Not sure if this belong here or not..

[dana44]

dana44,
Try KEH for used lenses. If you could find a lens at a garage sale or the like they'd be even less $$$.
Many time you can pick up a normal lens ~50mm for less than $10

What is this "KEH" of which you speak?

 

[Travis Nunn]

What is this "KEH" of which you speak?

Dead Link Removed

KEH sells lots of used equipment. I have found their condition ratings to be very generous and their prices are right. Overall, a very good company to do business with. Check them out.

 

[big_ben_blue]

I am not sure how to do all that on this "cool"pix. I just wan to fool around with it until I can get some lense for my Minolta.

The Coolpixies are only "good" for quick snapshots at best (I had the pleasure of trying one from a friend and was THAT CLOSE to smashing err... I mean "accidentally" dropping it onto the concrete floor). If you like the instant replay offered by the digicam varieties (yes, I admit, it is a nice convenient feature to have), you have to be prepared to shell out some serious money for a half decent real digicam. Otherwise your SRT will do just fine.
Your Minolta is a real workhorse of a camera, a very solid built no-nonsense piece of machinery. I got one too. And as for lenses, check with your local camera stores, flea markets, pawn shops and thrift stores. There are literally millions of lenses for it out there, they are VERY common and dirt cheap (think 10-50$). Look for Rokkor MC/MD mount lenses (made by Minolta and many 3rd party manufacturers).
Someone here suggested trying a 6x6 TLR. Good idea if you are really into photography; but otherwise it might not be an ideal choice for a beginner. The hassle of locating 120 sized film nowadays (and getting it processed and printed subsequently) might be just enough to put a "newbie" off for good, unless you are really dedicated. 35mm film is still oozing out every little and large store everywhere, but for 120, you better have access to larger camera stores in a bigger city or deal with mail order.

 

[dana44]

The Coolpixies are only "good" for quick snapshots at best (I had the pleasure of trying one from a friend and was THAT CLOSE to smashing err... I mean "accidentally" dropping it onto the concrete floor). If you like the instant replay offered by the digicam varieties (yes, I admit, it is a nice convenient feature to have), you have to be prepared to shell out some serious money for a half decent real digicam. Otherwise your SRT will do just fine.
Your Minolta is a real workhorse of a camera, a very solid built no-nonsense piece of machinery. I got one too. And as for lenses, check with your local camera stores, flea markets, pawn shops and thrift stores. There are literally millions of lenses for it out there, they are VERY common and dirt cheap (think 10-50$). Look for Rokkor MC/MD mount lenses (made by Minolta and many 3rd party manufacturers).
Someone here suggested trying a 6x6 TLR. Good idea if you are really into photography; but otherwise it might not be an ideal choice for a beginner. The hassle of locating 120 sized film nowadays (and getting it processed and printed subsequently) might be just enough to put a "newbie" off for good, unless you are really dedicated. 35mm film is still oozing out every little and large store everywhere, but for 120, you better have access to larger camera stores in a bigger city or deal with mail order.

Thanks for the post.

I have a question, According to my friend this is a 36 count exposure camera, I did not know this, I put a 24count exposure in it just to test it and see if it works, Well, I got to 24 and tried to roll it up, it didn't work. I finally started to move, I rolled it up and thought It was finally done, I opend it up to only find out it snapped the film in half.. well, there goes all the pictures, I am right? Atleast the ones on the visible part of the film that got exposed to sun light.. I am sure the ones inside the roll didn't (I mean on the left side of the camera)

Sorry it's confusing. I may take it to a camera shop and have them check it out and get what filmed can be salvage devolped.

thanks

 

[Bromo33333]

Basically... I really won't be able to do that until I get a good camera, neh?

I only have a Nikon Cool pix... 4.0 Megapixels.. 3x zoom (34-102MM) lense is a 5 7-17.1 MM 1:2.9-4.9

That is what I have currently..

This goup focusses on analog (i.e. film) photography - so probably wouldn't be able to help you very much.

If you were to spring for a inexpensive 35mm film camera, can pick one up very inexpensively - something like a Nikon FM10 and a 50mm lens if you want new, this would do the trick. Also picking up a good book on basic photography might be helpful (I used Henry Hornstein's book on Black and White, but there are scads of the things new and used) as these are manual cameras where you set the focus, aperture, shutter speed before you make you shot.

I started in digital cameras, and migrated to film - so I know exactly where you are.

You also should check out some local community colleges - they often have inexpensive film photogrpahy courses that serve as great introductions.

Oh, and compared to your current camera, you will find the 35mm to be absolutely wonderful! (And if you want to manipulate and e-mail you can have someone make a scan of it - Kodak will offer to make a "photo CD" for you if you pay them a few bucks more when they develop it).

 

[Bromo33333]

The good thing about film is that all (well - almost all) film sizes are larger, which means longer focal length for the same angle of view, which again makes it far easier to use narrow depth of field to isolate subject from background.

Really? So:

Medium format 80mm f2.8 would have a narrower depth of field than a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens f2.8? :boggle:

 

[Bromo33333]

Someone here suggested trying a 6x6 TLR. Good idea if you are really into photography; but otherwise it might not be an ideal choice for a beginner. The hassle of locating 120 sized film nowadays (and getting it processed and printed subsequently) might be just enough to put a "newbie" off for good, unless you are really dedicated. 35mm film is still oozing out every little and large store everywhere, but for 120, you better have access to larger camera stores in a bigger city or deal with mail order.

I can see locating 120 film might be a little bit of an issue (a phto stor would have it or you would have to mail order it if you didn't want to).

Developing: anyone still developing C-41 35mm film can usually send it to a lab to be processed and printed. I don't see how this is a giant issue? I have the grocery store send it in for me when I cannot use my preferred lab. They will send in 120, 35 or whatever else you might want.

I would agree that 35mm might be a better start for some one - but simply because it is portable. A TLR isn't a bad choice as a second camera - but if one can be had easier - it is workable.

 

[Ole]

Really? So:

Medium format 80mm f2.8 would have a narrower depth of field than a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens f2.8? :boggle:

Correct. And a 150mm f:2.8 on a 4x5" camera would have even less. A 7mm f:2.8 on a P&S d*g*tal has lots of DoF.

 

[Bromo33333]

Correct. And a 150mm f:2.8 on a 4x5" camera would have even less. A 7mm f:2.8 on a P&S d*g*tal has lots of DoF.

Cool. I hadn't paid attention - but now I will go back and compare. Wow - thanks!

 

[Dan Fromm]

Correct. And a 150mm f:2.8 on a 4x5" camera would have even less. A 7mm f:2.8 on a P&S d*g*tal has lots of DoF.

Um, er, ah, Ole, you left out the key qualifier.

Your response comes down to "DoF given aperture falls with format size if the image on film or sensor is held constant." Who could disagree with that? I happens because magnification goes up with format size, and we all know that other things equal DoF falls as magnification increases.

That said, I get the same DoF on 2x3 with, say, a 150/9 Apo Ronar at 1:1 and f/16 set as I get on 35 mm with a 55 MicroNikkor at 1:1 and f/16 set. But in that situation, on 2x3 I get the 24x36 mm subject I capture with the Nikon and considerably more.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[naturephoto1]

Um, er, ah, Ole, you left out the key qualifier.

Your response comes down to "DoF given aperture falls with format size if the image on film or sensor is held constant." Who could disagree with that? I happens because magnification goes up with format size, and we all know that other things equal DoF falls as magnification increases.

That said, I get the same DoF on 2x3 with, say, a 150/9 Apo Ronar at 1:1 and f/16 set as I get on 35 mm with a 55 MicroNikkor at 1:1 and f/16 set. But in that situation, on 2x3 I get the 24x36 mm subject I capture with the Nikon and considerably more.

Cheers,

Dan

Um er, Dan unless I am mistaken doesn't the depth of field have to do with the focal length (and aperture) used and the distance from the subject (in addition to magnification)?

As an example a 90mm on a 35mm is a short telephoto while on a 6 x 7 camera it is a normal lens, but for a 4 x 5 it is a wide angle. The coverage of the lens is a different question.

Rich

 

[Bromo33333]

Um er, Dan unless I am mistaken doesn't the depth of field have to do with the focal length (and aperture) used and the distance from the subject?

As an example a 90mm on a 35mm is a short telephoto while on a 6 x 7 camera it is a normal lens, but for a 4 x 5 it is a wide angle. The coverage of the lens is a different question.

Rich

My wife piped in (She is studying Optical Engineering) and said that the distance from the exit pupil of the lens to the film is a large factor as well. And the exit pupil can be nearly anywhere: in the lens assembly or near the rear of the lens.

 

[John Koehrer]

Really? So:

Medium format 80mm f2.8 would have a narrower depth of field than a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens f2.8? :boggle:

Yes. Because they are part of a ratio 1:2.8(fl to f stop).
But, at the same physical diameter(T stop) the DOF is the same regardless of focal length.
Meanwhile to Danas last inquiry.
The film tore for one of two reasons.
1)Biological interface error(BIE) ie: you didn't stop when you reached the end of the film. 35mm film is available in 12,24 & 36 exposure
No manual 35mm camera will stop automatically. You have to be aware that when there is resistance on the wind lever it's time to stop.
2)Same error(BIE) There is a release button that must be depressed before rewinding the film. On some cameras this may not latch properly so you may need to hold it as the film is rewound.
YOU ARE NOT THE FIRST PERSON TO EVER DO THIS and you certainly won't be the last.

 

[big_ben_blue]

I can see locating 120 film might be a little bit of an issue (a phto stor would have it or you would have to mail order it if you didn't want to).

Developing: anyone still developing C-41 35mm film can usually send it to a lab to be processed and printed. I don't see how this is a giant issue? I have the grocery store send it in for me when I cannot use my preferred lab. They will send in 120, 35 or whatever else you might want.

I would agree that 35mm might be a better start for some one - but simply because it is portable. A TLR isn't a bad choice as a second camera - but if one can be had easier - it is workable.

You are right, 120 isn't that much of an issue if one pursues it, but nevertheless, it could be for a beginner who is just starting out. Case in point - the nearest store with a 120 supply in my area is some 50 miles away, and there is no nada zip zero zilch consumer lab in my little sleepy town which is willing to do 120 (incl. sending it out). Of course, it all boils down to how customer friendly the local labs are. If one can get past these issues - go for it. My first TLR was a plastic Lubitel166, which I bought in the deluded hope of getting Holga like pics. The camera turned out to be a total dud, it produced pics 99% as sharp as my Hassy (what a dissapointment ). Oh well, at least I can safely take it out into the dark alleys during night, LOL.

Chris

 

[Dan Fromm]

Um er, Dan unless I am mistaken doesn't the depth of field have to do with the focal length (and aperture) used and the distance from the subject (in addition to magnification)?

As an example a 90mm on a 35mm is a short telephoto while on a 6 x 7 camera it is a normal lens, but for a 4 x 5 it is a wide angle. The coverage of the lens is a different question.

Rich

Richard, you've got a common misconception that's nearly as hard to cure as the common cold.

Depth of field is usually controlled by magnification and relative aperture and that's all.

There's one situation in which this isn't the case. Consider two lenses, one short, the other long. Choose a magnification at which the short lens will be approximately its hyperfocal distance (or more) from the subject. It will then have infinite DoF, most of it behind the subject. At the same magnification the longer lens will have finite DoF, usually with about 1/2 in front of the subject and 1/2 behind.

Richard, if you'd like I'll be happy to e-mail a spreadsheet that does the calculations to you. Then you can check the formulas I used, all quite conventional, correct if needed, and see for yourself why I hold a position that you think is mistaken. Note that in the spreadsheet, tab "constant magnification", I set focused distance as a multiple of focal length. This is equivalent to setting a magnification.

Film-to-subject distance is determined by magnification, focal length, and the lens' internodal distance. This last is usually ignored; it can safely be ignored at "normal" distances, but not closeup.

Film-to-subject distance (- internodal distance) and focal length determine magnification.

Bromo33333, its conventionally distance from the lens' rear node, not from its exit pupil. They can both be anywhere, don't always coincide. Extension, as its usually called, and focal length determine magnification and the location of the plane of best focus. Extension by itself isn't sufficient to determine anything.

John, the physical size of the aperture isn't t/stop. T/stop is a measure of the lens' transmission. The convention is that a lens transmits as much light at t/x as a lens with 100% transmission does at f/x. And if the physical size of the aperture controlled DoF, DoF wouldn't change, other things equal, with magnification.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Bromo33333]

You are right, 120 isn't that much of an issue if one pursues it, but nevertheless, it could be for a beginner who is just starting out. Case in point - the nearest store with a 120 supply in my area is some 50 miles away, and there is no nada zip zero zilch consumer lab in my little sleepy town which is willing to do 120 (incl. sending it out). Of course, it all boils down to how customer friendly the local labs are. If one can get past these issues - go for it. My first TLR was a plastic Lubitel166, which I bought in the deluded hope of getting Holga like pics. The camera turned out to be a total dud, it produced pics 99% as sharp as my Hassy (what a dissapointment ). Oh well, at least I can safely take it out into the dark alleys during night, LOL.

Chris

I suppose we are agreeing vigorously! If you are remote from a large city (and Ottawa certainly qualifies) it can be a pain if local labs are unhelpful - unless you are willing to do internet/mail order for the film and processing.

Funny about the Lubitel! You can safely take it in those alleyways - but unlike Western stuff in the 1950's - you couldn't beat of any potential thief with it!

 

[big_ben_blue]

Thanks for the post.

I have a question, According to my friend this is a 36 count exposure camera, I did not know this, I put a 24count exposure in it just to test it and see if it works, Well, I got to 24 and tried to roll it up, it didn't work. I finally started to move, I rolled it up and thought It was finally done, I opend it up to only find out it snapped the film in half.. well, there goes all the pictures, I am right? Atleast the ones on the visible part of the film that got exposed to sun light.. I am sure the ones inside the roll didn't (I mean on the left side of the camera)

Sorry it's confusing. I may take it to a camera shop and have them check it out and get what filmed can be salvage devolped.

thanks

Ouch. Your camera can do ANY type of 35mm film UP TO 36 (sometimes even 38) exposures. Once you reached the end of the film, you won't be able to advance it any further (so you probably got up to a 24-26 exp. count). Now in order to rewind the exposed film back into the cartridge, you have to depress the little metal stub/button on the bottom of your camera first and then rewind. Otherwise you not only risk ripping the film, but also damaging the camera (it's rugged, but not that rugged). Best if you go a camera store (or friend who knows a bit about cameras, and let them explain to you how everything works).
Here's link to site which has the manual (I did a quick google): http://www.butkus.org/chinon/minolta/minolta_sr-t_200-2001-202/minolta_sr-t_200.htm

 

[naturephoto1]

Hi Dan,

I think that I may understand most of this. PM sent.

Thanks.

Rich

 

[dana44]

Wow.. Thanks for all the help!!

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hi Dan,

I think that I may understand most of this. PM sent.

Thanks.

Rich

Rich, I sent you an e-mail and a PM yesterday, another PM today. Have you received any them?

 

[copake_ham]

Wow!

This thread has gone where no thread has ever gone before. It's wonderful (really) how you folk took a simple DoF query into the stratosphere.

I'm still a bit confused about Dana's point vis a' vis 24 v. 36 exposures. Did he shoot to 24 on a manual camera and keep pulling on the wind lever thinking it must be a 36?

Or, was he uncertain what was going on by using one of the late generation film consumer auto SLRs (e.g. my "deep back up" N75) which upon loading winds all of the film over to what we think of as the "wind" side - counts up the frames on the LED read out to either 24 or 36 and then "counts down" as you shoot? Yes, it shoots the roll "backwards"!

It's the digital approach that starts with the max images available and drops down to show the remaining. First time I saw it I was "freaked", now I've gotten used to it when I use that camera.

Still scratching my head on that one - but anyway, what a great thread!

 

[dana44]

Wow!

This thread has gone where no thread has ever gone before. It's wonderful (really) how you folk took a simple DoF query into the stratosphere.

I'm still a bit confused about Dana's point vis a' vis 24 v. 36 exposures. Did he shoot to 24 on a manual camera and keep pulling on the wind lever thinking it must be a 36?

Or, was he uncertain what was going on by using one of the late generation film consumer auto SLRs (e.g. my "deep back up" N75) which upon loading winds all of the film over to what we think of as the "wind" side - counts up the frames on the LED read out to either 24 or 36 and then "counts down" as you shoot? Yes, it shoots the roll "backwards"!

It's the digital approach that starts with the max images available and drops down to show the remaining. First time I saw it I was "freaked", now I've gotten used to it when I use that camera.

Still scratching my head on that one - but anyway, what a great thread!

Thread De-railing happens alot.. sadly

I knew what my mistake was.. Not pushing the little rewind release button on the bottom of the camera.. I had complete forgotten to do that

 

[copake_ham]

Thread De-railing happens alot.. sadly

I knew what my mistake was.. Not pushing the little rewind release button on the bottom of the camera.. I had complete forgotten to do that

That's okay - now you'll never forget to do it again. We all have to learn a "hard lesson" now and again but it does seem to reinforce the learning!