Get
your own Free Home Page
Get
your own Free Home Page
Just some stuff that I've written relating to Nikon equipment and photography in general..
To: nikon@majordomo.cs.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: AF-D 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 ? Send reply to: yuenkitmun@oocities.com Date sent: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:47:08 +0800 >now the 1.4 is nice but the lens test i've seen show that the 1.8 is >sharper. is the difference in dim light photography between 1.4 and >1.8 so critical For me, yes. The f1.8 is theoretically 2/3 of a stop slower than the f1.4 but practically, it's as good as 1 full stop slower. I find myself shooting at double the shutter speed when using a f1.4 instead of a f1.8 (assuming correct exposure is 1/4 second at f1.8, then 1/8 seconds at f1.4 gives you 1/3 stops under exposure, no big deal for print film). I also find myself shooting at the same shutter speed for f1.8 and f2. Depending on what film you use and under what conditions you shoot, one stop can make a big difference. I use ISO 400 and shoot handheld, mainly indoors with some street photography at night. Under these conditions and f1.4, I sometimes have to go as low as 1/4 (definitely blurred, but better than nothing) or 1/8 seconds (blurred but maybe okay). Though most of the time I can squeak by with at least 1/15 seconds (slightly blurred, but okay) and 1/30 seconds (whoopee! but I don't enlarge much, mainly 4" x 6" so my standards aren't high). For me, the limiting factor in the sharpness of my photographs is not the lens sharpness, but camera shake. No matter how much sharper the f1.8 might be, I get sharper photos with the f1.4 due to the slow shutter speeds that I'm forced to use. Anyway, I've read conflicting reports about the f1.8 versus the f1.4 and most agree that the difference is slight anyway. Of course, if you use a tripod then camera shake is less of a problem. But then you could use a slow zoom too. Recommendation - get the f1.4.
To: nikon@majordomo.cs.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: Fastest lens Send reply to: yuenkitmun@oocities.com Date sent: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:13:24 +0800 >>Nope. f0.7 is the theoretical limit of optical system. The Zeiss >>lens you are referring to is actually about 14 stops faster than >>that. >Why is there any theoretical limit of optical systems? I can see >where there might be lots of reasons for practical limits, but why a >theoretical limit? Theory? Time to pull out my trusty "Applied Photographic Optics" Second Edition, by Sidney F. Ray (Focal Press)! Okay, Chapter 27 Large-aperture lenses: "From equation 14.33 it has been shown that the maximum theoretical aperture of an aplanatic lens on-axis, assuming no transmission losses, is f/0.5. This is three stops 'faster' than the commonly attainable f/1.4. Values of around f/1 are available for some lenses, f/0.7 is possible, and a very few lenses have achieved values closer to f/0.5." And equation 14.33 in Chapter 14 is E = (T * L) / (4 * N * N) Where E = illuminance T = transmittance L = luminance N = relative aperture "Therefore, for a lens with unit transmittance, the maximum possible value of the aperture will be an f-number of 0.5 so that E = L. Values close to f/0.5 have been achieved in some lenses." I don't understand any of this :) but just to show that there is a theoretical limit. Mr Ray's book has more details on the derivation of the formula if anyone is interested.
To: nikon@majordomo.cs.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: AF Nikon D 50mm F1.4/F1.8 Send reply to: yuenkitmun@oocities.com Date sent: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 09:28:44 +0800 >Although I have a 50mm F1.8 AI lens, I have also considered buying >the AF Nikon D F1.4 or F1.8 for low light photography, to be used >with the F70 (N70). But under these conditions would the autofocus >still function properly or will it "hunt". Which means that one >would still have to focus manually or lock focus on another subject >at approximately similar distance. This will defeat the object of >autofocus ( or fast focussing) . If my deductions are correct, >would one not be better off using the manual focus 50mm lens? Mininum light level required for auto focus ============================================== I tried the 50mm f1.4 AF on my F801s and the auto focusing light threshold seems to be 1 second at f1.4 at ISO 100 (focusing on some books in my room, with the only light source being a 11 watt fluorescent lamp. The books were in shadow). Under these conditions, the auto focus still worked well. Trying to focus on a darker pile of books (2 seconds at f1.4 at ISO 100) and the auto focus motor refused to move. The figures might be different for the F70, but shouldn't be too far out. So, depending on what you actually shoot, I would think that you wouldn't have much problems using the lens under auto focus for most hand-held available light situations. Manual focusing "feel" ========================= When used for manual focusing, the 50mm f1.4 AF's focusing wheel turns nicely. Not too loose like the 85mm f1.8 AF, not too springy like the 180mm f2.8 AF. More solid, like the 20mm f2.8 AF. All in all a good lens to use. 35mm f1.4 recommended ========================== But since we're on the topic, I'd actually recommend the 35mm f1.4 . I've seen mention of an AF version somewhere but most lens lists don't mention it (brightest 35mm AF listed is an f2). I've got an AI version (not even AIS - it has the multi-coloured aperture numbers) and is my most often used lens. I find the 50mm too narrow for general scene coverage and too wide for close ups of people. 35mm also should give more camera shake immunity than a 50mm at the same shutter speed, due to the lower magnification - the poor man's 58mm f1.2 Nocturnal! Not that it's all that cheap - I bought mine second hand and it cost slightly more than a new 50mm f1.4 AF (ouch!). Available light nut ====================== I'm a real available light nut, haven't used a flash in over a year. Every day, I pack my bag with a 20mm f2.8, 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, ISO 400 and an FM2, hoping to get grab shots of the people and places around me in my every day life (latest project is getting pictures of the haze here in Singapore due to smoke from forest fires in Indonesia). I find that this set up suits me well, covering most situations. Hope this helps. Sorry about the long post but I do like to blab about myself!
To: nikon@majordomo.cs.waikato.ac.nz Subject: FE10, FM10 versus FM2 Send reply to: yuenkitmun@oocities.com Date sent: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:55:46 +0800 >The new nikon FE10 is very tempting (solid, cheap and good quality). >Has somebody tried it ? What type of lenses (MF, AF, AF-D) would you >recommend to buy ? I haven't tried the FE10 but I had an FM10 for about a year. The FE10 looks like an electronic version of the FM10, as (roughly speaking) the FE2 is an electronic version of the FM2. So I thought that my observations on the FM10 might be relevant. It should at least give an idea of some possible weaknesses to check out in the FE10. I wouldn't agree that the FE10 is "solid" if it is anything like the FM10. I finally gave mine to my sister to use (she likes it and takes maybe 4 rolls of file a year so she won't be stressing it too much) and got an FM2 because I was worried that it would break on me just when I needed it most. I wrote a rather glowing review of the FM10 on this digest last year. I'm taking that back! I'm comparing the FM10 with the FM2. But the FE10 is closer to the FE2 in features (auto exposure). Unfortunately Nikon doesn't make the FE2 anymore so they're difficult to get. If you are as worried about the build quaility of the FE10 as much as I am about the FM10's, you might want to consider the FM2 even though it doesn't have auto exposure. Likes / Dislikes ------------------ I like the FM10 for the low price, low weight, low frills, low battery consumption. But I don't like the low body strength. The depth of field preview lever has cracked and fallen off and there's a 2 mm dent near the film advance lever. The dent just appeared, I don't remember banging the body. I've given my F801s similar abuse for over five years and the paint is scratched, but no dents. Good photos with cheap cameras ------------------------------ Like someone has already mentioned, you can take good photographs with the FM10. I would think indistinguishable from those taken with an F5 (if you have the time, and you understand metering). As many people on this list have pointed out, "it's the glass that matters". The FM10 is basically a low cost FM2. Nothing wrong with that. I don't think it's meaningful to compare the FM10 to any of the autofocus bodies. I prefered using the FM10 to my F801s. Not because the FM10 is in any objective way "better" than the F801s but because of my shooting style. The main question then is "FM2 or FM10?". Durability ----------- The FM2 is much more durable than the FM10. This is the FM10's main disadvantage. It's not the plastic per se. The plastic rear and bottom of my 801s is much tougher than the FM10's light and brittle looking plastic. It's possible to build strong plastic cameras. The FM10 is not one of them. Cost ----------- The FM10 can be as little as 1/2 the price of an FM2 (if you can persuade the shop to sell you the body only. Difficult - as the 35-70 MF zoom is bundled together with the body by Nikon, not the shop - but not impossible). This is the FM10's main advantage. Weight ----------- The FM10 is much lighter than the FM2, but the FM2 isn't all that heavy anyway. Features ----------- FM2's shutter goes up to 1/4000, FM 10's is 1/2000. Not that much of a difference for my kind of shooting. External motor drive possible for FM2, not for FM10. Again, no difference for my kind of shooting. Shutter and aperture are displayed in the FM2 viewfinder, not in the FM10. Nice to have, but not that important to me. The FM2 does have significant advantages with regard to : - Less vibration when the shutter is released. - Film back lock - you turn a collar *and* pull up the rewind crank. to open the FM2. The FM10 will open (exposing your film if you haven't rewound yet) if you accidentally snag the rewind crank on something and pull it up. - Less easy to accidentally trigger multi exposure switch. On the FM10, push the spring loaded multi exposure lever forward and multi exposure is set, even if you let the lever fall back. On the FM2, multi exposure works only if you push the lever *and* crank the film at the same time - much less easier to trigger accidentally. I've accidentally triggered the multi exposure on my FM10 at least three times and therefore lost 6 shots. - More centre-weighted exposure meter i.e. closer to spot than the FM10. There are no figures in the FM10 manual (the FM2 manual says 60 percent exposure weightage within the outer viewfinder circle) but I find the FM10 meter less sensitive to exposure variations when I move the camera around to meter on different areas of a scene - it averages out the light more than the FM2. Looks ----------- FM2 looks like a classic metal machine, FM10 looks like a newer but cheaper plastic camera. I guess looks aren't always deceiving. Actually I prefer the FM10's looks because I'm a reverse snob. I'm disturbed by people who judge me by the equipment that I carry (just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that everyone isn't judging me :) ). I either tape up or scratch off the "Nikon" name on my camera bodies (also to prove to myself that I use Nikon for the right reasons). Someone once picked up my 20mm f2.8 and just because he saw "Nikon" on the lens, immediately said "This is a good lens!" . So I started taping up my lenses too. Autofocus versus mechanical ----------------------------- I thought that carrying around a mechanical camera would tell everyone "Wow - my camera is so stupid that I must be really smart!". Doesn't seem to work though, sigh. Never mind, I like using mechanical cameras for other reasons too - simplicity (how often have you had to check your autofocus manual?) - controllability (want to leave the film leader out?, fire the shutter when the camera back is open?) - reliability - low noise - low battery consumption (only for the light meter) Bottomline ------------- If you're careful with things you might find the FM10 a good camera. If you're a klutz like me, you'd be better off paying double for the FM2.
To: SING/nikon@majordomo.cs.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: Re: 500 f8 mirror lens
Date sent: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 15:43:42 GMT+0800
Just my thoughts on the 500 f8 mirror that has been discussed
recently :
(a) I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere but the out of focus
background has hard edges, not soft like "normal" lenses
(probably the same problem that causes doughnut highlights).
The effect can be a bit unsettling. This can be seen
through the viewfinder so you can check it in the shop and
see if you can live with it. Even at f8, 500 mm gives you
very little depth of field so most shots would have an out
of focus background.
(b) The size and weight can't be beat. Hand holding with ISO 400
film is no problem (sunny 16 rule gives 1/400 sec at f16 or
1/1600 sec at f8 for bright sunlight, ISO 100 gives you 1/100 sec
and 1/400 sec). The barrel is wider than normal but that doesn't
seem to attract as much attention on the street as a long lens -
good for candid photography. You can get close-ups of people 20 to
40 meters away. At that distance they'll probably think you're
taking an overall scene shot, not concentrating on them, that is
if they notice you at all.
(c) Focusing is smooth, making it possible to follow-focus manually.
The small depth of field caused by the long focal length causes
the image in the viewfinder to "pop" into focus, making in-focus
determination simple. The focusing barrel revolves more than
360 degrees (!) but this doesn't cause any handling problems.
Viewfinder image is a bit dim but acceptable.
(d) Sorry, don't know much about resolution - I don't enlarge
much.
(e) Considering the price and the focal length, it is good value
despite the hard-edged out of focus backgrounds. Recommended
if you want to explore the longer focal lengths on a budget.
Unless you're a pro, you'd probably leave the heavier
conventional lenses at home most of the time, anyway.
To: SING/nikon@majordomo.cs.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: Safe to buy used F3 ? Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 13:48:01 GMT+0800 >Is it safe to buy a used Nikon F3? I mean, is it really a sturdy >camera that can give you a couple more years of service even if >somebody has used it, say, for about 2 to 3 years? I am planning to >buy one and any advice from the "experts" would come a long way. >Thanks. Hi Terence. I've heard from a few different sources that Nikon has officially stated that the F series cameras (F, F2, F3, F4, F5, F15) are designed to be used for 150,000 exposures. Whereas the other bodies are designed for 50,000. I don't know where to look up these figures so if I'm wrong, someone please correct me. So, if the F3 has been used for 100,000 exposures, then you should get as much mileage out of it as with a new non F camera! Well, at least in theory :) What are the chances of the F3 being used for 100,000 exposures? 100,000 / (365 X 3) = 91. Which means that if the original owner shot off 91 exposures (about 3 rolls of film) a day for three years, then he would have shot off a total of 100,000 exposures. You'll have to guess for yourself whether or not the original owner used the F3 more or less than this threshold figure. If he or she was a pro, then the figure is not impossible (even if you allow for only 20 working days per month). If an amateur (like me!), then almost certainly not. This is just an estimate. Nikon probably has a safety margin on top of the stated figures so the camera should last longer than that. But you also have to account for someone playing with his camera and just shooting without film, for practice or for fun. I know through personal experience that the F-801s motor drive makes a nice sound