 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006Best lens for D50 tripod-less "museum photography"?
Hi Everyone, I really like my Nikon D50, and I currently own the following lenses: the inexpensive 18-55 and 55-200 mm Nikkor lenses that came in the camera kit, a Nikkor 60mm micro lens (I've been having lots of fun with "bug" photography!), and a recently purchased Nikkor 80-400mm VR lens. Recently, on a trip to the Smithsonian, I was told that I couldn't bring either a tripod OR a monopod indoors with me, to shoot in lower light environments in the museums. So, here's what I need to be able to do: take pictures with hand-holding only (no tri/monopod), wide-angle 15-20mm focal lengths, and short enough exposure times while still shooting at low ISO to limit detector noise. What should I do here? My 18-55 doesn't have VR, and I'm hoping to NOT spend a huge amount on a super-fast wide-angle Nikkor. Though I haven't done many experiments on my own to see how detector noise varies with ISO, and noting that I want nice clean images (minimal noise), can I safely up my ISO a bit? I'm assuming that exposure time varies linearly with ISO, so upping the ISO from 200 to 400, would, I assume, cut my exposure times in half. Also, doesn't exposure time, for a given lens at a given focal length, vary inversely as the square of the f-ratio? In other words, going from f/4 to f/2 should cut my exposure time by a factor of 4? My goal is to get exposure times inside the museum down to 1/100 sec or so (or whatever I'd need such that, with a relatively steady hand, I'd get no blur). And I realize that lighting conditions can vary immensely inside a museum, depending on what I'm focusing on, but currently, I'm getting exposure times as long as 1/10 - 1/2 sec at 18mm, with the lens "one stop down" from "wide open". Is one possible answer a zoom that starts at a very small focal length that also has VR, like the Nikkor 18-200mm VR? I see that there's a fixed focal length Nikkor at 50mm at f/1.8, and I'm guessing that this would be a fairly fast lens, but then the 50mm focal length would really start cropping the wings off of aircraft in the air museum. Any thoughts here would be most welcome. I'm a relative newbie to photography. Oh, one more question -- are focal length specifications for lenses ALWAYS done according to 35mm camera specifications, so that I have to multiply by roughly 1.5 to determine what the "effective" focal length would be on my D50's detector? Thus, wouldn't the 50mm f/1.8 lens behave like a 75mm lens on my D50? If I've said anything inaccurate/incorrect in my understanding, as outlined in the message above, please keep in mind my relative newness to photography, and please provide any corrections to my reasoning/thinking as you see fit, so that I might learn more. Thanks in advance, Scott Speck > Hi Everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Thanks in advance, > Scott Speck Slow lenses like the 18-200 are not the best choice. A couple of primes in the 24-50mm size would be the best idea. You can use older perhaps less expensive manual lenses since fast focusing would not really be a requirement in a museum. Also, sometimes you can get away with bringing in a monopod. If they tell you you can't use it, just say you won't and use it when there are no security guards around. Even if you are seen using it, they are far less obtrusive than a tripod and you are likely not to get into much trouble, they may even let it pass. Also, find out which parts of the museum permit flashes, if any. > > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >a museum. > Hmmm...Well, OK, but realize most manual choices also mean that you need to do your own metering. http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/other/compatibility.html#chart >Also, sometimes you can get away with bringing in a monopod. If they >tell you you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >not to get into much trouble, they may even let it pass. > If I was responsible for hundreds of paintings and artifacts, some priceless, some just insured for $20M, I think I would prefer my patrons play be the rules. >Also, find out which parts of the museum permit flashes, if any. > > > >>Hi Everyone, > >> [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > priceless, some just insured for $20M, I think I would prefer my patrons > play be the rules. They aren't worried about the paintings. Anything worth $20M is going to be behind about 3" of bulletproof glass. They are worried about lawsuits from people tripping over the tripods. That comes straight from a curator. > Hi Everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Thanks in advance, > Scott Speck There are several programs available that reduce noise in post processing. This may not be the best solution, but its better than none. My favourite is NeatImage. A Nikkor 18-200mm VR like you suggest may be a better solution. Damn thing is worth as much as the D-50 body. >... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >... Shoot RAW. If you don't already have a tool start with *RawShooter* essentials *2006 (FREE!) for the very affordable *premium *2006* * from pixmantec. Experiment with shooting manual, forcing the shutter to the speed you need to stop the blur, and try different ISO values. The LCD will show black. Once back at at the lab, use RSE to push the exposure compensation, fill light and other parameters to "develop" your "negative. It will be the difference between tossing all the shots due to shake or living with a little grain. **My only connection to Pixmantec is as a very happy free customer and now a premium customer. 90% of my D50 shooting is RAW. -tom * > > Is one possible answer a zoom that starts at a very small focal length that > also has VR, like the Nikkor 18-200mm VR? I see that there's a fixed focal > length Nikkor at 50mm at f/1.8, and I'm guessing that this would be a fairly > fast lens, but then the 50mm focal length would really start cropping the > wings off of aircraft in the air museum. The 50 f/1.8 was going to be my suggestion. Nikon does make a 12-14 f/4 zoom. You give up speed in exchange for range. And cost. You can find the 50 for a bit more than $100 (in the US) and the 12-14 for a bit more than $900. I'm a fan of wide angle lenses, but perhaps you might give the 50 a try. For not a lot of money it's a great lens. Perhaps you don't need to get that entire plane in a picture, and if you do so with a wide angle lens, it will be distorted anyway. Perhaps your approach should be "What can I capture with this equipment" rather than "what equipment do I need to do <something arbitrary>." > Oh, one more question -- are focal length specifications for > lenses ALWAYS done according to 35mm camera specifications, so that I have > to multiply by roughly 1.5 to determine what the "effective" focal length > would be on my D50's detector? Focal length is independent of sensor or film size. A 50mm lens on a large format camera would still be a 50mm lens on a 35mm or 2/3 frame DLSR. But the effect on the large format is wide angle while in the DSLR it is mildly long. > Thus, wouldn't the 50mm f/1.8 lens behave > like a 75mm lens on my D50? Yes, due to the cropped sensor, the 50mm lens on the D50 will produce approximately the same size image as a 75mm lens on a full frame 35mm camera. Since a lot of people using DSLRs previously used 35mm film SLRs (and probably since many of them use bodies with lens mounts that use lenses intended for 35mm film cameras) there is a great tendency to express focal length in terms of the 35mm equivalent, even though it is really an artificial concept. HTH, hank > Hi Everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > have VR, and I'm hoping to NOT spend a huge amount on a super-fast > wide-angle Nikkor. Your choices are somewhat limited, as Nikon doesn't yet make a fast wide-angle DX (small image circle) lens. And especially if reasonable cost is an important factor, then your existing 18-55mm lens may be your best bet. It's unfortunate in your case that Nikon digital SLRs don't have a nifty feature called Best Shot Selector, which Nikon incorporates in their compact digital cameras -- BSS takes up to ten shots in a row, then discards all but the sharpest one, so it sort of serves as a "poor man's VR." It really is surprisingly effective in getting sharp photos in poor light and slow shutter speeds. To some degree you might do the same thing yourself, just taking lots of the same shot hand held, but obviously this would be more awkward since evaluating and comparing the shots on the spot would be time-consuming. You might try finding something to brace yourself and/or the camera against. Even a wall, pillar or rail can help a lot and it's possible to get acceptably sharp photos at quite slow shutter speeds doing this. > Though I haven't done many experiments on my own to see how detector noise > varies with ISO, and noting that I want nice clean images (minimal noise), [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > other words, going from f/4 to f/2 should cut my exposure time by a factor > of 4? Correct. Every full stop larger (f/11, f/8, f.5.6, f/4, f/2.8 etc.) passes twice as much light and so requires only half the exposure time of the previous stop. > My goal is to get exposure times inside the museum down to 1/100 sec or so > (or whatever I'd need such that, with a relatively steady hand, I'd get no > blur). And I realize that lighting conditions can vary immensely inside a > museum, depending on what I'm focusing on, but currently, I'm getting > exposure times as long as 1/10 - 1/2 sec at 18mm, with the lens "one stop > down" from "wide open". Using the shortest focal lengths, as you would probably be doing most of the time, you shouldn't need an exposure as short as 1/100 second. In 35mm cameras the rule of thumb is to use a shutter at least as fast as the reciprocal of the focal length -- e.g., at least as short as 1/50 sec for a 50mm lens. Since at your shortest f.l. of 18mm your lens is equivalent to a 27mm lens on a 35, 1/30 sec should be fast enough if you're reasonably steady. If you can find something to brace against you can probably get down to 1/8 sec or so. > Is one possible answer a zoom that starts at a very small focal length > that also has VR, like the Nikkor 18-200mm VR? I see that there's a fixed > focal length Nikkor at 50mm at f/1.8, and I'm guessing that this would be > a fairly fast lens, but then the 50mm focal length would really start > cropping the wings off of aircraft in the air museum. Unfortunately, yes. > Any thoughts here would be most welcome. I'm a relative newbie to > photography. Oh, one more question -- are focal length specifications for > lenses ALWAYS done according to 35mm camera specifications, so that I have > to multiply by roughly 1.5 to determine what the "effective" focal length > would be on my D50's detector? In 35mm equivalence, yes. The focal length is what it is, but most of us are so used to thinking of focal lengths in 35mm terms, it's the most convenient way of describing the coverage of a lens on a digital camera and it's become pretty much a standard. Digital camera sensors vary a great deal in size, which drastically changes the angle of view for any given focal length, so that just giving the actual focal length in millimeters is not as meaningful as it is in the case of 35s. This is why camera makers and reviewers usually attach more importance to the 35mm equivalence of a lens, rather than its actual focal length(s). > Thus, wouldn't the 50mm f/1.8 lens behave like a 75mm lens on my D50? Yes, as far as angle of view is concerned. It would be like a short telephoto. Very nice for portraits, not so nice for museums. > If I've said anything inaccurate/incorrect in my understanding, as > outlined in the message above, please keep in mind my relative newness to > photography, and please provide any corrections to my reasoning/thinking > as you see fit, so that I might learn more. You've got it all just about right. >> I really like my Nikon D50, and I currently own the following lenses: the >> inexpensive 18-55 and 55-200 mm Nikkor lenses that came in the camera kit, > >Your choices are somewhat limited, as Nikon doesn't yet make a fast >wide-angle DX (small image circle) lens. What about the 17-55 f/2.8...? I know it's not cheap, but it fits the description. Unless you mean something like a 12-24 f/2.8 which I agree Nikon does not make yet. But then neither does Canon, or any third party companies, so that's kind of a moot point. >>> I really like my Nikon D50, and I currently own the following lenses: >>> the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I know it's not cheap, but it fits the description. You bet. But at the short end, which is probably what he'll care most about in the museum situation, it's only two-thirds of a stop faster than the kit lens he's got now. And as you say, it's not cheap -- far from it -- and also it's not much wider than the lens he already has. > Unless you mean something like a 12-24 f/2.8 which I agree Nikon does > not make yet. But then neither does Canon, or any third party companies, > so that's kind of a moot point. True. Actually the Nikon 12-24mm f/4 would be mighty good for him to have in that situation, but at about $900 my guess is it's pricier than he wants to go. I don't have the 12-24/4 (yet!) myself. What I would use in the museum (apart from my 18-70 kit lens) would be the 10.5mm fisheye, which is f/2.8 and easily transforms to rectilinear with Nikon Capture 4. And I got mine for just $539 with free shipping. But then I like fisheyes anyway; he may not. >>>> I really like my Nikon D50, and I currently own the following lenses: >>>> the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> not make yet. But then neither does Canon, or any third party companies, >> so that's kind of a moot point. Wrong actually, Olympus makes a 14-54 F2.8-3.5 and a 11-22 F2.8-3.5 with some even better lenses either on the way or soon to be at F2.0 The ED35-100 F2.0 I believe is on the way and it is f 2.0 across the board. > True. Actually the Nikon 12-24mm f/4 would be mighty good for him to have in > that situation, but at about $900 my guess is it's pricier than he wants to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for just $539 with free shipping. But then I like fisheyes anyway; he may > not. > Hi Everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > that > also has VR, like the Nikkor 18-200mm VR? From all accounts it's a very nice lens, but with a good deal of distortion at the short end. Still it's pretty much the only game in town for a wide-angle with IS for the Nikon system. > I see that there's a fixed > focal length Nikkor at 50mm at f/1.8, and I'm guessing that this would be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > would be on my D50's detector? Thus, wouldn't the 50mm f/1.8 lens behave > like a 75mm lens on my D50? Yes, it would. > If I've said anything inaccurate/incorrect in my understanding, as > outlined in the message above, please keep in mind my relative newness to > photography, and please provide any corrections to my reasoning/thinking > as you see fit, so that I might learn more. Before you do anything else, try shooting wide open and bring the ISO up to 400, 800, and 1600 and see if you like the results. If you do, problem solved. Look for ways to brace the camera--posts, railings, etc are your friend. Learn to use the camera strap as a steadying aid--wrap it around both hands and press forward against it while you're leaning against a wall (you need to adust the length so that you can see the finder), set the self timer for 2 seconds, take a deep breath, hold, press the shutter, stay very still and let the timer do its thing--I've gotten usable images handheld at 400mm and 1/10 of a second this way and trust me, I'm _shaky_--if it works for me at 400 it should work fine for you at 20 or less. Screw a 1/4-20 eyebolt (should be able to find one at Home Depot, if not then try a real hardware store or a marine supply store) into the tripod socket (be careful, you don't want it in so hard that it breaks something--might be helpful to Loctite a nut onto it so that it tightens before it bottoms) and tie a string to it that is long enough for you to step on the end. Drop the string, stand on it, pull up the camera against the string tension, and it will be surprisingly steady. Use that in combination with the strap. Obtain a small beanbag--you can set one on all kinds of surfaces and it will deform to hold the camera steady. If you know someone who is amenable, take them along--a buddy's shoulder can work remarkably well if he or she understands to hold still while you're taking the shot. The Nikon 35mm f/2.0 should give you about two stops better than you're getting and it is very reasonably priced--this would be more or less the equivalent of a 50mm on a 35mm camera. If none of this works for you Sigma has f/1.8 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm lenses. How good they are I don't know--one test shows the 20 as being pretty bad wide open but the tester admitted that it was a defective lens and I'm seeing rave reports from others using them--find a store that has them all in stock and go try them--before you buy one look carefully at the edge sharpness--if one side is perceptibly sharper than the other you've got a defective lens. Going wider than 20mm you're not going to find much in the way of fast lenses, the 20mm Sigma is generally regarded as being an ambitious design. > Thanks in advance, > Scott Speck  Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) According to J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid>: > > Hi Everyone, > > > > I really like my Nikon D50, and I currently own the following lenses: the > > inexpensive 18-55 and 55-200 mm Nikkor lenses that came in the camera kit, [ ... ] > > I see that there's a fixed > > focal length Nikkor at 50mm at f/1.8, and I'm guessing that this would be > > a fairly fast lens, but then the 50mm focal length would really start > > cropping the wings off of aircraft in the air museum. There is even a 50mm f1.4 AF lens, which I picked up -- used. That gives you even more in low light situations. > > Any thoughts here would be most welcome. I'm a relative newbie to > > photography. Oh, one more question -- are focal length specifications for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes, it would. Indeed. > > If I've said anything inaccurate/incorrect in my understanding, as > > outlined in the message above, please keep in mind my relative newness to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 400, 800, and 1600 and see if you like the results. If you do, problem > solved. Yes. In particular, go into the menus (assuming that it is in the same place as on the D70, which is what I shoot) go into the "CSM menu" (the one with an icon of a pencil), and go down to selection 05 (ISO Auto). Turn this on, and your camera will automatically increase the ISO until you can take the photo. Normally, it will use the lowest (200), but will boost it it needs to. Also go into another entry (21 in the same menu). That one is called "Shutter Speed", which is supposed to select which is the lowest shutter speed that the camera will automatically select until it turns on the flash. I *believe* that it also affects the lowest shutter speed before the camera switches to higher ISO settings. > Look for ways to brace the camera--posts, railings, etc are your friend. > Learn to use the camera strap as a steadying aid--wrap it around both hands [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > don't want it in so hard that it breaks something--might be helpful to > Loctite a nut onto it so that it tightens before it bottoms) And make sure that the Loctite sets in the nut, and wipe off any in the extended threads *before* you screw it into your camera, or you may have this as a permanent accessory. :-) Note that the only way to release Loctite once it has set is to apply heat, and that would probably also affect the mount of the brass bushing in the base of the camera, which is, after all, embedded in plastic. > and tie a > string to it that is long enough for you to step on the end. Drop the > string, stand on it, pull up the camera against the string tension, and it > will be surprisingly steady. Perhaps get a long strap instead of a string for this. It is easier to grip firmly with your shoe. You could even stitch it into a loop for your foot to pass through, so you don't have to worry about it slipping under your foot while tightening. > Use that in combination with the strap. > Obtain a small beanbag--you can set one on all kinds of surfaces and it > will deform to hold the camera steady. If you know someone who is > amenable, take them along--a buddy's shoulder can work remarkably well if > he or she understands to hold still while you're taking the shot. Also -- examine the way you hold the camera. The best way which I have found for most lenses, is to turn the left hand palm up and cradle the lens in the thumb and first two fingers. The little finger (and sometimes the ring finger) can be folded into the heel of the hand and support the camera body while the other fingers and thumb support the lens. The first two fingers can be used (with the thumb moving as necessary) to adjust the zoom ring and the focus (if you are doing manual focus). In the meanwhile, tuck your elbow into your stomach, and it supports the camera quite well while your right hand is holding the camera against your forehead. I've gotten low blur images at surprisingly low shutter speeds with this grip. > The Nikon 35mm f/2.0 should give you about two stops better than you're > getting and it is very reasonably priced--this would be more or less the > equivalent of a 50mm on a 35mm camera. Indeed so. > If none of this works for you Sigma has f/1.8 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm lenses. > How good they are I don't know--one test shows the 20 as being pretty bad [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Going wider than 20mm you're not going to find much in the way of fast > lenses, the 20mm Sigma is generally regarded as being an ambitious design. Good advice. Good luck, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- >400 it should work fine for you at 20 or less. Screw a 1/4-20 eyebolt >(should be able to find one at Home Depot, if not then try a real hardware >store or a marine supply store) into the tripod socket (be careful, you >don't want it in so hard that it breaks something--might be helpful to >Loctite a nut onto it so that it tightens before it bottoms) No don't use locktite or any other thread locker. Use the proper tool. Put a nut onto the eyebolt first. Screw the eyebolt into the camera without bottoming and then tighten the nut against the bottom of the camera. -- Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html >>400 it should work fine for you at 20 or less. Screw a 1/4-20 eyebolt >>(should be able to find one at Home Depot, if not then try a real hardware [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a nut onto the eyebolt first. Screw the eyebolt into the camera without > bottoming and then tighten the nut against the bottom of the camera. And how is the result of that different from what I suggested other than that my way you don't have to carry a wrench around with you? > -- > Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) > http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >And how is the result of that different from what I suggested other than >that my way you don't have to carry a wrench around with you? It made me reread your reply later after more coffee and being more awake. I inadvertently thought what you where suggesting was to locktite the bolt and not a nut on it. -- Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html >>And how is the result of that different from what I suggested other than >>that my way you don't have to carry a wrench around with you? > > It made me reread your reply later after more coffee and being more awake. > I inadvertently thought what you where suggesting was to locktite the bolt > and not a nut on it. Been there, done that (the most recent time only about 10 hours ago) <g>. Note to self--coffee first, _then_ USENET. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > Hi Everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > photography, and please provide any corrections to my reasoning/thinking > as you see fit, so that I might learn more. It seems to me that your understanding of things is pretty good. Here are a couple of tips: General rule of thumb (nor VR lens) is that you can hand-hold reasonably steady at the inverse of the focal length. So a 30mm lens should give you decent results at 1/30th of a second, a 15mm lens at 1/15th...BUT...this is for full frame 35mm. So multiply your denominator by 1.5. Your 30mm lens should be hand holdable at 1/45th, your 15mm at 1/20th or thereabouts when using a DX body--as you suspect, your 30mm acts like a 45, and the 15 is effectively a 22.5 using a DXsensor. If possible (and probably not possible in a big museum), brace yourself against something. A wall. A pillar. This is very helpful. If you are unsupported, plant both feet firmly on the ground at about shoulder width and tuck your left elbow into your body. Take a deep breath, and squeeze the shutter gently as you exhale. You can get down on one knee if the subject permits, sit back on your right heel and brace your left elbow on your left thigh. This is a relatively stable platform. Always press the camera firmly into your face to provide a good anchor point there. If there is somewhere above floor level to rest the camera, bring a beanbag and rest the camera on that. Beanbags are great. You can move the camera into position by scruntching it down in the right position, and you can literally take several-second time exposures if your grip is gentle but firm, as the beans will hold the camera very solidly in place. Another possibility is to bring a small monopod, but instead of setting the foot on the floor tuck it into your belt at waist level in the front of your pants (or wear a small belly pack and put the foot in that). That will get you at least one extra shutter stop in speed, if not two, at which you can successfully hand-hold your shots. HTH, Toby > Hi Everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > detector noise. What should I do here? My 18-55 doesn't have VR, and I'm > hoping to NOT spend a huge amount on a super-fast wide-angle Nikkor. 24mm or 28mm f/2.8 $200-$300 > Though I haven't done many experiments on my own to see how detector noise > varies with ISO, and noting that I want nice clean images (minimal noise), [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > photography, and please provide any corrections to my reasoning/thinking as > you see fit, so that I might learn more. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.