Lens research makes me sniffle, or, thinking aloud

[solarbird]

All this lens research to sell my old kit is making me kind of regretful. For the 70mm-210mm f3.5-4.5 zoom I have, I keep finding things like "wonderful lens design" and "a true bargain" and "look for it on eBay" (it's long been discontinued) and people kind of regretting upgrades to the L line and people making archives on Canon forums despite the lens not being available. Reference sites list it at $200 (+/- 25%) in near-mint.

Then you get to the 85mm f1.8 - yay, speedy - and I started remembering that the only time I ever even halfway liked shooting with the Elan was using this lens. And you see on eBay that it sells for $300, used - which is only $40 off new via mail-order in New York. Ultra-quiet, ultra-fast, and ultra-discreet, Best portrait lens in the world, a fantastic portrait lens, with jaw dropping sharpness at all apertures. The bokeh is also outstanding - creamy, buttery, milky, smooth. Excellent contrast, vivid colours, OUTSTANDING in the lab... at ALL aperture settings... and I'm thinking... I like photography. What the hell is wrong with me? Why am I selling these lenses?!

And then I remember that I haven't shot through them in, what, three years? Yeah. Three years.

Maybe four. But I think three.

So I spent some time thinking about this. Before I had the Elan - bought shortly before digitals got worthwhile, bad timing! - I had a full-metal-body full-manual SLR, like every good art-school student should. I had a really good 50mm (which, amusingly, sold for much more than I paid for it on eBay), a pretty good 135mm (and a doubler), a macro, a wide-angle, and a junky 55mm I only kept because you never know what could happen.

I loved shooting with that thing. I was super-fast with it - 2 frames per second manual-winding? CAN do sport. I hit 3fps at least once, when I didn't have to refocus. The body had a thing where you could compose with the aperture left wide open, click the aperture down to actual for preview, then shoot. Basically, it was a light tube, with film behind it. And because it was full-manual, it was built to be full-manual, and there were pleasantly few controls. Aperture and focus on the lens; shutter speed on the body; click to preview depth of field, click to shoot. That was it.

Then it died of a combination of old-age and battery-reference error (not mine; the reference replacement battery for one no longer made killed the light metre) and I thought it was time to upgrade. I surveyed the market extensively. I hated the Nikon control set a lot; I didn't like the Minolta series's limited lens set, tho' the lenses around were awfully nice; I wasn't interested in large-format (or large-format price tags), and the Canon had nice lenses available and the least annoying UI. Plus, the 100 (in Japan) a.k.a. the Elan (in the US) would let me override everything if I thought I needed to, so - the Elan it was. I refused the bundled 75-300mm zoom lens as a piece of junk, and negotiated for the faster (and clearly better even at the time) 70-210mm above instead. This, somewhat to my surprise, worked. (Again: quantity vs. quality. They still make a cheapy 75-300mm. They still make a nice 70-200, but in the L - professional - line only. But they don't make this lens anymore.)

And then I never liked shooting with it.

I didn't hate it. I thought it was just a matter of getting used to all the controls, and the approach, which was so different than the SLR I'd replaced. But it didn't really get any better with time. I shot trips to Baltimore, to San Antonio; I shot the WTO riots; it didn't improve. One thing did help, a little; getting that nice 85mm fixed-focal-length lens described above. I still missed my old camera, but... shooting with that managed to be okay. I kind of liked it. I liked not having to screw with the zoom. Not as much as I'd liked the old camera, though.

Thinking about it, I think it's because it wasn't just a light tube with film on the back. I think there's just too much crap involved. Far more controls - no, that's not right. Far more options. I had full control before, after all. It at setting locations scattered from the lens barrel to the body back, LCD display, onboard flash (that, thankfully, in the Elan version did not pop up automatically ever), modes for sports, modes for portraiture, modes for distance, modes for macro, all of which you could do yourself with less work, as far as I'm concerned - and honestly, all of that crap just got in the way. All this stuff intended to help got between me and the image, rather than getting me closer to it.

Plus, the damn thing was bigger, and despite this lighter, which, particularly with zoom lenses, made it harder to stablise. On the old camera, I successfully shot 1/30th of a second, f3.5, 270mm, no tripod. I've never come close to that with any other camera since. I was handed a Digital Rebel at Kenmore Camera a couple of days ago, just to play with. It's the cheapest digital body that takes these lenses, and it's just like the Elan in every way I didn't like.

So okay, you'd think, fine; I just need something that's a light tube with a sensor - a really good quality sensor - on one end. But that's not what I have with the PowerShot I've been borrowing from Paul for the last two years, and I shoot with that constantly. It does have some serious advantages; it's small and light, which means I can carry it everywhere and not lug a bag around. (That's a big deal for me.) But the disadvantages are huge. It has all sorts of crap going on, with all sorts of modes I ignore ("sports," "portrait," other BS the Elan had like that) but which still manage to get between me and image often enough to annoy me, usually when the setting knob gets knocked and changes modes. Its brain is still kind of dumb. Its viewfinder is useless; I use the LCD exclusively. It's only 4mp and the optics really aren't very good. And the sensor gets really unnecessarily weird when it comes to certain reds.

But despite all this, I shoot with it constantly, and most importantly, I enjoy it. You see some of the results on this journal. Almost every image I've posted for the last couple of years has been that PowerShot A80. Which leads to the obvious why? Except for being tiny and not having other lenses around, it's the exact opposite of the SLR I loved, and is a lot like the SLR I never liked.

I think it's two things. 1) It's small. I like that a lot. It's zero production work to have it with me; I throw it in my backpack and I'm off. That's one huge thing less between me and image; no camera bag. 2) The LCD lets me ignore all the crap that is between me and image because I can see the image through the camera in the way I could with the full-manual SLR (live, reasonably accurate for a low-resolution microsummary), and couldn't with the EOS 100/Elan (also live, but never really right, somehow). I don't even try to use the viewfinder, like I did on the Digital Rebel, which I could just feel misleading me, and on which I'm not going to shoot through the LCD. It's so very clearly not built for that, I'd feel like a fool.

So, I use the A80, and I use it a lot. But on the other hand, I have genuinely outgrown it. (Arguably, I did that years ago. But I digress.) The last year in particular I've been shooting shots it shouldn't be taking. Sometimes, I get away with it. Sometimes, I really don't. Obviously, I need to step up another level - but I really don't like the idea of having a digital version of my Elan. And I kinda liked the high-end Powershot line they showed me at Kenmore Camera - two models, both 10.1mp, one with a swing-out LCD that takes AA batteries (rechargeable or alkaline) so is bigger, one smaller without swing-out LCD and a weird battery. They have clearly better optics, which I certainly want, tho' certainly also are not up to the level of the lenses I'm selling. They have better sensors, tho' probably not up to the level of a digital SLR. But there's More Crap on them. Not as much More Crap as on the Rebel, but still, More Crap. And, after my last experience, More Crap makes me nervous.

So. There we are. I'm not really sure what to do and it's not like there is a lot I can do right now anyway. If I sell these lenses and the Elan body I could get a high-end Powershot out of the proceeds. I'd have the upgrade I'd like of the camera I actually use, but I wouldn't have the - theoretical - capacity to take professional publication-quality photographs anymore, and I dislike that idea on a purely theoretical basis.

But I suppose if I needed to do that for some reason, I could go dig up another used 35mm screw-mount full-manual metal-body SLR. I hear nice lenses for those things are awfully, awfully cheap...

Comments

[maellenkleth]

Funny that someone should write on that subject right now. Saturday morning I am heading off to do my second-favourite thing in the whole wide world, and I've been mulling over taking a camera along and collecting some arty shots with the self-timer.

Realised in the process of all this, that it wouldn't be a bad idea to go collect my film camera out of the thingie closet and see whether it would be up to a weekend trip out for adventures with me.

Pentax, old Spotmatic, steel body, indestructible, used it with the battery removed for years since I take pictures in atmospheres where non-certified electrics of any sort are banned. And what a collection of lenses! Your writing just now on lenses got me thinking about the stories each lense had to tell.

Thank you. Think I'll give the faithful old girl a clean-up and take her out for some snapping this weekend.

And I quite agree with you on the subject of More Crap. Complexity, especially complexity for its own sake (feature creep...) can be well and truly counter-productive.

--maellenkleth, herself the recluse

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

There are is some really good old equipment available out there for bargain prices if you know what to look for. (That is, specific models, condition, etc.)

That said, my three newest bodies (an Alpha and two Maxxums) all have lots of controls and options I never use. I do 99% of my shooting with the Function set on P.

[westrider.livejournal.com]

That always really bugs me when I know how to use something, and it keeps trying to 'help' me. Actually, feature creep in general bugs me something fierce. I like the tiny,crappy, miscalibrated oven in my apartment way better than my Mom's brand new one, because mine just has a knob that I turn to set the temperature, rather than an LCD and more buttons than a graphing calculator. (Well, not quite, but it feels like that.) Heck, my mom couldn't use her oven for the first two weeks she had it, because the motherboard was burnt out. When did ovens start needing motherboards?

[chirik.livejournal.com]

You know I seriously want the 85 and 70-210, but that said, I'm going to comment on one thing...

Have you tried looking at the prosumer models in the Canon line? Used 10D, 20D, or similar? The controls are much better laid out than on the Rebel. As I recall with the rebel you have to do most everything through the menu, but in the full manual mode of my 10D, the aperture and the shutter speed are both just turning easy-to-access wheels on the body, and even changing ISO is hitting one button and then turning one of the aforementioned wheels. In full manual mode, the camera gets out of your way.

That said, it's still a DSLR, still fairly big and heavy, and still needs a big camera bag. That'll only be better with the smaller cameras that you're looking at.

[solarbird]

The Rebel I looked at had those controls on wheels on the body, as per my Elan.

One other problem is that without selling stuff, I have no money to buy anything. Which would hardly kill me, of course. But it just feels like it's time.

[frobzwiththingz.livejournal.com]

Cameras... Whats better... Yep... I've got a Canon 20D with 430 speedlite and 18-55 and 112-450 (75-300 EF after 1.6x correction factor) lenses. I like it.

I've also got a Powershot S500.

As i sit in my office, one of the above is in my backpack. Guess which one it is.

The 20D can take better photos, but the best camera is *the one you have with you*.

[epawtows.livejournal.com]

Your SLR sounds an awful like my old OM-1; although it had both aperture and shutter speed on the lens mount; only control on the body was film ASA. We used to shoot B&W and develop ourselves. I think I last checked out the light-meter battery three years ago, and it still worked. Not sure if replacements are available.

[quen-elf.livejournal.com]

I used to have an OM-1 too and was just about to post about it. :) Great camera even though as a kid I was too young (and crap) to appreciate it.

IIRC production of the lightmeter battery has now been banned due to toxic chemicals (unless they have managed to make one in the same form factor with different chemistry). However it works without, except I seem to recall the fastest shutter speeds also require power? Could be wrong, it's a long time.

(Rest of comment in response to original post.)

I'm using a Canon 350D (that's a 'Rebel XT' in the US, where they seem to prefer their cameras with extra cheese) which is okay and cheap and relatively small and light. I would prefer smaller and lighter, mind - I would also prefer a larger viewfinder. That series of cameras has really tiny, crappy viewfinders. (Incidentally, you can't use LCD to compose; that feature, called 'live view', is only available on a few DSLRs. It's also not a good idea.)

At the time I got that camera it was the best buy given my constraints (the size/weight thing). Nowadays I think the Nikon cameras have significantly better controls and, more importantly, my dad's D200 at least has a huge viewfinder by comparison. The new D300 has a similarly-large finder and also claims that it has 100% coverage, which is a big plus. However these are huge and heavy compared to the 350D (I think they're also heavier than Canon's equivalents, 30/40D)... and I'm pretty sure they're significantly outside your price range.

I personally also expect that my next camera body will be a 450D or whatever (they're currently on 400D), unless Nikon release something comparably small and still with a larger viewfinder and there's something else so stunning about it that I don't mind re-buying lenses. (Not really sure there's an equivalent lens as good as one of those I've got, either, for anything remotely like a reasonable price.)

Anyway, it might be worth looking at one of those to see if you get a better feel for it - for future reference, to see if there's something you might be able to cope with, rather than immediate purchase. (Incidentally here's a D300 preview (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond300/) in detail.) You could also try a Leica M8 which ought to provide a pretty neat 'manual' experience (i.e. you can pretend you're a serious photojournalist), at an unbelievably extortionate price.

To be honest if you are sticking with a compact camera and want to upgrade, I would simply get a recent camera from a reputable brand that's as small as possible. There's a Canon one that several friends of mine seem to be getting. (It's in the 'smaller-than-PowerShot but uses the same image sensor' range, I forget the name.) I don't really believe there's a lot of point in the nearly-SLR compact cameras; they probably have the full range of automatic features you hate, fewer of the manual facilities and controls, and don't cost that much less than the bottom-of-the-range DSLRs.

[solarbird]

I'm using a Canon 350D (that's a 'Rebel XT' in the US
I so hate that name.

(Incidentally, you can't use LCD to compose; that feature, called 'live view', is only available on a few DSLRs. It's also not a good idea.)
You're referring specifically to DSLRs? Because that's how I compose all the time now. ^_^

Nowadays I think the Nikon cameras have significantly better controls and, more importantly, my dad's D200 at least has a huge viewfinder by comparison.
firni has been telling me that Nikon is back in front of Canon at the current time in glass. I can believe that. They seem to go back and forth.

and I'm pretty sure they're significantly outside your price range.
What's in my price range for the next year or so is "whatever I can make selling the old kit." What's good is that the best lenses are going to a good home. Of the two remaining, I'll be selling the 50mm f1.8 (the "nifty fifty") on eBay alone, and the 28-80 with the body, as it's basically a "kit" lens and not honestly worth the time to buy separately, ever. It's the only junky lens I have.

Anyway, it might be worth looking at one of those to see if you get a better feel for it - for future reference, to see if there's something you might be able to cope with, rather than immediate purchase.
That's fair. I really disliked the Rebel XT/350D on first pick-up.

You could also try a Leica M8
WOOHOO >10x my probable budget! YAY!

To be honest if you are sticking with a compact camera and want to upgrade, I would simply get a recent camera from a reputable brand that's as small as possible.
I honestly kinda like the A80 I've been borrowing. I'd kind of like that, just, you know, better. (Better in lower light; better red quality/better sensor; higher resolution; a longer optical zoom would be a nice bonus.)

There's a Canon one that several friends of mine seem to be getting. (It's in the 'smaller-than-PowerShot but uses the same image sensor' range, I forget the name.)
If you could check, I'd appreciate it.

I don't really believe there's a lot of point in the nearly-SLR compact cameras; they probably have the full range of automatic features you hate, fewer of the manual facilities and controls, and don't cost that much less than the bottom-of-the-range DSLRs.
I'm actually seeing a pretty big price difference between the PowerShots I'm looking at (10.1mp which is more than I care about, around $400) and lower-end new DSLRs ($700+ body alone, unless used, in which case you're talking $400+ for body alone, and then I have no lenses, and they tend to be in the 4mp range. 4 good mp maybe, but still). I have not done anything like a comprehensive survey, however.

[quen-elf.livejournal.com]

1) Yes, re LCD composing being crap, I'm referring specifically to DSLRs. (Viewfinders there are OK, they're instant, and it's easier to hold the camera steady against your face.) With compact cameras the viewfinders are so unbelievably bad that you have no choice anyway. I'd recommend a compact without a viewfinder.

2) I realise you don't have the money for any of the expensive cameras I mentioned but there is always the possibility of a lottery win :) Well, or assuming you have more sense than to play the lottery, er... you help an old lady who's been knocked down in the road and it turns out she's fabulously rich and gives you a massive reward... or something equally likely. Well. Yeah. :) Um. In my defence, I did not seriously expect you to consider an M8 :) But in the sort of theoretical 'omg digital cameras all suck' kind of line, it might be an interesting data point given that it's pretty manual and designed to pretty closely match a manual camera. (Unfortunately unlike the manual Leicas there is no cheap-but-almost-equivalent Russian knockoff of the digital version...)

3) Kind of not sure what you hated about the 350D or DSLRs in general in terms of stupid gimmicks. At the extreme, slide the lens into manual focus, switch the mode dial to manual, turn the image format to RAW and you've got something very similar to a manual SLR; it takes pictures absolutely instantly (something my old Canon compact decidedly didn't do, hopefully they have improved), clicks when you take a picture, and you even have to develop pictures afterwards. No need to worry about any in-camera settings beyond ISO, aperture, shutter speed. Of course in reality you're probably better off using some of the automatic settings, but just saying that with any DSLR you can have exactly that manual feel if you want it.

4) The compact I used to have was the A40, incidentally. It was pretty good but a little too big (which is entirely because it uses sensible batteries, which is a good thing, but). I either gave it away or sold it cheap - not sure - to a friend. It still works.

5) The camera I mentioned a couple of my friends were going to buy (one has) is a PowerShot SD1000. It's 7.1 MP i.e. definitely in the 'no point in this many pixels' range. I can't vouch for quality personally but I expect it's OK.

6) With regard to Canon DSLRs the kit lens is shit so body-only is a better bet anyway. Nikon DSLRs have a good kit lens. If you find anything used at 4 MP it's way too old, but 6MP (the first affordable DSLRs) should be fine. The main factor in low light is still sensor size, not anything else, while you have a good range of lenses, so even older DSLRs should still take significantly better pictures than any compact.

Going rate for a Nikon D70/D50 on ebay appears to be about $400-500 body only, or $500-600 with lens. There's a D50 body only for $450 inc shipping buy it now. The Canon 300D (which was a bit crippled by comparison with the Nikon, or with the 350D, and if you hated 350D you probably don't want it) is cheaper, looks like around $300-$400 including the shitty kit lens, or buy it now for $450 with that kit lens, etc.

So yes they're more expensive, but I sort of figure if you can really afford $400 you can probably manage to afford $500 - or, on the other hand, it would probably make sense to get a cheaper compact rather than spending $400 you can't really afford! Anyway, obviously if you hate the cheaper DSLRs it's not a great option, and the size/weight is a large disadvantage with SLRs too. Not saying it's necessarily the right option, just that it might possibly be an option.

[solarbird]

In my defence, I did not seriously expect you to consider an M8 :) But in the sort of theoretical 'omg digital cameras all suck' kind of line
The Elan I've been complaining about (and to which I find the digital Rebel to be unfortunately similar) was a film camera. I do not assert at all that all digital cameras suck. That's all I've been shooting for three years now, after all.

Kind of not sure what you hated about the 350D or DSLRs in general in terms of stupid gimmicks.
It was possibly tainted by my experiences with the Elan. I picked it up and played with it and it was like picking up the Elan again. Not for me.

just saying that with any DSLR you can have exactly that manual feel if you want it.
And, in theory, I could do that on the Elan, and I in fact did sometimes, and it sucked. The digital Rebel seemed to work very much the same way. If a camera isn't built for that as a primary operating mode, it gets real clear real quickly that it's not. Maybe someday I will get that M8, since it actually is built for that. But for the foreseeable future, it's hopelessly out of range.

I sort of figure if you can really afford $400 you can probably manage to afford $500
I can afford $400 by selling my lenses. Without doing that, I can afford nothing. If I'm going to end up with only a kit lens, there's no point at all (for me) to a better body - I'd rather have the compact camera instead of the DSLR that I wouldn't want to lug around anyway.

I just wish the G7 had the flip-out door, even with the weird battery. I really do.

[quen-elf.livejournal.com]

I don't know, I think it's just that there are two things conflated here: (a) the fact that you probably can't afford a DSLR; and (b) that you claim not to like them (or automatic film SLRs; you're right, I forgot that bit) despite being OK with digital compacts (which are far more automatic and less controllable).

So aaaaanyway, hopefully I will manage not to comment again, but in summary: if those other reasons apart from cost (somehow not liking it in some intangible way) are of any significance in your decision not to consider an SLR (now or at some point if your financial situation might improve) then I would recommend that you spend a bit longer with a DSLR - either briefly try one of the other brand, or ideally borrow one for a week or so. (I'd lend you mine but.) However if those other reasons are of no significance because there is no prospect that you'd be able to afford one in the next year or so, then obviously it doesn't matter. (I would still recommend that you get a relatively cheap compact though; $250 is plenty enough to spend on one these days and I doubt you'll see a major quality increase regardless of megapixels.)

[solarbird]

I found reviews of optics on these things; you do see differences which are not actually megapixel related but are significant. Particularly, you also see colour fringing differences, and geometry improvements, particularly all the way out. So after a lot of thought I'm going with the A9, which is as much as a decent DSLR body, but not a DSLR body plus any lenses. Advantages over the D7 are less colour fringing and slightly better geometry (and more mp but I do not care); advantages over the 650 are speed, better geometry (again), and much less colour noise at ISO 400 and up. (And materially less at ISO 200 as well.)

So, yeah, there we are. I want to be able to shoot at 400 without that colour noise. The A9 gives me that, and that's worth losing the flip-out LCD for me.

Honestly the only DSLR I've responded to positively so far has been that Leica. Clearly I either want small - the G9 is smaller than the A80 I've been using and about the same weight - or very, very minimal/manual. I dunno why, but there you are.

[quen-elf.livejournal.com]

Sounds good, and yes, acceptable performance at 400 ASA is a big plus point. I'm sure you'll be happy with it.

(And I may not understand why you object to the larger cameras with optional automatic features, but the second part is easily comprehensible, everyone wants a Leica. :) I certainly do... I could afford one, but I know how frankly disgusting it would be to waste all that money, especially on something significantly more limited and likely poorer quality than what I've already got!)

also

[solarbird]

I'm trying to figure out what cameras they showed me at Kenmore Camera. It's bugging me. They were saying 10.1mp and $400, and I know it was a Canon, and there were two that were very similar, one with a swing-out door LCD (which I like a lot), one without.

The one without looked a lot like this and the specs match - the PowerShot G7. "Zippy" would be a good description of the performance I saw. "Built like a tank" would be nice to have. But I'd like to keep the flip-out door. It also seems to use the same kind of battery. I kinda liked it except for hesitation about the battery (because I like being able to get spares anywhere, but at least it's a rechargeable) and the LCD door.

The one with flip-out LCD... I can't find. It might be this one, the A650. Right kind of battery, looks right, but higher maximum resolution than the 10mp I'm remembering them saying. Also, bigger and heavier. Not fond of that.

So. There are those thoughts, such as they are.