Ardeep
newbie
Reged: 10/01/2008
Posts: 1
|
|
I know there are several posts which touch on this, but none have had the exact answers that match mine.
I'm planning on going on holiday next year (yes, preplanning a lot) and I want to make sure I can take some good mountain/landscape photos before then.
At the moment I have access to a Pentax Optio A10 but I'll lose it soon (I know that's a digital). I always think film photos look best, so I'm thinking of getting a cheap digital camera and a film camera - obviously I'm here to ask about the film camera.
I don't have a huge budget (£250 all inclusive and I'd be looking at this as a long term investment since I don't want to chop and change just before the holiday). I'm not interested in shooting portrait photographs and probably I won't need to do up-close shots of earwigs and what have you.
What I do want to do is long shots that will look good and possibly be blown up into framed pictures (A4, I have a feeling my budget won't get me anything good enough to go to A3). For example, the shot you'd get from the top of a hill or mountain looking down a valley into the distance - that sort of thing. It would need to have a good focus throughout because I'm aiming to take photos of places like Machu Pichu, so with ruins in the midground which would have to look good.
Panorama shots are also important.
If possible, I'd like the ability to take those lovely moody black&white landscape/skyscape pictures, but that's less important than the above two criteria.
The shots don't have to be professional, publishable shots but they will need to look good enough for me to want to have them framed. The camera has to be sturdy enough to survive bad weather and rough mountain treks.
I'm looking for advice on the following:
1) which camera should I buy look for bearing in mind the budget and requirements?
2) what's a good place to find information on the basics of film photography?
3) is there a good way to transfer images from proper camera film onto the computer or would I be looking at a photography studio place to do that? I'd like to have them in reasonably high definition on a website afterwards.
Thanks in advance and hopefully I've been specific enough in my requirements.
|
Matt_Hunt
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 07/11/2005
Posts: 2255
|
|
Hi Ardeep and welcome to the boards.
I've jotted down a few thought below which may help.
1) If you are going to be travelling around alot, weight will matter as will space I suspect. Camera film will take up space and may not do as well in very extreme climes (for example film I took to Belize in 1996 came back with a green tinge after 4 weeks out there). It might be worth considering a DSLR instead but I realise this may not help the budget.
2) On film, you can pick up a second hand film SLR such as an Nikon F80 / 75 for around £100 on ebay or from second shops (check the ads in AP). I know these as a Nikon user but obviously there is a range to choose from e.g. Canon, Pentax, Olympus Minolta....
If you're a photography novice, go to a shop where you can hold the camera you're interested in and play with it to see how intuitive it is, what settings it has etc
3) For landscapes you can (amongst other things) take a wide view or use a telephoto lens to pick out an object of interest and or compress the apparent space between foreground and background. thinking of weight and space a gain, a zoom lens of around 28-135mm or 200mm would cover all areas. Although longer in focal length than you need, Sigmas 28-300mm costs £169 and will cover all eventualities.
4) If you're using film and enlarging it, the slower the film is rated (i.e. ISO 100) the finer the grain and the more you can enlarge it before the picture looks grainy. BUT, slower film needs longer exposure time / larger aperture so a tripod could well be useful but again we're increasing weight (although tripods are quite light, by the time you're at 10,000 feet EVERYTHING is heavy!)
5) A set of graduated filters such as those produced by Kook or Cokin will help to balance the exposure between bright sky and a duller land. Not essential but they'll help to balance the exposure. However this is munching in to the budget. But then it would be a shame to bring back pictures that are not as great as they could be from a Big trip.
6) Photography sources: library or bookshop or magazines. A lot of what you need to know is the same for film and digital e.g. composition, what a change in aperture does to focus, changes in shutter speed and focal lenght of a lens, understanding light (midday light is harsher, afternoon light has a slight blue tint, dawn and dusk are softer light etc). For magazines I'd try Outdoor Photographer or AP. Forums here will answer any questions too. Mayb with a touch of squabbling occasionally! 
7) Getting film onto a website. Nearly everywhere now offers you the chance to get CDs of your images when developing film e.g. Boots, Snappysnaps, Jessops. Scans onto CD from these places will be fine for putting on the internet. Many of the black and white images from Alaska on my flickr site are from shop scanned CDs.
Prices vary and the film processing quality varies too so shop around and ask people who they like. Stores vary so Boots in X might be great but the Boots in Liverpool St. station sucks. When you get film developed, if you've deliberately over or underexposed a picture when shooting it, tell the people developing it NOT to autocorrect the pictures, otherwise they'll try to make everythig an ideal image which may destroy what you had in mind.
I'll shut up and give somebody else a chance but I hope that helps.
Matt
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/reactivefilm/
Edited by Matt_Hunt (10/01/2008 14:34)
|
Matt_Hunt
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 07/11/2005
Posts: 2255
|
|
Forgot, an SLR won't giver a wide panoramic shot in 'letter box' format. For that you need a particular camera type or take adjoining pictures all the same exposure (so shoot on manual) and get somebody to join them for you in a software package.
Technically it can get a bit more complicated than that but in a nutshell.....
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/reactivefilm/
|
Lost_In_France
member
Reged: 27/03/2007
Posts: 100
Loc: Lake Annecy, Haute Savoie
|
|
Probably something along the lines of an Olympus OM1n plus a 24mm wide-angle lens would suit you well. Anything wider than that will blow your budget.
Panoramic shots, that is if you are taking about something that is wider than a standard 24x36mm format, takes you into very expensive territory. You would then be looking at something along the lines of a Hasselblad XPan or stitching photographs together in Photoshop or RealViz Stitcher software, which again will require a scanner and a good tripod with a panoramic head to allow you to use the nodal pint on your lens, (and in this case a lens slightly longer than a wide angle would be better). To print such photographs would also require an A4+ format printer (eg Epson R800) that takes roll paper - these alone are £200+.
You could of course do this using a digital camera instead, thereby missing out the scanning stage and using photoshop to convert to B&W.
For books Michael Langford's "Basic Photography" is pretty much considered the bible here although ther are other books aimed at more of a beginner's level. Take yourself into a good bookshop and spend the time to find one that you think best meets your requirements.
Best of luck, and welcome to the forum!
--------------------
Mark
"War is like an ageing actress; always more dangerous, always less photogenic." (Robert Capa)
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1059
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
You have quite a choice with film cameras that could only have been dreamed about a few years ago. I agree that an OM makes sense especially if you approach Machu Picchu along the Inca Trail. Anything to cut down weight!
If you are going to be stitching panoramas you'll need a tripod - more weight.
|
CircleOfConfusion
addict
Reged: 22/01/2006
Posts: 420
Loc: Bedfordshire
|
|
I wouldn't worry too much about film degradation, I spent 4 and a half months travelling round the world using film which I didn't get developed until I got back. no x-ray damage either! Rolls of film don't really take up too much weight and space compared to heavy DSLR's with all their cables, batteries and associated paraphernalia.
With film the camera doesn't have much bearing on the quality of the picture. but with a half decent lens, slow speed film and good technique it's easy to get A3 quality prints.
If you're just looking at getting scans of your pictures for the web many "household" flat bed scanners will give good enough quality.
as for getting the moody landscapes etc. get down your local library, they'll at least have a few books on photography techniques. Landscapes photography doesn't need mountains of expensive equipment, just a few filters and a tripod, the rest is down to understanding composition etc.
--------------------
Steve
My Photography Blog Updated 27/01/08
My Flickr page
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4443
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
4) If you're using film and enlarging it, the slower the film is rated (i.e. ISO 100) the finer the grain and the more you can enlarge it before the picture looks grainy. BUT, slower film needs longer exposure time / larger aperture so a tripod could well be useful but again we're increasing weight (although tripods are quite light, by the time you're at 10,000 feet EVERYTHING is heavy!)
OTOH at altitude the light tends to be very good, 1/500 sec at f/8 on 100 ASA is normal in full daylight.
Quote:
5) A set of graduated filters such as those produced by Kook or Cokin will help to balance the exposure between bright sky and a duller land. Not essential but they'll help to balance the exposure. However this is munching in to the budget. But then it would be a shame to bring back pictures that are not as great as they could be from a Big trip.
Sure, but the sky is relatively darker at altitude. Definitely don't try to use a polarizer - it will look like massive overkill. You might find an 81A or 81B warm up filter useful, shadows tend to go very blue if uncorrected. My opinion on grad filters is that they aren't practical without a tripod and often don't work very well in mountainous environments as the horizon is rather jagged.
One other thing - Fuji Sensia 100 has significantly more latitude than Velvia, does not require refrigeration before and after use and may be less sensitive to X-ray degradation. You may find it more appropriate. I used to use Kodachrome 25 in the mountains - no longer available; Kodachrome 64 is too contrasty and seems prone to odd colour casts. I found 25 ASA fast enough in normal daylight.
|
Matt_Hunt
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 07/11/2005
Posts: 2255
|
|
Certainly pass on the polariser....I used one in the Alps and the sky looked very strange
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/reactivefilm/
|
Mike_Alexander
newbie
Reged: 14/10/2007
Posts: 4
|
|
Just a thought, but personally I'd go for a Nikon FM2n - light, doesn't require much power and has a host of second hand lenses avaiable. 
|
Mojo_66
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 25/05/2006
Posts: 3265
Loc: Lancs
|
|
I quite like my old Minolta XD7, sounds like it might fit your bill. It's very small and light, will work at limited shutter speeds without batteries so will survive the cold. I use it mainly for mono, shooting either FP4 or HP5 depending on the light, then scan the negs in using an Epson 4490. I can print quite easily up to A4, never tried A3 as my elderly PC can't handle the large file size. Both scanner and camera fit easily within your budget.
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mojo_black/
|
sandyfyfe
newbie
Reged: 21/12/2006
Posts: 43
|
|
Nikon F80 is sturdy and can be had for less than £100 and a 28-100mm AF-G lens for £80(second hand) which should cover most of your needs. The AF-D lenses are sturdier, but cost more and will probably blow your budget.
You may be able to squeeze in a second hand AF-G 70-300 lens in too, but it is a monster and may not fit into your pack and you may need a tripod to use it properly.
However, I suggest you check your local camera shop(s) and see what second hand bodies and lenses they have. Then you will be able to check the weight and handling issues in the shop. Some dealers will give you a 3-6 month guarantee, so you can try the body and lenses out and if any problems occur, you will be able to exchange the camera.
My brother uses an Olympus OM something and it works fine for him.
Bryan Petersen's Understanding Exposure is useful. Langford is comprehensive, but I found it a bit dry. Try your local library first as they will almost certainly have something and save you a few pounds which you may need to spend on a camera bag.
Most developers will scan negatives onto CD when you order prints for an extra couple of pounds, so you don't have to worry about how to get the pictures onto a computer.
|
Lounge Lizard
Old Wrinkly
Reged: 17/01/2004
Posts: 17885
Loc: Cambridge, Cambridgeshire
|
|
Quote:
Most developers will scan negatives onto CD when you order prints for an extra couple of pounds, so you don't have to worry about how to get the pictures onto a computer.
Though I've found the quality of scanning to be very variable and the cost sometimes depends on what resolution you require.
--------------------
Lounge Lizard
Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.
Winston Churchill
|
Mikerocks
journeyman
Reged: 29/12/2006
Posts: 69
Loc: South Wales
|
|
I have recently bought a couple of Olympus film compacts through eBay (for 99p and £1.04) that will take panoramic shots. They do crop a 35mm neg but they do allow you to see through a panoramic frame. I have been having loads of fun with them.
The cameras I bought are an OZ10 (fixed 35mm lens) and an AZ220 (28-56mm zoom lens).
Mike
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
