Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Leitz
Page: <<prev 1 ... 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 ... 246 next>>
Mar 24, 2015 06:37:07   #
bsprague wrote:
If you are going to put a camera on the self for a few months, is it best to leave the battery out? If I do, will it loose its settings and revert to the default after awhile?

Thanks.


Is there anything more abominable than letting a camera sit for more than a week or two!!??
Go to
Mar 24, 2015 06:21:45   #
AlohaBob wrote:
Anyone else been treated rudely by B&H when trying to get information about selling them a camera and (say) bonuses offered by manufacturers?

I ended up on the phone with a guy who kept acting like I was an idiot because I didn't see what he was seeing on their web site. No "look here/click there" helpfulness; just pure rudeness. I was really surprised, given all the good things that are said about b&h here, but maybe I was talking to the wrong side of the organization.
Anyone else been treated rudely by B&H when tr... (show quote)


Perhaps the B&H representative was trying to avoid a bashing like Adorama recently received from one of our members trying to sell them their used gear:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-288915-1.html
Go to
Mar 23, 2015 09:13:19   #
dhelix33 wrote:
Let me clarify my comment about using the rangefinder on my Df for manual focus. The style of photography I shoot (even close-in or macro) does not require a magnifying glass for me to compose an image. I would be interested in seeing a sample of an image that requires the Df having an after market magnifying glass to capture - would you share?

Greg


Photomicroscopy comes immediately to mind, and in close-ups particularly you'll appreciate a bit of magnification when checking depth of field where there is fine detail outside of the focus point, especially if that fine detail is of low contrast. 1.2X isn't much, but even that little bit can help. Any more, and one would probably lose the 100% view. I plan to purchase the DK-17M myself.
Go to
Mar 23, 2015 06:34:13   #
[quote=wingclui44][quote=Leitz]Of course, with interchangeable finders you would have interchangeable screens. In our dreams, perhaps ...[/quothttps://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-dk-17m-magnifying-eyepiece

Do you think this eyepiece will be useful for using MF lens on the Df?[/quote]

I haven't tried one, but every little bit helps. I think it would be especially useful for close-ups of skittish critters, where autofocus and the focusing indicator are less effective. Like Nikon's other eyepiece optics, this should give a clear view with no distortion.
Go to
Mar 22, 2015 15:54:05   #
asiafish wrote:
I'd settle for screens. A split image/microprism like we had in the old days would be a perfect match for the vintage glass the Df seems made for.


Of course, with interchangeable finders you would have interchangeable screens. In our dreams, perhaps ...
Go to
Mar 22, 2015 10:03:22   #
tmorgen wrote:
Congratulations on your new Nikon. Does a filter on these new cameras restrict the zoom? I have a Coolpix 830 and I bought a filter attachment for it since you can't screw one on the lens. It does work but only to a point and then you are taking pictures though what looks like a porthole. As long as you don't mind the restriction in the zoom, it works fine. I like to use a Polaroid on my cameras. I looked at numerous webpages on the 900 and was unable to learn the mechanics of a filter on this new camera. Again, good luck.
Congratulations on your new Nikon. Does a filter ... (show quote)


It accepts 67mm filters.
Go to
Mar 22, 2015 09:10:32   #
taffthetooth wrote:
I've just taken delivery of my new 100-400, but when trying to take a shot my camera takes a long exposure! The last time I took it out was for some night shots using a remote control. And despite using AV/TV and manual settings it still takes the long exposure. Any advice please I would be grateful.


Add more illumination to your subject.
Go to
Mar 22, 2015 08:13:41   #
lone ranger wrote:
... you start out at 2.8MM VR
and can zoom up to 2000 MM when you will be at 6.5 MM ...


I'm sure you actually mean f/2.8 at 24mm, and f/6.5 at 2,000mm.
Go to
Mar 22, 2015 07:55:48   #
chefros wrote:
Hi, my name is Ross & I am a hobby photographer, my question is I shoot my pictures in Raw but when I go to edit them in Photoshop 6 it will not allow the Raw file so I end up converting the pictures to JPEG just so I can edit them, any solutions to allow me to edit a Raw file?.


Use the RAW converter the came with your camera's CD, or one of the free converters available online. A search here or Google will bring up quite a number, many of which have editing tools.
Go to
Mar 22, 2015 06:13:48   #
Jessie wrote:
I was warned, read everything on search but didn't heed, (spelling gone with brain!) and got my domke bag. Loved the worn out look! liked the size. Nothing screamed new. But---my gosh--when I ripped the top open , being in texas, everybody in New York heard. Yep, somebody had mentioned this on this site. BUT I can"t find that person's solution to this problem. Promise I won't ask again! Thanks once more for your help.


Mack has your solution:

http://www.amazon.com/Macks-Ear-Care-Ultra-Earplugs/dp/B0051U7W32/ref=sr_1_3?s=hpc&ie=UTF8&qid=1427019138&sr=1-3
Go to
Mar 22, 2015 06:09:54   #
Meganephron wrote:
Flashes do not translate from film to digital unless designed to. When I went digital my macro flash blew out everything as did my SB 24. My SB 800 and SB 900 and digital macro flash work fine. My Quantum flash unit is useless in the digital world. Expensive upgrade needed


ANY electronic flash unit set to properly expose film of a given ISO will properly expose digital at the same ISO, all else being equal. Your older units probably will not function in TTL mode with your digital camera, but will in manual. Certainly the SB-24 will also work fine in automatic mode. Your Quantum flash should be anything but useless for digital.
Go to
Mar 21, 2015 09:58:00   #
Gary Truchelut wrote:
I was excited to take a new friend to one of my favorite spots to shoot water fowl images. We had planned for some time to go and spend the day getting some great shots. We met early and headed out, having packed everything we could think of. When we arrived, we assembled our gear. The weather looked promising and the geese could be heard in the distance through the light fog.
We set about the mission of finding something to capture and shortly began shooting some nice subjects. I think by noon we had filled at least one card and part of another with some great shots of flying geese and ducks, a Glossy ibis and other misc. water birds. I couldn't wait to get home to download them and see what I had captured.
The next day I took a look at my work and was bummed. Almost none of my shots were tack sharp. I looked and looked and was just sickened by my results. I couldn't believe my eyes. I was so disheartened, I shut down the computer and didn't go back to it for several days. I thought maybe my eyes were deceiving me, until I took a second look. It was bad. All those great shots and none were worth keeping. I checked shutter speed, iso, f-stop and all were where I wanted them to be. I deleted every shot from that day.
All I could think was that the lens was not focusing right and I had to check it out. I set up the tripod and attached the remote shutter release. I set all the camera settings the same as before and took some test shots. All were tack sharp, what the heck?
I began to look at every setting on the camera until I discovered the problem.
I use BBF, back button focus, and almost never change my camera settings to anything but high speed servo = al-servo. The last time I had used my equipment, I was taking portraits of a large family and set focus mode to one shot. This meant that when I depressed the BBF it focused one time and by the time I hit the shutter button, my subject had moved and was now, not in focus. Not a good thing for flying birds or anything that moves much.
I learned a valuable lesson that day, always recheck everything you thought you checked already and then check it again. If I had taken a minute to look, it would have been obvious that I had a problem in the works. I wasted a day of my time, but my friend got some good images and will probably never let me forget my blunder.
Sometimes we think we know it all and then something like this happens to set us straight. I'm just glad it happened on a fun outing and not a paying one.
I was excited to take a new friend to one of my fa... (show quote)


With shutter button focus, at least the first shot in most of the sequences should have been well focused. (Don't feel bad, unless you do it again! :lol: )
Go to
Mar 21, 2015 09:41:37   #
LarryN wrote:
You know if you had written the above comments in the first place, that would have been helpful. With respect to your observation that another's camera settings serve only as a "rough starting point" I agree. However, as a DSLR novice I find having a rough starting point very helpful. I'd like to have more information on any given photography than just speed, F stop & ISO but I'd settle for those as a rough starting point.

Now as to your earlier comment that I should think for myself, maybe if you thought for yourself you'd refrain from offending another person. And I did find your "think for yourself" comment offensive. In fact, I thought it was downright nasty. But maybe you get some perverse pleasure out of belittling other people.
You know if you had written the above comments in ... (show quote)


It is unfortunate that you consider thinking for yourself as belittling, as it could prevent a young lad from being disappointed because his grandfather didn't think about how to get sharp pictures of his hockey game. Just a little food for thought.
Go to
Mar 20, 2015 11:05:16   #
Pixelbum wrote:
Have any of you used the Orbis ring flash as an amateur or prof?
Am considering purchasing one and am very interested in learning of the "lighting" characteristics of such. Is it to be used only for close-up portraits or could it possibly be used for a small group shot as well(tho I have my doubts on this latter thought due to uneven coverage towards the corner of the frame?).

Any thoughts, suggestions, pokes, ridicule, kudo's, etc., et al, would be appreciated before I spend money on this? I have an SB-800 that I could use with it as one power source and would probably use it primarily for single-subject portraits within the 6-ft range.

Thanks hoggers! -PB
Have any of you used the Orbis ring flash as an am... (show quote)


I wouldn't expect direct flat lighting to be particularly flattering for portraiture, unless employed as a fill light.
Go to
Mar 20, 2015 10:57:58   #
Laura72568 wrote:
Am I totally crazy to be newly obsessed with manual focus prime Zeiss lenses for my Canon 5DM3? I have sold several of my Canon L lenses in recent weeks and now have 5 of the Zeiss primes. Maybe I needed a new challenge but I am so impressed by the images I got with the 85mm that I "cleaned out" my lens case of those Canon L lenses I wasn't using and bought the 18, 35. 50 and 100 Makro. Don't worry, I would never part with my Canon 24-70 or 70-200 but these Zeiss things are addictive! :-).
Am I totally crazy to be newly obsessed with manua... (show quote)


So you are obsessed with top-quality optics. What a great obsession! :)

Edit: You'd be crazy to settle for less!
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 ... 246 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.