The year is more gone that not so it's definitely time for another post. Don't take my silence to indicate a lack of shooting - far from it. In fact, I've shot so much, I now have a serious backlog of frames to process. While I'm happy to have a full-time job, it really does cut into the time I'd use for editing!
Of course work also cuts into time I'd use for shooting, being most of the daylight hours, but it does allow me to buy the odd bit of camera gear. In particular I'm now the privileged owner of one Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L. It wasn't the lens I really _wanted_ to buy, but it was the one I _needed_ for the work I've been doing, being mostly theatre shoots. I didn't have anything fast wider than 50mm, which on a crop-frame 7D is a bit of a handicap, and knew I was going to need to be up close to the stage in the relatively small theatres for the gigs I had coming up. Especially when the rear seats are significantly higher than the stage - the 70-200mm f/2.8 would do the job but I didn't want all my shots taken looking down from "the gods".
And the verdict? I really can't say I'm unhappy. Photographers must of course constantly deal with compromise, but in the theatre 24-70mm is quite a usable range, allowing me to take a reasonably wide shot while still giving me a short telephoto in an instant if I need it. The light levels generally mean I'm shooting at ISO 1600, almost always wide open at f/2.8 so I can get a reasonable shutter speed (1/100 or so) that doesn't leave me with a bunch of blurry actors. I was a little reticent about the lack of a stabiliser, but I haven't really missed it - I seem to lose shots more to motion blur or focus issues than camera shake.
So my rig now is generally the 7D, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8, plus my 430EX II flash (rarely used, but useful enough to carry with me), which is all I need for what I get time to shoot at this point. I won't say I've got everything I _want_, but I recognise that this is a pretty good photographic base with which I can (and should!) make a lot of progress by concentrating on using it, not agonising on what to buy next (a 5D? 70-300L? 16-35? *grin*).
Anyway, those 8000-odd frames (representing about 1000 frames/night) aren't going to process themselves, so it's back to the Lightroom for me. Hopefully I'll be done before Christmas!
Friday, October 7, 2011
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Four Cameras and a Wedding
It's a new year, which means it's definitely time for a new blog post. There is much, dear reader, upon which to catch you, but I'll start at the end and see how far back we go.
Last weekend I did my first "official" wedding shoot with a photo-fiend friend, for some friends of ours. I've taken photos at weddings before, but this time we (thankfully not just "I") were the official ones. No pressure... The whole affair was reasonably low-key (no church, no cake, no cars, tiny bridal party, maybe 50 guests) and our couple were somewhat relaxed about photos ("just shoot what you want", they said!), but we wanted to deliver a quality result nonetheless.
My natural style, at least for people shots, seems to gravitate towards the telephoto portrait, and because I had a second shooter with a preference for up-close and/or wide shots, I could relax, knowing he had the wide stuff covered. I think having a second (or third, even) shooter at this kind of event is a good plan - you can never cover everything by yourself and it's hard to ask people to go get married again because you missed a shot... ;)
Oh, and the light! The main event was outside in a lovely rose garden, with the couple in a gazebo. While I like to get outside for a good photowalk from time to time, I mostly find myself shooting events in the dark (in a theatre, say), so I'm used to pushing ISO 1600, f/2.8 or wider and 1/100th if I'm _really_ lucky. Shooting outside in the middle of the day meant I could dial all the way down to ISO 100, go f/8 for depth and still have the shutter at 1/200th. Unfortunately we forgot the sunscreen and paid for it in lobster faces, but... I really like ISO 100.
There was a little frustration trying to get group shots lined up and lit, giving the fairly harsh lighting conditions. People looking into the sun tend to squint (not pretty) and putting the sun behind them makes for fun with shadows, plus the fairly aggressive schedule meant we didn't have a lot of time to shuffle people around. I think the message here is to allow plenty of time for group shots. It likely means a lot of people standing around waiting for you, but if the happy couple want good group shots... (ours didn't seem too fussed, so we could concentrate on them, which I much prefer).
We moved on to a beachfront restaurant for dinner (heading into more familar lower-light territory), but with nothing formal on the agenda and no entertainment here it was just lots of people shots. After dinner we stole away to the beach with the bride, the groom and the setting sun, to have our wicked way with them. I stuck with the natural light but my friend went a light wild with flashes and umbrellas. I think we were both happy with what we got there. I can appreciate but don't really like the style of shot where the subjects look like they've been shot in a studio and pasted onto a beach background. I stuck with natural light, shot around the umbrellas and came up happy - sunset at the beach is just a little bit awesome.
Then it was on to what I'll call a chocolate cafe (even lower light) with a small band and a little singing from the bride. By which point we'd been going for nearly 12 hours and were ready for a break! And some serious chocolate!
Anyway, 1500 frames were shot and I now have something of an editing job. I wasn't completely happy with how things panned out, but it was certainly a great opportunity to get a low-stress run at a wedding shoot. I'm not sure I want to be a wedding photographer but I'm certainly happy to give it another shot, with lessons learnt from the day. It's a humbling experience to look over your shots at the end of the day and think about all the things you could have done better. Happily, I know I also got some shots that our newlyweds will love.
Oh, and the gear? I was spoilt by my wife back in July with a shiny new 7D. It's all kinds of awesome. I was also spoilt by another photographer friend with a very generous loan/deferred purchase of a 70-200mm f/2.8L. Together this is... heavy, not to mention intimidating. But it's wonderful to have pro-grade gear to work with when you're trying to do a job. I still love all my old film bodies, but the new rig opens up new possibilities, which I'll hopefully talk about more before the year is out!
Last weekend I did my first "official" wedding shoot with a photo-fiend friend, for some friends of ours. I've taken photos at weddings before, but this time we (thankfully not just "I") were the official ones. No pressure... The whole affair was reasonably low-key (no church, no cake, no cars, tiny bridal party, maybe 50 guests) and our couple were somewhat relaxed about photos ("just shoot what you want", they said!), but we wanted to deliver a quality result nonetheless.
My natural style, at least for people shots, seems to gravitate towards the telephoto portrait, and because I had a second shooter with a preference for up-close and/or wide shots, I could relax, knowing he had the wide stuff covered. I think having a second (or third, even) shooter at this kind of event is a good plan - you can never cover everything by yourself and it's hard to ask people to go get married again because you missed a shot... ;)
Oh, and the light! The main event was outside in a lovely rose garden, with the couple in a gazebo. While I like to get outside for a good photowalk from time to time, I mostly find myself shooting events in the dark (in a theatre, say), so I'm used to pushing ISO 1600, f/2.8 or wider and 1/100th if I'm _really_ lucky. Shooting outside in the middle of the day meant I could dial all the way down to ISO 100, go f/8 for depth and still have the shutter at 1/200th. Unfortunately we forgot the sunscreen and paid for it in lobster faces, but... I really like ISO 100.
There was a little frustration trying to get group shots lined up and lit, giving the fairly harsh lighting conditions. People looking into the sun tend to squint (not pretty) and putting the sun behind them makes for fun with shadows, plus the fairly aggressive schedule meant we didn't have a lot of time to shuffle people around. I think the message here is to allow plenty of time for group shots. It likely means a lot of people standing around waiting for you, but if the happy couple want good group shots... (ours didn't seem too fussed, so we could concentrate on them, which I much prefer).
We moved on to a beachfront restaurant for dinner (heading into more familar lower-light territory), but with nothing formal on the agenda and no entertainment here it was just lots of people shots. After dinner we stole away to the beach with the bride, the groom and the setting sun, to have our wicked way with them. I stuck with the natural light but my friend went a light wild with flashes and umbrellas. I think we were both happy with what we got there. I can appreciate but don't really like the style of shot where the subjects look like they've been shot in a studio and pasted onto a beach background. I stuck with natural light, shot around the umbrellas and came up happy - sunset at the beach is just a little bit awesome.
Then it was on to what I'll call a chocolate cafe (even lower light) with a small band and a little singing from the bride. By which point we'd been going for nearly 12 hours and were ready for a break! And some serious chocolate!
Anyway, 1500 frames were shot and I now have something of an editing job. I wasn't completely happy with how things panned out, but it was certainly a great opportunity to get a low-stress run at a wedding shoot. I'm not sure I want to be a wedding photographer but I'm certainly happy to give it another shot, with lessons learnt from the day. It's a humbling experience to look over your shots at the end of the day and think about all the things you could have done better. Happily, I know I also got some shots that our newlyweds will love.
Oh, and the gear? I was spoilt by my wife back in July with a shiny new 7D. It's all kinds of awesome. I was also spoilt by another photographer friend with a very generous loan/deferred purchase of a 70-200mm f/2.8L. Together this is... heavy, not to mention intimidating. But it's wonderful to have pro-grade gear to work with when you're trying to do a job. I still love all my old film bodies, but the new rig opens up new possibilities, which I'll hopefully talk about more before the year is out!
Sunday, July 25, 2010
My First Maternity Shoot
I had the privilege of doing my first maternity shoot yesterday. It was a low-key affair and a little too rushed for my liking due to time constraints, but ultimately a lot of fun and my first actual organised photo shoot (as opposed to my normal, relatively unplanned photo-wanderings).
I shot two rolls of film - Kodak Porta 800 (colour) in my EOS 3 and Fuji Neopan 400 (black and white) in my EOS 5 (yes, there's a story there too, but for another time...) as well as a bunch of digital shots on my 350D. The 350D was notionally for test shots, but the difference in zoom factor due to the digital's crop-frame sensor is starting to annoy me to the point where I want a full-frame digital. Plus the 350D, while still capable of great images in the right conditions, is starting to become a limitation.
We shot indoors by a balcony door and had plenty of natural light to work with, as is my preference. Joy of joys, I had a make-up artist (female) to work with who doubled as a second shooter and also helped me pose the model, not to mention getting some great shots that I couldn't (eg. me with said model) I also had a 1000W "cine" light which I used a little bit, mostly to experiment with a different "look" but turned it off after the rated four minutes and forgot to turn it on again. I also completely neglected to use a flash, but again, this is the look I generally prefer and since it was my photo shoot, I could get away with that.
I did manage some good shots with the 350D anyway, but I'm really looking forward to getting the film back from processing...
What did I learn so far? Having a switched-on assistant is really, really helpful. I got away with not having much of a plan because she had plenty of ideas, plus the model was very tolerant of our experiments. But it's a wake-up call to me that I need to become much more organised if I'm going to do this for real. Scary, but fun!
I shot two rolls of film - Kodak Porta 800 (colour) in my EOS 3 and Fuji Neopan 400 (black and white) in my EOS 5 (yes, there's a story there too, but for another time...) as well as a bunch of digital shots on my 350D. The 350D was notionally for test shots, but the difference in zoom factor due to the digital's crop-frame sensor is starting to annoy me to the point where I want a full-frame digital. Plus the 350D, while still capable of great images in the right conditions, is starting to become a limitation.
We shot indoors by a balcony door and had plenty of natural light to work with, as is my preference. Joy of joys, I had a make-up artist (female) to work with who doubled as a second shooter and also helped me pose the model, not to mention getting some great shots that I couldn't (eg. me with said model) I also had a 1000W "cine" light which I used a little bit, mostly to experiment with a different "look" but turned it off after the rated four minutes and forgot to turn it on again. I also completely neglected to use a flash, but again, this is the look I generally prefer and since it was my photo shoot, I could get away with that.
I did manage some good shots with the 350D anyway, but I'm really looking forward to getting the film back from processing...
What did I learn so far? Having a switched-on assistant is really, really helpful. I got away with not having much of a plan because she had plenty of ideas, plus the model was very tolerant of our experiments. But it's a wake-up call to me that I need to become much more organised if I'm going to do this for real. Scary, but fun!
Monday, June 28, 2010
Minolta Moments
Oh dear. It appears I need to start this post with that most terrible of journal crimes - an apology for a long gap in posting. I finally went back to full-time work in February after a long break (filled with photography... the break that is, not, alas, the job) and have been meaning to post ever since. Ooops. But never fear - I haven't stopped shooting and have plenty to catch you up on. :)
I've previously mentioned a Minolta SLR I used back before time began (well, in the early 90's) and I finally found prints of the shots I took back then, including on a three week odyssey to Western Australia. I don't even know what model Minolta it was, or the lens specs, except that I had some kind of zoom (with horrendous vignetting out wide) and a 200mm telephoto. Oh, and that the light meter was not integrated, but instead sat on top near the shutter trigger and could even be removed from the camera.
So I scanned those shots and found some stuff I actually quite liked. Seems this latent photographer really has been with me a while, even if he wasn't paying attention to camera models, shutter speeds and f-stops. Here's an example (it's the Eucla station of the Overland Telegraph, which used to be Australia's only wired communications link!), with most of the vignette cropped out:
Now I've been after my father for a while to find that camera so I can satisfy my need to know its specs and also to do some modern day shooting with it. Meanwhile I saw an 85-300mm macro zoom go buy on eBay and thought I'd grab it for when I did find the other camera. It went for $18! Of course, I couldn't let it sit on the shelf and just had to try it out, so I managed to buy a Minolta X-300 for the princely sum of... $10. So for $28 (plus shipping) I had a nice little Minolta rig from circa 1985. When I put it together, I noticed that the zoom had a "macro" feature, which is a word that has disappointed me in the past, but in this case is justified. At 300mm you can pull down the zoom ring to get from between 1:10 and 1:2 magnification at quite short distances. I just had to go shooting... 2 x SR76 batteries, my now-traditional 24 exposure Kodak Ultramax 400 ISO test film and off I went.
So that's a macro shot, although it's not immediately obvious if you don't know what I was shooting. But trust me, it's not something you can do with your average 85-300mm telehoto. I quite like this camera. It's uncomplicated but very functional - you can simply set the shutter to auto, set the aperture you want (manually of course, noting the selected shutter speed in passing) and go (oh, and focus... it is a manual focus deal). The shutter has a satisfyingly smooth click which I love. Plus it appears to take halfway decent photos...
I won't be using this camera full-time, but it's certainly not going to sit idle. I really enjoy using some of this old kit - I love my EOS 3 (and there's another story) but there's something satisfying about getting great photos with cameras that most people would leave to gather dust.
I've previously mentioned a Minolta SLR I used back before time began (well, in the early 90's) and I finally found prints of the shots I took back then, including on a three week odyssey to Western Australia. I don't even know what model Minolta it was, or the lens specs, except that I had some kind of zoom (with horrendous vignetting out wide) and a 200mm telephoto. Oh, and that the light meter was not integrated, but instead sat on top near the shutter trigger and could even be removed from the camera.
So I scanned those shots and found some stuff I actually quite liked. Seems this latent photographer really has been with me a while, even if he wasn't paying attention to camera models, shutter speeds and f-stops. Here's an example (it's the Eucla station of the Overland Telegraph, which used to be Australia's only wired communications link!), with most of the vignette cropped out:
Now I've been after my father for a while to find that camera so I can satisfy my need to know its specs and also to do some modern day shooting with it. Meanwhile I saw an 85-300mm macro zoom go buy on eBay and thought I'd grab it for when I did find the other camera. It went for $18! Of course, I couldn't let it sit on the shelf and just had to try it out, so I managed to buy a Minolta X-300 for the princely sum of... $10. So for $28 (plus shipping) I had a nice little Minolta rig from circa 1985. When I put it together, I noticed that the zoom had a "macro" feature, which is a word that has disappointed me in the past, but in this case is justified. At 300mm you can pull down the zoom ring to get from between 1:10 and 1:2 magnification at quite short distances. I just had to go shooting... 2 x SR76 batteries, my now-traditional 24 exposure Kodak Ultramax 400 ISO test film and off I went.
So that's a macro shot, although it's not immediately obvious if you don't know what I was shooting. But trust me, it's not something you can do with your average 85-300mm telehoto. I quite like this camera. It's uncomplicated but very functional - you can simply set the shutter to auto, set the aperture you want (manually of course, noting the selected shutter speed in passing) and go (oh, and focus... it is a manual focus deal). The shutter has a satisfyingly smooth click which I love. Plus it appears to take halfway decent photos...
I won't be using this camera full-time, but it's certainly not going to sit idle. I really enjoy using some of this old kit - I love my EOS 3 (and there's another story) but there's something satisfying about getting great photos with cameras that most people would leave to gather dust.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Shooting tips for my 350D I wish someone had told me in the beginning
When I first started shooting in anger with my 350D (9 months and over 15,000 shutter activations ago, not counting the film shots...) I had immense trouble and frustration losing shots to focus issues. Happily, a few things I learnt along the way really helped me:
1) Not using multi-point AF. Set it to the centre point and leave it there. Point at what you want in sharp focus, half-press the shutter, hold it down and recompose, then take the shot. Also, if you're having trouble getting the AF to lock, remember that it needs some contrast to work with. So give it an edge to look at (one that's at the focus point you want, of course) and then recompose.
2) Not using A-DEP. I don't know why I started using this in the first place really, but now I pretty much leave the camera on aperture priority (Av) and adjust for the depth of field I want (within the limitations of available light and motion of my subject... bearing in mind that you can't have everything!) Occasionally I go full manual (and paradoxically, sometimes I use P for manual lenses - eg. FD stuff with aperture rings, because the metering still helps).
3) Using one-shot AF mode. AI Focus and AI Servo modes for me are nice ideas, but I haven't figured out how to use them properly. Mostly they just cause me to focus on the wrong thing and I've come to prefer the certainty of a positive AF lock. That said, I have gotten a couple of nice bird-in-flight shots with AI Focus that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Save it for special [purpose] occasions.
4) Actual depth of field. Yes, f/1.8 is lovely for low light work and portraits, but if you're not careful your depth of field might only be a couple of centimetres, if not millimetres. You might not notice the difference in the viewfinder but you'll surely see it when you view the result full size. Consider f/8 or narrower if you have the light to do it without going so low on the shutter speed that you shake the shot anyway. (Oh and for the record, I _love_ f/1.8!)
5) Adjusting the viewfinder diopter. That little wheel to the right of the viewfinder may be set wrong for you (it's personal) and might be causing you not to notice focus issues. Or in my case, be so far out that I can barely make myself look in the viewfinder.
6) Holding the camera steady. Seems obvious, but sometimes you think you're steady when you're really not. If you're down below, say, 1/250, check your stance. Hold the lens barrel as well as the camera (don't disturb the focus, mind!) Use whatever's nearby (wall, post, etc) to brace yourself. Use a tripod. Use a monopod. Use a remote release. Etc. Etc. I can hand-hold 1/10 if I get lucky (but I do have good and bad days), but don't risk it if you don't have to. Hold the shutter release down and take a few shots if you're working on the edge - you might get at least one that works.
7) Using a vertical grip. For me, this added a nice amount of weight to the camera which make it easier for me to keep steady. The extra shutter button also meant I was much less likely to push the camera sideways when I hit the button on a portrait (ie. sideways) shot.
8) Staying on or under ISO 800. On the 350D, cranking the sensor up to ISO 1600 makes for some serious noise in the image. ISO 800 is ever so much nicer. Use ISO 1600 only if you must and be prepared for some serious editing (and/or disappointment). (Note that later models are much better in this regard - the 500D will give you decent results at 1600, for example, and this will only get better as the technology improves - one area where digital is definitely going to beat film, I'd say.)
Meanwhile, know that manual focus with a matte focus screen (ie. no split circle or microprisms) is really hard, especially with some of the cheaper EF lenses with really jumpy focus rings. And the LCD is so tiny it make make bad shots look OK (even if you zoom in the view). Trust the AF (but do try the "centre point AF, lock and recompose" trick). You may also wish to investigate a third-party split-circle focus screen if you really want to do a lot of manual focus work.
Look over your failed shots and try to figure out if it was focus or camera shake that killed it. What looks like focus might also just be depth of field - look for the sharp spot in the image. And shake might just be the operator trying to pushing the envelope too far - digital cameras are amazing but they're not magical.
Happy shooting!
1) Not using multi-point AF. Set it to the centre point and leave it there. Point at what you want in sharp focus, half-press the shutter, hold it down and recompose, then take the shot. Also, if you're having trouble getting the AF to lock, remember that it needs some contrast to work with. So give it an edge to look at (one that's at the focus point you want, of course) and then recompose.
2) Not using A-DEP. I don't know why I started using this in the first place really, but now I pretty much leave the camera on aperture priority (Av) and adjust for the depth of field I want (within the limitations of available light and motion of my subject... bearing in mind that you can't have everything!) Occasionally I go full manual (and paradoxically, sometimes I use P for manual lenses - eg. FD stuff with aperture rings, because the metering still helps).
3) Using one-shot AF mode. AI Focus and AI Servo modes for me are nice ideas, but I haven't figured out how to use them properly. Mostly they just cause me to focus on the wrong thing and I've come to prefer the certainty of a positive AF lock. That said, I have gotten a couple of nice bird-in-flight shots with AI Focus that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Save it for special [purpose] occasions.
4) Actual depth of field. Yes, f/1.8 is lovely for low light work and portraits, but if you're not careful your depth of field might only be a couple of centimetres, if not millimetres. You might not notice the difference in the viewfinder but you'll surely see it when you view the result full size. Consider f/8 or narrower if you have the light to do it without going so low on the shutter speed that you shake the shot anyway. (Oh and for the record, I _love_ f/1.8!)
5) Adjusting the viewfinder diopter. That little wheel to the right of the viewfinder may be set wrong for you (it's personal) and might be causing you not to notice focus issues. Or in my case, be so far out that I can barely make myself look in the viewfinder.
6) Holding the camera steady. Seems obvious, but sometimes you think you're steady when you're really not. If you're down below, say, 1/250, check your stance. Hold the lens barrel as well as the camera (don't disturb the focus, mind!) Use whatever's nearby (wall, post, etc) to brace yourself. Use a tripod. Use a monopod. Use a remote release. Etc. Etc. I can hand-hold 1/10 if I get lucky (but I do have good and bad days), but don't risk it if you don't have to. Hold the shutter release down and take a few shots if you're working on the edge - you might get at least one that works.
7) Using a vertical grip. For me, this added a nice amount of weight to the camera which make it easier for me to keep steady. The extra shutter button also meant I was much less likely to push the camera sideways when I hit the button on a portrait (ie. sideways) shot.
8) Staying on or under ISO 800. On the 350D, cranking the sensor up to ISO 1600 makes for some serious noise in the image. ISO 800 is ever so much nicer. Use ISO 1600 only if you must and be prepared for some serious editing (and/or disappointment). (Note that later models are much better in this regard - the 500D will give you decent results at 1600, for example, and this will only get better as the technology improves - one area where digital is definitely going to beat film, I'd say.)
Meanwhile, know that manual focus with a matte focus screen (ie. no split circle or microprisms) is really hard, especially with some of the cheaper EF lenses with really jumpy focus rings. And the LCD is so tiny it make make bad shots look OK (even if you zoom in the view). Trust the AF (but do try the "centre point AF, lock and recompose" trick). You may also wish to investigate a third-party split-circle focus screen if you really want to do a lot of manual focus work.
Look over your failed shots and try to figure out if it was focus or camera shake that killed it. What looks like focus might also just be depth of field - look for the sharp spot in the image. And shake might just be the operator trying to pushing the envelope too far - digital cameras are amazing but they're not magical.
Happy shooting!
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Teleconvert me!
A new toy arrived in the mail today. Actually it's relatively old, like a lot of my gear but it's new to me. It's a "2X CFE Teleplus MC4" teleconverter for Canon FD lenses for which I paid the princely sum of ninety-nine cents. I do feel ever so slightly guilty not paying more but I guess that's the way it goes when people list things on eBay for $0.99 and there's only one bid. I'll try to "pay it forward" or something...
The first combination I tried was the teleconverter and 100-300mm f/5.6 zoom on my AE-1 Program. After a little [user] trouble getting things mounted I was happy to note that metering worked as expected. Basically the teleconverter ate two stops (e.g. f/22 without became f/11 with), which is what my reading suggested for a 2X version. But for those two stops I do get 2X magnification... or a 600mm lens. In fact, this combination might equal or better my 600mm f/8 (fixed) mirror lens (although the mirror lens _is_ pretty sharp and the teleconverter optics might fail on that front).
And then it just got silly. I put the 600mm mirror lens on the teleconverter. So that's a 1200mm f/16 lens, which allows me to pick out small details on the roof of a shed two houses away. Of course, given that my personal film lab isn't quite up and running, I just had to try this on my 350D to see what it looked like. Out with the FD-EF adapter... and I have a [sort of] 1920mm focal length. Ridiculous! As is trying to hold the thing steady, so I'm off to play with this on a tripod now... ;) Photos soon.
The first combination I tried was the teleconverter and 100-300mm f/5.6 zoom on my AE-1 Program. After a little [user] trouble getting things mounted I was happy to note that metering worked as expected. Basically the teleconverter ate two stops (e.g. f/22 without became f/11 with), which is what my reading suggested for a 2X version. But for those two stops I do get 2X magnification... or a 600mm lens. In fact, this combination might equal or better my 600mm f/8 (fixed) mirror lens (although the mirror lens _is_ pretty sharp and the teleconverter optics might fail on that front).
And then it just got silly. I put the 600mm mirror lens on the teleconverter. So that's a 1200mm f/16 lens, which allows me to pick out small details on the roof of a shed two houses away. Of course, given that my personal film lab isn't quite up and running, I just had to try this on my 350D to see what it looked like. Out with the FD-EF adapter... and I have a [sort of] 1920mm focal length. Ridiculous! As is trying to hold the thing steady, so I'm off to play with this on a tripod now... ;) Photos soon.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Fun wth Infrared
Infrared photography has been on my list of things to do for a little while and this week the correct celestial alignment presented itself. Basically I picked up some Ilford SFX 200 from a bargain bin of expired film thinking I'd try something new. I thought it was just another black and white film but it turns out this one is a little different in that it's sensitive to infrared light.
So I asked the friendly photography store people what I needed to use it and they found me a relatively cheap ($A40) 52mm Hoya R72 filter. I was intending to use this film in my AE-1 Program and this size fits most of my FD lenses. It's also significantly cheaper than the 58mm R72 and fits the [f=]50mm EF lens for my EOS cameras.
And in fact, that's the only lens I've tried out with this filter so far since it's much easier to whack it on my 350D and play around with exposures on a digital camera than to shoot a roll of film and hope that I got something right. Happily the 350D's sensor is also sensitive to IR light and it doesn't get filtered out on the way through.
The filter seems opaque just to look at and once on the camera it makes the viewfinder completely black, unless you point it at the sun (with some leaves in the way for a nice effect), like so (f/4, 1/125):
With no sun in the frame things are trickier as you really can't see what you're shooting, but I seem to be able to guess OK. When I shoot the film I'll most likely use a tripod, frame the shot with the filter off and only put the filter on for the actual exposure. Meanwhile, the near-instant feedback on the digital camera, not to mention the inexpensive medium of compact flash, makes experimenting easy. Here's another experiment without the sun in the frame, shot at f/1.8, 1/40 (manual mode is what you want, since the camera's metering is affected by the filter).
Obviously these shots are very red (except for the purple trees!), whereas the film will be black and white, but I kinda like it. Focus is another issue to deal with when shooting infrared, presumably because light at infrared wavelengths bends differently to visible light, making the focal point different. In practice the 350D's autofocus still worked sufficiently well for my experiments, but I'll be making use of the helpful red dots on my FD lenses when I try the film...
So I asked the friendly photography store people what I needed to use it and they found me a relatively cheap ($A40) 52mm Hoya R72 filter. I was intending to use this film in my AE-1 Program and this size fits most of my FD lenses. It's also significantly cheaper than the 58mm R72 and fits the [f=]50mm EF lens for my EOS cameras.
And in fact, that's the only lens I've tried out with this filter so far since it's much easier to whack it on my 350D and play around with exposures on a digital camera than to shoot a roll of film and hope that I got something right. Happily the 350D's sensor is also sensitive to IR light and it doesn't get filtered out on the way through.
The filter seems opaque just to look at and once on the camera it makes the viewfinder completely black, unless you point it at the sun (with some leaves in the way for a nice effect), like so (f/4, 1/125):
With no sun in the frame things are trickier as you really can't see what you're shooting, but I seem to be able to guess OK. When I shoot the film I'll most likely use a tripod, frame the shot with the filter off and only put the filter on for the actual exposure. Meanwhile, the near-instant feedback on the digital camera, not to mention the inexpensive medium of compact flash, makes experimenting easy. Here's another experiment without the sun in the frame, shot at f/1.8, 1/40 (manual mode is what you want, since the camera's metering is affected by the filter).
Obviously these shots are very red (except for the purple trees!), whereas the film will be black and white, but I kinda like it. Focus is another issue to deal with when shooting infrared, presumably because light at infrared wavelengths bends differently to visible light, making the focal point different. In practice the 350D's autofocus still worked sufficiently well for my experiments, but I'll be making use of the helpful red dots on my FD lenses when I try the film...
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Focus screen blues (continued)
I've been shooting for a while now with a less-than-optimal focus screen in my 350D. As previously mentioned, I had installed an aftermarket split-circle screen in the hope of a better manual focus setup but alas just ended up with something that wouldn't give me the correct focus and was scratched and dirty to boot (my fault).
Well tonight I got well sick of it - it was so bad I was favouring my film bodies over the digital and only using the 350D for throwaway shots, because I could barely bring myself to look through its viewfinder. This was enough to give me the courage to put my factory screen back in. I had attempted this previously (when I first put the split-circle in, actually) but couldn't get the AF points to line up. Tonight, no such problem, thankfully. I did leave out the thin copper shim that was originally in the camera, but things look OK, so I'm going with what I have now.
I'd still love a split-circle, but the one I tried did get a little dark at narrower apertures so I think I'll stick with the factory screen in my 350D and maybe try something else (a different brand, methinks) if and when I finally get something better (my wishlist goes like this: 500D, 7D, 5D... ;)
Well tonight I got well sick of it - it was so bad I was favouring my film bodies over the digital and only using the 350D for throwaway shots, because I could barely bring myself to look through its viewfinder. This was enough to give me the courage to put my factory screen back in. I had attempted this previously (when I first put the split-circle in, actually) but couldn't get the AF points to line up. Tonight, no such problem, thankfully. I did leave out the thin copper shim that was originally in the camera, but things look OK, so I'm going with what I have now.
I'd still love a split-circle, but the one I tried did get a little dark at narrower apertures so I think I'll stick with the factory screen in my 350D and maybe try something else (a different brand, methinks) if and when I finally get something better (my wishlist goes like this: 500D, 7D, 5D... ;)
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Death to Fungus
Tonight, cruising eBay for lenses, as I am wont to do, I came across a Canon 28-135mm IS f/3.5-5.6 USM lens (IS: Image Stabiliser and USM: Ultra-Sonic Motor, ie. quiet auto-focus). I already have the similar 28-105mm USM (no IS) lens, but would love the extra reach and IS would be handy. So far it's sitting on $22.50 with three days to go. Why? In a word - fungus. That's right, there's stuff growing inside the lens. Damn.
But it got me thinking about how I might go about cleaning it up myself (or how much it might cost to get it done professionally and whether that would be worth it - short answer is "probably", but hard to tell sight-unseen). Which got me thinking about the old 70-210mm f/4 I have, which had a bit of an infection itself, and I did a little reading...
This lens came with the EOS 650 that I bought not so long ago as my second film body (after the 3000N). I bought it mostly for the lenses (although I've been using the body too) - the 70-210mm and a 35-105mm and I think they're both out of the original EF lineup. Certainly they have the AF motor noise to prove it! Anyway, the 70-210mm had a little fungus on the inside (where else?) of the front element, and I was suitably terrified of actually opening a lens myself, but the three little Phillips-head were just too tempting. After, I told myself, I don't use this lens much, if at all, and if I kill it dead (which I thought unlikely), I can deal.
So, three screws out and the front element can be removed without too much trouble. I want to go easy on the glass so I try a little alcohol spray and a blower but the fungus won't budge. I try an experimental nudge with my thumbnail (which I keep long for playing guitar) and end up smearing it a little. Ick. OK, so my earlier reading suggested that vinegar (of the white spirit kind, not the apple cider or red wine kind!) was a good tool for this job... and it is. I apply some with a cotton-bud and the fungus basically dissolves. I blot it clean with a lens-cleaning cloth and things look good. This being a push-pull zoom, I can also get to the rear element easily and clean that up too. Make sure everything is dry, put the front element back on and screw it up. Done.
And the result? Well, it looks clean enough although I'll know better when I do some comparison shots against its previous performance. Happily, the lens with the fungus was the easiest one to pull apart, out of my collection. The others look a little more daunting... Meanwhile, I think I'll bid on this 28-135mm and see if I can't somehow clean it up. If I can get it cheap it may even be worth having it professionally cleaned. :)
But it got me thinking about how I might go about cleaning it up myself (or how much it might cost to get it done professionally and whether that would be worth it - short answer is "probably", but hard to tell sight-unseen). Which got me thinking about the old 70-210mm f/4 I have, which had a bit of an infection itself, and I did a little reading...
This lens came with the EOS 650 that I bought not so long ago as my second film body (after the 3000N). I bought it mostly for the lenses (although I've been using the body too) - the 70-210mm and a 35-105mm and I think they're both out of the original EF lineup. Certainly they have the AF motor noise to prove it! Anyway, the 70-210mm had a little fungus on the inside (where else?) of the front element, and I was suitably terrified of actually opening a lens myself, but the three little Phillips-head were just too tempting. After, I told myself, I don't use this lens much, if at all, and if I kill it dead (which I thought unlikely), I can deal.
So, three screws out and the front element can be removed without too much trouble. I want to go easy on the glass so I try a little alcohol spray and a blower but the fungus won't budge. I try an experimental nudge with my thumbnail (which I keep long for playing guitar) and end up smearing it a little. Ick. OK, so my earlier reading suggested that vinegar (of the white spirit kind, not the apple cider or red wine kind!) was a good tool for this job... and it is. I apply some with a cotton-bud and the fungus basically dissolves. I blot it clean with a lens-cleaning cloth and things look good. This being a push-pull zoom, I can also get to the rear element easily and clean that up too. Make sure everything is dry, put the front element back on and screw it up. Done.
And the result? Well, it looks clean enough although I'll know better when I do some comparison shots against its previous performance. Happily, the lens with the fungus was the easiest one to pull apart, out of my collection. The others look a little more daunting... Meanwhile, I think I'll bid on this 28-135mm and see if I can't somehow clean it up. If I can get it cheap it may even be worth having it professionally cleaned. :)
Thursday, December 24, 2009
I love my AE-1 Program (or, primes rock)
So I ran a roll of Kodak Ultramax 400 through my AE-1 Program. I wasn't expecting too much from this film - it was really a test roll for my recent FD lens acquisitions. And when I saw the prints today, the first few shots were out of focus or shaken so I was a little sad. Then I had a chance to look through the rest and was pleasantly surprised.
One of the most interesting shots was with the 24mm Sigma. I had managed to get the lens slightly "cross-threaded" on the mount and I couldn't get it to focus - I thought I'd broken it somehow but took the shot anyway, of the grand old Exhibition Building in Melbourne, and it turned out a look like those tilt-shift pictures you see (makes sense, I guess). Then I figured out what I'd done, mounted the lens properly and got a beautiful, focussed shot - amazing blue sky and brushed clouds, almost like an HDR (high dynamic range) digital image. Like so:
Next I tried the Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror lens. I pointed it at the little tower on top of the dome and got a beautifully sharp of something that was only a tiny detail in the frame from the 24mm lens. The background was that bright blue sky, so there were no "donuts" in the background "bokeh" that are a drawback with the mirror lens design. I also shot some long-range "portraits", both against a background of trees (yielding donuts) and a blank wall. So long as I managed to get the subject in focus, they were wonderfully sharp. The donuts are a little trippy but I think are an interesting effect if used tastefully.
Finally I shot some portraits with the 135mm f/3.5 (pretty close equivalent to the 85mm I love using so much on the 350D, focal length-wise, anyway). Again, nice and sharp with beautiful colours.
I'm tempted to say this is the roll of colour film that I've been happiest with, but that wouldn't be quite true, having looked back at some of the Fuji 400H and Velvia 100 I shot at the Melbourne Zoo on the EOS 50. Still, I'm really glad I bought the AE-1 Program and I have new respect for Kodak Ultramax 400.
One of the most interesting shots was with the 24mm Sigma. I had managed to get the lens slightly "cross-threaded" on the mount and I couldn't get it to focus - I thought I'd broken it somehow but took the shot anyway, of the grand old Exhibition Building in Melbourne, and it turned out a look like those tilt-shift pictures you see (makes sense, I guess). Then I figured out what I'd done, mounted the lens properly and got a beautiful, focussed shot - amazing blue sky and brushed clouds, almost like an HDR (high dynamic range) digital image. Like so:
Next I tried the Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror lens. I pointed it at the little tower on top of the dome and got a beautifully sharp of something that was only a tiny detail in the frame from the 24mm lens. The background was that bright blue sky, so there were no "donuts" in the background "bokeh" that are a drawback with the mirror lens design. I also shot some long-range "portraits", both against a background of trees (yielding donuts) and a blank wall. So long as I managed to get the subject in focus, they were wonderfully sharp. The donuts are a little trippy but I think are an interesting effect if used tastefully.
Finally I shot some portraits with the 135mm f/3.5 (pretty close equivalent to the 85mm I love using so much on the 350D, focal length-wise, anyway). Again, nice and sharp with beautiful colours.
I'm tempted to say this is the roll of colour film that I've been happiest with, but that wouldn't be quite true, having looked back at some of the Fuji 400H and Velvia 100 I shot at the Melbourne Zoo on the EOS 50. Still, I'm really glad I bought the AE-1 Program and I have new respect for Kodak Ultramax 400.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Focus screen blues
A while back I ordered a split-circle focus screen for my 350D. (I won't mention the vendor by name at this point because my issue is still unresolved and I don't want to prejudge the result.) I was getting frustrated with a very hunt-happy autofocus system (especially in low light) and was finding the manual focus option to be very difficult with the standard screen. Losing a lot of shots that I was sure I could get if I could only _see_!
The screen arrived a couple of weeks back and I procrastinated about putting it in, because the screens are very easily scratched and/or dirtied and next to impossible to clean. Now I'm wishing I had just left well-enough alone.
Long story short[er], the screen went in fine. But the viewfinder focus was wrong, because I had put it in backwards (it's hard to tell, OK?). So I flipped it. And it was still out, but closer. So I put the copper shim back in (the one they said you didn't need). And it was worse. And so on and so forth, taking the screen out a lot, having trouble placing it back in. And it got dirty. And scratched. And cleaning with isopropyl alcohol left a mark. And blah. I tried putting the original screen back, but couldn't get it to line up. At 2am I declared defeat, emailed the support address and went to bed for some fitful sleep.
I was so annoyed I didn't take _any_ cameras with me when I left the house today (well, except the one in my phone). As anyone who has seen me recently will know, this is highly unusual. I was that sad.
Support email came back and said I should try with the extra bits of sticky stuff to extend the shim. That made it worse. So I took out the shim. Better, but not right, and nowhere near good enough for manual focus (which was the point of this, remember?). I need to move the screen further back. Or make it thinner (tricky).
So, email to support again. I figure they'll either declare me incompetent, come up with some trick I haven't thought of (no, I'm not taking a scalpel to my camera!) or admit there's an issue and get me a screen that fits.
Hopefully I get some joy - I can see the potential of the split circle to really enhance my work and I can't wait to have a working one on my only digital body. Maybe shooting some film will cheer me up in the meantime...
The screen arrived a couple of weeks back and I procrastinated about putting it in, because the screens are very easily scratched and/or dirtied and next to impossible to clean. Now I'm wishing I had just left well-enough alone.
Long story short[er], the screen went in fine. But the viewfinder focus was wrong, because I had put it in backwards (it's hard to tell, OK?). So I flipped it. And it was still out, but closer. So I put the copper shim back in (the one they said you didn't need). And it was worse. And so on and so forth, taking the screen out a lot, having trouble placing it back in. And it got dirty. And scratched. And cleaning with isopropyl alcohol left a mark. And blah. I tried putting the original screen back, but couldn't get it to line up. At 2am I declared defeat, emailed the support address and went to bed for some fitful sleep.
I was so annoyed I didn't take _any_ cameras with me when I left the house today (well, except the one in my phone). As anyone who has seen me recently will know, this is highly unusual. I was that sad.
Support email came back and said I should try with the extra bits of sticky stuff to extend the shim. That made it worse. So I took out the shim. Better, but not right, and nowhere near good enough for manual focus (which was the point of this, remember?). I need to move the screen further back. Or make it thinner (tricky).
So, email to support again. I figure they'll either declare me incompetent, come up with some trick I haven't thought of (no, I'm not taking a scalpel to my camera!) or admit there's an issue and get me a screen that fits.
Hopefully I get some joy - I can see the potential of the split circle to really enhance my work and I can't wait to have a working one on my only digital body. Maybe shooting some film will cheer me up in the meantime...
Sunday, December 13, 2009
eBay is eeeevil!
No shooting today, just a fair bit of eBay madness. I've augmented my FD collection by three.
First up, a 28mm f/2.8 prime made by Sigma, which should be nice for landscapes (and the inevitable posed group shots that people seem to force upon me from time to time). I would have preferred a Canon lens, but I'm willing to give this a shot.
Next we have the Canon 135mm f/3.5 which should suit me well as I like to do really close-up portrait shots. It's a little slower than I'd like, but I can't really complain since it's a 135mm lens. I find a little distance is useful from my people subjects so I can grab unposed shots before they realise they're being photographed and put on some awful pose face. I realise this sounds sneaky but it seems to be the only way to get the shots that I really like (which I will generally show people after the fact if I can). And often, the subjects really like them too. ;)
Lastly, moving toward the realms of the crazy, I also bought a Sigma mirror lens, with a focal length of... wait for it... 600mm! Now since I haven't won any lotteries recently there are obviously some drawbacks to this deal ('cause, you know, the Canon 600mm f/4L IS _would_ be preferable... *grin*). The mirror lens design means you get a fixed aperture (f/4 in this case) and not-so-nice bokeh in the form of little donuts if you happen to chose the "wrong" background. But... 600mm! On the upside, it's not as heavy or big as you might think.
The grand total for all this manual-focus mayhem? Around $A200. Now I just have to wait for it to show up... Looks like I'm getting a little carried away with this FD thing... (not to mention the film thing!)
First up, a 28mm f/2.8 prime made by Sigma, which should be nice for landscapes (and the inevitable posed group shots that people seem to force upon me from time to time). I would have preferred a Canon lens, but I'm willing to give this a shot.
Next we have the Canon 135mm f/3.5 which should suit me well as I like to do really close-up portrait shots. It's a little slower than I'd like, but I can't really complain since it's a 135mm lens. I find a little distance is useful from my people subjects so I can grab unposed shots before they realise they're being photographed and put on some awful pose face. I realise this sounds sneaky but it seems to be the only way to get the shots that I really like (which I will generally show people after the fact if I can). And often, the subjects really like them too. ;)
Lastly, moving toward the realms of the crazy, I also bought a Sigma mirror lens, with a focal length of... wait for it... 600mm! Now since I haven't won any lotteries recently there are obviously some drawbacks to this deal ('cause, you know, the Canon 600mm f/4L IS _would_ be preferable... *grin*). The mirror lens design means you get a fixed aperture (f/4 in this case) and not-so-nice bokeh in the form of little donuts if you happen to chose the "wrong" background. But... 600mm! On the upside, it's not as heavy or big as you might think.
The grand total for all this manual-focus mayhem? Around $A200. Now I just have to wait for it to show up... Looks like I'm getting a little carried away with this FD thing... (not to mention the film thing!)
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Band in a boat
Had a fun afternoon with some friends of mine, known to fans as John Flanagan and the Begin Agains (http://www.myspace.com/johnflanagansings). John asked for someone to help out on a photo shoot - holding a reflector or whatever. Of course I volunteered as I hadn't seen these guys in ages and... well, it was a photo shoot, so a great chance to observe a professional in action.
Turned out the light was such that a reflector wasn't needed, so I was free to shoot alongside the "real" photographer, mirroring the shots she took on her Mamiya and doing "behind the scenes" type stuff too. And I had a ball - shot mostly B&W film - I thought the 1600 ISO I had loaded up in the EOS 5 would be excessive but I think it worked well, especially since the EOS 5 will do shutter speeds up to 1/8000 (it didn't blink at me once). Also shot some slides (50 ISO Velvia!) and a bunch of frames on the 350D. Oh, and a bit of AE-1P action for good measure to finish up a roll.
The locations were great - an old convent (where I had wandered earlier with the AE-1P) and later on down by the river, with the band in a rowboat! The day's highlight was the band floating by looking somewhat regal, John standing up in the back with his banjo. Kudos to the photographer for that particular bit of vision and planning - the boating theme really fit the old-timey/bluegrass feel of the band and putting the banjo in the boat was just gold. And thanks for letting me shoot too - looking forward to getting that film processed.
Turned out the light was such that a reflector wasn't needed, so I was free to shoot alongside the "real" photographer, mirroring the shots she took on her Mamiya and doing "behind the scenes" type stuff too. And I had a ball - shot mostly B&W film - I thought the 1600 ISO I had loaded up in the EOS 5 would be excessive but I think it worked well, especially since the EOS 5 will do shutter speeds up to 1/8000 (it didn't blink at me once). Also shot some slides (50 ISO Velvia!) and a bunch of frames on the 350D. Oh, and a bit of AE-1P action for good measure to finish up a roll.
The locations were great - an old convent (where I had wandered earlier with the AE-1P) and later on down by the river, with the band in a rowboat! The day's highlight was the band floating by looking somewhat regal, John standing up in the back with his banjo. Kudos to the photographer for that particular bit of vision and planning - the boating theme really fit the old-timey/bluegrass feel of the band and putting the banjo in the boat was just gold. And thanks for letting me shoot too - looking forward to getting that film processed.
Friday, December 11, 2009
AE-1 Program
My new (old, but new to me) Canon AE-1 Program arrived today, vintage 1981 or so. This is one of Canon's more famous FD-mount cameras (as opposed to the newer EF EOS cameras) and is a little special because it has the automatic "Program" mode, where the electronics in the camera take care of shutter speed and aperture for you. Remember, we're talking 1981 here.
But, no auto-focus - what you do get is a nice circle on the focus screen with a pattern that will tell you at a glance if you're focussed or not, which is fine by me. The shutter speed only goes to 1/1000, but you can still do plenty with that and I don't really plan on super fast action photography with this thing.
Why _did_ I buy it? I'm going to admit I have a problem with collecting stuff. When I become passionate about something I tend to start collecting... for history's sake, you see. In this case, I'm also hoping to find some nice FD-mount L-series lenses for a reasonable price (although it seems I'm not the only one with this idea). There's also the cool (for me) factor of taking hopefully nice shots with an older camera (although thesedays just shooting film is enough to draw comment).
I will probably buy at least one other FD-mount body (maybe an F1-n, or a T70) but for the moment this is it. I may also acquire a motor-drive base for the AE-1P, although I'm quite happy with the manual wind functionality and I like the compact size of this one with just the 50mm f/1.8.
Anyway, I've loaded up some Neopan 400 and tomorrow I'll go see what jumps in front of the lens. Meanwhile, I just love the shutter "squeak" sound on this thing - it's no soft click, that's for sure!
But, no auto-focus - what you do get is a nice circle on the focus screen with a pattern that will tell you at a glance if you're focussed or not, which is fine by me. The shutter speed only goes to 1/1000, but you can still do plenty with that and I don't really plan on super fast action photography with this thing.
Why _did_ I buy it? I'm going to admit I have a problem with collecting stuff. When I become passionate about something I tend to start collecting... for history's sake, you see. In this case, I'm also hoping to find some nice FD-mount L-series lenses for a reasonable price (although it seems I'm not the only one with this idea). There's also the cool (for me) factor of taking hopefully nice shots with an older camera (although thesedays just shooting film is enough to draw comment).
I will probably buy at least one other FD-mount body (maybe an F1-n, or a T70) but for the moment this is it. I may also acquire a motor-drive base for the AE-1P, although I'm quite happy with the manual wind functionality and I like the compact size of this one with just the 50mm f/1.8.
Anyway, I've loaded up some Neopan 400 and tomorrow I'll go see what jumps in front of the lens. Meanwhile, I just love the shutter "squeak" sound on this thing - it's no soft click, that's for sure!
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
First, some history...
How was I transformed from snapshotter into photo-nut? This mostly happened over the last few months, but I think it started backed when I was around eight.
I was given a little Hanimex camera (probably a 110 IF), which took film in the form of a cartridge. Many of the photos I took with this were awful (yes, I still have them). But not all. Then teenagerdom took over and I became extremely paranoid about having my photo taken.
[The rest of this post is possibly somewhat tedious. I'm mostly writing it for myself - you might want to skip to the last couple of paragraphs!]
I also forgot that I liked taking photos - I certainly don't remember having a camera. I didn't really return to a more normal attitude until I was seventeen when my father lent me a Minolta SLR to take to France with me my student exchange odyssey. The other kids on the plane actually asked me if I had Japanese blood, I was taking so many photos on take-off (in fact, I was trying to capture as many images of Melbourne (from the air) as I could, preempting some serious homesickness). I took some photos over there, and continued off and on for a few years after I got home but nothing serious. I eventually gave the camera back to Dad sometime late last century and left photography alone again. Maybe film was too much hassle? I don't know. I was certainly still interested in imaging, but bought a 8mm Sony camcorder (analog tape) instead of an SLR.
Fast forward to around 2001. Serious DSLRs were still stupidly expensive but my inner geek needed to get in on the action and I got some crappy little "digital camera" (now lost in a box somewhere), with a massive 0.3 megapixel (640x480 VGA) resolution. It was not great - I gave it to my daughter and she had a ball taking mostly out-of-focus shots of all sorts of things.
2003 - enter mobile phones with cameras. I got a Nokia 7650, again with VGA. I didn't buy it for the camera, but of course I did take pictures with it, especially since, due to work, I was living two states away from wife and children. Being able to take pictures of where I was and send them via MMS kept us in touch. (Thankfully I got to move back home after a few months.)
Then I spent my $1000 Christmas bonus (only one I've ever had, mind) on a Canon A80 for my wife. That's right - for my wife, since she wanted to have decent photos of our children, among other things (happily she had still been shooting film, mostly on disposable cameras, while I was busy ignoring photography). Of course, I couldn't resist completely and used it too from time to time, mostly when we went somewhere involving trains. But some reason I didn't take it to San Francisco and instead used the second-hand Nokia 3650 (still VGA) I bought over there because my dual-band 7650 wouldn't talk US-style GSM. Gargh!
2006 - Another travel-induced phone upgrade (this time to Japan, so I needed a 3G W-CDMA phone) got me a 2MP camera on the Nokia 6233. And I did take the A80 this time. And took some halfway interesting photos - with the phone as well, even. Damn, those temples are fascinating.
2008 - The 6233 had become decidedly flaky, so I upgraded to an N95 8GB (wow, Carl Zeiss optics...) And this thing has a Flickr upload capability built-in, right there in the camera application. I wasn't really one for sharing, but I did start upload shots of odd signs and things I found in the street. And then...
[things get interesting]
A guy at work offered me a Canon 350D for $A350. I knew I'd been wanting a DSLR for years (startup times and capture delay on the things I had were driving me nuts, for one thing) so I jumped at it, 18-55mm mostly plastic kit lens, 8MP sensor and all. I spent the first little while just seeing how quickly I could take a photo from the time I flicked the camera on. *grins* (But still the obsession has not really taken hold...)
Then, a guitarist I play alongside in amateur theatre pit orchestras brings along his 500D. And he's taking photos in low light with no flash. And they're good. And I get interested... oh, so you need a lens with a wide aperture... and the 50mm f/1.8 is under $A150... and then it takes off for me. I buy the 50mm. I buy the 75-300mm telephoto zoom too. I quit my increasingly boring and frustrating job. I hang out at the zoo a lot and also shot more at gigs. I resurrect my long-disused eBay account and wind up buying a 3000N because I thought the 28-80mm lens it came with would be fun. And I start shooting film as well... then I buy an EOS 5, a monopod, a decent camera bag, an EOS 650 (mostly for the 70-210mm f/4 push-pull zoom, but also for the history) and an EOS 50 (for the 28-105mm USM) etc. etc.
At this point, I have more camera gear than I can comfortably carry and have to start deciding what to take with me. And I can't leave the house without at least two cameras (digital + film). I'm in love! I'm obsessed! The people at the film lab know me by name...
If this is wrong, I don't wanna be right. ;)
Onward!
I was given a little Hanimex camera (probably a 110 IF), which took film in the form of a cartridge. Many of the photos I took with this were awful (yes, I still have them). But not all. Then teenagerdom took over and I became extremely paranoid about having my photo taken.
[The rest of this post is possibly somewhat tedious. I'm mostly writing it for myself - you might want to skip to the last couple of paragraphs!]
I also forgot that I liked taking photos - I certainly don't remember having a camera. I didn't really return to a more normal attitude until I was seventeen when my father lent me a Minolta SLR to take to France with me my student exchange odyssey. The other kids on the plane actually asked me if I had Japanese blood, I was taking so many photos on take-off (in fact, I was trying to capture as many images of Melbourne (from the air) as I could, preempting some serious homesickness). I took some photos over there, and continued off and on for a few years after I got home but nothing serious. I eventually gave the camera back to Dad sometime late last century and left photography alone again. Maybe film was too much hassle? I don't know. I was certainly still interested in imaging, but bought a 8mm Sony camcorder (analog tape) instead of an SLR.
Fast forward to around 2001. Serious DSLRs were still stupidly expensive but my inner geek needed to get in on the action and I got some crappy little "digital camera" (now lost in a box somewhere), with a massive 0.3 megapixel (640x480 VGA) resolution. It was not great - I gave it to my daughter and she had a ball taking mostly out-of-focus shots of all sorts of things.
2003 - enter mobile phones with cameras. I got a Nokia 7650, again with VGA. I didn't buy it for the camera, but of course I did take pictures with it, especially since, due to work, I was living two states away from wife and children. Being able to take pictures of where I was and send them via MMS kept us in touch. (Thankfully I got to move back home after a few months.)
Then I spent my $1000 Christmas bonus (only one I've ever had, mind) on a Canon A80 for my wife. That's right - for my wife, since she wanted to have decent photos of our children, among other things (happily she had still been shooting film, mostly on disposable cameras, while I was busy ignoring photography). Of course, I couldn't resist completely and used it too from time to time, mostly when we went somewhere involving trains. But some reason I didn't take it to San Francisco and instead used the second-hand Nokia 3650 (still VGA) I bought over there because my dual-band 7650 wouldn't talk US-style GSM. Gargh!
2006 - Another travel-induced phone upgrade (this time to Japan, so I needed a 3G W-CDMA phone) got me a 2MP camera on the Nokia 6233. And I did take the A80 this time. And took some halfway interesting photos - with the phone as well, even. Damn, those temples are fascinating.
2008 - The 6233 had become decidedly flaky, so I upgraded to an N95 8GB (wow, Carl Zeiss optics...) And this thing has a Flickr upload capability built-in, right there in the camera application. I wasn't really one for sharing, but I did start upload shots of odd signs and things I found in the street. And then...
[things get interesting]
A guy at work offered me a Canon 350D for $A350. I knew I'd been wanting a DSLR for years (startup times and capture delay on the things I had were driving me nuts, for one thing) so I jumped at it, 18-55mm mostly plastic kit lens, 8MP sensor and all. I spent the first little while just seeing how quickly I could take a photo from the time I flicked the camera on. *grins* (But still the obsession has not really taken hold...)
Then, a guitarist I play alongside in amateur theatre pit orchestras brings along his 500D. And he's taking photos in low light with no flash. And they're good. And I get interested... oh, so you need a lens with a wide aperture... and the 50mm f/1.8 is under $A150... and then it takes off for me. I buy the 50mm. I buy the 75-300mm telephoto zoom too. I quit my increasingly boring and frustrating job. I hang out at the zoo a lot and also shot more at gigs. I resurrect my long-disused eBay account and wind up buying a 3000N because I thought the 28-80mm lens it came with would be fun. And I start shooting film as well... then I buy an EOS 5, a monopod, a decent camera bag, an EOS 650 (mostly for the 70-210mm f/4 push-pull zoom, but also for the history) and an EOS 50 (for the 28-105mm USM) etc. etc.
At this point, I have more camera gear than I can comfortably carry and have to start deciding what to take with me. And I can't leave the house without at least two cameras (digital + film). I'm in love! I'm obsessed! The people at the film lab know me by name...
If this is wrong, I don't wanna be right. ;)
Onward!
Raison d'Etre
On the relatively inauspicious occasion of the creation of this, my new "blog" (which term I'm getting used to but is still a little foreign to me), it behooves me to say a few words. (No, no... please don't run away - I promise I won't write like this all the time!)
I have it in mind that this will be a place where I document my various photographic endeavours (as opposed to my romantic indiscretions, which are somewhat thinner on the ground). For while I have had cameras of various kinds all my life, it is only of late that I have begun attempting to maximise their potential. It seems to me that keeping a record of my journey may prove amusing to me in later life and, more importantly, potentially useful to some other poor soul who finds themselves bitten by this particularly tenacious bug. Of course, it will likely provide amusement, or perhaps act as a trigger for fond memories to those who are already more advanced than I!
And so, without further ado, we advance the camera from its fully-automated mode into the realms of human control...
I have it in mind that this will be a place where I document my various photographic endeavours (as opposed to my romantic indiscretions, which are somewhat thinner on the ground). For while I have had cameras of various kinds all my life, it is only of late that I have begun attempting to maximise their potential. It seems to me that keeping a record of my journey may prove amusing to me in later life and, more importantly, potentially useful to some other poor soul who finds themselves bitten by this particularly tenacious bug. Of course, it will likely provide amusement, or perhaps act as a trigger for fond memories to those who are already more advanced than I!
And so, without further ado, we advance the camera from its fully-automated mode into the realms of human control...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)