Toying with the idea of getting back into serious amateur photography — play along with me?

In My Humble Opinion
21

I do semi-pro sports and architectural photography, which are kind of on opposite ends of the spectrum of needs. I started back in 2006/2007 and still use all the lenses I bought back then. I started out with a Nikon D80 (DX) and a Tamron 35-70mm f/2.8 lens. A decent camera for the time, and a very capable but still kit-ish lens. Not long after I got a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8, a Nikkor 85mm f/1.8, and a Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4. Since then I got a Nikon D7000 (DX) and most recently a D750 (FX). They were all major upgrades, but all the lenses still work (even though the Tamron lenses are technically DX format they work fine in FX with the 17-35 having some soft corners that are usually cropped out by the time composing and distortion correction are applied).

The D7000 and D750 with the 70-200 lens are killers for sport. I shoot the D750 with the zoom lens and keep the wide angle on the D7000 for group shots, podiums, and occasional stuff like that. The move from DX to FX did lose me some zoom, but it’s mostly made up for with the increase in megapixels. Plus the full frame sensor has much better low-light capability and less noise, which is important as many events I shoot can drag on past dusk, or go on in the rain. The full frame D750 makes my 17-35 lens an ultrawide, which is awesome for architectural photography. Even for normal building documentation it’s great to be able to fit in an entire small bathroom. With FX there’s less coverage of focus points in the frame than with DX, and I’m not thrilled about that, but for “serious amateur” that’s probably no factor.

The industry is definitely moving to mirrorless as others have mentioned already. I think Canon is jumping on that more so than Nikon. Didn’t they recently say they’re not going to make DSLRs anymore? In any event, mirroless doesn’t seem to be as good for action as a DSLR, but they’re catching up fast. They also burn through the battery faster, which can be an issue. I can shoot 3,000 photos over an entire day on just one battery. I don’t think mirrorless cameras have been able to match that.

Also as mentioned by others, manual controls are not something you have to worry about. Manual controls aren’t fake just because there’s also automatic controls. Think of them more like a dual-clutch automatic transmission perhaps. The different shooting modes (at least on Nikon) are on their own dial so if you want to stay on “M” (manual) you can just ignore sports and macro and portrait, etc. I almost never shoot manual myself though, usually preferring “A” (aperture priority) or “S” (shutter priority) where you set the aperture or shutter speed respectively, and the camera chooses the appropriate shutter or aperture respectively (and possibly also ISO sensitivity) to properly expose the shot.

All that said, with digital pictures, the whole point is that you also have more post-processing ability, especially if you shoot RAW format. I used to use Apple’s Aperture (RIP) but now use Capture One Pro for my editing and organizing. There’s also Adobe Lightroom or Adobe Camera RAW. Think of this as the development process, which lets you fine-tune the output without risking your negatives. Using only manual mode on the camera and not touching the resulting files is trying to fit an outdated usage paradigm into something that’s not meant for it.

The iPhone does a ton of background processing to make the photos look as good as possible and counteract the limitations of the lenses and sensors. That’s how they look so good from the get-go, but it’s mostly invisible and not adjustable by the end user. With a DSLR or other more “pro” digital camera bodies and capable editing software, you have control over those adjustments, and you’re expected to use them to get the results YOU want, not what the product engineers think are the best algorithms to satisfy the most circumstances. You also have more control over things that were lacking in the film days, like lens distortion correction, white balance, noise reduction, and the ability to do high dynamic range merges or focus stacking. Try to embrace the tools the technology brings rather than fighting it.

22

I think Nikon is definitely joining the party, especially with the big Z9 rollout early this year, which is their current flagship camera. It seems like almost everyone in my industry is shooting with Sony Alphas these days, both with still but especially video, but Nikon’s Z-series and Canon’s G-series mirrorless line-ups are formidable.

As for compatibility of lenses, you will lose some functionality with some lenses with the adaptor, at least with Nikon. If your lens doesn’t have an internal focusing motor, it will not be able to autofocus with the adaptor ring. On the plus side, my 24-70mm f/2.8 lens (which has no lens stabilization) now has in-camera stabilization, so I can shoot a good stop or two slower than I normally could (provided a reasonably static subject.) But since the OP is starting fresh, the ability to use old lenses is not quite as important.

23

Probably true, because the shorter sensor to flange distance allows an adapter to be added without losing infinity focus. However, if OP wants to do a lot of that, might I suggest checking the availability for each brand? It’s basically a piece of metal that bayonets into the mount on the body, no glass, but also accepts the mount you’re attaching (in my case, a Minolta Rokkor from circa 1980).

I was really thrilled to read about metabones adapters, which are telecompressors. It’s like the old teleconverter idea—take a 50mm f1.8 lens and a 2x multiplier and you get a 100mm f3.6 lens—but metabones goes wider. Take a 50mm f1.8 lens and a 0.5x telecompressor and you get a 25mm f0.9 lens. More than that smoking fast f0.9, it’s about the limited ultrawides for my micro four thirds. Anyway they cater more toward Canon, Nikon, and IIRC Sony and I’m SOL.

Yeah, it amounts to becoming an old preset lens. Focus manually, then close down the diaphragm to the desired aperture, snap the photo. Reopen the diaphragm for maximum brightness to focus the next shot.

One other lens I would really like to have is a perspective shift/perspective control lens. Alas, last I checked there aren’t any for m4/3.

24

I don’t have to do any of that, but maybe my lenses aren’t old enough. My lenses that have become non-AF don’t require any diaphragm adjustment and readjustment. The only thing functionally different is that it has become an MF lens.

25

Ahhhh. I was just thinking I’d like to have one of those. The shift function you can account for by using a wider lens and cropping; you lose resolution but it’s optically correct. The tilt, well, there’s no substitute for it, the Scheimpflug principle doesn’t allow it.

Late in my first and most serious photography phase, I came very close to getting a view camera, maybe a 4 by 5 Horseman. I had recently done a whole lot of scientific photography with 8 by 10 glass plates and thought them wonderful, though slow to process, one image at a time in the darkroom. But like I said, it came close to being a job.

And speaking of jobs, I did shoot one wedding, and absolutely hated it. There was a great deal of pressure not to make some little mistake and ruin things, many rapid fire interruptions and distractions, zero feedback on whether it was going right (this being before digital), and the requirement that the photographer also be good at being a sort of Master of Ceremonies. To any of you who do this, my hat is off to you.

26

I read up a bit on this when digital photography started, and got the idea that the camera does some pretty useful stuff between RAW and whatever final format it can deliver. IIRC the camera memorizes some simple details about every single pixel, like its basic sensitivity and background noise, and also whether it’s dead, and then compensates. Also, at least in some of the most maxed out all in one cameras (like the one I had with I think an 18:1 zoom ratio), things like magnification distortion and chromatic aberration were compensated (mine had a terrible violet fringe on one side of every highlight and a matching chartreuse fringe on the opposite side). These are corrections for artifacts specific to that camera and that particular imaging chip that would be hard to fix without all the individual calibration information linked to camera settings.
But I get that black box processing that you can’t undo has its own compromises.

I absolutely think it’s counterproductive to avoid touching the resulting files. In a way, one of the best incentives to get back into it is how much you can do with those files today, and how little physical technique you have to learn to be able to do it. All the weird bright crescents I was getting for a while, because I was putting kinks in the negatives when spooling them into the developing reel; the big dark clouds I got on glass plates because my fingertips were warming the glass from behind while I was handling it; all sorts of things are just a pain in the ass to figure out and get worked through.

27

It looks like some are available for Canon, Nikon, Sigma.

https://www.google.com/search?q=perspective+shift+lens&source=lmns&tbm=shop&bih=657&biw=1366&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS798US798&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjKztj__s32AhXYPs0KHTn9DBAQ_AUoA3oECAEQAw

28

Aw jeez… Toying just became buying…

I just ordered a Fujifilm X-T30 II and a Fujifilm XF-35mm F1.4 R prime lens. Now I’m in it.

Next will be more surveying of the lens lineup. In 35 mm SLR photography I liked the 50 mm starting point and going down to 28 mm and 17 mm, plus going up to 135 mm and 300 mm. But I also thought if I was starting over I might have done 35 then 24 mm downward, and 85 then 200 upward.

My last set of lenses made the modest telephoto a macro. That’s a great approach. You often can get a 100 or 200 mm design that will focus all the way to 1:1 without adding an extension tube. I might do that here.

I do like staying within the brand. Things sometimes are more expectable that way.

But I also stumbled upon Laowa lenses, and they have some very amazing offerings. For example they have a 4 mm circular fisheye that covers a 210 degree field of view, for the low low price of $199. Reminds me of the Spiratone circular fisheye attachment that threaded onto the front of a 50 mm lens, though the Laowa is a whole camera lens and not just an attachment. They also have a macrophoto lens that focuses directly in the 2X to 5X range. Neither looks available for X mount yet but they are growing the line.

Oh, well, so it starts again.

29

For prime-only shooters, I usually see the most common two-lens combination as 35mm and 85mm. I would probably choose similarly if I were forced to work with two primes. As I like portraits, the first lens I’ve always bought for any camera system has been an 85mm. (I have like four different 85mm lenses around.) Depends on what you shoot, though. I do most people stuff.

Congratulations on your new toy! I was putting my Z6II through its paces last night for about twelve hours at a wedding getting used to its differences and quirks vs shooting my usualy dSLR D750s. Always a learning curve when moving to new and different technology.

30

For context, you’re shooting in 35 mm full frame, right? So for APS-C format that’d be like 22 and 53 mm.

I never did all that much portraiture but thought an 85 (in full frame film) would have been a great ticket into that. Complimentary to the nose, and also gives photos an intimate feel while keeping a more comfortable social distance from photographer to subject. Plus, a fast one could keep attention on just a narrow distance range. Canon had a very well regarded f/1.2 that was attractive (though really unrealistically expensive for young me).

You do weddings. More power to you. (shivers)

31

Yes, yes, sorry. Should have specified that.

Generally, for anything but environmental portraits, most any telephoto lens will suit you fine. Photographers have preferences between the 85mm/105mm/135mm for your typical portrait. Most of the time, I just shoot it with a 70-200 f/2.8 all the way up to 200, but I pull out the 85mm f/1.4 when I don’t have to worry about swapping lenses too much. (I shoot with two bodies, but they’re usually 24-70 on one and 70-200 on another and when I’m out in the field and it’s hectic, I feel naked without the full range.) Even with group shots, I try to use the longest lens I can for the space constraints I have to reduce distortion. 50mm and up if I can get it.

You do weddings. More power to you. (shivers)

Probably done over 400 or so at this point. It’s only nerve-wracking for the first 30 or 40. I do mostly South Asian weddings now, with multi-day events, and a flurry of activity. Keeps me on my toes. I actually find it pretty fun, although after the amount I have shot, there are days it becomes a little hard to muster up the enthusiasm (yesterday was a great day, though. Early-season weddings when you’re fresh usually are. The hours just flew by.)

Weddings are also very good at honing different photography skillsets, as there are many types of photography involved in shooting a wedding. So it’s kept me creatively on my toes for that.

32

O my heavens.

Most of what I do in life these days is trying to prevent my nerves from getting wracked even once.

I like challenges, but I like them to happen slowly in my basement office as I try to figure things out. Lots of trying and adjusting and trying again. It never counts until I call the process done.

Again, my hat’s off to you. I’d be scared sick.

33

Oh believe me, I was when I started about 15 or 16 years ago now. Coming from a photojournalist background did help with the chaos and pressure aspect of it. Didn’t help when after two jobs as a second shooter I was put on as lead shooter permanently and had to run the show. After two years of shooting for that studio, I opened up my own business, as I felt I needed to get about 50 weddings of experience before being able to confidently sell myself. The work in that industry now is simply incredible, especially compared to when I started. Even moreso, video/cinematography has improved leaps and bounds, first with the Canon 5D Mark II, and now with the Sony Alphas and other mirrorless cameras, as well as drones. The jump in quality is jaw-dropping.

34

That sounds exciting too, though you wouldn’t have a bride crying and screaming at you online for missing a shot.

I did have one great photo I think would have made the front page of the Wilmington, Delaware paper if I could have gotten it there soon enough. This would have been maybe 1978 or 79. There was a fire at the Chrysler plant in Newark DE, and a bunch of photographers were there. Governor Pete duPont flew there by helicopter while things were at their busiest, and landed a few hundred feet from the building at the far end of a big parking lot. All the photographers scurried over that way, and I was heading there too, but I just happened to notice a flurry of activity. They were bringing a volunteer firefighter down off the roof, where he’d been overcome (heat I think). A bunch of firefighters were helping him down the ladder of one of their trucks. I got the shot.

I hurried to the darkroom to process and print it. I don’t remember exactly what went wrong with the day’s schedule, maybe I was too late to give it to them, or couldn’t figure out how to give it to them, I don’t remember. But it was a great shot, and more exciting than anything they ran.

This was all just luck. When it came time to take the shot, I knew what I was doing, so that part worked out, but it’s not like it was a technically significant picture. I just happened to be in the right place and time.

Which is in vivid contrast to most of my life. You know that pivotal moment in an action movie when the hero thinks fast and saves the day? If the movie were about me, the hero would just have stood there saying, “Wait, what?”

35

Before picking up my 35mm f3.5 macro lens, I bought a Raynox. It clips on the front of your telezoom, like you’d attach a lens cap.

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=raynox+dcr+250&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyt_HmaPV9gIV0GpvBB0ySAn4EAAYASAAEgLUufD_BwE&hvadid=153724174789&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9026937&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=7727813765278109646&hvtargid=kwd-116132597&hydadcr=18444_9455433&tag=googhydr-20&ref=pd_sl_1l52obr9jc_e

Results are pretty good, it isn’t expensive, and it’s very portable.

36

That looks pretty nice! When I was last serious, I never saw anything like this.

I did have a set of those +1, +2 and +3 single element lenses.

I also made a “reversing ring” that had threads of filter size (this was all Canon equipment and most of it had 55 mm threads). This reversing ring was male on both sides. I had to grind down two step up rings and epoxy them together. It let me put, for example, a reversed 24 mm lens on the front of my 135 mm lens. Excellent image quality, as it should be – both lenses working at infinity focus where their design is quite good. Vignetting could be a problem – generally I’d shoot with the 135 wide open and use the aperture stop on the 24. I had to buy some accessory to put on the very front of the whole assembly, I think, to hold the aperture of the front lens where I wanted it, as those Canon lenses didn’t open and close when off the camera.

37

Right, I had a +1, +2, +4 set of Hoyas. Problems:

  1. It’s not always obvious which you need
  2. You lose infinity focus so if another shot comes along unscrew unscrew unscrew…!!!
  3. You need a set for each filter size of lens you have.

You can go from macro to tele as fast as you can remove/attach a lens cap.

I was skeptical but they make pretty good photos really. And if you’re using a tele zoom, you can often alter your reproduction ratio to suit your purpose.

Since you’re returning from film days, check out “focus stacking.” That’s where you shoot a bunch of macro photos of the same thing, varying focus slightly, then going back and pasting all the in-focus parts of several to make one good one…if that makes sense.

I also own a Raynox 202 which is great if you want to do very flat things.

Need a macro challenge?

38

Those are, as the headline says, stunning!

When you are very tiny, you may not even notice gravity, but the way things adhere, and surface tension, are enormously important. If you’re tiny enough, when you fly the Reynolds number is so low it’s like creeping through mud and hardly ballistic at all. Whereas, for animals of our size, and especially the ones much more massive (like elephants), gravity and momentum control everything, and you can even get badly injured just by toppling over.

Which gets to something I really like about photography: it can work wonders to capture realities that are very different from the world as we experience it. Not much else can… mathematics, maybe…

Aaaanyhoooo…

Well this didn’t take long. I added their 80 mm macro and a 2X teleconverter, and then added the 14 mm wide angle and the 18-135 zoom. All Fujifilm. And then on a whim I ordered a Meike brand 6.5 mm circular fisheye, which for $129 sounds like a relatively cheap barrel of fun. It would make a great portraiture lens if I have to shoot somebody I dislike, but there’s hardly anybody I dislike much. No, instead, I think it’d be fun for exploring spaces. And I’ve always had a warm spot in my heart for optics. Both the subject (which I studied when getting a physics degree) and the tools (I have a big tub in the shop just full of nifty lenses, including a projection TV lens that is about 150 mm focal length and f/0.6, and a Fresnel lens that is I think f/0.5, and some narrow passband filters, fiber optics, a microscope objective or two, sheets of thermochromic paper, prisms, and more). I’ve spent many pleasant hours fooling around trying to get difficult and obscure images. I once built a 10" Newtonian reflector and I’ve been able to use telescopes up to 24" in aperture, including an 8" Cooke triplet made by Cooke, and even a 5" refractor made by Alan Clark. And helium neon lasers, Raman spectrometers, and a scanning electron microscope – that took some training time, but for zoom ratio and depth of field it can’t be beat.

So, come Wednesday and Saturday, I’ll be having fun indeed with some streamlined new toys. And not choking on darkroom fumes any more!!

Thanks for all the advice – this is a fascinating conversation!

39

I tried and failed to get a good star trails image. Back in the day you’d lock your shutter open for a few hours. I had read that doing that with digital cameras would overheat the sensors, so you have to take multiple pictures, then create a multiple exposure of them.

40

Huh. I’m a little surprised, as I don’t know why a long exposure would increase the sensor temperature. As I understand their workings, during an exposure it’s not really doing much, just sitting idle with static voltages on conductive paths that define the pixels. I’d think capturing video would do much more to warm them up (though not necessarily enough to be any problem).

In the link you provided, one person asks if it’s a problem, and the answer is no.

Now, sensor noise is a problem, and sensor temperature drives it. I had a monochrome camera for industrial use that had a vacuum dewar around the sensor and peltier heat pumps to lower its temperature by something like 80 Celsius degrees. But that’s to reduce noise in the form of reported light that’s not actually there. In astrophotography this is a big deal and even amateur cameras generally have cooling I think. For infrared it’s even worse, and the James Webb Space Telescope goes to a great deal of trouble to operate at cryogenic temps (for this and other reasons like the body of the telescope itself glowing).

The time I spent using the 8" Cooke triplet was all photography. In fact you couldn’t look through the telescope, it only had an 8 by 10 inch glass plate holder. The shutter was a sheet metal flap inside the tube that you’d lift and lower with a knob. We’d take turns, two of us, throughout the useable night. One would expose a plate for half an hour while looking through the 5" Alvan Clarke refractor as a guide scope, adjusting the telescope position to keep a guide star on the crosshairs (it was of course a driven mount but we still had to keep fine tuning). Meanwhile the other would be in the darkroom processing another plate. We’d pass every time we would trade jobs. This was at the Maria Mitchell Observatory in Nantucket, where we studied variable stars.