~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"3.1416-vert" <geriboise@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:v0ntd1hb4im0m92pev788jr39eessc9obc@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:22:42 GMT, S t e v e <rod@fishing.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 04:59:09 -0500, Marcus Tiberius Maximilian
>><mtmaximilian@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>And now it begins.
>>
>>alt.binaries.pictures.stereo Greatists hits :-)
>>A lot of these are by John Chu and are in Parallel Format
>>not Cross-eye.
>>Do you happen to have Skysea's Martha Lake in Cross or Para ?
>>
>>Steve
> HERE:
>
> http://flavorj.com/~skysea/Images/stereo.htm
>
> Serge
> How to view 3D stereo cross-eyes view pictures
>
> http://home.planet.nl/~schwa201/crossview.htm
This is an excellent demo of X-eyed 3-D viewing, though one can also
gradually "cup" the hands in from the sides, blocking the side images and
leaving only the center 3-D image (it helps to keep the eyes level with
the images, or blending is more difficult).
As an aside, I find cross-eyed stereo views FAR easier to view than
parallel, since it is more natural to converge the eye directions
with close-focus than not. I dislike anaglyphs for their imprecision
and color distortions...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As you've noticed, "OFFICIAL RAM BLUEBOOK VALUATION"
is a pest on this NG, probably just pathetically wanting to get noticed.
(I offered a pair of mono amps on eBay recently, "ORBV's value"
was $300[?], they sold for $1600 - same for another seller of panel
speakers, which likely sold for about four times "ORBV's value".)
Best to just ignore him, I guess...
--
David Ruether
"terryc" <tcontas@mybluelight.com> wrote in message news:1134143933.030067.42310@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'd just like to thank all of you for your supporting comments re. the
> fair pricing of my speakers. I don't want one dazed and confused
> maniac creating the impression that I'm trying to rip off some
> unsuspecting buyer. Although that's not really a concern, because the
> readers of this group are very well-informed about this stuff. Thanks
> again.
> Romberry wrote:
>> "OFFICIAL RAM BLUEBOOK VALUATION" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:BFBF1AC7.35EC8%nowhere@fe02.buzzardnews.com...
>> > In article 1134061377.585509.58020@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, "terryc"
>> > <tcontas@mybluelight.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> some scratches). All drivers are
>> >> pristine sonically and cosmetically. Metal grills in great shape.
>> >> Natural highs/mids and punchy/dynamic lows
>> >
>> > Bluebook value, $56
>> >
>> > RIPOFF ALERT!
>> Dude, I don't know which Bluebook you are looking at but it isn't Orion.
>> Average retail ranges from 300 to 430 dollars (C to A) with "pawnshop"
>> rip-off wholesale being 40 to 50 percent of that amount. 56 dollars won't
>> buy a woofer or a midrange for these speakers. Are you a troll?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"DFS" <ok@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Du1_f.2101$wH1.1716@trnddc03...
>> But Nikon makes the 500mm f8 Reflex-Nikkor, that is generally a good
>> lens.
>>
>>
>>
>> How would a Vivitar lens be better?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe because it's less than half the weight - and the fact that none of the
> CAT lenses - even the Nikkor are "that" great.
>
> ds
Actually, the original-version (even larger than the latest version) was quite
sharp - and sharp enough to work very well on Nikon's TC14/14B for a
sharp, compact (though s l o w . . . ;-) 700mm. Minolta also made some
good mirrors (the 250mm, anyway), as did Tamron with their 300mm f5.6,
though I agree with you that most others were not very good...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This would not be the best option. Add first the adapter ring
mentioned above, then a close up lens (single element) or
"achromat" (two elements, for better sharpness) of the desired
power for the magnification you want (you will probably need
to experiment - but a mid value will give you less magnification
at WA, more at tele, possibly about what you want) of the right
thread size (you can get adapter rings to match different thread
sizes). A good dealer, like www.bhphotovideo.com , can
probably advise on parts if you buy from them. BTW, I prefer
the Nikon close-up lenses and achromats (all are about $40
each, I think), and 52mm ones can be adapted up or down to
fit the filter size of the adapter ring on the camera.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
"Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net> wrote in message news:ngCdg.7543$p13.7431@trnddc07...
>
> Sony has "telephoto conversion lenses" for their point and shoot digital
> cameras. Can these filters help me in my very closeup shots?
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00022VZ0U/sr=8-2/qid=1148644669/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-1537730-6114460?%5Fencoding=UTF8
>
> Thanks!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can add close-up lenses, achromats, and sometimes extension tubes
and tele converters (or combinations, with stopping down) with many (but
not all lenses - not all work well with these) to get greater close-up magnification.
See "Bugs" here for some, most not taken with "macro" lenses:
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/phun.html (follow the "next" links for more).
These were done hand-held with flash, with some at 3X.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,news.misc.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: MACRO SHOTS QUESTION
> So, basically, a good P&S can beat a DSLR for close-up work. Do you agree?
> What do I get with a DSLR and a macro lens?
>> As you get closer, depth of field becomes very limited. P&S digicams have
>> much smaller sensors and therefore more depth of field. SLRs require a
>> special lens and high ISO settings or use of a tripod, etc to achieve
>> comparable depth of field. Large format cameras have even less depth and
>> always require a tripod.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Furman
>> http://www.edgehill.net/1
>> Bay Natives
>> http://www.baynatives.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I took a quick look at the Canon S3-IS and the Sony H2.
I found the eyepiece electronic finder unacceptably unsharp
even with my best efforts to focus the eyepiece; the Sony's
finder is considerably better. I would consider the H2 over
the H5 for its lower image noise levels (the images are otherwise
similar, so why pay the extra?).
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
From: "Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: news.misc.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 3:49 PM
Subject: CANON S3 or SONY H5 ?
> Hello,
>
> I am shopping for a digital camera. I narrowed down my search to
> two cameras: The Sony Canon S3 and the Sony H5. The S3 can be
> controlled by the PC, while the H5 cannot. The H5 has a large display,
> while the S3 does not. Which one should I buy? They are
> priced almost the same. Thank you.
>
> T.I.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<tiresia2@hotmail.it> wrote in message news:1156450233.282459.294870@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I am shopping for a digital camera. I narrowed down my search to two cameras: The Sony Canon S3 and the Sony H5. The S3 can be
>> > controlled by the PC, while the H5 cannot. The H5 has a large display, while the S3 does not. Which one should I buy? They are
>> > priced almost the same. Thank you.
>> >
>> > T.I.
> compare here,:
> http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Panasonic-FZ7--Canon-S3-IS-Sony-H5---Head-to-Head-to-Head-Review/Still-Imaging-Performance--Image-Quality.htm
Nice comparison (too bad it didn't include the Sony H2...).
Still, the softer viewfinder of the Canon compared with the
Sony tilts it toward the Sony for me. If you can't see in the
finder what you are getting (except for framing, but not
sharpness/focus-point), well, what's the point of some
other minor advantages...? ;-) As I said before, the H2
likely has some image advantages over the H5, in addition
to lower price - but all of the cameras included in the test
are good cameras (the OP wouldn't do badly choosing
any of these, plus a few more...).
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<pk94100@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1156086654.512694.143780@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I would like to use my older Nikon lenses on a digital body. From what
> I read, using a D50 body should work. My question is to the poeple who
> have used this set up... what are the drawbacks I should be aware of
> and how best does one over come these?
Only the D200 (and more expensive) bodies will meter properly
with non-AF lenses, but all AF (and G) lenses will work properly
on the D50...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mQKEg.1191$Yy1.1062@textfe.usenetserver.com...
> assadx@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
>> I have a SB26 Nikon Flash, which does not meter correctly with my D70.
>>
>> Does anyone know of a way I can get this to work or know of any non
>> Nikon alternatives out there that may be suitable. I am considering the
>> sigma 500 DG, but have not come across anyone who has used this with
>> the D70.
> Why a non-Nikon alternative? Personally I would consider the SB600 or SB800,
> depending upon your needs. Nikon is considered to have an excellent flash
> system.
Yes - and the SB-26 can be used in "auto" mode just fine
(some may argue that "A" often works better than all but very
fancy TTL systems anyway...).
--
David Ruether
ruether@verizon.net
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Ståle Sannerud" <staale.sannerud@bibits.no> wrote in message news:12eoqbccj844n8d@corp.supernews.com...
>> Of course on the other hand, for about $100 there are
>> replacement viewing screens that are *much* better than those
>> from the "old film cameras".
>> A split screen focusing aide that works down to f/11, for
>> example.
> By all means - I had one of these from Kats' Eye for my 300D for use with
> manual Nikkors, and it worked quite well. Even so, the small mirror-box
> viewfinders on these low-end crop cameras do not do the photographer any
> favours at all when it comes to manual focusing. It's a lot easier on my
> Canon 1D, with proper glass prism and a larger viewfinder all round. And
> I've looked through the viewfinder of a friend's Nikon Fwhatever, the
> viewfinder on that thing blows my (rather good in fact) 1D viewfinder out of
> the water altogether. The D50 viewfinder is a tiny, dark, narrow well in
> comparison.
>
> What I'm saying is that manual focus lenses on a digicam is doable with the
> right matte screen, but rather a pain in the backside if you have ever used
> the real thing. Ignorance is bliss, in this respect :)
I agree completely. The viewfinders of the F-series MF cameras are
GREAT, being sharp to the corners, bright, without linear distortion,
and with 100% coverage (except F100, which is close enough). If
you can tolerate some linear distortion, corner softness, and less than
100% coverage, the finders of the FE/FM/FA series are unbeatable for
ease of MF focus. Even the N8008 is pretty good - but the newest
"N" series AF bodies (and the digital bodies based on the N80) have
TERRIBLE viewfinders and data displays (look at an N8008 to see
how good these can be!). What progress.....? ;-(
BTW, my interest in having MF lenses meter on digital SLR bodies is
so that I can use my MF 8, 15, 16, 20, and 28PC lenses on them, since
"guess-focus" is accurate with these for landscape work - but the price
of admission (the D200) is still too high (and comparing the image
quality from 10-12megapixel bodies with my Sony 707 makes me
wonder if a digital SLR is worth bothering with at all, especially given
the difficulty of getting really good wide-angle quality with it and its
1.5X focal length multiplier). I won't jump yet...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1156702903.531672.271660@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I think they need to get back to shorter range zooms. Maybe 1:2 or 1:3
> at the most.
> I've got an old Olympus 100-200mm zoom and at f8, it is very close to a
> prime lens.
> Even with the best coatings, lenses with 14+ elements are "feeding"
> each other their errors resulting in a cumulative error rate and
> contrast reduction that cannot be avoided.
> In the "old days" people expected most zooms to produce poor quality
> relative to fixed lenses but now they don't use fixed lenses very much
> (the average shooter) and they settle for less than stellar results.
This may generally be true (and the Nikkor 75-150mm f3.5 E
and 85-200mm f4/4.5 were exceptionally good for fairly inexpensive
zooms (as were some others, like the 25-50mm f4, etc.), but the
Nikkor 17-35 f2.8 (see http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/wa-zooms.htm),
80-200mm f2.8, and (by reputation) 28-70mm f2.8 zooms are so
close in performance to the best of Nikon's non-zooms that the differences
aren't very important (but the size/weight/prices are, alas...!). Many
good zooms exist, but it does seem to me that most of the newer Nikkor
zooms, except for the very expensive ones, have declined in relative
image quality (I tried three 24-120mm VR samples and returned all of
them - I wish I had not sold my non-VR version!) and I kept one
sample of the small 24-85mm, but I don't like it - my old 35-105mm
f3.5-4.5 MF is very noticeably better than it and my optically different
AF version. There are several other examples of this in my collection (BTW,
I have a lens evaluation list, at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html)
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
"Unclaimed Mysteries" <the_letter_k_and_the_numeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message news:OnnJg.3374$xQ1.32@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[...]
> With Sony's refusal to let their firmware be modded to give full
> exposure and shutter speed control under "NightShot" mode, we're limited
> to f2-ish and 1/60sec. limitations (1/30 for the 828 -grrrr).
Sony priggishly tries to prevent "X-Ray" photos - but
IR does a VERY poor job of "seeing through clothes".
I've taken some wonderful landscape footage with an
old TRV-9 Mini-DV camcorder and IR+red filter
(before Sony crippled this great feature in late TRV-9s).
> But it's still a neat camera to take IR with. No need to remove the hot
> mirror, and full use of the live *preview* including histogram.
>
> http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/digital_images.php#infrared
>
> Corry
>
> --
> It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
> http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Nice images. I found I couldn't get sharp IR images with
my Sony 707. I guess your idea of stitching several images
together (thus reducing magnification) is a good one for
getting nicer-looking images.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Padu" <padu@merlotti.com> wrote in message news:Ir6dnYArQtAdJWDZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@iswest.net...
> I know that two lenses with the same focal distance (i.e. 28mm) may have
> very distinct qualities, such as resolution and speed (i.e. 1.4 vs 3.5), but
> I never really understood how optics may affect resolution and how to
> distinguish (I mean, when you're looking at catalogs) which one is better.
>
> I just bought a sony alpha with a kit lens (18-80mm) and I have a 28-80mm
> from an old minolta and I'm thinking about doing some comparison shots to
> see how they compare. I think I will make in corel draw a pattern with
> different thicknes lines and shoot it with the two lenses.
>
> Any other suggestions?
I don't find lens testing charts very useful, mainly since at the distances
used for them, the lenses (especially zooms) are often nearly at their
worst - and the charts are hard to align properly with the image plane,
making the results worse than they might be (and really correct focus
is difficult on a planar surface), and these charts give you little idea
of contrast/color-saturation performance. Try "real-world" targets.
I prefer a distant cityscape, wide enough to cover the image area. I
shoot 2 frames at each of three or four FLs of a zoom and at f4 (or f2.8
if available) and f5.6 (and f8 if the lens is likely not very good...) one
frame with one short edge aligned with the horizon line, then the other
(with all camera controls locked down) turned upside down. Later you
can then see if the lens is well aligned (equally sharp [and sharp...] at
both edges and equally sharp [and sharp by f5.6] at all four corners,
which few zooms are if you are particular...). BTW, not useful for
you, but for Nikon users there is my "Subjective Lens Evaluations,
Mostly Nikkors" at http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157597938.879469.187460@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "Padu" <padu@merlotti.com> wrote in message news:Ir6dnYArQtAdJWDZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@iswest.net...
>> > I know that two lenses with the same focal distance (i.e. 28mm)
>> > may have very distinct qualities, such as resolution and speed
>> > (i.e. 1.4 vs 3.5), but I never really understood how optics may
>> > affect resolution and how to distinguish (I mean, when you're
>> > looking at catalogs) which one is better.
>> >
>> > I just bought a sony alpha with a kit lens (18-80mm) and I have
>> > a 28-80mm from an old minolta and I'm thinking about doing some
>> > comparison shots to see how they compare. I think I will make
>> > in corel draw a pattern with different thicknes lines and shoot it
>> > with the two lenses.
>> >
>> > Any other suggestions?
>> I don't find lens testing charts very useful, mainly since at the distances
>> used for them, the lenses (especially zooms) are often nearly at their
>> worst - and the charts are hard to align properly with the image plane,
>> making the results worse than they might be (and really correct focus
>> is difficult on a planar surface), and these charts give you little idea
>> of contrast/color-saturation performance. Try "real-world" targets.
>> I prefer a distant cityscape, wide enough to cover the image area. I
>> shoot 2 frames at each of three or four FLs of a zoom and at f4 (or f2.8
>> if available) and f5.6 (and f8 if the lens is likely not very good...)
> Testing the lenses wide open at 10ft would be a mistake, but stopped
> down to f8 they should rid the image of residual spherical aberration
> caused by being focused at less than infinity distance.
But this (mostly, but not entirely...) reduces the variations between lenses.
The real differences between good and poor lenses show up at stops
wider than about f4-5.6, which one may often want to use. For pro work,
use of f2-2.8 is common and lenses that perform well at those stops are
very desireable. (BTW, I was surprised to find how good the built-in
f2-2.4 zoom on my Sony 707 is to the corners even wide open...)
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:ngDMg.3296$MF1.1197@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> tomm42 wrote:
>> james wrote:
>>>I am about to buy a Nikon D70, 2nd hand, it comes with a with zoom lens,
>>>the 18mm to 70mm (Nikkor), the lens that usually comes with the camera in
>>>the stores. I already own the Nikkor AF ED 70-300mm 1:4-5.6D lens. I have
>>>also the chance to buy the Nikkor AF 85mm 1:1.8D fixed lens and the Nikkor
>>>35mm 1:1.2D fixed lens. The two fixed lens were used with a 35mm film
>>>camera and I don't know how they translate on the digital camera. The other
>>>uncertainty that I have is wether or not these two fixed lens will produce
>>>better images than a single zoom lens. Should I bother with the fixed lens?
>>>Are the images with the fixed lens going to be visually better when printed
>>>on 6*4?
>> The two prime lenses are excellent lenses, the 18-70 is considered as
>> the best bang for the buck in the Nikon lens line up. The 70-300 is a
>> so-so lens, if you think of it as a 70-200 you'll be fine. If the prime
>> lenses are autofocus they would match nicely with the D70. If they are
>> older AIS or AI lenses they will work but not meter with the camera.
>> The 18-70 would be a good walk around lens. The 35 and 85 are two of
>> Nikon's best lenses.
> This 85/1.8 is not the best, that's the 85/1.4 at $1000.
The 85mm f1.8 AF is one HECK of a lens, as near perfect even on
35mm full frame as they get (VERY sharp to the corners at all stops
wider than f16 or so, and at all distances - it is hard to imagine better
than that!).
>The 35 f/1.4 is
> pretty handy if that's what he's talking about.
It is unclear which the original poster is referring to, but there is no
Nikkor 35mm f1.2; the 1.4 will not meter on a D70; and the MF
35mm f2 (will not meter on the D70) and AF 35mm f2 are superior
to the 35mm f1.4 at wide stops, so...
>> If the price is right and the primes are AF lenses
>> I'd try to get all 4. The 35 on a digital camera has the image angle of
>> a 52mm on a 35 and the 85 an image angle of a 125mm lens on a 35. The
>> range below the 35mm is very nice to have as is the range above 85.
>> Just think you'd be set for lenses, for a long time.
> The two longer lenses are pretty inexpensive so yeah if the price is
> right it'd be a fun starter kit.
> --
> Paul Furman
The 18-70 is surprisingly good, and for the 1/2 frame coverage of the
D70, the 70-300 f4 is more than adequate (remember when people
actually used to like this lens more than the better older 75-300mm???;-).
(See my www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html Nikkor comparison list...)
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:kvIMg.9889$yO7.4751@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>>Paul Furman wrote
>>>tomm42 wrote:
>>>>james wrote:
>>>>>I am about to buy a Nikon D70, 2nd hand, it comes with a with zoom lens,
>>>>>the 18mm to 70mm (Nikkor), the lens that usually comes with the camera in
>>>>>the stores. I already own the Nikkor AF ED 70-300mm 1:4-5.6D lens. I have
>>>>>also the chance to buy the Nikkor AF 85mm 1:1.8D fixed lens and the Nikkor
>>>>>35mm 1:1.2D fixed lens. The two fixed lens were used with a 35mm film
>>>>>camera and I don't know how they translate on the digital camera. The other
>>>>>uncertainty that I have is wether or not these two fixed lens will produce
>>>>>better images than a single zoom lens. Should I bother with the fixed lens?
>>>>>Are the images with the fixed lens going to be visually better when printed
>>>>>on 6*4?
>>>>The two prime lenses are excellent lenses, the 18-70 is considered as
>>>>the best bang for the buck in the Nikon lens line up. The 70-300 is a
>>>>so-so lens, if you think of it as a 70-200 you'll be fine. If the prime
>>>>lenses are autofocus they would match nicely with the D70. If they are
>>>>older AIS or AI lenses they will work but not meter with the camera.
>>>>The 18-70 would be a good walk around lens. The 35 and 85 are two of
>>>>Nikon's best lenses.
>>>This 85/1.8 is not the best, that's the 85/1.4 at $1000.
>> The 85mm f1.8 AF is one HECK of a lens, as near perfect even on
>> 35mm full frame as they get (VERY sharp to the corners at all stops
>> wider than f16 or so, and at all distances - it is hard to imagine better
>> than that!).
> Just that I've heard the 85/1.4 is famous for the smooth bokeh
> (out-of-focus) and that's probably the main reason you'd use a lens of
> this length. If highlights in the background are not overly contrasty
> this may not be a noticeable difference.
Ah, I guess I go for "zing" over "bokeh"...;-)
>>>The 35 f/1.4 is pretty handy if that's what he's talking about.
>> It is unclear which the original poster is referring to, but there is no
>> Nikkor 35mm f1.2; the 1.4 will not meter on a D70; and the MF
>> 35mm f2 (will not meter on the D70) and AF 35mm f2 are superior
>> to the 35mm f1.4 at wide stops, so...
> The 35/1.4 has funny looking bokeh wide open and not perfect sharpness
> wide open but stopped down a bit, I understand it is better than the f/2
> just not such a bargain for the price so the f/2 is sensible
I never liked the f1.4 as much as either f2 35mm Nikkor (both
are sharp wide open, with the corners on FF being a bit better
on the MF, at the expense of some illumination roll-off) - the 1.4
appears to be lower contrast even stopped down quite a bit...
> but if
> there's a deal on the 1.8 I'd be interesed, I've been looking for
> something in this range myself. There is an AF 35 f/2.
There is no 35mm f1.8 AF. The 35mm f2 AF is a quite good
lens...
>>>>If the price is right and the primes are AF lenses
>>>>I'd try to get all 4. The 35 on a digital camera has the image angle of
>>>>a 52mm on a 35 and the 85 an image angle of a 125mm lens on a 35. The
>>>>range below the 35mm is very nice to have as is the range above 85.
>>>>Just think you'd be set for lenses, for a long time.
>>>The two longer lenses are pretty inexpensive so yeah if the price is right
>>>it'd be a fun starter kit.
>> The 18-70 is surprisingly good, and for the 1/2 frame coverage of the
>> D70, the 70-300 f4 is more than adequate (remember when people
>> actually used to like this lens more than the better older 75-300mm???;-).
>> (See my www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html Nikkor comparison list...)
> --
> Paul Furman
> http://www.edgehill.net/1
> Bay Natives
> http://www.baynatives.com
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message news:q5jcg2denh9gkbfk8b2gb9nsj80sp28bir@gordol.org...
> I'm confused. How is this "live preview" they're touting any different
> than what you see on the LCD panel of any digicam?
It has the advantage that it is viewed in a "dark" environment, unlike
the rear panel screens that are very hard to view outdoors. A well-made
EVF (few are, alas...) can show a good preview of exposure, white balance,
and composition - much more than what optical VFs offer. Some even
magnify the image center when manual focus is used and the focus ring
is moved.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<mutefan@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1158145598.341689.145400@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Last evening, I experimented with a new digital camera, taking
> photographs of changing maples leaves here in Northeast PA. It was
> dusk, and the annoying Autofocus blasted a flash at the trees. I hate
> the unnatural look of pictures illuminated by "flash light."
>
> Anyway, I was under the impression that opening the aperture would
> capture the low-light beauty, but every photo came out blurred (my
> aperture is 2.8 max). So for the heck of it, I kept lowering the
> shutter speed. At about 1/4 (whatever *that* means) to 1/25, I got the
> most incredible, atmospheric pictures of blackened branches at very
> close range, with the more distant colored leaves in a fantastic blur.
> The result was a quasi-ominous composition very...autumnal (and it's
> not even "high autumn" here).
>
> Anyway, I thought opening the aperture, not heightening the shutter
> speed, was the trick to capturing good low light pictures where the
> subject (here, unintended) was in focus. The depth of field in these
> nature pictures is terrible of course, but the crispness of the bare
> branches is great.
>
> So IS aperture priority best for low light pictures where you want a
> (near) subject in focus, or is it best for low light pictures where you
> want better depth of field?
>
> Thanks! (Oh, and I'd appreciate any site where I can find the digits
> and fractions associated with shutter speed explained.)
In simplest form, exposure is a balance between the amount of available
subject light, sensor/film sensitivity (ISO/ASA), lens aperture (f-stop),
and shutter speed. Lower subject light requires a higher sensor/film
sensitivity, and/or a wider aperture, and/or a slower shutter speed.
Sensor sensitivities come in numbers like 50, 100, 200, etc., with each
higher permitting shooting in 1/2 the light level (1/3rd in-between values
also exist). Apertures come in whole values of f1.4, f2, f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8,
f11, f16, f22, f32, etc., and these (with larger numbers) represent 1/2
the light exposure as you move up in value (in-between values exist, and
many lenses with separate aperture rings permit infinitely variable settings
for precise exposure settings). Shutter speeds come in whole values
(in seconds) of 4, 2, 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/125,
1/250, etc. (each exposes 1/2 the value of the one before, and many
cameras permit in-between values). The choices of what to use depend
on conditions. Low light requires high sensor/film sensitivity (400 or so,
risking greater noise/grain), and/or a wide aperture (f2.8 or so, risking
little depth of field and so-so lens performance [the latter is also a
problem at stops of f16 and smaller]), and/or a slow shutter speed
(like 1/15, 1/30, etc., risking camera shake - most evident at a
speed about 1/lens-focal-length=shutterspeed [like for 125mm,
figure the shutter speed should be at or higher than 1/125mm = 1/125th
second] or slower).
As a result of the above, many combinations give the same exposure,
like ISO 200, f5.6, and 1/60th second equals ISO200, f8, and 1/30th
second, which equals ISO400, f8, and 1/60th a second (for a given
available light level...). Either the shutter speed in Shutter priority mode
(watching for appropriate aperture selection by the camera), or Aperture
in aperture priority mode (watching for appropriate shutter speed
selection by the camera), or Program mode (watching to see that
appropriate values have been selected by the camera - and many cameras
allow you to "slide" the equivalent values to some more to your
liking) can be used under any lighting condition . In addition, many
cameras permit you to bias the exposure toward darker or lighter if you
do not like the average value of the brightness of the pictures you get
from your camera (judged on a reasonably well calibrated monitor).
Personally, I prefer to use "A" mode and occasionally add a bit of
exposure composition - but others prefer other ways of working.
And, the flash on most cameras can be turned off when not needed...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~
<mutefan@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1161259829.573346.22500@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not a left-brained (or is it right-brained?) technical type, and it
> seems all aspects of digital and traditional photography basically all
> deal with how much light is allowed into, and then captured
> successfully or unsuccessfully, by a camera. I've searched the
> archives on this group for exposure compensation, because I don't
> understand how it works or why it's even necessary, if a photographer
> can manipulate aperture setting, shutter speed, and ISO rating.
You are right. It is most useful in auto-exposure modes to compensate
without switching to manual exposure for under/over-exposures caused
by subject reflectances that are not average (snow, coal-bins are some
extremes...;-)
In thorough form, exposure is a balance between the amount of available
subject light, sensor/film sensitivity (ISO/ASA), lens aperture (f-stop),
and shutter speed. Lower subject light requires a higher sensor/film
sensitivity, and/or a wider aperture, and/or a slower shutter speed.
Sensor sensitivities come in numbers like 50, 100, 200, etc., with each
higher permitting shooting in 1/2 the light level (1/3rd in-between values
also exist). Apertures come in whole values of f1.4, f2, f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8,
f11, f16, f22, f32, etc., and these (with larger numbers) represent 1/2
the light exposure as you move up in value (in-between values exist, and
many lenses with separate aperture rings permit infinitely variable settings
for precise exposure settings). Shutter speeds come in whole values
(in seconds) of 4, 2, 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/125,
1/250, etc. (each exposes 1/2 the value of the one before, and many
cameras permit in-between values, especially in some auto modes). The
choices of what to use depend on conditions. Low light requires high
sensor/film sensitivity (400 or so, risking greater noise/grain), and/or a
wide aperture (f2.8 or so, risking little depth of field and so-so lens
performance [the latter is also a problem at stops of f16 and smaller
due to diffraction]), and/or a slow shutter speed (like 1/15, 1/30, etc.,
risking camera shake - most evident at a speed about
1/lens-focal-length=shutter-speed [like for 125mm, figure the shutter
speed should be at or higher than 1/125mm = 1/125th second] or slower).
As a result of the above, many combinations give the same exposure,
like ISO 200, f5.6, and 1/60th second equals ISO 200, f8, and 1/30th
second, which equals ISO 400, f8, and 1/60th a second (for a given
available light level...). Either the shutter speed in Shutter priority mode
(watching for appropriate aperture selection by the camera), or Aperture
in aperture priority mode (watching for appropriate shutter speed
selection by the camera), or Program mode (watching to see that
appropriate values have been selected by the camera - and many
cameras allow you to "slide" the equivalent values to some more to your
liking) can be used under any lighting condition . In addition, many
cameras permit you to bias the exposure toward darker or lighter if you
do not like the average value of the brightness of the pictures you get
from your camera (judged on a reasonably well calibrated monitor).
Personally, I prefer to use "A" mode and occasionally add a bit of
exposure composition - but others prefer other ways of working.
And, the flash on most cameras can be turned off when not needed...
So there...! ;-)
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<lubecki@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1158161010.845790.124760@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Bill Crocker wrote:
>> Sony's Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Digital Camera looks like a good alternative to
>> digital SLR's:
>>
>>http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/542083134.htm?bct=t13031003%3Bcidigital-cameras-and-accessories%3Bcidigital-cameras%3Bciall-digital-cameras
>
> I don't see the point of a camera like this. It's about as big and as
> heavy as a DSLR, but it has the huge disadvantage of a fixed lens.
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't see why someone would
> choose a camera like this instead of, say, a D400. I guess price might
> be a factor, but at $800 the R1 isn't much cheaper than a D400 with an
> inexpensive lens.
>
> -Gniewko
It does have a lens with a range some of us prefer: 24-120mm equivalent
(16mm dSLR lenses exist only in the form of expensive and so-so
performing large zooms, though those do go wider). Too bad it has no
stabilizer, and maybe has AF problems, otherwise I would likely buy one.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Rod Williams" <rodw@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:UNWPg.2462$zs6.1623@trndny07...
> I just got my 350D back for the second time. The right side of the frame
> was softer focus than the left. They were not capable of understanding
> English because they never did solve the problem. When I got the
> paperwork back with the camera they had it exactly opposite of what I
> said the problem was. They said left side was softer. Didn't matter
> because they didn't fix the original problem anyway. I sent pictures and
> explained it in great detail. I don't think they read what I wrote and
> couldn't have looked at the pictures. They did however find an overall
> focus problem (after sending it back a second time) and now the camera
> focuses very well but the right side is still slightly softer. It was
> under warranty at the time.
> Bottom line is don't count on them solving a problem the first time.
> They seem to know how to do basic repairs but can't comprehend there
> could be more serious problems.
> In you case a simple calibration might be all you need, but it took two
> times for them to find the overall focus problem.
This type of misalignment is FAR more common in lenses (especially zooms)
than it is in bodies. Do you have more than one fairly short FL lens, and is
the other one also softer on the same side of the frame? If so, it is likely the body...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"acl" <achilleaslazarides@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1158843456.662426@seven.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be...
[...]
> All I was saying is that all formats are a tradeoff between quality and
> convenience, with 35mm being mostly convenience (in comparison). And
> rangefinder cameras don't strike me as better suited to eg landscape
> shooting from a tripod, studio shots, or similar situations, so I find
> it hard to justify paying all this money to get good lenses if one is
> going to use them handheld.
There are also the accurate framing and "image look" preview issues
related to seeing focus and DOF in a good SLR VF instead of the
"guessing" aspects of using a RF camera (never could stand using these...;-).
Then there are the problems using even moderate teles with RF cameras
(and these cannot be wide-aperture due to focus accuracy limitations).
Additionally, using super-wides can offer problems with having to use
two VFs (one for [approximate] framing, the other for focus) - and the
fact that shooting very-wides close in with a wide stop and with the
focused subject far off center will force inaccurate focus due to the
geometric conditions of the operation.
> Anyway, I'm not saying it's pointless to do it. I do night street
> photography (handheld), and have not yet found any very fast lens that
> is reasonable wide open for my Nikon: I tried the 55mm f/1.2 but it is a
> joke below f/3 or thereabouts (flares like crazy, no contrast); I
> couldn't find the 50mm f/1.2 anywhere; and I could not find the
> Noct-Nikkor anywhere (plus it reportedly does not work too well when
> stopped down, and has high field curvature). So I can well appreciate
> how nice it must be to have lenses that work well wide open (for
> example). I am just questioning the "quality and only quality"
> justification.
If your standard is "f2", there are several Nikkors that perform quite well
at f2: 35mm f2 AIS (the AF isn't too bad, either), 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8,
(AIS or AF), 135mm f2, 200mm f2. Add f2.8, and you get the 28mm f2.8
AIS, 55mm f2.8, 105mm f2.5, 135mm f2.8, 180mm f2.8 (most versions,
but especially the AF), and the 80-200mm f2.8s, which are all good at f2.8.
The 16mm f3.5 MF is rather fine even wide open (and exceptional - a nearly
perfect lens optically only one stop down) and it can be hand-held at VERY
slow speeds, making up for its smaller stop wide open. The 50mm f1.2
performs well over a short focus distance (maybe 4-10' or so...) at f1.2
(just don't shoot small bright light sources with it - the coma is horrendous!),
and the 35mm f1.4 gives decent images out to maybe 50' or so...
I remember in "the old days" when people touted the greatness of Leica
lenses, but I didn't see it in the images at wide stops. With improvements
(like aspherics), I think Leitz lenses mostly now live up to the hype, but
not with enough superiority (if any) to many other good lenses in other lines
available at a fraction of the Leitz prices that can be used for their intended
purposes (though I would not try to use a Nikkor 24mm f2.8 much wider
than about f5.6, for instance, I rarely feel the need to since a 24mm can
be hand-held easily at slow shutter speeds, and that lens is excellent by
f5.6).
I like lenses that are as good as possible (to minimize limiting what I can do
while shooting), but very high quality lenses exist in all lines (though maybe
more in some than others...), and with selection of these (and selecting good
samples, if this is a problem with some lenses [and I've seen defective
samples of Leitz lenses...]), there can be fairly limited real differences between
idealized sets of lenses from different manufacturers. I see no point in
spending extravagantly for values that bring little to picture taking...
BTW, I have a Nikkor evaluation list at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message news:7xwt7tn91j.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
[...]
> This guy expresses the Leica situation pretty well:
> http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/cassidy/leicaslacker/
[...]
Great site! ;-) Or, here is the more direct relevant link:
http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/cassidy/leicaslacker/truth.html
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message news:7x64fd2s1m.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> writes:
>> Great site! ;-) Or, here is the more direct relevant link:
>> http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/cassidy/leicaslacker/truth.html
> But if you're more into sharpness and fine detail in a handheld
> snapshooting camera:
8^), 8^), 8^)
Neat camera body, though - and not "pricey"...!
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~
"That_Rich" <rich@wrongaddress.net> wrote in message news:c42hh29j4c8h9rfo2jq2hckdbmedk55ebl@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 04:48:29 +0200, Chris Loffredo <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>>rafe b wrote:
>>> Manual focus with most digicams is indeed a PITA, but
>>> not much worse than it was for a 35 mm rangefinder.
>>So, how exactly is focusing a 35mm rangefinder a PITA?
>>
>>Most people *who have actually used (a decent) one* agree that accurate
>>focusing in difficult light situations is one of their advantages.
> *One* of the best things about rangefinders is the ability to focus in
> loooooooow light situations. I have found that focusing a rangefinder
> is a no brainer compared to a slr in any situation.
>
> RP©
Ummmm, somehow I never saw the somewhat low contrast
VF of even the best RF viewfinders very attractive for shooting
or useful for focus (let alone good for framing - and the contrast
between the secondary RF patch and the frame lines must come
at the expense of overall frame brightness), especially in low light.
Try a good f2 lens on an F3 or FM/FE/FA with matte screen and
your vision (or diopter correction) adjusted for the 1 meter
virtual distance of the screen, and you will see how easy focus
is in almost any light level, and how good the finder is for showing
a reasonable representation of the final image (including DOF,
tonality and tone distribution, focus point, color, etc. - things a
a RF finder fails miserably at).
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Chris Loffredo" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:4nt2bbFbp71bU1@individual.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "That_Rich" <rich@wrongaddress.net> wrote in message news:c42hh29j4c8h9rfo2jq2hckdbmedk55ebl@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 04:48:29 +0200, Chris Loffredo <me@privacy.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> rafe b wrote:
>>>>> Manual focus with most digicams is indeed a PITA, but
>>>>> not much worse than it was for a 35 mm rangefinder.
>>>> So, how exactly is focusing a 35mm rangefinder a PITA?
>>>>
>>>> Most people *who have actually used (a decent) one* agree that accurate
>>>> focusing in difficult light situations is one of their advantages.
>>> *One* of the best things about rangefinders is the ability to focus in
>>> loooooooow light situations. I have found that focusing a rangefinder
>>> is a no brainer compared to a slr in any situation.
>>>
>>> RP©
>> Ummmm, somehow I never saw the somewhat low contrast
>> VF of even the best RF viewfinders very attractive for shooting
>> or useful for focus (let alone good for framing - and the contrast
>> between the secondary RF patch and the frame lines must come
>> at the expense of overall frame brightness), especially in low light.
>> Try a good f2 lens on an F3 or FM/FE/FA with matte screen and
>> your vision (or diopter correction) adjusted for the 1 meter
>> virtual distance of the screen, and you will see how easy focus
>> is in almost any light level, and how good the finder is for showing
>> a reasonable representation of the final image (including DOF,
>> tonality and tone distribution, focus point, color, etc. - things a
>> a RF finder fails miserably at).
> Been there, done that (and with *many* other cameras, some with much
> brighter/better viewfinders than the Nikons you mentioned - and with
> matte, H, G & many other screens). Faster lenses as well.
A faster lens does not necessarily make for greater focusing ease
with an SLR - the VF optics appear to be optimized for a short
aperture range, the old ones optimizing around f2-2.8 (with f1.4
showing little or no greater brightness in the finder and often a
less sharp focusing image), the newer ones (horrible as most are),
seem to be optimized for f3.5 or so, and are very hard to focus
when using faster lenses. Also, brighter screens are often lower in
contrast, making focus with them more difficult. Worst are the
current crop of SLR finders that are both very dark AND unsharp.
What a rook! Yuk! If this is what anyone compares a RF finder
to, I would prefer the RF too...;-(
> Based on my experience, my order of preference for focusing in most low
> light situations is:
> 1) a good rangefinder
See my earlier post, above. I just don't like a viewfinder that
separates me so far from a good representation of the final image
(and precise in-camera framing is important to me, in addition
to the other superior characteristics of *good* SLR VFs mentioned).
> 2) a Leicaflex SL (I guess I'll get flamed, since this is an anti-Leica
> thread)
I found the SL based on the Minolta body impossible to focus with
the Leitz 50mm f1.4 (though easy with an f4 200mm - see above).
> 3) a Nikon with a G or H screen
I cannot use those screens at all - I never "see" the point of focus
with these, but with a matte-centered screen and good eyesight,
the point of focus is VERY quick and easy to see...
> Granted, using a rangefinder *is* very different from using a SLR. You
> need to be able to mentally pre-visualise a lot more. Also the depth of
> field needs to be mentally visualised, if necessary with the aid of the
> DOF scale (experience helps).
>
> All that of course has advantages and disadvantages.
Yes. But for me, I prefer my camera to contribute more to the
previsualization...!;-)
> I'm not maintaining that a rangefinder is always better and is good for
> all situations, just that it *usually* is easier to focus in low-light
> situations (and is certainly not a PITA, the statement which I was
> responding to).
Yes to the second, but my experience (though limited with RF
cameras, but extensive with low-light shooting with SLRs - they
usually like to nearly extinguish the lights at receptions and
go with candlelight, ugh!) indicates otherwise. Low light (and I
mean, VERY low light!) focus is easy with f2 lenses and the
Nikon FE/FM/FA, 8008, and F/F2/F3/F-etc.). Plus, as I said,
I don't find the VF image in a RF camera "attractive", unlike that
of a good SLR...
So, some prefer those hopelessly limiting RF cameras, while
others prefer those great and versatile (well, the best, anyway...)
SLRs! 8^) (( Though, if I shot only with 35-50-75mm lenses
and didn't care about versatile flash systems, I would probably
have considered a RF system before then rejecting it - but
YMMV......;-))
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Chris Loffredo" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:4ntbkcFbqgbfU1@individual.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> A faster lens does not necessarily make for better focusing ease
>> with an SLR - the VF optics appear to be optimized for a short
>> aperture range, the old ones optimizing around f2-2.8 (with f1.4
>> showing little or no greater brightness in the finder and often a
>> less sharp focusing image), the newer ones (horrible as most are),
>> seem to be optimized for f3.5 or so, and are very hard to focus
>> when using faster lenses. Also, brighter screens are often lower in
>> contrast, making focus with them more difficult. Worst are the
>> current crop of SLR finders that are both very dark AND unsharp.
>> What a rook! Yuk! If this is what anyone compares a RF finder
>> to, I would prefer the RF too...;-(
> I haven't noticed the decreasing performance bit with faster lenses
> (I assume you're talking about classic Nikons with matte screens),
Yes.
> but I have noticed many quirks & inconsistencies using (esp) different
> lenses
> (the Zeiss Jena Flektogons 20 & 25mm looking very dark in the viewfinder).
> I'd love to know the exact physics involved.
It appears to have something to do with the design of the lens
optics near the rear end. For instance, the original Nikkor 28mm
f3.5 (BTW, with larger front element than the later version...)
looks quite dark in the VF, but the later version (small front
element) doesn't - it is quite bright, as are all of the current Nikkors
AFAIK. Another "dim" lens" (I also had the 25mm Flectogon...;-)
was the Topcon 25mm...
>>> Based on my experience, my order of preference for focusing in most low light situations is:
>>> 1) a good rangefinder
>> See my earlier post, above. I just don't like a viewfinder that
>> separates me so far from a good representation of the final image
>> (and precise in-camera framing is important to me, in addition
>> to the other superior characteristics of *good* SLR VFs mentioned).
> Of course, no size fits all.
Yes, of course - just expressing my more "correct" preferences...8^)
> And where exact framing is important, a 100% coverage SLR viewfinder is
> unbeatable (I've also used an E screen a lot).
> For most of my low-light applications, where I use a rangefinder, exact
> framing isn't vital.
If you prefer the RF focus method, and can put up with all the other
inferior characteristics compared with *good* (and this is harder
to find these days, alas...) SLR VFs, than go with it! ;-)
>>> 2) a Leicaflex SL (I guess I'll get flamed, since this is an anti-Leica thread)
>>
>> I found the SL based on the Minolta body impossible to focus with
>> the Leitz 50mm f1.4 (though easy with an f4 200mm - see above).
> The Leicaflexes have nothing to do with the later Minolta-based R- models.
> It's my preferred camera for using telephotos.
>>> 3) a Nikon with a G or H screen
>> I cannot use those screens at all - I never "see" the point of focus
>> with these, but with a matte-centered screen and good eyesight,
>> the point of focus is VERY quick and easy to see...
> Again, no size fits all.
Again, yes...
> My eyesight is good, but in many situations I find myself more or less
> guessing where the point of maximum sharpness is when using matte screens.
Have you tried really correcting your focus eye well for the one
meter screen virtual distance? Correcting for both distance and
astigmatism, if relevant? I've run across MANY people who say
they can't focus an SLR, but it then turns out they haven't bothered
to use a camera with a really sharp VF or to correct their focus
eye properly for the camera (avoid those "lineless" bifocals!)
(there is an article I wrote on my web page about a 4-distance
glasses solution to camera viewing that also works VERY well for
general seeing, at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#glasses).
>> Yes. But for me, I prefer my camera to contribute more to the
>> previsualization...!;-)
> Did I mention somewhere that no size fits all?
> ;-)
Um, yes, but......., I still must point out that a (good!) SLR is one
heck of a lot better tool for photo previsualization than ANY RF,
unless, of course, you just like to imagine photos and just hope
actual photos taken don't almost, but not completely, not resemble
what was imagined...! 8^)
>>> I'm not maintaining that a rangefinder is always better and is
>>> good for all situations, just that it *usually* is easier to focus
>>> in low-light situations (and is certainly not a PITA, the
>>> statement which I was responding to).
>> Yes to the second, but my experience (though limited with RF
>> cameras, but extensive with low-light shooting with SLRs - they
>> usually like to nearly extinguish the lights at receptions and
>> go with candlelight, ugh!) indicates otherwise. Low light (and I
>> mean, VERY low light!) focus is easy with f2 lenses and the
>> Nikon FE/FM/FA, 8008, and F/F2/F3/F-etc.). Plus, as I said,
>> I don't find the VF image in a RF camera "attractive", unlike that
>> of a good SLR...
> 20 years use of a Nikon FM, F, F2 & FE2 with (often) the 35mm f/2.0
> lens. I have to disagree...
> :-)
> (Ehm... No size fits all?)
Guess so........, if you say so, but I'll wager my 40 years experience
agin yer 20 years thet I'm right...! 8^)
>> So, some prefer those hopelessly limiting RF cameras, while
>> others prefer those great and versatile (well, the best, anyway...)
>> SLRs! 8^)
> Over 90% of the pictures I take don't involve telephotos over 90mm or
> close-up/macro work. For the rest, I'll definitely grab an SLR.
>
> => No size fi.. (plug pulled!)
Uh-huh.........................................................;-)
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message news:al6jh2tv4783njrpvsi8lg31h14sin4lpv@4ax.com...
> That_Rich <rich@wrongaddress.net> wrote:
>>The first time I looked through a viewfinder in a RF camera (Canonet
>>GIII) it was like an epiphany.... not only because of the ease of
>>focus but also because I could see outside the frame. After using the
>>IIIF I was even more impressed. To me focusing a RF is very natural
>>after becoming comfortable with it. The slr I use most is a Canon A1 /
>>AE1P, with fast lenses. Personally, I find the RF focusing much easier
>>and I am more confident focusing the RF in low light.
> One of the strongest features of a direct vision viewfinder is that it
> does not go dark at the moment it is most needed - the moment of
> exposure.
>
>>Personal preference I guess.
>
> As in all things, yes!
Ah, though the "black-out" period with SLRs is generally very short
(at least with fast shutter speeds), you do point out one advantage
of the RF...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<Pte227@aol.com> wrote in message news:1158868273.862270.185040@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Has anyone tried Genuine Fractals plug-in for photoshop? I bought the
> 3.0LE version a couple of years ago but have never got it to work as
> Lizard Tech claim. It is supposed to enlarge up to 600% with virtually
> no loss of resolution. When I enlarge an image using Genuine Fractals
> the result is no different from the same enlargement using Photoshop's
> bicubic re-sampling! I guess I must be doing something wrong but I've
> tried many times following the manual instructions as best I can.
> Anyone got any ideas where I am going wrong?
> Thanks & Regards
> Pte
I've used GF (Anyone want the "light" and heavy" versions? - That
should tell you something...;-) and was impressed with the results
until I tried up-sizing in Micrographyx Picture Publisher, and it did
about as well.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message news:ef9rcm$hh7$3@nnrp.gol.com...
> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> The latter. I use medium format for anything that doesn't need to go
>>> larger than 13x19.
>> I will probably end up doing the same thing. I purchased a 9600 dpi
>> scanner that will allow me to scan medium and large format film. Now, I am
>> looking for a decent used MF camera.....Possibly a Mamiya.......
> The Mamiya 7 is the cat's whiskers, but the interesting lenses are pricey. I
> bought one with the 65/4.0 and never got around to buying another lens.
> Oops. So I should have saved a gob of money and just got the Fuji GSW690III.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
The Fuji has a very sharp lens that does roll off toward the corners
in illumination quite noticeably at stops wider than f8 or so. I also found
it VERY hard to hand hold steady even at 1/125th with or without
an additional side handle. My old Mamiya 645J with a side handle
and 40mm f2.8 is sharp and even to the corners wide open and easy
to hand hold reliably down to 1/30th. 'Course, it does have only 1/2
the film area, no small consideration. Never could afford the Mamiya 7,
but that seems like it would be the ideal RF medium format camera
(though the RB67 is rather nice, as an SLR...;-).
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message news:pr6jh2dtf9kanonbaahl7vgiubtmrbr8k9@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>> The Fuji has a very sharp lens that does roll off toward the corners
>> in illumination quite noticeably at stops wider than f8 or so. I also found
>> it VERY hard to hand hold steady even at 1/125th with or without
>> an additional side handle. My old Mamiya 645J with a side handle
>> and 40mm f2.8 is sharp and even to the corners wide open and easy
>> to hand hold reliably down to 1/30th. 'Course, it does have only 1/2
>> the film area, no small consideration. Never could afford the Mamiya 7,
>> but that seems like it would be the ideal RF medium format camera
>> (though the RB67 is rather nice, as an SLR...;-).
> A super wide angle lens that would cover 6x9cm without significant
> vignetting would require to be supported on a tripod with reinforced
> concrete foundations.
It could be a partially retrofocus design, more like the Leitz 21mm,
or even a full retro design, like the ones on the Mamiya RB or 645...
With these the size/weight may actually help hand-holding. Some
cameras, like the Rollei twin and the Fuji wide (it isn't all THAT
wide...) are surprisingly hard to hand-hold steady (maybe they are
*too* light, or hard to grip properly?).
> The best way around this is to use a graduated ND "center" filter,
> which dims the centre of the image to better match the brightness at
> the edges.
This works, but reduces the "wide-open" stop to about f11 on the
Fuji. You may better just stop down to f11 and get the overall
performance and DOF improvement along with the even illumination
at that stop (and graduated ND filters are expensive...).
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Rudy Benner" <bitbucket@rudybenner.com> wrote in message news:12hjahhoutbmae6@corp.supernews.com...
> "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XO2dnXsL6KApPYTYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:12hj7lfr2hgvh14@news.supernews.com...
>>> Charles Schuler wrote:
>>>>> Since both Canon and Nikon know how to make lenses, why don't they
>>>>> make lenses for each other's cameras? If Sigma and Tamron can make
>>>>> lenses for Canons, surely Nikon can too. Is there some kind of
>>>>> licensing issue?
>>>> Because you never, ever do anything to support your competition.
>>> Actually, they do have an adapter that allows Canon users to use Nikon
>>> lenses on their bodies. Granted, you don't get AF, but the images are
>>> beyond spectacular. It seems this practice is more popular than I ever
>>> dreamed.
>> Beyond spectacular? That's just silly!
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikcan.htm
> http://www.camerahacker.com/Novoflex/EOSNIK.shtml
I got all excited (8^]) until I realized that one must trade
ease of switching lenses and the the auto-diaphragm for
the metering ability when using Nikkors (including MF)
on Canon bodies. The need to remove the lens from the
body, then the adapter from the lens (instead of just
removing the lens from the adapter while it is still attached
to the body) seems too awkward - but the system may
work if you have an all-Canon system but have the "hots"
for one Nikkor in particular (or can pay the high price for
rings for several Nikkors). Not perfect (!), but interesting...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Marvin" <physchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:12hl7qdnf78cc6@corp.supernews.com...
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <1159286956.886361.99510@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Mike
>> P. says...
>>>When I upload a picture to a web site , it appears blured when I went
>>>ot view the web page. I have experienced this before.
>>>Steps I took before upload : only step I took was reducing image to
>>>publish on web page.
>>> ( See example at hyperlink below)
>>>CAPE MAY LIGHTHOUSE PHOTO
>> It looks a bit too compressed at 14 KByte.
> jpeg compression artifacts are usually most visible in the
> sky as banding. I don't see it in this photo.
I don't either, and even re-jpg'ing the OP's image after modifying it
by opening up the midrange a bit, increasing the color saturation,
and sharpening it with unsharp-masking, it shows little effect
from compression artifacting (which usually shows up as "wubbling"
in small areas immediately around contrasty details in the smooth
tone areas of the photo, like the sky...).
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4517296d$0$15656$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Tony H. wrote:
>> Hi, based in the UK, I am looking to buy a DV Camcorder to replace my trusty
>> but now not
>> functioning Sony TRV 10E. My main requirement is that the camcorder MUST
>> have DV In enabled in order for me to send the finished tape (post editing
>> on the PC) back to the camcorder. When I bought the original Sony in 1998, I
>> also bought a widget which enabled the unit, but it doesn't look like you
>> can do this with newer models?
>>
>> Any suggestions welcomed, JVC, Canon, Sony, Samsung, others, main priority
>> is DV In facility, thanks in advance.
>>
>> Tony H.
> Wouldn't it be a better idea to burn the finished video onto a DVD?
> At least that way you'd have the video as a file on your computers' HD
> as well as a hard copy that could be played on any DVD player.
> That seems to be the philosophy behind all of the DV and miniDV
> available today.
> I'm not sure why you'd want to put the finished video back onto your DV cam.
DVD quality from the best Mini-DV is lower; in my experience it is STILL
hard to write reliable DVDs(!); it is still relatively hard to edit MPEG2
compared with Mini-DV if the OP decides to reedit the video; Mini-DV
tape (properly stored) is still a good storage medium...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Peter" <peter@greatnowhere.com> wrote in message news:451b829e$0$1351$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> I'm kinda interested in long focal length lens. My longest now is 400mm,
> so I would be looking for at least 600-700mm, and I do not fancy TCs.
> I'm aware of mirror lens limitations, but for the price it seems like a
> nice toy... I cant afford >500mm refractor-type lens for sure.
>
> All I've been able to find is 500mm mirrors - not good enough. Are there
> any longer ones out there?
>
> Peter
You can adapt Nikkor lenses to Canon bodies, and since the adapter
doesn't allow for auto-diaphragm operation and mirrors don't have
auto-diaphragms, this can work well. The older-version 500mm f8
is quite sharp at distances out to infinity, unlike most others - so sharp
that it works well on the Nikon TC-B, giving a good 700mm f11
('course the "real" stop is about one stop less, as is generally true with
mirrors...). The 1000mm f11 Nikkor never impressed me much, though.
The MTO 1000mm is OK, as is the 800mm Vivitar, but these are not
as good as the Nikkor 500+1.4x.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:mvSdnYkfHJFfKobYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@golden.net...
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:q2ySg.2322$Bp3.703@trndny07...
>>
>> I got all excited (8^]) until I realized that one must trade
>> ease of switching lenses and the the auto-diaphragm for
>> the metering ability when using Nikkors (including MF)
>> on Canon bodies. The need to remove the lens from the
>> body, then the adapter from the lens (instead of just
>> removing the lens from the adapter while it is still attached
>> to the body) seems too awkward - but the system may
>> work if you have an all-Canon system but have the "hots"
>> for one Nikkor in particular (or can pay the high price for
>> rings for several Nikkors). Not perfect (!), but interesting...
> If you're only going to do it for one lense, I don't think it's a big
> deal to use the adaptor. If you intend to use a bunch of Nikon lenses,
> you might as well have a Nikon body.
>
> :-)
Yes, I thought I had said essentially that...;-)
It occured to me that a good use for these adapters is for using
Nikkors without auto-diaphragms (the older 500mm f8 mirror is
excellent, even with the TC14B, and the 28mm f4 and latest
35mm f2.8 PC lenses are also excellent - and the tilt/shift
PB-4 bellows may then also fit).
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Peter" <peter@greatnowhere.com> wrote in message news:451cc0fd$0$1344$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> Hmm. According to wisdom on this group 500mm Nikkor f/8 (going price on
> eBay seems to be in 200+$ range) + TC + Nikon->Canon adapter is the best
> combo. Of course I wont have autofocus but camera should be able to
> meter automatically.
>
> Anyone care to comment?
>
> Peter
I posted this earlier:
"You can adapt Nikkor lenses to Canon bodies, and since the adapter
doesn't allow for auto-diaphragm operation and mirrors don't have
auto-diaphragms, this can work well. The older-version 500mm f8
is quite sharp at distances out to infinity, unlike most others - so sharp
that it works well on the Nikon TC14/14B, giving a good 700mm f11
('course the "real" stop is almost one stop less, as is generally true with
mirrors...). [with some editing...]"
Note that I specify the Nikkor TC14/14B converter - the Nikkor TC14A,
TC14C, and likely the newer AF 1.4x, do not work as well (someone
else commented about the possibility of an AF converter causing the
Canon body to hang, also...). Unfortunately, The TC14B in nice
condition may cost more than the lens in similar condition...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Matt" <matthewbam@aol.com> wrote in message news:1159309996.286815.254130@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Anybody have any luck buying used cameras, say, a Canon EOS 5D?
>
> Also, does anyone have any exeriences (good or bad) with this camera?
>
> I want one!
>
> http://digitalartphotographyfordummies.blogspot.com
I have bought items successfully on eBay, but I'm now leery of
condition ratings, even from people with 99-100% positive
ratings. Look up "Nikon F3" in advanced search, all categories.
Then look at the photos of the "LN", "LN-", and "Mint" bodies!
Yuck! I guess my "LN"/"Mint" (which means to me ***NO***
marks/mars/scuffs/dents!) sure has a different meaning for most
other sellers!!! I would buy used gear from KEH - their prices
may be high, but their condition ratings are conservative and their
return policy is liberal...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Progressiveabsolution" <progressiveabsolution@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1159639913.910377.121880@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Well...I went with the Pentax 6X7 newer version w/MLA, TTL, etc. I saw
> photos from everything, really, and the Pentax is the most appealing.
> The weight is a truckload, but it can also be handheld for shots, so
> that's impressive. I was trying to figure out why the 645N shots were
> not so impressive when viewing them a long while back and just
> now...and realize that it's the glass on a lot less amount of film. I
> cannot wait to get back shooting again.
The Pentax 6x7 is an excellent choice, with several excellent
lenses available. I sold mine with the wonderful 55, 90, and
135 macro due to the size/weight (though it was hand-holdable
at slow speeds...), slow flash synch speed (1/30th, alas...), and
a viewfinder that not only showed far less than full frame, but
I could not see even that area with my glasses. The Mamiya 645
(also with excellent lenses, the 45, 70, and 150) was more suitable
for what I needed it for - but now it is for sale since digital is
taking over for me what work I used to do with medium-format
film (not an unfamiliar story...;-). The thin-based 120 film
(relative to 4x5) in 6x7 or 6x9 is really excellent for maximizing
image characteristics short of using really big view cameras.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:87wt7jtkq8.fld@apaflo.com...
> "DP" <nospamxx@xyzddd.com> wrote:
>>"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>>> Steve <stevered@acadia.net> wrote:
>>>> Nikon and Canon both. I have lenses for my old F100 that are faster than
>>>> what both companies are offering. I mean f2.8 or less and a constant speed
>>>> through the zoom range. Does anybody have information about why these
>>>> digital lenses are coming out with such high and variable f-stops?
Probably for size/weight/price reasons - there are some fast
constant-aperture zooms either designed for the smaller format,
or for the larger, but useable on the smaller.
>>As for the variable f-stops, I would assume it's because as the focal
>>length changes that automatically changes what the f-stop is. The same-sized
>>hole is a different f-stop for 50 mm than it is for, say, 125 mm.
True. But see below...
>>I was never a fan of zooms even in my film days, so I'm not that familiar
>>with them. You say that there are zooms where the widest f-stop is not
>>variable as the lens is zoomed out? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think
>>that means the manufacturer was simply not telling you the truth about that
>>lens and not letting you know that the widest aperature opening has a
>>different f value based on how far out the lens is zoomed.
No. If you set the aperture to a given stop and look into the
front at the diaphragm blades as you zoom the lens, you will see
that the blades move to to keep the aperture constant (a lens
that has the diaphragm wide open at the longest FL will close
the diaphragm some as it is zoomed to the shortest FL). This
is true only for constant-aperture zooms...
[uh, see below.......]
> There is some variation, but it is relatively small. They are not
> being dishonest. A 1/3rd stop or less variation is not worth the
> distinction, but a 1/2 stop or more variation certainly is.
Due to manufacturing tolerances and illumination unevenness,
there can be slight effective-stop changes, but otherwise, the
stop really does not change...
> However, like all things in lense design it is a compromise. It
> is possible to produce, at a lower cost, a sharper lense if it
> has a variable aperture over the focal length range. A constant
> maximum aperture is possible, but it either produces a less
> sharp lense or costs significantly more.
Yes, but there have been exceptions. The Nikkor 75-150mm
f3.5 E was an excellent zoom with a constant aperture and
low price. The 70-210 f4 E and 36-72mm f3.5 E Nikkors
were other examples.
> It is not uncommon to target a design for low cost production,
> and that is often best accomplished by allowing the maximum
> aperture to vary.
True.
> It is also common to target a different design for "best
> performance at whatever it costs", and that will often have a
> wider maximum aperture that is constant (relatively) across the
> focal range. But the lense will appeal only to those who can
> justify the money spent for the best possible lenses.
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Also true - and for those who are willing to lug the monsters
around... Too bad there aren't more good f3.5 or f4 constant-
aperture zooms, so one doesn't need to choose between
f2.8 or f5.6 "wide"-open at the long end. F3.5-4.5 isn't a
bad compromise, though, I guess (if more were truely high
quality - I've still seen nothing in the current Nikon line other
than the constant-aperture f2.8 zooms [which are excellent!]
to equal the old MF 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 [selected sample
only, though!]).
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:8764f2txoz.fld@apaflo.com...
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:87wt7jtkq8.fld@apaflo.com...
>>No. If you set the aperture to a given stop and look into the
>>front at the diaphragm blades as you zoom the lens, you will see
>>that the blades move to to keep the aperture constant (a lens
>>that has the diaphragm wide open at the longest FL will close
>>the diaphragm some as it is zoomed to the shortest FL). This
>>is true only for constant-aperture zooms...
> I've never noticed any lense that did that.
Take a closer look (with all the blackening of parts, it can be hard
to see the movement of the diaphragm blades in a constant-aperture
zoom) - they are cammed to do this, otherwise the lens is NOT
constant aperture and will pass differing amounts of light with zooming
(and the aperture ring and lens specifications will show this, as with
"f3.5-4.5" instead of "f3.5"). [uh, see below....] Newer bodies will
often permit setting a constant stop, limited to the widest possible at
a given FL, though...
>>> There is some variation, but it is relatively small. They are not
>>> being dishonest. A 1/3rd stop or less variation is not worth the
>>> distinction, but a 1/2 stop or more variation certainly is.
>>Due to manufacturing tolerances and illumination unevenness,
>>there can be slight effective-stop changes, but otherwise, the
>>stop really does not change...
> It does. How much depends on the design of the lense. If the
> designer allows much change, they label it as variable. If the
> change is (as I stated originally) small, they call it constant.
This is just not true... (see above, and my earlier post).
[ummm, see below...]
>>> However, like all things in lense design it is a compromise. It
>>> is possible to produce, at a lower cost, a sharper lense if it
>>> has a variable aperture over the focal length range. A constant
>>> maximum aperture is possible, but it either produces a less
>>> sharp lense or costs significantly more.
>>Yes, but there have been exceptions. The Nikkor 75-150mm
>>f3.5 E was an excellent zoom with a constant aperture and
>>low price. The 70-210 f4 E and 36-72mm f3.5 E Nikkors
>>were other examples.
> The Nikkor 75-150mm f/3.5 E, for example, does not change the
> aperture as it is zoomed.
Correct - the diaphragm has been compensated so that at the short
end it is not permitted to go to the maybe f2.8 or so that it would
otherwise go to (too much illumination fall-off and sharpness loss
for the other characteristics of the design - and this was common
practice at the time [and cheap variable-aperture designs came in
about then]). Remember that the f-stop number is not an arbitrary
rating - it is the focal length divided by the physical size of the
diaphragm (or the longer the FL at a given stop, the larger the
diaphragm size required to pass the same amount of light).
[well, errr.....]
> Regardless of the fact that those are low cost constant maximum
> aperture lenses, that does *not* negate the statement you are
> replying to. If they had been designed to have a variable
> maximum aperture they probably would have been even less
> expensive to manufacture. The problem then would have been
> marketing, because Nikon wanted to maintain the appearance of
> top quality.
It is not the diaphragm camming that is expensive (one need only
make the diaphragm actuator curved or tilted instead of straight
as it reaches through the lens), it is the optical improvements
needed to produce good optical performance at the short end of
the zoom range with a fast stop there...
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
(see below for more….)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:87sli4st74.fld@apaflo.com...
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>>>No. If you set the aperture to a given stop and look into the
>>>>front at the diaphragm blades as you zoom the lens, you will see
>>>>that the blades move to to keep the aperture constant (a lens
>>>>that has the diaphragm wide open at the longest FL will close
>>>>the diaphragm some as it is zoomed to the shortest FL). This
>>>>is true only for constant-aperture zooms...
>>> I've never noticed any lense that did that.
This was true for some constant-aperture lenses I have looked
at - but I just checked a 70-210mm f4 and 80-200mm f2.8,
and, much to my surprise, the diaphragm did *not* adjust to
compensate for the FL change(!). You are then at least sometimes
right!
>>Take a closer look (with all the blackening of parts, it can be hard
>>to see the movement of the diaphragm blades in a constant-aperture
>>zoom) - they are cammed to do this, otherwise the lens is NOT
>>constant aperture and will pass differing amounts of light with zooming
>>(and the aperture ring and lens specifications will show this, as with
>>"f3.5-4.5" instead of "f3.5"). Newer bodies will often permit setting
>>a constant stop, limited to the widest possible at a given FL, though...
> I've dissassembled a few zoom lenses. And constant-aperture
> lenses do *not* do that.
I've also taken apart some, and found that they sometimes do,
and show the diaphragm changes with zooming (but that was years
ago, and my memory has faded about specifics, alas...).
> I can't imagine that anyone would add cost and complexity to
> actually slow down a lense just to be able to say the aperture
> stays constant!
Or do the reverse, when the 70-210 Vivitar Series I went from
f3.5(?) constant to f2.8-3.5(?), I think without any real optical
redesign...
>>> The Nikkor 75-150mm f/3.5 E, for example, does not change the
>>> aperture as it is zoomed.
>>Correct - the diaphragm has been compensated so that at the short
>>end it is not permitted to go to the maybe f2.8 or so that it would
> That is *wrong*. I've got a disassembled Nikkor 75-150mm f/3.5 Series
> E lense sitting here next to me. There is *no* such mechanism.
From my examination of a 70-210 E, I think you are right!
>>otherwise go to (too much illumination fall-off and sharpness loss
>>for the other characteristics of the design - and this was common
>>practice at the time [and cheap variable-aperture designs came in
> You have it *backwards*. I've only got one variable aperture
> zoom lense handy to look at (a Nikkor 18-70mm), and *it* is
> cammed to allow the aperture to open up more as the focal length
> increases.
Or, looking at it the other way, as I said, the aperture closes
more as you zoom toward shorter FLs...
> Go *look* at a few lenses.
I did...;-) (I may have been thinking of some older WA constant
aperture zooms...)
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Hoshisato" <hoshisato@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1159896883.347832.139070@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>I have a Manfrotto monopod 676B digi and I'm wondering if a manfrotto
> ballhead would fit on the screw on top of the monopod so that I can
> angle the camera while using the monopod as support.
Yes. Manfrotto thread sizes come in 1/4" and 3/8" sizes, though - but
you can get a very cheap adapter to mate the two (pod to ball - but
be sure the top of the ball is 1/4"). You will likely want one of the smaller
sized ball heads for your purpose.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message news:12i3imq2t0q4d69@news.supernews.com...
> frederick wrote:
>
>>> LOL! Bill, look at the reviews and side-by-side images produced by
>>> these lenses and you will see that the Tokina is the best out of the
>>> bunch out of all the 12-24 produced. I know this fact is hard to
>>> swallow; I had the same
>>> problem believing it. The proof is out there.
>>>
>>>
>> Is this proof?
>> http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/chromatic_aberration.html
> Thanks, I've been searching for that page. I've seen it long ago and was
> going by memory. Seems like it's the Sigma that's the 1st place holder with
> Tokina 2nd and Nikon 3rd. Still from a price point and image quality, Nikon
> lost with its 12-24.
>
> Rita
I did not try the Tokina, but I did compare the Sigma full-frame 12-24mm,
Sigma 10-20mm, and Nikkor 12-24mm at their widest FLs in the corners
(not edges). The Sigma 10-20, though wider, was almost as good in the
corners as the Nikkor, with the others noticeably inferior. I did not like
ANY of the lenses, though, since none was really sharp and clean in the
corners at *any* stop (a requirement for me to consider a lens acceptable,
particularly if expensive, as all of these are). At $1000, the Nikkor is very
overpriced for its performance level, but $500 is more than I would like to
pay for the Sigma, given its severe corner illumination roll-off and very
noticeable chromatic problems...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"JR" <jrhone@mac.com.invalid> wrote in message news:jrhone-DF210F.22024902102006@news.west.cox.net...
>
>> There's just a slight correction needed here. This should be the Tokina
>> 12-24, then all Nikon 17-35, 28-70, 70-200 and an optional 10.5. Sadly I
>> must say that the Nikon 12-24 is severely lacking in image and build quality
>> and the Tokina is king in this arena, plus it's a lot less expensive. The
>> 17-55 is mediocre and should not be considered over the 17-35 and 28-70
>> combination. If Nikon continues its current trend towards consumer grade DX
>> lenses we will all be screwed.
> I agree with you on the Tokina Pro 12-24/4....I have that lens and
> returned the Nikkor 12-24 to get it. The 17-55 is said to be the equal
> of the 28-70 lens...mediocre? I have never seen a mediocre review of
> the lens...in fact everyone says its a toss up between the 28-70 or
> 17-55.
Judging from the images at
www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/chromatic_aberration.html
it looks to me that the detail level of the chimney, building clapboards,
and fence are better with both the Nikkor and Sigma (at 12mm...) than the
Tokina. The17-55mm f2.8 is known to be a superior optic. The one image
I've seen from the 10.2mm Nikkor fisheye, though, was VERY disappointing
anywhere near the edges even at the small stop used to take it (perhaps it
was a defective sample...).
> Why will we be screwed? Lets face it...how many pro lenses can
> they build? They have a pro lens from 10.5mm all that way to 600mm...so
> do they need to constantly re-release lenses? It looks as if they are
> adding AF-S and VR to the older pro lenses. My 70-200/afs VR is an
> AMAZING lens...dont see how it could be better. It would be cool to see
> some fast primes in DX format...like 1.2's and 1.4's...but I am very
> happy with the Nikon system...and I dont seem to want for anything.
>
> JR
--David Ruether
Go to: More Posts - Two
Go to: More Posts Index
Go to: Articles Index
Go to: David Ruether Photography