Not that, either.

It doesn't smell. And I was looking straight down from above the flower spike.

Steve

For a £20 new lens, that's not bad at all.

It might be better to ask your questions in the Mirrorless Cameras section. But since I'm here, here are some thoughts.

I don't have the Q10/05 but can confirm that Q and Q-S1 bodies with 03 'toy' fisheye lens do not give the Morse code sounds you describe. Do you have AF and the focus the combination bleep switched on in the Q10? If so, it might just be a strange and harmless quirk of the Q10 when using a lens that cannot autofocus.

MF by looking at the screen is indeed a pain with the Q series. The 03 'toy' fisheye became usable for me when I found that someone had calibrated the focus distance marks on the lens and put the results online. It's now a simple matter of judging distance to subject, choosing appropriate distance mark and letting the large DOF from small aperture and small sensor take care of having the right things in focus. If might perhaps be worth spending some time calibrating the 05 then using the same focus technique rather than trying to use the screen. Don't be surprised if some distance marks on the 05 focus beyond infinity, they certainly do on the 03.

Good luck!

Steve

Nope. Keep guessing!

Steve

The action shots are really good, plenty of energy and excitement. But my favourite is No. 2. Human and horse looking into each other's eyes - almost as if they are in love (perhaps they are...). Well spotted and perfectly framed.

Steve

John, Bill - thanks for the comments. Interesting that you've both gone for the first. That's the one I would have on the wall (not that permission would ever be granted...). However, the second is what I'd choose for an illustration in a field guide or textbook. Different pictures for different purposes.

As for having trouble seeing something so small, I only noticed it because it moved!

Steve

Started out photographing beauty in the garden when this beast appeared. It worked its way up a flower spike then - wonder of wonders - it posed near the top against a decent background. Here is the result.

Comments etc. welcome as usual. And a commendation for anyone who can identify the flower .








Steve

Well deserved recognition! Hope all goes well. And remember - they asked you, you're the expert and you're doing them a favour so anything you say and do (within reason...:mrgreen will be appreciated.

A few thoughts based on having given (and been on the receiving end of) many, many presentations and demonstrations of all sorts through work and elsewhere.

1. Find out what the club wants and aim accordingly. Are they a 'sit back and be entertained' bunch? Do they prefer an interactive or Q&A approach? Are they all macro novices or packed with experienced people? etc. etc.

2. Time will go quicker then you think. Be selective, don't try to cover too much. Covering a few things well is better than trying to be comprehensive and rushing everything. They can always asked you back next year to cover the rest!

3. Have a clear, logical structure and stick to it. It's remarkably easy to lose your way or for the mind to go blank, even when you're well used to doing these things, so put your key points in a prompt sheet 'just in case'. And it's always a good idea - for you as well as for them - to tell the audience what your're going to cover before launching into a presentation.

4. Easy to say, but ... relax and enjoy . If you're enjoying it, your audience probably is, too.

Hope that helps.

Steve

Very good indeed . Composition, focus, lighting excellent. The Painted Lady might look better with a dark background, but you can't tell a butterfly where to stand.

Isn't the cornflower a scabious and the bracken flower a bramble (blackberry) flower?

I'll back your enthusiasm for K3 + DA*300mm + 1.4TC. Works well for me, too.

Steve

Yes, that's it. The eyes are now drawn to the eyes (if you see what I mean) and to the superb detail in the face, rather than to the yellow background.

A daddy long legs is the same thing here, and has been since I was a kid. They always seemed to have a random number of legs, depending on what other children (not me, of course...) had done to them. Never tried to photograph one, perhaps I'll have a go later in the year when they emerge from nowhere and stagger across the lawn.

Steve

Yes, 2, 3 and 5 for me too.

2 has enough blur to suggest movement but successfully avoids the 'sea of milk' effect that I really, really dislike.
5 manages seems to show land, sea and sky as different aspects of the same thing. Thought provoking.
3 is deeply mysterious. There's an impression of diagonal lines (even though there are none) which, to me at least, conveys a sense of movement through the picture.

Hope that makes sense!

Steve