safe haven for tiny formats

[Jan Pedersen]

The 14-24 is a large and heavy lens considering it's focal lenght but the image quality is astounding. I have not tested at the wide end but just yesterday did some comparison to a mint 24 AIs and a 24-85 3.5 - 4.5 at 24mm.
The 24 Ais is as far as i know the best 24mm prime lens but at f8 or f11 is does not even get close to the 14-24 at 2.8 in the corners. The 24 Ais never really do get sharp in the corner. Same for the 24-85
The weight really is not a problem, a 35 digital camera kit with a few heavy zoom lenses are still light weight compared to an 8x10 kit.

[Frank Petronio]

For Nikon I was thinking that the 28/1.8G would be a good compliment to the 50/1.4G I've been using. I really like the newer lenses that let you focus manually without flipping switches. Well I like the older lenses made from metal best but my eyesight doesn't.

Can't imagine why I'd need a wider lens? A 14mm is ridiculous!

[Jan Pedersen]

I think the 28 1.8 will be a great compliment to a 50mm lens, 35mm is to close to make a big difference and 28 still does not have the wide angle distortion (That i like)
14mm is very wide but when you have it i think you will use it.

[Brian C. Miller]

You probably couldn't tell from on online jpg until it hits ISO 12800 or 25600....

I'm just curious. From some of the test reports, some digital sensors degrade significantly at higher ISO values. I don't remember if it was a Sony or Sigma, but a well-regarded camera and sensor went nearly to B&W below 1600. Seriously, I was shocked.

The first one was 1/320 @ f/1.4 and ISO 100.
The second was 1/200 @ f/1.4 and ISO 3200.
The third was 1/200 @ f/1.4 and ISO 280.
The fourth was 1/200 @ f/1.4 and ISO 320.

Thanks!

[Brian C. Miller]

I don't really care if it's better. I enjoy shooting film. I find using a digital camera about as fun and fulfilling as using a microwave oven, maybe less so.

That said, I'm tempted to get a DSLR, for two purposes. One, for very low available light where it just spanks film so badly it's tempting to use it (though I do like shooting TMZ and Delta 3200 at 3200) and two, for family shots and such, where I never get around to printing until long after everyone has forgotten the event.

If you're only going to 3200, go ahead and use Delta 3200 at 3200. I've used it with my Pentax 645 (posted the results in this thread a while ago) for 1/2 second at f/2.8. I've also seen a huge enlargement done from a 6x9 image, and it looked fabulous. The Delta 3200 film looks great and holds a latent image for a long time. I haven't made a test, but a few months out seems to be no problem. Tmax 400 pushed to 3200 is a problem, but it's OK for 1600.

Right now I'm seeing how Kodak Portra 800 120 performs, at 800 and 3200. Somebody on APUG published results for it being pushed much, much farther than 3200, and it held up well.

Personally, I've never been big on 35mm cameras, as I started with MF and then went larger. I've only shot 35mm for a few snap shots and Kodak HIE. I never did sports, weddings, or combat, so I never had a real need for it. I like using half-frame, and I like a 400 speed film with it. It gives a nice soft-yet-sharp look.

From Occupy Everett last year, Pentax 645, 1/2sec, f/2.8, Delta 3200 at 3200:

[Frank Petronio]

I shot some Ilford 3200 Delta B&W in a Fuji 690 before and it really opens up the capability of medium formats to shoot like 35mm, good stuff.

As for high ISO noise, it varies quite a bit between cameras and sensors. The best ones are amazing.

[Roger Cole]

I like Delta 3200 in my Mamiya 645. I'll like it even more when I get an 80mm f/1.9. But I still think TMZ holds a slight edge so I've been shooting that in 35mm. It looks great at 3200. In both cases I develop per manufacturer instructions for 6400. The TMZ looks very much like old school Tri-X, only sharper.

[Jay Decker]

I think the 28 1.8 will be a great compliment to a 50mm lens, 35mm is to close to make a big difference...

Agreed, but if I am going to keep it simple with just one lens... the 35/2 is a good all arounder.

Never got along with any of Nikon's 28mm lenses (they were soft), but I have a 24/2.8 that is sharp, small, and light.

Personally, I'm down to one zoom, a 70-200/2.8 for kid events, and few primes. I find that I keep the camera with me and shoot more if I have a small lens on the camera, and maybe another on in my coat pocket or man purse... obviously this is a topic where YMMV.

[Jay Decker]

Here's a comparison of Frank's processing of an image (on the left or top) to my original processing. Notice that the skin tones are more natural. Man, do I have a few things to learn about color...

[Frank Petronio]

Ha to me, my edit looks too cool on my browser. The problem with color online is that it is going to be slightly different for everyone and you can't expect to show any specific, subtle coloring - you have to ballpark and try to hit something in the middle so that someone is looking at it with an uncalibrated monitor or a crappy browser (each will render differently) or on a social site (Flickr, Facebook, etc. all attempt to slightly "improve" your images) gets something middling good.

it's a huge topic and a huge mess. Retina displays are only going to make it worse.