skip to main |
skip to sidebar
At the beginning of 2001, it was reported that Olympus and Kodak was joining forces to create a consortium, based on a new standard for digital photography. Since then, Kodak has sadly folded, but the group has gone on to add more members. Of course the "old" standard is now pretty much dead, or some would say that it's morphed into the current "mirrorless" version of micro-4/3rds.
No, that's not me, or my dad for that matter. That..... is the famed Yoshihisa Maitani. He joined Olympus in 1956 at the age of 23, and would go on to create the Pen, Pen F, and the M-1 (which we know as the OM-1) system while working for that company for the entirety of his illustrious career. Yeah, I have a little bit of a "man-crush" on him.
Just looking at this cut-away of the Pen F; makes my jaw drop a little bit. It's a single lens reflex, but the mirror box has been turned sideways and so there's no tell-tale penta-prism. The guy is just unique.... and so were his designs.
In the last few posts, I've been talking about the concept of the compact SLR which he pioneered when the OM-1 was introduced in 1972. The comparison with the then contemporary Practica is stark. One could still pass for modern today, and the other would look at home on the front seat of a Edsel.
But to me, an even more astounding comparison is this image of if and the Nikon F fully configured for "combat" in their "professional" get-up, complete with motor drives..... WOW! No surprise that some pros were woo'd away to at least give it a try.
This image is of the E-420. In September of 2006, it's almost identical predecessor, the E-400 was launched for Europe only. However, the Spring of 2007 saw the introduction of E-410, along with the E-510, and E-610 siblings. While the 510/610s had more features, the 410 pretty much had the same capabilities. This would be true of the follow-up model, E-420 as well. In these machines, Olympus finally fulfilled the promise of really compact dimensions that the smaller 4/3rds sensor should have given all along.
When compared side by side, the differences between it and the Canon EOS Rebel XTi don't jump out at you, but it's really the disparity in mass that's the big thing here. Much of that is due to the size of the Canon lens. It takes a lot more glass to move the difference in light necessary to cover the larger sensor! So, with the bigger sensor, doesn't that make the Canon the clear winner here? Technically true, but in real life in the hands of photographers that these cameras are aimed at? Not even..... the difference isn't going to be anywhere near apparent. So, what do you gain? Well: there's size, there's weight and..... there's innovation. This isn't disparaging of Canon, or any other company for that matter. It's just that Olympus has carved their niche in the photographic world through innovation. They were the David of the Japanese camera manufacturing world and they still are!
From the very beginning, Olympus has been committed to having a complete professional system. Like Nikon, Canon, and now Sony (previously Konica/Minolta), they have everything under the sun. But more importantly, there's a level of commitment to their product that some manufacturers simply don't have.
If it's all that awesome, why don't I shoot with it, instead of Nikon? It was a close thing. My cameras could very well have been the above pictured E-3, and E-410 vs. the D-300, and D40 that I have sitting on my desk right now. When I made to switch to DSLR, it was one of the systems under consideration. The main difference came down to my desire to have at my disposal the literally millions of lenses that have been made for the Nikon "F" mount. That, and the availability of the 18-200mm VR super-zoom that not even Canon had at the time. However, I often wonder what it would have been like if I would have gone with Olympus instead of Nikon.
I will tell you one thing: I'd have been darned irritated when the consortium dropped the old 4/3rds standard when they brought out m4/3rds in August of 2008! But if you don't mind using a "dead" standard and are happy with the lenses that were available for it, then this is a really nice system to be using. They are a little bit harder to find, but they send to sell for less than similarly equipped Canon, Nikons, and even Sonys. So, if yo have a penchant for the quirky, this might be the system for you.
It's the summer of 1977, and the Konica Autoreflex TC had been introduced the previous year. I'm 16 and standing in a little camera store on University Ave., in Lubbock, Texas looking into a glass case, much like this one at the object of my desire. Things are just so intense in your teenage years. So much so that you can often get a ghost of it when some certain song plays, or you smell something in the air..... I often talk to my Psychology classes about how our memory and how it works....., but of course, they are teens themselves, so they look at me like I've "lost it". Anyway, I remember this camera so clearly that years later, when I'm standing in the space that store had been at, which would become ironically a maker of awards and momentos, called Paddle Tramps, that I can completely bring back the sense of that time. ...... Anyway; I had settled on wanting this camera because
- I wanted what every other camera buyer of the time did, a compact system SLR, and
- I didn't have any idea that the Canon A-1 was about to be released!
Why compact, and why, the TC? Five years before that, in Cologne, Germany at that years Photokina show, Olympus had set the SLR world on it's collective ear with the introduction of the M-1, later renamed the OM-1 due to Leica's protests over some unimportant model that they had previously used that designation for...... Anyway, all that aside, this not only propels Olympus from respected outsider to the wunderkind of the camera world.
Every since it's introduction 13 years before, this had been the face of the now dominant Japanese photographic industry! This represented what was then new: combat photography from the jungles of SE Asia, student protest on college campuses, California counter-culture, and moon rockets! All gone in one fell-swoop! Big, old, heavy, dusty and out-of-step! The OM-1 and later the OM-2 sent every camera company in the world scrambling to get something put together that was going to be competitive. Good grief; even professionals were trying out the new camera (although they would mostly return to the Nikon F-2/3, and Canon F-1 soon enough). However, in that space of time between about 1973 and 1977, everybody was going small. Unfortunately, I couldn't afford small. Actually, I couldn't afford Olympus. The Olympus was almost as expensive as the pro Nikons and clearly out of the range of a teenager with part-time jobs.....which left me with the Konica TC. It was a system, and most importantly, it had shutter-priority automation, where you set the shutter speed and the cameras set the aperture. This is what every aspiring photojournalist wanted (or so I believed anyway), because you could be certain that the shutter speed could stop the action. Let those who shoot flowers use Aperture priority! Of course, most importantly, it was cool, small and did I say cool!?!
Fast forward 30 years, and we have gone from film to digital, and oddly, we also went through the whole growth in size path to compact dimensions.....again. Understandably, in the early days of DSLRs, the electronics were still relatively large, so the cameras needed to be bigger. Subsequently, like anything electronic, the successive generations have brought the components down in size as more and more powerful processors and integrated circuits have come into use. The last two major barriers being the elimination of the focusing motor from the body of the camera by using "ring-motors" inside the lenses themselves and the removal of the top info panel on all-but high-end cameras in favor of a larger control LCD on the back of the camera itself. I know what you are thinking: I'm not going to get into the whole "mirrorless" issue today, since I'm classifying those cameras as different than the DSLRs that we're talking about. Not worse, not better, just different.
For this, we have to go back to 2003, and the camera that started the DSLR revolution (at least as far as the consumer market is concerned), the Canon EOS 300D (or Digital Rebel on this side of the pond). It and it's successor, the 350D (built on the same chassis) was and still is the yard stick that all future compact DSLR are measured against. See the layout? The grip, control wheel, the mode dial on the left of the penta-prism? The lack of major controls on the right side of the body? If it looks familiar, huh; that's because, every manufacturer has copied this layout in the last 10 years!
This change is pretty much the only reason for the major difference in size from the D50 to the D40. Yes, the removal of the focusing motor cuts a bit of height, but not enough to be a difference maker. No; the change from the CF card to SD, makes no difference. They only did that because the expected market for this type of camera is an up-grader from "compact digital" cameras to "beginner" DSLRs. And not having to buy a new card makes it easier for them. Don't believe me, go find a picture of an Olympus E-410/420. It's tiny! It uses a CF card.
Where am I going with this? It's that the major sea-change originating from the Olympus back in 1972 has finally settled in to the digital realm as well....if you are careful. When Olympus originally made the design changes that they did, it wasn't just cosmetic. It was a change in philosophy. It wasn't just the camera either, they literally redesigned everything in the system to fit the new camera. Eventually it would effect the entire industry. I came to understand what that meant when I put my small (18-70mm f.3.5-4.5) zoom on the D40 and realized that even that lens was a little big. However, when I grabbed my "old" glass made in the late 70's after all the manufacturers redesigned everything, that I found the correct fit.
The Tamron 300mm f/5.6 and my Vivitar 70-150mm f/3.8 fits the D40 like they were designed for it. That's because that they don't have motors built in to them, are made of brass and engineered from the very beginning to work with the Olympus OM-1s and Pentax MXs of the world. As you can see, after the Canon 350D, other cameras have come along and gotten even smaller. Left to right, you have the Olympus E-420, the Pentax K-x, then the Nikon D40.
The lower end Nikons and Canons have grown a little since the 300D and D40, but last month, Canon released the EOS SL1, which puts them "back in the game". What I'm saying is, that it doesn't have to stop at that 40mm "Pancake" lens (I'm all too aware that BOTH Canon and Pentax "pancakes" in their line-up now).
I clearly remember every month
when my issue of Modern Photography arrived, I'd go right over to the
great Herbert Keppler's column and read his thoughts. Quite often, he
would be extolling the virtues of a lightweight, compact camera matched
with high-performing, but equally lightweight lenses. From those
articles, I learned the basics of how to create a traveling kit. You add
all this together with a nicely performing compact DSLR, then you have
the modern version of what Y. Maitani envisioned 40+ years ago.
I had a bit of a convergence yesterday, as "old" met ice. If you are here in the U.S., or at least in the southern part, we experienced winter storm Cleon. I know, for you Northern European readers (particularly) Russian, it wouldn't qualify as being "news worthy", but here in "the South" (land of the eternal 100 degree temps), it's a big deal. Interestingly, the coming together of the warm moist air with the arctic temps created this: ice encased everything. So out I went with my camera onto the "tundra". It was really very cool and made for some fun photography.
Lucky for me, I had virtually the ideal instrument for that in the D300 with the manual focus 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor. It was perfect because of the relatively close focusing capability, the wide aperture so I could control what was and was not in focus, and most importantly, the manual focus. If I would have been using one of my regular AF lenses, I'd have probably had to switch over to manual anyway since much of what I was trying to shoot required me to pick and choose one particular spot to focus on within a jumble of other stuff around it. Basically, that, which auto focus still doesn't do all that well and won't until they are actually able to connect the camera to our brain! I was happy as a clam while I could hear my wife over there with her "point & shoot" getting increasing frustrated with her camera's AF.
Now that we're on the subject, let's talk a little bit about this lens. If there were no other reasons for being a Nikon shooter, this one would be almost worth it in and of itself. Not even discussing the fact that it's ridiculously sharp, and that it's f/1.4 gives it the ability to control the depth of field that any photographer would prize; it's remarkably small and light when you're used to carrying today's "kit zooms" that cameras generally come with. Yes, you are stuck with sneaker-zooming, but that's not as difficult as you might think. That thing that makes this such a great lens for today is that, if you use anything but, the entry level Nikon's, your camera still meters with it! That's as long as you get one that's AI (auto indexing) or has been converted since that system came out in 1977. I'd bet that tens if not hundreds of thousands of these thing have been produced since then, so they are cheap. On a good day, you should be able to pick one up on eBay for around $100 (give or take). Mine is actually a pre-'77, non-AI version that's been converted, then had a CPU chip installed. But, these work great on a D200 and up camera just fine without the CPU. In fact, I've seen plenty of old non-AI lenses that have been converted by cutting and filing. It doesn't look that great, but if you have an old one from a relative, or cheap off of the internet; it can be done. No, this lens is not the great f/1.2 Noct., but it also doesn't cost you that extra $400-500 for that extra half stop and the aspherical element either!
I shot this image at 1/1600 of a second, f/2.8. There was no cropping or adjustments of any kind made on it. I'm not sure I'm good enough of a photographer to discuss Bokeh, but I think the out of focus areas are pretty good on this and is a good example of why it's a good lens to have for the money. I'm really looking forward to shooting the kids with this lens next time we go out to the Dallas Arboretum.
Here's another example shot with that lens. If you'll pull this picture up to full size, you'll see that the middle of the focusing grip the lens is sharp, but the camera, and even the front of the lens is already out of the depth of field! .....and that's with an f/8 aperture! Which brings me to old equipment number 2. About a week ago, I found this lens, a Tamron, Adaptall 300mm f/5.6 on eBay. These older Adaptalls are not very popular on the used markets. I believe that they just aren't as well know, but like most lenses of that day (early to mid-70's), they tended to be smaller and lighter. As it turned out, I was the only bidder at $9.99, with $4.99 shipping. I thought that I remembered that they were pretty compact and the 58mm filter thread would indicate that as well, but wow! I was not prepared for how compact it was when it was attached on the D40! Love it! Hopefully, you now see what I meant in the last post when I was ranting about lenses that are size-appropriate for the camera....especially when it's main "stock-in-trade" is it's compact size.
On the same day (Thursday), that the Tamron 300mm showed up, this did as well. A Vivitar 283 and the original matched grip/bracket. This was in fact the rig that I convinced the school to buy way back in my high school days. It's big and heavy, but in lots of ways, it's actually easier to handle than having a giant flash sitting on the hot-shoe. I paid $20 (less than $30 after shipping) for the whole thing, so it's kind of a fun deal that didn't cost much. Some of them had camera-killing trigger voltages, so I'll have to test it first. At the moment, I can't, since my multi-meter's battery is dead and it uses one of those weird, tiny 12v batteries. So I have to wait till one of those old Radio Shack multi-meters that i bought off of eBay shows up. It was $15. My intention is to get my buddy Pat to make me a micro-switch to go where that remote shutter release cable goes through the grip, and put a 2.5mm jack in the back. That way, I can get one of those really cheap "1N" Nikon 10-pin adapter cables off of eBay for $1 and be able to control the camera from there. Plus if I use a Nikon iTTL coiled cord (about $10 on eBay), I'll be able to take my Nikon flashes "off-camera" for about $20 total expenditure. These old grip/brackets made back in the 70's are really amazing. They were upward of $100+ back in those days so are made like something that would cost between $400-600 in today's dollars. No I don't expect myself to go running around like a press photographer from "back in the day", but it's fun to be able to do that for very little money expended.
Now that the D40 (Plastic-Fantastic 2.0) has been acquired, what's the next step? Get rid of that wart of a lens, of course! You might have been able to tell by my previous post(s) that I don't have much use for that 18-55mm kit zoom that came with my "new" camera. And in my situation, I really don't. It's not just that it's an ugly lens either! So, it's about to hit eBay/Craigs List to return $75 or so back to the lens buying coffers. So, what am I going to do with that $75 and the occasional $25-30 that I can scrape together? Well, it's my intention to put together a lens "kit" that "fits" compact dimensions of the D40......plus it needs to also fit the intended purpose of the camera.
In a perfect world, one or of these modern pancakes and it's Voigtlander brethren such as the 28mm f/2.8 Color-Skopar, maybe even the 40mm f/2.0 Ultron would be headed toward my house via Amazon as we speak! Mounted on the D40, this 20mm would be an fairly wide 30mm, 28mm would be seen as a 42mm, and the 40mm Ultron would be a nice tight 60mm. Alas, such is not to be since
every single one of these guys costs somewhere between $475 and $600.
This is nowhere near where a frugal anyone goes.
Where should be start then? Well, let's look at what that D40 will be expected to do....other than being the backup to the D300. That, it already does by being able to take decent pictures and coming equipped with the same lens Nikon F mount. What I really want it for is as a light/fast, "street photography" instrument. I also want it to become my secondary rig that I'm happy to grab and take random places like an amusement park or just about anywhere, where I'm not expecting to shoot anything, but be ready if something does come up. It appears that "small", "light" and easy to handle (quick) keeps popping up. Therefore, it's pretty obvious that I don't want to destroy these innate characteristics of the D40 by attaching some monstrosity of a lens! Then based on my needs, I'll want to have coverage from wide-of-normal, to short-telephoto, all in a nice compact size. In 35mm terms, that's somewhere in the 30's (millimeters, that is), up to something around 100. Since the D40 has an APS-C (DX in Nikon speak) sensor which is roughly 50% smaller than a 35mm fame of film, that translates to mean 20mm to about 70mm, giving an equivalent of 30mm to 105mm. When working with the standard focal lengths that are out there, we're talking 20mm (30mm eq.), 24mm (36mm eq.), 28mm (42mm eq.), 50mm (75mm eq.) and zooms up to 70-80mm (105-120mm). Why zooms? It's because primes in the 80/85mm range tend to be specialized "portrait" or "macro" lenses (read expensive), while zooms that go up to that range tend to be common (read cheap). Anything else to think about? Yup. We want small, remember? Small can happen in several different ways: close to "normal" for that film/sensor size requires the least glass (so 28-50mm), slow as in lets through less light (we don't want this if we can help it), manual focus (no gears or motors= smaller/lighter). So, we are working both ends against the middle. We want as fast (more light) of a lens as possible, while keeping the other dimensions small. We are already getting it relatively small by staying close to the "normal" focal length so there's only one more thing we can do. That's right; lose the auto-focus. Really, don't worry, you may or may not have as much experience as I've had doing this over the years, but you'll get the hang of it! Trust me!
Whaaaaat is this!?! Well....it's a picture from a Tamron ad circa late 70's. Now that you've been freed from the shackles of auto-focus, there's a whole world of cheap and great glass out there. It resides on eBay, Craigs List, Pawn Shops, Thrift Stores, musty old 2nd Hand Shops, and your grandparent's closets. Unfortunately, most people think they are useless, but fortunately, they seem too expensive (originally they were) to throw out. It's not just Tamron either, there's Tokina, Sigma, Asanuma, 5-Star; the list is long, distinguished but a little sad since most of those names are now gone.
Forgive my nostalgic wandering; I'm better now. Back to what I'm looking for in relation to System D40: small, fast (if possible, meaning affordable), and slightly wide to slightly long....right. Let's start here then. The Tamron (Adaptall 2 version) of their 28mm, f/2.5. Why Tamron Adaptall? It's because they are literally adapt-all, meaning you can just buy lenses willy-nilly and then worry about getting the correct mount later. That's if you have a camera that takes a classic mount, that is...... You do have one of those right.....? Nikon, Pentax K? OK, well, everybody else will just have to lose some communications but can use an adapter though. But hey, I'm only worried about me and I have a Nikon with an F-Mount. This lens is easy to find on eBay, often selling in the $20's, plus it's small (49mm filter ring, 1.3" long). That's "pancake" territory; oh, OK, maybe "biscuit" territory. Yeah; I'm gettin' me one of those! If I can figure out how to put a Dandelion programmable "chip" on it, then that'd be a bonus!
Then there's the 35-80mm, f/2.8-3.8 Adaptall 2 SP, which often sells at around $40. At an eq. of 52-120mm on the D40, this could be a decent walk-around lens, if I kept a 24 or even a 28mm in a pocket.
......And this, little stumpy thing? A 28-50mm, f/3.5-4.5 Adaptall 2. Not an SP (Super Performance), and it doesn't start at the fairly bright 2.8 f-stop, but these often sell for around $40 as well and is the eq. of 42-75mm that I think I'd love as a walk-around combo on the D40. Plus it's 1.8" long, completely retracted! With a filter ring diameter of 58mm, in my mind, this is an almost perfect physical match for the D40. I would have loved for it to be a fixed f/2.8 and for it to start at 24mm or go out to 55mm, but then, it wouldn't be this small physical size. Let's go with "muffin" sized. Anything else?
Sure there is! This may be sitting on my porch "as we speak". One of my famous cost less than the price of shipping eBay finds, it's an original Adaptall, 300mm, f/5.6. Sure, it's slow, but it's so small (for it's focal length), that it takes a 58mm filter! Has a built-in lens hood too!
Of course, you can't go all-Tamron without talking about the famed SP 90mm Macro lens. I could imagine myself adding this if the price was right (meaning sub-$50) since it'd be an eq. of 135mm on the D40 giving it very close to 1:1 magnification w/o tubes. Also, I've previously mentioned the equally famous 500mm f/8.0 SP mirror lens, but I'm not certain that I'd be willing to go over the $150 mark that they tend to sell at. But all in all, it's a good way to go. I'm bettin' that I can pick up at least 3 of these lenses for less than $100 total after shipping. Given the price, size, and speed, I think they'll be appropriate for my System D40.
Before everybody gets their undies wadded up in an indignant huff either one way or another, let me explain how these cameras fit in my grand photographic scheme.
It's mostly this stuff, or at least this is the "acid test" for my criteria. Six Flags or environs like it. I'm the father of a 10 year old and a 7 year old. There's going to be several more years of this sort of stuff. Some years ago, while toting my D300, attendant super-zoom (18-200mm) and it's sling-style bag around Six Flags one Texas July, it occurred to me that; I didn't ever want to do that again in this or any other life. That'd be all fine and good..... if I was like most people who would be fine taking a nicer ($75-125) "point & shoot" and call it good. However, I'd still like to take some decent photographs to record the trip, which is really the issue here. If I don't want to carry a P&S or the big artillary, then what are my options?
Back in the old days, there was a whole class of cameras called "advanced compacts" that took the same 35mm film as full-on professional SLRs, thus ensuring the exact same resolution. The difference was that there was no mirror/mirror box, prism, interchangeable lens, motor drive, etc., etc.... As long as whatever little lens they were able to stuff into that tiny body was OK, optically up to snuff. Which meant that they just made them "slower" and a fix focal length (typically around 40mm give or take).
What's the problem you say!?! There are any number of tiny little "compact digital" cameras ready to go for a decent price. The problem is that in today's world, for the most part, when they shrink the body, they do the same with the sensor. They don't want to talk about it, but those tiny sensor's in those cute, colorful cameras are the actual enemy of good pictures. This is all terribly exacerbated by stuff more megapixels on there than should be, but I don't want to go into that rant again. So if you really want to know about this issue, use your friend Google. Otherwise, just trust me on this. Within recent years though, manufacturers started putting larger sensors into some "in-between" sized bodies and lo, the EVIL (electronic view, interchangeable lens) cameras were born. Now we have everything from the micro-4/3rds standard, to APS-C (same as most DSLR cameras) out there. Well then, again; what's the problem?
Funny you would mention that. That's exactly where I am right now. In case you haven't kept up with my machinations over the last year or so, I do (or have) owned, a Nikon D70s, D50 (Plastic Fantastic 1.0), Panasonic GF-1, and now the Nikon D40 (Plastic Fantastic 2.0). I also have a number of compact digitals; enough to know that those have their place, but they (with their sensor limitations) don't fit in my front-line arsenal. What I need is a small/light camera that isn't going to kill me a places like amusement parks, but have some image quality chops. So let's look at what I've got. We'll start with the physical; where, as you can see, the GF-1 gets off to a good start (although that's a D3000 next to the GF-1 which is a bit deeper than the D40). However, it isn't as cut and dried as it would appear. I've found that I use the VF-1 accessory electronic finder almost constantly. For me, the LCD is almost unusable outdoors. Although the controls are bigger and easier to use on the D40, they are actually similar in position and function, so that ends up being a wash. One thing that was unexpected though was the elimination of the handgrip/battery bulge on the GF-1 (although making it much more compact) has made it uncomfortable for me to use. Panasonic has recognized this mistake and corrected that in the current GX-1, but that camera is way outside my budget. One last point of comparison being that the GF-1 is a 12Mp camera whereas the D40 is 6Mp. Looks like a lot huh? In my usage, it never comes into play. The only time that I really need/want the extra resolution, are situations where I'm all too happy to take the D300 with it's extra capabilities anyway.
As it turns out, which I wasn't really expecting (remember, the D40 wasn't supposed to replace the GF-1, but rather the D50), was how compact it was once I got that atrocious 18-55mm kit lens off of it! OK, it's not really fair since that lens is an adequate performer and designed to be cheap, before all else.... but still..... As soon as I put my 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor on it, it dawned on me that not only would it be the D50's replacement, but could be that of the GF-1 as well!
In order for that GF-1 to reach it's potential in portability, I'd need to buy the 20mm f/1.7 pancake for it. That lens persists in stay between $300 and $400 used, which makes it outside my limits on such things. And, as you can see, add that VF-1 on there and it really does a number of the profile of that camera!
When you compare that Lumix 20mm f/1.7 lens side-by-side with even the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 (which is bigger than the "E Series" lenses), the size difference pretty much evaporates. If you are familiar with the used/older lens market, you also know that there's a ridiculous number of cheap, but optically excellent lenses out there to fit the Nikon mount. Many, like the Nikon "Es" are very compact as well. Even if you add the cost of mounting a Dandelion chip to each one at $30 apiece, anything that comes in at less than $70 would be sub-$100 glass! Yes, I'm aware that I'd have to focus manually, but I'm OK with that.
So, here's an example. The somewhat bigger "E Series" 28mm f/2.8 on a D40, you can see that this is a "dad-gum" compact little package. Is it "as small" as the GF-1? The answer is an emphatic, NO! Does it spec as well as the GF-1? Again the answer is, no as well. Is it small enough for me. Then, that answer is a yes. When that's combined with the fact that I'll be able to eliminate one entire system; it's going to turn out to be a nice fit for me.
There are few things that get photographers' hearts racing like a "new" lens. Especially, one that's as unusual as a mirror lens; otherwise know by the awkward name of catadioptric! Some months ago, in my Mirror, Mirror post, I talked about picking up a Tokina 500mm f/8.0 "Cat" lens off of eBay for a pretty darned good price. Then, I found that it had some fungus growth on the inside of the front element and the seller refunded me half the price of it, so this lens ended up being south of $30.
So, yesterday after the Thanksgiving meal and rocket-launch-a-paloosa, I headed out with this lens mounted on the D300, MB-D10 attached, and the whole rig attached to my mono-pod. I don't mind if I do say so myself: I looked good! AP or National Geographic should start sending me checks!
This was about as good as it got! Not terribly impressive, is it? Oh, but it gets better!
If you go ahead and pull this up at full-size, you'll see that some of the grass in the lower right-hand corner is darned sharp!
Apparently, it was the camera's (lens', computer's, fence's) fault...... Uhhhh, no; it's just photography. Photography isn't just equipment, it isn't just talent, it's mostly skill which is acquired through hard work.
It's unfortunate, but you can't just grab up some nice equipment, go out into the woods with a "how to" book and get it done. I shot images for the better part of an hour till the wife came out and wanted to know what I was doing at which point, I basically ran out of light. An f/8 (f/11 effective) mirror lens needs lots of good light even to shoot bad images. If there's a lens out there that takes more work for a photographer to get good at using, I don't know what it is. Thinking back, to the days where I carried a camera literally everywhere, there was a reason I was astounded by our photography instructor who regularly used a 500mm Nikkor mirror hand-held. No, it's not the lens. Yes, the beast of a Nikkor is a better mirror than the little Tokina, but as you can see, it's not the mirror bugaboo, contrast, that's the issue here.
- I didn't hold it very steady even for shooting at 1/1000th of a second or higher....
- I clearly didn't do the best job focusing either, and if you didn't already know, the depth of field for a 500mm (750mm effective on APS-C sensor'd camera) f/8 is pretty darned unforgiving.
- I probably should have used a tripod instead of a mono-pod, but then; what would be the point of using a compact mirror anyway!
So yeah, I'm going to need lots of work with this lens if I'm going to get any good with it.
However, it wasn't an all-bad afternoon....photographically speaking. I did shoot some pictures with my regular "go-to" lens, the 18-200mm VR Nikkor and I got another reminder of how much better the use of "fill-flash" is when shooting in bright contrasty conditions! Here's is a picture of Josh "the Rocketeer" with his helper, Katie "Space Disaster" getting ready for a launch.
That turned out pretty well; photographically, as well as aeronautically.
