~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:458a9e19$0$7727$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> stormlady wrote:
>> Today, in about 10 hours I will be going to pick up a D80 as a
>> surprize for Christmas. I was thinking to get a UV and a polarizing
>> filter to go with it (I think they'd fit in a stocking). Is there
>> any type/brand that I should be looking at in particular? I know
>> nothing about filters and want to get good ones to go with the camera.
> Most digital cameras are almost blind to UV light so as a filter, a UV
> filter is almost totally worthless. Many people buy them to "protect" the
> lens. This need for protecting the lens has been a standard sales practice
> so long that it is generally believed. Back in the 60's when I was in photo
> retail it was standard practice. Often we would make more money on a UV
> filter and a gadget bag than on the camera. My boss never wanted us to sell
> product that was not needed. We would let the customer buy it, but most of
> us would inform the customer if we felt they did not need it.
>
> Before doing retail I worked as a professional photographer. We were
> hard on equipment and many of the lenses had small scratches and nicks. The
> larger nicks and scratches were filled with India ink (magic marker today)
> and they worked just as good. We never used UV filters (it was 90% B&W back
> then).
>
> If the UV filter makes you (or more important her) feel good, get one.
> If quality results are important, then get a very good one. Those filters
> are sticking out front with little protection from flare and that can reduce
> the quality of a image much faster than a small nick or scratch. The best
> filters are optically high quality and coated to help reduce flare. The
> cheap ones have far lower optical quality and coatings than the lens on the
> camera is likely to have.
>
> The polarizing filter is a good idea. I will not ever preach about
> getting top quality, although it would be nice and I would suggest avoiding
> the bottom of the line. She should not be using the polarizing filter for
> most of her work.
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
JM's advice is good - but I still prefer to use a good single-coated UV
(much easier to clean and multicoating does little for you on the front)
combined with a proper shade for the lens. Most people don't know
how to clean multicoatedlenses and scrubbing a filter (preferably in a sink,
with dish detergent and cotton balls, with distilled water rinses afterwards)
is preferable. Hoya UV and circular polarizers would be my budget
filter choices (avoid Tiffen).
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Lars Forslin" <lars.privat_despammer@monarda_despammer.se> wrote in message news:em9b7h$3ob$1@aioe.org...
> Thanks for you answer. I have, of course, been considering the R1, it really
> has everything i need except for movie (voice memo) mode. I can't really
> comprehend why this excellent feature has been removed from most digicams
> now, or at least the upper segment.
> I think the first Nikon DSLR (was it D1?), even had this feature. Now none
> of the DSLR:s has it as far as I know. Wouldn't be too hard to implement,
> would it?. Why is there no demand for such a feature? Do people really carry
> around a notepad and a pencil these days, along with their cameras and
> lenses?
>
> Maybe I stick with the 707 for another while and see what comes up. It's all
> DSLR at this time, but that's got to change sometime when people get tired
> of carrying lenses around but still want high-quality cameras and images.
I bought a Sony 707 used after years of not taking many
"fun" pictures. I immediately started shooting again, and
10,000 later, I have slowed down considerably. I like the
image quality of the 707 (excellent at ASA100, very good
at 200, useless at 400 - but the lens is excellent to the corners
even wide open [f2 at the short end]), and I can hand-hold it
more steadily than most other cameras. The shortcomings are
the poor low-light image quality and lack of flash synch for
any but Sony flashes (I can use a flash in auto mode triggered
off the built-in flash, but that has a non-defeatable double-flash
mode, requiring sufficient power in the auxiliary flash for two
quick pops), and the slight sharpening ringing on details
against the sky (but I have a photo editor that easily corrects
this). Since I have a bunch of Nikkor lenses, I looked at
a D1x, D100, D2x, and even a Canon 20D. When shooting
in daylight, I could not see any significant differences except
the lack of ringing with the larger sensors. I decided to save
my money and not carry around large gear again, at least
for now. Unlike you, I have no use for movie and sound
features on a still camera (though I suspect that this interesting
video was shot with a mini-still camera in video mode -
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1332618321380046146&q=ithaca&hl=en
and that could be fun!) - I have video cameras that perform
better for this...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<johnw_cerm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1166892735.012957.149560@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I have a old hunker JVC VHS-C Camcorder. It does the job, however its
> bulky, and cannot plug into my computers without a Video Capture
> device, which can be hard to find these days.
>
> I played with some of the newer Mini DV and DVD-RAM (Sony and Panasonic
> under $1000) camcorders, and was impressed with the size, however was
> not impressed with the writing speed of the DVD-RAM Camcorders, and was
> not impressed with the camcorders ability to record in low light
> conditions. It seemed to me, that when the light was on, my hand
> movement got slow. Why is this? The Salesguy at Fry's said that this is
> just a issue with digital camcorders. I told him that my old honker
> VHS-C camcorder does not have this problem. Recording with the light on
> is fine, and things do not slow down.
>
> Maybe one day I might get a new camcorder that will work with my ibook,
> and uses Mini DV tapes (as I was not impressed with this DVD-RAM
> format). DVD-RAM Camcorders take too long to write to the discs.
>
> Anyone have any recommendations?
The other responders in the group answered well - but
I thought I would point out my camcorder articles at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#video (see particularly
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
for 3-chip vs. 1-chip, and different sized chips in three different
light levels). BTW, I have the TRV900 and VX2000 for sale
in LN condition, and both are excellent in low light.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166912374.908206.17480@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> According to an editorial in Amateur Photography, still pro photography
> for news is being replaced
> by video. Single video images can be used if needed.
This would be hard for me to believe unless the video was
well-shot 1080p, in which case individual 2-meg 1080x1920
frames could be used. I have successfully upsized 720x480i
Mini-DV frames (640x480 after proportion correction -
interlaced, but with no motion in the frame) large enough
to look good on DVD covers but I would not use this for
general-purpose stills...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~
"RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166985194.141367.298730@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166912374.908206.17480@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>> > According to an editorial in Amateur Photography, still pro photography
>> > for news is being replaced
>> > by video. Single video images can be used if needed.
>> This would be hard for me to believe unless the video was
>> well-shot 1080p, in which case individual 2-meg 1080x1920
>> frames could be used. I have successfully upsized 480x720
>> (480x640 after proportion correction) Mini-DV (interlaced,
>> with no motion in the frame) frames large enough to look
>> good on DVD covers but I would not use this for general
>> purpose stills...
> Certainly it would be easier for some action photographers to capture
> events with video than with still cameras. No 1/500th of a second to
> freeze things however.
Actually, while video cameras may be limited to 50-60fps, their
shutter speeds may range up toward 1/10,000th second, though
a lot of light is needed to make use of this...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Saw your lens reviews. Would you be able to tell me if the Nikon 20mm
> f/2.8D AF or the manual AIS version is better in optics/sharpness. I use
> an FM2. I know either would work on it but want to get the best/sharpest
> lens.
Both are the same optically, though the AIS is better built...
As with all lenses, test. With the 20 at f4, shoot a vertical
with good details across the top of the frame. Invert the
camera without changing anything (particularly focus) and
shoot the same picture again. The details should be equally
sharp/unsharp across the frame edges. You can do the same
running detail from one corner to the other, then tilting in
the reverse way for the second picture. F5.6 will give you
better edge/corner performance, so the results may be
more "readable" at that stop. Use a good 10x magnifier
on the film (folding ones for biological work are about
$5-10, though they take a bit of practice to use reliably).
--
David Ruether
DRuether@twcny.rr.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"frederick" <lost@sea.com> wrote in message news:1167248597.785773@ftpsrv1...
> Tim wrote:
>> I've been considering a new lens for architectural & landscape work -
>> amateur stuff nothing pro. The link to my site below will give you an idea
>> of my abilities and what I like to photograph if you're interested. I'm in
>> the UK BTW.
>>
>> Have been looking at the Nikon 12-24 f4 G AF-S DX but this really seems to
>> get mixed reviews. I've been talking to a guy in a local camera shop who
>> recommends the Sigma 12 - 24 mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM I think he said the
>> distortion on the Sigma was less but there was more CA. I'd be glad of less
>> distortion for architectural shots and IIRC CA can be corrected to an extent
>> in Photoshop.
>>
>> Anyone have any particular views? The Sigma is about half the price of the
>> Nikon so with the difference I'm 2/3rds-ish the way to a 18-200vr or get a
>> 50mm f1.4 or a macro lens to play with and still have change for a beer :-)
> All of the w/a lenses will have enough barrel or pincushion distortion
> to sometimes cause problems with straight lines. They also have complex
> pattern distortions (moustache pattern) that aren't able to be simply
> corrected in photoshop. However, there is an excellent program "PTLens"
> (available as a stand-alone or photoshop plug-in) corrects any
> distortion with these lenses quickly and automatically. (The program
> reads exif data, and applies correction from a database based on camera
> type and lens focal length setting) Cost is about US$10 - a free
> trialware version can be downloaded.
> IMO distortion is easier to deal with than CA.
> My suggestion would be to look at:
> Sigma 10-20 - sharp with very low CA - plus 10mm is quite a bit wider
> than 12mm.
> Tokina 12-24 - sharp but higher CA than Nikkor or Sigma, but lowest
> distortion.
>
> The Sigma 12-24 has a very bulbous protruding front element - and you
> can't fit a filter in front for protection. It's designed for 35mm
> frame size - a great special purpose lens for that, but outdone on DX
> sensor by the Nikkor, Sigma 10-20, and Tokina 12-24.
>
> You read reports of "sample variation" with all of these lenses,
> including the Nikkor, as tolerances are critical. Typical reports are
> of softness on one side of the image. If you are fussy about such
> things, then I suggest you buy only where replacement is easy, or check
> out the lens in a shop for obvious softness in one side of the image
> with test shots before buying it.
I agree completely with the above - and unfortunately there
is no clear "buy this one" choice for WAs, since they are all
compromises. Guaranteed a good sample, I would slightly
prefer the Nikkor, but its price is the highest. The worst
performer on DX was the 12-24 Sigma, as you pointed
out - and it is more expensive than the Sigma 10-20 and
Tokina (but the Sigma is considerably wider - but with
strong illumination roll-off toward the corners). And, why
waste money on an expensive lens without doing basic
checks to see if it suffers from the common unequal opposite
edge or corner sharpness problem? Return the lens for
exchange while you can rather than being bothered by
softness (even if slight) in one part of the image that is
always there in the same place. (In redundant words, I'm
agreeing with the last poster...! ;-) For the OP, I'd consider
the inexpensive but excellent 50mm f1.8 instead of the 1.4
(as good, but far cheaper, and with less linear distortion),
and probably the 18-70 instead of the 18-200 (more likely
to get a good sample of a lens that is likely at least somewhat
better and certainly much cheaper). And excellent Nikkor
achromats are about $40 and available in 52mm size
suitable for the 50 (or zoom, with step-down ring). Results
can be very good at f8-11 for macro work
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"JamesDorset" <JamesDorset@firstcoastinternet.org> wrote in message news:pan.2006.12.27.18.41.47.450372@firstcoastinternet.org...
> Sony has a "nightshot" feature on some of their cameras and video-cameras.
> They advertise zero lux capability.
>
> Besides turning on one or more infrared LEDs, do these cameras put an
> infrared filter in front of the lens?
No - they just move aside the IR blocking filter in front of
the sensor.
> Since the range of the IR LEDs is
> very limited, would "nightshot" give you an edge on recording aircraft and
> visible satellites at night?
No. While the effective usable sensitivity of the sensor likely
increases, the light levels (including IR) are too low to make
much difference. And the cameras cannot record "heat", at
least with short exposures...
> For shooting aircraft and visible satellites at night, could a Canon
> videocam simulate nightshot mode by putting an infrared lens in front of
> the lens?
No. It would result in greatly reduced sensitivity for the system.
> What would be the best video camera/lens combo for this type of
> filming?
Probably something far more specialized and expensive than
anything you are considering, if it is possible to do what you
want at all...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.en> wrote in message news:Xns98A76CE59CAE4ReplyScoreID@140.99.99.130...
> Today, Roadsign made these interesting comments ...
>> New to the group and have a quick question about the Nikon
>> D80. The Quick Start guide and the manual both say to adjust
>> the viewfinder (diopter). There is a small wheel to make this
>> adjustment near the viewfinder. Turning the wheel doesn't seem
>> to make much (if any) change on the way the brackets look in
>> the viewfinder and the knob is difficult at best to turn.
I'm not sure how this works on your camera, but with the F100,
it is necessary to lift the wheel outward before turning it, then
press it in when properly adjusted for sharpest view. I find it
easiest to do this by using a wide angle lens on a mid-far subject
with lots of details and letting the AF find the focus - after which
I adjust the diopter for best sharpness.
>> Do I have a problem or is the change so subtle I am just not
>> seeing it?
Possibly. "Older" eyes have greater problems adjusting to inexact
focus compensations and if you are young, your eyes may just
compensate over a wide range of errors...
> RS, the diopter adjustment wheel alters the focus of what you see
> in the view finder, not what markings the camera shows on the
> "ground glass". The main purpose of this control is to adjust for
> individual vision, e.g., near-sighted, far-sighted, glasses, etc.
>
> In the case of my Rebel XT, I need to set mine to near one
> extreme if I am shooting without my reading glasses on and near
> the other extreme when I have them on. One of the problems with
> getting old is that I cannot see to read without my glasses, thus
> I cannot read the text in the viewfinder nor on any of the
> camera's many controls, hence I wear my glasses most of the time.
You may find this useful --
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#glasses - it describes
a four-distance glasses arrangement that I devised that does
not result in "mono-vision", but does smoothly provide sharp
vision over a very wide range of distances and ideal
compensations for camera use without the negatives of "lineless
bifocals" or "progressive lenses". It is not ideal for long-term
reading (I use specialized glasses for this), but for general
seeing, it provides sharp vision from under 2' to infinity without
the focus breaks that bifocals (or, ugh!, even trifocals) have.
> Can't speak to the difficulty in turning the little wheel. Mine
> is somewhat stiff, possibly because of its small diameter giving
> it little mechanical advantage. Incidently, as a hint to see if
> you do or don't need to adjust it, try running the wheel quickly
> from one extreme to another and note whether you see a
> difference, rather than trying to make very minute adjustments.
>
> One other comment, that some might disagree with: if you can read
> all the controls on the camera and can trust its auto-focus
> system, then it doesn't much matter if the image in the view
> finder is crystal clear or not, but if you're trying to focus
> manual, having the diopter set correctly can be crucial to being
> able to judge when you are or are not in-focus.
> --
> HP, aka Jerry
Yes - but it is always nice to see the DOF and focus the best you
can. I fault recent cameras for having unsharp viewfinders (even
the Nikon N90 and N70 were inferior in this respect, especially to
the N8008 and F3, and later ones were TERRIBLE!). A good,
sharp VF is fundamental to a good SLR - otherwise one of the
main reasons for using an SLR is lost.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:45964a13$0$2613$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> :
> :
> : If it is not sharp under ideal conditions I would be sending it back
> too.
"Joan" <Joan@home.t2> wrote in message news:45965845$0$2639$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Which is a pain in the butt, because I was thinking of buying one. :-(
>
> --
> Joan
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly
As I have tried to point out repeatedly over the years, samples of
lenses do vary somewhat, and defective samples are not unknown.
Before giving up on this lens, exchange it for the same lens. BTW,
see my http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html for more on this.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<RnR> wrote in message news:7ejmp255epkdm05ebgg88fcm23f4h645ku@4ax.com...
> Any good URL's for reviews on digital camera lenses that are favorites
> in this newsgroup ?
My "Subjective Lens Evaluations, Mostly Nikkors" is good for MANY
Nikkors (and a few others), but are mostly for MF and AF full-frame
lenses (there is a small section at the end for Nikon DX lenses). It is at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html - and it includes several URLs
for other good Nikkor lens review sites.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"bmoag" <aetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:kB9oh.15150$Gw4.9434@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> If not a joke:
>
> Keystoning and distortion can be corrected to a great degree using tools in
> photoshop, for example cropping with perspective control and the lens
> distort filter to correct for barrel distortion.
>
> If you know you will have keystoning in an image make sure there is adequate
> room in the frame around your main object to allow for cropping. Also
> realize that unless you are perfectly parallel to the subject the image will
> be off horizontal axis as well. To some degree this can also be corrected
> with the lens distort filter in Photoshop but not that much.
I note your first sentence - and the photos look fine to me also...;-)
"Corrections" are not necessarily needed - perspective effects
(and even lens barrel distortion) can serve the purposes of an image.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"U-Know-Who" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:1168191662_15459@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> I knew with this WA lens [12-24 Tokina] would keystone. That's not what I meant to
> improve. What I would like to improve is the sharpness, if possible. Or, are
> these acceptably sharp? This is my first "real" WA lens, as the Canon
> 17-40f/4L did not give me a real WA on a 1.6 factor.
If you are not satisfied with the sharpness (it is hard to tell from
the web image how really sharp it is or isn't, or how it would look
printed), but if you would like it to look sharper, you can use an
unsharp mask, experimenting with settings for maximum sharpening
with least damage to the image. I find it useful to mask out the
sky (and maybe contrasty diagonal lines after the first stage of
sharpening - which may be a gentle one...) using a slight centered
feather on the mask edge. Since most wide angles are somewhat
soft in the corners, progressive repeated widely-feathered sharpening
can be done there to even up the sense of sharpness across the
frame bottom and/or other edges.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message news:enrc85$9tm$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "U-Know-Who" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:1168191662_15459@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>> I knew with this WA lens [12-24 Tokina] would keystone. That's not
>> what I meant to improve. What I would like to improve is the
>> sharpness, if possible. Or, are these acceptably sharp? This is my
>> first "real" WA lens, as the Canon 17-40f/4L did not give me a
>> real WA on a 1.6 factor.
> If you are not satisfied with the sharpness (it is hard to tell from
> the web image how really sharp it is or isn't, or how it would look
> printed), but if you would like it to look sharper, you can use an
> unsharp mask, experimenting with settings for maximum sharpening
> with least damage to the image. I find it useful to mask out the
> sky (and maybe contrasty diagonal lines after the first stage of
> sharpening - which may be a gentle one...) using a slight centered
> feather on the mask edge. Since most wide angles are somewhat
> soft in the corners, progressive repeated widely-feathered sharpening
> can be done there to even up the sense of sharpness across the
> frame bottom and/or other edges.
> --
> David Ruether
Ah, I, too just found the full-sized version of the building, at
http://www.pbase.com/randyc2800/image/72733173/original
It looks quite sharp (maybe oversharpened, judging from the
sky texture and roof edges here and there - but overall it looks
good). I would look into masking out areas you don't want
oversharpened if this was done in the photo editor instead
of the camera...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message news:enrgcp$12j$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Just some things that needle me as I see various posts on the subject.
>
> [note: before replying to a specific point, please read in full]
(I see that you properly "take things with a grain of salt", and also
question simple answers for questions that are not so simple as
they may seem...;-)
> Needle 1. "x stops of vibration (shake) reduction"
> Assumption: x stops of effective shooting at speeds slower than "rule of
> thumb" for a handheld shot. (shutter speed = 1/focal length).
>
> I've never made nor seen a "rule-of-thumb" handheld shot that printed
> sharp at 8x10 without looking a bit (or worse) soft. So what should the
> proper "rule-of-thumb" reference speed actually be?
>
> As CoC nominally refers to a print of 8x10 (or 8x12 for 35mm), then an
> 8x10 print size should determine the "rule of thumb" speed. It has
> never been shown to me (or done by me) that "rule of thumb" speed
> _works_ for the nominal reference print size of 8x10 (8x12).
With a steady hand and multiple exposures of the same thing the
1/FL speed rule can work (or even with slower speeds...), but one
complication you catch, below... Also, the *rated* improvement
offered by stabilization probably usually has some ad-hype "slosh"
built into it and is overly optimistic...
> Needle 2. Notwithstanding the above, I (and others) have found that
> "rule of thumb" speed is too slow once the focal length gets over 135mm
> (or so). It is not linear (though it should be), (or we're not blowing
> up shorter FL shots to 8x12 where we would see the softness for what it is).
It is non-linear. Try shooting an 8mm fisheye on a FF body - SCADS
of hand-holdability are there at rediculously slow shutter speeds, well
below 1/8th second. Even the 24mm is easy to hand hold at 1/15th - but
a 135 is a bit challenging at 1/125th and a 300mm is more than a
challenge at 1/250th (it is nearly impossible). But while most good teles
are sharp wide open, most wides are not and can benefit from much
smaller stops (especially in the corners), so the practicality of things can
even out somewhat...
> Needle 3. In cropped sensors, the "effective" focal length (for the
> purpose of image size) is longer. eg: a 50mm lens should use a "rule of
> thumb speed" of 1/75 of a second or faster. (Since the blowup ratio of
> a cropped sensor to get to the nominal 8x10/8x12 print size is higher).
While this should be true, it does seem that smaller sensors not only
produce greater apparent DOF, but fewer problems with hand-holding.
Not sure of this, though...
> The above points should not really bother me (or you) much, as:
> 1. IS/VR A-S etc. are all benefits and allow us more shooting latitude,
> so just be happy we have it and take advantage of it!
Yes, unless there are disadvantages...
> 2. Advertising: However, I just saw an advert in B&H for a Canon lens
> with IS and a claim of 3 stops. Well, what is the "industry standard"?
> Is there any? (rhetorical).
Prolly not.......! ;-)
> Cheers,
> Alan
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Cynicor" <j...tru.p...in@speak.ea.sy.net> wrote in message news:LtWdne5WJoiwDz_YnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Hey, has anyone here converted a wide-angle Canon TS lens for a Nikon
> mount? I want to do some TS stuff, but Nikon only offers the 85mm these
> days and I want to do landscapes.
I have heard of the 24mm TS being adapted, but I could
find no info on it. I think it would take considerable work
to do it, since I think the rear end of the barrel would need
to be shortened before installing the Nikon bayonette.
Worth doing, especially for small-sensor digital cameras,
though regular wide angles at smaller stops give much
DOF.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mark Williams" <MarkWilliams@att.net> wrote in message news:d6idnUKNctocTDzYnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@comcast.com...
>I am in need of UV and Circular Polarizer filters. In reading reviews...
> it definitely sounds like B+W is the best and worth the price. If I were
> using L series lenses, I would definitely get these. Other filters that
> are mentioned as good are Heliopan and Hoya. I see Hoyas are a little more
> reasonably priced. I know the quality is probably not the same as B+W, but
> are Hoyas still good quality filters and a good bang for the buck?
I wouldn't waste money on the "expensive spread" when
Hoya is entirely satisfactory (though sometimes the thin
glass retaining ring is out of place when purchased and
needs to be pressed back into place). BTW, I'm not a
believer in multi-coating for filters - I think it is unnecessary,
and more expensive and harder to clean than the single-
coated filters. I avoid Tiffen filters since they "self-fog"
and their rims are too deep for some lenses. If I must buy
Tiffen to get an unusual color, I remount the glass in a
better rim, and make sure to clean the glass just before use.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"VicTek" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message news:1Djoh.11941$ZT3.3792@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>I have the FZ20. It makes sense that if there's not much light in the room
> the EVF would be dark, but can this be adjusted to some degree? The
> pictures taken with the flash are in focus and properly exposed, but it's
> hard to frame the shot.
Not useful for you (but brightening the EVF in the menu may be),
but the Sony 707/717 uses an interesting solution that permits
framing in total darkness. In a special mode, the IR light is on
and the camera is in IR mode for viewing, but just as you take
the picture the camera goes to normal color mode with flash.
Neat!
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David Kilpatrick" <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote in message news:O5qdnRkGR_H3ZTHYRVnyggA@bt.com...
[..........]
> Rollfilm is midway; again, users tend to follow the 35mm rule of thumb,
> because they want higher general quality, but you can shoot at 1/60th with a
> 105mm lens on 6 x 9cm as safely as you shoot at 1/60th with a 50mm lens
> on 35mm.
>
> David
This points up another important aspect of successful hand-holdability,
the effect of the ease of gripping the camera properly and releasing the
shutter smoothly. I sold both of my Nikon FE-2 bodies and replaced
them with FA bodies, though they were essentially identical for one
reason - the shutter releases were softer on the FAs, giving me almost
a stop lower possible shutter speed with a particular lens. My Fuji
*Wide* (2 1/4 x 3 1/4 with 65mm lens) was "iffy" at 1/125th and
1/250th was needed for reliability, yet my Mamiya 645 with added
left side handle and bottom plate could easily be hand-held reliably
at 1/30th with a 45mm or 1/60th with a 70mm lens on it. I never could
shoot anything with any feeling of assurance with my Rollei twin-lens
with a 75mm lens at speeds slower than 1/250th-1/500th - it was
just too awkward to hold (I never liked hand-holding Hasselblads
either...). And, I keep being surprised how well I do with my Sony
707 digital camera with its two-handed grip even though I now have
the "shakes" (and the camera doesn't have a stabilizer). Gripability and
shutter release smoothness count for as much as the shutter speed...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Adrian Boliston" <adrian@boliston.co.uk> wrote in message news:51d2k2F1jrh5tU1@mid.individual.net...
>I have recently purchased 3 AF-D Nikkors for my D70s, a 35/2, 50/1.4 &
> 85/1.4. The 85mm came with an excellent metal screw in hood, but the other
> lenses came without hoods. I got myself the HN-3 screw in metal hood for
> the 35mm and I was thinking of getting the HR-2 screw in rubber hood for the
> 50mm (it's what Nikon recommend) but the HN-3 seems to work with this lens.
>
> I'm wondering whether I should simply order a second HN-3 for the 50 as I'm
> pretty sure a metal hood will give better protection to the lens than a
> rubber hood, even though I might risk more flare as it's a shallower hood.
> I have been using the 50 with no hood for the last 2 months and not been too
> affected by flare, so perhaps the HN-3 is a good compromise.
>
> cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk
Even for full frame (film), I use the deep HS-9 (with the very thin
Niko UV) on the 35mm f2 AF and the deep and large HS-7 (with
a standard thickness Hoya UV) on the 50mm f1.4 AF without
problems. With the smaller digital sensor area, even more angle
restricting shades can be used. I use yogurt or other slip-on covers
to keep dust out - with the lens and shade face down in the bag.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"gA" <realty@ualberta.net> wrote in message news:e17th.774168$1T2.276136@pd7urf2no...
> Is it possible to extract JPG's from an AVI video? Whats the
> simplest way? Thank you in advance for your help.
Yes, but...........
If you are using Hi-8 or low-end Mini-DV, forget it. If you
are using high-end 3-CCD Mini-DV (like the Sony VX2100,
Panasonic DVX100a/b, etc.), then you can get tiny prints
or acceptable web images if you shoot non-moving things
and/or deinterlace the video. If you shoot these camcorders
in progressive scan mode (the video can look terrible...),
then you can get better tiny prints or good-sized web images.
Some high pixel count camcorders permit shooting fair-quality
stills, sometimes simultaneously with taping motion video (see
the stills in the sections of my www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs.htm
[these were shot in still mode with a Sony VX2000]). If you
must try to grab stills from motion video, any good video
editor will export stills from the timeline and you can process
these in many good photo editors to deinterlace them, if
necessary...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message news:7x7ivegabl.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> writes:
>> the stills in the sections of my www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs.htm
>> [these were shot in still mode with a Sony VX2000]). If you
>> must try to grab stills from motion video, any good video
> Got any still shots from HDV?
Ah, I was intending to go there, then forgot about it, alas...;-(
720p produces acceptable small prints and good web images
from carefully selected frames. 1080i should look quite decent
if nothing is moving in the frame. 1080p (available only from
HD DVDs) looks good, with 2 megapixels per frame (and
1080i upsampled by my TV to 1080p can look wonderful in
still [freeze] frames on my 42" LCD). I don't have any samples
of these, though, and my "shakes" will probably keep me from
moving to HD camcorders (the images from these need to be
VERY steady so as not to drive one nuts while watching them,
and I hate tripods [and my hand jerks would unfortunately
prevent success with my big, heavy, fluid-head equipped
video tripod anyway...]).
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "gA" <realty@ualberta.net> wrote in message
> news:e17th.774168$1T2.276136@pd7urf2no...
>> Is it possible to extract JPG's from an AVI video? Whats the simplest way?
>> Thank you in advance for your help.
>> - gA
"Just D" <no@spam.please> wrote in message news:Rp8th.38897$iz5.37751@newsfe14.phx...
>
> :) Try this!
>
> http://paul.glagla.free.fr/index_en.htm
>
> Just D.
Hey, neat stuff! Thanks!
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"videocamera" <darryal@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1169881686.250153.38610@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> have any of you experienced an inability to get clean blacks from the
> nikon d1x camera? all the blacks in my shots are fuzzy and hazy. I've
> tried numerous settings inclduding white balancing and still can not
> get clean blacks. any info greatly appreciated.
>
> videocamer
Are you sure you are not using Tiffen filters (they quickly self-fog)
and that your lenses are clean. Either can destroy blacks... Look also
for fungus or oil inside the lens or (MANY) scratches on the surfaces
of the lens. Also, you may be slightly overexposing - but you can
bring the dark tones down in the photo editor, as the other poster
suggested. I tried a D1X (as have MANY others) without finding
this a problem...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Ockham's Razor" <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote in message news:Mencken-04BBD5.17212526012007@news.dsl...
> Nikon is selling their 50mm, 1:1.8 D AF lens for about 110.00.
> Is this a good lens and is it worth the selling price?
YES!!! It is a steal, being both very sharp even at wide stops, without
linear distortion, and cheap! BTW, you may find my Nikkor evaluation
list interesting, at -- http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html
> "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
> carrying a cross."
> Sinclair Lewis
Neat - and likely accurate, unfortunately...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message news:12s2guh44gsdf4e@corp.supernews.com...
>> Which is why I use a lot of fast primes, mostly old manual-focus lenses
>> (24mm f/2, 58mm f/1.2 NOCT, 135mm f/2).
> The 24/2 is pretty much next on my "lens list". What do you think of it,
> in particular used wide open? I feel a need for a wide angle that's
> faster than 2.8, and that seems to be what there is.
I found a couple of 24mm f2s rather low contrast wide open.
The 2.8 is better (though not good at the edges and corners FF,
but maybe good for digital). I did not think Nikon's 28mm f1.4
was outstanding, but the f2.8 AIS is. I did check out Canon's
24mm f1.4, and by f2.8 it was quite good over most of the FF,
a very good lens. BTW, see my Nikkor comparison list, at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html, and also my 17-35
comparison with other Nikkors, at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/wa-zooms.htm
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<dream_ace@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1170227794.011290.119930@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> David Bennet advice is correct. I have spent and tested several lenses
> and found that expensive fast lenses do not mean they are better. For
> example, Nikon 18-35mm f4.5 outperforms the 17-35mm f2.8 in
> resolutions. On top of this, the f2.8 has very weird distortion. This
> is a $400 lens against a $1,200 lens. The faster lens is fast but the
> two stop difference can easily be acheived with the DSLR ISO setting.
> The poor picture quality is just not acceptable. On top of this, the
> fast lens is twice heavier and bulkier. You can see the test results
> here:
>
> http://www.mancha-knight.com/lenstest/ZoPr.htm
>
> All the shots were taken at f5.6.
>
> ~~Eno
Well, as I point out in my Nikkor evaluation list (FF) at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html, samples do vary,
particularly with wide angle zooms. I think you have a poor
sample of the known to be generally superb 17-35mm (see
both the above and this comparison of it with the 18-35 and
several other non-zoom Nikkors in its range, at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/wa-zooms.htm). By f5.6,
most Nikkor wides (except the 14-15mm rectangulars) are
sharp to the corners even FF, and a few are good even
wide-open...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message news:nnPvh.13979$Lx2.1087@newsfe14.phx...
> _nemo_ wrote:
>> On 30 Gen, 21:07, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> Sometimes the twice-as-bright viewfinder image is important.
>> Be careful on this.
>> Viewfinder of some new dslr such as my D200 are designed to show f2.8
>> max, so no improvement on brightness.
>> This affect only preview brightnes and DOF preview, of corse :-)
> Huh??
> The viewfinder is entirely optical...so unless a camera stopped the lens
> down when mounted...which it most assuredly doesn't...your suggestion is
> impossible.
I have noticed this effect with film cameras also - the image brightness
is an interactive relationship between lens and VF designs, and some
lenses show no additional VF brightness between wide open and a
stop or two down (and some pairs of lenses of the same FL and
maximum aperture will give different VF brightnesses on the same
camera).
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message news:nospam.m-m-8B4876.14381830012007@newsread.uslec.net...
>A Nikon 85mm 1.8 is $400.; an 85mm 1.4 is $1100.
>
> Is the extra stop really worth all that extra expense?
No. The 85mm f1.8 AF is a superb lens, sharp to the corners
even wide open, at all focus distances.
> Why not just up
> the ISO to compensate for those shots that really need the speed?
>
> Am I missing something?
No. A little bump in sensitivity (just when would this *really* be
needed...?) should be fine, *if necessary* - but the difference
can also usually be made up with a slightly lower shutter speed
(with repeated frames to assure a sharp one).
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:cUNxh.3242$4H1.1327@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> Saturday I lugged my whole kit on a long hike & ended up shooting
> everything on the 28mm f/2 AI MF and even then because it was in the
> dark forest, I had to boost the ISO for many shots:
> < http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Peninsula/2007-02-03-sanborne-skyline&PG=3&PIC=17 >
> 1/45 f/2 ISO 500
>
> < http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Peninsula/2007-02-03-sanborne-skyline/full-set&PG=11&PIC=64 >
> 1/40 f/2 ISO 800
>
> And the 28/2 AI is a bitch to manually focus especially at around 15
> feet & beyond there's only 1/8 inch turn to infinity.
>
> What I would really like is something like a fantastic 28mm or 33mm for
> use as a standard lens. I'm torn now between these:
> $2?00 28/1.4 AF
> $1460 17-35/2.8
> $429 30mm/1.4 DX Sigma
>
> I currently have a $200 28/2 AI MF which would be $800 if it didn't have
> a big scratch on the front element and really like shooting with it, I
> would be willing to sell that and 2 other lenses to fund the 28/1.4 but
> they are similarly rare on ebay or anywhere. The 17-35 would be OK but
> I'd keep the 28/2 (or get the Sigma 30/1.4) & sell the Sigma 12-24 (at a
> loss) & want a 10.5mm DX fisheye and I've still got that gap up to 70mm
> so I'd ache for a matching 35-70/2.8 & be stuck having to decide which
> behemoths to leave at home for lack of space in my bag... argh.
>
> And as soon as I decide, Nikon is sure to announce a 32/1.4 VR. The only
> way to get that angle with VR is the mediocre 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF
> AF-S VR Zoom which would fill all my focal length needs but it's a slow
> poopy lens.
>
> If I won the lottery, I'd go for these & be set for life:
> $589 10.5mm DX fisheye
> $2?00 28/1.4 AF
> $3?00 58/1.2 AF
>
> Then I'd have this dream kit:
> 10.5mm DX fisheye
> 12-24 Sigma (full frame, super low distortion)
> 28/1.4 AF
> 45/2.8 MF (pancake, rounded bokeh, new)
> 58/1.2 AF
> 104/2.8 VR AF-S Micro
> 70-200 AF-S VR
>
> oh and lets add a wildlife lens...
> (for my 1.4 & 2x AF-S TCs):
> $5000 200-400/4 AF-S VR
>
> ... and some kind of flash system for macro work
> ... and some extension tubes
> ... and
>
> : - )
Lens choice (with good "sequencing") is often frustrating, especially if
particular use-requirements are added (like sharpness with high speed).
You may find this of interest, since I have used many of the lenses you
list, and have rated them (full-frame, for corner performance at the widest
stop to expect good performance for the FL - so many would rate higher
on the smaller digital sensor size) - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html.
Comments on your choices: 10.5mm (appears to have poor corners in
sample photos I've seen, even well stopped down - the MF 16mm *f3.5*
is FAR better, though longer); 28mm f1.4 (somewhat low in contrast at
wide stops, outperformed by the Nikkor 28mm f4 PC, 28-70mm f3.5-4.5,
and 28mm f2.8 *AIS* [which outperforms the f2 wider than about f5.6]);
12-24mm Sigma FF (rather poor - but adequate well stopped down, only
for FF [the Sigma 10-20mm f4 is better, as is the Nikkor 12-24mm]);
45mm f2.8 (if anything like the old flash-Nikkor, good, but not great - the
50mm f1.8 or 1.4 is better at f2.8); 58mm f1.2 (I didn't like it wider than
f5.6 - get the 1.8 or 1.4 instead...); 105mm f2.8 VR (by reputation this
may not be as sharp as the non-VR, and I preferred infinity-focus sharpness
of the MF to the AF version [BTW, I'm selling my MF version...]);
70-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR (by reputation it is superb, but so are all the
80-200mm f2.8 Nikkors [I have one of these to sell...;-]).
How about this: 10-20 Sigma (or 12-24 Nikkor), 35mm f2 Nikkor, 60mm
f2.8 Micro-Nikkor (or 50mm), 105mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor, 70-200/80-200
zoom + short converter? Or, for a small/light lens set, the 24mm f2.8 (or
20mm f2.8), 35mm f2, 60mm f2.8 Micro (or 85mm f1.8), and a 70/75-200/
300mm zoom (especially the VR?) or better yet, the superb Nikkor 180mm
f2.8 AF. All of these (if you select the zoom version carefully...) are excellent
lenses on the small digital sensor. If you go with the excellent but rather large
and heavy 17-35, it is compared with other Nikkors (on FF) at -
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/wa-zooms.htm
Standard TTL flashes work very well for macro if mounted at the front
of the lens with a bracket, pointed directly at the subject (see "bugs", at
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/phun.html - the *relatively* large flash
head makes one flash head look like a soft box to a bug...;-).
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"maya" <maya778899@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:45c8ba1e$0$1345$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> I'm getting ready to purchase a digital camera; for a while was
> considering a point-and-shoot for the time being to save money; however,
> none of them have wide-angle lenses.. and the vast majority of what I
> shoot these days (actually for years now) is with a wide-angle; my
> "normal" lens is a 24mm.. have barely touched my 50mm in the last six
> years or so.. (am putting together a photoblog, would appreciate some
> feedback.. www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog/.. thank you..)
>
> I have been using a Nikon F2AS for about thirty years, so this is where
> I'm coming from.. am considering either Nikon D50, D70, or D80 (is
> it true the D40 has a different lens-mounting system from the others?
> why would they do that?) I think I'm going with Nikon D80.. but not
> 100% sure yet... am traveling to India in about four days (didn't know
> firm travel-date till now, trip is job-related..) so need to make a
> decision double-quick..
>
> this is a big investment and I want to make sure to invest wisely... :)
> thus would appreciate opinions from knowledgeable folks here..
If you ***MUST*** make a quick decision (unfortunate, and you
MUST allow time to check out the gear, particularly any zoom lens,
for defects while you can still exchange it. The D40/50/70/80/100/200
bodies all have DREADFUL viewfinders compared with the F2, which
had one of the best ever, but the D80 and D200 are not as bad as the
others. Avoid the D40 - it doesn't even AF with non "S" lenses (ridiculous!).
None but the D200 will meter with non-AF lenses, but it is the most
expensive of the group. The D80 is the likely best choice for you if price
is an issue, but DO NOT attempt to mount non-AI/AIS lenses on it!
For a single lens, the 18-70 or 18-135mm Nikkors may offer the best
performance for the price, though they are not as good as the best
non-zooms... (the FLs are multiplied by 1.5 to get the 35mm-camera
equivalent FLs, so 18mm = 27mm - but there are very few good shorter
FL lenses available for digital, unfortunately, and all are large and
expensive). You could look into the Sony R-1, which has the equivalent
of a 24-120mm lens...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:874ppys6z0.fld@apaflo.com...
> "Paul Renfree" <prenfree@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>I want to be able to take close ups of spider webs, insects, leaves etc. Can
>>I use a non-macro telephoto lens such as a Nikon 70-300 to do this, or does
>>the telephoto lens need to have a macro setting?
> In general, zoom lenses are not as good as fixed focal length
> lenses when used with devices to allow closer focusing. To get
> a zoom to zoom there have to be a lot of compromises made; one
> effect of that is that with a zoom lense the closest focusing
> distance more likely to be a performance design point, where it
> simply doesn't produce sharp images at closer distances (rather
> than being a matter of what is convenient to engineer in the way
> of a focusing mechanism, even though the lense would still be
> sharp if focused closer).
>
> The effect is that if you buy, for example, a set of extension
> tubes or a closeup lense, either of which will allow closer
> focusing, they will work better with fixed focal length lenses
> than with zooms.
>>What about using a close up lens that screws on to a regular lens ?
> Closeup lenses come in a variety of powers (such as +1, +2, and
> +3 diopter lenses). They can be stacked, so all of those together
> would be a +7 diopter lense.
>
> They also come in two basic designs, one is a single element
> lense and the other is a multi-element lense that is achromatic,
> which is both a significant improvement and a significantly
> higher cost. Also, closeup lenses work best when used with
> longer focal length regular lenses. Hence the effect of a
> +3 diopter closeup lense when used on a 35mm lense is small, and
> is fairly great when used on a 100mm lense.
>
> Extension tubes and bellows are another way to get a particular
> lense to focus closer than it does with normal mounting. In
> some cases the results are quite sharp, and in others it causes
> degradation of the image.
>
> A third method is to use a telextender. A 2x telextender, for
> example, has the effect of doubling the focal length but does
> not change the minimum focusing distance.
>
> Now, to really make life complicated, consider that a standard
> 50mm lense can be reverse mounted in front of another lense, say
> a 100mm focal length, and will perform as an *excellent* +20 diopter
> achromatic closeup lense! And, when used with extension tubes or
> on a bellows it is sometimes a significant improvement to reverse
> mount a regular lense (typically, a "normal" 50mm lense will be
> sharper for closeups when reverse mounted). And, if you use a
> bellows there are many very inexpensive macro lenses to choose
> from because old 50 to 150mm enlarging lenses are excellent macro
> lenses.
>
> You'll need to do some research. Use google and search on the
> term "photomacrography".
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson < http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson >
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Quite good coverage, to which I would add that I don't recommend
stacking close-up lenses (and I don't bother with them, preferring the
superior achromats), bellows generally have too much minimum
extension to be useful for moderate close-ups (I remember when it
was a common, but unused, accessory...), and close-up/achromats
can be successfully used with *moderate* step-down rings - and can
be quite sharp on some zooms well stopped down. Also *some*
combinations of multiples of *some* devices and *some* lenses
can produce very sharp results around f11 - but experimentation is
needed to find out what works (the 200mm f4 Nikkor was particularly
good for this, with a 1.4X teleconverter, extension tube, and achromat,
all being used together for a sharp 3X magnification on film).
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:3pkjs2leap252miogrcrbea2fhpudaj49u@4ax.com...
> Preferably one of the achromatic types (a set of which in a diameter
> suitable to go on the front of a 70-300 costs pretty close to the same
> as a decent macro lens).
You can buy a single 52mm-threaded 3T (strongest) Nikkor achromat for $40 at
www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=158&A=details&Q=&sku=37295&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
I did not see the 62mm that Nikon also made (perhaps Canon still offers large
achromats). You do not need a perfect fit, since a stepping ring can be used
to adapt it a size up or down to fit the lens. Stopped down to f11, the results
should be good, though maybe not quite up to a true macro lens.
> The single-element type has enough chromatic
> aberration to be objctionable, especially with a subject such as a
> spider web which properly lit has high contrast and fine lines.
I think single-element close-up lenses are generally useless - though Nikon
made some curved-element ones that often worked well, particularly on
video cameras.
>>Another option is an extension tube or two.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Wayne
These generally produce poor results with zooms, and even with some
non-zooms. I would favor the achromat over the tubes, especially if
you can find a strong enough one in 62, 67, or 72mm thread mount
(B&H sells stepping ring adapters) - and they retain all the features of
the camera and lens, unlike tubes.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:Dmmyh.59382$wc5.40909@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> You can buy a single 52mm-threaded 3T (strongest) Nikkor achromat for $40 at
>> www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=158&A=details&Q=&sku=37295&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
>> I did not see the 62mm that Nikon also made (perhaps Canon still offers large
>> achromats).
> That's a good deal if it fits your lens(es?), I paid a lot for a 77mm Canon.
Many 70-300mm zooms have a 62 or 67mm front, which a 62mm
achromat will fit (with an adapter for the 67) without vignetting. A
72mm (and probably a 67mm) achromat will fit a lens with 77mm
front. Normally a smaller filter would not work, but a close-up lens will.
>> You do not need a perfect fit, since a stepping ring can be used
>> to adapt it a size up or down to fit the lens. Stopped down to f11, the results
>> should be good, though maybe not quite up to a true macro lens.
>> I think single-element close-up lenses are generally useless
> Think of the cheap kits (several sizes that can be stacked) as training
> wheels, it's an easy way to learn about macro shooting, not a high
> performance solution.
Yes.
> Then you can move up to a real macro lens but
> don't expect to make award winning images. Even a good closeup lens is
> not that great, it's just convenient and fun to put on various lenses.
I disagree. I have made many critically sharp images with achromats
on lenses that work very well with them, so long as the lens is stopped
down to about f11. BTW, the Canon 72mm achromat worked very
well with my 80-200mm f2.8 Nikkor (though it made for a clumsy
macro lens - I preferred more compact lenses with achromats, and
even with converters and tubes added to that - and the results were
often sharper at high magnification than what I could get with "macro"
lenses, which often perform well up to 1:1, but sometimes not well
at 2X or 3X). See an example of a sharp 3X image here.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:hrmyh.2367$o61.1064@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> Paul Renfree wrote:
>> I want to be able to take close ups of spider webs, insects, leaves etc. Can
>> I use a non-macro telephoto lens such as a Nikon 70-300 to do this, or does
>> the telephoto lens need to have a macro setting?
>>
>> What about using a close up lens that screws on to a regular lens ?
> Another possibility is to look for a normal to wide angle non-zoom lens
> designed with what Nikon calls CRC (Close Range Correction). These can
> be close enough for spider webs, big leaves & large fearless insects and
> are useful in other ways.
For relatively large "macro" subjects, this is a good idea - but as you get
close to overcome the large size of the field of the WA lenses, it is too easy
to cast a shadow on the subject. The 28mm f2.8 MF *AIS* Nikkor is the
longest CRC lens with really good close performance, though - but somewhat
too wide for easy use except maybe for flowers. One lens does stand out for
close-up shooting purposes (other than the macro lenses, which also have
distance-compensation to keep performance high over an unusually wide
range of focus distances), and that is the 180mm f2.8 AF Nikkor - it is really
excellent even on a short tube and likely also with an achromat and/or short
tele converter.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gene E. Bloch" <spamfree@nobody.invalid> wrote in message news:mn.3bd47d72d294877f.1980@nobody.invalid...
> Hello, David - it's been a while, and I have worried about you from
> time to time. Glad that you're still kicking...
>
> Good luck in your selling venture.
>
> Sorry about the problems you hinted at above and earlier, when you told
> us you were going to stop posting, way back then. Good luck.
>
> Gino
Thanks. I expect to be kicking for some considerable time
longer - but stopping "kicking/jerking/shaking" is a problem
(among others) for shooting video...;-(
(I do try to laugh at all this nonsense sometimes, though...! ;-)
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message news:1171043253.4746.0@proxy01.news.clara.net...
> David's and Floyd's advice on this are spot on. A macro lens, with
> extension if necessary, may be the best way to go for higher magnification
> and corner to corner quality
I was surprised to find with my trials of many combinations for
2X-3X magnification that my sharpest results came with the
Nikkor 200mm f4 + TC14A + short tube + achromat (for 3X).
There are samples here - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/phun.html,
go to "bugs", especially numbers 4 (tiny orange fly) and 6 (fly)
which were shot with the 200mm, probably at f11 (with a TTL
SB-24 flash mounted at the lens end, pointed at the close-in
subject). While it is not evident in the tiny web image, these
photos are VERY sharp, and hold up well to the corners (no
softening or chromatic problems are evident in the corners).
> Making good use of the zoom he already has is a sensible start point, and if
> he really gets into macro he'll then have experience on which better to base
> any further buying decisions.
>
> Floyd's point about zooms (with about two rather esoteric exceptions) not
> really being good for close work is well made. For this reason (in part)
> using extension tubes with zooms tends to be much less successful than doing
> so with fixed FL lenses, because you are taking the lens even further away
> from its designed optimum range of focus. Also, many zooms cease to become
> true zooms when used with extension: that is, focusing starts to vary with
> zooming, which can mean that you are having to refocus all the time.
>
> Supplementary lenses, however, are a different story. They work by
> presenting the lens an image that _to the lens_ appears further away than
> it really is - so, for example, you could be looking at something three feet
> away and as far as the lens is concerned it is focused at infinity. This
> means that you can use supplementary lenses with zooms and not significantly
> degrade the performance of the zoom, because it is still operating within
> the range of focus distances it was designed for.
>
> What image degradation you do get comes mostly from the supplementary lens
> itself: so get a good one. The achromatic doublets are far better than the
> single element meniscus lenses, and worth the extra cost: not only do they
> avoid introducing (so much) chromatic aberration in the way the single
> elements do, but they are also generally sharper in all other respects too.
> Nikon and Canon - in that order, I feel - make the best ones. You can use
> any maker's supplementary lens, so long as it can be fitted to your primary
> lens.
Good advice above...
> The biggest qualitative problem with doing macros this way tends to be that
> sharpness falls off into the corners: with a good achromatic doublet it is
> nearly as good as the base lens is in the middle, but deteriorates faster to
> the edges. This is not as bad as it sounds: not all, but certianly the
> majority of nature macro subjects tend to feature a central subject
> sourrounded by an out of focus blur of background, so corner sharpness is
> less critical than it is to a landscape or architectural photographer, say.
>
> Peter
See above. Some combinations of lenses and achromats *can* give
top-class high-magnification results over the entire (full 35mm) frame,
if the lens is stopped down to an optimum stop for the combination used.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message news:EoadnZJ0HtR4pVDYnZ2dnUVZ_urinZ2d@comcast.com...
>I recently shot some interiors that came out great, but it would have been
> nice to have a little more "wide." Any suggestions for a WA lens that won't
> get tons of use but has to be sharp?
>
> BTW, the best shots I was getting with my D-70 was using the camera in
> automatic mode with the SB 800 angled up at 45 degrees. Used the exposure
> settings on the flash to control lighting, and got an outstanding shot of a
> room with a fireplace in it. All the lamps glowed, the room was damn near
> perfectly exposed and the fire in the fireplace looks awesome. Every time I
> tried to use other settings and get fancy the exposure fell apart. Auto
> even balanced the lighting between the room and the view out the windows.
> Everything looked natural.
>
> Maybe the TTL in the flash is meant to use in Auto mode.
For the widest view, the Sigma 10-20mm is hard to beat, and its
performance is fairly good, being somewhat (but not hopelessly)
behind that of the Nikkor 12-14mm (best, but not perfect, and
quite expensive). The Sigma has noticeable edge/corner chromatic
problems and illumination roll-off, but sharpness holds up fairly
well into the corners...
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:CMbzh.74695$qO4.4031@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
[...]
> I'm assuming you are comparing to the 18-70? For interiors, distortion
> is important. As I know, you have budget constraints but no problem with
> using a tripod or manual focus.
>
> I'm awaiting delivery of a 10.5mm DX fisheye which can be corrected with
> additional $oftware to a rectalinear view and it seems noone complained
> about sharpness in the reviews.
From what I've seen here, www.pbase.com/image/66538111
and www.pbase.com/ryien/image/67298825/original, the corners
of this lens may not be exceptional (as the FF 16mm f2.8 Nikkor
also were not at wide stops) - but the MF 16mm f3.5 Nikkor was
exceptional even wide open, and even on a TC14A teleconverter.
It was also very free of flare and ghosts. It works well also on digital
cameras.
> For a 12-24 zoom I think it was Tamron [Tokina - see other PF post]
> that came out the best value. If you've got a slew of interior work
> coming the zoom would be useful.
>
> Sorry no specifics, wide rectalinear is a tough target. I'm not familiar
> with any sharp, bargain, 16mm-ish rectalinear nikkor primes.
This is unfortunately true. Even my 15mm f5.6 (VG on FF at f11 1/2)
is so-so on digital, and the 14mm doesn't have a great reputation
for this either...
> As I recall even their classic 20mm does not get rave reviews.
Huh??? The 20mm f2.8 AF/MF is wonderful at f5.6 and smaller, and the
original f3.5 (not the later compact f3.5) and the f4 (if stopped down)
were very good.
> Just hoping to clarify, this is an interesting question.
It is unfortunate that good, affordable, compact FF equivalents of the
20, 24, and 28mm don't exist (well, the 20mm almost counts, being
a not-too-expensive, not-too-large, not TOO slow at a good stop
30mm equivalent...) but, then, Nikon never made an AF inexpensive
105 f2.5 or 135mm f2.8 either...
Zooms sell, even if they rarely perform as well as non-zooms - and
the exceptions are BIG, heavy, and EXPENSIVE.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:D_nzh.17299$ji1.13523@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>I'm awaiting delivery of a 10.5mm DX fisheye which can be corrected
>>>with additional $oftware to a rectalinear view and it seems
>>>noone complained about sharpness in the reviews.
I'm a nut about corner performance. For me, a lens that is not
sharp in the corners at a given stop is not sharp enough except for
those images that do not require good corner sharpness. Many
people seem blissfully unaware of corner/edge performance, no
matter how poor - but I'm not one of them...;-(. Of the WAs made
for digital that I tried myself (the 10-20 and 12-24FF Sigmas, and
the 12-24mm Nikkor), I would consider none "VG" due to iffy
corner performance at all stops - and all are expensive. The 16mm
*f3.5* Nikkor fisheye (with a pleasant wider-than 24mm view
on digital), the 8mm Sigma (rounded frame edges) and the good
Nikkor FF WAs (which are not very WA on digital...) all performed
well on a D2X.
>> From what I've seen here, www.pbase.com/image/66538111
>> and www.pbase.com/ryien/image/67298825/original, the corners
>> of this lens may not be exceptional...
> Agggh, those made me queasy. I've seen much better examples of de-fished
> shots, and of course after de-fishing the corners will be soft so that's
> really not the best use of this lens. It would be hard to judge
> composition through the lens as well. I have a 12mm rectalinear & that's
> plenty wide; too wide for most architectural stuff.
I have the 12mm Voightlander (uh, FS...) for FF, which is surprisingly
sharp, but it does not fit dSLRs unfortunately.
> I'm planning to
> mostly use the 10.5 fisheye for nature shots where the distortion may
> not even be apparent. Anything with straight lines is going to look freaky.
Used with care, the fisheye is an excellent choice for many landscapes.
The trick is to keep long straight horizon lines centered or well broken
up by other picture elements. The fisheye has the advantage of taking
in a wide view without exaggerating near-to-far object size proportions.
(I've gone on trips with only the 16mm - which can work even for city
views...;-)
> More sample shots:
> http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/10_5_28g_dx
There are some very nice ones there, showing the advantages of using
a fisheye...
>> ...may not be exceptional (as the FF 16mm f2.8 Nikkor
>> also were not at wide stops) - but the MF 16mm f3.5 Nikkor was
>> exceptional even wide open, and even on a TC14A teleconverter.
>> It was also very free of flare and ghosts. It works well also on digital
>> cameras.
> OK but that's not really a fisheye on crop digital, just kind of odd
> looking with severe barrel distortion.
Call it a "moderate" fisheye with the expected plusses and minuses,
with a field of view that roughly approximates a 21-22mm lens on digital
due to the curvature (the 24mm FL equivalency holds true only in the
image center).
> I wonder if even the Nikon 12-24 would be sharper than the 18-70 at
> 18mm? Wider yes but sharper?
I don't know. I tried the 12-24 and 18-70 at three different FLs for
each, but did not compare thse two lenses directly. The 18-70 is at least
decent-good at 18mm, even to the corners. I would expect the 12-24
to be at least as good at 18mm, but it is a "so what" FL for interiors...
>> The 20mm f2.8 AF/MF is wonderful at f5.6 and smaller, and the
>> original f3.5 (not the later compact f3.5) and the f4 (if stopped down)
>> were very good.
> OK, maybe this would work for the OP. A little less wide but sharper and
> probably a decent price if it's old MF.
A good used Nikkor 20mm f2.8 AF should not run too much, and
on the smaller frame, should perform well slightly wider than f5.6.
Still not exciting, or cheap, but...
> It ought to do better than a
> 12-24 zoom but I think the 17-35/2.8 is equal but an expensive beast as
> you note below. I've also got a bargain grade used one of these coming
> in the mail, we'll see if it's not damaged performance wise.
Good luck - these do appear to vary (I checked out an excellent one
(at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/wa-zooms.htm), but the range
is limited. How about the 17-55mm f2.8 Nikkor for dSLRs - I hear
this one is very good (though, again, not very wide...).
>> It is unfortunate that good, affordable, compact FF equivalents of the
>> 20, 24, and 28mm don't exist
> That works out to 13, 16 and 18mm and no I don't think any rectalinear
> 'primes' are available in that range.
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Julian Vrieslander" <julianvREMOVE_THIS_PART@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:julianvREMOVE_THIS_PART-C7A765.21470510022007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
> In article <eqksps$1g7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>> For the widest view, the Sigma 10-20mm is hard to beat, and its
>> performance is fairly good, being somewhat (but not hopelessly)
>> behind that of the Nikkor 12-[2]4mm (best, but not perfect, and
>> quite expensive). The Sigma has noticeable edge/corner chromatic
>> problems and illumination roll-off, but sharpness holds up fairly
>> well into the corners...
> Hi David - long time, no see...
Likewise, I'm sure...! ;-)
> My experience with the Sigma is opposite of yours. I tried two samples
> on a D2X. Neither showed any significant chromatic aberration anywhere
> in the frame. Both were remarkably sharp near frame center - as good as
> I have seen on any lens. But both were awful on the right third of the
> frame. Really soft, visible even on an 8x10. Something was probably
> decentered.
>
> I have seen images from other samples of this lens which looked
> reasonably sharp across the frame, so there are apparently good ones,
> too.
Yes, I think I tried one. There was good symmetry of aberrations
around the frame (opposite edges and all four corners). If I were
to buy one in the $500 range (I'm not going to, nor will I buy the
too-expensive Nikkor), I would choose the Sigma 10-20mm (or
*possibly* the Tokina...). As I've pointed out before, the most
variable quality lens samples are among the zooms that include
wide angle (see my Nikkor lens evaluation list, at
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html).
> Did Nikon make a 12-14, or did you intend to type "Nikkor 12-24"?
;-) - corrected above...
> I have a sample of the 12-24. It does show less vignetting than the Sigma
> 10-20. It's actually not quite as sharp in the center as the two Sigmas
> that I tried (but close). But those Sigma samples did not perform as
> well in the sides and corners as the Nikkor.
> --
> Julian Vrieslander
This is not uncommon. Some lens makers optimize the center
performance at the expense of the 1/2 or near-corner performance,
assuming that many people see and judge a lens only by its sharpest
part - and since most people nearly center "the subject" near the
image center (forgetting that the whole image area is the subject),
this works to make the lens appear sharper to them. Some of us
know better, though...;-)
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Julian Vrieslander" <julianvREMOVE_THIS_PART@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:julianvREMOVE_THIS_PART-1EA596.19033610022007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
> In article <EoadnZJ0HtR4pVDYnZ2dnUVZ_urinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> If you can get a good sample, the Sigma 10-20 is a terrific lens. More
> range at the short focal lengths than the other wide-zoom alternatives.
It is quite remarkably wide, and not a bad performer (not a lot short
of the more expensive and less wide Nikkor...).
> But I recommend buying from a local dealer that will let you test the
> lens before buying, or who will agree to let you return or exchange a
> bad one.
Excellent advice! All lenses vary from sample to sample, but with the
zooms varying more and zooms that include WA varying the most
(see -- http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html - included are
the number of samples tried of each lens, and the range of performance
[see the 35-105,, MF and the 35-200mm for extreme examples...]).
> I tried two samples of the 10-20. Both were incredibly sharp
> at the center, but significantly soft on the right side. I've read
> reports from other buyers who saw the same thing. Since the lens was
> purchased from B&H, I could not exchange the second sample - they only
> allowed a refund. At that point, I decided to never buy another lens
> via mail order. Local dealers did not have stock on the Sigma or the
> Tokina 12-24, so I got a Nikon 12-24. It's fine, but I would have liked
> the extra 2mm on the Sigma.
I've had good luck going through multiple samples of the same lens
at B&H - maybe you got the "wrong" salesman (or maybe it was my
tax number, indicating "pro"?). I tried three samples of the 24-120
VR before giving up (not defective, apparently - just not very good,
and I'm sorry I sold my good non-VR version to buy the VR!).
> From this experience (and others) I'm led to believe that
> sample-to-sample quality variations are significant in current lenses,
> at least when they are subject to the extraordinary resolution
> capabilities of high-megapixel SLRs. Caveat emptor.
> --
> Julian Vrieslander
Yes. I tell people, "Buy from a dealer that will take returns, and TEST
SOON AFTER BUYING - and that should happen before having fun
shooting with the lens (otherwise you may be stuck taking pictures with
that lens that all show the same problems). Do not assume that new lenses
are free of defects!"
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:w6%zh.5533$MN.1326@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>>Paul Furman wrote:
[...]
>> The 16mm
>> *f3.5* Nikkor fisheye (with a pleasant wider-than 24mm view
>> on digital), the 8mm Sigma (rounded frame edges) and the good
>> Nikkor FF WAs (which are not very WA on digital...) all performed
>> well on a D2X.
> 8mm Sigma, wow, interesting, some sample images:
> http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/8_4_ex_circular_fisheye
Neat, huh? ;-)
>>>I'm planning to mostly use the 10.5 fisheye for nature shots where the
>>>distortion may not even be apparent. Anything with straight lines is
>>>going to look freaky.
>> Used with care, the fisheye is an excellent choice for many landscapes.
>> The trick is to keep long straight horizon lines centered or well broken
>> up by other picture elements. The fisheye has the advantage of taking
>> in a wide view without exaggerating near-to-far object size proportions.
> Thanks for the tips.
I forgot to add that a common problem if you must keep a long horizon
line in the frame center so it doesn't bend is what to do with the sky that
now occupies 1/2 of the photo. You can later crop some of it, or wait
for nice clouds, or shoot from under trees, etc. to cover some of it...
>> (I've gone on trips with only the 16mm - which can work even for city
>> views...;-)
> I really like the field of view at 12-24.
> No problem heading out with only that lens.
Yes - it is a nice range, and would cover95% of shooting for me (unless
I were out with another lens...;-).
>> Call [the 16mm fisheye] a "moderate" fisheye with the expected
>> plusses and minuses,
> A fisheye is already of pretty limited use, this is even less so, very
> unusual, very few situations where it would really be desirable. Maybe
> very handy for nature though.
I think it is a good "in-between" type of lens, falling between the
characteristics of a rectangular-perspective WA lens and a fisheye.
The view is nice for many things and is very "kind" to rounded subjects,
like people.
>> with a field of view that roughly approximates a 21-22mm lens on digital
>> due to the curvature (the 24mm FL equivalency holds true only in the
>> image center).
> Hmm, that's an interesting way of looking at it. I guess the edges of a
> fisheye are a wider FL than the stated/center FL. So the 10.5 fisheye
> might be an average 8mm or some such? Maybe average is the wrong word,
> maybe it's field of view in the corners and once you de-fish, those
> corners are clipped and you are back to the stated focal length?
Something like that. The differences are in the perspective types
caused by off-axis magnifications. Spherical and rectangular perspective
lenses are rated for FL the same way in the center of the image, but
rotating a super-wide rectangular-perspective lens causes once-centered
image elements to increase in size when moved off axis, most noticeable
toward the corners. A spherical-perspective lens rotated causes
once-centered image elements to decrease somewhat in size (a kinder
thing to do to people's heads! ;-) People actually see in spherical
perspective, though most people don't think they do... (see my article
on it at http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#perspective).
Another perspective type exists that would probably best fit some
needs, if cropped slightly - the orthographic projection, in which, as I
understand it, image elements remain constant in size as the camera
is turned (the 10mm OP-Nikkor is of this type).
> Trying to wrap my head around this whole fisheye thing.
>
[...]
> It's good to have these things in mind when shopping & browsing around
> though, thanks for that idea.
Oh, lenses, lenses, lenses........! 8^)
--
David Ruether
DRuether@twcny.rr.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:k22Ah.21602$zH1.6210@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>David Ruether wrote:
>> The [fisheye] view is nice for many things and is very "kind" to
>> rounded subjects, like people.
> OK, good point. Here's a fun one:
> http://www.pbase.com/beaucamera/image/65400485
;-) - but the table looks better than it would with a even a
less wide super-wide rectangular-perspective view lens
(since it isn't shot straight on) - but the nearly straight-on
view does reduce the perspective differences somewhat...
>> The differences are in the perspective types caused
>> by off-axis magnifications. Spherical and rectangular perspective
>> lenses are rated for FL the same way in the center of the image, but
>> rotating a super-wide rectangular-perspective lens causes once-centered
>> image elements to increase in size when moved off axis, most noticeably
>> toward the corners. A spherical-perspective lens rotated causes
>> once-centered image elements to decrease somewhat in size (a kinder
>> thing to do to people's heads! ;-) People actually see in spherical
>> perspective, though most people don't think they do... (see my article
>> on it at http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#perspective).
>> Another perspective type exists that would probably best fit some
>> needs, if cropped slightly [where most of the fisheye image edge
>> "crushing" occurs] - the orthographic projection, in which, as I
>> understand it, image elements remain constant in size as the camera
>> is turned (the 10mm OP-Nikkor is of this type).
> Hmmm, here's a good diagram of the difference (scroll down):
> http://www.nital.it/experience/fisheye2.php
Thanks - this is quite good.
>>>Trying to wrap my head around this whole fisheye thing.
I used to have a 6mm Nikkor - now THAT is wrapping your
head around fisheye images since it could shoot both in front of
AND behind me at the same time! (See
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/phun.html, places, 2nd image
[the floor the camera is sitting on surrounds the rest] and the sky
around me at http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/whatever.html.)
--
David Ruether
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
Go to: More Posts - Four
Go to: More Posts Index
Go to: Articles Index
Go to: David Ruether Photography