wildflower art

February 26, 2022

I would like to take a picture of American Beech in the winter with falling snow flakes. Do you know how, is it in the evening and with a flash? Thank you

January 4, 2022

Dear Photo.net,

I have a question on a project that I am thinking of. Do you think you could take a reversing ring for reversing a lens onto the camera body, glue a lens mount from a cheap extension tube unto it, and make a cheap, narrow extension ring for use with wide angle lenses?

I think this would be useful for closeups on wide angle lenses that do not focus close enough. I am also thinking of using the new macro wide angle lenses.

Thank you very much,

Matthew

October 24, 2019

Can the Leica 15 3.5 R lens be used with Canon EOS R mirrorless cameras? The Canon EOS R adapter allows more room for the back of that lens. I understand it cannot be used with Canon EOS because it would hit the mirror. The EOS R mirrorless has no mirror and an adapter that gives more breathing room.

Would the lens scratch the sensor, if it cannot be used?

There are no similar wide angle lenses with .17 meter close focus, other than the Leica 2.8.

Thank you very much,

Matthew

October 20, 2018

Thank you. That would be a 15 mm lens (on dx) that can close focus to .22 meters. This is wide and cheaper than a 14mm lens. What a gem of advice. Thank you so much for producing a picture for me. A whole project done for this vision. Thank you. I will consider it seriously.

October 20, 2018

Hi.

I love steep perspectives and think wide angle lenses are truly remarkable. I love steep perspectives and enjoy near far shots. I love wide angle lenses that close focus to .2 meters. I see Canon and Nikon both have modern 14 2.8 lenses that can close focus to .2 meters. My widest lens is a 21 mm that can focus to .2 meters. Has anyone used either of these lenses at this focus distance? I photograph wildflowers and wide angle closeups convey a story to me. I used the Nikon 21 mm with the K1 tube as Naturfotograph.com suggested. I see he wrote a review of the 14 mm where he says it can also take the K1 tube but at the users own risk. Has anyone done this? I have never used a 14 mm lens. I am hoping you can help me offer insights into widlflower scenics I could take with wide angle lenses that have a very close focus limit. Have you ever enjoyed the close focus of these lenses? If you are a landscape photographer have you ever put a rock or tree very close in the picture? I am hoping you could offer some insight to see if this type of lens, with its luxurious perspective and close focus distance, could take additional interesting photographs for me.

Thank you so much.

Matthew

November 14, 2013

Dear Robin,

The Leica 21 4.0 r has a minimum focus of .2 m versus .3 m of the Nikkor 20 3.5, offering superior perspectives. I do not know if there is any extension tube that will work with the Leica 21 4.0 r. Do you?

A lens calculator is available at:

<a href="http://www.mystd.de/album/calculator/">http://www.mystd.de/album/calculator/</a>

The Leica 21 4.0 offers a magnification of 1:7.4 versus 1:2.6 with the Nikon and the K1 ring.

Thank you,

Matthew

November 14, 2013

Dear Robin,

Photographers thrive on clarity and completing a mission. Do you know for a fact that you can use the smallest one? It only has a mount (male coupling) and does not have a female part to mount a lens, rather a screw to attach one of the others. I would like to buy this set if you can use the smallest one, but I don't think you can.

When mounted to a Leica 21 4.0, does the lens produce a usable image? Have you used the 14159? There is another discussion, <a href="/leica-rangefinders-forum/009MJf">http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/009MJf</a> which says that they are only usable in two or three and the suffixes refer to male and female parts.

Thank you,

Matthew

November 14, 2013

Dear Photo.net,

You are all walking encyclopedias! I can see that the minimum extension with the 14159 is 25mm, (you must use a minimum of 2 of the three or all three). What is the approximate extension or length of the base ring? Could you glue a Leica mount (like the one you use to adapt a Leica Lens to Nikon mount) to the small base adapter?

Would the 21 4.0 focus outside the lens (obviously not to infinity) with this small mount?

Thank you for your attention.

Matthew Smith

November 14, 2013

Dear Photo.net,

Photographers have always tried to display the best vision modestly in order to best captivate a more true desire, such as conservation, displaying true humility. I seek to achieve higher magnification ratios with wide angle lenses. Does the 3 part extension ring set 14159 have a small ring that can be used by itself? If so, what is its thickness in millimeters? Can it be used alone with the Leica 21 4.0 r to achieve close-ups ala the Nikon 20 3.5 AIS and the K1 ring?

Leica is a humbling tool to communicate perspectives of conservation in flower pictures. The 21 4.0 r focuses very close and is very satisfying despite field curvature and vignetting. The 20 mm perspective with magnifications of better than 1:3 is really communicative with flower close ups. I am enjoying using my Leica system coming from Nikon, but am missing the 20 3.5 AIS with K1 most of all. Does the 14159 have a small or short or mini extension tube to photograph closeups?

Thank you for your attention.

Matthew Smith

November 14, 2013

Dear Photo.net,

Great photographers are always improving technique, equipment, and composition with a limited set of subjects, demonstrating a paradox of limitless possibilities, making the breath taking world expressively sharable. Expression is what photography says, and photo.neters break limits of expression.

Does the Nikon K1 ring mount with the Zeiss 21 2.8? Does it hinder exterior focus? Does it compare with the 20 3.5 AIS mounted with this extension ring? Does it damage the lens? Is this a superior method for wide angle closeups?

Pictures here really show me any work can be stunning. The most important point is to display it. I love that you always have the answers to questions of pushing limits.

I am interested in wide angle close-ups of small flowers, they seem to say "gift" or "pop" when photographed in mass. You have known for years that flat field is ideal for macro work, and yet flowers wish for reverse field curvature to put stigma and petal tip in focus. This makes close-focus among lenses of all focal lengths of value to the macro shooter, opening up perspectives with flower portraits merging with landscape. The flower photograph often shows habitat to express movement with science.

Thank you for sharing your input.

Matthew Smith

November 14, 2013

Dear Photo.net,

Great photographers have to deal with constants, and handle every deviation as a blessing, a gift of photo.neters.

The specifications of the Nikon 24 2.8 has it have a magnification of 1:9 or (.11x) at .3 m.

The specifications of the Nikon 24 3.5 TS-E has it have a magnification of 1:2.7 (.37x) at .2 m. This is very close focusing and unusual for this focal length combination, according to the calculator at <a href="http://www.mystd.de/album/calculator/">http://www.mystd.de/album/calculator/</a> which suggest 24 and .2 m would lead to a magnification of 1:6.2 (.16x). Is this magnification accurate? Does the lens incorporate extension while focusing?

Thank you for your consideration, you have clarified issues with these lenses.

Matthew

November 1, 2013

I lament that schooling and the industry has not kept pace with the technology trust in our hands. Professional photography is not interested in capturing the moments that matter most to photographers and this is where it falls short for most users. Photography follows the production and work flow of the professionals to an immense degree. This emulation pattern may be true of most endeavors and hobbies, like saturation points and diffusion patterns. Professional photography is interesting in making an object matter to a viewer, and digital photography has changed the field into finding one picture to make a viewer respond. Digital photography may be more about impacting a viewer with immediacy which is naturally a valuable quality, and a goal of great photographers.

Professional photography has been digital for more than 12 years now, and so it brings most of the market with it. Was a well exposed Velvia slide better than a Nikon D1 picture? Yes, but the news markets went with the D1 anyway. Did you know at most places, events, and actions, professional photographers will not take more than one picture, one roll of film, or more than one hour? Some rule of statistics applies. The digital era has put more professional equipment in the hands of more photographers, who, like people in all endeavors, are frustrated they are not doing more.

Film had a more definite end point, the set of 24 or 36 prints. With a digicam, everyone can dream of being a photographer for National Geographic. Kodak has emerged from bankruptcy, not to make film, but to print professional's pictures and do corporate art. They must be telling us we can all take great pictures with what we have. I believe this, and believe that with editing software and a microphone we could all be professional cinematographers with hi-def video capabilities. I also believe that photos in our hands will be what we want, and digital makes photography an easy challenge, a paradox of our own creativity.

November 1, 2013

Dear Film music,

I am thrilled and enthusiastic I found your thread. Film provides bold attachment to subject, which, civilization endorses and I think film endures. I love film because shooting digital leaves me feeling empty handed. I love the physical slide, I find the possession of the slide provides authority and commanding. The tastes I get from your color show a real love of subject above any superstition. To make film more relevant, I would love to have a standard image size for printing, web, and storing for digital so the mediums are convertible.

Perhaps a camera company will agree to print out contact prints of digital images that can be scanned in with less quality loss. Does the future provide for better archives of digital prints? Do you suggest a standard way (size, pixel density, and paper) to print a digital image for printing, sharing, and storing? If you were a publisher, you could get an email of an image and a print out of the contact, Wi-Fi to their printer to print out the standard.

At keh.com, film equipment remains a "top seller" in many categories, including professional cameras, and some items are scarce. Film is getting harder to find and process, and may soon not be produced in some foreseeable future. For instance, my grocer no longer processes film and many hour photo stores are gone. With them, so are the camera stores (except for Staples and Bestbuy). More people are taking digital pictures with the iPhone then any other camera. Someone is using film, finding the professional film cameras a great teaching tool for their work, suggesting a huge market is still there, for cost reasons alone.

Many people are getting burned in digital photography, and your love of the tradition should inspire us all. Digital has turned the SLR into a standard means of communication. Digital is bringing thousands of people up to the challenge of using an SLR. Digital has turned photography more professional. This means many people are having their hearts broken everyday.

Thank you,

Matthew

October 19, 2013

Dear Mike,

Great photographers know how to balance many initial inputs, which involves getting satisfaction from forgoing themselves to the moment. I think a Gym would give you an EV of about 4 - 6, (office lighting is about 80 lux or an EV of 5). This means with a lens of f-stop of 5.6 would give you a shutter speed of 1/60 at ISO 6400, at EV 5. Is is very hard to get enough light in a gym. This shutter speed might be rather blurry for the length or zoom or distance or magnification of the lens. The 50 1.8 lens, set wide open or at its smallest number or at its biggest opening or set to let the most light in, would give you a shutter speed of 1/1000, which is 4 times as fast or 4 times shorter, or 4 moments less in camera time, because 5.6 is 4 stops or measures or 4 camera units faster or brighter or lets in 4 camera units less light.

When I was on photo.net a while ago, someone asked "what fstop should I set my camera at to take macro pictures?" and a set of ten other similar questions. There were many glib answers. The reason there is no straight answer is because the right light in the words going into the photograph is different per picture, even moment to moment, as you know. The right light in words can be accurately expressed in EVs or even luxes or footcandles, which you can convert between. When photographers learn to communicate in terms of EVs, they open up their ability to express. You work in one area of photography that has the least light or is the darkest or has the lowest amount of EVs, footcandles, or luxs.

How will you get more light? I hope the D7100 offers better high ISO or higher EV set or higher speed alignment performance for you. By setting your camera to the highest ISO and the fastest or shortest or smallest fraction shutter speed and the smallest fstop or biggest opening or letting the most light in you will get the sharpest pictures possible, I hope those numbers are suggestive of a high enough EV or you have bright footcandles or you have high luxs in your gyms. The high ISO will be grainer, but photography is the science of tradeoffs. Low light sports photography is one of the most challenging, however, it has only one input to work around: the specific EV or luxes or footcandles.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Matthew

October 13, 2013

Dear Mike,

Great photographers like you are always using available perspectives to make moments snap.

Three options available to you include:

Boosting your camera's ISO to HI1 (3200). This would generate pictures with noise, but should result or create or shift to shutter speeds high or fast or short enough to catch the action.

You could buy a 70-300 VR lens and use the VR to compensate for your hand's shaking. The VR makes shaky pictures sharp, down to longer or bigger or lower certain shutter speeds. This might compensate for both the low light and shaky hands.

You could buy a small flash and extender like the SB-600 and a better beamer extender. If you say something nice to the referee, he might let you use a flash. This, if put on slow sync or rear curtain sync or back sync, you could catch action at any shutter speed.

You could also use your 50 1.8. This lens, set wide open or to the lowest number or the maximum diagram opening you would have a pretty fast or small or short shutter speed to stop action and slow the shaking.

To stop shaky hands you need to use the fastest shutter speed possible, at least 1/250 with your Tamron lens, which is a very small part of a second, only a fraction of it, and less than a moment. The variables that go into this are 1) light or amount of brightness or EV, 2) Your lenses fastest or smallest or biggest relative opening and 3) The ISO or ASA or standardized film speed of your camera which you can set. With this in mind, you have the ability to get great pictures knowing that a gyms EV might be around 4, which is rather dim or dark or light poor.

Your shutter speed or click or sensor exposure should be at least 1 over the focal length or a fraction of a second of the inverse of the lens focal length or faster or shorter or smaller related to the length of the lens. I think the crop factor of the D40 makes it even shorter when zoomed out. The 50 lens, if long enough for the gym, would require shorter or slower or bigger shutter speeds and it lets more light in, if it has the reach or grabbing ability or telephoto effect you need.

I think there is some advice on how to shoot on the internet, like to take depth even breaths and exhale when you shot, like to shot from below your rib cage but above your belly button, and to use your elbows. This makes for a rock solid stance. Concentrate on how seeing is believing.

Short of buying a 80-200 2.8 zoom used, you have a great set up. That's basically the best start up set for digital. You have wide or expansive or open to very telephoto covered.

Thanks for your attention.

Matthew

October 13, 2013

Dear Nikon Community,

Nikon users have access to the highest quality and most sophisticated lens pool in the world, mixing specialized lenses with technology and legendary performance.

I have two questions about the magnification ratio of two Specific Nikon lenses:

The Nikon 24 3.5 tilt/shift has a published magnification ratio of 1:2.7 (.37x) and has a minimum focus distance of 21 cm (8.27"). This is extraordinarily close focusing. The Canon version of the lens has the same minimum focus distance but a magnification of 1:2.9 (.34). Is this do to focal length shortening? Does the lens really focus this close and produce pictures this close-up?

The new Nikon 80-400 VR AF-S has a published minimum focus of 1:5 (.2x) and a short minimum focus distance of 1.75m (5.74') while the previous model has a minimum focus distance of 2.3m (7.55') but a much superior magnification rate of 1:2.3 (.42x). Does the previous model have a "macro mode," and if so, at what focal length?

Thank you for your attention,

Sincerely,

Matthew Smith

May 28, 2013

When film is truly gone, how will people make and process X-rays for medicine?

I had suggested to a friend, Mary, that X-Rays, which are large format film, might one day go digital.

What is the ISO of X-Ray film? Could your current digital camera at ISO 25,600 get a good shot of a broken bone, assuming the X-rays could concentrate on a sensor of 135 size? The expense of such a 11X17 digital sensor would be enormous, but would be a reasonable investment for every hospital in the world purchasing in mass.

Less film means higher X-ray costs and cost of film development. Do you know any current X-Ray film lab technicians? Already people might be using sonograms, which are digital sound pictures, in the void.

I would question if large sensor makers have researched making large sensors for medicine. I ask if the lack of silver in film is crushing silver prices and demand. I would guess digital is benefiting the people who need it the most the least.

I hope someone knows how long the last kinds of film will be produced before even Fuji calls it quits, as Kodak has announced that they are not making slide film, it is harder to process prints, and many persons have benefited from digital photography. There are more photographers now than ever. I would ask what why then, with so many people in photography, digital is closing opportunities for photo enthusiast and not opening them.

Polaroid, once almost out of business, has a digital photo printer camera. Photography was always expensive, even now still so. The rules of business have made a digital a clear winner, but funding the opportunities of digital has not kept up.

Do any professional photographers out there deal in client requirements? As in, so many megabytes or megapixels are required for a clean newspaper picture versus magazine print? The very first professional digital cameras had only 2 megapixels, and people said those results were better then film. Today they have 24 and 36 megapixels. The convenience of instant results makes them immediately desirable, the workflow of the professional must keep pace with that convenience.

The 135 digital camera could be used to produce news, a lot of which is made by the iPhone newsmakers on the street. The digital camera could be attached to radios to give military commanders instant intelligence. The digital camera could be even more integral in social media activism. All in the future of those who dream. All for those who know the markets of the world grow opportunity, which is dream.

Matthew

May 23, 2013

Thank you for your input.

To me, Kodak is all but out of the film market except for some black and white films and Fuji no longer makes any film other than professional slide films, maybe with a few exceptions. To say you are a wedding photographer is a very challenging thing to say. You would have to have your own printing service and there are no longer any photo services in the area.

I am still very much a film shooter, and very much dependent on film to produce a lasting and physical product. I hope Fuji goes on making their Velvia in 120 and 135 for some time. When film is gone, I think so too will many happy and hands on memories. I haven't studied the digital shooter, but they seem to feel they spend far too much for far less.

I have seen two extremes: a wildflower society meeting with an LCD digital projector to project wildflower images by users and a female performer at a concert with a disposable film camera.

The new camera seems to be the iphone, this is great, it is far less than the $500 intro digital SLR and will mean many people are taking pictures. I hope there is a new market to print iPhone pictures. iPhone printing, help us Lord, will be as ubiquitous as the old one hour photo shops.

Matthew

May 20, 2013

The IMAX film movie is filmed in a format very similar to medium format. The IMAX movie is film and is 69.6 mm × 48.5 mm. The 6x6 format film is 56 mm × 56 mm. The film is made by kodak and is called ESTAR, which is a special polymer backed transparency or slide or reversal film. I think this means some good things for people who use film. I think some might say this is an endorsement of my continued use of film. This would validate the idea that if your final product is a projection, you should use transparency or slide or reversal film. Digital projections are convenient for storage and ease of use, not final detail or artistic clarity.

I suppose the real question is, how long until there are medium format digital movie cameras and medium format projectors? Many movies are filmed in digital to have to reshoot the digital image unto a 70 mm slide film for projection with questionable quality gains in IMAX. The convenience of digital, and not having to carry hundred pound film reels, means it will be here to stay. The availability of quality digital movie cameras that can be bought and used by anyone will be good for movie making, with the addition of audio equipment in stereo jacks and home movie editing suites. However, the larger format film is still superior to the highest resolution digital camera movie making, the movie goer has decided via free market selection or result or outcome.

I think IMAX might be good for film and the photomaker and the artist who still uses the silver print. Seventy millimeter movie film suggests there is a market or niche for all artists. However, clearly the medium format digital camera, like the leaf backs and the Leica S2 and Hasselblad digital H series will grow to produce a live view camera and a HD film system. The new IMAX will be medium format digital, with a large format chip of 70 mm size. This camera will bring higher quality digital resources to all of us.

Maybe the excess of 70 mm film will make a cheap medium format camera. I think the current situation is somewhat tragic, with many people having disposable cameras and no where to process them or have their family photos print. Perhaps there could be a disposable digital camera or ftp photo loading printing at CVS. I hope that the larger IMAX format leads to large format digital and large format movie making. The race for larger sensors and larger medium may have been ironically struck by medium format film movies.

Matthew

August 3, 2012

Hello,

Is this lens compatible with any 1.4 Leica extender? I know the Leica Compendium says it shouldn't, but is it possible?

Is any other 80x-200x Leica lens compatible with the 1.4x? The 105-280 is exactly what I want but it is much too expensive and heavy, and I don't need the 4.2 f-stop.

Thank you,

Matthew

July 10, 2012

I guess I have a camera user's joke:

it would just have to focus at infinity! There is no gradiation between 1,000 miles and infinity on our lenses!

Matt

July 10, 2012

Sorry for the repeat.

My initial post shows my ignorance.

Hubble doesn't use lenses, it is a giant mirror.

It does use CCD sensors like in a Nikon digital camera.

Since the camera takes UV-IR pictures, the sensor must be like a S2 UV/IR picture.

Since the Hubble is a giant mirror, larger sensors or more megapixels don't make sense because the telescope focuses light to a pinhole beam.

Aiming the telescope is a huge issue, they say it is like pointing a laser beam at a target 100 miles away. This may be done in flight, but not by booster, because I don't think Hubble used fuel. The electricty can only power the circuits. How does it fly?

Hubble takes thousands of images and transmits 120 gigabytes a week. This is a 20 kilabtye/second wi-fi connection spend, based on transmitting a signal by light waves.

The telescope is powered by rechargeble batteries. Recharged by the sun(!) Which communicates with Earth, powers the camera, sends the pictures, and takes aiming instructions.

The Jim Webb is also a giant mirror which will take very few optical pictures of the early universe, mostly IR.

I guess if I were to rephrase my question, what would the ISO of Hubble be? Would a newer, higher ISO sensor be better?

Matt

July 10, 2012

Gyroscopes in space? I wonder how they work without gravity!

Matt

July 9, 2012

Gyroscopes in space? I wonder how they work without gravity!

Matt

July 8, 2012

The visual imager of Hubble is three large format 1024 x 1024 array sensors, the STSI.

Am I correct in saying that the Hubble has a megapixel equivalent of about three? Three megapixels?

<a href="http://www.stsci.edu/hst/stis/design/detectors/">http://www.stsci.edu/hst/stis/design/detectors/</a>

That's pretty good for 1990!

They have to keep the camera steady, accounting for the rotation of Hubble around the Earth and Earth around the Sun. This is called Astrometry.

What would they do now? Like with Jim Webb? Could they put an image stabilizer that moves the chip to account for that rotation instead of moving the how telescope?

How would you do the Hubble 2 (Jim Webb)? Like a quartz reflex lens that lets in all UV and IR light?

Would you put a new digital chip in Hubble now? Three square large format chips? Can you image Kodak working on a digital chip for large format (four by five inches)? How many megapixels would that be?

I wonder how long it takes them to send a three megapixel picture that far away... I used a wi-fi connection to send a picture from camera to computer, ten minutes and low battery power and that was two feet!

Matt

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by wildflower art