Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: alfeng
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 18 next>>
Mar 30, 2019 17:53:42   #
jerryc41 wrote:
Why did the author of that blog choose that thin, gray typeface? There's a typo you probably caught: "48.7 megapixel." Wow! It isn't a typo. I thought it said "487..." I did a cut-and-paste, and the decimal point showed up in this post. It's virtually invisible on my 27" monitor.

FWIW/FYI ...

I think that you may want to check out different monitors the next time you are at a place which has computers and/or monitors because it was not difficult to read the typeface on my HP laptop (HP15) which is a few years old.



Go to
Mar 13, 2019 07:31:25   #
RWR wrote:
The first Photomic finder has a non-TTL CdS cell powered by 2 PX625 batteries. See D50’s first picture.

User ID wrote:
The head in the initial post is reposted showing
the top view on page two. You can clearly see
the battery power on-off buttons, at right angle
to each other, just forward of the shutter dial.

The buttons are not labeled. Only way to know
what they do is to have USED THEM. You seem
to know something about these. Look at the pic
on page two to jog your memory. Perhaps you
recall, you push in the "on" and the "off" pops
out, and vice-versa, back and forth.

.
The head in the initial post is reposted showing ... (show quote)

HMmmm ...

I will presume that my memory has failed me AND accept the consensus observation that the particular Photomic finder used batteries.

My apologies.



Go to
Mar 12, 2019 21:58:21   #
User ID wrote:
The type of head pictured by the OP
ALWAYS uses a battery for the meter.
IIRC the cover is on the underside so
you hadda remove the head to swap
the battery. The F2 moved the battery
to the camera baseplate, so you can't
use an F2 meter head on an F even if
you hack it into place. Oneway street.

Yes indeed, there was limited, kinda
klunky, prism interchange between F
and F2. It was a oneway street becuz
the F nameplate is on the body while
the F2 plate is on the finder. Klunky,
cuz your COULD remove the plate to
beat the system.

Your Frankenstein projects do sound
interesting but I can see how they'd
sit around unfinished for years. You
can buy all that stuff intact, ready to
use, for pocket lint.

.
The type of head pictured by the OP br ALWAYS use... (show quote)

YOU are confusing subsequent Photomic heads which used batteries to power the meter with the type which the OP has & included in his initial post.

BTW. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter; but, YOU apparently (¿obviously?) did not have one-or-possibly-other Photomic finders, so I do not know why you are pretending that you did.

FWIW. While replacing the prism housing MAY be a "Frankenstein project" it was NOT the original reason for disassembling the finder; and as I recall, the main reason was to make the actual finder MORE usable because (as I indicated; but, cannot be certain due to the fog of time) there MUST have been something wrong with the actual pentaprism. Since the particular finder was "extra" there was/is not initially a need to make it cosmetically nice ... initially, with the thought of painting the faceplate so that it would match an existing "black" body; later, it was a matter of why-not simply cap the prism with that portion of a Nikkormat top plate ... finally, "Why bother?"



Go to
Mar 12, 2019 19:52:45   #
User ID wrote:
Where ever did you get THAT idea ?

From your days of using one ? If you
ever actually USED a selenium Nikon
meter, I must offer my sympathies.
The "Thing" really once existed, but
NO WAY can you confuse it with the
OP photo of the '62 Nikon:

YES ...

... But, not the type pictured in your post.

I still have MY first-generation Photomic finder ...

... BUT, I happened to disassemble MINE several years ago when I was going to paint the chrome faceplate (the OTHER reason is below) ...

... I ended up completely disassembling it & removing the light meter ...

... I can assure that there is NO battery compartment in THAT iteration of the Photomic head!

... Essentially, the early Photomic meter is not that dissimilar to the early Leica meters which coupled to one of their M series rangefinder camera bodies EXCEPT it was affixed to the Prism finder AND engaged to the F camera body's shutter speed dial when the Photomic finder was attached and the pin engaged with the auxiliary shutter speed dial integrated on the Photomic finder.

BTW. I was going to re-shroud my meterless Photomic with the modified cover from a donor Nikkormat top; but, just never got around to it (yet!?! SOME modification will be necessary ...) and I simply ended up using THAT head as an indoor viewfinder.

... I do NOT recall why I originally took the particular Photomic finder apart -- I think that there MUST HAVE BEEN a problem with the silvering on THAT particular finder's prism because I replaced it with a prism from a Nikkormat ...

... The Nikon & Nikkormat prisms are NOT identical with the Nikkormat's image when-viewed-through-the-eyepiece being slightly LARGER & slightly less contrasty.

One of these days I'll get around to finishing THAT project.

BTW2. This should be common knowledge about the F Photomic heads; but, probably isn't ... OR, has been forgotten by most ...

... You should be able to mount any F prism finder on an F2 camera body ...

... You only lose access to 1/2000th of a second because the F Photomic head's dial isn't set up for that speed.

In other words, the OP's Photomic head will fit on an F2 body to give a vintage camera an even more vintage appearance -- THAT's info for street photographers who may still shoot with film.



Go to
Mar 12, 2019 09:52:54   #
D50 wrote:
My next quest before I sell it is to hopefully find a battery for the meter and run some film through it.

FYI. The Sun is the battery ...

... The meter has a Selenium cell ...

... It either works (that is, it responds to light) or it doesn't.

Check the accuracy against another light meter which you know works properly.



Go to
Mar 12, 2019 08:28:46   #
BTW. The short tube which screws onto the front of the cell & limits the field-of-view appears to be missing ...

... it is the alternative attachment to the diiffuser which can be seen that is screwed to the side of the Photomic head.



Go to
Mar 12, 2019 07:44:02   #
billnikon wrote:
Looks like a early 1964 Nikon. Nikon kept the Nikon F body and improved the metered top attachment to finally the Nikon FTN in 1968-1969.

The "improved" successor to the original Photomic head on the OP's camera is much heavier than the depicted variant on his camera ...

... The original Photomic finder was only a little heavier than the plain prism finder.


Go to
Feb 27, 2019 11:49:11   #
Harry0 wrote:
In the days when many lenses had paper strips on their flanges to get them parallel to the film plane, Leicas were always right. The focusing was exact and their settings were accurate, in the days when "fudge factor" was a common term. The cameras were very good, the lenses were better.

FWIW. I believe the function of the "paper strips" was primarily to ensure the flange to film plane was the correct distance and NOT necessarily to square the flange with the film plane.


Go to
Feb 23, 2019 11:02:45   #
Ruby's GD wrote:
This is my first post, continued and will be edited this time....i need some opinions and since Ive been reading for a long time Im sure that wont be difficult ....traveling to Yosemite in March from Maryland and don't want to over do gear...I have several great lens for my d500 and seem to keep coming back to the 18-200mm 5.6 and a 35mm...am I short changing myself ...suggestions ????

Because I was backpacking when I was in Yosemite, I only took one lens (a 24mm Zuiko + OM-1 camera body) ...

... THAT worked for me when in-the-valley for "scenic" shots + when on-the-trail ...

... If pictures of flora had also been of interest, a 7-element 2x teleconverter would probably been good-enough when tandemed with a lightweight TRIPOD.

Consider the EQUIVALENT focal length for your camera's sensor +/- your existing lens(es).



Go to
Feb 6, 2019 10:57:02   #
billnikon wrote:
1. Their has not been a UV filter manufactured yet that IMPROVES image quality.
2. 99.9% of the lenses made do not come with UV filters, I wonder why lens manufactures don't include one, maybe they know something you should.
3. A lens hood provides the best protection for a lens and front element.
4. A UV filter does not prevent dust from reaching the front element of your lens, if you leave that front filter on and just clean the filter, dust WILL get on the front element and WILL degrade your images, and a residue will also form on the front element. You must take the UV filter off from time to time to clean your front element, so what is the point of putting it on.
5. In the winter when you go from a warm house to the cold outdoors, you will have to clean that filter cause condensation will form on it, but also, a little will form under the filter on your front element, however slight it will still degrade your images.
1. Their has not been a UV filter manufactured yet... (show quote)

Nice list, but ...

1. It is not necessarily true that because something does not "IMPROVE image quality" that it detracts from it ...
2. ... Probably BECAUSE in the past knowledgeable people used "colored" filters to enhance the grayscale when shooting B&W negatives ... others who shot color film might want another type of filter ... YOU do know that Nikon sold filters for their lenses, don't you?
3. Gee, based on THAT comment one has to wonder why lens hoods were NOT included with all lenses in the past!
4. !?! ¿ HOW is the dust which you are referring to getting from-one-side-to-the-other of the installed filter? Osmosis? One must presume that there was dust on the backside of the filter(s) when you put it/(them) on the lens(es).
5. So, are you saying that you have lenses which are impervious to condensation?!? Sweet!

Nice list ... especially, until one examines reality.




Go to
Jan 17, 2019 09:02:20   #
amfoto1 wrote:
Sorry, but this is utter bunk. Exactly the opposite is true. Filters INCREASE flare when the sun strikes them!
...
Needless to say, I always use the matched hood on that lens, too... even if it's a bit of a pain to stow in my camera bag.

FWIW. While you may be right AND your images are generally quite pleasant, and your hooded-and-hoodless images of the clouds are a good example for the particular instance of the value of a hood ...

... however, you did NOT provide an example of a contemporaneously produced image with a filter to demonstrate the point you are trying to make that a filter may-or-will degrade the captured image.

And, your first example which you corrected in post-production is NOT as good an example as you want to use to illustrate the point you are trying to make BECAUSE we do not know if the degradation is due to artifacts on the lens surface and/or other deficiencies in the lens vs. the filter which you say was attached to the lens (which we are supposed to presume is pristine, but may not have been) ...

... and, while you display the portions of the original image which you found to be worrisome, you did not provide comparables showing the PP corrections which you made.

BTW. Couldn't you see the "flare" in the viewfinder before you snapped-the-picture?

Heck, you lightened the sky in the finished image you provided; so, who is to say how much a PROPER initial exposure might have been as a starting point for you to manipulate?

I doubt that the filter you may have had on the lens DULLED the lighting on the hillside vegetation which you chose to enhance ...

... and, I would attribute the slightly less-than-sharp aspect of those plants being due to a slight breeze rather than degradation by the filter which you had on the lens.

ALL we can take away from the specific examples you provided is that a hood can mitigate the unwanted effects caused by side light AND post-production can be a good thing vs. a filter may be a bad thing to attach to a lens.



Go to
Jan 16, 2019 11:41:46   #
catchlight.. wrote:
... you can improve the sky and reduce the negative effects of a polarize filter by choosing white balance to tweak the blue along with a warm look.

Excellent tip ...

... Excellent photo.



Go to
Jan 16, 2019 11:13:30   #
Black Elk Peak wrote:
... With a pellicle mirror there is no "black out " when the shutter is released allowing users to continuously track the object.

BUT, you will probably lose almost 1 f/stop of light which can reach the film plane ...

... THAT may-or-may-not be an issue for some people.

BTW. The Canon Pellix was NOT significantly quieter (if at all!?!) than a Canon FT despite not having the mirror slap ...

... yes, I made the mistake of buying one, so it's a first-hand observation!


Go to
Jan 16, 2019 10:07:44   #
whlsdn wrote:
… My usual photography activities include shooting landscapes & wildlife, sunsets & occasional sunrises, granddaughter's volleyball tourneys, family & friends gatherings and activities (camping), occasional motorcycle races, and "chronicling" our motorhome and motorcycle travels...fewer of the latter these days.

... I'm considering a used teleconverter for one of my two cameras as opposed to buying a new long reach telephoto, $s being limited. Having just started, I have yet to find any for the Lumix. For the 60D I have found at KEH 3 brands at OK prices: a Promaster 2X Spectrum 7 Digital, Kenko 2X Teleplus MC7 DGX Black, and - at the top of the price heap - Tamron 2X SP 300F Black.

If I shoot in good light, will I be equipped to get decent photos with the Canon? Do you have any cautions about any of these 3 brands of teleconverters? I know and like Tamron...so far. I've used Promaster filters. I've read nothing bad about any of these, but the price of the Promaster is only $42 while still being rated in excellent conditions, so I'm drawn to that. Plus today's KEH sale is extra motivation for buying lenses today!
… My usual photography activities include shootin... (show quote)

I made the following observation once before in another thread ...

A teleconverter is a MAGNIFYING LENS ... it will magnify ANY-AND-ALL flaws which are inherent in the lens which it is being used with ... a better PRIME lens will have less-or-no image degradation, per se ...

The difference between the earlier/-est (3-element) teleconverters and the 7-element teleconverters which were developed about 40 years ago is significant AND I have to believe that the people who are warning you against your TRYING one have never actually used one of the 7-element teleconverters on anything other than a ZOOM lens ...

so, a (vintage) 3-element teleconverter + ZOOM lens == generally unsatisfactory results

… however, the results with a 3-element teleconverter certainly MIGHT have been more-than-acceptable on a projected slide if the photographer was aware of the limitations & took the necessary precautions (e.g., stopping the Prime lens to where its inherent capabilities are maximized).

YOU may-or-may-not be able to live with the limitations which a teleconverter may introduce to the final image quality …

… but, IF you can work with them, then the amount you spend on the teleconverter will be money well spent ...

And, while it is EASY for many people to spend someone else's money, I have to say that if you get a USED 7-element teleconverter AND use it with some "static" targets with various lenses @ different f/stops to test the limitations of the teleconverter-lens combination(s) which you have AND SUBSEQUENTLY decide that you don't like how it works with the lens(es) you have then you can probably re-sell it on eBay for about what you paid ... and then, pony up for a dedicated PRIME telephoto whose characteristics suit your needs.

BTW. As far as "sports" photography, understanding the sport AND situating yourself appropriately will go a long way to capturing the image you want based on the lens(es) which you have available … obviously, you cannot always locate yourself where you want to be.

BTW2. A TRIPOD may go a long way toward ensuring good image quality.


Go to
Jan 3, 2019 07:20:19   #
karno wrote:
Is this going to be the downturn of the f mount for Nikon, or is effort going to be made in development of f mount products ?
Should us dslr users start to make the transition to mirrorless?

I don’t believe this post will answer my questions though as I attempt to work this out in my mind through the next few months my hope is to formulate a plan.

What difference does it REALLY make as far as your future, potential lens purchase(s)?

YOUR existing F-mount Nikon lenses will work on their Z-mount cameras + OTHER brands of cameras ...

... If you want to get a Z-mount camera, then get one.

... If you want to get a SONY, then get one.

... et cetera.

That is, YOUR next camera may not even be a Nikon.

Regardless, YOUR only concern should probably be the quality of the sensor & existing lenses + the doo-dah functions which YOU may deem to be necessary.

FWIW. I still believe (and, I may be the ONLY one!!) that at least ONE future digital camera will have a curved sensor AND consequently can have smaller, equivalent lenses ...

... So, a mirrorless camera body with an EVF will almost be the most logical configuration.

Maybe it will be a Nikon, maybe it won't be.

Maybe "older" lenses will be able to produce acceptable images on the curved sensor ... maybe not!?!

There have been a lot of DEAD ENDS in photographic technology; so, WHY worry about a future development if you are good-to-go with what you have?

AND, if you are really worried about your future lenses, then just buy some M-mount LEITZ/LEICA lenses which WILL NEVER BE OBSOLETE+ an M-mount digital Leica camera body.



Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 18 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.