All Forum Comments
Comment by petrochemist posted on What do people prefer to use rigid plastic or collapsible rubber lens hoods at 15/03/2011 - 12:49
petrochemist wrote:
The Helios bellows even have an aperture linkage to stop down the lens (no contacts though).
Correction It's my Panagor set that have the aperture linkage not the Helios. The Panagor also fits on the K100d with out needing an extension tube to clear the flash. The Helios bellows even have an aperture linkage to stop down the lens (no contacts though).
However the Helios has a movable tripod mount...
They seem determined to ensure neither is an outright winner on features so I can just sell the other set!
Comment by petrochemist posted on Bellows advice please at 11/03/2011 - 23:42
fatspider wrote:
I think they'll struggle to sell that 10-17 fisheye for £399, its only £10 more brand new from SRS
I was having a play with one at Focus and I have to say I am very tempted despite reviews claiming it suffers from quite bad CA.
The latest shot in my portfolio shows the extent of the CA your likely to get with this. It's an extreme close up but the top corners show high contrast edges of light & dark. The only PP done has been cropping & levels so CA's not been adjusted at all.I think they'll struggle to sell that 10-17 fisheye for £399, its only £10 more brand new from SRS
I was having a play with one at Focus and I have to say I am very tempted despite reviews claiming it suffers from quite bad CA.
In my view not a significant draw back - it's a great fun lens!
I ended up paying £300 for mine second hand (Mint) having narrowly missed out on several others around £250 and have seen quite a few second hand for £350. So the used market must be fairly good, even so I'm guessing their hoping for someone who hasn't checked the new market (or they haven't)
Comment by petrochemist posted on Mifsuds have a few used lenses for sale at 11/03/2011 - 09:10
If your lucky the rear mount of the pentacon will just be held on by a few screws allowing you to take it off and replace with a PK variant.
I've heard of many people doing this sort of remounting, and suspect one of my lenses (with its original CY mount missing) was from a failed attempt at this - I hope to use it on a T/S bellows if enough is missing.
I've heard of many people doing this sort of remounting, and suspect one of my lenses (with its original CY mount missing) was from a failed attempt at this - I hope to use it on a T/S bellows if enough is missing.
Comment by petrochemist posted on Pentax manual K mount required at 09/03/2011 - 21:00
I generally find just holding the flash in my left hand & camera in the right works OK. (Bounce flash can sometimes be better with a suitably placed reflector/card)
Extension tubes/bellows aren't necessary to do macro with a reversed lens, but they do give you more magnification. If your reversing the lens directly onto the extension tubes, or only using manual aperture don't work about the tubes with contacts - there only needed for auto aperture (which won't work with reversed lenses).
Using reversed lens stacked on another lens (the way I usually do macro these days) you have the aperture control of the normally mounted lens (which can be auto) and potentially also the auto focus (though the best way to focus is by moving the camera).
The focusing rail is great with the tripod, but I've been too lazy and just handhold, which works OK with a p-TTL flash and multiple trys.
Stacking can help with handheld macro, but the steps tend to be more random so the results aren't as good as when it's done properly with the rail.
Hopefully I'll get round to trying out some of my bellows tomorrow (& the focusing rail too, if I can fin a suitable aria mount for it) Best to make some use of being off work (I had a White balance/focus upgrade for my left eye yesterday)
Extension tubes/bellows aren't necessary to do macro with a reversed lens, but they do give you more magnification. If your reversing the lens directly onto the extension tubes, or only using manual aperture don't work about the tubes with contacts - there only needed for auto aperture (which won't work with reversed lenses).
Using reversed lens stacked on another lens (the way I usually do macro these days) you have the aperture control of the normally mounted lens (which can be auto) and potentially also the auto focus (though the best way to focus is by moving the camera).
The focusing rail is great with the tripod, but I've been too lazy and just handhold, which works OK with a p-TTL flash and multiple trys.
Stacking can help with handheld macro, but the steps tend to be more random so the results aren't as good as when it's done properly with the rail.
Hopefully I'll get round to trying out some of my bellows tomorrow (& the focusing rail too, if I can fin a suitable aria mount for it) Best to make some use of being off work (I had a White balance/focus upgrade for my left eye yesterday)
Comment by petrochemist posted on Macro shopping list needed at 09/03/2011 - 19:09
I'd guess the 4th was the one by your son. Not from a quality point of view - the subject matter would appeal more to my kids!
Comment by petrochemist posted on I'm back (kind of) with a little guessing game at 01/03/2011 - 12:47
Algernon wrote:
I don't think you will find anything
else in a K Mount anyway.
Second hand it's certainly not difficult, BPM and others made bellows with interchangable, lens/camera fittings. This allows practically any lens to be mounted on any SLR for macro work (in manual mode). There are also new Chinese made PK mount bellows on e-bay...I don't think you will find anything
else in a K Mount anyway.
I got my BPM bellows wiith Nikon adapters, but ended up getting a Helios double extension bellows (PK fit) before I tracked down some cheap BPM mounts. The Helios bellows even have an aperture linkage to stop down the lens (no contacts though).
There are no optical elements in the bellows, so if you're only using them occationally, as long as thet're light light & stable even cheap ones should give great images.
Comment by petrochemist posted on Bellows advice please at 24/02/2011 - 13:31
Smeggypants wrote:
Wonder if the Bubble Telescope comes in K mount ? And if there's a macro version
Smeggy, I'm guessing your fingers missed - Did you mean Hubble?Wonder if the Bubble Telescope comes in K mount ? And if there's a macro version
In which case you could get an adapter, but getting to the lens proves expensive .
Macro is definitely out!
Comment by petrochemist posted on mirror lens at 13/02/2011 - 09:40
cameraboy wrote:
well said John where do these strange phrases come from i was always taught from books or friends DEPTH OF FIELD not depth of focus etc
Depth of focus is a proper photography term, but it differs from depth of field.well said John where do these strange phrases come from i was always taught from books or friends DEPTH OF FIELD not depth of focus etc
IIRC It refers to the camera side of the lens, being the region in which the sensor/film can move without adversely affecting the results.
Comment by petrochemist posted on Interesting article on f1.4 versus f1.8 at 10/02/2011 - 17:49
Algernon wrote:
The photographer who took the 1st photograph would probably be the owner of the copyright if anyone owned it, but it would probably be from just one position.
I'm basing this on the photograph taken in the 60's of Christine Keeler sitting the wrong way round on a chair with her arms on the back of it. The photographer later successfully sued someone for using the same pose. It was stated in AP at the time that an earlier photo with the same pose had already been published in AP, but the problem was proving that the photographer who took the CK photo had actually seen it.
This is ridiculous.The photographer who took the 1st photograph would probably be the owner of the copyright if anyone owned it, but it would probably be from just one position.
I'm basing this on the photograph taken in the 60's of Christine Keeler sitting the wrong way round on a chair with her arms on the back of it. The photographer later successfully sued someone for using the same pose. It was stated in AP at the time that an earlier photo with the same pose had already been published in AP, but the problem was proving that the photographer who took the CK photo had actually seen it.
The pose is seen so frequently it must be public domain, or will we find that standing, walking etc are also copyright poses?
Comment by petrochemist posted on What's wrong with some people at 31/01/2011 - 09:47
(Basically a strip of black craft foam, with self adhesive Velcro fastenings, made big enough to fit round my 600mm mirror lens, or with more overlap any of my smaller telephotos - cost ~£3)
Rigid lens hoods are better if they fit reversed on the lens, or are integral to he design, but otherwise are too bulky.
Mind you the standard rubber ones aren't much good for long telephoto's...