It depends whether you want them to have contacts so that you can aperture control from the camera body (more expensive) or 'dumb' tubes (which can be very cheap). The earlier post from today looks like a promising candidate for the former... link

Cheers

Thanks everyone for the comments - Opethian, the borders were not added 'in camera' but with Photoshop elements. Normally the last thing I do is add a border to any pics I process. Under the 'image' menu tab there's an option to 'resize canvas' (rather than resizing the whole pic) and I just add a white extension to the pic on all sides. I find that if I am putting a border on an uncropped pic, then I add 200 pixels all round (normally white); if I have cropped the frame then reduce the added pixels accordingly to taste

Japers45 - I agree with you about the rowers! I dread to think if they had been out this weekend... they may have had to cope with a spot of ice if so... (it was proper freezing!)

Regards

I like these and the style you have been developing - and your last set too! and I quite like converging verticals in the right circumstances... makes me want to pull out my 10-20 and go for a wander...

Regards

Hello all. I thought I might take the opportunity to post some seasonal shots. It has been proper freezing this last couple of days but these were taken a couple of weeks ago when it was merely chilly - but bright at least... These were shot with the K5 and a second hand Sigma 70-200 which I have recently acquired (the HSM but non-OS version) - it is a pretty impressive piece of kit IMO...

1. Rowers in the mist (on the Thames below Ham House)




2. Frosty Fence




3. Chilled Pond




4. Swan the Duck Wrangler!




5. Flared Geese




6. Passing Gull




Hope you like these, any C&C welcome. These were all taken in my usual haunt of Richmond Park and surrounds... if I can stand the cold I shall pop out early again tomorrow and see what's occurring As usual, there are more shots on flickr.

Regards

I rather like the thought of the DA 550 , although (a large) part of me wishes it were to be a DA* - although if it were I suspect I would never be able to afford it... I'm gonna start saving my pennies now in any case

It certainly looks like the moon and the focus looks okay, although I also think it is a little too dark. You could rectify this with some post processing... and that would probably yield a decent shot I reckon The moon is a strange thing to photograph because whilst it is night-time the moon is actually very bright. I find I get decent results by setting the camera to spot-metering, and then fixing the exposure parameters (shutter speed, ISO and f-stop number) by metering off of a bright part of the moon and locking that exposure, and then seeing how that looks on the back screen of the camera after taking a picture and adjusting with the +/- ev adjustment function for another shot as necessary. The f-stop and/or ISO can be adjusted to give a faster shutter speed if shooting hand-held (smaller number = bigger aperture = faster shutter speed). Definitely worth persisting with I think.

Regards

I get the impression that they hold their value pretty well - the lens does have an excellent reputation (I am very tempted to get one myself at some point (when I have more cash)).

SRS currently have one in their used equipment list at £899 ( link), and from a pretty cursory search this is a pretty competitive price I think. You may get lucky on ebay but with SRS you can certainly buy with confidence. They will probably give you a trade in price on your Oly gear but it may not be as much as you would get if you sold privately...

Regards

I adore the pics of Nick Brandt, and assumed he must use one of the 'mainstream' FF digital cameras but actually he uses a Pentax 67ii:

link

and I always enjoy looking through Chris Willson's blog and galleries - he posts on here occasionally too. He used to use a Pentax 67 but now uses a 645D:

link

Both pretty inspirational IMO

Regards

I always use the OME53 on whatever camera I am using and I also wear glasses all the time. However, I find that with the eyepiece fitted it is not so easy to read the information at the bottom of the viewfinder, and have to do a little ocular gymnastics to see what it is displaying or to check right into the corners of the viewfinder. I think this is because the glasses force my eye a little distance away from the eyepiece rubber than the design really assumes. However the display is of course magnified so once i do have it in sight it is very easy to read , and I still prefer the magnified viewfinder to the regular one, especially for focussing etc.

Don't know if that helps. Best bet might be to see if you can find a camera shop with an eyepiece magnifier in stock and see if you can try one out.

I like these - especially the way you have captured the textures on the ground. The first two have that smoothed tide-out effect and the last has a much more rugged feel to it. Is the last one a mono shot with a light sepia tone, or is it a colour pic (maybe it's my eyes:shock - I rather like it either way...

Regards