This has some value but you need to say what is composition is. You should find this information in the spool ends. Also measure the diameter if it is not given on the spool end. This looks to be rather thick thus it is not suitable for small electronics. Is it Rosin core? What information is on the flux container tops?
dbwnnc wrote:
Just read a post on a CR-V site. The guy had the same problem. He found that if he cleaned the contacts in the battery compartment of the fob, he used a "Mr. Clean Magic Eraser", that solved his problem. In similar situations in the past I've use a pencil eraser to clean contacts.
Don't cost anything and it might work.
You could also use DeOxit but NEVER use this on a camera.
I use a photo backpack for my photo equipment. It goes in the overhead bin. No issues.
John Gerlach wrote:
Hi Hogs,
I am about to begin the second revision of my landscape photography book by Focal Press.? Exposure and metering are important skills to master. Over 40 years of photographing close-ups, wildlife. and countless landscapes for fun and to earn a living, I have never found a situation where aperture-priority works better than the other choices I prefer that include shutter-priority, manual, shutter-priority and Auto ISO, or just manually setting a known exposure for stuff too small to meter like stars. Can any one think of a situation where aperture-priority really works best in case it should be in the updated book. I never have found a reason to use aperture-priority, but that doesn't mean there aren't any! Thanks for considering this question.
Hi Hogs, br br I am about to begin the second rev... (
show quote)
I use it 95% of the time. HDR, setting DOF, macro when using manual.
We probably shouldn't have Senators over 80 although some are fit enough. On the other hand, in Pennsylvania we have a rather young Senator with no brain. Regardless of politics we must have politicians with above average mental capabilities.
imagemeister wrote:
Human sight has NOTHING to do with WHY 50mm was and has become "normal".......period. - And yes, my seat belt is buckled......for all the nay-sayers
This is America and you can believe in the tooth fairy if you want but you are not right. 50mm is easy to make AND it closely matches 43 mm at practical level. Incidentally, my father had a 1950s rangefinder camera with a 45mm lens.
Mark Sturtevant wrote:
What the posters above said. The list is of a bunch of enzymes. One can tell as their names end in "-ase". Enzymes are proteins and most are broken down in the stomach so I think very little would get into the small intestine where they might act to break down sugars before they are absorbed. Well, maybe they'd work in the stomach a little bit before they are broken down. Maybe. But so what?
Enzymes are very specific about what they digest, and none of the enzymes listed even break down glucose! Some break down more complex sugars into glucose, even. The two forms of amylase might do that since amylases break down starch into glucose molecules, but they don't break down glucose.
What the posters above said. The list is of a bunc... (
show quote)
I spent many years working as a pharmaceutical scientist. I can assure that oral absorption of proteins, including enzymes. is at best extremely poor. It is the job of your stomach to break down proteins. Insulin a peptide (a small protein) is given by injection for this reason. Be highly skeptical of this product.
imagemeister wrote:
Way back at the dawn of 35mm ( rangefinder Leicas ) film photography, 50mm was the simpleist/cheapest and best performing lens to make to cover 35mm (actually 42.5mm diagonal). Later, when SLR's came into vogue and cheaper wides and teles became available, 50mm was still the cheapest lens to build to accomodate the mirror box. So, because it was always the cheapest, it became the "normal" kit lens to be sold with cameras and was "normal" because it was plentiful and cheap ! - and shorter lengths became wide angle and longer ones became telephoto's.
P.S. Human "sight" has never had anything to do with it ...... 8-) except as an argument starter 8-(
Way back at the dawn of 35mm ( rangefinder Leicas ... (
show quote)
While 50mm lenses easily cover 35mm film and are easy to design. Your thesis that human sight has "nothing to do with it" is flawed and indeed incorrect.
larryepage wrote:
No...for a 4x5 camera, a "normal" lens is about 6" which is somewhere around 150mm. When I shot 120 film in 645 format (45mm x 60mm) a normal lens was 80 or 85mm.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of arithmetical rigor around what is a "normal" lens, but it's always close to the diagonal measurement of the exposure area. That's what has led me to comclude that it grew from lens design somehow rather than being strictly related to field of view.
There is also a chance that it is just one of those mysterious photographic rules of thumb whose real origin has been lost or may have never existed. I have not found anything more definitive or provable beyond what I've pieced together and deduced so far. Any comparison to "what the eye sees" seems the least objectively accurate option. For one thing, our field of view is very different vertically from what it is horozontally.
No...for a 4x5 camera, a "normal" lens i... (
show quote)
There is a bit of science in this. See the following article for more details.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lensIt seems that the idea goes back to Leonardo's studies on perspective.
Architect1776 wrote:
Why is 50mm generally considered the transition point between what is considered wide angle and telephoto?
It seems that this would vary depending upon format and even to a greater extent the subjective opinion of someone.
A normal lens has a focal length equal to the diagonal dimension of the film or a sensor. Such a lens gives a perspective that is similar to that of human vision as reflected in paintings of the past.
For 35mm film this dimension is about 43mm and is generally rounded to 50mm. If one has a micro 4/3 camera a normal lens is 25mm and for a 6 x4.5 cm 75mm and for an 8x10in camera a normal lens is about 300mm. These various focal lengths give what is considered to be the perspective of human vision and all have a similar FOV when used on their respective format cameras.
I have been to Ponari Castle on the Arges River a beautiful part of Romania. There are several other sites in Romania associated with Vlad Tepes which are also interesting. Vlad Tepes did keep the Turks from taking Vienna.
România este o țară frumoasă și interesantă. Sper sa vizitezi cat de curand. Atenție la strigoi. Drum Bun.
BTW burkphoto always has rather good advice on these matters.
kenArchi wrote:
I will be taking pictures if many family photos etc.
With a emd 10, 12-35mm lens, tripod, etc.
I believe this will be quicker than scanning.
If you have prints of old photos you will likely find a scanner more convenient. 600dpi will allow for modest enlargement but prints are not likely to have more detail than this.
I would choose a macro lens with a moderate telephoto length (80-100mm FF) My 60mm Oly lens and 85mm Nikon lens work fine. The reason for choosing a macro lens is that such lenses have a flat field of focus and have minimal pincushion distortion. Zoom lenses are often quite bad in this regard. Macro Lenses of normal focal length will also work especially for large photos.
For small photos a copy stand is most convenient. You will need glass, print paper holder or drafting tape to hold the picture flat. Large photos can be wall mounted or mounted on an Easel that allows the working surface to be perfectly vertical. You will likely need a large level to ensure this. Your camera will be mounted to a tripod that has been leveled.
Lights are placed at a 45 degree angle with respect to the axis defined by the camera position and the photo. LED panels work well but regular high CRI LEDS will be OK too. Use a gray card and a light meter to confirm that the lighting is even. The light meter in the camera can be used.
For large and medium format transparencies, and negatives a scanner can be and easy method. 35mm slides and negatives are handled easily with a slide copying holder. A copy stand a diffuse light source can also be used. You may need film holders to keep unmounted film flat.
twowindsbear wrote:
Where in NY is Montreal to the northwest?
Perhaps if you are on the eastern end of Long Island one might stretch and call it northwest otherwise it is just north.