conrad_hoffman

It's the same raw file as the first, just with the chromatic correction in Affinity unchecked. ISO 360, f/11 and 1/125 sec. The focus point is through the balance bearing and far end of the speed scale. One shot, handheld. Obviously I can do way better with stacking, which is the next thing to learn. I've done lots of stacking manually, but have never tried the automatic focus steps of the camera. The watch was a handy subject but doesn't please me because it's in rather poor condition and I've never had the time to work on it.

Unfortunately both images I recently posted have the fringe problem because I didn't uncheck the box. The image of a pencil sharpener I posted has a red edge on one of the grinders that shouldn't be there. I did remove the erroneous lens correction. I'm going to do some tests using various raw converters to confirm, then send a bug report to Affinity. I don't know how the chromatic correction works, but it's disturbing that it can make things worse or better, depending on the image. It's also disturbing that it doesn't seem to be adjustable, which I would think is a requirement. The worst possible case is they got the state of the button wrong and the lens is really that bad, and the software is correcting it. All manner of things get corrected in software these days so I need to run enough independent tests to convince myself of what's going on. I hate to waste the bandwidth, but see if this is better-

Sharp eye my friend! Very interesting about the fringing. I saw what I thought was a moire pattern on some screening of a barn I shot. I was using the raw image processing in Affinity Photo. After much messing about I noticed that the box for chromatic aberration was checked. I unchecked it and the problem disappeared. Sure enough, I went back to the watch image and unchecked the box- it seems checked by default. Edges now perfect, no fringing. The out-of-camera jpeg is also perfect, which reinforces what I often say about the assumed superiority of raw. You better be pretty good developing raw or Nikon may beat you with their excellent jpegs. Another oddity about Affinity is it thinks the lens is a Cosina 24mm 2.0 Macro because the Z lens hasn't been added to the Lensfun database yet. It should really come up empty and you have to remember to uncheck corrections or things will be made worse instead of better. It's still my current choice of editors.

Z6 & Nikkor Z 105mm S macro

Well, a miracle has occurred. Early this morning I got a call from the local shop saying they had a 105 macro Z with my name on it. Apparently they are trickling in very slowly and unpredictably, though this is the first I've heard of it. Picked it up this afternoon but haven't had time to do much. Focusing works very well. I grabbed the first thing handy, stuck it under a lamp and shot it. Need to find some worthy subjects and the time to shoot.

IMO, people don't want to look too closely because so many lenses have fungus, scratches or some kind of subtle damage. I always do a penlight test through the lens. I also use a moderate power hand lens to inspect the outer surfaces under bright light, looking for scratches. Frankly, the only lenses that really pass these tests completely are the ones I bought new. They've lived under filters their entire lives. OTOH, I do have some used ones that are pretty good, but I was very fussy in buying/keeping them. I've only had one experience buying direct from a Japanese vendor but the lens was excellent and exactly as described.

I'm spoiled. When I suspect a problem I pop the thing under the autocollimator. If anything is out of square or the lens performance is wonky, it's quickly obvious.

Phones in the $300 range can have very good cameras. Don't be too sure how much better you'll do with an older conventional camera. Computational photography is coming to get you!

No specific knowledge but these are castings. The external features are mostly not machined and likely just touched up on flat sandpaper so they look nice. Putting the machined features in a casting is a bit of an art and it's more important to get those right. The tolerances of those external features are likely wide and certainly not relevant to anything; they're just cosmetic. The guiding and such is internal. If it were messed up, my guess is you'd have an obvious problem. Maybe somebody knows otherwise, but it's not something I'd lose any sleep over if it feels smooth and works right.

Pay attention to what I'm thinking, not what I write!

Your Google-fu is weak. ;) I've been happy with these- https://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-Adapter-Mirrorless-Camera-NZNK/dp/B003JFRVD2/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?dchild=1&keywords=fotasy%2Badapter&qid=1635648895&sr=8-1-spons&smid=A2UHLVL8IH9Q52&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUExWjFQR0pIM1pBQVIyJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwOTc4ODczVzRMODIyTEpVWkxLJmVuY3J5cHRlZEFkSWQ9QTEwMjQyOTIxNUpXVjhCVDBBV0U4JndpZGdldE5hbWU9c3BfYXRmJmFjdGlvbj1jbGlja1JlZGlyZWN0JmRvTm90TG9nQ2xpY2s9dHJ1ZQ&th=1

Very cool. As for the exposed to light issue, I don't know how much it matters. I do know that it's an issue with astro cameras, though I don't remember the exact problem it causes. There's a trick for quickly fixing it- you flood the sensor with red light for a time.

How do you tell the pioneers? They're the one with the arrows in their backs. As for precision parts, getting rid of the shutter is huge, but I bet the in-body stabilization is no picnic to make well.

No G or E here, just good old AiS manuals. I buy Fostasy adapters for $16 and just leave them on the lenses I use.

Yeah, only a few of us were tough enough to put up with wet process. :D

Well, it's certainly big enough to do some damage.

Most of us have to ask the question, "Will my wife kill me if I buy this?"

Definitely ruined a few with my Beseler. Recommended test procedure- use a grain focuser and focus. Turn off the lamp and let things cool. Turn on the lamp and watch through the grain focuser for about a minute. If anything moves, you'll see it.

Good info here- Notes on the Troubleshooting and Repair of Electronic Flash Units and Strobe Lights and Design Guidelines, Useful Circuits, and Schematics They show CdS cells for Vivitar units. I wouldn't be surprised if some makers used phototransistors, as they're faster, cheap and have been around forever, but no first hand knowledge.

Here's some stuff I wrote many years ago- A Darkroom Measurement Compendium About halfway down I talk about heat absorbing glass in the 23CII I had.

My first digital was a Panasonic FZ20 with a 1/2.5 sensor (2560x1920 pixels). That's 1/4 the size of my little fingernail. In spite of that, I made some decent wall posters maybe 2' wide and a few feet tall. You need to observe the old rule about viewing distance being no closer than the diagonal of the print size. Do that and you can print any size you want, including a roadside billboard. If you use a printing utility like Qimage it will do the correct interpolation and sharpening to get the best results more or less automatically. If providing files to somebody else, you may have to tweak them for best results.

I get nervous making any absolute statement about condenser and diffusion light sources. It's all a continuum. You could build a point source, but the results would be awful and you'd see every flaw. The aperture of your enlarging lens would also become mostly superfluous. Somewhere in the middle is the practical implementation of a condenser system, but what you get has a lot to do with the size of the source (bulb), condensers and format. IMO, a condenser system with a big bulb is a lot closer to a diffusion system than you might think. Talking a PH211 size. Then you could have a 4x5 system using a PH111, which is a lot smaller.

I suspect those diffusion heads (no, not of fan of those either, for 35mm) don't get as hot as my much-loved condensers. Thus, you don't see problems.

I'll play devil's advocate and suggest that filed out and oversize neg carriers are to be avoided. The reason is they don't support the negative as well and make them more prone to pop and focus errors unless you're using a cold light source.

No, that would just sap the retirement account way too much!