File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /p/.

I'm shifting to film because I need to sell my digital kit (400d kit + 50mm 1.8). Only lenses I have are 35-80mm 4-5.6 and 70-210mm F4.5-5.6.

The thing is, I was looking forward to doing landscapes with film but, dammit it turns out I only have 35mm at my wide end meaning my old digital kit would have have wider FOVs. On the long end, I was intending to buy an 85mm 1.8 for portraiture. Can the lenses I have work even if they're not what you'd consider as fast lenses?

Break my misconceptions /p/.

Pic related. It's what I'm gonna be using. Any reactions to this camera?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 400D DIGITALCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:07:17 04:20:25Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length44.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height1200RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Haddock !!xREx2m9lgBs
Uh, no, your film camera will have a wider FOV with a 35mm than a digital with a 35mm lens. Crop factor makes that 35 longer on a 400d.

And while it's possible to do portraiture with what you've got, and 85mm would be helpful.
>> Anonymous
>>224698
Anon had the 18-55 kit lens on the 400D. Reading comprehension.
>> Butterfy !xlgRMYva6s
You have a high end minolta but dont use minolta digital bodies?

wtf?
>> Anonymous
>>224698
I had 18mm with my digital kit. 18*1.6 = 28.8, which is less than what I have now.

Also, I'm not planning on getting any other lens. I was planning the 85mm with my 400d. I'm broke, hence the decision to sell the DSLR.
>> Anonymous
>>224704
This was just given to me. I still have to find batteries for it since the original owner hasn't used it for 8 years and actually doesn't know if it still works. I have no idea if this is a high end Minolta body. Heck to be honest, I have absolutely no ideas about Minoltas being a total Canonfag.
>> Haddock !!xREx2m9lgBs
>>224703
"400d kit"
I assumed this simply meant the 400d and it's associated equipment. Besides, a kit lens doesn't count.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OP here

Body is Dynax SPxi. Pic related. Can this body use MF minolta lenses? I may score a 50mm 1.7 from another friend.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 400D DIGITALCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:07:17 04:49:42Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length37.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height800RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Butterfy !xlgRMYva6s
>>224712
No its a Dynax mount body, meaning it works with everything in the current (bar crop only) sony lens lineup.

From the first pic it looked like a 9 (ie god level film) but its still not a bad camera.

The 11-18 is technically a crop lens, but from 13mm or so onwards it has full coverage and can be used on film cameras with acceptable results.

The 50/1.7 is normally the AF one, mine is.
>> Anonymous
>>224714
Well that sucks. The 50mm I was talking about is definitely MF. Also, much as I want to look up Minolta lenses, buying any lens is out of the question due to the "Being broke" situation. Thanks for your inputs though.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>224714


oh hay, you called?
>> Anonymous
>>224732

shit is so hot it's FUCKING GLOWING
>> Butterfy !xlgRMYva6s
>>224732
WHO FUCKING PAINTED YOU SILVER?!
>> Anonymous
1. You don't need fast for most things unless you shoot in really low light or like really shallow depth of field.
2. Yeah, they probably would. If you're shooting tight, anything will have a blurred background. But do pick up some primes, at least a 50mm or 35mm or whatever you would prefer as a do-all workhorse focal length.
3. 35mm is definitely wide enough for landscapes. Go look at some of Cartier-Bresson's landscapes, the widest lens he owned was a 35mm and he still used his 50mm for most of his landscapes. You don't need a big wide to do landscapes.
>> Anonymous
>>224732
That camera looks fucking awesome.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
Your gear is totally fine. All you really need is a fast 50 to round it out (doubly useful on film because of the wider FOV) and you're pretty much set.

Landscapes don't require wides, and you may in fact end up switching to your tele for them often.