Suggestions for Photo Equipment

[golforchid]

I've given some thought to going "digital". All the photos which I've posted on the OB and on my photostream at
Flickr Flickr: golforchid's Photostream are scanned from 4X6 prints using my Epson CX 7400 or photo CD.
I wonder what would give me comparable photo quality in a digital SLR and lenses. Here's a list of my current equipment which I've owned over 30 years:
camera body - Contax RTS II Quartz
lenses - Carl Zeiss S-Planar 1:2.8 60 mm macro
Vivitar Series 1 1:2.8-4.0 70-210mm macro focus zoom
Sigma 1:2.8-4.0 35-70mm zoom
Flash - Contax TLA 30

Also I have hundreds of color slides which I'd like to scan
Any suggestions for a reasonably priced film/slide scanner?

[Ross]

I was a Nikon film photog for years thus amassed a kit of high quality manual and auto lenses. I just switched bodies. I don't know a lot about Contax, but Carl Zeiss lenses are pretty high quality. Is there a manufacturer out there that makes a body to accept lenses you already own? The focal lengths will probably change as most affordable digital bodies use APS sized sensors (not 35mm like you may be used to) which have a "multiplier affect" on lens focal lengths (a 60mm may end up framing like a 90mm).

Most of the major manufacturers make a dedicated film scanner producing the best scan results from negative and slide film. Don't bother with a flat bd scanner. I have a VERY expensive Microtec scanner and the results are crap compared to the output from my Nikon scanner. I regularly lease images made from the Nikon scanner. Canon, Epson, Nikon, and others make good scanners. Go for highest native scan depth and pixel count. The better ones are fine enough to capture the film grain! Hope this helps.

[golforchid]

Thanks Ross
At the time I bought my camera new Contax (descended from Zeiss Contarex, etc) had partnered with Yashica so the mount is Yashica/Contax. Zeiss still made the lenses.
All my lenses are manual focus. I doubt it would be possible to utilize them on any modern equipment and when I look, even on Ebay, for Contax or Zeiss the prices, even for used equipment, are out of sight. Even now the same Zeiss lens costs more than I paid for it 30 years ago ($400). I think I will have to obtain an entirely new set of equipment. I'd be interested to know what you are using now. Do you still use film at all?

[BikerDoc5968]

Like Ross, I've been a Nikon person for some time. Just he has way more smarts about this than I ever will! My first Nikon was an F (Ross, don't tell anyone how old I must me to have used a Nikon F series) and I used the same Vivitar lens you have; in fact it was just about the only lens I used for years until the set screw that holds the meter bayonet on the lens fell out and I've never been able to replace it. Now that I've gone digital with a Nikon D 80, I have no need for any of my old lenses. I purchased a Sigma 105mm 1:2.8 Macro which I use exclusively for my flower pictures and love this lens. For the price, about $300.00, it is a great alternative to the same Nikkor lens at about $750.00. The new Nikon D 90 has replaced the D 80 which I would purchase, if I could sell my D 80 body. If you have any interest in video the new D 3000 and D 5000 are good bets. Costco sells the D 5000 at about the best price for your dollar; comes with 18mm ~ 55mm DX VR lens and a 55mm ~ 200mm DX VR lens, Nikon carrying case and some other stuff. Not a member, get a friend to take you in and there you go!

[Ross]

Originally Posted by golforchid

Thanks Ross
At the time I bought my camera new Contax (descended from Zeiss Contarex, etc) had partnered with Yashica so the mount is Yashica/Contax. Zeiss still made the lenses.
All my lenses are manual focus. I doubt it would be possible to utilize them on any modern equipment and when I look, even on Ebay, for Contax or Zeiss the prices, even for used equipment, are out of sight. Even now the same Zeiss lens costs more than I paid for it 30 years ago ($400). I think I will have to obtain an entirely new set of equipment. I'd be interested to know what you are using now. Do you still use film at all?

I now use the D200 body. I own both MF and auto lenses including the old 14mm fisheye. I have owned Yashica, Canon, Argus and Nikon bodies and lenses. I personally like the Nikkor glass better than the good Canon stuff (the flourite lenses) so I just stick with that. 2 or 3 of my older lenses are MF and non metering. I still use then occasionally on the D200 because the in body meter doesn't need anything in the lens to function. I just stop the lens down and go from there. Viewing (chimping) in the LCD on camera body is cheap, so I just take a test exposure, then adjust till it looks good in the histogram. I wouldn't be in a rush to dump the Zeiss glass until you know for sure it's excess. I no longer use film. The dynamic range of digital is better than film and because of the science behind the digital format, the depth of focus is deeper and focus is a tiny bit less critical. Whichever body you get, make sure you will be able to shoot in RAW format (each manufacturer calls it something different.) For high quality work, RAW allows you to record the image without being locked in to sharpness, exposure, dynamics, etc. You post process in the camera software on your computer (Mac or PC) rather than let the wimpy camera computer do it. And it's non-destructive - you save the RAW file and post-process to either jpg or tiff as a separate file. If you are totally starting over, I recommend reviewing both Canon and Nikon as your best bets. Both have fine film scanners and cameras. Both have high quality glass. Any 3rd party glass you purchase is available in either format. A really great place to shop on line is B&H Photo Video | Digital Cameras, Camcorders I have purchased 90% of my new stuff from them.

[golforchid]

Thanks again Ross and BikerDoc...as I read your helpful comments I can't help but think switching from film to digital is like learning a whole new language. It also occurred to me that a difference between film and digital is that, with the film, the results are determined by what you do while taking the picture and with digital it sounds like the results are determined by what you do after taking the picture. Perhaps this is too simplistic. My current kit has served me well and has gone with me all the way into the cloud forests of the Peruvian Andes. An issue has become weight - the RTS is like a wonderful old Cadillac or Mercedes, and the Vivitar is a darn heavy piece of glass. Maybe the first thing I should do, before plunking down several hundred dollars for new equipment, is to do some reading and/ or take a course about digital photography. Photography has been a wonderful hobby as I moved from my 1st Argus rangefinder to a Besseler Topcon, then my 1st SLR a Mamiya (remember the old match needle spot metering system -does this make me as old or older than you Biker Doc?) then finally to the Contax which at the time was considered comparable to Leica. I'm not thinking of selling my current equipment, I'd keep it (heck, I don't use my old golf clubs but I certainly still have them!) Certainly know of B&H (and also Adorama) as think I purchased my equipment from them back in the day. I should also think about how much, how often and what I want to photograph -obviously I've done lots of macro work photographing orchids and wildflowers. Lordie, I do rattle on, one would think I was writing a blog rather than a reply!

[BikerDoc5968]

No, it doesn't make you older, because the old Nikon F had a light meter that you viewed through the eyepiece and you matched the needle to the middle... and that is after you did some hocus pocus with a hand held meter to add a fudge factor into your camera's meter because those meters were notoriously inaccurate!!!!! And I do remember just how heavy that Vivitar was.. erh is! Maybe Ross will feel differently about what I am about to write... I agree with you in regards to film photography. You have to plan your shot and shoot several just to get one because you don't know what you have until it's developed. Digital is wonderful because you can shoot to the limit of your memory chip or shoot, look, and discard and shoot again all within seconds. I would agree with you that after-editing is great to "fix" some of those not so good pictures but I still shoot just about the same way I did when using print film. For me the BIG difference is that these digital cameras have so many options for taking a picture... and I'm still trying to figure most of them out!!!! I really don't think the learning curve for the basics will be an issue for you... just another chapter in the same language book.

[Ross]

I agree with you Howard that the "rules" of creating an image do not change from one medium to another. In fact the purpose of shooting RAW should not be to allow one to be lazy, avoiding proper exposure. Light meters still try to record 18% "gray" and are totally fooled by overly dark or light subjects - just like film. The difference I have grown used to (and can't imagine ever giving up) is the avoidance or mimicking of certain film biases. Fuji tends to be saturated (especially greens), for example. Weight is not much different between high-end digital and film systems, especially better glass. The savings comes in the recording media. Film is quite expensive, fragile, needs expensive processing, cannot be evaluated for exposure or composition or focus mistakes until after processing, etc. Digital media is purchased once, can be reviewed at the time of exposure, can be (and should be) backed up during shoots, can be e-mailed or FTP'd to a client from the job site, ready to use, and best of all is not subject to environmental effects like most film. I'd guess more than 75% of high-volume pro shooters have gone digital and not looked back to film. Every high end camera manufacturer has at least added digital models if not switch manufacturing totally. Prophoto magazine (I'm a subscriber) has extensive digital coverage. Most stock agencies have either already converted their libraries or are in the process. Scanned film is far inferior to original digital images in almost every way. My stock submissions that are film scans sometimes are rejected for "excessive noise" which is merely scanned grain. Digital originals are never rejected. I could go on, but the decision is yours. So far you haven't expressed a valid reason (except, perhaps cost) for not converting to digital (in my mind, that is.) There is a small learning curve if you are at all experienced with the process of recording an image correctly on film (sounds like you are) but this curve is no different than purchase of a new model film camera - perhaps less of a curve, since you can still use the LCD to review your work before you leave the subject. Good luck and whatever your choice, the game is the image, not the equipment.

[Connie Star]

Ooh, my favorite topic! My husband gave me a Nikkormat FTN with a micro-nikkor lens as a wedding present 39 years ago, and I used it regularly until I bought a digital SLR in 2004. I've not used any of my film cameras since. I did work for awhile as a professional photographer, and my forte has always been closeups, with long telephoto thrown in.
One good internet resource is steves-digicams.com He does good reviews, altho you have to read between the lines- he never pans anything, but is much more enthused about somethings than others. I buy most of my equipment locally or from Beach Camera- best prices, I've found, and good service.
I switched to Canon a few years prior to going digital (altho I still used the Nikons) for weight reasons and went digital with Canon. That said, you can't go wrong with Nikon or Canon. I just had a heavier investment in up to date canon glass. I doubt you'll find a digital body compatible with your lenses.
I've posted some photos on OB http://www.orchidboard.com/community...ar-albums.html
I'm still working on perfecting the lighting. I do a lot of hiking with my cameras- getting harder to carry the weight as I get older.
You're entering a whole new world of fun.

[BikerDoc5968]

Ross you are soooo right on when you say, "Good luck and whatever your choice, the game is the image, not the equipment." It is the image and the creative talents of the image taker. Great photographic results are not a function of the equipment but of the user. That's not to say that equipment can "aid" the final result.