06-26-2010, 10:26 AM
[quote name='adifrank' date='25 June 2010 - 11:39 AM' timestamp='1277491163' post='700']
I am pretty sure that in the long-run having a digital camera as part of my working kit will save me money.
[/quote]
He he ha ha oooh ha ho ho ... Being any kind of photographer will save you money? To paraphrase Erasmus, "When I get a little money, I buy lenses. And if any is left over, I buy food."
::wiping tears from eyes::
Um, yes, I am definitely not spending money on film or processing any more. But I am spending a similar quantity on Photoshop and other software to process digital images (considered on a per-annum basis). But I am saving a lot of time previously wasted on labeling and scanning slides, purchasing labeling/database software to manage them, etc... But I have to buy more hard drive space now... I think financially for me it is a wash, though I now shoot about ten times as many images per year (in part due to the joys of HDR). However, in terms of the more important workflow I have come out way ahead going digital. If you're as serious about this as you sound, you'll realize this is a cost of being in the business, and that since any business is about generating revenue you're miles ahead improving your workflow. (This practical view applies to most advanced amateurs as much as to professionals. We're here to have fun, not label slides.)
It's good you know what you want. I'm a big fan of primes, and think you'll get something closer to the feel of the medium format with a prime than a zoom--though there will always be emotional differences you'll pick up on. While an ultrawide aperture lens like a 24 f/1.4 has been suggested previously, don't overlook the slightly slower but very sharp 24 f/2.8 that Canon makes. B&H price is $320 versus $1700 for the f/1.4. With your camera body, changing your ISO to compensate a stop or two won't hurt most images significantly, but the f/2.8 will be much easier on the pocketbook and much lighter weight. A glance in EF Lens Works III shows that the lenses are very comparable in resolution/contrast stopped down to f/8, but the performance of the 24 f/1.4 wide open is weak--I'd expect similar performance on these lenses from f/2.8 on up after looking at these graphs.
Wider aperture lenses are not necessarily "better" lenses. Wider apertures are much harder to correct for optically since the light is being bent at sharper angles, resulting in high cost and more aberrations. The cost gets even higher because the percentage of buyers who need the ultrawide aperture is fairly small, so unit costs are driven up. The wide aperture does give one the option of slightly shallower depth of field, but you'll want to review your past images to see if that is important as a percentage of what you do.
In this business, I always feel you're best off investing in gear that affects a significant percentage of your images. Below about 3-5%, it's usually not worth buying at all. There is such a thing as having too many choices and too much gear.
My opinionated take: at least consider buying a 24mm f/2.8 and an 85mm f/1.8 (an excellent portrait lens) for $690 at B&H, pocket the rest of the dough and work on that for a year or three. When you notice things that you can't do, track the percentage of slides or situations that are affected and start saving for the item that will deliver the most images. I find it takes me at least a year to "digest" a new lens added to my bag, so I buy no more than one per year and usually less.
Oh, and if you're in North America consider putting some of that extra $$ into experimenting with an order of Chromira prints at West Coast Imaging. Once you see the difference the Chromira printer and professionally superior staff make, you'll throw your old inkjet prints in the trash.
Thanks for sharing the images. Nicely composed. A little Photoshop work will allow you to imitate the Holga with your new digi doodads.
Scott
I am pretty sure that in the long-run having a digital camera as part of my working kit will save me money.
[/quote]
He he ha ha oooh ha ho ho ... Being any kind of photographer will save you money? To paraphrase Erasmus, "When I get a little money, I buy lenses. And if any is left over, I buy food."
::wiping tears from eyes::
Um, yes, I am definitely not spending money on film or processing any more. But I am spending a similar quantity on Photoshop and other software to process digital images (considered on a per-annum basis). But I am saving a lot of time previously wasted on labeling and scanning slides, purchasing labeling/database software to manage them, etc... But I have to buy more hard drive space now... I think financially for me it is a wash, though I now shoot about ten times as many images per year (in part due to the joys of HDR). However, in terms of the more important workflow I have come out way ahead going digital. If you're as serious about this as you sound, you'll realize this is a cost of being in the business, and that since any business is about generating revenue you're miles ahead improving your workflow. (This practical view applies to most advanced amateurs as much as to professionals. We're here to have fun, not label slides.)
Quote:So about the lens - I will need to purchase one. I don't think I have the cash for more than one at the moment. Being used to the Mamiya 6x6 and the 50mm lens, I was thinking about getting a 24mm lens which I think should more or less give me the same diagonal field of view as the 50mm on my Mamiya. Then of course there is the option of getting the 24-70mm zoom lens which will of course give me the flexibility of choosing focal length, but at the cost of extra glass meaning losing a stop or two and loss in sharpness (not sure how significant). Plus, its another half kilo to lug around.
It's good you know what you want. I'm a big fan of primes, and think you'll get something closer to the feel of the medium format with a prime than a zoom--though there will always be emotional differences you'll pick up on. While an ultrawide aperture lens like a 24 f/1.4 has been suggested previously, don't overlook the slightly slower but very sharp 24 f/2.8 that Canon makes. B&H price is $320 versus $1700 for the f/1.4. With your camera body, changing your ISO to compensate a stop or two won't hurt most images significantly, but the f/2.8 will be much easier on the pocketbook and much lighter weight. A glance in EF Lens Works III shows that the lenses are very comparable in resolution/contrast stopped down to f/8, but the performance of the 24 f/1.4 wide open is weak--I'd expect similar performance on these lenses from f/2.8 on up after looking at these graphs.
Wider aperture lenses are not necessarily "better" lenses. Wider apertures are much harder to correct for optically since the light is being bent at sharper angles, resulting in high cost and more aberrations. The cost gets even higher because the percentage of buyers who need the ultrawide aperture is fairly small, so unit costs are driven up. The wide aperture does give one the option of slightly shallower depth of field, but you'll want to review your past images to see if that is important as a percentage of what you do.
In this business, I always feel you're best off investing in gear that affects a significant percentage of your images. Below about 3-5%, it's usually not worth buying at all. There is such a thing as having too many choices and too much gear.
My opinionated take: at least consider buying a 24mm f/2.8 and an 85mm f/1.8 (an excellent portrait lens) for $690 at B&H, pocket the rest of the dough and work on that for a year or three. When you notice things that you can't do, track the percentage of slides or situations that are affected and start saving for the item that will deliver the most images. I find it takes me at least a year to "digest" a new lens added to my bag, so I buy no more than one per year and usually less.
Oh, and if you're in North America consider putting some of that extra $$ into experimenting with an order of Chromira prints at West Coast Imaging. Once you see the difference the Chromira printer and professionally superior staff make, you'll throw your old inkjet prints in the trash.
Thanks for sharing the images. Nicely composed. A little Photoshop work will allow you to imitate the Holga with your new digi doodads.
Scott