Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: 846Studios
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Oct 6, 2011 14:40:32   #
gessman wrote:
gessman wrote:
846Studios wrote:
gessman wrote:
846Studios wrote:
thememorykeeper wrote:
I own some good sharp FD lenses made by Canon of Japan and an adapter to use them on my EOS 650 film SLR anf my Rebel XT; I cannot get them to focus properly, manually of course except the 50mm when I get really close. Why is this happening? If and adapter is made and sold for that specific purpose, shouldn't it work?


I started a topic about this same subject. If you want to see the responses, you can find it here:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-2653-1.html
quote=thememorykeeper I own some good sharp FD le... (show quote)


It was called to my attention by a fellow forum member that there is one of those Canon adapters on ebay right now - $1999.00. I won't be bidding against you if you decide you want it. I have EOS L glass that does the same thing as my FD L quality glass and can't justify the $2+k that adapter is going to go for. My blessings to you.
quote=846Studios quote=thememorykeeper I own som... (show quote)


Wow! That's pricey☺
quote=gessman quote=846Studios quote=thememoryk... (show quote)


Yah. Here's the url if you want to just get a smell of it like I did. It looks a tad different to all those from Hong Kong and China. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Genuine-Canon-FD-EOS-converter-FD-EOS-original-adapter-/150467746...
quote=846Studios quote=gessman quote=846Studios... (show quote)


Sorry. I just went there an it's no longer available. Somebody's got some bucks somewhere.
quote=gessman quote=846Studios quote=gessman q... (show quote)


I think I would have just put that 2K into some L glass, but if you have a closet full of FD lenses maybe it was worth it for them.
Go to
Oct 6, 2011 14:28:00   #
gessman wrote:
846Studios wrote:
thememorykeeper wrote:
I own some good sharp FD lenses made by Canon of Japan and an adapter to use them on my EOS 650 film SLR anf my Rebel XT; I cannot get them to focus properly, manually of course except the 50mm when I get really close. Why is this happening? If and adapter is made and sold for that specific purpose, shouldn't it work?


I started a topic about this same subject. If you want to see the responses, you can find it here:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-2653-1.html
quote=thememorykeeper I own some good sharp FD le... (show quote)


It was called to my attention by a fellow forum member that there is one of those Canon adapters on ebay right now - $1999.00. I won't be bidding against you if you decide you want it. I have EOS L glass that does the same thing as my FD L quality glass and can't justify the $2+k that adapter is going to go for. My blessings to you.
quote=846Studios quote=thememorykeeper I own som... (show quote)


Wow! That's pricey☺
Go to
Oct 6, 2011 13:16:20   #
pmeehan wrote:
I know, this is an older camera, but I love it! I just need to learn how to use it better. I would like to take a picture with the background blurring out- can anyone tell me the best setting. I have managed a couple times to get some 'fuzz' in the background but that is all. Thanks!


I used to shoot on a S3IS and probably shot about 25,000 shots on it. My wife still has it and it's still going, great camera. A little more info on the type of shot you're doing? Macro, landscape, portrait?

Shot on S3IS

Go to
Oct 6, 2011 12:58:03   #
Frank'sPhotography wrote:
I am an amateur photographer whose interests are events, people, and architecture. Reading the comments made about pictures, and problems others have I appreciate this forum very much. I joined Fine Arts America and find that many do not make comments on photos and the ones that do give no details pro or con. Thanks for all you folks do here.


So far I have gotten good responses here on topics I've posted. I think you'll find it to be a helpful place. Welcome, from one new member to another!
Go to
Oct 6, 2011 12:54:57   #
thememorykeeper wrote:
I own some good sharp FD lenses made by Canon of Japan and an adapter to use them on my EOS 650 film SLR anf my Rebel XT; I cannot get them to focus properly, manually of course except the 50mm when I get really close. Why is this happening? If and adapter is made and sold for that specific purpose, shouldn't it work?


I started a topic about this same subject. If you want to see the responses, you can find it here:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-2653-1.html
Go to
Sep 24, 2011 21:02:27   #
gessman wrote:
846Studios wrote:
Has anyone had any experience using a mount adapter to go between FD and EF mounts. There are a lot of FD lenses out there at a very reasonable price and some are really great lenses. I have a Canon T2i and even though many FD lenses would end up being manual focus with no IS support and probably several readings would be off, it really comes down to your eye. I'm convinced that if you know what you are doing as a Photographer most of these things wouldn't be an issue. The question is, who makes a good adapter, with a good optical element that wouldn't make the whole idea not worth the time, trouble, or cost? I'd appreciate any input on this from personal experience.
Has anyone had any experience using a mount adapte... (show quote)


I have had 3 or 4 adapters for eos to fd. All of them have caused distortion and magnified my images beyond what they should have. I hear that the only adapter that doesn't do that is one that Canon made, no respect to JimH, and they're rare and expensive. I've been looking off and on for about 3 years and haven't found one yet. Haven't looked in a while. As JimH said, m42, Nikon, others are metal rings and while you lose focus to infinity, they work well. I have several Nikon lens I use with my 5D MkII and they work well, macro, portrait, etc. I've got some "L" glass equivalent FD glass I'm wanting to use and cannot because of the distortion of the adapters I've tried. Using that glass with the adapters I've had on a 1.6 sensor blows it out so bad that it isn't usable IMHO.
quote=846Studios Has anyone had any experience us... (show quote)


Thanks for your input on this. From the things that I've read, it's not about whether they work or not, it's about whether they work well as you said. I'm probably going to look into some of the other lens alternatives and forget about the FD venture altogether. Thanks again!
Go to
Sep 23, 2011 17:42:12   #
Quote:
good info on image sensors, thanks for sharing


You're quite welcome.
Go to
Sep 23, 2011 17:40:56   #
Greg wrote:
condor wrote:
846 You commented that the 10mp camera will take better pics than the 18mp. If that's true why didn't we stick with the original 1.2mp cameras, why do they keep getting bigger every year???


What he stated in general terms is true, but that also doesn't take into account that the 18MP sensor may be newer and have less gain noise to to technological advances.


This is true there are many other factors to deal with here and I was speaking in very general terms.
Go to
Sep 22, 2011 17:59:49   #
DSLRChuck wrote:
I'm looking to get a DSLR. I'm looking at a Canon 600D/T3i Rebel or a EOS 60D. Any opinions on which is best, or something else. Also, what is a good lens for the selected camera?


My best answer is this:

1. Go to a store that has a large variety especially the cameras that you're considering. Check them out, hold them, compare the features VS price factor. Just because it's more expensive doesn't mean it's better. Do your homework at home. Unless you go to a professional camera store meaning one that only sells cameras, nobody will be able to answer your questions. A camera only retailer will probably be higher on price than say a place like Best Buy. The place you want to buy it is the place that has the best price because if it ever needs service it's going back to the manufacturer anyway. If you want to give your money to a local business regardless, I can appreciate that too.

Don't concern yourself with megapixels, concern yourself with the image sensor type and size. Most cameras today are going to have a high megapixel count anyway, but don't let that be the deciding factor of your purchase.

If you take two cameras that both have the same size and type of sensor and one is say 10MP and the other is say 18MP the 10MP will theoretically produce a better image. The more MP you pack into the same size sensor the more noise that will be introduced into your image. The two main types of sensors are CCD and CMOS, I won't even get into the differences. You can read it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor#CCD_vs_CMOS

2. The best camera you can buy is the one that offers the greatest flexibility at the time. You can almost bet that a "new and improved" model of your camera will come out six months after you buy it. You just have to take the plunge.

You may want to narrow down your choices then rent one to see if you like it or not. Well, that's money you could be putting toward your camera, but you won't be stuck with something hate either. This place is reasonable: http://www.atsrentals.com/cat--Rent-Digital-Cameras--133.html

3. As far as lenses go, most cameras that come with a lens will probably have an 18-55mm so you're not quite full frame on the wide angle. You might want a lens under 18mm for a wider wide angle. On the other end you might want a lens to zoom in closer on far subjects. Something like a 75-300mm for that. The main thing is don't buy cheap glass. For Canon generally Canon or Sigma are the most popular. They all come in different grades and prices. Good=$, better=$$, best=$$$, top of the line=$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ :)

Don't go cheap on the glass but you don't have to go top of the line either. Again do your homework. Hope all this helps!

Oh, and case you're wondering I've always been a Canon shooter. Currently I shoot on the T2i (EOS 550D) and I love it.
Go to
Sep 22, 2011 14:57:02   #
Thanks for the input Jim. I hadn't really considered lenses from other manufacturers, but now I will. Nice image BTW.
Go to
Sep 22, 2011 14:31:55   #
JimH wrote:
You know, while we're on this subject, I do think there's a difference between using P/P to alter or enhance an image to better match the photog's "mind's eye", and using P/P to "cook" the image so that it shows something that wasn't there, or was there and was removed, in order to present a patently false view, especially when coupled with an intent to deceive. Photo fakery is photo fakery.


Agreed 100%
Go to
Sep 22, 2011 13:43:58   #
Has anyone had any experience using a mount adapter to go between FD and EF mounts. There are a lot of FD lenses out there at a very reasonable price and some are really great lenses. I have a Canon T2i and even though many FD lenses would end up being manual focus with no IS support and probably several readings would be off, it really comes down to your eye. I'm convinced that if you know what you are doing as a Photographer most of these things wouldn't be an issue. The question is, who makes a good adapter, with a good optical element that wouldn't make the whole idea not worth the time, trouble, or cost? I'd appreciate any input on this from personal experience.
Go to
Sep 22, 2011 13:28:53   #
First off I'm only talking about digital here, film is a whole other entity. There is absolutely nothing wrong with film, and I'd venture to guess that's where most of us started. There are pros and cons about both formats.

There are a lot of excellent Photographers out there, but I don't believe for a minute that anybody gets a perfect shot direct from their camera every time. Sure there a few shots here and there. The thing to understand here is that the digital process inherently takes away things in an image, things that you saw with your eye. Your eyes are pretty darn accurate at interpreting the things around you. Most digital images unedited are far less impressive than what your eye saw and what your thoughts were about how the shot would turn out. So, we edit them.

There is nothing wrong with doing some post process editing on a photo. It doesn't make you a cheater and it doesn't make you a fake.

There are many times that I have shot a photo and forgot to change my settings from a previous subject, not realizing it until I get home. The image on the screen of your camera never does justice to what it really looks like because it's so small and the pixels are so tight. A bad image can look good on the small screen. So, you either throw it away or you do some PP on it and try to salvage it. It all depends on how bad you want to keep the image. I do think that you should try to get the best image you can straight from the camera, but the digital process is never going to let it be perfect.
Go to
Sep 21, 2011 23:15:06   #
Bornbad wrote:
Good stuff. I'm a fiend for abandoned places.


Thank you, I appreciate you having a look. I didn't see you at the abandoned places fiend meeting, you must have been in the back. :)
Go to
Sep 21, 2011 23:12:09   #
liv2paddle wrote:
check out this guy..http://kingstonlounge.blogspot.com/
He does all abandon stuff.. really good!

love your photos..especially number two..the school..great lines..


Very much appreciated! Thanks for sharing the link, there's some really great stuff on there.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.