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>

<p>For what you plan to shoot, you would be "crazy" on not getting the 16mm lens. You can buy it off ebay for a good price, since there are many sold as kits.<br>

Then, the two genuine Sony WA adapters are reported to be quite good - as an exception to the rule. E.g. the 16/2.8 is a reasonable-quality lens, not the top-quality one, but adding any of the adapters won't cause any further image degradation. For your purpose I'd buy both adapters.<br>

Another wide-angle option (I tried it myself) - your 18-55 with old KonicaMinolta ?0.8x? adapter for Dimage A1/A2. While the adapter is >200gr, the 18-55 lens is sturdy enough to withstand it, and the quality is pretty good.<br>

Or, if you want to spend more money, there's the excellent 10-18 f/4 lens waiting for you. But then - no fish-eye.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Oleg.</p>

<p>The 16-50 is _much_ smaller and lighter, while the 18-55 is _much_ more convenient to use. On my Nex C3 you cannot know the exact focal length with the 16-50; then it returns to 16mm at power-save and at switching to image-review mode.<br>

Both lenses are sufficiently sharp for 16mm sensors, both provide good colors and contrast. The 16-50 does require lens correction at the wide end - for distortion and vignetting. In my workflow, and with my camera, the correction is unavailable. As a workaround you can close it down to f/11, and the vignetting becomes ignorable. In most cases I can live with distortion. I observed some flare problems with 16-50.</p>

<p>To put the things into context: I own both lenses; use the 18-55 solely for underwater photography, the 16-50 - for occasional general-purpose - when I need a small kit; when photography is the main purpose I use my Sony SLT camera. I have more experience with the 16-50 than with the 18-55, thus it got more complaints :). That said, I don't like being without a 16mm lens when doing nature shooting, so 16-50 wins as a one-lens solution, no mater what.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Oleg.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think the PC terminal and hotshoe are rated for different voltages. It's the hotshoe that's intended for low-voltage dedicated flashes. You can damage the camera if you fire the old flash connected (wired) to the hotshoe. It's apparently not what you did.<br>

I'd follow the advice to try a new cord.<br>

Regards,<br>

Oleg.</p>

<p>What is your budget?<br>

For the macro, if you don't buy a dedicated macro lens, close-up "filters" (add-on lenses) work pretty good. I have old general-brand 49mm lenses (set of 3) that gives reasonable magnification and good quality. The longer is the focal length of the "base" lens, the more is the magnification; but ~135mm is the upper limit. These close-up lenses were sold under "Gozo" brand here in Israel, and are still available in traditional photography stores. Newer Chinese equivalents seem to be worse.<br>

If you want defocused background and insist on a single lens, you need (16)17-50 f/2.8. 17-70 f/2.8-4 is a second choice, and will give you some more magnification for macro.<br>

Or, as already suggested, keep your 18-55 for wide-angle, and add 28-75 f/2.8 for the rest.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Oleg.</p>

<p>Your #1 choice would be Minolta 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, it's a must in Minolta/Sony world, and used to be the reason to buy into the Minolta film system. Its successor, Minolta 24-105 f/3.5-4.5, could be better on APS-C DSLRs and film (because of range, smaller size and distance encoder), but digital FF users seem to prefer the 24-85.<br>

Alternatively, Tamron 24-135 f/3.5-5.6 told to perform well too on A900.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'd choose between NEX and SLR/SLT based on how much bulk you want to carry around and whether you plan shooting anything that require more or less serious telephoto lenses:<br>

- if you plan to shoot birds (or other remote subjects), you need telephoto lens - go for a SLR/SLT<br>

- if you want a good camera that fits into a pouch or even a winter-coat pocket, get a NEX with the collapsible 16-50 zoom<br>

- anything other is a grey area - the decision isn't that simple - see other posts</p>

<p>The 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 and 70-210 f/4 differ not only in the range but in the max opening too. So consider having both and use for different purposes.<br>

With f/4 tele-lens I was able to shoot a stage from ~10-th row on my brother's school party on ISO200 film with Minolta 3600 flash.<br>

If you want to do portraits or interior close-ups, F/4 is significantly better too.<br>

But 300 f/5.6 is already usable for shooting birds, while 210 f/4 still isn't.<br>

And then, 70-210 f/4 is considerably heavier - you cannot overlook that.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Oleg.</p>

<p>As an owner of two (now dormant) A100-s, I must say no RAW converter will help to recover ISO 800 or ISO1600 images. In the case of A100 (and in striking contrast to A55, NEX C3, etc.) the main problem with ISO settings above 400 is dynamic range, not noise. You can filter noise a bit better, but the lack of dynamic range is unrepairable. A better converter/noise-reduction will help with ISO400 where the noise is significant, while the dynamic range is still good.<br>

Regards,<br>

Oleg.</p>

<p><img src="D:\Photo\Sony_NEX_C3\201012__KessariaUW\TIFF\Small\DSC00909.JPG" alt="" />I have experience with both the case you mention and the Ewa-Marina. The latter is considerably less convenient. And mine eventually leaked, killing the Minolta 5D DSLR.<br>

With the Meike hard housing you can access most camera controls, not the case with the Ewa-Marina soft bag. The image quality achievable with the both is pretty high - if you do things right; you are using large-sensor camera.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I do use a similar unit - with NEX C3 and 18-55 (at 18mm) - without flash.<br>

Works fine. Shoot in RAW with considerable underesposure - at least -0.7 at shallow depths. You should find a color filter suitable for "your" waters (I use FLD, but a reddish CC30 could be better). Then you further restore colors in the RAW converter. You can do without flash.<br>

Do a search on DPReview forums - I saw relevant threads there.<br>

Regards,<br>

Oleg.</p>

<p>I resolved this problem on both A55 and NEX-C3 in the following way:<br>

I do not connect the flash or trigger directly to a camera even when possible - cameras with Minolta hot shoe don't detect standard flashes.<br>

Instead, I raise the built-in flash (on the SLR) or attach the accessory flash (on the NEX), and then use properly adjusted Seagull SYK 5 "digital" optical-slave trigger to fire whatever device I want - either radio trigger or the standard flash.<br>

In order to block the built-in flash light from reaching anything but the trigger sensor, I put a small carboard box on it - open only on the side where the slave sensor is located.<br>

This way the camera assumes it's able to light the scene by the built-in flash, and the LCD/EVF works as a regular viewfinder - without exposure preview.</p>

<p>Hope this helps,<br>

Oleg.</p>

<p>Well, did anybody try the Minolta 100-300 APO on the A55?<br>

From my experience on the A100 DSLR, this lens is unusable. E.g. you need to stop down to f/11 to achieve acceptable image. On contrary, the cheaper Minolta 75-300 F/4.5-5.6 (2) is a great performer.<br>

I do understand why one would prefer the Sigma though - it has better specs.</p>

<p>I have several questions to A33/A55 owners:<br>

(1) Does it use the main sensor for live view (EVF) and for metering?<br>

(2) Does it heat up more than a conventional DSLR? (That was a problem with Minolta A2 - the grip turned too warm frequently.)<br>

(3) Can you choose to see the effect of stabilisation in EVF? E.g. is its possible to invoke the stabilizer on half-press of the release button? And is it possible to choose not to invoke it before the actual exposure? (Minolta A2 supports both options.)</p>

<p>Check in your camera manual whether the flash is raised automatically in manual mode. If not, that's the answer for a ~half of the problem.<br>

Afterwards we may be in the same position. I have chineese RF triggers and use them with Sony A100.<br>

With the following flashes the setup syncs at 1/125 or 1/160 in 80% of the cases:<br>

- Minolta 3500xi, Minolta 3600hs, Sony HVL 56 (same as Minolta 5600hs).<br>

I tried an older Minolta 5200i flash, and it will only sync at 1/40. Its specific problem is in hot-shoe adapter, not in the triggers. I tried to connect it directly to hot-shoe through 2 adapters (Minolta-std-Minolta), and it behaves the same as with RF triggers.<br>

Another observation - these RF triggers won't work together with chineese remote RF shutter release.<br>

After wasting too much time on the cheap RF triggers, I decided they are not a substitute for Sony/Minolta built-in remote flash capability.</p>