Meh. I lost all interest as soon as I learned that Drag Racing has nothing to do with cross-dressers.....

BFE? I know it well. Spent a year working a project there.

The only thing that made it tolerable was staying at the Day's Inn on the St John's River which, while of your normal not-especially-nice Days Inn quality, has rooms fronting the river which make for greeting the day with some of the most gorgeous sunrises you could ever hope to see.

I took a series of about 8 months worth of sunrises over the St John's, some of which are breathtakingly gorgeous.

As for Palatka itself, there's nowhere to eat and nothing to do. Waffle House is the height of cuisine, and there's nothing more exciting (I kid you not) than an evening trip to the Dollar Store.

thanks emelen (and others). I'm definitely getting there!

Thinking engineering/physics:

To get a 1:1 ratio, with the digital image being identical to 35mm, it would be necessary to physically build the camera with the sensor 'x' distance further back in order for the same light area to be covered. 'x' would be the 1.6 value mentioned earlier, or similar.

A deeper (thicker, fatter, whatever) body would be required to achieve the identical results - not that that would ever happen as I recognize it's completely impractical.

To sum up, the terminology and concepts are more about the sensor - most specifically its size and the impact of it being larger - than the focal length and/or lens. It's a means of explaining new things using old and familiar language (for the benefit of those who have the frame of reference, that is).

Thanks folks!

Much, thanks!

So it has nothing to do with the physics of light as it pertains to the lens itself, but the available space (area) for the light beam to land on. Correct?

I know you meant well, but that's incomprehensible.

To quote Denzel Washington, talk to me like I'm 4.

I'm confused.

When referring to digital lenses, there's often a comment about the focal length being double the 35mm equivalent, ie this whiz-bang 50mm lens is 100mm 35mm equivalent, as is the 300mm superduper lens which is 600mm equivalent.

The physics hasn't changed, or has it? Given my understanding that the focal length is the distance the light has to pass from the extremity of the lens to the receptor, and engineering-wise that'd be the same whether on a film or digital (that's my assumption, anyway) why the differentiation?

I've giyf'd [1] some but haven't found an explanation that makes sense. yet. Help would be appreciated, please!

Thanks

Pat.

[1] GIYF = Google Is Your Friend

There was a thread out here recently from a spectacles wearer who, like me, struggles with getting sharp pics.

Not long ago I picked up a Sigma 600mm lens for use with my Olympus (e-3 & e-620), and because it's only manual focus I was having the toughest time getting sharp pics. The objective has been wildlife at many 100's of yds distance and the results have made me glad to not be using film, otherwise I'd have thrown a lot of money away by now!

Lo, technology to the rescue!

Using the liveview screen, which has been the cause of more blurry shots than I care to count - a quick check of most pics looks just fine to my (clearly defective) eye, but viewing the same thing on my computer means the flaws really show. Big time. My failure rate to date has been in excess of 90% and I was debating canning the lens and selling it.

What works (outlined below) is good for static shots - I got the lens for wildlife - but in-motion shots = forget it.

Using a tripod really helps, too, but you knew that already didnchya? Yeah. Thought so.

Anyhow:
- initial focus using viewfinder.
- cut to liveview lcd screen to confirm (it'll still look good, but almost certainly isn't)
- using the digital zoom capability, bump it up (mine goes to 5x, 7x & 10x). Now the flaws will really show up.
- very carefully adjust the focus. Here's where technical terms like "itty bitty" and "teeny weenie" come into play. ;-)
- This is about as sharp as you're going to get. Click away!

The results are a drastic improvement! My failure rate has dropped to almost nothing.

Not that I picked my audience well, but this will most certainly resonate out here! :-)

Another section isn't needed. Educating people on how to use subjects, however, is another matter entirely.

"Need info on HDR" is very much self-explanatory. Needless to say, as this is a button-presser for you there's no need to ever open such a thread.
"What bag to travel with?" Very clear what's being sought.
"HELP!!!!" is utterly meaningless. I almost never waste my time with such posts.

Personally (and I'm not sure if there's a mail client version of UHH as I only ever use the web interface) the subject line determines whether something is worth looking at or not.

Meaningful and descriptive subjects let me make an informed decision and so I can act accordingly. Vague, hysterical and uninformative subjects generally get ignored. My time is valuable, as is the info I'm willing to share, and I don't direct it at people who won't take the time to help me to help them.

To conclude, if anything would help, it would be an addition to the FAQ to guide on how to get the help you seek. It's a long-standing problem on the interwebs that people simply don't know how to ask questions, and meaningless subjects decrease ones chances of getting what is being sought.

Everything out here may be 'free', but there's no free lunch. If my time and willingness to assist (did I mention for free?) isn't respected by a requestor thinking through what they need and having the courtesy to put a little effort into helping me to help them, I'll just move right along. I lose nothing along the way and don't fry cycles needlessly.

Finally, I read How To Ask Questions The Smart Way about 15-20 years ago (Google it). It's as valuable today as it was then.

Pat.

Don't feel stupid. If, like me, you were able to pickup, say, an excellent fast lens for pennies on the dollar then you actually did something very good.

All you're missing is the adaptor. Fotodiox (www.fotoidiox) to the rescue!

They sell OM-to-4/3 adapters for about $20. I use one on the OM f1.8 50mm lens that I recently acquired for $14 on Ebay. That's $34 for what I know will become my primary portraiture lens. BTW, I use the E-620, and this isn't the 1st OM lens I've bought and use. Age is irrelevent when you're talking about a quality lens that, for the Zuiko equivalent would cost 40x as much. Losing auto is a small price to pay!

Nope, no stupidity here. Just not knowing how to connect the dots - which is precisely what this forum is for!

best, Pat

:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUhF2DkqBsM&feature=share

I saw it and tried, but had the wrong lens (a 600mm Sigma mirror) which, because of it being fixed length, was actually too close/large to capture the rings also and I completely misjudged it. Salt in the wounds was that I couldn't see my error until viewing the pics on my pc screen :-(

OK, so the fact that this is done with 100% Lytro people contributing makes it totally unbiased (not!), it's still interesting to get the explanation on how it works, how they're changing the photography world, and best is the quality of the results.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE8DKM-B0Eo&feature=youtu.be

If it comes out as planned around the $500 mark, no question I'll be buying one.

It was discussed a few weeks ago out here. Until it's in the market it's vaporware.

thanks. I'd looked at that but am hindered by my tool of choice being the Olympus E-series and thus no SD slot. :-(

Pinged them a while back about a CF version but no joy.