eric_onore

<blockquote>

<p>My concern is with another set of lenses to degrade the image, cause flare, and so on. It will be interesting to see some images on aps-c sensors compared with the same lens on an actual full frame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A tester at DPReview did just that with a Canon 6D here http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2667195592/first-impressions-metabones-speed-booster</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you very much!</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Can the LX diopter be adjusted without the tool. I picked up a body and no tool. Will a phillips work without damaging it? I hate to spend $23 on a one shot deal.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>He sounds about as smart as my idiot, Seamus, who managed to get himself porcupined twice within a two week period.</p>

<p>At the risk of sounding dumb, how are processing and prints handled? Are normal processing venues able to handle half frame?</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>The X-700 was my first SLR camera and the only camera I used for many years. I have a decent collection of Minolta primes and a couple of Vivitar Series 1 lenses, both of which are very sharp. It's a nice camera to use, the only disability is the fact that the displayed shutter speed is the suggested shutter speed, not the one actually set. For this reason I would probably prefer an X-570, but as a practical matter it probably doesn't make much difference. My two favorite lenses are the 24mm f2.8, and the 35mm f2.8. For years I wanted the 58mm f1.2, but have never seemed to find one at a bargain price (I am a cheapskate). Enjoy using it!</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>The X-700 was my first SLR camera and the only camera I used for many years. I have a decent collection of Minolta primes and a couple of Vivitar Series 1 lenses, both of which are very sharp. It's a nice camera to use, the only disability is the fact that the displayed shutter speed is the suggested shutter speed, not the one actually set. For this reason I would probably prefer an X-570, but as a practical matter it probably doesn't make much difference. My two favorite lenses are the 24mm f2.8, and the 35mm f2.8. For years I wanted the 58mm f1.2, but have never seemed to find one at a bargain price (I am a cheapskate). Enjoy using it!</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Hi Tom,</p>

<p>I could really use the lens, having just bought an Aria body. Message sent. Thank you.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Thanks, everyone. This is very helpful. The seller is some distance away, so we will need to get together. At this time, I don't know whether these are AI lenses or not. I will find out and compare prices at Keh. Thanks!</p>

<p>I have a chance to buy an F3HP and some lenses. I'd appreciate any guidance you can give me on the quality of these lenses and anything else I should be aware of. These are the lenses that are available<br>

GN AUTO NIKKOR 2.8 45mm LENS<br>

NIKKOR-P AUTO 2.5 105mm LENS<br>

MICRO-NIKKOR-P AUTO 3.5 55mm LENS<br>

NIKKOR-N AUTO 1:2 28mm LENS<br>

Thanks for the help!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I want one.<br>

Eric</p>

 

<p>Sorry Godfrey, I was typing while you were posting.</p>

<p>Eric Onore</p>

<p>I believe that Cameralabs tested this possibility with the Leica/Panasonic 14-50 image stabilized lens and one of the Olympus 4/3s cameras with in body stabilization. The conclusion, if I recall correctly, is that the two systems do not play well together.</p>

<p>Eric Onore</p>

Louie,

 

I am an attorney and have tried a number of contractor related cases. If there is one thing I have learned from twenty five years of practice, it is that Judges and juries appreciate tight, well prepared presentations. Less is frequently more, particularly if the evidence is repetitive or redundant. Carefully cull your photos to leave the best, most demonstrative, and to eliminate those that aren't necessary. Make sure that you understand the foundation that must be laid in your jurisdiction for the introduction of demonstrative evidence and try to anticipate the other party's objections to specific evidence so that you are prepared to meet the objection. It may be worth the expense to invest in something like Mauer's Trial Practice, which also has a good summary of the rules of evidence and will be a good reference guide during trial. Many times I have had clients bring me photographs which for the life of me, I can't clearly see what the photograph purports to show. You are very invested in the case, but make sure that you look at the photos from the perspective of the jury, who may not be as particular or exacting as you are. You don't want to run the risk of looking like someone who is never satisfied. I have frequently advised clients to drop some of the smaller issues for just this reason.

 

Also, keep in mind that juries, at least here in Connecticut, tend to be older than the general population and may not be particularly technologically savvy. It would be my practice to have prints, large enough to show the condition that you are claiming, and that the jury can take into the jury room. Have four copies of each, one for the Judge, one for the jury, one for opposing counsel and one for yourself. This will make it easier for the Judge to rule and will make your presentation smoother, so that individual photos do not have to been passed around among the participants. Talk to the courtroom clerk in advance of the trial to get his or her preference for marking the exhibits. Depending on the response, you may want to number the photos for reference. However, this can get confusing, for instance if one of the photos does not get admitted and now the reference numbers do not match the exhibit numbers that the clerk puts on the prints. Talk to the clerk about this.

 

Eric

Years ago I used the same exact copy of this lens on a Keiv 60. Man, that was some combo to carry. Beautiful

shots when I could get the frame spacing right.

 

Eric Onore

Forget about the cameras. What about boxes full of T-Mount adapters, cable releases, old flashes, adaptall mounts, toy cameras, hit cameras, slide viewers, old neckstraps, filters, bubble levels, table top tripods, etc. etc. etc.

 

Eric Onore

Minolta also made two APS SLRs, the S-1 and the S-100. I think there were six lenses made especially for the cameras, which also fit a DSLR which Minolta made at the time.

Sorry I haven't gotten back to this thread before now. Unlike Stephen, my adapter seems to be well finished and came with the allen wrench. Maybe Gandy has sourced them from different places. I do agree, however, that it is not worth $175. Like Stephen there were no other alternatives available at the time. As far as the image quality, I have only used the 50mm F1.7. It seems to be pretty sharp and on a par with the 14-54 mm I am using with the camera.

 

Like a lot of my other projects, this has gotten out of control. I bought the camera on an impulse because they were selling for so little on Ebay. I now am in for $300 for the camera, $175 for the adapter, $40 for the eyepiece, and I anticipate $125 for the Katz Eye screen and $30 for a Dremel tool to properly cut the aperture pins. Oh well, at least it is a relatively cheap hobby.

 

Eric

I have the Cameraquest adapter and an Olympus E-500. There are two issues with the Minolta to 4/3rds adapter. One is that the aperture lever has to be trimmed as has been already discussed. The second is that the small viewfinder of most of the 4/3rds cameras makes it very difficult for me to focus with my 55 year old eyes. You can buy a new focusing screen on Ebay with a microprism collar and install yourself. My recollection is that there is a website with pretty complete directions. I have been hesitate to do this because of my general clumsiness and because I suspect that if you don't get it shimmed correctly you will have problems. The other alternative is to send the camera to Katz-Eye who will install a new screen. Most people who have gotten these are well pleased. I should also add that at least for the E-500 there is an eyepiece magnifier available. I find that it helps a great deal, but others are not as satisfied.

 

Eric

Benjamin,

 

Thanks for sharing this with us.

 

Eric Onore

Take a look at the Adorama Slinger bag. It has a waist belt in addition to the sling type strap. They sell it in two sizes and I have the smaller one. It holds an enormous amount of stuff and I use it in just the way you mentioned. On my trip to New Orleans two weeks ago I carried a Contax G1 with three lenses, a Fuji F31, a Palm Pilot, a cell phone, a pill bottle, a GPS, the charger for the cell phone, the charger and bracket for the GPS, a guide book, a water bottle in one of the side pockets and all my travel documents. The ability to carry a larger book is one of my primary requirements for a bag for travel. It is also relatively cheap and well made. Check it out.

 

Eric Onore

Sony R-1.

Bruce,

 

Thank you for alerting us to your blog. I enjoyed both the photographs and the comments. Keep it up!

 

Eric

This is a tough call. I had the Olympus and sold it to buy the R1. There is no question that the R1 has better low light performance. However, some of the things that drive you crazy about the 8080 will probably bug you about the R1 also, i.e. the slow low light autofocus, the slow raw times. Also, I find manual focus to be useless on the R1 in many circumstances. There is no question that the R1 is a step up in image quality, but at regular size enlargements in decent light, the differance may not be much. Ultimately, the thing I miss about the 8080 is size. The R1 seems much bigger, while the 8080 is nice and compact for its capabilities. For travel, the 8080 is really a nice size.

Both of these cameras hold their value quite well. I would buy the R1, and if you don't like it, or feel the 8080 is a better fit, sell it for what you paid for it.

Glenn,

 

Could you provide some information on the process you used to combine the photos, etc, and get them ready for display. I really liked the effect and would like to know more about it.

 

Thanks,

 

Eric