oleg_kosyakovsky

What about two exposures, ~10sec each? Thanks, Oleg.

I am doing an odd thing with Polaroid i-type film, but that's what I need it for. In brief, I try to expose it outside of the camera, then insert into "Polaroid Now" in order to develop. The question: what causes the large spoiled spot in the corner (see the attachment)? The procedure: - pull a sheet from cartridge - expose in DIY enlarger while the picture area being squeezed between two plates (glass and plastic); the "pod" and the "trap" not touched - insert the sheet into an empty cartridge - insert the cartridge into "Polaroid Now" camera - "take" a picture without flash and with lens being obstructed - let the photo develop face-down on a table Thank you in advance, Oleg.

Sorry for this dumb question, but... Are there currently produced instant photo papers where the side facing the viewer is the same that faced the lens? I read that Fuji Instax is exposed from the rear - opposite of what I'm looking for. Thank you in advance, Oleg.

<p>After years of using Loreo lenses with digital SLRs I bought myself a TDC Stereo Colorist 2 camera. Shot 10 negative films, but didn't yet processed the results.<br> I hope that Loreo foldable stereo viewers are usable for stereo-camera images too - after processing in StereoPhotoMaker. Did anybody try this approach?<br> From my past experience, the best way to show stereo photos to people that are not stereo-photographers is large-size (A4 in my case) color anaglyph prints. Not even high-resolution displays, but the paper prints, so that people know for sure there's no computer tricks behind.</p> <p>Regards,<br> Oleg.</p>

<p>Actually Sony 16-50 is very sharp and produces nice 3d look. Wide-end distortion and vignetting are pronounced, but only the latter is really annoying. At 16mm images from this lens resemble semi-fisheye, which is interesting by itself. Unless you shoot architecture, you may enjoy this effect.<br> Moreover, lenses made for in-camera correction usually cover greater angle than specified, so "16mm" end could be even wider than 16mm.<br> There are 2 more problems to know about though - observed on NexC3 but not on Nex7:<br /> (a) when the camera goes into sleep mode or review-mode, the lens gets retracted and zoom is reset to 16mm; (b) the camera doesn't show current focal-length setting (you get it in EXIF "postfactum").<br> Hope this helps,<br> Oleg.</p>

<p>Are you sure you want to go down to 40-50m? If yes, forget about the cheaper housings.<br> If this was a typo, and you intend "mainstream" diving of around 20m, an extract from my post on dpreview forum may help you:<br> ==================================<br> I'm promoting a flash-less technique of underwater photography - with color restoration in (raw) postprocessing.<br> You are invited to read my technical paper here: <a href="http://www.lazyconv.com/papers/Minolta5d_UW.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.lazyconv.com/papers/Minolta5d_UW.pdf</a><br> And here is my latest photo gallery where many photos are taken underwater with Sony NEX C3 and 18-55 in Meike housing:<br /><a href="http://www.lazyconv.com/galleries/Root/Thailand_0214__SRC5M/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.lazyconv.com/galleries/Root/Thailand_0214__SRC5M/index.html</a><br> ==================================</p> <p>Regards,<br> Oleg.</p>

<p>Put a good wide-angle converter on your lens, but keep the aperture reasonably open, and you got it.<br> For example (I tried it): Raynox DCR-6600PRO - 0.66x - on a 35mm lens with APS-C camera - http://raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcr6600pro/indexdcr6600eg.htm.<br> Maybe cheaper wide-angle converters will do for you either; it depends on your requirements for the center sharpness.</p>

<p>If you want to "stay" lightweight, consider 16-50 f/3.5-5.6 and Sigma 30/2.8. If you really need a telephoto zoom now, then get the 55-210, otherwise I'd wait.<br> If I were to buy a telezoom for the E-mount today while being on budget, I'd look at SLT A mount adapter (no problem if used), and a legacy or current Minolta/Sony zoom. Minolta 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 or Minolta 100-200 f4.5 are the most compact ones. Otherwise - 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 or 55-300 f/4.5-5.6. The Minolta 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 APO looks even more tempting, but I have one, and it shows optical flaws on any digital camera I tried it with.</p>

<p>Do you want to just see the image on a larger screen, or control the camera?<br> As far as I know, the former works even with A55, while the latter isn't supported. <br> But, if I'm not mistaken, the newer cheapish A58 does have some kind of tethering.<br> While it looks like a drawback, the ultimate point in EVF cameras is to have exposure simulation in the viewfinder, so there should be much less point in tethering than with classic DSLR-s.</p>

<p>What is this lens's min focus distance?<br> There is a much more recent russian/soviet lens Industar 50/3.5 that appears to be Tessar and has great image quality, flare resistance included. Existed in both RF and SLR versions. The only drawback - the MFD in the RF version is 1m. The price is much lower.<br> I have one made in 1970-s; hardly use it, but wasn't able to reject the purchase because of the great condition. When I say "quality is great" , I mean on a 16 MPixel APSC Sony E-mount; cannot comment on full frame.</p>