All Forum Comments
Comment by photo*ist posted on Why not... at 27/11/2006 - 19:53
A 16-45mm, a 50-200mm, and next a 10D. Wow! I'm envious, did you win the lotto or something Ted? I know you are going to enjoy the 50-200mm. It is so small and light that it is a real pleasure to use as a walk-about lens. Good idea of putting it on the 10D.
WHOO HOO for you TED!!!
Let us know how you like them.
Regards
Drew
WHOO HOO for you TED!!!
Let us know how you like them.
Regards
Drew
Comment by photo*ist posted on getting ready to buy some new glass at 03/12/2006 - 06:00
Quote:
I think that is what I have written, but slightly differently. I guess how one achieves 'stopped down metering' differs somehat from body to body and person to person. I simply use the 'green' button atop my D. I'm sure that the DOF and AE-L buttons probably work on the istD too, but I haven't tried.
It is very odd that, when using the pre-A lenses in Av mode, they do stop down . . . too late . . . after the exposure is made at full aperture. I can't fathom why.
Cheers,
CRIKEY! Here I go again reading at 60, absorbing at 20. I was motivated to pipe up because I didn't feel that M lenses really "worked" much at all using the Av mode and then because I assumed that was the way you did it, I thought I would "help out" with my wooden nickle's worth. You are absolutely right and I apologize Peter, you had said the very same thing indeed and I just did not read properly at all. photo*ist wrote:
Here's more living and learning Peter. All non-A lenses work fine in the Manual Mode (and Manual focus) with stop down metering using either the DOF Preview btn or the AE-L btn. As you say, using them in Av mode doesn't work unless you only want to shoot wide open. At least that is how it works on my *ist Ds.
Drew
Drew,Here's more living and learning Peter. All non-A lenses work fine in the Manual Mode (and Manual focus) with stop down metering using either the DOF Preview btn or the AE-L btn. As you say, using them in Av mode doesn't work unless you only want to shoot wide open. At least that is how it works on my *ist Ds.
Drew
I think that is what I have written, but slightly differently. I guess how one achieves 'stopped down metering' differs somehat from body to body and person to person. I simply use the 'green' button atop my D. I'm sure that the DOF and AE-L buttons probably work on the istD too, but I haven't tried.
It is very odd that, when using the pre-A lenses in Av mode, they do stop down . . . too late . . . after the exposure is made at full aperture. I can't fathom why.
Cheers,
Now Peter, please "help me out"...the door that is.
Humbly (but still barely smiling)
Drew P.
Comment by photo*ist posted on ME super lenses on a digital SLR??? at 16/11/2006 - 02:30
Quote:
All previous 'K' mount lenses will also work using Manual exposure mode and stopped down metering to set the shutter speed. These lenses will also work in Av mode, but the picture will be taken at full (wide open) aperture, the lens aperture does not stop down until after the image is taken for some obscure reason.
,
Here's more living and learning Peter. All non-A lenses work fine in the Manual Mode (and Manual focus) with stop down metering using either the DOF Preview btn or the AE-L btn. As you say, using them in Av mode doesn't work unless you only want to shoot wide open. At least that is how it works on my *ist Ds. All previous 'K' mount lenses will also work using Manual exposure mode and stopped down metering to set the shutter speed. These lenses will also work in Av mode, but the picture will be taken at full (wide open) aperture, the lens aperture does not stop down until after the image is taken for some obscure reason.
,
Drew
Comment by photo*ist posted on ME super lenses on a digital SLR??? at 15/11/2006 - 14:33
Quote:
My top rules for trading on ebay.
1) Avoid sellers who insist you leave them feedback FIRST (why? aren't they confident you'll like the goods?) <SNIP>
Yes, all very good advice Spidy and I find #1 is what is ruining EBay. The feedback is becoming meaningless because people are afraid to leave honest feedback for fear of retaliatory feedback from the seller and it is very difficult to have it removed. The only relevant feedback a seller should give is how prompt the payment was made, so to holdback until the buyer leaves feedback is pure intimidation. I have seen people leaving positive feedback even after they been totally scammed. My question is how do you know ahead of time that the seller will holdback feedback because they usually never tell you that until it is too late? My top rules for trading on ebay.
1) Avoid sellers who insist you leave them feedback FIRST (why? aren't they confident you'll like the goods?) <SNIP>
BTW my best experience has been with sellers with relatively low scores because they have the most to lose percentage-wise with bad feedback. My worst has been with obvious clearing houses for multiple types of merchandise. Also a good indicator for me is to check the Feedback Left For Others. Quite telling about their attitude.
Cheers
Drew
Comment by photo*ist posted on Items on ebay at 14/11/2006 - 05:04
Quote:
Minor correction to Matt's list:- Not all of "The SMC-DA have quick-shift focus rings". I don't think that the DA 18-55mm 'kit' lens has the quick-shift manual focus function.
Oh yes it does Peter Minor correction to Matt's list:- Not all of "The SMC-DA have quick-shift focus rings". I don't think that the DA 18-55mm 'kit' lens has the quick-shift manual focus function.
Comment by photo*ist posted on K10D - Lenses - ED-AL-IF-SMC-DA-FA-FAJ or what? at 24/10/2006 - 20:06
Quote:
Well, I did say "This is an odd one, and depends on how you look at it!"
Drew, the minimum focusing distance of the lens is not going to change - it's the same lens whatever body it's mounted on, after all.
The reaon you could see 65mm width on your MZ5N, is because that's roughly twice the width of your 35mm film (okay, that would be 72mm, but you'll lose some from the edges of the viewfinder, you don't see the full 100%).
The reason you could see 42mm when you used your istDS, is because that's roughly twice the width of your sensor (okay, that would be 48mm, but you'll lose some from the edges of the viewfinder, you don't see the full 100%).
It's twice the width in both cases because the lens give half life-size reproduction, the magnification ratio is 1:2. Therefore, every 2mm of subject is 1mm wide on your sensor/film.
So your lens, on both bodies, gives 1:2 magnification. But when you then view that (either as a print, or on your screen), the Digital body will show a narrower field of view, and hence the output will be more magnified.
So yes, in effect, you get more magnification with the DSLR. But it's because of the body (the smaller sensor), not the lens.
Is that any clearer? It's always much easier to explain things face to face, I have to admit - you can actually demonstrate things then.
When I got my Sigma 105mm macro, I had a similar thought to you - I'd got so used to this 1.5x factor with DSLR's that I thought "great, this 1:1 lens will be a 1.5:1 lens". When I got it home, I got a ruler out, looked through the viewfinder, expecting to see just 16mm (24mm/1.5), but it was 24mm instead, which was a surprise. But then I thought about it, and realised that the lens still gave 1:1 magnification, but the smaller sensor meant that the subject would fill more of the frame. A 15mm long bug was still 15mm long on the film or the sensor, it's just that there's less background shown on the DSLR.
Hope that helps! Just enjoy your macro work, I know I do.
Dan
That was a very good explanation Daniel. I think all those little faces in your last post helped by simulating a face to face I knew the lens characteristics wouldn't change on a different body but at first it seemed natural to assume that the min. focus distance would be closer if the image appeared closer and that was wrong. So really it still does all boil down to the fact that there is a 1.5 magnification increase using a digital body when you look at the final output. I guess this would be be no different than adding a 1.5 teleconverter or an appropriate length extension tube for 1.5X to a 1:2 macro lens on a film body. The output is the output right?Well, I did say "This is an odd one, and depends on how you look at it!"
Drew, the minimum focusing distance of the lens is not going to change - it's the same lens whatever body it's mounted on, after all.
The reaon you could see 65mm width on your MZ5N, is because that's roughly twice the width of your 35mm film (okay, that would be 72mm, but you'll lose some from the edges of the viewfinder, you don't see the full 100%).
The reason you could see 42mm when you used your istDS, is because that's roughly twice the width of your sensor (okay, that would be 48mm, but you'll lose some from the edges of the viewfinder, you don't see the full 100%).
It's twice the width in both cases because the lens give half life-size reproduction, the magnification ratio is 1:2. Therefore, every 2mm of subject is 1mm wide on your sensor/film.
So your lens, on both bodies, gives 1:2 magnification. But when you then view that (either as a print, or on your screen), the Digital body will show a narrower field of view, and hence the output will be more magnified.
So yes, in effect, you get more magnification with the DSLR. But it's because of the body (the smaller sensor), not the lens.
Is that any clearer? It's always much easier to explain things face to face, I have to admit - you can actually demonstrate things then.
When I got my Sigma 105mm macro, I had a similar thought to you - I'd got so used to this 1.5x factor with DSLR's that I thought "great, this 1:1 lens will be a 1.5:1 lens". When I got it home, I got a ruler out, looked through the viewfinder, expecting to see just 16mm (24mm/1.5), but it was 24mm instead, which was a surprise. But then I thought about it, and realised that the lens still gave 1:1 magnification, but the smaller sensor meant that the subject would fill more of the frame. A 15mm long bug was still 15mm long on the film or the sensor, it's just that there's less background shown on the DSLR.
Hope that helps! Just enjoy your macro work, I know I do.
Dan
Regards
Drew
Comment by photo*ist posted on 100mm Macro Quandry at 21/10/2006 - 18:55
Quote:
This is an odd one, and depends on how you look at it! Compared to 35mm film, you will apparently have greater magnification. If you have a subject that is 48mm long, on film the image would be 24mm, or 2/3 of the width of the frame (1:2 magnification). On your DSLR, the image would still be 24mm, but that would now be the full width of the frame.
The magnification at the taking stage is no different, it's still 1:2 (half life-size), but at the output stage (ie. if you made a 9x6 print, full frame from both film and digital), the magnification would be greater for the DSLR.
Does that make sense?
Dan
I'm not sure if it does make sense to me. I just used the 1.5 multiplying factor to come up with the .75 magnification assumption. You made me dig out my dusty old MZ5n and try it on to compare. If using the MZ5n and I focus on a ruler I can see approximately 65 mm width at the closest focus (which is about 45 cm.) When mounted on the *istDs the view is 42mm wide and surprisingly (to me) the same approximate 45cm minimum focusing distance. I'm not sure if there is much difference in the viewfinder coverage between the two cameras but 42 x 1.5 = 63mm so I'm thinking that .5 x 1.5 = .75 magnification was pretty close considering my crude measurements. Or is that basically the same as you said or... am I waaaay out to lunch?photo*ist wrote:
Am I right in assuming that it would be a .75 magnification factor when used with my *ist Ds?
Drew,Am I right in assuming that it would be a .75 magnification factor when used with my *ist Ds?
This is an odd one, and depends on how you look at it! Compared to 35mm film, you will apparently have greater magnification. If you have a subject that is 48mm long, on film the image would be 24mm, or 2/3 of the width of the frame (1:2 magnification). On your DSLR, the image would still be 24mm, but that would now be the full width of the frame.
The magnification at the taking stage is no different, it's still 1:2 (half life-size), but at the output stage (ie. if you made a 9x6 print, full frame from both film and digital), the magnification would be greater for the DSLR.
Does that make sense?
Dan
Regards
Drew
Comment by photo*ist posted on 100mm Macro Quandry at 21/10/2006 - 17:10
Quote:
As far as I understand it, the term "macro" originally applied to equipement that would let you acheive 1:1 or greater magnification on the film/sensor plane. A lot of lenses with close focusing ability, but not true "maceo" lenses, have been sold as "macro" over the years.
The 100mm f/4 lets you acheive half of life-size on the film plane, so technically it's not a true macro lens. But with an extention tube, you can go macro easily enough. It's also corrected to function best at close distances, so in a sense it's more of a "macro" lens than a regular 100mm lens.
Arthur - I have this lens too and maybe you should tell Pentax about your criteria for macro lenses because the lens is clearly marked SMC Pentax-M MACRO 1:4 100mm and so does the leather case it came in. There is an extra set of numbers marked on the barrel that correspond to the focus distance where the number 2 lines up with 1.48' and 25 lines up with 15'. I always assumed this meant 1/2 to 1/25 life size at those distances but would be open to other interpretations as I do not have the manual for it.As far as I understand it, the term "macro" originally applied to equipement that would let you acheive 1:1 or greater magnification on the film/sensor plane. A lot of lenses with close focusing ability, but not true "maceo" lenses, have been sold as "macro" over the years.
The 100mm f/4 lets you acheive half of life-size on the film plane, so technically it's not a true macro lens. But with an extention tube, you can go macro easily enough. It's also corrected to function best at close distances, so in a sense it's more of a "macro" lens than a regular 100mm lens.
Regards
Drew
PS: Am I right in assuming that it would be a .75 magnification factor when used with my *ist Ds?
Comment by photo*ist posted on 100mm Macro Quandry at 19/10/2006 - 23:39
Quote:
Too bad about the usa only issue...I didn't read the fine print, just the rebate part.
There's no connecting the dots on my thoughts.
I'm happy about the d10.
i saw a rebate offer online.
I posted both items at the same time...other than that no real connection
Don - so sad it was only you reading like I normally do. I REALLY wanted you to tell me you posted the wrong link and then pointed me to the correct Canadian rebate. What a deal it would have been to get a DA16-45mm for under $300!! Now you got me looking hahaha. Too bad about the usa only issue...I didn't read the fine print, just the rebate part.
There's no connecting the dots on my thoughts.
I'm happy about the d10.
i saw a rebate offer online.
I posted both items at the same time...other than that no real connection
Anyway, whoo hoo for your K10D (and boo hoo for me)
Drew
Comment by photo*ist posted on K10D - Good deal, or not? at 19/10/2006 - 05:05
I love it.