neal wells

<p>I shoot with my left eye closed for normal work, more to eliminate extraneous light than to concentrate my vision. One exception to this is when I'm shooting long telephotos at moving subjects. I fly radio control airplanes and have done a lot of pictures for our club using a 300mm lens with two doublers on a DX camera, giving an effective 1800 mm lens on a heavy tripod with a loosely tensioned ballhead. It is impossible to track a small object like an RC plane in the middle of aerobatics at up to 100 mph through just the viewfinder. It took a couple weeks of practice but I now shoot with both eyes open. The left eye keeps the plane in sight and automatically centers it so it becomes visible with the right eye through the viewfinder.</p>

<p>I use mine on a large portion of my shots because I often like to isolate the subject from the background (or foreground). It becomes especially important with longer lenses and especially at large apertures because these can result in a fairly narrow area in the shot which will actually be in focus. When shooting distant subjects, at small apertures, or with wide angle lenses, I rarely use the DOF button but I shoot mostly nature at what you might call portrait distances and like to focus on the subject with a complimentary but out of focus, background. I rarely use autofocus. In low light situations it can be difficult to see the subject with the stopped down aperture but if you give your eye a minute to adjust to the low light, it is usually possible. I shoot both digital and film and wouldn't own a camera without a DOF button. </p>

<p>I had a similar yet less drastic situation. In my case, I stopped to photograph a lilac bush against an old barn. When I got the slides back, it was blurry like yours. Turned out I had left the car motor running and was using the vehicle to steady myself so the shake transferred to the camera. I don't know if that would account for any of your trouble with this photo. </p>

<p>A Nikon D1H can be had for a song these days. If you are into a lot of very low light photography or tons of cropping, you might find it limited but otherwise it is still a very cabale, professional level camera capable of some gorgeous shots. Put your money into glass which you will always be able to use when you find you outgrow the D1H. </p>

<p>Thanks John, I did reset the DX manually and it made no difference. Once I finish this roll, I'll try cleaning it</p>

<p>I forgot to mention that the camera did appear to pick up the DX coding and showed the proper ISO in the readout for the Porta film but even when I set the ISO manually it made mo difference-still a continuous blinking "err" message when the shutter buttom was depressed halfway.</p>

<p>Hi All,</p>

<p>I just picked up a used N90s to carry in the canoe and other places I don't want to risk my F5. I loaded a roll of Kodak Porta 160VC and got a continuous blinking "err" message. The camera would trip the shutter and advance the film but no exposure readouts. I finally decided to try a different roll of film and loaded some Provia 100. The camera picked the DX code up fine and it worked like a charm. This roll of Kodak was one I had in the refrigerator (warmed prior to loading) but I haven't used this film before. I just wanted to try something a little faster than my Velvia 50. Has anybody else had this problem or maybe can offer an explanation?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>While I agree about the F4 being my favorite camera, I have both and for action shooting the F5 is the clear choice.</p>

<p>To each their own... Somebody also had to create all the "Elvis on Velvet" hangings but it might be a stretch to include them in a book of tapestries. </p>

<p>All other things being equal, more megapixels will allow you to crop quite a bit and still end up with a reasonably large file for printing.</p>

<p>If you want to carry this a step further, superglue solvent is readily available. Try a hobby shop. I have dissolved lots of it on model airplanes.</p>

<p>Neal</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Thanks for the quick responses and suggestions. I was just able to contact the original owner and he told me that this an AI conversion many years ago by a local camera store. It just bothered me that I couldn't find a picture even remotely close.

I recently acquired an 80-200 f/4.5 lens. I have been able to identify it by serial number as a K lens

manufactured between 1975 and 1977. The photo I found on the web shows the indexing prong as the standard split

tab but my lens has just a small rectangular tab that sticks out in line with the lens rather than perpendicular

like a split tab. Does anyone know if there were different versions or if this might have been a modification?

It will be going on an FM. Thanks for any help.

How about one with lots of animal bones? When I say lots, I mean several hundred wild animal skeletons, all sizes, bleached bones, rib cages, skulls, legs...you name it. Nothing has been dumped here recently so the bones are pretty bleached with no fur or odor. Email me for a picture if you're interested. It's in northern NH so snow cover may limit when you could shoot it.

 

Neal

I never use them unless a filter is specifically called for when I take a shot and no scratched lenses either.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>