ron c sunshine coast,qld,a

No,that adapter has optics -that's why they quote the 1.3x magnification factor.

<BR>If it had no optics it would be a macro-only adapter with no distant focus capabilities of any kind.

<P>Sadly this is how it is with FD lenses -there is no sensible way to use them on EOS.there are ways of converting some FD lenses to EOS mount but it's expensive.

<P>The ONLY good option for you is to sell the lenses and buy into another system.Luckily they sell very well on ebay so that's a good option

Andrew i wasn't qritiquing anyone's work or insulting anyone.Appologies to those in question if it came accross that way.

<BR>I was trying to say that those example images -meant to show how good or bad a lens is- were obviously showing that the lenses in question were the latter.

<P>Need i upload pics myself? What is the point of that? This thread is about lenses not anyone's tallent

<P>I would have posted images if i had some that showed the true potential of mirror lenses.Unfortunately all my best telephoto lens shots just happened to be taken with normal lenses- no reason except unfortunate coincidence.But i can say from all the testing i've done that the better mirror lenses are definitely quite good,while the cheaper ones are horrid

Wow,that church shot and statue are just bad.I really hope they are cropped heavily from the full frame-that's about the only excuse for being so soft.

<P>Brian there are very good usable mirror lenses around.To be honest i've heard of many models being praised but not the perkin elmer...

<BR>The Nikkor above is obviously a good one.Others that come to mind are (in no particular order): Tamron sp500 ,Vivitar'solid cat' ,Zeiss 'mirotar' ,Leica , plus maybe the sigma 600 and Rubinar 500 (f5.6 version)

<P>I've personally used a Tamron sp500 and found it to be *slightly* sharper than a pentax takumar 500/4.5 used @f8 .The mirror lens also has allmost no colour fringing and is tiny and light,but of course it does have the normal mirror drawbacks.

<P>One thing i can strongly recommend is to avoid the cheapo mirror lenses like the plague! While the good brands are worth using,the $100 cheapies are simply a waste of time.

<P>Here are a couple of pics taken with the sigma 600mm mirror (not my pics but show the potential)

<P>http://www.pbase.com/dougsmit/image/47037073

<P>http://www.pbase.com/dougsmit/image/56445596

<P>http://www.pbase.com/dougsmit/image/59892993

In theory an adapter for using maxxum lenses on EOS is perhaps possible (without using image degrading optical elements) but nobody makes one.

The problem is not so much the 0.5mm thickness the adapter would have to be , but the difficulty of the lens tabs being very close to the size of the EOS mount's minimum diameter.I did measure it once but can't remember the exact thicknesses required.

<BR>The half a mm thickness of the main outer part is not much of an issue because this part is simply a spacer anyway.Being thin here is no real problem.

<P>If a maxxum to EOS adapter is indeed possible it would cost about $50 to make,not the hundreds of thousands someone said....

<P><P>If you still want to use maxxum lenses on EOS you can easily do it by simply holding it against the body,i've done this many times.

<BR>Of course you'll need a third hand to focus... :)

"Wow. It looks better than the new Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS, and I thought that looked good"

<P>Have another look.The tamron has *slightly* better edge performance at some apertures and/or focal lengths.The canon kills it for center sharpness wide open .

<BR>That said, the tamron certainly is respectable!It might suit someone like myself who doesn't want to pay for image stabilization but can't can't tollerate the average optical performance of the Sigma 18-50/2.8

For the 10D i'd recommend the 85/1.8 as the longest focal length you'd want to use for normal portraits.

<BR>I had the 100macro but had to sell it when i changed to digital as it just didnt look right when doing portraits.

<P>In fact these days users tend to recommend 50mm as the most used portrait length on digital.Personally i prefer abit longer and am considering buying the EFs 60macro lens one day.That will give me the perspective* that i had when using my much loved 100macro on a film body.

<P><P>* Yes i know-the focal length doesn't change the perspective,yada,yada.But it does force one to change ones perspective to achieve the same framing.

Ok you've got it to work,now the difficult questions start....

<BR>Have you compared it to the common CWB method of using an inexpensive grey card? I don't know the exact price of the expodisk but just going by comments online it seems that you can save at least $25 by using the easier grey card method -which is also more accurate by all accounts i've ever heard.

<P>This shouldn't be surprising really.The grey card method measures light falling on the scene while the expodisk measures a whole bunch of coloured light reflecting FROM the scene.

Perhaps we are not talking about the same Tokina lens Eric? The one i tested and used was the 'RMC'500/8 mirror.

<P>Here are some images taken with cheap 'preset'lenses like the Pheonix Dan asks about.<BR>Please note that the second image is well above average and is not quite what one would usually get from these lenses.I just include it to show ultimate potential.

<P> <a href="http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/images/gg5.jpg">Example 1</a>

<BR><a href="http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/pages/kimunor-500mmf8-%5B80k%5D.html">Example 2</a>

There are alot of doubters here, but really -how many have actually used the lens or compared it to others?

<P>I've done both and find these type of lenses to be quite decent.Dan just ignore the naysayers and buy one if it's all you can afford

<P>To give an example of where these lenses fit into the grand sceme of things - i've used a great many cheap telephoto lenses and find :

<p>The cheap brand mirror lenses are near uselessc .No really,they are appalling .

<p>Above those are the semi cheap mirror lenses such as the tokina RMC.These are not worth using either i say.

<p>Then you have the 'preset' type manual focus lenses like the Pheonix.These give results far better than their budget price suggests,easily better than the same priced mirror lenses.There are slight differences between the older ones (they been made for at least 20 years and the newest versions such as the Pheonix you are looking at.If you can get a good secondhand older one it will give better edge sharpness,while the new ones are a touch sharper in the center but quite soft towards the edges.

<p>Next up the rank are the good brand mirror lenses such as Tamron SP , Nikkor , Vivitar 'solid cat',Zeiss 'mirotar' ,etc

<BR>I've personally only used the Tamron but found it to be about equal to the Takumar 500/4.5 (at the same apertures).Of course these are still mirror lenses with all the drawbacks and benifits that go with that.

<P>Lenses like the Takumar 500/4.5 and sigma 400/5.6Apo i'd describe as 'allmost as good as the manufactures lenses'.I have the Takumar myself.While it is a good lens,it is still completely manual -focus,aperture,even stop down :-(,not to mention the weight!

I'm currently shopping around for a data projector for our local

camera club.

<<BR>One aspect that has an influence on which model we can afford

is what type of laptop we'll need to run it.

<P>I think i read somewhere that laptops -indeed LCD screens in

general- only run properly at their native resolution? So far i can

only see us needing a basic model laptop with a 800x600

screen .Would there be any real issues running a 1024x768 projector

off this?

<P>In other words- would the settings have to compromised in any way

so that image quality is reduced?I don't care what shows on the

laptop screen-only that the pictures show through the projector at

their very best

<BR>I plan to use irfanview for viewing if that has any relevance.

<P><P>By the way,if anyone has comments on good model projectors i'm

still looking.I *think* we've decided on a DLP rather than LCD for

the better contrast/deeper blacks but i haven't seen any direct

comparisons and have vague doubts because i've read that LCD's are

inherantly slightly sharper than DLP's (for the same resolution)

Manish you can easily decide which length extension tube(s) to buy using this trick-

<p>Simply remove the lens and hold it the required distance from the camera.Now move closer to an object until it comes into focus.

<P>You'll notice that the longer lens needs alot more extension to have the same effect.This is normal and may effect which tubes you buy

There are a whole rash of programs that will do what you want,the problem is getting one that is simple to use yet has the features there for when you need them

<br>Sadly no program does exactly this

<BR>It's probably best to go with photoslop elements.The learning curve will be abit intimidating but because it's the most common brand there are lots of tutorials on the web

<br>By all means get elements 4 if you can but even older versions are very good if you want to buy 2nd hand to save $

<P>To save time and frustration when learning any image editing program,concentrate on learning the following (in no particular order):

<P>How to save for the web (so you can reduce the file sizes for internet/email use while keeping the image quality good)

<BR>How to use the 'clone' function (for seamlessly removing spots,etc)

<BR>How to sharpen (once you have basic settings for the 'unsharp mask' function it's very easy)

<BR>How to use 'Levels' (very important -for controlling bright/dark/contrast/shaddows/highlights)

<BR>The crop tool

<BR>How to apply text to an image.This one is potentially extremely frustrating because you will have to learn 'layers'.Layers are extremely powerfull but very difficult to learn at first (mostly because they are SO badly designed in all the image editors i've used)

This is something i've never thought about until a website mentioned

it in passing.

<P>Do all image editing programs do their editing in bitmap format?

<BR>I realize they can open a great variety of image formats then

save them back to any other format.What i mean is... is the image

onscreen allways a bitmap because that's the only format the monitor

can display?

<P>I hope this question makes sense-it is abit bizare,huh :)

<P>Related to this-when a Jpeg is decompressed to show onscreen,i

guess it is (temporarily) showing as a bitmap ?

I do a fair bit of photography using manual focus lenses on AF

bodies.Quite often i have difficulty achieving accurate focus.

<P>I could fit a special manual focus screen but this costs alot and

does have it's dissadvantages

<P>One thing i'd like to check out is focus magnifiers.

<BR>Who makes them? I did some basic searching on the net and came

up with nothing so far.Maybe i'm using the wrong search words.

<P>Didn't nikon make something like this for it's pro bodies at one

time?

<P>I've experimented with a few lenses that were lying around

(magnifying glass,lenses,etc) but it seems only a certain type of

optic will work

I think this is a different technique to that Ed describes,i think he is gripping the whole filter with a large set of vise grips(?).

<P>I've had 100% success with the following method -i use it when all other attempts have failed.

<P>Using vise grips or pliers approch from in front of the lens and grip the front edge of the filter.It doesn't matter where on the filter,top ,bottom,side ,etc

<BR>Now twist (it can be done left or right but left is best in case it decides to undo after all)

<P>What will happen is that the filter ring will bend in an 'S' shape inwards from the lens thread.It allways bends inwards because the lens' filter thread is very strongly resistant to expansion.

<BR>This will be enough to (at least) make the filter so loose inside the lens thread that it easily undoes.At best it reduces the filter ring diameter so much that you simply lift it out

what about flash based images?

<P>I've noticed these don't show up in the cache

Mmm. Vlad had a very good point originally.Pity you RAW religion idiots had to go on and on and on.

<P>This is one of the reasons i don't bother with p.net forums much anymore.Too many imbeciles that want to argue a point when there never was one to argue

'lack of accutance based sharpness'

<P>I've noticed that about the DO lens right from the start.It seems to give excellent sharpness but not in way of other modern lenses which tend to exadurate contrast at certain lines/mm.

<P>In that way it's allmost the opposite to most cheapo modern zooms which have very good accutance -for the price- but average resolution

<P>If the low contrast/accutance thing is something you don't like i recommend you look hard at the new 70-300IS .This model seems to give crisp high contrast,saturated images with very good sharpness

What the others said (except the advice to spend big on the 50/1.4)

<P>Most of the problem is in the post proccessing but you should know that the 35-80 model lens is about the worst canon make

YES! ! ! (picture stereotyped fist pumping action)

<BR>That works perfectly Denis,Thanks heaps

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/color-gremlins.shtml

<P>I'd like to do this in elements 2.Can anybody think of a way ?

<P>I don't currently have access to CS or CS2<BR>Thanks

I wonder how the 5D files respond to this type of colour noise reduction - which makes the grain look more natural (like film or nikon ) ?<P>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/color-gremlins.shtml