harold_gough

<p>The basic issue is that your subjects are mobile, which affects framing, focus and sharpness.<br>

Having made regular use of a multi-position tripod for many years for macro, I find the only practical setup is hand-held with flash.<br>

You would do well to look at specialist macro forums.<br>

A tripod can be useful for flowers in still-air conditions or mushrooms, lichens, etc in any conditions.</p>

 

<p>Thanks, Ron.<br>

That is the lens I bought for possible macro to distance stacking, the only one I never used with film. If I had any doubts you blew them away.<br>

I use almost exclusively manual focusing, having found AF lacking.</p>

<p>I occasionally use focus peaking with my OM-1, when using legacy manual focus lenses. I use it as a guide to where the principal plane of focus is in the frame but look at the viewfinder image of the subject to finalise the focus. I find that it does not always activate (after pressing the allocated button) and it may take a couple of passes through the subject to get the relevant edges clearly highlighted. (I use the white option).<br>

I should emphasise that I use small apertures for macro.</p>

<p>Stephen,<br>

Thanks.<br>

Not something I have come across with OM to 4/3 or Canon FD to m4/3, but something I will ask about with sellers.</p>

 

<p>Thanks, everyone.<br>

It looks like it might be worth the investment in the original version. Any wide-angle use is likely to be after the winter months, so I have time to think about whether the later version is worth the expense as IS is not important for these lenses. Other use would be with macro, where I mostly use flash (have not looked into cost justification for Sony guns, not to mention additional bulk to carry). I have some very high quality lenses (Printing Nikkors) where I could get more resolution (do I need it?) from a larger sensor.<br>

Somewhere, the rear projections of these lenses have been mentioned as a physical impairment to fitting the A7 but those would be inside the adapter,</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I currently use mostly legacy film lenses with my EM-1 m4/3.<br>

I miss being able to use my OM 24mm and 24mm shift (plus my Tamron SP 17mm) at their intended focal lengths. I was considering investing in an A7 for mainly this purpose.<br>

I have read elsewhere that the design of the A7 sensor degrades the edge performance of such lenses. Does anyone have relevant experience?</p>

<p>A member of the Olympus UK E-User group helped me out.<br>

You press the Mode button and rotate the dial on the flash.<br /><br />I can now TTL/RC up to all my (5) R series guns at once.</p>

<p>I have, for many months been using one FL-50R and one ore two FL-300R flash guns, all controlled (RC TTL) by the FL-LM2 on the hot shoe.<br>

I wish to use the smaller and lighter FL36R instead of the 50R. I have obtained the former which seems to have been used in Channel 4 by the previous owner. I use Channel 1 for my current setup. I can see no way of setting the 36R as channel 1. The manual is unhelpful, as is the EM1 flash menu.</p>

 

<p>The question is not really valid. some macro lenses, such as the OM 80mm macro will work only with extension bellows or tubes). Problems with framing or focusing are more related to magnification than to how you obtain that magnification.<br>

Bellows and tubes use only air as a medium whereas TCs of supplementary lenses use glass and that can degrade the image. I use any of these, to suit my circumstances. TCs maintain working distance, the others reduce it. Most lenses will work better reversed when used above their designed magnification range.</p>

<p>On cameras which have it, peaking is very good and will work with legacy lenses on digital bodies.</p>

<p>This is an update on my high-magnification setup:<br>

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1001614/45#13087537</p>

 

<p>Get a good quality ND filter with no colour cast.</p>

<p>I used T32 AND T20 flashes, individually, or linked via TTL cords, on my EP-2. One of the flashes was on the hot shoe, any other bracket in the system being in insulated with electrical tape, as already suggested.<br>

Harold</p>

<p>Thanks. It was a one-off. No multi-image delete was offered.<br>

However, having tethered my camera to my PC, as usual, to transfer images, I found that image files Cut and Pasted into folders on my PC could still be viewed, on the camera card, using IrFanView but could not be located via My Computer.<br>

The time had come to completely reformat the card, which I did this morning with SDFormatter software.<br>

Harold</p>

<p>I use the delete button many times each day and never have a problem.<br>

I took about 5 pictures this morning in one session. I selected one to delete and confirmed in the usual way. It took not only unwanted one but all those from that session. Other, much older images stored on the card, and in the same subfolder, are intact.<br>

The absence of the files is the same in the camera review or by reading from my PC via the download cable.<br>

I have never seen anything like this before. Any suggestions?<br>

As a test, I took another series of images and deleted one. the others were still there.</p>

<p>I seem to occasionally have a problem but I have always persisted and zoomed in. If it is a real problem, this is a replacement wheel, under warrantee.</p>

<p>I use an EP-2 for a couple of years and hated it. The lack of an eyelevel viewfinder was the main reason. The VF-2 was a good substitute but I couldn't use that and flash at the same time, a disaster for macro.<br>

The EM-1 has covered those two very well. It also has a much better feel in the hand.<br>

Another reason was that menu settings were extremely easily altered just by normal handling of the camera, very much less so with the EM-1.<br>

I thought that the 5-way IS would be amazing but have not been really aware of it.<br>

I use mostly legacy lenses but do find a much-improved AF with 4/3 lenses over the abysmal performance on the EP-2.</p>

 

<p>Wouter,<br>

Thanks. The use of images from those lenses on the web is improbable. Potential publication in print is always in mind when shooting, although processing from RAW tends to be delayed until JPEGs are needed.<br>

When I do process I always choose a high quality option. TIFFs are retained at full size and resized when required to be converted to HQ JPEGs for web use (images from other lenses, mostly macro). I only downsize when converting TIFFs to JPEGs.<br>

DXO is another brand that has come to my attention.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nathaniel,<br>

Thanks. Why do you say "rudimentary conversion to TIFF". Is that what Olympus Viewer 3 does?<br>

Before my PC died, I was looking at a RAW converter which does all the processes . Unfortunately, the amount of HD space then available prevented that. Space won't be a problem with the replacement PC. Thanks for reminding me of the option.<br>

I am not dissatisfied with the EM-1 and would not consider replacing it. The issue is whether I am doing all reasonably possible with the Varios. I usually carry two camera bodies and my standard film kit, over two decades, for out and about shooting, was two OM4s, one with a wide-angle and one with a telephoto. I currently carry the EP-2 on long trips but only in case of EM-1 failure because I detest the whole way it operates. A suitable Panasonic body might be better, provided it was optimal for the Varios.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks, everyone.<br>

TIFFs are because<br>

a) Photoshop 7 (which otherwise does all I need, but most functions now transferred to topaz photofxlab) does not recogniseORFs<br>

b) Topaz does not recognise ORFs.<br>

I had not been aware of any problems with the Lumix 7-14 images, probably due to shooting RAW. The amount of noise with JPEGs at small apertures (for macro) is unacceptable.<br>

I have no interest in prints.<br>

The bottom line is that I have the Lumix G Varios and would not consider investing in Zuikos, my priorities being elsewhere.<br>

I don't have Lightroom but will look into it when my new PC is built. At the moment I am sharing my son's and drive space already precluded loading Photoshop. I am also wondering about uprating PS to CS top be able to use huge amounts of RAM for multiple image stacking.</p>

 

<h2> </h2>

<p>I have the 7-14 and 14-45mm models. I understand that the sensors in Olympus Pens may not fully correct aberrations from these lenses. I use mainly an EM-1 but also have an EP-2.<br>

If necessary, for landscapes (mostly) might it be better to obtain a Panasonic body? The number of modes and features could be minimal. Neither need it be a recent model, if an earlier one would meet my needs. I shoot RAW. (I have no idea as to how Panasonic RAW files are processed. I convert Olympus ORFs to TIFFs for processing).<br>

Any suggestions?</p>

<h2>?</h2>

<p>Yes, it must be rare. I can find nothing about it. Any reference to Lester Dine or Kiron on it?<br>

It is clearly a bellows lens rather than a macro lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>An extra point, not often mentioned:<br>

I shoot RAW files and convert to large TIFF files for processing. I then convert to high quality JPEGs at the size acceptable for posting in photography blogs.<br>

Images which contain a lot of detail often have such large files that I have to re-save at lower quality to be able to upload. The message is that you don't need any more pixels.</p>

 

<p>I developed the habit of switching off when subjects were not immediately available when I used OM film cameras. I never found it an inconvenience.<br>

I continued this practice with my EP-2, and more strictly when I realised how leaving the camera switch on drained the battery. I now do the same with my EM-1. With both of them I find that having to change batteries is a pain and to be avoided, especially when:<br>

a) I am stalking insect macro subjects.<br>

b) I have a flash bracket which I have to loosen and swing to be able to access the battery compartment.<br>

c) As for b) when using a tripod.<br>

The above applies when I mostly use Manual mode and manual focus lenses. It would be all the more so with other modes and/or AF.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I use step-up and step-down rings for filters and other purposes. With m4/3, vignetting due to obstruction of the light path is unknown, in my experience. Specialist lenses, for macro, may have a very small diameter but are used on extensions.</p>