Every tripod that I've ever had, has a center post that is raised or lowered via a Rack & Pinion. At the bottom end is a Pin-Stop that prevents raising the post too far. Press this Pin-Stop in & continue raising the post until it comes completely out of the tripod head, Flip it over and re-insert it into the Tripod Head, from the bottom, UP.
This action will give you all the latitude of elevation that you'll likely ever need & you'll easily be able to get all the way down to Ground Level.
Well, GEE Richard,
My Canon TL & Canon FTb have been in frequent use for the 40+ years that I've owned them with NO PROBLEMS, what-so-ever.
"Used", MEANS, "EXPERIENCED".
ScubaDude wrote:
I received this Argus camera back in the early 60's and just ran across it the other day. Can anyone identify the model or tell me anything about it. I used it casually into the 70's but don't remember much else about it.
Yep, it's a "C-3". I have two identical to yours.
WALGREENS PHARMACY, WAL-MART, virtually ANY Camera Store, that does photo printing
Hey, GUY!
If you're still using Tri-X, why not just spend the $20 or so for the Developer, Stop Bath & Rapid Fixer ( 1 Gallon each) and do your own developing at home? A gallon of Stock chemistry can do around 50 or more '36 exposure rolls', before it's depleted. It's also really easy & enjoyable! Also, ( but i don't know if it's still availble in bulk, but-) A 100 foot roll of film will cut the cost of each exposure by a factor of 5 or 6, over buying individual 36exp rolls retail - probably more if you're not doing your own printing..
Joe,
Here's an option you might want to look into. First-off, you WILL lose Autofocus capabilities, but I'm pretty sure that you Image Quality will be superior to using a Tele-converter. A Schmidtt-Maksutov Mirror Lens. There are often used as Spotter Scope when used with an Eyepiece & often can double as a small convenient telescope. There's one in particular that I have had excellent images from that is a 500mm f/5.6 - that I paid $249.00 for. It has around a 90+mm aperture & will yield a nicely bright image with great definition, especially for the price you'll have to shell out.
From my own experience, teleconverters always degrade the image more than a dedicated Mirror-Lens. The 'MAK' has been used by photographers & astronomy enthusiasts, for over 50 years.
A 1.4X TC will decrease the brightness of your image by 1 f/stop (50%), while a 2X will decrease it by 2 f/stops (4times), and turns your f/5.6 into an f/11.2 Full-aperture.
joepeva wrote:
I have a Nikon D90 with a Nikor AFS 18-200 3.5-5.6 lens. There are opportunities to photograph eagles in our area. It does not seem reasonable to expect anything unusual at the 200 mm full zoom of my lens. Lens rental is not an option.
Question one... I have never used a tele converter, is it reasonable to expect that a tele converter would give me the added zoom and available light needed to get quality shots?
Second, if so...can anyone recommend a compatible brand that will not compromise the quality of the camera and lens that does not cost the down payment on a another lense? Thank you in advance for your help. Joe Peva
I have a Nikon D90 with a Nikor AFS 18-200 3.5-5.6... (
show quote)
GENTLEMEN!! MUST we descend to personal insults? There ARE better and more constructive ways to get your ideas/knowledge across.
Sorry, but I've mis-placed your name & contact info. - But I have information on Astronomy Clubs in your part of the country. You have my email address & phone. Get in touch & I'll forward an email thread to you
I tried to post a pic but it broke the camera.
One more "Senior Moment" ! Seems like they're becoming Hours, now. But, it still seems that I was using 220, and I DID get 8 exp, per roll.
Hey! Thanks for the correction!! Yes, I was talking about Hypersensitization through the use of Forming Gas or Baking. come to think about it, I had heard about pre-flashing & Mercury Vapor procedures too. But I used Hypered film for Astrophotography during the late 70's through around 1990. Tried baking but my results weren't very good and switched to soaking the film in Forming Gas under pressure. There was a dramatic increase in the density of my negatives over un-treated film.
Yep, I've got a Model #1 Kodak camera that dates from 1909, but that format hasn't been available for around 60-70 years, but I managed to fake it by using 127 film format, until they stopped making it, too. Kodak should have kept Tech Pan 2415, instead of Tri-X. It was so much more versatile & could be shot at ISO's of anywhere between 40 & 320. Had virtually NO grain until you got up in the 16x20 or larger print sizes. It was even better than Panatomic X The results you got depended greatly on what developer & temperature combination you used to process it. Kodak GOOFED, Big Time ! Anyone know where I can get a case of 220 film? Got this Fujika G-690 Rangefinder, that produced a 2-1/4x3-3/4 negatives on 220 Film format & gave 8 exposures per roll