michael_darnton1

Just to make sure you understand in case you missed it, something Ronald definitely said, and Tommy may have been saying: you shouldn't hold the ring the natural way, across it's diameter, when trying to loosen it. Pressure that way turns the ring into an oval, and it sticks harder, especially without the glass in it. Grab only one single spot on the edge (from the front, not the side) and crank the filter off.

I stand corrected--missed the ball of light. Lens hood it is, then.

What "sun glare"? I don't see any sun, shadows, or any evidence that there's a sun present anywhere. I think you're suffering from simple low contrast, due to the absence of sun in the form of direct light. You just need to pump up the contrast a bit.

And yes, I'm aware of this, which I think is incredibly cool, if slightly non-functional: http://web.archive.org/web/20060205050520/www.scannerphotography.com/

Hasselblad did it, though they had a huge hunk of back real estate to put it in to start with. Would it be acceptable to you if it had a A12-sized box on the back? :-)

 

I'm still waiting for a cheap 4x5 or 8 x 10 digital scanning back. That one ought to be easy, right? A cheap USB-powered 8-1/2 x 11 scanner costs about $40. What's the problem here?

If it was me, I'd be figuring out what exactly broke, whether a single simple part replacement would do the job, or if it was simply a case for a slightly bigger set of screws in old, ripped out holes, in which case I'd start trolling through my drawers for the right ones.

I suspect that in addition to the flash others have noted, the shot was on a dark day (note the consistency of the light behind off into the distance, no shadows, heavy clouds) with a whole heck of a lot of W/S of strobe.

Without going to check, I think that one's on the list of forbidden lenses in the manual, right? Go check that page, and then remember it's there for the next time you want to try an old lens. I buzzed right by that page when I read the manual, but a couple of reminders like this thread have the idea that I need to check the list(the idea, only, at least; I certainly don't remember the lenses on the list) firmly engraved in my mind now.

I shoot both, and use RAW for prints, jpeg for the web. The place where RAW stands out, in my experience, is in very fine repetitive texture, which any jpeg tends to want to wipe over--stuff like the plaster texture on walls. Regarding color and exposure--I tend to stay on top of those in shooting, and don't usually have to do too much later, so I don't benefit too much from that aspect, but it's always there if I need it with RAW.

I think the responders have missed the point: it's a polarizer, not a regular filter, and the front half just spins when you turn it, but the back half doesn't unscrew, because they spin independently of each other. If you can't get it off easily, I'd take it to a repair shop and let them deal with it. If there's any hope of getting it off yourself, it will be by holding the lens upside down and as much as possible not pushing inwards while trying to gently turn the front ring.

Can you post an example of a "not really sharp" image? The kit lens, though not fancy, isn't a bad lens. I wonder if there's something else going on.

In the second shot, if you focused on the wallpaper in the background, I'd say, yes, it's sharp, because that's where the focus point appears to be. But I bet you didn't.

How about a 100% crop of the sign, so we can see what you're talking about?

I remember comparing my 28/2.8 Soligor to a 28/3.5 Nikkor a friend was trying to sell me, in 1967. Simply put, the Soligor blew away the Nikkor. I think sweet spots are wherever you find them--when I had Leicas, many of my lenses were Canon, in specific spots where Leica didn't do too well (the Canon 85/1.8 vs the contemporary 90 Summicron is a good example). I think someone must be making a better 28 (in a similar price range or less) than my Nikon 2.8D, for instance, which is really nothing special.

It depends how much you want to carry, and what lenses you like.

 

I have mostly primes--20, 28, 50, 60, 85--plus the 10-20 Sigma, and the 18-135 that came with my camera, which I NEVER use. The lenses that I get the most use out of are the 20, the Sigma 10-20 zoom, and then either the 50 or 85, depending on the day.

 

I hardly use the 28 at all--it's so middle-of-the road that I don't find it very inspirational. If I didn't mind its size and weight, I'd be happy with carrying the 10-20 almost all the time, and the 50 in my pocket, just in case. The 10-20 Sigma is an extremely good lens for what it does, and it provides both the bizarre perspective of a 15 (35mm equivalent) and my favorite lens, the 28 (35 =), and everything between them, so it's very versatile.

 

Because of weight, though, I mostly have the 20 on the camera, and the 50 in my pocket.

I think the fair thing is for people to be able to read the whole thread relating to this and decide for themselves:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1039&thread=27416247

Unscrew the old foot snip the wires or better, desolder them so you don't lose any, solder them on the new foot going to the same places, screw it back on. I found it intimidating enough to stall for weeks, but when I got down to it, it was very easy. You don't need to worry about the capacitors--what goes through the bulb isn't the same as what goes through the shoe. Just don't charge up the flash (resist the temptation to turn it on) before you start. I wasn't aware there could be a soldering problem, so it didn't happen (I am definitely NOT experienced in soldering, though I am mechanically sensible).

Hotspots photographing prints? Something's wrong with your copy setup.

As I think more about it, though, for you the easy way might be to make some really nice prints, and copy them onto film with your 35mm camera. That job is a snap.

For a start, to see the fancy way it's done, take a look at this:

http://www.ezslides.com/35prices.htm

The lenses are probably going to be around a lot longer than the body. I'm buying lenses for my D300 as if my next camera will be full-frame, just in case. In my case, that means spending a lot on the primes that I really want, rather than buying a D3 now. I don't know if this applies to you, without knowing what lenses you're thinking of.

I had one of each. The zoom never delivered sharp or contrasty pix--it was like the lens was covered with scum from the start (though it wasn't--or at least I couldn't see it.) I got it for my wife, and she wouldn't use it. Though it was a nice camera at the start, and always took good pictures, the non-zoom stylus developed a leak around the extending lens, and the last time I cleaned house I threw them both in the trash. I still have the XA I bought my wife in 1980, and it's a great camera, and going strong. She took it to Mexico for three months and brought back hundreds of really beautiful CTs. The build quality is totally different from the others. But the bolt-on flash is inconvenient.

One clue is the impossible prices they list for things.

This has become an interesting question to me lately, because with "35mm"-type DSLRs quickly approaching the resolution of some lower-end MF digital backs (the ones I might actually be able to afford), I've been wondering if the 35mm-DSLR version of 24MP might actually give better results than the MF version, due to any inferiority of MF lenses. It seems, then, that this might be a question that really depends on the specific lenses being discussed?

...and to frame, I crank myself up and down. For instance (sorry, not RF shot) <p><p><a href=" title="violin workshop by Michael Darnton, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2204/2261388550_b11a19962b.jpg" width="500" height="332" alt="violin workshop" /></a>