Posts for: RWR
Feb 10, 2021 11:45:06 #
User ID wrote:
Those are both the same spec.
Probably close enough for some.
Feb 9, 2021 12:17:35 #
amfoto1 wrote:
... the Pentax K mount is 45.5mm.
I don’t know about the Wikipedia site you referenced, but I do know that the PK flange focal distance is 45.46mm, not 45.5mm.
Feb 7, 2021 00:47:54 #
JohnnyDW wrote:
I have a K mount Pentax lens in my magic equipment... (show quote)
For the lens to focus at infinity any adapter will have to have a correction lens, which will necessarily cause some image degradation. My experience is with a FotodioX Exakta to Nikon F adapter, and the IQ loss is not great. Their adapter for Pentax K (FOPNFAPK) should produce similar results. You could also remove the glass and employ the adapter as an 11.91mm extension tube which, factoring in the flange focal length difference, would result in an effective extension of 12.96mm.
Feb 5, 2021 19:45:41 #
gessman wrote:
So, I mounted my $5 garage sale Kalimar 800-1200mm... (show quote)
There’s no doubt that with patience and good post processing skills, excellent results can be had with some mediocre lenses. Here’s another example: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-206902-1.html
Feb 2, 2021 01:43:23 #
Appy wrote:
I'm just a beginner scratching the surface of lear... (show quote)
deleted
Feb 1, 2021 18:34:31 #
Jim 100 wrote:
I was recently gifted a Manfrotto Ball-head from an estate. It is a model3262QR which is apparently an old one as I have had no luck finding an owners manual online. My question for the group: What is the proper maintenance for this head. Should the ball be periodically lubricated, and if so, with what?
Thanks
Thanks
A couple drops of WD-40 once in a while will soften the original grease a bit and keep it operating smoothly. Don’t spray it - you don’t want to wash any grease out. I keep WD-40 in a small eyedrop squeeze bottle.
Jan 28, 2021 13:59:40 #
Rab-Eye wrote:
Although the manuals for every camera I have says to use something white for setting a custom white balance, I have also read/seen videos that say to use something white or a gray card. This makes no sense to me (they are not talking about using the grey card as a reference for setting WB in post). How can telling your camera that a grey card should be white result in correct WB? Are these sources simply wrong, or am I missing something?
Thanks!
Thanks!
My experience has been that those who wrote the manual know what they’re talking about. I ignore what anyone else says about it.
Jan 28, 2021 12:42:44 #
Thomas902 wrote:
Zeke all my Pro Bodies 2 D3s, 2 D3xs and D810 hav... (show quote)
I saved about $200 off the B&H new price for the refurbished lens I bought from Nikon.Jan 28, 2021 12:35:08 #
User ID wrote:
You’re recommending quitting the UHH
Not really. This kind of nonsense keeps UHH going!
Jan 28, 2021 12:13:35 #
Zeke wrote:
Do any of you Nikon shooters use refurbished cameras? If so, any problems? Also, which vendors do you patronize? Thanks for your replies.
While I usually buy new, I did buy a refurbished lens directly from Nikon about 5 years ago. No complaints so far.
Jan 28, 2021 09:42:38 #
cyclespeed wrote:
I know that lenses that open to F 1.8 and even bigger on some have an advantage when shooting in low light. Are there any other situations when this larger amount of light coming through would have an advantage.
I am about to try and use macro lens / settings to capture one of the fluffiest snow flakes we have seen in some time. So for example would a fast lens be better to use in this case?
Thank you for your thoughts.
I am about to try and use macro lens / settings to capture one of the fluffiest snow flakes we have seen in some time. So for example would a fast lens be better to use in this case?
Thank you for your thoughts.
Rather than copying what others here recommend, I encourage you to think for yourself.
Jan 26, 2021 15:00:35 #
Gene51 wrote:
Photoshop is great, but it won't turn a lens that is not it's best at maximum focal length into one that is. That kind of tech magic hasn't arrived yet.
Even so, some before and after examples using the latest software look pretty darn impressive to me!
Jan 26, 2021 02:29:28 #
joecichjr wrote:
I have seen so many magnificent bird photos here, ... (show quote)
If you’re a good photoshopper either of your lenses ought to suffice.
Jan 24, 2021 14:28:04 #
RWR wrote:
Try this:
Took a couple extra tots of Johnny Walker Blue to get it right!
Took a couple extra tots of Johnny Walker Blue to get it right!
I posted this chart in an effort to address the OP’s concern - determining depth of field of a fairly small subject that pretty much fills most of the frame. I don’t pretend that it’s the best method for everything, but I prefer it to using a depth of field application while hoping the bird sits still for the shot. Actually, there are only three of four general groups of the birds I most often shoot, and I’ve long since memorized the settings and seldom use the chart these days. My most commonly used aperture is f/11, but I have quality lenses and will stop down further if needed.
Jan 22, 2021 03:42:13 #
kotography4u wrote:
Thanks for the thoughts and tips - I hadn't thought about the trick of rotating the head clockwise so loosening of the camera wouldn't be an issue. I'll give it a try! Kevin
I’m still thinking that head is too light-duty, but hope I’m wrong. Let us know. I’m a little leery of the tripod, too. I have a Slik tripod I bought new many years ago. The label has long since fallen off so I don’t know the model but, from a picture I saw online, it looks almost exactly like yours. I use it with my light cameras and 90mm and under focal lengths, with light-duty heads (the right tool for the job). The online picture didn’t show them, but my tripod has grey plastic flip locks.