what's the best lens for my purposes???

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Hence if you really want to use manual focus, it might be best
to invest in older MF macro lenses, and purchase a replacement
focusing screen for the camera.

Before purchasing any given AF lense with the expectation of
manually focusing it, I would want to verify how easily the
focusing mechanism works for manual focus. I don't own any true
macro lenses that are AF though, and they might indeed be
different that other AF lenses in regard to the focusing
mechanism.


would getting an older mf macro still work with a dslr in regards to
auto exposure?

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
SNIP
This is a good application for stitching photos, not only can you
get a wide angle view from a normal lens but you also get a lot
of resolution.
SNIP
The stitching programs allows to adjust the perspective which
helps to square up the image.

From a quality standpoint I agree, and in the process the geometrical
distortions will be automatically dealt with. However, I'm wondering
if this would be too large a transition in one step. Learning a new
camera system, *and* being introduced to stitching for resolution, it
may initially be a bit much for someone who is (I assume)
predominantly an artist/painter.

I could, given the space restraints, envision a 50mm f/2.5
macro+stitching, and drool ..., but then the actual output
requirements may be a lot less demanding than what's offered by that
setup.

He did say that 8MP was barely enough resolution, with printers asking
for large 350ppi images.
Whereas there is some learning needed to do stitching it has gotten a
lot easier in the last year as the software has improved greatly. It
is an almost ideal situation for stitching, the need for hi-res, a
static subject and controlled lighting. The only real problem would be
perhaps with the use of polarized lighting, since change the angle of
the camera would then change the light by at least a small amount.

Scott

"Scott W" wrote:

He did say that 8MP was barely enough resolution, with printers asking
for large 350ppi images.
Whereas there is some learning needed to do stitching it has gotten a
lot easier in the last year as the software has improved greatly. It
is an almost ideal situation for stitching, the need for hi-res, a
static subject and controlled lighting. The only real problem would be
perhaps with the use of polarized lighting, since change the angle of
the camera would then change the light by at least a small amount.

I've not been following this from the beginning, but here's a radical
alternative:

4x5 film and an Epson V700.

The V700 will at least have 1800 ppi of real resolution. That's over 50MP.

David J. Littleboy
Only half joking in,
Tokyo, Japan

wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Hence if you really want to use manual focus, it might be best
to invest in older MF macro lenses, and purchase a replacement
focusing screen for the camera.
....
would getting an older mf macro still work with a dslr in regards to
auto exposure?

That depends on the camera and the lens. I use Nikon cameras,
and there are differences between top of the line models and the
less expensive models. I would expect that to be true of other
brand names, but a lot depends on how many old lenses are
available too. There are a bazillion older Nikon and Pentax MF
lenses that fit their modern cameras. There are fewer lens
options for other brands.

To be honest though, I don't find Auto Exposure to be as useful
as Auto Focus for what you want to do. I would much rather look
at a histogram, or use the "blink where over exposed" display on
the LCD than just blindly accept what the light meter reads.
Hence, even with a Nikon D2x, I tend to use Manual mode for many
types of work.

If you've never used a digital camera with histogram and
blinking display, it will take a bit of experimenting to get the
idea... but "film" is cheap and you can shoot off a few dozens
or hundreds of exposures to get comfortable without spending a
dime on anything but your time.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Scott W" wrote:

He did say that 8MP was barely enough resolution, with printers asking
for large 350ppi images.
Whereas there is some learning needed to do stitching it has gotten a
lot easier in the last year as the software has improved greatly. It
is an almost ideal situation for stitching, the need for hi-res, a
static subject and controlled lighting. The only real problem would be
perhaps with the use of polarized lighting, since change the angle of
the camera would then change the light by at least a small amount.

I've not been following this from the beginning, but here's a radical
alternative:

4x5 film and an Epson V700.

The V700 will at least have 1800 ppi of real resolution. That's over 50MP.
This would in fact work, it really comes down to which would be less
work, developing and scanning or stitching. I do think you would have
better control of the color with digital, but film certainly could work
and 4 x 5 would give far more detail then a single frame from a digital
camera.

Scott

it costs $50 to get a great 4x5 here in nyc.

this is what i had to go through before digital,,,,lugging the
paintings on a subway, wait 2 days for a chrome, lug the paintings
back......digital practically changed my life. just recently was told
how to eliminate glare. better camera is my last step.


David J. Littleboy wrote:


I've not been following this from the beginning, but here's a radical
alternative:

4x5 film and an Epson V700.

The V700 will at least have 1800 ppi of real resolution. That's over 50MP.

David J. Littleboy
Only half joking in,
Tokyo, Japan

would mf'ing on a dslr give me more leeway to fine tune were i to use
28mm-35mm? in the old days, it was alway tougher to focus with a
telephoto.


Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Hence if you really want to use manual focus, it might be best
to invest in older MF macro lenses, and purchase a replacement
focusing screen for the camera.
...
would getting an older mf macro still work with a dslr in regards to
auto exposure?

That depends on the camera and the lens. I use Nikon cameras,
and there are differences between top of the line models and the
less expensive models. I would expect that to be true of other
brand names, but a lot depends on how many old lenses are
available too. There are a bazillion older Nikon and Pentax MF
lenses that fit their modern cameras. There are fewer lens
options for other brands.

To be honest though, I don't find Auto Exposure to be as useful
as Auto Focus for what you want to do. I would much rather look
at a histogram, or use the "blink where over exposed" display on
the LCD than just blindly accept what the light meter reads.
Hence, even with a Nikon D2x, I tend to use Manual mode for many
types of work.

If you've never used a digital camera with histogram and
blinking display, it will take a bit of experimenting to get the
idea... but "film" is cheap and you can shoot off a few dozens
or hundreds of exposures to get comfortable without spending a
dime on anything but your time.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

wrote:
would mf'ing on a dslr give me more leeway to fine tune were i to use
28mm-35mm? in the old days, it was alway tougher to focus with a
telephoto.

Well, taking pictures of flat objects doesn't give much
opportunity to "fine tune" focusing, but yes MF has an advantage
over AF for fine tuning. For flat objects though, AF is a no
brainer. With photomacrography of objects with three dimensions
MF is more flexible than AF.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
SNIP
Which is a lot of work to go through when one could simply have
bought a lens with acceptable distortion to begin with.

Sure, there's work involved in getting things optimized, and better
lenses give better output from the start. However, do realize that
most good lenses are not distortion free! So even on those it takes
the same effort to get things closer to perfect.

Whether a certain amount of distortion is acceptable or not, is up to
the particular user. Just be aware that it's correctable into
something even better, that's basically what I'm saying.

--
Bart

Bart van der Wolf wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
SNIP
Which is a lot of work to go through when one could simply have
bought a lens with acceptable distortion to begin with.

Sure, there's work involved in getting things optimized, and better
lenses give better output from the start. However, do realize that
most good lenses are not distortion free! So even on those it takes
the same effort to get things closer to perfect.

Whether a certain amount of distortion is acceptable or not, is up to
the particular user. Just be aware that it's correctable into
something even better, that's basically what I'm saying.

Which is no help at all in deciding which lens to choose, which, if you
would care to look at the subject line, is the question being addressed.

So, do you have any sage advice in this matter or are you saying that the OP
should just choose a lens at random without regard to its performance with
the plan being to fix it in software?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)