jcuknz

<p>I do not see the logic of people wanting a small price for either a small camera or its lens ... it is there to do a job and a good job costs money.</p>

<p>I tasted digital is a very simple way and virtually gave up film though it took some seven years before I realised I had no need for my film gear, it was nice to have it:)<br> What was the crunch point was the realisation that with a good editor I could do SO much MORE than ever I could in the fume room.</p>

<p>With my stiff old joints I value the tripod since my camera with its fully articulated LCD enables me to work the picture without bending down. But for most, careful handling and OIS, serves me well.</p>

<p>Surely the point is that if the adjustment is not enough then an additional lens can be added ... in a similar manner to stacking CU lens ... though I agree that is not really desirable but if it gives you a sharp image to see by it would be justified.</p> <p>Also some cameras I have read can have the eyepiece changed. I am lucky since my cateract ops I do not need much adjustment, though in 'glasses' days I removed my glasses as it was raining and adjusted the viewfinder to suit my native eye.</p> <p>PS I have been using EVFs for over a decade now without any problems as I reach my current 85th year :) The EVF covers either side of 'normal' so I would expect you would not need 'reading glasses' as the camera suits the contacts which give you distant viewing. The EVF with its info also makes setting the dioptre very easy if it gets knocked out of your setting :)</p>

<p>Just an old idea that maybe of use to you until you decide on what path to take.<br /> Before focus stacking became common with programs available this idea was promoted as a way of getting more DoF. To use a 'Waterhouse stop' but with surrounding material cut away so that with the lens wide open there was plenty of light to focus/compose by but the 'not small enough' iris covered the solid area around the small hole [ f/stop ].<br /> I met a photographer who organised one in his Rollieflex to get deep focus shots of his model railway.</p><div></div>

<p>Glad it is working out for you ... have fun :)</p>

<p>Why? HDR should be there but not seen IMO :)</p>

<p>Craig is correct about over kill with the Leaf IMO and my brief play with focus stacking, not using multiple frames but simple two or three frame composites is that it is quite easy effective and not time consuming in editing. My distant memory of working with a LF camera is that it was time consuming. We also need to know at what size the web shots are shown at as minor inaccuracies should not show unlike a large print? Though of course these days people view on quite large screens such as my 23" monitor :)</p>

<p>Perhaps the solution is to go further back in time and buy a camera without batteries [ except for the meter] ... but being more reliable they may cost you more ... thinking of the workhorses I had Pentax and that Russian M42 mount camera, whatever its name was [Zenit?]. Mine didn't have slow shutter speeds only B and T.</p>

<p>So long Micheal as you do not rush the recharge wait :) We must be of a similar age as I started with bulbs and so learnt about guide numbers but with his flash meter which I discovered by googling his names he is well on his way. Then I invested on one of the first Mecablitz, wet battery, large reflector and GN56 ....c1954 :-) Organised a DPDT switich to cut out one of the capacitors which halved the recharge time and gave a GN40.... confused my rivals as it looked like a standard Mecablitz to them :)<br> Now BeBu all this TTL is very confusing to me :)</p>

<p>I would suggest you do not ignore the top of the range Olympus and Panasonic MFT cameras such as the GH2 which largely has the features of a DSLR with external controls reducing the need to go into menus and with features a bsaic DSLR simply doesn't have. Which is why I use a GH2 these past couple of years. I found one s/h for $550 on Amazon when I looked.</p>

<p>Since you seem to be running around in circle I will repeat what I said early and Andrew wrote that the simplest way is to have a flash on the camera triggered by the camera ... but where I diverge is that I know, becuase it is how I have worked, that partly masking the flash on the camera is quite reasonably way to go.<br> Just becuase you have spent hours and money on the false track of cables doesn't mean that optical triggering is wrong.<br> But I would repeat my warning about chewing up a lot of film/money if you do not understand how flash relates to film and unlike digital you cannot fiddle with settings until you get it right. Flash is boh the simplest way to take photos and hardest particularly with film and getting the thing to work mechanically is the very first small step.</p>

<p>Most experienced togs use A mode most of the time as it gets them the results. I use Manual once in a blue moon, after decades of it being the only mode available I welcome digital automation.<br /> You have plenty of tips above but simply just play with one control variable at a time. and watch what the automatics are picking for you as you change one variable .. probably as you take half trigger.<br /> PS. I never bother about out of focus backgrounds as it is so easy to do this in editing when needed. The main problem is having enough depth of field as one goes up in sensor size as in your case from cellphone.</p>

<p>I used flash with sync cables professionally for a few years back in the fifties but when I tried to use more than one unit the results were un reliable.<br /> What I showed above is old technology for me now that I have YoungNuo units with their built in triggers but the principle of using the partly masked on-board as master remains my basic and simple operating system.<br /> Searching for a photo of an A1 camera I found this<br /> https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=A1+camera&biw=1160&bih=632&tbm=isch&imgil=ShgXgvPfJ9eIkM%253A%253Ba8K8m4o4GbhF2M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Flewiscollard.com%25252Fcameras%25252Fcanon-a-1%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=ShgXgvPfJ9eIkM%253A%252Ca8K8m4o4GbhF2M%252C_&usg=__jabXeqkVSA5EZP89NeV0MgnVhVQ%3D&ved=0ahUKEwihlMHDla3KAhWEE5QKHWMXDM4QyjcIMQ&ei=M5uZVuGuJYSn0ATjrrDwDA#imgrc=mx_E0W5CHX8t8M%3A&usg=__jabXeqkVSA5EZP89NeV0MgnVhVQ%3D<br /> And it looks as if what these days is called a PC port above and to the right of the lens looking from the front<br /> But if it is not then there is the simple way of setting the camera to a half or one second exposure and manually triggering the flash as I did some years back with the guy in the hat giving us a count down to his triggering his flash set-up.</p> <p>edit .. and if you have a small flash which can sit on the camera it could work the same way as the on-board with my digital cameras, But if the A1 is a film camera until you learn about guide numbers and relate that to your flash you are going to waste a lot of film/money.</p><div></div>

<p>I don't know what an AE1 is but when I wanted to use an off camera flash with triggering with an optical trigger connected to its sync cord [ or base of flash unit] I simply masked off the on-board flash so that only enough light escaped to work the trigger and not affect the subject. </p><div></div>

<p>As a bit of a pure ist on this subject I suggest that any filter which gives you a color cast is not proper IR. But I was lucky that in my ignorance I bought a gel from 'SRB-Griturn.com' in the UK and my camera, Nikon 5700 early bridge camera, was able to shoot IR without modification ... my subsequent Panasonic cameras unfortunately have rather strong IR filter built in which militates against IR because of long exposures.<br /> My Nikon is still quite long and must be shot with a firm support. 1/250 light = 1 second etc A conversion should permit shorter exposures from what I have read.<br /> My filter is a 720nm and I do not have to do anything to it in editing apart from checking curves as an adjustment layer which E10 can do I think?</p> <p>I started with Paint SHop Pro before Elements came on the market and like it and stay with it :-)</p><div></div>

<p>Alan I have cogitated over the past couple of days as to what exactly you are saying and finally realise that we are talking about completely different things.<br> I ignore the point that the lens is 35mm focal length at infinity but rather that when it is focused at .3m it is a 3.33D lens and the adding of a 2D CU lens has the culmulative effect of making it a 5.3D lens or rather instead of making it that ... that it is focused at 5.3D. For my discussion the lens could be of any basic focal length and that it is 35mm is irrelevant to the discusion. <br> Glen I am sure that you have fun with the 35mm which illustrates the point that unless one is going deep into tight framing most of the time the more powerful magnification is not required for day to day subjects. It is habit that had me add my 2D to my lens for the snail .... to shift the area of possible focusing to what the subject probably required ... just one of my habits.</p>

<p>Alan That small difference doesn't alter the validity of my point though I bow to your better knowledge of the subject. Actually I wonder just how old Glens 50mm is which only focuses to one metre.... for decades my 50mm focused to 0.5 on my SLR.<br /> If you do the figures for a lens which is capable of focusing to 50mm the lack of meaningful magnification increase is even more striking :-)<br /> NO.... CU lens work best with longer lens such as my 430 bridge or 280 MFT where they meaningfully give magnification and overcome design limitations based on extension.<br /> Like a lot of things moderation is the key and I limit myself to just 2D before I make the effort to use my Auto extension tubes :) [ Fly v. Snail ]</p>

<p>I am not sure if this is a helpful comment but I found that when a layer carries the title "background layer' it stops you seeing a white layer below it because it insists that 'nothing' is white ... change its name and 'nothing' can become, or becomes, transparent ... hope you follow me :)<br> One drawback is that when the layers are merged and a jpg made for posting the b/g becomes white again :( I think I tried to demonstrate this some years back here at PN without success.</p>

<p>I do not see what your comments have to do with my statement Glen :)<br> When your 35mm lens is focused to 0.3m it is effectively a 3.3333 dioptre lens, add a two dioptre to it gives you 5.333 or a focus of 187.5mm against 300mm .... the difference in magnification is not worth bothering about. True you can get more powerful dioptres but with the single meniscus IQ goes out the window .... less so when you use a lens from say a 5x4 camera such as I have where the 135mm is a 7.4 dioptre CU lens. That is assuming the camera lens front pupil is small enough to see through it without vignetting.</p>

<p>Maybe it will help if you understand he principles behind a guide number. The aperture only controls the effective strength of a flash so firstly you work out the aperture which gives a good exposure of an average subject at 10 feet from the flash unit.[where the camera is doesn't matter] using 100 ISO<br> If this was f/5.6 or perhaps in your case f/3.2 you have a guide number of 32.<br> Now if the subject is five feet from the flash you 'say' 32/5=6.4 and you would use f/6.4<br> If the subject was 15ft fom the flash it is 32/15=2 and you use f/2 [ figures rounded ]<br> The guide number changes depending on the ISO used and the starting test iwas made at 100 ISO in film days. Some digital cameras do not have this ISO possible so you would find your GN at whatever the camera provides for you.<br> I always think in terms of f/stops so with a GN56 at 100 ISO it becomes GN80 when you use 200 ISO NOT 56x2 or 112. <br> Beware of GNs given by flash makers ... they are usually optomistic :) or give a figure when the flash is concentrated in a tight beam if your YN has that feature.<br> Modern features which an old timer like me finds confusing who learnt to use flash this way decades ago :-)</p>

<p>Once you becomes competant with a proper editor you do not need a bigger sensor just learn to stitch. If the photos are purely for you or even posting on the web I question the need for even APS-C as Micro Four Thirds will do the job and likely better than an older DSLR of either size. But knowing and learning to use a good editor is probably the crux of success. By proper editor I suggest adobe PS or elements and my choice Paint Shop Pro after using both products. Plus you do not need the latest version which saves money.</p>

<p>But I also more recently took some shots of a snail using the 2D CU lens on the 14-140.<br /> Th 2D lives with the camera whereas to use my auto tubes means going upstairs [ lazy me! ] :-)</p> <p>I also live in NZ [Dunedin] and with credit card and the NZ$400 limit on GST free I can import anything small from overseas such as B&H. Though GST is not that much an obstacle but often freight is considerable.</p><div></div>

<p>Since you have an ILC it could be worth looking at the option of a pre-digital lens like my Takumar 135 in the photo and plain tubes for cheapness bearing in mind that many modern lens cannot be seriously used with plain tubes as they do not have manual control of the aperture .. they need the auto version.<br> The photo also shows the way the longer lens will keep you back from the subject, a good thing for dangerous insects and to let light in un hindered.<br> Though the photo shows an intermediate stage for me as I now have auto tubes and dispensed with the DSLR for MFT. With adaptors I have I could repeat the exercise but really not needed and less satisfactory now I have auto tubes.</p><div></div>

<p>I have been using close-up lens for decades, first for motion picture work, then with digital with my bridge cameras and today I have CU lens, extension tubes, and bellows.<br> My basic approach is that the CU lens looses very little light where the other two sytems this needs to be considered. I also do not use anything more powerful than a 2D for IQ reasons and I know if it is possible that an automatic extension tube gives a superior result.<br> But with my bridge and MFT cameras I only need a 55mm mount lens and am horrified by the price charged for things like 77mm [ US$25 v. US$145 ] approximately for a qualiiy item.<br> I suspect from the poor results I got from a theoretically good lens that it is desirable to buy from a known good supplier such as B&H or Adorama. Your problem is limited funds and I can only suggest you hold off until you can afford the good lens ... and seriously compare the costs of 'auto extension tubes' vis. a CU lens. I do not really think the CU lens is a serious option for the DSLR owner cost wise. <strong>Plus I hope you are aware that addding a CU lens to a short lens is pointless.</strong><br> But<strong> </strong>extension tubes work well with all lens though since you are 'extending' the focal length of the basic lens you need greater extension with the longer lens for a given framing.</p><div></div>