mukul_dube

<p>Of course, Sanford. When one is groggy, ten minutes and ten days are much the same.</p>

<p>Allen, I was curious about "Monochrome Monday, November 38th, 2016".</p>

<p>How many days in this November, Sanford?</p>

<p>For most work with my M6 I used a Sunpak 1600 Auto, which is small and can even be aimed upwards. When I needed more light I used a manual Sunpak which I bought in the 1970s.</p>

<p>Also the catch lights in her eyes.</p>

<p>Woman making savoury pakoras at the edge of the road.</p><div></div>

<p>A dull posed picture of a mother and her son, taken on demand.</p><div></div>

<p>If you only want to "play a little", close-up lenses ("diopters") are the least expensive option, as Stephen says. This kind of work should not be called "macro", though.</p>

<p>Then your statement should have been <em>DOF is a matter of magnification, which depends in part on focal length, and f-stop. </em>I wouldn't question Steve Parrott's original statement, which you quoted only in part.</p>

<p>Ah, 90mm in "full frame" terms. I thought it would be something like that. Looks like a small aperture also.</p>

<p>I'd like to know which lens you used, Sanford. Yury, the creature seems quite close to the camera.</p>

<p><em>DOF is a matter of magnification and f-stop, not of focal lenght.</em><br> Is magnification not a function of focal length?</p>

<p>You'll get better portraits with a lens longer than 80mm. Extension tubes are for close-up work.</p>

<p>Man tidying up a welded frame before painting it.</p><div></div>

<p>Handsome eagle, Brett. Good one, Patrick.</p>

<p>I agree. FT is a dead system, MTF is alive and kicking. This is not to say that FT cameras and lenses are not still capable of good work.</p>

<p>This Saint Bernard has known me since he was a puppy. He shows his affection by jumping on me and trying to lick me all over. The human with him has a tough time controlling him.</p><div></div>

<p>David, my understanding is that the Jupiter 3 is a Zeiss design. It only has the focal length and maximum aperture of the Xenon and the Summarit.</p>

<p>John is right in that "the lens pictured will not fit the camera in the picture."</p>

<p>You're using that IIIc well, David.</p>

<p>She makes tea on a gas stove, but all her cooking is on this wood burning thing.</p><div></div>

<p>I broke my rule of not photographing a face with the lens aimed upwards because it then looks up into the subject's nostrils. The camera was on a table tripod for an exposure of 1/10 sec. and my subject is a tall young man.</p><div></div>

<p>Thank you, gentlemen. My four ZD lenses are good, each in its own way, and I should like to keep them working after the E-3 dies.</p>

<p>Micro Four Thirds is an obvious option but it did not occur to me. Thank you.</p>

<p>My E-3 is back focussing (see my post of 10 October). This happened with all the lenses I tried. I sent the camera and a lens to the authorised repair centre in Mumbai (Bombay) and, I must say with annoyance, was made to pay for nothing. They said they had re-installed the software of the camera, but I think they had not: because that would have put all settings back to factory default but the camera came back with my settings intact.<br> I no longer use the camera much and so do not want to spend money on sending it abroad for adjustment: but I'd like it to work well when I do use it. To my mind, the only practical option is to either use manual focus alone or to manually adjust focus after it has auto focussed. But I find this to be slow, because the standard focussing screen is not so good for manual focus.<br> Does anyone know if alternative focussing screens for the E-3 are still available? Searching on the Net tells me that some were made. It seems that KatzEye are no longer in business.</p>