GR1664886157

Does anyone know what camera gear the photographer used to produce the most expensive photo to date?

As an aside, that old lens combo produced a fantastic portrait of my unsuspecting wife with no CA at 400mm. The focus would have been to infinity, so I wonder if focus is more impactful than zoom?

Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and experience. I rummaged through my "bits box" and found a vintage HOYA 200mm and x2 teleconverter. This setup produced some CA on branches at 400mm f5.6 ISO200 1m-2m distance, but not as much. I saw no animals today except for a bee that is perhaps not an ideal subject for long distance zooms.

Generic cards were not delivered:( I have now tried a FluCard and it's a bit rubbish. I can connect to the FluCard from various up to date browsers on my Mac, but the Remote Capture screen does not display all the options claimed in the manual. Furthermore, once started, I am not presented with an option to turn-off Remote Capture. The manual does say that FluCard will not work with all browsers. Has anyone used it with browsers released in 2021? http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/support/man-pdf/o-fc1_operation_en.pdf

What is annoying about the Sigma's limitations at 300mm is that the Sigma's macro focus only works at 300mm. It is also a heavy lens and a lot of bulk to carry, so if its not all usable then it might as well never be used. Many of my other lenses can reach 200mm and I now feel obliged to work through them diligently to identify which lens has the longest usable focal length.

Only if you know what you are doing ;) The image does not display the actual targeted metal contact on the flash. As an un-initiated I followed the general path of the needle shown in the image and landed the tip of needle on a nearby, but incorrect, piece of metal. 0V recorded, which I knew was wrong but did not know why. Later, I slid the needle into the flash so that they locked together in the same way that the flash and hotshoe would lock together (e.g. the needle is fixed and does not drop out) and doing that is not what is shown in the image. Only after 4.96V was recorded did I know the needle was in the right place, and that is how I came to find the intended contact. The guide is clear if the reader has a little bit of prior knowledge. BTW, International Standards Organisation (ISO) mandates cameras support 24V. By definition only manufacturers that use cheap non-specification components would have an upper limit of 6V. DSLRs from actual premium brands such as Minolta and Fuji support 400V and 600V respectively .. :eek:

Granted, I am a luddite. I did not consider the feasibility of billboard pixel peeping. In my view of the world most photographers will remain amateurs who share images electronically. I wonder how many pixels are in contemporary digital billboards..

Ah... the guide was not idiot proof. Another way to test is to push the multimeter's needle through the flash connector as though the needle were the bracket of the camera's hot shoe. 4.96V :)

It may have been overlooked but the opening post did ask for pre-processing fixes. The first edits occur before the camera is turned on, including tasks such as framing the shot, and cropping or other post-production edit is covering-up imperfections. I do crop etc., but it is not an intention to go there. When a 6MP camera produces more pixels than most new monitors can display, why are camera makers pushing > 30MPs? o_O

Following this advice I tried to buy a 285HV. It turned out to be an older 285, but I tested it anyway, and followed this guide: Measuring the Voltage on a Vivitar 285 Flash | Jeff Geerling The 285 is flashing, but the multimeter is reading 0V when fully charged - is that possible? (the multimeter is reading rechargeable 1.2V batteries correctly).

How annoying. Maybe I would have been better off using an auxiliary with the kit lens.. :( That is a really useful graph. Are there similar graphs for other lenses?

There was no filter on it. The DG seems have a filter inside it though, and I say that because the colour produced by a DG is the same as a the colour produced by Sigma DL only when a DL has a skylight added!

Sigma 70-300 DG macro.

Indeed this is among the worst of the pictures taken while intentionally testing that IBIS was working, and I am keen to understand what went so wrong with this particular shot - its not an example of CA I have seen before. The magenta just seems erroneous. The colours above/below the beak also seem bizarre to me. As for whether is aesthetically pleasing or not - it is certainly not colourful, or interesting, or even a good illustration. It does however have artefacts that capture a reality of digital photography, which is an authenticity that so many photographers try to hide - I agree this one belongs in the trash beside many of Jackson Pollock paintings, but if the unique style can be mastered then who knows.. ;)

There seems to be something wrong and the message here is that the owners of photo.net are unwilling to support this community.