All Forum Comments
johnwhit wrote:
John
yeah I'm lousy at math...Don wrote:
lastly is close focussing.... the 16-45 falls just a hair short of being a true 1-1 macro.... much better than the 18-55.
0.26x is hardly a hair short of 1:1 more like 1:4lastly is close focussing.... the 16-45 falls just a hair short of being a true 1-1 macro.... much better than the 18-55.
John
but stop it down for dof, and it will be sharp from about a couple inches......
Comment by Don posted on Is there a cheap way to go wider than 18mm? at 18/10/2010 - 22:26
Hypocorism wrote:
Do you know any explanation or solution for the silly x times Zoom on P&S marketing v's mm focal lengths for DSLRs, and also a way out of the Crop v FF formats confusion toward a more mainstream consumer friendly consistency?
.R.
I'm not exactly the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. I tend to not over think things.johnriley wrote:
Unfortunately photographers have never taken to measuring lenses in terms of FOV, usually expressed in degrees. It has been mooted over the years but never caught on.
I for one appreciate that manufacturers put the angles in their lens specs tech sheets, but can understand that numbers like that could unlikely ever be mainstream acceptable.Unfortunately photographers have never taken to measuring lenses in terms of FOV, usually expressed in degrees. It has been mooted over the years but never caught on.
Do you know any explanation or solution for the silly x times Zoom on P&S marketing v's mm focal lengths for DSLRs, and also a way out of the Crop v FF formats confusion toward a more mainstream consumer friendly consistency?
.R.
If I can't back up any further, I swap to a wider lens.
Problem solved.
Comment by Don posted on Is there a cheap way to go wider than 18mm? at 18/10/2010 - 19:47
I'm thinking that focus ring will work well with video..... tooo bad it isn't an "A" lens....
I will give it a shot if he renews the ad... and takes a lower offer... too close to Christmas for a guy with kids to be spending on himself right now...
I will give it a shot if he renews the ad... and takes a lower offer... too close to Christmas for a guy with kids to be spending on himself right now...
Eastridge wrote:
Thanks guys. I didn't think there was an easy answer but you have come up with some options, as it's only for fun especially will consider the 'panaorama' stiching and fish eye convertor options.
Is 16mm (it's the 16-45 I'd consider) much wider than 18? If I shoot the 18-55 at 18 as opposed to 20 it doesn't seem to get that much more? I was thinking I'd need to go to 12 to be noticably different?
about the same difference as going from 28mm to 24 mm in 35mm terms....Thanks guys. I didn't think there was an easy answer but you have come up with some options, as it's only for fun especially will consider the 'panaorama' stiching and fish eye convertor options.
Is 16mm (it's the 16-45 I'd consider) much wider than 18? If I shoot the 18-55 at 18 as opposed to 20 it doesn't seem to get that much more? I was thinking I'd need to go to 12 to be noticably different?
seriously the main advantages of the 16-45 over the 18-55 are sharpness wide open, slightly wider view.. constant aperture for studio lights and close focussing...
then there is distortion which the 16-45 controls better meaning easier stitching panoramics is easier...
lastly is close focussing.... the 16-45 falls just a hair short of being a true 1-1 macro.... much better than the 18-55.
Comment by Don posted on Is there a cheap way to go wider than 18mm? at 18/10/2010 - 12:53
alun wrote:
Getting back to the OP's topic, one other thing that a longer focal length gives you is a more relaxed subject; the closer the camera is, the less 'natural' they will be, pro models not withstanding.
another factor..... for tightly cropped shots, the longer focal lengths allow you to get your lights and reflectors closer to the subjectGetting back to the OP's topic, one other thing that a longer focal length gives you is a more relaxed subject; the closer the camera is, the less 'natural' they will be, pro models not withstanding.
Comment by Don posted on Best Focal Length for Portraits? at 18/10/2010 - 00:20
looks like the k5 and 645 d are coming to London Drugs in Canada.
the kr and k5 to Henry's Cameras.
the kr and k5 to Henry's Cameras.
Comment by Don posted on K-5 in Canada. at 18/10/2010 - 00:07
pentaxian450 wrote:
As I said, the more time I spend in front of the computer fixing up pictures, the less time left to take pictures. I know every photo needs PP, but I try to keep it as short as possible. I used to do the same in the wet darkroom. Life is too short to spend most of it in front of a computer screen.
You're a wise man.As I said, the more time I spend in front of the computer fixing up pictures, the less time left to take pictures. I know every photo needs PP, but I try to keep it as short as possible. I used to do the same in the wet darkroom. Life is too short to spend most of it in front of a computer screen.
Me, on the other hand...
I often have video projects crunching away on one computer, Photos on another, and find myself popping into my favorite sites in between edits... I work at home. I live in the country. In one of the coldest inhabited places on the planet.... My web browser is my window to the world... and a vital link to friends and family.
Comment by Don posted on Best Focal Length for Portraits? at 18/10/2010 - 00:05
hefty1 wrote:
I'm another lacking in imagination - I've been known as Hefty since I was a nipper and it's stuck with me all my life. I was a freakishly large child, reaching the height of 6'5" at the age of 12 and built like the proverbial brick outhouse - hence the name.
being unusually small for my age, at twelve, I'd have been just barely tall enough to I'm another lacking in imagination - I've been known as Hefty since I was a nipper and it's stuck with me all my life. I was a freakishly large child, reaching the height of 6'5" at the age of 12 and built like the proverbial brick outhouse - hence the name.
....
Comment by Don posted on So why did you choose your user name? at 17/10/2010 - 23:28
Nice work.
Question?
Have you tried post processing the images to re-create the look of photographic work/gear of the time?
Question?
Have you tried post processing the images to re-create the look of photographic work/gear of the time?
Comment by Don posted on Back to the 1940s at 17/10/2010 - 23:12
sheets.
Curtians.
Table cloths.
fabric..
painted wall
anything works.