Photography enthusiasts! Help me select a new camera and lens.

[Baal_Houtham]

@appleciders

Is there a way to tell if those would be compatible with a new(ish) Rebel? Also, how do I tell if the lens is in good shape?

When Canon went to autofocus, they switched to a completely new lens mount. The T70 uses “FD” mount lenses, while autofocus Canons use something else… I don’t remember the name of the new mount. Maybe EOS or Canon Autofocus…?

There are adaptors, but they are expensive and don’t provide much function. Here’s a link.

Canon EOS lens Adapters - Using Manual focus lenses on Canon EOS bodies

The Bob Atkins site is one of the most popular Canon-centric Web resources.

As for telling if a lens is in good shape: Look for fungus or large scratches or large amounts of dust inside the lens. (A few motes are no big deal.) See if it moves smoothly when you zoom and focus. Take some test pictures: are they in focus and pleasantly crisp looking?

[Sam_Stone]

@appleciders

So in researching the matter, I find that my mother has an old Canon T70 SLR in her attic which she hasn’t been using for the last fifteen years, with a couple of (then) nice lenses; one 35-70mm lens and one 80-200mm lens. Is there a way to tell if those would be compatible with a new(ish) Rebel? Also, how do I tell if the lens is in good shape? They’ve been in the soft camera bag the whole time, so I feel like they might still be perfectly fine. I saw the nice compatibility chart for the Nikon lenses; is there one for Canon lenses? Google didn’t help much, but then, maybe I’m missing something?

I have the same T70, and at least one of those lenses. And no, they’re not compatible. They’re not autofocus either. And, because they are designed for a 35mm film, in a crop-sensor digital camera the effective focal length will be significantly longer.

Of course, you DO have the option of just using the T70 as a film camera, then getting digital prints made from the photos. The T70 takes fine pictures. That might be your cheapest route if you’re just using the camera for the occasional set image. Most film developers today will give you a CD-ROM with digital prints for a nominal charge.

[Telemark]

@Baal_Houtham

I don’t remember the name of the new mount. Maybe EOS or Canon Autofocus…?

EF, and EF-s for the crop-only cameras.

[appleciders]

And in the same vein, there’s also a tripod with that camera. How do I know if it’s compatible, or are all tripods basically compatible?

[Cartooniverse]

Going back at least to 1935, all still photography cameras have had the same threaded hole awaiting the same screw. No matter if the camera body was made in Europe, Japan or the United States. The mounting hole embedded in the bottom of cameras is a 1/4-20 threaded hole.

Your tripod will have a mounting plate with a 1/4-20 screw in it. Use it to mount the camera onto the tripod. If the screw is missing, take the mounting plate that locks into the tripod head and go to a hardware store and get the proper screw.

Take the plate, because the shallowness of the head of the 1/4-20 screw is predicated by the depth of the counterbore ( channel milled ) in the mounting plate.

Cartooniverse

[appleciders]

So as I do research on this, I’m finding that cameras refurbished by the manufacturer are available and cheaper than buying new, and also commonly don’t come with the kit lens (example here. First of all, is it a good idea to buy a refurbished camera? The savings will allow me to buy another lens, so it seems tempting. Second, what should I look for in purchasing lenses? Is it a bad idea to buy off-brand lenses? I note that several people here have suggested buying Tamron lenses- are they are trustworthy name?

[Cartooniverse]

Ooooooooh, boy. Asking which branded lens is best is like asking, well…gosh. Everyone’s got heartfelt thoughts.

Tamron is a well-known name. I would encourage you to dig into Consumer’s Reports ( seriously ) as far as overall quality as rated by pros. Returns, lack of clarity, poor craftsmanship, shoddy optics, etc. All can be rated and may have been at some point.

I would say as a rule that a well-maintained Nikkor Multi-Coated lens is going to be superior to any knockoff lens. It is worth researching who is making the actual glass for Nikon ( I’ve no idea nowadays ). If it is Carl Zeiss themselves, right on. I saw a webcam yesterday ( Internet Shopping Monday ! ) that said in big letters, " Carl Zeiss Lens". I thought, no shit? Really? I read down and sure enough, it said, " manufactured to match Carl Zeiss specifications". Huh??? Please. :rolleyes:

So. If you can afford a real Nikon / Nikkor lens, go for it. Refurb body by Nikon? You betcha. I’d take one and never worry. It will be warrantied, the elements within have been checked physically and electronically. If it meant a real Nikon lens, or a second lens, I’d make that choice.

The second you open a new camera body and start shooting it’s a used camera body. My personal opinion…

Cartooniverse

[appleciders]

OK, I’ve more or less settled on the Nikon D5000. It does a little better in reviews for low-light conditions, it’s a little cheaper than the Canon models (leaving more room for lenses), and a lot of you have recommended Nikon. In looking at lenses, I think I’ll go ahead and get the kit lens because it’s fairly flexible and cheap, as well as a 35mm f/1.8 prime lens because fast zoom lenses are a little out of my price range. I know that with a camera that takes photographs with such high resolution I have some freedom to crop images on the computer, and I hope that mitigates the lack of zoom. I don’t have a good sense of how far away a 35mm lens is useful, however; if I wanted to, say take a photograph of a person from, say, waist to head, how far away would I stand? Is there a handy online calculator for this sort of thing? If not, there are 50mm f/1.8 lenses that will not autofocus with this camera, but are pretty cheap (as cheap as $120) and get great reviews. Will I suffer greatly by giving up autofocus? I’m a card-carrying member of the Nintendo generation, so I’m pretty good at twisting one dial while judging something onscreen, so I feel as though I’ll be able to shoot pretty well in manual focus. Theatre shooting is of course timing-sensitive, but it isn’t near as quick as sports photography, for instance.

Finally, I probably have the bucks in me for one additional lens* in the $200 range, especially if I get the 50mm f/1.8. Any recommendations?

Thanks again, folks, for all your help.
*My contract got extended! Whoo-hoo!

[Cartooniverse]

Yes. If you buy one lens, make it a short zoom. Shooting theater means one of several things.

1. They set up a platform in the 5th row so you can get a tripod set up at stage level or just above stage level. You are close, a shorter focal length lens MIGHT do you for that kind of work. Then again, if something key happens far stage right or left or way upstage and you are using that nice fast 35mm lens, you’ve got a whole lotta stage and a teeny bit of actors.
2. You shoot from the aisles in orchestra. That puts you in a position of being able to adjust your vertical relationship to the performers by moving up and down the aisles. Downside? You want a better rake on them, you move farther away… and need a longer zoom.
3. You shoot from the balcony. Sometimes, if the balcony is set back far enough in the house, you have an amazing POV. Sometimes it is way too steep.
4. You are ON stage shooting from all angles. Very rare, since it is not what any audience member might see.

In any of these, a fixed focal length will greatly limit your ability to track the action and keep a good frame going. Yes you can shoot wider and crop, but as you crop in tighter and tigher, even with a very large Megapixel camera, your images will suffer. The shots will be somewhat pixillated as you crop in tightly within a wider shot.

Buy one lens. I use a 28-80 for almost everything. It’s just a great range lens. For some performances depending on where I am, I use a 70-210. Not a very fast lens, but then again, I use autofocus and target very quickly. I also make my camera go to 1200ASA. No apparent grain, and that buys me a bit of depth of field.

I do own a 24mm prime and a 50mm prime. I almost never use them, I have to say. The 28-80 is a Nikkor lens. The 70-210 is a non-auto focus older Nikon lens.

FYI: 50mm is generally considered to emulate the human point of view. That is to say, barring a lot of peripheral awareness, what we see when not in motion and staring at something is about 50mm worth of image. ( this is in the traditional 35mm non-anamorphic “spherical lens” world )

I do love me some wide angle, but in performance, that’s used for curtain calls or big company numbers, or when the curtain rises on a new scene/ set or for some other large stage effect or impression. Otherwise, it’s about the actors.

I shot The Sleeping Beauty for Ballet Theater of Scranton a few years ago. Did almost all of it from the balcony. Used the long lens.

Oh- A sobering note of caution. When you buy a lens, at the same time buy a skylight or U.V. clear filter for it. Do not- DO NOT- nevah evah do you want to shoot with an unprotected lens. Buy a Tiffen skylight or U.V., not some off-brand piece of glass. This is protection. It is essential. Crack or scratch that glass, you are out $ 19.99 or whatever they are these days. Damage the front element of the actual lens and you are out a lens. Everyone has accidents. Within the last few weeks I had my camera bag slip off the chair onto a hard floor. I cracked the clear filter on the front element of my 28-80. No big loss. Thankfully the lens was okay. ( I rarely leave the lens mounted ON the body while in the bag, this was a mistake this time and one I’ll make sure not to make again. )

When I was working as a camera operator in movies, we had a gunfire sequence to shoot. I was to run past the “cops” with my Steadicam as they fired full load blanks. Lots of gunpowder and other particulate being blown out of those guns. We ordered a half-dozen optical clear 4x4 filters for that night’s work. After 1 or 2 takes, the filters were permanently pitted from the gunfire. We pulled one, put in a fresh one and did another take or two. Each filter cost $ 90.00 from the rental house. Meh. The cost of getting the shot. Nobody said boo about it.
By comparision, since I was using Zeiss SuperSpeed Prime lenses, the cost of disassembling that lens and buying a new front element and reconstructing and collimating the lens? Oye.

Use a clear protective filter on any lens you own.

Cartooniverse

[appleciders]

You know what? I’m being a little silly. I’m finding that Nikon D50, D70, and D80 cameras are available used* for only about $250-325, and they’ll auto-focus with all Nikon lenses, not just the AF-S newer kind. As I see it:

Pros: Can autofocus with lots more Nikon lenses, including AF and AF-D lenses, which are more common and cheaper. Leaves more money for glass, both because the body is cheaper and because the AF lenses are cheaper (and just as highly rated in reviews).

Cons: Only 6.1 (or 10.2) megapixels. What I’ve seen, though, is that giant resolutions are mostly a selling point and not necessary. Certainly, the D80’s 10.2 is going to be functionally identical to the D5000’s 12.3 for my purposes. Also, older design, which might mean older sensors, which might affect low-light shooting.

Thoughts? Has sensor technology advanced so far that the 2006 D80 is obsolete, or not?
*In seller-rated “Like New” condition, which should probably be taken with a grain of salt, but I don’t mind a tiny bit of cosmetic imperfections if the camera works perfectly.

[appleciders]

OK, not to over think things, but in light of your last post:

18-105mm Nikon lens. $234. Includes clear filter. Should cover just about anything in reasonable light, and within my price range if it replaces the kit lens, which is 18-55mm and has the same f/3.5-5.6. Autofocus and vibration reduction both work with D5000.

50mm Nikon lens. $131 with filter. f/1.8. It won’t autofocus with the D5000, but if I’ve got time to swap lenses, I’ve got time to manual focus. For very low light situations.

Reading reviews of the D5000 suggests that it really does have better sensors than the D80. I can get the two above lenses and the D5000 and still be in my price range. Sound like a good setup?

[Cartooniverse]

Yep. It sounds like a very good initial setup. That lens has a good range in it, to be sure.

And hey- overthinking things is what’s kept the Dope going since the mid '90’s !!

[appleciders]

OK, I did it. Thanks, folks, for helping me figure some of this out, and double thanks to Cartooniverse for the long essays on, well, everything. I’ll let you know when I get a good chance to try it out.

[Cartooniverse]

One is pleased to be of service.

I’d ask you to share some of those theatre photos when you get it going. Enjoy the new camera !!

[appleciders]

The moment I’ve got a good design to show off, I’ll let you see.