Ken Katz

Since there is no Olympus or m43 subforum, I guess this post goes here? Anyone have experience with an EF to m43 adaptor? Looking at the Viltrox M1, Fotodix Pro Fusion, or Vello adaptors, which cost between $136 and $153 at B&H. Not interested in spending over $300 for a Metabones unit. Looking for decent AF performance mounting a Canon EFS 55-250 IS II onto an Olympus EM-5 III, including continuous AF performance. Don't want any optics/ focal length reducer type adaptors since I want more reach than my light/cheap/sharp Oly 40-150mm f5.6. Let me know if anyone has used any of these units. I may buy one to try and return if it doesn't work as advertised.

I inherited a 55-250mm IS II, and since it has a minor cleaning mark on the front element, I don't think it would be worth much if I tried to sell it to KEH. Don't have a EFS compatible camera to test it, but thinking of adapting it to m43, assuming an adaptor will provide AF functionality. The lens has 100mm advantage over my longest native m43 lens and as described here, has a reputation for good performance. Might work as a cheap zoo / wildlife lens for me.

Don't use Nikon, but have 3 cameras with IBIS. IBIS needs to know the approximate focal length, or will likely misbehave. With native lenses, or lenses that electronically communicate with the camera, the info IBIS needs is automatically provided, including zoom settings. For manual adaptive lenses you will likely need to inform the camera the focal length you are using.

Just for fun I checked KEH mirrorless offerings, and they are selling used Nikon Z5's for just under $1K. The Sony A7 offerings make a lot of sense for getting a platform to use MF adapted lenses at a good price. Note that cameras with IBIS will need to be told the focal length of the attached adapted lens in order for IBIS to work correctly, so an adapted zoom would likely require you to turn IBIS off or limit the focal range used.

Describing the images as x-rated is a bit over the top, but I share your concern. They are clearly NSFW, and having them on PN's front page is not helpful if PN is trying to increase traffic. I would think that simply excluding the N&E gallery as a source of images for the front page would likely work.

The Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro is simply an outstanding zoom lens. Sharp wide open at any focal length, excellent build quality, very quick focus, and splash resistant. The Panasonic 20mm has a excellent reputation for sharpness but focus speed is somewhat leisurely. All this plus a OM-1 mk1 body for $250 all in a no brainer (IMHO).

If I was young with a healthy back, I would want to be in either the Canon R, Nikon Z, or Sony E system, since they will all be survivors in the long run and will have the most extensive FF system when and if the person is ready for it. I am not invested in any of these (bad back / need M43), but do like what Canon is currently doing in the entry level R mirrorless. The new Canon EOS R50 is APSC and inherited much of the Canon R3 AF tracking and subject recognition tech, and cost $800 with the cheap/slow kit lens. There are cheaper mirrorless and DSLR options if cost is the priority, but I would try to avoid camera systems that may be orphaned in the coming years. Canon now has 3 new R mount APSC cameras, so I think they are committed to the format and will likely introduce a wider line of applicable lenses in the near future.

Don't disagree with Rodeo, but one should note that the current OM system has only a 20mp sensor, so that a significant crop (as described above) leaves you with only 5mp which utilizes a sensor area of around 56 sq mm, which is not much bigger than the main camera on many current top of the line smart phones. I do this regularly on photos of critters using my cheap/lightweight 40-150mm kit lens, but I am not trying to market such images, and don't expect miracles in terms of possible print size. It does keeps my camera/lens kit at around 21 oz (600 grams for those of you in the more advanced places in the world), which helps my deteriorating vertebrae. I used to shoot with a Canon D60, with a 6 mp sensor / 1000 ISO max. I was well aware of its limitations and strengths compared with the alternative (film). Had a 1 GB IBM microdrive since it cost about $200 and a solid state card was almost $1K.

I read most of the articles in business publication about their bankruptcy back in 2012, but this article is quite good highlighting the different paths forward taken by Kodak and Fuji. Basically, Fuji understood that the digital imaging business would be substantially different in terms of technology, markets, barriers to entry, and competition compared with the chemical imaging business, for which Kodak and Fuji represented a duopoly. Fuji determined that the potential digital photo business would not provide the same level of cash flow and profitability, and diversified into non photo businesses where their knowhow would be advantageous. Kodak spent $ billions in the digital photo business and their operating cash flow continued to dwindle to the point where it could not sustain their debt obligations. https://petapixel.com/why-kodak-died-and-fujifilm-thrived-a-tale-of-two-film-companies/

If you are up late on the east coast, the forums are completely filled with spam and the front page of PN include numerous NSFW images. Not that there is anything wrong with the latter, but not exactly the best foot forward for introducing PN to new prospective users IMHO.

Unless my math is in error (entirely possible these days), then cropping an image so that it gives you the coverage of lens with 2x the focal length should result in reducing the image to about 1/4 of the original size and therefore loose about 3/4 of your pixels. With the current OM sensor, that would result in a 5 mp final image, which would be enough for a reasonable 8 x12" print. In the old days, a pro telephoto lens or pro zoom lens plus pro 2x extender was better than cropping, but may be worse than a longer consumer grade lens. Probably makes sense to rent and test before buying. Frankly, most of the comments being written about the new OM 90mm macro are mostly nonsense and a lot of BS by folks who sound like they are optical engineers who work for Zeiss, second guessing OM's design parameters for that lens. The lens has built in 2:1 capabilities, which should provide a frame filling, 5184 pixel wide image of 9mm sized subject (4x FF equivalent). I would expect that most users would only consider an extender to increase their working distance from the subject, not for additional magnification beyond 2:1. Probably useful for photographing Murder Hornets, though for me, my working distance would about a continent or 2 away.

La Jolla Squirrel (Olympus Em-5 III / 40-150 f5.6)

They are the current masters of this particular universe. Been here for 25 years, when Philip Greenspun was our lord and master. I will probably outlast our current owners or be witness to PN's ultimate demise. A website continuously loaded with spam will not attract real new users, and could result in the death spiral that I assume the new owners are trying to avoid.

I would just like to know how much we are saving our corporate masters for crowd sourcing this endeavor. $12, $100, $250, $1000 per year? Since I am retired, usually have lots of time on my hands, and up late here on the East Coast, I would be happy to help if given the authorization to zap all of a spammer's postings with just a few key strokes. Given the limited PN audience at this juncture, what are the spammers gaining with their efforts?

While this is all real fun, how much does a spam plugin for Invision community really cost?

Agree with John's comment about purposely using f36 for photos other than macro or needing a maximum amount of DOF at the cost of resolution due to diffraction (not a Nikon person, but it is my understanding that Diffraction Compensation adds sharpening on the JPEG file to try to compensate for loss of resolution). On a bright day, ISO 100, shutter speed of 1/200 (within the max flash sync speed), you should be able to use f11. It would helpful if you describe what you want to accomplish using daylight fill flash.

I'm no prude, but I don't think it is appropriate or beneficial to the needed growth in traffic for this site to have NSFW images appear on the PN homepage. In fact, the only place where these images are blurred out is in the N&E galley where they actually belong. This comment is from a prospective of a 25 year PN member. While it is clear that our current corporate owners have no budget to invest in PN, it also seems to me that their shock at finding PN flooded with spam a bit disingenuous, since every web site and blog on the planet, large and small, has to deal with an avalanche of spam. As long as there is a user tool to delete potential spam, then I guess crowd sourcing is the only option.

I use LR Classic, and while I am certainly no LR or post processing expert, it seems to me that that band of sunlight represents a fatally overexposed area. This is not a criticism since you obviously needed to expose for your subject, but just a factual matter. Since there is unlikely to be any usable data in the file for that area, I am not sure what you want to accomplish via masking? No amount of dodging (old manual printing term) will result in any usable information from the file. Perhaps that area could possibly be fixed by cloning the spots that are usable, but that is far beyond my skills. Why don't you just crop the image to remove that burned out sunlit area and call it a day.

I agree with WJT, especially for users who have an extensive portfolio loaded on PN (which I do not). I believe that in some limited circumstances, the moderators can remove content from the forums, but that should only be an occasional event. I don't expect PN, or any web site would be providing legal opinions to users regarding site compliance with privacy laws worldwide. It is possible that PN is not currently in compliance with certain EU (and other) requirements, and PN management will have to decide what to do about it. FYI, the current T&C Indemnification clause trigger events have been broadened from the 2010 version to include issues arising out of the Users use and access to PN. I don't think I am terribly fussed about that.

It is a bit shocking to actually see the decline in users laid out in the posting, but not really surprising.

The good news is that at least there is evidence of some form of a sentient being still working on PN on behalf of it's corporate masters. The only troublesome term was the indemnification clause, which I will need to look at again. The rest is just typical corporate BS and CYA type provisions.

I have never used a smart phone app to manually focus the camera, so I can't speak about why that feature did not seem to work. The 27mm FF equivalent main camera has a really short actual focal length, as AJG describes above, so that even at f1.7, DOF is still quite significant and would result in a quite visible grate as per your example. Frankly, using almost any camera and lens, such a dense grate would likely be visible in the image, even if you manually focused on the objects beyond the grate. I do take photos at zoos (Bronx and San Diego), and deal with various types of barriers between me and the subjects. Some have little noticible interference, but many still result in a noticible barrier in the files. Dirty and scratched glass/plexi can also be problematic. I use a 150mm lens at f5.6 on m43 format, which is not ideal from a blurred OOF foreground/backround, but has far, far, less DOF than a cell phone camera. FYI, at this time smart phone cameras all have fixed lens openings. With the main WA lens, smaller apertures are generally not needed.

As AJG answered, 2/3 of a stop underexposed. For shooting color print film it would not be a significant issue, but I prefer not to underexpose that type of film. Color print film has a whole lot of latitude for overexposure but far less tolerance for underexposure. 2/3 of a stop under is more likely an issue with color slides. Seems the easiest solution is just change the ASA setting manually and check it each time you load film. Cleaning the contacts on both the film cannister and camera would also make sense before you load another roll.

I never had this happen but always checked the ASA set by the camera before using. It it possible for the camera to misread the ASA, so I would definitely set it manually. EOS 650 is quite old or there may be some dirt or corrosion on the sensor in the film compartment.

I have found that the reviews done by these folks match up well to equipment I have used: https://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/867-zeiss2470f4oss They were not fans of that lens either, and the sample they tested had good centering qualities.