Jump to content

pjdilip

Members
  • Posts

    260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

7 Neutral
  1. Further experimentation using medium format lenses on a digital sensor (FX) body confirms that the magnification remains the same, compared with an FX lens of same focal length. Of course, the larger format lens will project a bigger circle of coverage or field of view, provided the sensor or film is big enough to register it. To accommodate the same field of view on the smaller sensor, one would need a shorter focal length. Hope this is a correct statement!
  2. It's actually a relief that larger format doesn't magnify the image on the film compared to a smaller format. But my 6x8 (cm) body sure fooled me! That may be because it gives a magnified image in its viewfinder? (Obviously I can't actually develop a film).
  3. By gosh, I realized something today that I've been mistaken about all this time. I thought that a given focal length lens produced the same image size of, let's say, a cat, whether it was attached to a full-frame (FX, 35mmx24mm) or a medium format (MF, 6cmx7cm for instance) system. This I had worked out by placing a medium format lens in front of my DSLR, and comparing images of the same cat taken with a native FX lens of same focal length (these types of fool experiments were not possible before digital!). I was mistaken. Today, playing around with medium format (MF) and full-frame digital (FX) cameras with their respective lenses, I realized that the MF lenses I use (6x8 cm) are much farther out from the plane of the film, and project an image of almost double the size. But if you try to use the MF lens on the FX body (just hold it in front, with a tube if necessary to cut out side light) you'll have to bring the back of the lens closer in, thereby shrinking the image to just the same as a native FX lens would throw. Therefore, a larger format does really give a bigger image, whether it be bird, beast, or relative. This doesn't work between FX and DX (24mmx18mm) on the same camera make though, as sensor-to-back-of lens distance remains the same; there is no magnification for a given focal length just by changing from a DX lens to an FX lens. People ought not to talk of the close-in advantage of DX compared with FX, no? They could however justify talking of the image-expanding advantage of larger format, provided that means also longer flange-to sensor distance. Is this sounding utterly nonsensical?!
  4. Do you remember the case of the guy who started chronicling his every activity in a diary. Ultimately it became such an obsession that he had roomfulls of beautifully bound, matching volumes, all recording his latest activity: 'Now I am writing my latest entry... Now i am writing that I am writing my latest entry... Now I'm writing that...' - You get the idea!:mad::confused::eek::oops: PN has a weird collection of faces!
  5. Of course, this may not be relevant in an edge-to-edge wide view like Rodeo Joe's beautiful shot of a library room. In fact there the opposite may hold; the higher-pixel FF would be superior, as I want to keep every pixel.
  6. Just one small additional point to be clarified with ref. to focal length: I am thinking of the same focal length lens on either of the sensors (DX or FX), as I want the same absolute size of the image. Using the 400mm on the DX will give a smaller image, which will take away the advantage of the smaller (cheaper, lighter, denser?) sensor. So I propose using the same 600mm on either of the sensors, thus getting away with a smaller sensor, and not having so much wasted surround to throw away. Does this make sense?
  7. 1) I'm scanning my 60+ rolls of slides on a Nikon Coolscan IV. I marvel at pros who gather 1000's of images in a single outing, whereas my whole lifetime output of slides is just a couple of thousands. What do the pros do with their 000s of images? Do they hire assistants to cull? Do they toss filled-up SD cards in a bin? In fact, because digital produced so many non-significant images, I think I gradually lost interest in purposeful photography as a hobby (as against taking random shots at meetings). 2) Regarding size, my Coolscan gives files of over 50 MB at 2900 ppi, and a Coolscan V would give double that at 4000 ppi. I downsize these to 1000 by 600 pixels JPGs for uploading to Flickr- each a few 100's KB, for crying out loud! So 50 MP resolution may not be so unmanageable? On a positive note, I am regaining an interest through revisiting my slides. Challenge is, how to exercise the restraint and devotion we used to have with film, on the do-anything at-any-speed digital altar?
  8. I had the exact same problem with an early model 80-200 f/2.8 lens. It didn't bother me much as it had a screw-on lens hood, but I did want the filter off in order to attach a "lens cradle" I had purchased to provide a tripod mount. I tried lens wrenches, rubber thongy, knocking the edge gently, breathing heavily... Not heating or isopropyl, though... nopes, nada. Took it to our friendly city Nikon service center, begged them to take it out of turn, got it back in five minutes with filter off, no charge. Now I have been able to mount the NICAM lens cradle on it... saved the investment! I really don't know how they did it... maybe they have a pneumatic device like the tyre changers?
  9. What a glorious shot Rodeo_Joe! Light and depth... astounding. Why am I bothered? Maybe FOMO... the fear of missing out, looking over the other guy's shoulder to see what camera he's using (as if the camera got up and went to get the shot, thank you John Shaw!).
  10. Looking at the various U-toob videos, many by well-respected and solid wildlife or nature pros, I see they may take many thousands of images on just a single outing. I couldn't do that in my entire lifetime of slide film photography! I used to put a roll in, and cast about in despair for ways to finish the 36 frames in it! (I still have an unfinished roll in my F801s). The question is: how do they deal with this profusion (hundreds of the same pink flamingo or ibis flying from point A to point B). Do they actually do the trashing themselves? Do they employ assistants to cull? Do they just toss more and more 8GB micro cards into a bin for posterity, like the Sumerian clay tablets? What's the best approach to this embarrassment of riches (which actually put me off photography for a few years)? I'd be grateful for your experiences and insights.
  11. I'm scanning my old slides at the moment. I realize now that it was almost impossible to get everything right with only film... the reason I didn't do much with them all these years. Either the camera meter was off, or the film speed was too low, or the contrast range too wide, the light too harsh or dim, or, or, or.... Now that I have experimented a little more with different digital PP programs, I am slowly rescuing the less defective images. It's amazing what these programs can do. But it's best to disclose that digital manipulation has been resorted to. Ultimately, if the image pleases, surely that is justification enough.
  12. Terrific responses, and great information. I was wondering about the exact same question as touched upon by Dieter above... the Nikon D500 vs. the D850. And absolutely, @mikemorrell, motivation, get up and out, and learn the skills of getting closer. Thanks gentlemen.
  13. I really liked Charlie Sheen calling his screen brother Allen an "IRK" in Two-and-a-Half Men. Irks are things, or people, you can't live without and don't enjoy living with. Best to accept Sod's Law (if something can go wrong, it will...), and prepare in advance for all sorts of aggravations (failing eyesight, less sleep, more pains and aches, ungrateful offspring, nagging pets, weedy grass.........)o_O
  14. As I continue scanning my slides of birds, I find that the subject occupies a very small portion of the frame. Also, with vignetting due to teleconverters, I find it better to crop down in any case. In practical terms, this brings me to DX frame size from the 35mm slide. Does this imply that in DSLR terms, a 20 Megapixel crop-size camera is as good as 40-MP full frame (at least for birds and similar small objects)? Which also suggests another advantage - that we use the central, sharper portion of the full-frame lenses on the crop sensor?
  15. I've been registered on Flickr since 2017, but finally decided to start using it only in 2021, mainly for my old slides (60 rolls of 'em). The main benefit to me is that it encourages me to scan my slides, and give them a proper title, description, technical details, etc. The platform itself does a great job of arranging and displaying the pics in albums. At 10-15 usable pics per roll, I think the free allowance of 1000 will be adequate for the present. I have not yet thought about what to do with the digital camera pics... the old film business did give a greater focus and theme to my exposures, whereas the digital era has resulted in hundreds or thousands of images of doubtful value or uniqueness!
×
×
  • Create New...