Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Alan1729
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next>>
Jun 26, 2018 17:11:59   #
I used to have two Canon FD EF's and an Olympus pocket camera for a long while, Then came digital and I now have two Olympus OMD EM1 mk2's and an Olympus TG5 which goes everywhere. I have a camera on my cell phone should all else fail but it gets little use because of the time it takes to enter the password. I believe in Two of the same, it's like using one camera no extra thought required just muscle memory. I have the equipment but little time to use it so the TG5 gets more use I guess I could have saved thousands and just kept with the wonderful TG5. So now I should say that my backup camera is two OMD EM1 mk2's . Life is never simple.

tboro wrote:
I own a Nikon 7200 and a Nikon 3300 (the back up). Am giving the 3300 to grandson. I found that after a period of time I need to refresh my memory on some of the functions of the 3300. No big deal but. The 7200 is the perfect camera for me and does everything I need for my photography. I am considering another 7200. My question is, does anyone else use the same make/model of camera for their back up? I can think of many advantages and no disadvantages. Thanks for the input.
Go to
Jun 7, 2018 14:23:07   #
Re: Backup MFT camera
I would save up and buy the OMD EM1 Mk2 and keep your mk1 as backup, you know the em1 mk1 (no learning) and you will find the mk2 a joy to use. The Olympus OMD EM1 Mk2 is such an advance and is still similar to what you have been using. I went from the em5 to the em1 mk2 liked it so much I bought another.
Go to
Jan 18, 2018 14:48:32   #
I bought a Voigtlander 35mm f0.95 to use with my Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II, at Christmas I took it out to get some pictures of the Christmas tree lree lighting in Amsterdam NY. It was so underwhelming I went for a walk across the new foot bridge look down stream saw the shore lights dancing on the river so thought I'll take a picture, pointed the camera looked through the viewfinder and my eye was nearly burned out the scene was as if sun lit had to stop down and then under expose a little for it to look something like I wanted. Well it was the first time out at night with this setup. I can quite honestly say I believe you could get any dimly lit night scene with these. I second the suggestionto get an Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II, could use a Voigtlander f0.95 lense too. I know Voigtlander are manual but they are great!

burkphoto wrote:
You could always jump off the Nikon ship and get a Micro 4/3 camera. The new Panasonic G9, and the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II both have in-body image stabilization. Many Panasonic and Panasonic Leica image-stabilized lenses will work with the G9 in tandem (Dual IS II) for 6.5 stops of shake reduction!

Otherwise, the usual strategies apply: Monopods, bean bags, string pods, "found" support, high ISO combined with noise reduction in post production... in addition to VR lenses.

The 35mm f/1.4 Sigma ART lens is worth a look... It's not stabilized, but it's incredibly sharp.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm
You could always jump off the Nikon ship and get a... (show quote)
Go to
Nov 15, 2017 11:38:31   #
John N wrote:
Write a letter to your provider.


I lost internet connectivity so called my provider, got a recorded message advising me to report it on their web site. Go figure...
Go to
Aug 23, 2017 14:35:03   #
I heard of a guy burning a hole in his lica curtain, he had left hi camera on a table facing the sun... Expensive! I have never heard any stories of damage to SLR's (film) in twenty years I was taking photo's with film. Have taken photo's of aircraft against the sun the sun through trees and ather examples where the sun was in the picture. No damage at all, not even to my eyes.

I have a Samsung Note 4 and one app measures the amount of UV exposure with the camera, it takes about ten seconds pointing at the sun and doesn't damage the camera.
Go to
Aug 22, 2017 11:54:16   #
Most likely something similar to what happened to the Royal Navy in the mediterranean during the 19th century. The Admiral gave an order for the fleet to turn around and although many on other ships knew the details of the order were stupid they just obeyed orders with the result that ships collided. It would seem here that the order was given to turn across the bow of the tanker but not taking into account that ships take longer to turn, they are not like cars on the road, they have momentum. I suppose we will find out in about a years time when the inquiry report comes out.
Go to
Aug 8, 2017 14:06:05   #
No Canon haven't done the same I had three FD bodies and more lenses than I could carry, then Canon brought out the EOS system and no adapter for FD lenses. That is when I jumped ship from Canon will never go back, I also try to persuade anyone looking to buy a new camera to buy anything other than Canon. I now use Micro 4/3, Olympus OMD M1 mk2 now, an amazing camera. I can use many of my FD lenses manual of course but mainly use the olympus Pro lenses.
Lots of other lens makers to choose from.
Fotomacher wrote:
For quite some time I have been using and enjoying old Nikon F mount glass with a succession of Nikon digital bodies. For example, one of my gems is a Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AIs which my D810 meters flawlessly. My 16mm fisheye is the AF f/2.8D version. Yesterday's pro lenses are great value for today's soon to be pros. Nikon has built in backwards compatibility. Has Canon done the same?
Go to
May 21, 2015 12:20:07   #
suntouched wrote:
You all will think I'm crazy but I am willing to risk that - even risk the ire of the easily irritated members of this forum. I have converted mostly over to mirrorless equipment. I have the Sony a 6000 and the Olympus M-10. I like both cameras for different reasons but am satisfied with the output from both. Mostly what I do is landscape photography. I am not quite ready to give up the idea of wildlife photography (not bird photography) but I have not found any mirrorless lenses that will do the job. I am lusting for the Canon 100-400 ii lens but I don't even own Canon equipment. What I have left is a Nikon D 610 camera body and short prime lenses. I don't really want to carry around a 3.5 #+ lens but I have not found another alternative and I love what I have seen that the Canon 100-400 mm lens can do in the right hands. I know that I will be unhappy lugging around the Tamron 150-600 mm lens (at least the Canon is a pound lighter) - what to do? Just label me neurotic.
You all will think I'm crazy but I am willing to r... (show quote)

I have the OMD M5 and a bunch of old Canon FD lenses, I have used the 500mm mirror lens and the 300mm f4 FD lenses hand held and got decent results. They are of course manual focus and you have to use an adaptor but I guess you should be able to pick them up cheap.
Go to
Apr 9, 2015 10:32:16   #
jethro779 wrote:
I am not a Canon shooter, but I was stationed in Iceland in 1969 & 70. My Pentax Spotmatic II took a lot of pictures up there and I used the 35mm f3.5 & the 135mm f3.5 and I think That the 10-22 & the 24-105 would work well up there. I took more pictures with the 35mm lens than the 135.


Good choice, when I was shooting on film I had a 24mm f1.4 which was my favourite lens for interiors, I'd carry 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8. Even though I had longer lenses I almost never took anything longer than 200mm out with me. I would rather take my widest lens 17mm f4.
I too would like to visit Iceland and agree your schedule is optimistic, I lived in the UK for fifty years and although I have travelled there a lot have still not seen it all. Do your research and make a list of what you "must' get pictures of and then plan to go back.
Go to
Mar 29, 2015 08:37:55   #
Uuglypher wrote:
Anyone have a link to info on this gismo?


I remember seeing in the seventies a photographer who had screwed two lens mounts to the base plate of his leica one lens on the camera and one hanging off the base plate. All he had to do was take the lens off fix it to the spare mount on the base plate and then use the other. Sometimes though it becomes too tedious changing lenses so I got another body and start out with the lenses I think I'll need ready to shoot.
Go to
Mar 28, 2015 17:00:21   #
delbert wrote:
you aint met my first wife


I'll drink to that, mine too.

I used to have Canon film FD lenses a lot of them but my favorites were the 24mm f1.4 and the 85mm 1.8. I now use Olympus and I guess I'd choose the M5 II camera body and 12-40 f2.8 and the 75 f1.8.

If I was going back in time I'd avoid my first wife and make some other damn fool mistatke. Come to think about it forget going back, at least I survived and learned a lot on the way.
Go to
Mar 7, 2015 18:05:17   #
Flatbroke wrote:
If you had a choice between two specific lens for a variety of photography opportunities would you choose better glass or greater reach? The Sigma 120-300 F2.8 with OS and converter or the Sigma 150-600 F5-6.3, your choice and why?

Flatbroke


I really don't know about the choice given but I would always go with the better glass no matter what the focal length or aperture. I had a camera with an 80mm 2.8f Zeiss Planar it was one of the sharpest lenses I've ever had and you could enlarge pan X until you could see the grain and it was still sharp. I would always go for the better glass if I knew what it was.
Go to
Mar 6, 2015 14:31:15   #
johnmowry wrote:
I'm not saying that pictures must be huge to be good. Only that if you make very large prints from a P&S camera, the technical quality will suffer. It may still be a great photo, and there's nothing wrong to limiting the print/display size to what the equipment can handle.


No one seems to remember that picture size goes with viewing distance. You wouldn't stand a foot away from Monet's The Water-Lily Pond painting, you'd only see the brush strokes. I've seen prints from film so big you could see the grain but from the correct viewing distance they are superb.
Go to
Mar 2, 2015 13:59:35   #
Tracy B. wrote:
A Full Frame Canon with 22 or more MP, touch & rotatable screen, many cross type AF points, 4k video, separate button for Back Button Focusing, high ISO capabilities, great in low light, WiFi. I'm hoping the next Mark IV, or 6d ii will have this. I know the 6D won't have the 4k video, but I could live without that. What's your dream camera?


I like my pair of OMD em5's, it would be nice to have some more megapixels say double the current 16mp. I have to say that my real dream camera is not digital but film, I would really like to have a Leica M3 and would shoot B&W but they are a little too expensive. When I shot with a rangefinder camera in the past I never had a picture out of focus. It's a dream now but may not always be.
Go to
Feb 15, 2015 20:36:07   #
bcheary wrote:
Going the e-mail rounds. Thanks Gra'. :lol: :lol:


Stewart and his wife Barbara go to the county fair every year,

And every year Stewart would say, "Barbara, I'd like to ride in that helicopter"

Barbara always replied,

"I know Stewart, but that helicopter ride is seventy pounds,
and seventy pounds is seventy pounds!"

One year later Stewart and Barbara went to the fair, and Stewart said, "Barbara, I'm 75 years old. If I don't ride
that helicopter, I might never get another chance"

To this, Barbara replied,

"Stewart, that helicopter ride is seventy pounds,
and seventy pounds is seventy pounds"

The pilot overheard the couple and said, "Folks I'll make you a deal. I'll take the both of you for a ride. If you can stay quiet for the entire ride and don't say a word I won't charge you a penny! But if you say one word it's seventy pounds. "

Stewart and Barbara agreed and up they went.

The pilot did all kinds of fancy manoeuvres,
but not a word was heard. He did his daredevil tricks over and over again,

But still not a word...

When they landed, the pilot turned to Stewart and said,
"By golly, I did everything I could to get you to yell out,
but you never did .....

I'm impressed!"

Stewart replied, "Well, to tell you the truth I almost
said something when Barbara fell out,

But you know, seventy pounds is seventy pounds!"
Going the e-mail rounds. Thanks Gra'. :lol: :lol:... (show quote)

I'm English and it gaveme a chuckle. Quite right.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.