Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Posts for: Blasthoff
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 40 next>>
Jan 31, 2016 07:52:57   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
We need a cooking section!!!
Cooking with Photography? OK, I'll give it a try.

Well, I just got a new pasta machine and all I could think about was my grandmother. I ordered a new, best thing since sliced bread pot. It should be here Tuesday.

Question, How long should I simmer a 50mm 1.8?
Go to
Jan 31, 2016 06:04:29   #
(Photo Gallery)
Can you find me..........
Tell me his name isn't Waldo!
Go to
Jan 31, 2016 05:02:51   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Slide copy with 105mm Macro lens on D3300 (crop)
KM6VV wrote:
Thanks for the comments.
I hear what you're saying. I'm torn between 60mm and 105mm. Portrait vs Macro vs slide copy needs.

I can easily machine up an "optical bench" (slab of aluminum drilled and tapped for threads, plus adjustable 1/4"-20 standoffs). so setup is no problem.

I've read that the 60mm is a little close for "serious" macro work, but then I'm not THAT serious.

Still thinking.

Alan


Why not just rig up or build yourself a lightbox for the slides and buy a copystand? The copy stand could then be used for almost anything you want to photograph close up. That way, you can use either micro lens without alterations. OR, Just build a lightbox so you could use your camera and tripod. OR, Better still, do a Google search for "copying slides with a Nikon DX camera" for a multitude of ideas.

Now as to lens selection. First, let me explain a little about things you pick up reading. I think it is important because things have become a bit more complex since many "rules of the thumb" were adopted and became entrenched. You mentioned reading that a 60mm lens being a little to close for serious macro work. The reason that was stated is because the longer the lens the more working distance you get. A 100mm lens will afford 2X the working distance of a 50mm lens at like magnification. Think in terms of 12in vs 6in working distance, 200mm would give you 24"at a given magnification as an example. All of this is based on the Full Frame 35mm or FX format. It's not the same on a DX camera. Now, if you took your DX camera with the 60mm lens, framed a shot, (close up or long), you would find that to frame the same shot, at the same working distance, with an FX camera, would require a 90mm lens.

So do you see how the "rules of thumb" don't exactly "transcribe" to the DX format? As a dual purpose prime lens you are choosing between a 1.8X portrait length 60mm (90mm FF equiv.) and a 3X telephoto 105mm (150mm FF equiv.) with your DX camera. If you have a zoom lens try leaving the lens set at these focal lengths and live with them. I think you will find with a DX camera the 105mm working distance to be very often frustratingly restrictive for portraits and restricting as a general purpose prime lens as it is essentially a longish med telephoto mostly used only outdoors.
Go to
Jan 30, 2016 15:46:09   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Lenses
burkphoto wrote:
Probably in the ball park. As I said earlier, it's relatively minor. Only serious pixel peepers or those with very wide (24" paper and larger widths) are likely to care, although heavy cropping of DX images made with FX lenses may show some softness.

Put in perspective, using FX lenses on DX isn't much of an issue in most cases.

That is about what I figured, so it's good to have somebody confirm that. Honestly, the results I've had so far from my best FX lenses have not given me any cause to look deeper. Those "best" lenses are still my best lenses so that's as far as I need to go with it.
Go to
Jan 30, 2016 08:24:41   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
My new D5 and it was free
bdk wrote:
So being poor, having a wife that says NO to everything I guess a D5 was out of the question. But I just happen to have some black paint and a D5200 A few seconds later it was converted into a D5 ... May not work quite as good , may not be as fast
but Im sure someone down the line will look at it and go gee I wish I had one of those.

so my GAS has been taken care of for today. Im on my way out now with my new D5 can't wait to try it out....(smile)

Nice, as long as your "way out" isn't to post it on ebay. :D
Go to
Jan 30, 2016 07:45:36   #
(Photo Gallery)
Ready for battle! (Another bathroom selfie)
Looking at the photo a few thoughts crossed my mind:

1. Geez Louise! You got a urinal at home?

And

2. Who's the Dude with too many cameras?

And

3. You know, there are laws about pictures taken in public bathrooms.

:D :D :D
Go to
Jan 30, 2016 07:21:22   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Lenses
burkphoto wrote:
RTFM

Yes. Many people buy ONLY FX lenses for DX Nikons, because they intend to upgrade to a full frame body some day.

DX lenses are designed precisely for DX sensors and FX lenses are designed for FX sensors (meaning the image circle projected by the lens is larger for FX). BUT, you can crop the center from an FX lens' image circle. That's how the term "crop sensor camera" came to be...

The original digital cameras were ALL crop sensor cameras... Basically, they were heavily modified 35mm SLR cameras. The thinking behind THAT was to preserve existing customers' investments in lenses. But it was difficult or impossible or too expensive to make sensors big enough to cover the full 24x36mm "full" frame in those cameras, so they just centered a smaller one.

One advantage is that some performance parameters of a lens are better in the center than at the edge, meaning coma, astigmatism, chromatic aberrations, distortion, and vignetting are all reduced in the center. BUT, the disadvantage is that you're magnifying when you print or display the image, so *effective* resolution is actually reduced.

Those are all finer points. The economically sensible thing to do, if you plan to upgrade to a full frame/FX body, is to buy the best FX lenses you can afford. It's a short term compromise for longer term efficiency.

If you need to maximize quality on DX, though, you need to stick with DX lenses. They are smaller, lighter, less costly, and easier to manufacture to high tolerances and performance standards for that format. HOWEVER, there are exceptions! A very expensive FX lens will sometimes outperform a very inexpensive DX lens on a DX body.

The same is true on Canon where they make APS-C size and full frame bodies.

You can also use full frame (FX) lenses on Micro Four-Thirds cameras, with adapters. However, because the magnification is 2X, rather than 1.5X, the reduction in resolution starts to rear its ugly head. MetaBones makes a (very expensive) product to relieve this problem. It's called the SpeedBooster, and it reduces the size of the image circle, intensifies the light, and improves lens performance by doing so. It also reduces the crop (widens the field of view).
RTFM br br Yes. Many people buy ONLY FX lenses fo... (show quote)

Interesting. Tell me if I'm wrong, as I've always assumed, the difference in resolution of an FX lens on a DX camera would be the same as the crop factor, or roughly the same as the equivalent of one print size which is also about the same as the crop factor (all things being equal).
Go to
Jan 30, 2016 06:45:00   #
(Photo Gallery)
Bird ID. Please.
The "bird authority" in my family also confirms it to be a European Starling.

It is interesting to note that these were introduced to North America in Central Park in NYC in the 1890's when someone thought it would be "nice" to have birds in the park that were mentioned by Shakespeare.
Go to
Jan 30, 2016 06:08:51   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Am I the only one
OddJobber wrote:
But you're not in California. :-D
I use AF-C nine-point for moving targets but it works equally well on stationary targets. There was an interesting article this morning on Digital Photography School about focus and recompose, but that's nothing new to older shooters anyway.
http://digital-photography-school.com/understanding-focus-recompose-technique/


I had to smile reading the article of the writer having a revelation on a method of focusing that is the ONLY way I've ever known to do it dating back 30-50 years. I suppose maybe I'm just too old or there are just so many today that ONLY know auto-focusing cameras to which it might be a revelation.

Auto focus is a wonderful thing in it's own "niche" of grab and shoot or shooting moving targets that would be not be doable without it. That said, outside of the auto focus "niche" uses, auto focus can often be a burdensome complexity that once never existed. As with any innovation, there are always "trade offs" that with time, seem to become forgotten.
Go to
Jan 30, 2016 03:57:21   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Slide copy with 105mm Macro lens on D3300 (crop)
Why all the "Rube Goldberg?

Although I haven't done it, it seems to me all you need is a spare tripod, an inexpensive sliding rail (you can get cheap plastic ones used for Macro on ebay) and rig up a simple means of holding a slide to something mounted to the rail. OR, you could put the camera on the sliding rail and use a "fixed" mount for the slide. Just adjust position and distance to fill the frame in camera, PROBLEM SOLVED. You can then place any sort of diffusion material at any out of focus distance behind the slide to be copied and use any light or flash behind it for perfect even illumination. Oh, and by the way, it is best to use a good macro lens that is corrected to have a flat field even focus. By the way, the 55mm or 60mm Micro Nikkor is also about the perfect portrait focal length for a DX camera. In fact, I use a MF 55mm Micro Nikkor myself as my DX camera replacement for the 85mm & 100mm I used to use for 35mm FF film portraits. The 105mm will make fine portraits except that the working distance you need WILL quite often be a frustrating problem with informal portraits in confined places with a DX camera.

Am I missing something?
Go to
Jan 29, 2016 06:49:08   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Am I the only one
Tracy B. wrote:
I believe a lot of people think their fast glass isn't sharp because they are focusing and recomposing. I've read, and also experienced, that with glass that is f2.8 and larger any movement (recomposing) can make your intended focus point on the picture not as sharp. I use different focus points so I don't have to move my camera and avoid having to crop to get the composition I wanted.

Rereading your post, YES, I agree, selecting your focus points is the proper way to utilize autofocus in a tight situation, that's what all those focus points are for. As one being accustomed to manual focus it just seems like it is an added "workaround" step. Auto focus is wonderful, but there are situations where a manual focus lens would be easier to use.
Go to
Jan 29, 2016 06:23:16   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Am I the only one
Tracy B. wrote:
I believe a lot of people think their fast glass isn't sharp because they are focusing and recomposing. I've read, and also experienced, that with glass that is f2.8 and larger any movement (recomposing) can make your intended focus point on the picture not as sharp. I use different focus points so I don't have to move my camera and avoid having to crop to get the composition I wanted.

That is true, so one needs to check carefully. That said, often you need to select where your want your "depth of focus" to be placed very carefully which was never a problem with MF lenses but can get "tricky" with autofocus.
Go to
Jan 29, 2016 06:05:47   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Am I the only one
boberic wrote:
All the various makers brag about the number and configuration of their focus points. I find the both distracting and not at all helpful. As a result I use center spot focus as well as spot metering in my 7d. Am I the only and what,if anything , am I missing. I come from 4 or 5 decades of film with split image film focus screens, and spot metering both in camera and with light meters. Am I alone? (Please pardon the bad syntax- I'm to lazy to go back and correct them)


I have the same background. When I bought a dslr, it was with the intention of using many of my MF lenses, so I installed a split image screen. That said, I do have and use one autofocus lens and I kept things as simple and familiar as possible. I also use the center spot for focusing in combination with BBF. That way I can focus the camera exactly where I want it to and hold it, which suites most of my photography. After many years of gaining a "feel" for Nikon center weighted meters, I use center weighted metering. I might make an exception when using flash and or for fill, but I'm still getting that down pat. I can see using spot metering as I gain time to get into more precise and deliberate zone placing and extending DR with HDR, which is a whole new avenue that digital gives us. I will need to do some tests as spot metering is the one (only) metering mode that might be affected with the use of a split image screen.

I'm a firm believer in "KISS" and no better way to exercise that then to work with the familiar. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". It worked well with film cameras and there's no reason to change just because there are other unfamiliar and unneeded options.
Go to
Jan 29, 2016 05:14:03   #
(General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk))
The man who gave up sex for golf.
Good one!
Go to
Jan 29, 2016 04:44:11   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
B&W filters used with DSLR
Fatford wrote:
Yeah, I'll keep the B&W filters for my film cameras.

Can I use my other special efects filters on the digital? I have a star, rainbow, mirage, fog speed double mask and a few others I forgot about? Or are these filters let to film only. I haven't had a chance to experiment with all of them yet.

Thanks for the help.

Any filter can be used on a digital camera, but the point is, any filter used for color correction whether intended for color or B&W is just not done with digital cameras. That's what "WB" or White Balance on your camera is for when shooting color. Shooting in B&W, I can not recommend strongly enough on reading up on working in B&W to get a basic understanding of how the process works. I CAN tell you that you DO NOT use the B&W mode in camera to produce quality B&W! I know it sounds counter intuitive, but it's a hard fact. Five minutes into learning digital B&W and you will understand. You want to shoot RAW images in FULL COLOR and the corrections and conversion you will want to do in Post Processing. I'm not about to write out a seminar as the information is easily found out there on the internet and in books. Don't forget your local library, that's what they built them for. I will say, that after spending all that money on a dslr you SHOULD invest a little time reading up on subjects like this. You will be more then happy you did.

Optical effects filters can be used, but as someone already pointed out, many of those effects can also be easily done in PP as well.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 40 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.