Need new Digital Camera

[RLTodd]

  On 2/27/2010 at 9:10 PM, PigRatAndGoat said:

......

Really? Is this just because you're trying to get too close? A macro lens shouldn't bet particularly sharper than any other lens.

 

Lense design is very complex. Real Macro lenses are always designed for shapness, which is one of the reasons they cost so much. When the engineers at Pentax designed the 100mm Macro they designed it to have very high resolution with great contrast. Differences in hue "snaps." This just ruins portraits (which they were not designing the lense for), especially of women. The Consumer grade zooms are much more flattering.

 

The normal Pentax lenses, like the SMC 105mm (ST mount) or the 100mm A /f2.8 were calculated to have a softer "edge" when tones change. This gives a more pleasing tonality. Pentax had some special "soft" lenses with controllable softness that were really the cats meow for studio portrait work with a well trained photographer.

 

Most consumer zooms are designed to price points. As long as they are good enough for color and small enlargements they are good enough. The sizes posted here really don't stress a lense enough to justify getting out of the consumer range. However, IF the OP wants to do some wall hanging 20x30 prints, that is another matter.

[PigRatAndGoat]

Hmm, I've never discussed the softness of a lens in positive terms before. I generally avoid consumer grade zoom lenses for this reason.

Then again, I am no expert, only an enthusiast.

 

PRAG

[wimg]

Well, I would agree with that POV. Sharpness that isn't there you can't add later. There are plenty of (free) filters available to make an image less sharp afterwards . Essentially, it gives one an option, rather than a frustration .

 

Warm regards, Wim

[RLTodd]

  On 2/28/2010 at 12:10 AM, wimg said:

Well, I would agree with that POV. Sharpness that isn't there you can't add later. There are plenty of (free) filters available to make an image less sharp afterwards . Essentially, it gives one an option, rather than a frustration .

 

Warm regards, Wim

 

It is kind of tricky, and tricky to explain, but the effects are different.

 

For pen & nib photography I find it hard to think of a situation where one would want anything less than a very sharp Macro lense designed for maximum sharpness and contrast at distances of less than three feet.

 

For taking picures of women, sharpness is not necessarily good and frequently very bad. One may wish to look at the work of George Hurrell during the Hollywood golden years. Before he went under contract to MGM he used a controlled sharpness lens, the Wollensak Verito. (Later he used an Eastman Portrait Lens which I would guess behaved similarily.)

 

Here is an visual explanation of what a controlled sharpness lense does:

 

http://wfwhitaker.com/tech/verito.htm

 

On www.pbase.com there are some pictures posted where someone used a Macro lens as a portrait lens. Not complementary to the subject. They will usually turn up using Search for "Macro."

[cxcxx]

enjoy your camera and show us some good pen pictures ..

 

  On 2/27/2010 at 5:30 AM, pakmanpony said:

Thanks guys for all the input! I really appreciate the time you have spent educating me on the DSLR camera world! I've read about 100 reviews from Rebels to the whole Nikon line to the Sony Alpha and the Pentax K-x from all of your suggestions and from several that you guys have provided back channel. Wow there are so many choices and depending where you look, the prices of these entry level DSLRs vary hugely. Package deals that have extra goodies or multiple lenses add to the many factors to look through. farseer really hooked me after putting me on to some reviews of the Pentax K-x. After looking at Walmart, Staples, and Best Buy to get a first hand look at these cameras I was really honing in on a couple of choices. The Pentax K-x retails for about $649 so is in the same general ball park as a D3000 with two lenses or the Rebel Xsi or the Sony Alpha. Then I found a deal on Amazon through Willoughbys Camera for a Pentax K-x with a 18-55mm and a 50-200mm lens for $589 and I jumped on it. The K-x has the features of the D5000 (sans the flip out lcd) but has in-body stabilization instead of in-lens and best of all for me a diopter adjuster on the eyepiece so I can shoot with my glasses off!

 

Some other selling features were 12.4 mega pixel vs 10.0 , 11-point auto focus, 1280x720 HD video capture at 24 fps, shoots 4.5 shots per sec vs the 3 for the Nikon, also has live view and a Macro setting.

 

I'll do some playing with it when it shows up next week and let you know what I think and try to get some shots uploaded.

 

Thanks again for spending the time to help!

 

Perry

[wimg]

  On 3/1/2010 at 3:08 AM, RLTodd said:

  On 2/28/2010 at 12:10 AM, wimg said:

Well, I would agree with that POV. Sharpness that isn't there you can't add later. There are plenty of (free) filters available to make an image less sharp afterwards . Essentially, it gives one an option, rather than a frustration .

 

Warm regards, Wim

 

It is kind of tricky, and tricky to explain, but the effects are different.

 

For pen & nib photography I find it hard to think of a situation where one would want anything less than a very sharp Macro lense designed for maximum sharpness and contrast at distances of less than three feet.

 

For taking picures of women, sharpness is not necessarily good and frequently very bad. One may wish to look at the work of George Hurrell during the Hollywood golden years. Before he went under contract to MGM he used a controlled sharpness lens, the Wollensak Verito. (Later he used an Eastman Portrait Lens which I would guess behaved similarily.)

 

Here is an visual explanation of what a controlled sharpness lense does:

 

http://wfwhitaker.com/tech/verito.htm

 

On www.pbase.com there are some pictures posted where someone used a Macro lens as a portrait lens. Not complementary to the subject. They will usually turn up using Search for "Macro."

There are other ways to control sharpness after the fact these days. Well, there actually were also in the film days, but that was a little harder.

 

The only ones that are difficult to implement are those caused by special lenses with sieve diaphragms, or lenses with control over spherical aberration. Anything else is really easy to do by applying photoshop filters selectively. Try tools like Nik software, f.e. (those are not for free however).

 

Considering F/4 on that particular Wollensack, with regard to DoF, you'd need a 80 mm F/1 on a FF camera, which is not available. However, an 85 F/1.2 is very close. Close enough to only allow for a few eye lashes sharp in the image, at portrait distances.

 

Even a 100 mm F/2.8 at portrait distances will have very shallow DoF, but it will be sharp within DoF, yes. However, as mentioned, you can always use a bit of glamour glow, and skin softener, selectively applied.

 

Warm regards, Wim

[Fuddlestack]

I would agree wholeheartedly with Farseer911 - if you can swing the D90 then you're getting an awful lot more camera. In particular, you get two useful items:

 

Firstly, you get depth-of-field (DOF) preview. This allows you to see in advance exactly how much of a shot will be in focus when you shoot. DOF diminishes rapidly as you focus on closer objects, so that you need to stop down the lens to compensate. Without DOF preview you have to take the shot first and inspect it on the LCD. This isn't perhaps such a big issue as it was with film cameras, but it's more efficient. If built-in flash is depoloyed, the DOF button also causes it to emit a continuous light, so that you can see the shadows it will cast. This is important in close-ups, because you may find that flash casts lens shadow over the subject.

 

Secondly, you get wireless flash mode. The Nikon SB-600, 800 and 900 can all act as slave units that are fired remotely from the camera using the infra-red component of the built-in flash output. This allows you to move the flash off the camera, avoid lens shadow, and avoid the "caught in the headlights" look that on-camera flash usually gives.

 

As Farseer also said, the basic 18-105 is an excellent lens, and if you still can't get close enough with it you can add a set of macro rings for not too much. However, even without using macro rings, you should be able to get fairly large crops of nib details, etc. out of the standard lens.

 

I have a D40, the predecessor to these cameras, and it is an excellent all-round camera that I am very fond of. For close-up work, however, I use my (big, heavy) D300s for its better metering, its DOF control and its off-camera flash possibilities. The D90 is a lot closer to the D300s than the D40.

 

One final note: you're fortunate being in the US and having Adorama to hand. Buy photo stuff in the EU and you pay something like 50% more.

 

Cheers,

[Fuddlestack]

Addendum: Adorama often carries refurbs at excellent prices. While you would be forfeiting Live View by going for a D200 or a D80, you would still be getting a great camera, and for not much money. In fact, as I write this, Adorama has a refurb D90 going for $750 and another for $829.51. Worth a look. If I were in the US I'd certainly go that way.

 

PS unlike Ken Rockwell, I don't get commission.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Fuddlestack

[RLTodd]

  On 3/1/2010 at 4:06 AM, wimg said:

  On 3/1/2010 at 3:08 AM, RLTodd said:

  On 2/28/2010 at 12:10 AM, wimg said:

Well, I would agree with that POV. Sharpness that isn't there you can't add later. There are plenty of (free) filters available to make an image less sharp afterwards . Essentially, it gives one an option, rather than a frustration .

 

Warm regards, Wim

 

It is kind of tricky, and tricky to explain, but the effects are different.

 

For pen & nib photography I find it hard to think of a situation where one would want anything less than a very sharp Macro lense designed for maximum sharpness and contrast at distances of less than three feet.

 

For taking picures of women, sharpness is not necessarily good and frequently very bad. One may wish to look at the work of George Hurrell during the Hollywood golden years. Before he went under contract to MGM he used a controlled sharpness lens, the Wollensak Verito. (Later he used an Eastman Portrait Lens which I would guess behaved similarily.)

 

Here is an visual explanation of what a controlled sharpness lense does:

 

http://wfwhitaker.com/tech/verito.htm

 

On www.pbase.com there are some pictures posted where someone used a Macro lens as a portrait lens. Not complementary to the subject. They will usually turn up using Search for "Macro."

There are other ways to control sharpness after the fact these days. Well, there actually were also in the film days, but that was a little harder.

 

The only ones that are difficult to implement are those caused by special lenses with sieve diaphragms, or lenses with control over spherical aberration. Anything else is really easy to do by applying photoshop filters selectively. Try tools like Nik software, f.e. (those are not for free however).

 

Considering F/4 on that particular Wollensack, with regard to DoF, you'd need a 80 mm F/1 on a FF camera, which is not available. However, an 85 F/1.2 is very close. Close enough to only allow for a few eye lashes sharp in the image, at portrait distances.

 

Even a 100 mm F/2.8 at portrait distances will have very shallow DoF, but it will be sharp within DoF, yes. However, as mentioned, you can always use a bit of glamour glow, and skin softener, selectively applied.

 

Warm regards, Wim

 

I don't disagree with what was said I would just like to add this. The Wollensack and Pentax Soft Focus lenses were designed especially to get around the DOF problem of conventional lenses in the studio by being soft at smaller apetures. I think the Pentax design was a two element lense. I have seen the results of "photoshoped" softness from normal lenses and the Wollensack and Pentaxes, and to me the effect is not the same. I realize the discussion is getting into rather fine points as I doubt anyone here is interested in doing 35mm studio shots of women and putting in $500 to $1,000 on such a specialized lens.

[wimg]

  On 3/7/2010 at 6:41 PM, RLTodd said:

I don't disagree with what was said I would just like to add this. The Wollensack and Pentax Soft Focus lenses were designed especially to get around the DOF problem of conventional lenses in the studio by being soft at smaller apetures. I think the Pentax design was a two element lense. I have seen the results of "photoshoped" softness from normal lenses and the Wollensack and Pentaxes, and to me the effect is not the same. I realize the discussion is getting into rather fine points as I doubt anyone here is interested in doing 35mm studio shots of women and putting in $500 to $1,000 on such a specialized lens.

Well, I am, but normally discuss this on a completely different forum.

 

There also is the Canon 135 F/2.8 SF, which does similar things: spherical aberrations to create a softer image.

 

However, I think you should give Nik Software a go, and see what you can achieve with that. Really amazing stuff.

 

Personally, I use Nik, and a few very fast and a few specialized lenses, designed for, amongst others, portrait work.

 

Warm regards, Wim

Edited March 7, 2010 by wimg