lars

<p>Hi Ed. Thank you for you answer. I was actually thinking about the OM 24/2.8.</p>

<p>I wrote: <strong>"I am aware of the flange-to-sensor issue. So perhaps I should look for lenses designed for >46.6mm. But I thought that there might be just enough clearance with the Olympus lenses given the 0.6 mm difference."</strong><br>

Judging from this page on <a href="http://www.leitax.com/conversion/Olympus-OM/Zuiko-2135/index.html">adapting the OM 21/3.5 for the Nikon mount</a> , it seems there will indeed be enough mirror clearance for infinity focus with the slightly smaller (0.6mm) flange to sensor distance. The OM 24/3.5 is not mentioned at that <a href="http://www.leitax.com/OlympusOM-lens-for-Nikon-cameras.html">site</a> so the suitability of that lens for this is not sure. Still wonder if there will be enough space inside the PB-3 and whether the extension of the bellow can be made short enough. If a Minolta bellows like the one Charles Krebs used is cheaper I will probably just get one as I know it can be done with that.</p>

<p>Hi Tommy!<br>

<strong>"Have you check the image circle size of these lens (at infinity)? Tilting requires over size image circle."</strong><br>

I do not expect that the Zuikos will allow for tilting (or shifting) and that is fine as the extended DOF is not going to be achieved by tilting but by stacking several images done with different focal planes (in software like <a href="http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html">Helicon Focus</a> ).</p>

<p>Who has experience with reversing Zuiko 21/3.5 or 24/3.5 on a bellows?<br>

I know about the good bellows wide angle macro Zuikos, but how do the mentioned lenses fare reversed?<br>

Best regards,<br>

Lars </p>

 

<p>Hi Tommy!<br>

<strong>>... Look for BMP bellow from UK. Like most bellow, it is also discontinued. </strong><br>

Following your hint, I had a look at those bellows and they seem quite nice - large diameter and ready and easy to "reverse". However, they also seem big.<br>

<strong>> 2nd, instead of taking apart an Olympus 28/3.5 and make a custom lens and bellow, I would have shorten a longer back focus 28/4 shift Nikkor. This would avoid complicated and problematic lens re-collimation. It also give you about 20mm more of back focus distant to work with. If you have the money to burn, there is always the Olympus 24mm shift lens.</strong><br>

I believe re-collimation will not be necessary at all as only the focusing helicoid part of the lens need to be removed. The lenses I have in mind are either Zuiko 21/3.5 or 24/3.5 and neither of these have floating element close range correction as far as I know - so the whole lens assembly incl. aperture control should move back and forth for focusing. As I wrote above, I am tempted by the PC-Nikkor 28/3.5 but then I really ought to have the system swing and tilt enabled - like <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/28pc.html">Bjørn Rørsletts version</a> but I really want "wide" <24mm.<br>

<strong>> Good Luck. This sounds like a fun project.</strong><br>

Thank you!<br>

/Lars<strong><br /> </strong></p>

 

<p>Hi Joseph,<br /> first, thank you for your detailed answer with many valid points.<br /> <strong></strong><br>

<strong>> ... I suggest that the next time you have a question like this, you actually sign up for the photomacrography forum and ask there. </strong><br>

I thought of that and will probably do it anyhow (sign up).<br /> <strong><strong></strong> </strong><br>

<strong><strong>> </strong> <em> </em> If you're using a Nikon body, you have a film to flance distance of 46.5mm. So your situation is a lot worse, you've got to get the lens 2.5mm farther in than Charlie did. </strong><br>

I am aware of the flange-to-sensor issue. So perhaps I should look for lenses designed for >46.6mm. But I thought that there might be just enough clearance with the Olympus lenses given the 0.6 mm difference.<br /> <strong></strong><br>

<strong>> The Nikon PB-3 (aka "the worst bellows Nikon ever made") has a very narrow bellows, I doubt even an Oly wide is going to fit in it. You'll probably be better off totally removing the Nikon bellows and replacing it with a home made "bag bellows". </strong><br>

Good point. What is the actual diameter of the “PB-3”?</p>

<p><strong>> Your adjustment range is small (24mm will take a 24mm wide from infinity focus to 1:1 macro... </strong><br>

Yes I am aware of that and it will get even smaller with a 21mm!<br /> <strong></strong><br>

<strong>> What camera do you have? I look at your profile, and I see two pictures of large Nikons, D2X or D3 or something. Read the thread, you can only make this kind of setup work with fairly small DSLRs. I'm guessing a PB-3 wouldn't work on any DSLR larger than a D90, a D300 or D3 would be too big.</strong><br>

I am using D700 and D300. D300 have more clearence due to the smaller mirror but I really want a wide angle of view so I think I will use the D700. It is not “deeper” the D300 but I am not sure the rail will fit under it after reversing the bellows (swapping mounts) or at all.<br /> <strong></strong><br>

<strong>> Yes, the standards will reverse easily. I don't think reversing the front standard will buy you anything, though, just the rear one. But if I remember the PB-3 design you will not be able to salvage the male mount from the rear standard (I have several bellows, including the Bellows II that preceded the PB-3 and the PB-4 that replaced the PB-3). You will have to bolt a new male mount (salvaged from an old lens or "junk bin" teleconverter) to the front standard. </strong><br>

The idea of reversing was mainly to keep the lens fixed and move the camera away for focusing (to entrance pupil and thereby also perspective fixed). I also have male standards lying around<br /> <strong></strong><br>

<strong>> It looks like Charlie did a lot of milling to the face of the reversed rear standard. Do you have access to someone with a mill? … Charlie also dismantled the rear section of the lens, including the focusing helicoid. Do your mechanical skills include doing that kind of work. </strong><br>

I should think so. I have done a bit a repair and maintenance and founded the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonRepair/" target="_blank">NikonRepair list</a> way back in 1999. Also, I have handy family members and friends with access to industrial milling equipment.<br>

Perhaps I should bite the bullit, kill the piggy bank and get a 2^nd hand PC 28/3.5 and modify it something like this:<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/28pc.html" target="_blank"> </a> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/28pc.html" target="_blank">http://www.naturfotograf.com/28pc.html</a> <br /> Best regards,<br /> Lars</p>

<p>I have a few questions about the Nikon Bellows III. <br>

Would it be possible to "reverse" it - swapping the lens mounts to create something like <a href="http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4879">this</a> ?<br>

Also, what is the minimum extension of this bellows and would it be possible to potentially reduce this by taking away material from the original "camera end post" (right "post" on this image)<br>

<img src="http://www.mir.com.my/michaeliu/cameras/shared/ff2macro/images/pb3bellow.jpg" alt="" /><br>

I would like to fit a wide-angle (probably an Olympus 24mm or 21mm) to make similar images to <a href="http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4864">these</a> using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_stacking">focus stacking</a> .<br>

Best regards, Lars</p>

Doug Fischer wrote: "It looks like the only change is that some new camera models are added?"

 

<P>No @ <a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2008/03/lightroom_14_and_camera_raw_44.html">Lightroom Journal</a> it says:

 

<P>"Previous camera profiles identified in the Calibrate panel of the Develop module may have displayed poor results at extreme ends of the temperature and tint ranges. A new camera profile identified as Camera Raw 4.4 is now available and will be applied by default to all images without existing Camera Raw or Lightroom settings. The creation of new default profiles will also include the updated Camera Raw 4.4 profile. Images edited in Camera Raw or Lightroom with earlier profiles will retain the earlier profile value and visual appearance."

Here is the crop

Here is the image and a crop. The raster pattern makes it hard to decipher.

Cross posting a bit from another thread: <a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MKhv">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MKhv</a>

<p>I just saw the paper version of the <a

href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Digital-SLR/25434-Nikon-D3/PDF/D3_brochure.pdf">

>Nikon D3 brochure</a>. On page 14 there is a picture of what looks like 4

prototypes. In the online pdf it is not possible to see it, but in the printed

version, it can clearly be seen that the model name is 3 digit. It certainly

looks like it says "D3H" but it is not possible to say for sure due to the small

size and resolution. <p>So why did the folks at Nikon seem to have changed their

minds? Because the D3 is not fast enough to carry the "H"? Or because they did

not want people to hold out for an upcoming "D3X"?

Regarding the name, D3 and not D3H, I just saw the paper version of the <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Digital-SLR/25434-Nikon-D3/PDF/D3_brochure.pdf"> Nikon D3 brochure</a>. On page 14 there is a picture of what looks like 4 prototypes. In the online pdf it is not possible to see it, but in the printed version, it can clearly be seen that the model name is 3 digit. I can only assume that it actually does say "D3H" but I am not sure.

From <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012907nikkorpce24.asp#press">dpreview</a>:

<P>Notes:

<br>The Nikon D3 can be used without any limitation. With other cameras, there are limitations in tilt/shift operation. The Nikon F90X series, F90 series, F70, F60D, F55, F50D, F-401 series, F-801 series, F-601, F-601M, F3AF, F-501, PRONEA S or MF cameras cannot be used.　

Specifications, design, standard accessories, and release schedule may differ by country or area

I have been carrying this lens on a D200 in Northeast Greenland. I mostly carried it in one hand and balanced that with a riffle in the other hand... I am not fond of riffle shoulder straps or strapping a riffle to the backpack since if you need to use it - in this case for self defense against Musk Ox or Polar Bear - you are likely to need it fast. Then you would not want the strap to get entangled in the tripodhead etc. Likewise with the lens as you say. When you need it you are likely to need it fast. For me the 70-200 VR was my general walk-around lens. If I needed to do WA landscape or macro it was off with the backpack for the lens change.

PopPhoto does not seem to have understood what AF fine tuning is about:<p>

 

"...fine-tune the AF for individual lenses (great for third-party glass or old Nikkors that don't provide object-distance data to the camera)."

@ <a href="http://www.europe-nikon.com/home/en_GB/local_content/broad/25/1.html">http://www.europe-nikon.com/home/en_GB/local_content/broad/25/1.html</a> Nikon lists the qualifying lenses for enrollment in the Nikon Professional User programme. I guess that makes them proffesional grade in Nikon's thinking. <p>

They are: <br>

14mm f/2.8D ED AF Nikkor

24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor

400mm f/2.8G ED VR AF-S Nikkor

500mm f/4G ED VR AF-S Nikkor

600mm f/4G ED VR AF-S Nikkor

 

AF-DX 10.5MM F/2.8G

AF 16 F/2.8D

AF 18 F/2.8

AF 28 F/1.4D

AF 14 F/2.8

AF 24 F/2.8D

AF 20 F/2.8

AF 28 F/2.8D

AF 35 F/2D

AF 85 F/1.4

AF 85 F/1.8

AF DC 105 F/2

AF DC 135 F/2

AF 180 F/2.8

 

AF-S VR 200-400 F/4G

AF-S VR 70-200 F/2.8G IF-ED

AF 35-70 F/2.8

AF-S DX 17-55MM F/2.8G

AFS 80-200 F/2.8

AF 24-85 F/2.8-4

AFS 28-70 F/2.8

AFS 17-35 F/2.8

AFS DX 12-24 F/4G

 

AF-S 600 F/4

AF-S 400 F/2.8

AFS 300 F/2.8

AF-S VR 200 F/2

AF-S 500 F/4

AFS 300 F/4

AF-S VR 300 F/2.8

 

AF 60 F/2.8D

AF 105 F/2.8

AF-S 105 F/2.8 VR

AF 200 F/4

PC 85 F/2.8

According to the D3oo manual, the individual AF sensors does not light up when manual focus is achieved. Neither are there any beep (as optional when using servo AF). Instead the small focus indicator LED in the view finder lights up. This is outside the frame and not very convenient. It would have been great if it was as you suggested or if there could be a beep as this would make you much more responsive. Also a "focus trap" setting would have been nice.

ALL DSLRs are diffraction limited (see <a href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm">http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm</a>). Best regards,

"Very" close but not touching... If your Hoya filter is not abnormal, I am pretty sure you are safe.

I have also noticed ugly greens under especially under overcast conditions (using preset WB for overcast). I am no longer using the saturated color setting in camera and it seems to help some.

A weird thing is that my version 1.0.1 did NOT find the update when "asked" to look for one through the Help menu!

My original NEFs from the D200 are arround 15MB but after editing them with Capture NX they grow to arround 20MB. I do not use NEF compression. I wonder what those 5MB are used for.

Shun, I thought NEFs were still 12 bit but Tiffs could be 16 bit (or 8 bit). I am very interested to learn more one this. Can you refer me to some documentation on this, please?

I have noticed that file size grows considerably after a NEF has been edited

with Capture NX. I thought one of the advantages with NEF was that they would

not change size noticably, but the 10mp NEFs from my D200 grow with about 5mb

after having been fiddled with a bit and then saved in Capture NX. Don't tell me

that those 5mb is taken up by the few instructions. I suspect that a new

embedded jpeg is produced, but the original one is retained. Can anyone confirm

this?

Doing B&W conversion post exposure enables you to use channel mixing (see <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/b-w_better.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/b-w_better.shtml</a>), whereby you can simulate use of color filters and thereby control contrast and tonality.