Don't take this as Gospel but depending on your sensor size and pixel count.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

A 2x teleconverter will cause a 4.5 lens to be be suffering from diffraction effects at anything other than fully open.

It's reasonable to assume that the lens is a little soft at f4.5 so if you stop down to f5.6 then the teleconverter will make it 2 stops different >f8 >f11

On a 1.5 crop sensor the airys circles will be close to the pixel size if you use the calculator on the link at 10 megapixels f11 is as small as you can go without diffraction effects and for higher pixel counts f8 is the smallest. With a 35mm film camera the smallest is f22.

This is brand new to me I only found that link yesterday so i may be drawing the wrong conclusions but it seems that its better to use that 500mm lens without a teleconverter on a digital slr. I'm also left wondering about the quality of an image recorded on film but digitised for printing... Maybe we have been a little hasty in throwing out the darkroom.

I was going to reply to this differently and i would have been wrong.
http://www.ronanpalliser.ie/blog/2012/01/16/a-is-for-aperture/ explains aperture in general
http://reedhoffmann.com/teaching-photography-2/

"It means that f/5.6 is a different-sized aperture (hole) in a 300mm lens than it is in a 35mm lens. Why? Because a 300mm lens is much longer than a 35mm, so light has to travel a longer distance through that lens barrel, losing some of its power in the process. So the “aperture,” that hole in the lens, has to be larger in the 300mm lens to let the same amount (f/5.6) of light into the camera than the 35mm can since it’s much shorter. F/stop is calculated by taking the focal length of the lens and dividing it by the size of the aperture. So lenses that maintain the same f/stop while zooming (a 70-200mm f/2.8 for instance) are able to do that by changing the aperture as you zoom to telephoto, making the aperture larger. And zoom lenses whose f/stop decreases as you
zoom (from f/3.5 to f/5.6 for instance) have an aperture that stays the same size while zooming. I think that’s fascinating. "

Finally the important link (where i learnt something new)
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

This actually is quite surprising but a 35mm film camera does not suffer from diffraction effects at f22, and at f32 it does larger frame sizes can go smaller to f64 or so.

when it comes to digital there is a difference with sensor size and pixel size/ number of pixels.

My Pentax k200d with a 1.5 crop size and 10 megapixels has no problem with f11 f16 it does become diffraction limited.
however if it was the same size sensor but 11 or 12 megapixels then f11 would be too small and f8 would be the smallest. Enjoy the calculator on that page thats pretty mind blowing.
If that sensor size stays the same those smaller pixels are going to result in a smaller depth of field!
So how about a full frame camera? according to the calculator at 12 megapixels the smallest aperture is still f11!

So your old film slr can produce a sharp picture with a greater depth of field than your full frame top of the line DSLR wow just wow.

"n practice, the diffraction limit doesn't necessarily bring about an abrupt change; there is actually a gradual transition between when diffraction is and is not visible. Furthermore, this limit is only a best-case scenario when using an otherwise perfect lens; real-world results may vary."

I think its worth reading that page and thinking about it carefully. I think I'm going to be limiting my f stops to F11 at the smallest now for a while to see if it does make a noticable difference and I want a second opinion. :)

Agree that 1.4 is better than 2x and 3x.
However you do have focus confirmation there is a couple of things a hexagonal icon on the bottom of the frame a red light which pops up in the middle of the frame and an audible beep. Depth of field may be quite shallow so you might find you are not focusing on your subject, thou thinking about it beyond a certain point you are focused on infinity anyway. Vibration may be another problem. There is also the option to crop

Can't comment on the lens but the picture is great.

This has been an interesting thread, I especially liked the idea of a blue filter to help give a clearer view of how a scene would look like in Black & White.

Artists don't work in black & white, that's false. Pen and Paper Pencil & Paper, charcoal ...

Colour is more real, sometimes but how often is a colour image a much warmer and vivid representation than the actual scene that was recorded?

As soon as you use a narrow depth of field your already moving away from the reality of what you saw when you took the picture. Even when you frame your shot you are already trying to remove some of the reality of the scene in front of you.

Here in Ireland there are lots of great views spoilt by ESB power cables draped from pole to pole, (ok sometimes you can use them as visual cues like fences and tracks).

It's not too rare to remove distracting elements from photographs, e.g a flash highlight in the background.

Black & White also helps tone down the distractions in an image. If you were to put a traffic cone for example in a colour image your eyes will be drawn to it in a Black & White image not so much.

As a photographer your trying to portray your vision without writing underneath "this car is fast and luxurious" or something. Some of the best photographs leave you wanting to meet the subjects.

in the 80's there was a well known poster of a very muscular man holding a small baby. It might have been dolph lungren or someone like that. In reality the man was badly hungover and very sunburnt from a tanning machine (if I recall correctly) Iconic image but quite divorced from reality.

A good photograph can be colour or black & white and if it works it works. I feel there could be two possible reasons for a viewer to want a colour version, maybe your picture isn't as good as you thought it was, that can be a bit soul destroying as we already reject most of our own pictures already. Or possibly its the viewers uneducated tastes.

Sometimes its a black & white is cheap thing. Or an inability to see what was intended. Black & White can be emotionally dark and people like brightness and positive scenes and prefer not to look at the grittier side of life. You might connect better with the subject in colour as a person and not as an icon.

I think age can make a difference too, when I was younger I couldn't connect with classical music, now some of the music i loved as a teenager i detest and I can enjoy a classic piece or two. It's probably true that the viewer brings their experience to the picture too, It might take a few years to be able to connect.

One nice thing is bad photo's improve with age 20 or 30 years later they have a sense of nostalgia and mix with our memories of past times. Maybe some time in the future after we are just memories our pictures and words will be eagerly viewed by an as yet unborn generation :)

All drives fail, regardless of brand at some point. Some percentage of drives will go out the factory door more marginal than others. You can't tell when or which all you can do is assume that a drive will fail and be ready as possible when it does.

Backing up never seems to be straight forward, you back up everything the first time but after that you only need to back up the files that have changed. This can be tricky to get right automatically. Plenty of programs are available on all platforms. Some can compress files (jpeg files are already compressed so shouldn't compress much losslessly, Raw files may be better candidates). It's something worth thinking about, automating backups. Mac's have time machine to do this baked into OSX there are other solutions available...

Sorry about the offtopic reply but that is a serious issue malware.

Anyway

Boohoo Cthahn said something nasty about my post.

seriously do you think I care?

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user_feedback.jsp?usernum=34739

thats his feedback page. I particularly enjoyed this one about the man. "You seem never too busy to throw a drowning man an anchor! Try being positive".

or this
"Are you Captain Negative from Seminole?
You have created only one post, you have posted NO pictures.... to date. Why is it that You leave bitterly negative, unhelpful, positively mean comments over and over again. Are you always this negative in person too? Or just in this forum?"

Water off a ducks back as the phrase goes feel free to flame me further :) you only confirm your insignificance.

There is something funny about this page. on android anyway
brings up a link http://lovelinks.us/gray/mobo/mobolp.php

with the words
Warning!!!
Your APP store need update immediately.
with an ok button and no way out from the dialog.

that directs to http://ads.glispa.com/sw/49911/CD7628/CD139... (looks like a base 64 encoded string) which i'm not going to write out. Anyway mobogenie_1541.apk is downloaded automatically.

http://www.apk-analyzer.net/analysis/739/4053/0/html gives a few clues as to what this apk does. The default action with android is to install this file. luckily if you examine this file in a file browser (it's in the downloads folder it can be deleted).

seems to happen some of the time on other threads in the photography discussion section. no problem at all with a desktop system using firefox.

http://safeweb.norton.com/reviews/218661

apparently there is 9 hours to install this program or you have to buy the full version. Coincidence it happens to be available just today ? Rings alarm bells to me. It's often said if something is too good to be true it is.

Backing up requires at least 2 copies and if possible a copy off site. I'm not convinced DVD and CD backup is reliable enough your relying on an ink layer to stay stable for 20, 30 years maybe. I've been burning CD's and DVD's for many years. I don't expect them to all be working now. On the positive side rarely is a disc completely unreadable so 2 copies might be enough if its different files affected maybe. Your photo's are unique but how many really matter to you? these are an easier proposition. I hope the original poster gets their photo's back.

uv filters are among the cheapest the nd4 you might find useful where there is moving water. I noticed no cp filter that is still a useful one. UV filters I buy per lens usually, mainly for protection although there are some nice effects you can get with Vaseline. I tend to buy filters that fit my largest diameter lenses. Using rings to step up from my smaller diameter lenses. Going the other way can lead to vignetting so its worth buying the larger size.

Yes I started there too and went through 102 as well. Very worthwhile it gives you a greater appreciation for light and shadow. I'm really trying to find out if there are problems with some types of lighting gear and peoples preferences for sizes and types. I'm especially interested in what gathers dust in a corner somewhere.

being quite loose with this thread but i'm putting together some lighting kit for inside and outside use.
but i'm thinking of light stands which are too short the different kinds of brackets for mounting gear on. I've seen b type and h type.
Umbrella's which were too small too big wrong type. reflectors eg 5 in 1 and sizes. foamboard black and white. sizes again. beauty dishes, barn doors, snoots and filters. softboxes large and small, I'm sure i'm missing some. Continuous light bulbs that are not bright enough too. Maybe what do you find most useful and what was a waste of money that you would never recommend.

I don't want to start a flash war or a camera one either. I'm just interested in the things we all could use. Feel free to chew on the bits that interest you and leave anything else to one side.

since there are no aliens on this forum i'd have to say that for the most part the article is correct.

You won't get me to part with my DSLR or my K1000 either. It's about the quality for me.

I've been struggling to find myself a Christmas present this year and other than a new espresso machine which doesn't take over priced pods (quality coffee making like quality picture taking is an acquired skill).

I think the only gismo i'm tempted by is an android device the size of a usb stick which plugs into the HDMI port of a TV. This will enable me to stream film, and music and pictures to my tv from anywhere. I saw one on the gadget show for £27.50!

It might not quite be ideal just yet, but worth a look I think.

My Grandparents have been dead of 30 years both of my parents have computers and are pretty competent with new fangled hardware. Maybe the kindle online support is a useful thing for those that are not so confident. Pity about netflicks thou I live in the country and my internet access is a bit too slow for streaming films. Good enough to download a great series of tutorials by Phillip McCordall

I just got my yn603n triggers through the post but i'm struggling with them.

there are 2 LED's on the left and right at the rear.

when you turn them on the left led turns green and if you press the test button the left led turns red. mounted on the camera when you half press the shutter the right led turns on green and when you press the test button the right led flashes red.

I now have them working I was beginning to think it was the rechargeable batteries which was the problem. So I switched for normal batteries and at the same time changed the dip switches from on off on on to all on. After achieving success with the normal batteries, I switched back to the rechargeable s and the triggers still worked. :)

When the transmitter is awake the receiver right led will turn green and when the test button is pressed on the transmitter then the receiver will
flash red and trigger the flash.

when a flash is installed locally to the transmitter it will only trigger that flash if the camera has woke it, with a half press of the shutter.

It leaves me slightly confused as to the purpose of the left led turning red. Perhaps someone else has worked that one out. It's taken a couple of hours to figure them out perhaps this post maybe useful to others.

The yn603n are the Nikon version which work with my Pentax k200d. The shutter release cable doesn't suit the Pentax but the Canon one does. However I believe the Canon version of the transmitter doesn't work with Pentax, although additional receivers can be Canon or Nikon. This last statement should be taken with a pinch of salt as it is hearsay gathered from the Internet

Including postage the transceivers were just under €24 off ebay (a crucial figure for Ireland as imports over €24 incurs sales tax and processing fee's at Customs).

Thank you for all the replies they all seem well thought out.

I think there could be a case for a sliding mount for a camera. It makes sense to have the centre of gravity above the tripod mount point.

How often have you centred up a shot and tightened the tripod grip only to find your point of interest is now sitting at the top of your frame? with camera and lens more balanced over the centre of the tripod the force should be less on the tripod and increase stability. Maybe a Macro Rail would work attached to the quick release plate.