Sarah & Kenneth

Mike McCarty · 03-05-2006, 10:52 PM

My understanding of the focal length multiplier is that it is present on most of the digital SLR's that we discuss here. For a more complete discussion you can read up at this link:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=...gth+multiplier

I've tried to condense the information down as much as possible for our own narrow purposes. When I shot 35mm film with my lens at 50mm, that same 50mm lens setting transported to my D70 would take on the attributes of a 75mm focal length.

I think ...

Sharon Knettell · 03-07-2006, 07:25 PM

Mischa,

How fast is that lens? I does not seem like the correct lens to me. I think it is too slow.

Why do you need a zoom? Can't you get by on an excellent and fast 55mm, and use the superb Nikon 85mm f1/4 as well.. If the lens is slower than f 2/8 I would NOT get it.

The 55 mm f 2/8 micro and the 85 mm f 1/4 was recommended to me by a good friend who worked for the Magnum photo group. The 55 is great for figuratives, closeups, and copying art. The 85 is one of the best portrait lenses around.

Mischa Milosevic · 03-07-2006, 07:53 PM

The lens is not a cheapie it goes for about $350 and comes as part of the kit. It is a Nikkor 18-70 mm fast f/3.5-4.5 G; the cheapies are all f/3.5- 5.6. The 18 - 55 is a cheapie, but good.
This 18 - 70 is similar to a 27 - 105 mm on a 35 mm film camera.

Sharon Knettell · 03-07-2006, 09:45 PM

Mischa,

I read that that is a decent lens. That said, another good friend of mine, a wedding photographer prefers faster lenses, around an f2/8mm for a zoom. It all depends on whether or not you are shooting in available light or using a strobe.

He had a slower lens and had to ditch it because it was not fast enough for available light photography that is necessary for wedding photoraphy. He is using the Nikon 28-70mm f2/8, but it is expensive at about $1500. He loves it.

Personally, I would use a faster lens, but I know cost must be an issue.

Sharon Knettell · 03-08-2006, 10:02 AM

Mischa,

Another thing you have to consider is the light you are photographing in. If it is indoors, I know with available light, in my south facing studio, my speed and aperture is something like 5.6-11 @ 60 with an f 2.8. This is on a clear day. A slower lens would not give you much wiggle room or depth of field.

If I were to get a digital today I would go for the new 12 megapixel, yours is fine for now, but I would invest in two really great lenses.

The equivalent of my old 55mm f2.8 micro is the 60mm f/2.8 AF-D@ $389.
This is superb for figure shots and copying art.

The best telephoto ( best for portraiture)Nikon AF today is the fast 85mm f/1.4. It is about $900-1000. Shop around, maybe you can get a used one.

In my opinion, the lens you are getting with this camera is way too slow. I have been photographing subjects for over 30 years and I would NOT use that lens.

But if you feel this is the lens for you, by all means get it. I have had my lenses for 25 years. You can always upgrade the camera.

Mischa Milosevic · 03-08-2006, 11:39 AM

Sharon, Mike,

Thank you for taking the time and for your consideration.

I do apologize for bringing this up and I hope Jesse will forgive me.

I purchased my D70s today. Even though the investment set me back a chunk of change i believe it is a good investment. The 18-70mm lens is part of the kit and is included in the price. I was not able to exchange it for another. So, it was not for the lack of trying. To be honest I did stretch my self with this purchase. I do plan to get additional lenses but until then, I need to make some sales.

Thank you again,

mischa

Sharon Knettell · 03-08-2006, 11:56 AM

Misha,

Since you have the camera, keep the other lenses in mind. You can always add and this is a good beginners package. In the future DO consider the lenses I mentioned, you will have them for years and will never need anything other.

I know from years of experience in all kinds of light what works and doesn't work, but those other lenses, I know, are expensive.

I am sure a talented person like you will be able to make it work.

I also want to apologize to Jesse, another very talented young man, who we buried somehere here, but I hope he learned from this as well.

Mike McCarty · 03-08-2006, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharon Knettell

Mischa,

Another thing you have to consider is the light you are photographing in. If it is indoors, I know with available light, in my south facing studio, my speed and aperture is something like 5.6-11 @ 60 with an f 2.8. This is on a clear day. A slower lens would not give you much wiggle room or depth of field.

One mitigating factor with the new digital SLRs is that you have more of an acceptable range in the ISO (what was once film speed) setting.

Sharon, I'll bet you were shooting either the Kodak "portra" or Fuji 160 speed film. This is as good a film as you can buy, but it is very slow. This is a difficult proposition for shooting indoors with available light. The new digital SLRs, in my opinion, can match this quality in the 400 ISO setting. This gives you a lot more wiggle room in lower light conditions. If your end product is an 8x10 print, as it is for me, you can even push the ISO higher.

Also, in my opinion, the current 6mp SLRs will surpass the quality of any 35mm film. When you factor in the cost savings of film and processing, the ability to edit on the fly, manipulate settings per image instead of per roll, and on and on, it is truly a wonderful life.

Sharon Knettell · 03-09-2006, 10:52 AM

Mike,

I found when doing my commercial portraiture my prints were life-sized or close to it. The reason for this is so I could place the photo side by side with my canvas a get further back. This method helps immeasurably with form and enables a looser more fluid brush stroke. With a print as small as 8x10 you practically have to be on top of your canvas. Most professional portraiture now and in the past, especially in the high end is life-sized.

Right now I am working on a canvas from life. It is life-sized. my model had to return to college so I took some reference shots. The head print, of just her neck and shoulders is 12x18 alone. I need a slow speed film, exactly the ones you mentioned to be able to get a decently saturated print. A faster film or its equivalent in a digital file just would not do. I have researched this and have been holding off getting a digital for just this reason. I am interested in the Nikon with a 12 megapixel capacity, because the labs who do my printing told me to get the kind of quality I need, I would need at least an 11 megapixel quality. I don't expect Mischa to run out and get this $5000 baby, but he could do with faster lenses.

Any reasonably priced digital camera should be able to give you an 8x10 print, but for professional portrait painting, in my opinion, you need larger reference and a slow lens such as the one on his new Nikon is not going to cut it. It is alright only as a beginning lens but for really upper end portraiture it is, I would dare to say, it is barely adequate.