Returning to hobby but unanswered questions bother (Long)

[Frank F.]

Greetings All,

I'm a newbie to this forum but not to forums in general. Back in the 70's/80's (yes, it's been that long) my "outfit" was a used Miranda Sensorex and an even older Yashica 2 1/4" fixed lens reflex. Both were great and got lots of use, mainly in still life outdoor shots where I would use the variability of the Miranda on both f-stop, shutter speed, and ISO (as well as filters) to make "creative" shots. I always bracketed my shots so to save printing costs, I'd even shoot contact prints in the bathroom, flicking the 60W on/off as fast I could. Hey, it worked! But now I have only a Fuji S1800 Finepix which is WAY not able to recreate the shots I want. For example, the Fuji offers an A for aperture mode and a M for manual mode but actually the only choices for f-stop are 3.1 & 6.4, IIRC. I want to ask the group whether modern DSLR's can even do certain shots and if so what are some model ideas. Interchangeable lens are a must but it is the variability in f-stop & shutter speed settings that are crucial. No interest in flash, natural light only. The more it can do in B&W the better. I'm less interested in learning Photo-Shop Pro and such than in having a camera that I can take in field and do those things - in the field. But getting this level of camera specs. has been very hard; The Fuji for example, makes it very clear it has a "Manual & Custom modes" - but the devil is in the details!

Here are 2 examples of simple shots that I'd want to recreate and ask your suggestions on:
1. Simple low-profile up at tree with dramatic clouds in background using red filter in B&W.
2. Woodsy low-profile in dim, dappled sunlight shooting across a running brook in B&W where the f-stop is opened way up for the dim light. Shutter speed is also lowered so although the vegetation is in focus, the brook is blurred so to show it "running." Also B&W. The low f-stop will also soften the background and the shot would be bracketed to vary light levels, depth-of-field, and creek "blur."

Possible in today's world or not? I know Miranda's are cheap on E-bay, etc. but can modern DLSR's do this kind a stuff and what are some suggested models.

TIA ,

Cathexis

For the first example you want a huge dynamic range, for the second example you want great color rendition. The best camera for both currently will be the Nikon D850 and if on a budget the D750. You can get a range of prime lenses like 1.8/24 or 1.8/20 or 1.4/105, the Sigma Art and the Zeiss Otus which will use all power available in the sensor and a wide range of f-stops from 1.4 to 22 or 16 depending on the lens used.

Natural light, D850, 1.4/105E, yesterday. Goodbye medium format:

http://zentralkraft.com/8bit_edit_DSC_3635.jpg

 

[Frank F.]

Concerning Fuji. Yes. They have great cameras and image quality but manual focus is drive by wire with the Fujinon lenses.

Nikon can mount next to all 100 Million Nikkor lenses produced to date and I know a lot of people who do just that. Using high quality old Nikon glass on their fancy new DSLRs. You can also adapt old Nikkor manual focus glass to Sony bodies, there is even an AF adapter for the system. I have seen it in real life and it does work!

Techart autofocus adapter for manual focus lenses.: Sony Alpha / Nex E-mount (APS-C) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

[fmw]

Sure but the only reason to do that would be to use the filter as an ND. My method is to shoot color, convert to B&W and then adjust the blue channel to get the exact effect I want. I have all the sky darkening capacity from none to black in an adjustable and simple procedure. That is using digital capabilities to their best.

I also prefer to shoot color and do conversions and filtering in post, but I was trying to point out that it is possible to still go "old school" with a digital camera, so using the color filters to change contrast and values in monochrome/b&w is still valid. I also know some people that absolutely hate to spend time on post.

I understand. I think post processing should be kept to a minimum. Fixing exposure or white balance is positive to me. Taking the image way beyond what was there is often not positive in my view. Rescuing an image is a lot different from changing one. But pretending the camera is analog when its digital capabilites remain unused makes no sense to me at all. If the "old schooler" wants a real old school digital image he just needs to get it right in the camera. That is good advice even for the "new schooler."

 

[Frank F.]

Sure but the only reason to do that would be to use the filter as an ND. My method is to shoot color, convert to B&W and then adjust the blue channel to get the exact effect I want. I have all the sky darkening capacity from none to black in an adjustable and simple procedure. That is using digital capabilities to their best.

I also prefer to shoot color and do conversions and filtering in post, but I was trying to point out that it is possible to still go "old school" with a digital camera, so using the color filters to change contrast and values in monochrome/b&w is still valid. I also know some people that absolutely hate to spend time on post.

I understand. I think post processing should be kept to a minimum. Fixing exposure or white balance is positive to me. Taking the image way beyond what was there is often not positive in my view. Rescuing an image is a lot different from changing one. But pretending the camera is analog when its digital capabilites remain unused makes no sense to me at all. If the "old schooler" wants a real old school digital image he just needs to get it right in the camera. That is good advice even for the "new schooler."

I am an old school guy with roughly 150.000 exposures on film between 1983 and 2004.

I exposed slides most of the time but also BW film and color film.

My credo was and is "get it right in camera".

But

Where do I want to go with a shot? If I blow the highlights in a backlit portrait to create a natural cutout the decision is made and there is no way I can recover the highlights should I later want that.

Also I do shoot sitched panoramic views using a NPP head and I do shoot HDR shots. Both were not easily done on film. What I did then was to shoot a panoramic view and later present the round shot in a slide show. Today I can scan these an create panoramic stitches from them.

Why do I tell that?

Because of the discussion on using filters or doing it in post.

The most extreme option will be to buy a digital camera convertrd for full spectrum or black and white and then use the filters in the old way. With full spectrum you can go for visible, IR, UV or all of that in one picture, if the lens supports that.

With a BW conversion you will have to use filters in the old style because you cannot easily decide later if you want red and blue to look the same of max different. With digital BW you are free to define your own film eg in NIK filters....

 

[cathexis]

Thanks people. I feel I've gotten my questions answered and thanks VERY much to those who made model-specific recommendations. I'd be happy to get other recs as well but these are good. If my questions seemed like no-brainers to some then please know that I've learned in today's consumer world it can be quite hard to get reliable advice from folks who don't have any financial interest in the outcomes of their advice. In general, I trust what you say more than some guy in a store until I get to know that store. And the on-line
market makes Caveat Emptor even more true. So thanks! You are appreciated.

Cathexis

 

[Frank F.]

@cathexis I have a Fuji and a Nikon and most of my friends have Fuji, Nikon, Canon ... so I cannot tell you much about Sony for example. I only know one person who actually has an Alpha7R2, uses it regularly and is very happy with it. My argument for Nikon is my experience over the years, that Nikkor lenses tend to not lose value. I even sold some for more than I originally paid for. There is also a huge used market. Bodies lose value, esp. DSLRs, so if you are looking for a good entry point DO get a D3 or D600 used with low click rates.

If budget concerns are not what is driving you, go for a fifth generation Nikon, meaning D5, D850, D500 ... you can sure not go wrong with any of these three. They represent pretty much what is possible today integrated in a system that is lens compatible for 50 years and counting.

The D500 is the best bang for the buck,
the D850 is state of the art in camera engineering, even outperforms medium format at low ISO
AND is sports shooting compatible, blasting 9 frames per second at 46 Megapixels on top of that,
the D5 is a sports and low light shooters dream come true featuring usable image quality up to 100.000 ISO and up to 14 frames per second at 21 Megapixels

 

[cathexis]

@cathexis I have a Fuji and a Nikon and most of my friends have Fuji, Nikon, Canon ... so I cannot tell you much about Sony for example. I only know one person who actually has an Alpha7R2, uses it regularly and is very happy with it. My argument for Nikon is my experience over the years, that Nikkor lenses tend to not lose value. I even sold some for more than I originally paid for. There is also a huge used market. Bodies lose value, esp. DSLRs, so if you are looking for a good entry point DO get a D3 or D600 used with low click rates.

If budget concerns are not what is driving you, go for a fifth generation Nikon, meaning D5, D850, D500 ... you can sure not go wrong with any of these three. They represent pretty much what is possible today integrated in a system that is lens compatible for 50 years and counting.

The D500 is the best bang for the buck,
the D850 is state of the art in camera engineering, even outperforms medium format at low ISO
AND is sports shooting compatible, blasting 9 frames per second at 46 Megapixels on top of that,
the D5 is a sports and low light shooters dream come true featuring usable image quality up to 100.000 ISO and up to 14 frames per second at 21 Megapixels

How ironic you replied with this! I was just cruising thru some of your other posts on used equipment when you replied. Yes, the D850/750 were
a bit of sticker shock when I googled them<wink>. So this new reply is much appreciated. I was trying to figure if this forum allows PM'ing but didn't
see a way to message individuals. Thx. Frank!

 

[Frank F.]

PN is called "conversation" here

 

[petrochemist]

The most extreme option will be to buy a digital camera convertrd for full spectrum or black and white and then use the filters in the old way. With full spectrum you can go for visible, IR, UV or all of that in one picture, if the lens supports that.

I've tried that. UV response on my full spectrum camera is pretty poor so I've never managed all 3 at once.
(UV transmission of lenses is generally very poor too, then you run into issues with them all focusing at different distances...)
Mixing selected parts of the visible with IR is much more practical - IR & Blue (without much green & red) can work very well in some situations!
Experimenting with these options has given a new lease of life to apparently redundant filters - nearly all standard photographic filters transmit IR.