Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Posts for: Leitz
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 206 next>>
Feb 23, 2019 03:32:35   #
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 ????

Are you just going to copy what everyone else photographs there, or do you think for yourself and choose your own subjects and views? If the former, buy postcards - if the latter, you know what to take.
 
Feb 21, 2019 14:55:36   #
GrahamO wrote:
Leitz, Yes there is nonsense written here, and the nonsense is not what I wrote about when I very successfully adapted an enlarger lens. Perhaps I was foolish in experimenting but it worked beautifully and I took some very good photos that way. No animals were injured. Absolutely nothing exploded or overheated.

I'm not bold enough to admit to some of the experiments I've done!
Feb 21, 2019 14:45:23   #
burkphoto wrote:
Yeah, the skeptics should just trust us. We've made it work before.

Skeptics indeed! Begging your pardon, but you have provided some rum information yourself -

"Magnification is primarily via the front bellows. Focus is by moving the camera relative to the back of the lens."

There are some bellows whose rear standard is not fixed. Magnification is determined by the lens-camera distance (bellows draw), focus is by moving the entire unit relative to the subject.

"So you should be able to fit one of those bellows together with your enlarger lens, if it has a 39mm (by 1mm thread pitch) male screw thread."

The pitch of the Leica 39mm screw mount is not 1mm, it is 26 threads per inch – just enough difference that one will not engage correctly with the other. As RWR noted, at least one Schneider enlarger lens has a 39x0.75mm mount, which is also the same thread as a 39mm filter.
Feb 21, 2019 07:06:39   #
RWR wrote:
How do you know that? The OP hasn’t said, and hasn’t bothered to respond to anything. Probably went elsewhere looking for knowledgeable advice.

Putting in my half pence worth here, I agree that without more information from the OP any response is guesswork. Describing how to mount a lens is foolish if he already has a bellows with camera and lens mounted, and he's surely confused if he tried to follow the advice on how to focus! I also recommend that he check the links in the macro section for factual information and ignore all the nonsense posted here.
Feb 16, 2019 20:12:18   #
nervous2 wrote:
Allow me show my ignorance by asking what "screw driver focus" is. Thanks.

That's an ignorant way of saying the lens focus is driven by a motor in the camera.
Feb 13, 2019 03:31:53   #
Bill_de wrote:
In one of the WARNING boxes on page 17 of my camera manual it says: ALWAYS CHECK WITH THE HOG!

My manual is older than the UHH, but I just updated it. Thanks!
 
Feb 12, 2019 12:11:10   #
Kandfoto wrote:
It’s a “raw” photo in the fact that its not been processes. I forgot that this forum worries more about terminology than what my original question.

When you use correct terminology people will think you know what you're talking about.
Feb 11, 2019 11:33:26   #
OZMON wrote:
should I leave the batteries in my cameras when not in use for a few weeks or should I take it out.

What does your user's manual recommend??
Feb 10, 2019 00:06:49   #
Curmudgeon wrote:
Congratulations all. You took almost 2 1/2 pages before you got off the OPs question. Almost 3 1/2 before someone first hijacked the thread. Some really good info in those first pages, not so much after that.

A most humorous read. Pity the poor novice trying to learn something!
Feb 7, 2019 11:36:05   #
camerapapi wrote:
"If the lens was made in 1974, it was not single coated." It was in 1975 that Nikon began to use multicoating on all of the new lenses. My 1974, 50mm f1.4 is a non AI lens and although at the time Nikon was using a single coating at the front and another in the rear element these lenses were still designated a single coating. This is what I know from the information given to me. My lens was AI converted by John White, a gentleman that makes these conversions in his shop in Michigan.

I thank you all of you for your contributions. Over the years there have been significant improvements in lens technology, Multicoating, VR, Nano coating, Fluoride coating, AF and others that I will not mention. In spite of that high technology old lenses continue to do their job and some of them like my 1967, 105mm f2.5 lens continues to amaze me with its superb image quality. This lens was used by Steve McCurry to shoot his famous portrait "The Afghan Girl" in a refugee camp in Pakistan in the early 70's if memory does not fail.

Indeed many of these lenses have a tendency to show chromatic aberrations. They were designed for film, not the digital sensor. The majority of these old lenses are excellent performers and they can be bought for bargain prices today.
How good a lens do I need? Be your own judge.
"If the lens was made in 1974, it was not sin... (show quote)

According to Braczko, the 50 f/1.4 was multicoated since April, 1972. This link says they were multi-coated starting in 1973, from serial number 1280001:
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html
Feb 7, 2019 09:19:10   #
camerapapi wrote:
... the image of the old man walking his dog was made using a 1974 Nikon 50mm f1.4 single coated lens.

If the lens was made in 1974, it was not single coated.
 
Feb 6, 2019 14:20:55   #
These card reader vs USB cable debates are always good for some laughs - a lot of strong opinions, few facts. When I bought my first digital camera I asked the rep which I should use. Removing the cover on the camera he asked,
"What's this port for?"
"A USB cable."
"What comes with the camera?"
"A USB cable."
"Do you have another question?"
Feb 5, 2019 17:07:08   #
BebuLamar wrote:
I think what Leitz meant is that the safe sync in no way can make the 611 mounted any higher as the 611 can not be mounted on the hot shoe.

At least you and GoofyNewfie actually know what a handle-mount flash unit is!
Feb 5, 2019 14:07:39   #
olemikey wrote:
...your strobe will sit slightly higher...

Please explain to us how a Safe Sync will make a Sunpak 611 sit higher.
Feb 4, 2019 05:24:50   #
superkool wrote:
Hope someone can help with the issue I’m having involving over exposed pictures when using the Gary Fong Lightsphere inside attached to the Canon Speedlight 430exll and shooting with the Canon 77D on auto setting.

This is a bit of oversimplification, but there are several ways to address overexposure with flash. Reduce the sensor's sensitivity (lower ISO). Use a smaller f/stop. Reduce the flash output. Increase the flash-to-reflecting surface distance. Increase the reflecting surface-to-subject distance. Modify the reflecting surface's reflectivity.
As I'm sure you are aware, those who have dumped on your thread with pictures and comments about different systems do you no service.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 206 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.