jorgedougw@pyramid.UUCP (Doug Wong) (03/13/86)
In article <2578@genat.UUCP> jorge@genat.UUCP (Jorge Olenewa) writes: >In article <9540@ucla-cs.ARPA> art@ucla-cs.UUCP writes: >>the lenses are 35-105 zoom or 35-135 zoom. >> >>Does anybody out there have experience, + or -, with these parts? > >I used to own a 35-105 zoom Nikkor f3.5-4.5. My experience with this lens >is: > >- it may be OK for portraits if you want to include a little more than >just head and shoulders. The lens only focuses down to 1.4m (4.6ft). You >can turn the macro ring slightly and focus closer but the image quality >deteriorates apreciably. With a 35-105 zoom, you can include the whole person if you wanted to! Besides 4.6ft is awful close for taking portraits 8-). The macro feature of any lens is not guranteed to work if only "enabled partially". >- it is NOT a very sharp lens especially at large apertures which is OK >in the case of portraits but don't try to compare the image quality with >that of your 135mm which by the way would be my choice for portraits >together with your F model Nikon. I used my Nikon 35-105 zoom heavily in shooting slides for a multi-media show using two projectors, where precise focus and sharpness is a must (unless you want to make people squint 8-) ). I have never seen this defect with slides produced by others using this lens (I know of two others who used this lens). Fixed focal length vs. zoom lens sharpness is, I believe at this current date and time, a matter of debate. >- the 35-105mm is subject to FLARE so always use a hood and small >apertures (otherwise it degrades the image quality badly) and watch out >for backlighted shots. I suspect you will see many of the same problems >with the 35-135mm. I have never experienced this problem in the multitude of shots I've taken with this lens (BTW I always use a lens hood). >- if you must have a zoom, consider spending a the extra money for the >more expensive 35-70 f3.5 (not the f3.3 to 4.5). I have been told it is >the way to go in Nikon zooms although I have not tried one. I believe this is a Series E lens, in which case will not have the automatic exposure feature of the AIS series lenses. >- my experience with Vivitar is limited to an 80-200mm which optically >was a very acceptable lens but mechanically no lens in this category will >compare to a Nikkor (consider how long your other Nikon lenses have been >around). I agree (finally 8-) ). I bought this lens for the flexibility offered by the focal lengths, and because I wanted a good intermediate to wide angle lens. The focal lengths are also the most handy for my applications (I hate carrying alot of heavy glass 8-) ). Doug Wong
jordan@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu (Jordan Hayes) (03/18/86)
In article <2583@genat.UUCP> jorge@genat.UUCP (Jorge Olenewa) writes:
I own an FE-2 which has been pretty good to me so far. I am
presently buying an F3 and have considered selling the FE-2 and
buying an FA but the excessive amount of electronics on it,
frankly turns me off ... I rarely use a camera on auto exposure
mode; I shoot a lot of K64 and bracket extensively; program
mode on the FA has intrigued me for use in "tricky" situations.
If you "rarely use a camera on auto exposure" why do you have an
automatic camera ?!? Look, if you bought an FE-2 to use in manual mode
(which, somehow, I don't believe ...), you got sold some blue sky. I
have some land in Florida for you. Seriously, how can you justify using
an automagic camera mainly in manual mode? How can you justify trading
it in for an FA?
I'm SURE that if you shoot Kodachrome that you're going to bracket a
lot, especially if you wind up using auto mode ... that's a good way to
spend a lot of money. Better than bracketing "extensively", why don't
you save some money on film and buy yourself a good meter to find out
how to expose *correctly* ... note: this is not a dig on bracketing ...
I do so when needed, but if you're spending a lot of time (and money!)
bracketing, you're wasting a lot of both.
/jordan
{ucbvax,lll-crg,nike}!jordanjorge@genat.UUCP (Jorge Olenewa) (03/20/86)
In article <159@pyramid.UUCP> dougw@pyramid.UUCP (Doug Wong) writes: > >With a 35-105 zoom, you can include the whole person if you wanted to! >Besides 4.6ft is awful close for taking portraits 8-). The macro >feature of any lens is not guranteed to work if only "enabled partially". > Of course, but, for classical "head and shoulders" portraits where all you want to include is "head and shoulders", you will need to be able to focus down to about 1m (3 ft.) with a 105mm lens check your numbers or better yet, check your viewfinder 8-). >I used my Nikon 35-105 zoom heavily in shooting slides for a multi-media >show using two projectors, where precise focus and sharpness is a must >(unless you want to make people squint 8-) ). I have never seen this >defect with slides produced by others using this lens (I know of two >others who used this lens). Fixed focal length vs. zoom lens sharpness >is, I believe at this current date and time, a matter of debate. I agree, this is a matter of debate. Now I do not have the exact numbers and I do not mean to be "picky" (I have never run a resolution test) but the 35-105mm will most certainly resolve less lines than the equivalent fixed focus lenses and suffers from other problems too such as pincushion distortion etc... In a multimedia show, two different things happen: a) the resolution of slide projectors is usually infinitely better than anything else such as Television (no matter how good the system) and since the wide angle lenses for multiple projector systems are not that good (truthfully speaking) regardless of how much they cost and considering the interference from light levels, graininess of screen, etc., the difference between slides taken with a variety of lenses is not going to be that noticeable (granted that there may be exceptions). The 35-70 Nikkor f3.5 is most definitely not a Series E lens (Series E lenses do not carry the Nikkor name) check the prices!!! > >I bought this lens for the flexibility offered by the focal lengths, and >because I wanted a good intermediate to wide angle lens. The focal lengths >are also the most handy for my applications (I hate carrying alot of >heavy glass 8-) ). > I think, and I am glad that we agree on most points. This was the reason I bought the lens in the first place. I just was not satisfied with the overall results and decided that fixed focus was the way to go for my needs. Just as a sideline, I found out that these lenses sell more than any other Nikon. Some pro's have purchased them and have had problems such as flare, pincushion etc. Some are satisfied with what the lens does anyway and decide to keep them, others don't keep them. I guess it's a matter of personal choice. Anyway, I hope other people on the net enjoyed this discussion as much as I did and I hope someone finds it useful. Cheers, -- Jorge L. Olenewa Mail: Genamation Inc. Phone: (416) 475-9434 351 Steelcase Rd. W Markham, Ontario. UUCP: Canada L3R 3W1 {allegra,linus,ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!genat!jorge
jorge@genat.UUCP (Jorge Olenewa) (03/20/86)
In article <12461@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> ucbvax!jordan (Jordan Hayes) writes: >In article <2583@genat.UUCP> jorge@genat.UUCP (Jorge Olenewa) writes: > > I own an FE-2 which has been pretty good to me so far. I am > presently buying an F3 and have considered selling the FE-2 and > buying an FA but the excessive amount of electronics on it, > frankly turns me off ... I rarely use a camera on auto exposure > mode; I shoot a lot of K64 and bracket extensively; program > mode on the FA has intrigued me for use in "tricky" situations. > >If you "rarely use a camera on auto exposure" why do you have an >automatic camera ?!? Look, if you bought an FE-2 to use in manual mode >(which, somehow, I don't believe ...), you got sold some blue sky. I >have some land in Florida for you. Seriously, how can you justify using >an automagic camera mainly in manual mode? How can you justify trading >it in for an FA? Maybe, just maybe, you misread my questions, but here goes anyway. First of all the FE-2 is not an "automagic" camera. It has an auto exposure mode (aperture priority) and is in this sense, directly equivalent to an F3. It does not have a "program" mode so I do not think this makes it an automatic camera the way you seem to mean it. If you are an experienced photographer hobbyist or pro, you probably understand the advantage of having an auto exposure mode such as aperture priority AE when you are shooting in situations where your bacground is fairly constant and occupies either most of the frame or at least the center of the frame in the case of Nikon's center weighed metering (see photometers below). My reason for buying an FE-2 originally was (if you care to know) that I did not think I would get serious enough for an F3 and because of the large difference in the amount of information in the viewfinder between that and any other Nikon product available at the time. > >I'm SURE that if you shoot Kodachrome that you're going to bracket a >lot, especially if you wind up using auto mode ... that's a good way to >spend a lot of money. Better than bracketing "extensively", why don't >you save some money on film and buy yourself a good meter to find out >how to expose *correctly* ... note: this is not a dig on bracketing ... >I do so when needed, but if you're spending a lot of time (and money!) >bracketing, you're wasting a lot of both. > Now wait a minute there. How can I bracket a lot using auto mode? Wouldn't the camera adjust the shutter speed automatically everytime I changed the aperture? Surely you are not expecting me to be using the exposure compensation dial to bracket, are you? It would probably take me five minutes to shoot a single scene? 8-) Conventional meters are OK if you are shooting people. Spot meters are Grrreat if you are shooting complex and/or distant scenes. TTL meters do an excellent job if you are prepared to learn how to use them properly. And one of the first things I learned in Photography is that film is a lot cheaper than a re-shoot (don't you agree?), besides what I meant by bracketing extensively was shooting 2 or 3 frames for every frame that I cannot be sure of the result. When I have time to think and examine the image on the viewfinder, and I am shooting a stationary subject, that is often the most bracketing I will do (photography is not an exact science remember?). If you have learned to measure the quality of light and colour any better than that you better start teaching because a lot of will pay good money for that kind of knowledge. Conversely, what do you do when you have to shoot fast? Again, film is cheeeep! I am not going to get into exposure latitude here which is another reason for bracketing no matter how good a meter you have (gray scales et al) but I did not say I spent a lot of money or that I waste film. Anyway I thank you for responding and once again hope others on the net will find this informative and useful. Cheers, -- Jorge L. Olenewa Mail: Genamation Inc. Phone: (416) 475-9434 351 Steelcase Rd. W Markham, Ontario. UUCP: Canada L3R 3W1 {allegra,linus,ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!genat!jorge
jordan@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu (Jordan Hayes) (03/28/86)
In article <2595@genat.UUCP> jorge@genat.UUCP (Jorge Olenewa) writes:
How can I bracket a lot using auto mode? Wouldn't the camera
adjust the shutter speed automatically everytime I changed the
aperture? Surely you are not expecting me to be using the
exposure compensation dial to bracket, are you?
Uh ... yes. Or, alternatively, the "poor man's auto bracket" would
involve changing the EI of the film ...
The Nikon ec-thingy is about the best designed one I've seen (and I
hate them!) ... when, on occasion, I've needed (or been forced) to use
an FE or FE-2, I've found it to be very fast. If you're going to
bracket with an auto camera, that's what you've got to do.
/jordan
{nike,ucbvax,lll-crg,usenix}!jordanjorge@genat.UUCP (Jorge Olenewa) (03/29/86)
In article <12728@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> ucbvax!jordan (Jordan Hayes) writes: >In article <2595@genat.UUCP> jorge@genat.UUCP (Jorge Olenewa) writes: > > How can I bracket a lot using auto mode? Wouldn't the camera > adjust the shutter speed automatically everytime I changed the > aperture? Surely you are not expecting me to be using the > exposure compensation dial to bracket, are you? > >Uh ... yes. Or, alternatively, the "poor man's auto bracket" would >involve changing the EI of the film ... > >The Nikon ec-thingy is about the best designed one I've seen (and I >hate them!) ... when, on occasion, I've needed (or been forced) to use >an FE or FE-2, I've found it to be very fast. If you're going to >bracket with an auto camera, that's what you've got to do. I feel I owe you an apology since that paragraph was meant to be sarcastic. As I had said in my original article, I seldom use my FE-2 in auto mode, but......let's not start this all over again. I completely agree with you on both counts that the Nikon ec-thingy is the best designed and that I too hate using the blasted dial except when using it for setting permanent under or over exposure for certain kinds of film or scenery (e.g.: when shooting snowscapes). It is quicker and simpler to use than changing the film speed dial. On the whole, I hope you will give the FE-2 another (honest) try. Try to learn about it's features, consider the accuracy of the info you get when looking through the finder and experiment a bit with the center weighed metering. I used to gripe about the same things you do until I decided that it was worth learning more about them since I had already bought the camera and was stuck with it (after all life is an experience isn't it?). I am sure that you will not be disappointed. Cheers, -- Jorge L. Olenewa Mail: Genamation Inc. Phone: (416) 475-9434 351 Steelcase Rd. W Markham, Ontario. UUCP: Canada L3R 3W1 {allegra,linus,ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!genat!jorge