Anybody shooting manual-focus lenses on a DSLR?

[Rob Wadsworth]

I just downloaded DxO and set it up. It's only good for a 14-day trial. But the examples of lens correction I saw was startling. It is pricey, as Mike H pointed out, but is recommended to be used as a plug-in for Lightroom2. I never realized that the lens I paid sooo much for (10-22mm) still presented its own problem set. I think that this program holds great promise. Focus problems, lens distortion, color aberrations turned a throw-away picture into a fine specimen. It didn't start my cooling fan at all, in fact - as Mike H said he noticed. I think I may be getting Lightroom2 and opt later on for DxO, and start the processing from lens correction FIRST. DxO seemed to have quite a set of usable parameters all on its own - almost a stand-alone program...
IMHO

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Afterthought:
If interested, check out DxO download here:
http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/free_demo


DxO overview
http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/exclusive_features/overview

Its a B I G file (mine was almost 450mb for a XTi, 10-22mm, 24-70mm, and a 50mm pkg), so you will need a decent internet connection

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

DxO seemed to have quite a set of usable parameters all on its own - almost a stand-alone program...
IMHO

Most all of these things are like that now. Most all the converters can get you where you want to or need to go. They all have a plethora of options to tone your image and saturate and sharpen it, etc etc etc. Having the mask control you get with photoshop, well, it's going to be hard to beat with the converters that lack it.

I personally just use RAW Shooter Essentials for conversion, doing really very little adjustment to the RAW file. I then use Photoshop CS for the rest, always working on a 16 bit TIFF file, not an 8 bit. I like RAW Shooter Essentias better than Canon's Digital Photo Professional, probably because I learned it first. I like both over photoshop CS's raw converter, I guess because CS started the images with funky color happenings. I'd try and get them to look normal, but it was a chore to get them near where they started in the other aps. Finally said screw it, figuring something was not right with CS's.

I'd make sure Elements supports 16 bit. I know the early ones didn't, but I think the latest one does.

 

[Mike Umscheid]

Hey H, I didn't realize you were still using Pixmantec RSE. Have you purchased a new camera since Pixmantec was bought out by Adobe? I figured since that, it was time to bail on RSE/RSP since there would be no updated RAW support on new camera bodies (for instance, my new Nikon D3). I wish Pixmantec was still around with RawShooter being supported. Adobe I think saw their success and didn't want any part of that, so they bought them and then came along Lightroom (LR)... which was supposed to have features like RawShooter... but I don't see it, LOL. It took awhile to get used to LR after RawShooter, but I'm so used to LR now that I don't even miss RawShooter.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Hey H, I didn't realize you were still using Pixmantec RSE. Have you purchased a new camera since Pixmantec was bought out by Adobe? I figured since that, it was time to bail on RSE/RSP since there would be no updated RAW support on new camera bodies (for instance, my new Nikon D3). I wish Pixmantec was still around with RawShooter being supported. Adobe I think saw their success and didn't want any part of that, so they bought them and then came along Lightroom (LR)... which was supposed to have features like RawShooter... but I don't see it, LOL. It took awhile to get used to LR after RawShooter, but I'm so used to LR now that I don't even miss RawShooter.

Nope, I haven't yet. Guess when I get the XSi, or whatever I get, I'll need to plan on that. I'll likely just use whatever Canon gives with it, probably the same ap they always have. I wonder if it will be hard to open our old RAW files 20 years from now. We'll probably need the equivelent of an 8-track player to get it done.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Mr Addy started this thread with the though concerning the effectiveness/practicality of the use of manual mode on DSLR's. There are few secrets to photography, and some consider it a minor science. I believe that is a fair statement. It certainly is governed by the laws of physics of motion and light.

Through my own needs and thoughtlessness, I had inadvertently hijacked this thread to a certain degree. My apologies. Maybe I should start my own thread of the gripes and usefulness of all the photo processing software available - pros vs cons. Many of us that chase take pictures and/or video cam of the event. To various degrees, software still manages to hold us by our private parts in the final analysis...

To return to the subject, I thought carefully about why I don't use manual mode. Having read several pro photographers and how they use their cameras, I came to some hard and fast conclusions for myself. I am using the perspective of a storm chaser - nothing else am I referring to after this point - to head off confusion. I would like to share now - after my reflecting.
So here's to/for you, Mr. Addy.
Thank You...

One particular photo-pro that runs the web page of 'the Digital Picture' made it inadvertently but abundantly clear to me - why it almost impractical to use manual mode while storm chasing. Not that he directly referred to storm chasing - he didn't in fact. These same physical principals of photography shined light in this dark corner inadvertently. The answer - after such a windy buildup - is rather straightforward.

We chase and photograph clouds -for the most part. Oh sure, foreground is also present to help create a sense/dimension of depth. But which of us who has invested so much treasure and mental ability - is focusing upon 'ol man Ferguson's dog barking at us while we chase the Quinter/Windsor wedge? I though not.

Since clouds are not solid in themselves - but are really an organized collection of smaller particles, we need to treat them as such while photographing them. Our auto focus has SOOOO much trouble on picking a SINGLE point - which is constantly in motion. Aren't we asking too much of our equipment to try to pick a needle out of a haystack? This is only one obstacle in using manual mode - a loss of a fixed focal range. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it does set elements in motion that requires that ALL criteria be met for success to be achieved.

Because these clouds are moving in some vectored direction to the sun at all times, we do not have a needed consistency for a proper manual shot. We can hardly keep our light, depth, aperture, ISO, white balance, focus all in a constant range for our manual mode camera. If we do get off a full-manual shot, we had better take several shots just to ensure that at least one has the chance to make it to a desirable final product. Let's also keep in mind, that as the storm moves - so must we. We need to be able to bring consistency to the next series of frames. A tripod/window mount/bean bag is not a maybe it is a must. And a hand-held shot needs to be done - only if you rank with the likes of Jesse James - and have a razor accurate eye and a steady hand - and are willing to risk the outcome with that ability.

For that matter - is any mode better than another while chasing storms? Manual mode - by implication of its name - dictates that there are far more variables involved placed into our control. Shutter priority may help us freeze our subject, that is a tool and a strength of that mode. Aperture priority will help us prioritize the amount of light that reaches the sensor, and this has been helpful - personally. Program mode takes into account the use of auto metering the shot - and gives us flexibility of some parameters - I have found this mode quite useful too.

These ideas expressed are CERTAINLY not written in stone, but are a part of my own experience - however limited. The nature of this ramble is to re-establish the original thread on the subject of 'Manual mode and DSLR use".

Have at you!!!

 

[Darren Addy]

Say what?

Look, if this doesn't push your buttons, that's fine. To each, their own (etc.) but just for anyone who is trying to follow the original thought in the thread, this isn't about shooting in Manual exposure mode. (I'm not against it, and I disagree with a lot of what you are saying about it, but that's not even the original topic.)

The topic is putting manual FOCUS lenses on your DSLR. I guess I can't speak to other cameras with as much authority, but for the Pentax K200D, you can stick virtually any lens on the front and shoot in automatic (Aperture Priority) mode. The camera just adjusts the shutter speed. You choose the ISO. (If you want to see how you can stick ANY lens on the front, check the K200D thread in this forum and check out the 1930 classic folding camera I stuck on the front of it).

The topic is about being able to put great GREAT classic lenses by Zeiss and Leica on your DSLR, (and with a smaller-than-35mm sensor also benefiting by getting the highest quality center portion of the lens projected image.)

Just thought that those who hadn't considered it before, or didn't know it was possible, might want to know.

PS... I don't mind the thread meanderings. I learned some things and hopefully others did too.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Gee! Don't I feel like the newbie dope!!!

I should have notices the LENSES part. I just read into it the wrong way!
Sorry........

 

[Greg Campbell]

Say what?

The topic is about being able to put great GREAT classic lenses by Zeiss and Leica on your DSLR, (and with a smaller-than-35mm sensor also benefiting by getting the highest quality center portion of the lens projected image.)

Just think of them as L lenses, without all that fragile/bothersome computer controlled focus and aperture management.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

I thought we had a great discussion about RAW conversion and photo processing software on this thread. I just wanted to mention that I ordered the Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 from eBay for the whopping sum of $40. How good or useful is it compared to Adobe CS3 for the relatively cheaper price? How well does it convert RAW files - and what files does it support? How does it work for the newbie storm chaser with a Rebel XTi on a budget?

There are a few brands that stand out, with various degrees of function and practicality. I will review PSPPX2 from the perspective of a newbie who has only amateur abilities to take photos and ALMOST NO KNOW-HOW when it comes to photo processing. I hope this perspective will make my review as honest and fresh as I can summon with a keyboard. If you are the advanced amateur or pro, you can lend your expertise and input and help those of us who would earnestly gain from your insight and experience. With such a bevvy of seasoned photographers on STORMTRACK, this could become quite the show - a 'tour de force' of the vets instructing the newbies!

I hope to submit a review after I use it for a few days. It supposedly does masking, decent HDR, its own noise reduction, and can provide watermarks for those who copyright their cool pix.

How is it really? I can only tell you that I will be as critical and fair as I can when I get it and give a test spin. Then - it's a free-for-all to compare your own rig and knowledge. There is more that can yet be pressed from this subject that we can all enjoy and learn.

 

[Gene Moore]

RAW files, Lightroom....good stuff but can I digress to the original topic

I was able to successfully mount a Tamron 80-200 F 2.8 zoom on my Canon XTi. It's an old lens but with LD glass it was sharp. I bought one of those made in China lens mounts....one without the correction glass. Then I did some chopping and filing and got it to work in manual focus mode. The light meter will work, but it needs to be manually set. I thought the images were fine, exposure good. I love digital but have never been a fan of auto-focus for storm photography. The downside, when preforming surgery it's easy to get metal cuttings from drilling etc into the lens. That said, most of my old film camera lenses are only good for starting campfires anyway....so it was a fun experiment. The whole trick is to get the focal distance correct so the camera finds true infinity near the old infinity mark on the lens. I was never able to get the infinity setting perfect, but the lens will focus to infinity, the hard part.

 

[Darren Addy]

Original topic? Oh goodie!
What was the original mount on the Tamron that you needed the adapter for, Gene?

 

[Gene Moore]

Original topic? Oh goodie!
What was the original mount on the Tamron that you needed the adapter for, Gene?

Pardon my sarcasm....LOL. I was pretty impressed at how the topic drifted around.

It was the manual focus Canon-Tamron Adaptal mount. I bought the lens over 20 years ago as a low light storm lens. As it turned out I only used it for one tornado. Weight was the main issue. When I had it on the XTi I used to for astrophotography. Getting it to focus at night was a trick though, but it worked for that last comet.

I had to remove the original mount completely, or the lens was physically too long from the rear element to the focal plane in the XTi. Result, worked great out to about 50 meters then I ran out of focus. That's why add on bayonet mounts won't focus correctly for Canon FD lenses mounted on new digital cameras.