raoul.jasselette

On 10/28/2022 at 6:32 AM, mickeysimpson said:

Hope this is helpful.

This is, obviously.
So I see my photos.
And comments are still there.

Good.

But not my Portfolio's.

It should come under "Album", I suppose ?

But there is nothing there.

On 10/28/2022 at 6:32 AM, mickeysimpson said:

 Select “Images” under the heading “Gallery” and your gallery (aka portfolio) page will pop up, but without your photos.

I have nothing under Gallery
Nor photo nor portfolio

<p>Hi!<br /> I used the F1n during several years.<br /> I've been very happy to be able to re-use my beloved FD lenses on a Sony Nex7 and even more on a Sony A7R.<br /><br /><br /> The Sony A7R is (almost) a pleasure to use with FD lenses.<br />'Almost' because SOny ergonomics is... well, special. But that still works OK for me.<br />Actually, owning a Canon 5DSR now, using teh A7R with FD lenses is the only reason I keep the A7R.<br /> <br />Manual focusing with FD lenses on the A7R is easy and fast.<br />If you want first to be fast, focus peaking is efficient. But not accurate enough for critical sharpness. (Although with 36Mpixels, 'critical' is... really high level)<br /> So for best accuracy, focus peaking and then Zoom in viewfinder is best.<br />But, as usual with manual focus, you probably won't need to change focus for each picture from the same distance.<br />That makes it a working option.<br /> <br />There are cases that work in a less efficient way though: <br />Manually focusing a 20mm 2.8 lens in low light proved to be a problem for me. <br />But with most of my favorite lenses, it works like a charm.<br /> I love shooting concerts, people, street,... with those lenses.<br /> Just remember you're shooting with a huge resolution. 1/focal speed rule doesn't work here.<br />Select at least twice as fast (100mm=1/200s)<br /><br />Here are some examples with Nex7 and FD lenses:<br />http://www.photo.net/photo/16111652&size=lg<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/15511653&size=lg<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/15511661&size=lg<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/15511663&size=lg<br /> I have plenty of others, but not here...<br /> <br /> About longer lenses: <br />it is more difficult to focus without a support, just because of size and balance of the lens/body combination. <br />I've been doing pictures with the Canon EF 400mm 5.6L + 1.4x TC and, well, I need a tripod.<br />The FD 80-200 is still OK though.<br />Playing with the Canon FDn 500mm 8.0 reflex lens is still manageable in Focus peaking, since it's shorter and lighter, but zooming then will be like viewing through a x100 binocular... You also would need a support.<br /> <br /> My favorites FD lenses for A7R:<br /> FDn 85mm 1.2L<br />FDn 20-35 3.5L<br />FDn 80-200 4.0L<br />FDn 28 2.0<br />FDn 35 2.0<br />FDn 50 3.5 Macro<br />...<br /> The resulting images with those lenses is clearly on a par or better than with my Canon EF L lenses on 1DX.<br />As an example, I compared the older FDn 85mm 1.2L and the newer EF 85mm 1.2L II and, well, there is a small difference in contrast (due probably of newer coating)... But ease of use, size (and cost) of the older FD are BIG plus in the balance.<br />The older FDn 80-200 4.0L also shouldn't be shy against EF 70-200 2.8L IS (OK, v1. The v2 is truely much better)<br />...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Even when Photo.net was growing rapidly, plenty of people left. Maybe the problem is inability to attract new customers as much or more than inability to control losses."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure. But in the case of PN, we used to have a HUGE amount of users. And most of them were quite constant in their posting/time spent/investment.</p>

<p>That's why it probably makes more sense than for newer sites to have a look in the past.<br>

Just my HO.</p>

<p>But that doesn' mean, of course, that we don't need to renew the site.<br />I just would like to make sure we are all aligned on the priorities when we do that though: What are the strength we want to focus on, what are the new functionalities we want.<br>

An obvious one for me is a quote for each comment, in a "FB like/dislike" way. That could be related to a user's contributor rating, on top of his/her photo rating...</p>

 

<p>I see several "old PNers" like me that complain that the person they used to follow are no longer posting here.<br>

(I am in the same situation: I follow 70 and NONE of them posted recently).</p>

<p>Why don't each of us try to get their feedback ?<br>

Why not just start to add some comment on our favorite photo of them ?<br>

If they start receiving emails with interest on their work, they may just come back to have a look...<br>

And then we may have a chance to chat with them and ask why they left...</p>

<p>If we want this site to survive, we need a clear analysis, a strategy, and to try to push it.<br>

And that's not necessarily requiring big money or big effort (or if it does, I think it should be a concerted decision. After all, we all pay our contribution, so we may also decide somehow).<br>

But the first action is to discuss this.<br>

Which is what we do here, I think.</p>

<p>We'll NEVER succeed without a community of effort.<br>

And a shared -and therefore written- strategy.</p>

 

 

<p>I see several "old PNers" like me that complain that the person they used to follow are no longer posting here.<br>

(I am in the same situation: I follow 70 and NONE of them posted recently).</p>

<p>Why don't each of us try to get their feedback ?<br>

Why not just start to add some comment on our favorite photo of them ?<br>

If they start receiving emails with interest on their work, they may just come back to have a look...<br>

And then we may have a chance to chat with them and ask why they left...</p>

<p>If we want this site to survive, we need a clear analysis, a strategy, and to try to push it.<br>

And that's not necessarily requiring big money or big effort (or if it does, I think it should be a concerted decision. After all, we all pay our contribution, so we may also decide somehow).<br>

But the first action is to discuss this.<br>

Which is what we do here, I think.</p>

<p>We'll NEVER succeed without a community of effort.<br>

And a shared -and therefore written- strategy.</p>

 

 

<p>That was my question, indeed:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Couldn't we try to get back older users ? <br />Did you try it ? I mean not especially to have them pay, but to get back their contribution (as an example, why not to ask for their ideas about how to make PN better for THEM ? Money will come later, if they get involved again.)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By the way, if people are doing photography today through their iPhone or other Android device -and for sure they do-, that's still photography.<br>

They nevertheless deserve respect and comments.<br>

And maybe they'll understand why there are too many limitations to that and decide to invest in more traditional photographic tools... or maybe we'll learn something.</p>

<p>That's right: In 2000, PN was a pioneer.<br /> I remember a time when HP provided a cluster of huge servers to host the site for free (including support!)</p>

<p>In my opinion, what you need to have a winning site today is not very different than what we had at that time though.<br>

That is<br>

<strong>- Content</strong><br /> We have the images. I think we have the knowledge. <br /> Do we have good articles ? Reviews ? <br>

All this relies heavily on building a <strong>strong community.</strong> <br />That was where PN was strong. <br /><br />Couldn't we try to get back older users ? <br />Did you try it ? I mean not especially to have them pay, but to get back their contribution (as an example, why not to ask for their ideas about how to make PN better for THEM ? Money will come later, if they get involved again.)<br>

<br /> <strong>- Interaction</strong><br /> At first, PN was a Photo <strong>critic forum</strong>.<br /> Nowadays, look at the number of 'likes' on FB. That's exactly the same need.<br /> People want to say what they like and others want to be recognized - or receive positive critics.<br />But that's not organized on FB. While it is here.<br>

<strong>- Be visible</strong> = Allow easy sharing, with a link back to PN<br /> Today, although a lot of other sites emerge, FB remains the most used for Photo sharing<br /> Do we allow to post PN images on Facebook with a clear link back to PN ?<br />(If that works, tell me how please)<br /> Do we have a FB Group/Forum that uses and refers to PN images and articles ?<br />(If yes, tell me where please)<br /> Would we have to pay FB for that ?<br /> <br /> Can't we have a PN APP to allow photo.net photos <strong>sharing</strong> <strong>AND rating/critic</strong> of photos on Android/iPhone ?</p>

<p>- If we want to improve -and as for what I see, it is either improve, either die very soon- <br />we need to <br /> - measure the reality<br /> - decide what we want to focus on<br /> - do some effort in that direction<br /> - measure the results<br /> - improve</p>

<p>I own a full drawer of Canon FD lenses.<br /> I now use them on digital (Sony A7R mainly).<br /> My favorites are (sorted per focal lens): <br /> - nFD 20-35 3.5L (Good ultra wide lens)<br /> - nFD 28 2.0 (very very sharp when stopped down, much better than 2.8)<br /> - nFD 35 2.0 (very very sharp when stopped down. 2.8 is not bad either, but 2.0 is better)<br /> - nFD 50 3.5 Macro (excellent macro lens)<br /> - nFD 85 1.2L (my precious...)<br /> - nFD 85 1.8 (excellent portrait lens... if you don't have the 1.2L)<br /> - nFD 80-200 4.0L (man, this lens is SHARP! (Almost )no chromatic abbrration either)<br /> - nFD 100 2.0 (another excellent portrait lens. Probably sharper than 85 1.8)<br /> I also own the FD version of the 35 2.0 but do prefer the new one - even if difference in pictures is hard to see.<br>

Amongst those, if I sort per decreasing usage frequency:<br /> 1. 85 1.2L<br />2. 20-35L<br />3. 28 2.0<br />4. 80-200 4.0L<br />...<br /> <br /> Then come some other lenses that I like too, but less so:<br /> - FD 20 2.8 (be carefull with flare and vignetting)<br /> - nFD 24 2.0 or 2.8 (less impressive than the 28 2.0)<br /> - FD or nFD 50 1.4 (that's a 50mm, soft wide open, sharp when closed down.)<br /> - nFD 500 Reflex (a lot of fun)</p>

<p>What I don't own and would like to test:<br /> - nFD 50 1.2L or older FD 55 1.2L<br /> - nFD 24 1.4L<br />-nFD 135 2.8<br /> Any fluorite lens >= 300mm</p>

<p>I used to have a 200 4.0 and it was good too<br /> I also remember I had a lot of fun with an AE1 and a 2-rings nFD 80-200 4.0 NON-L (Not on a par with the L for sure, but still quite good)</p>

<p>Some lenses I own that are good but have too much chromatic abberation for modern standards (A7R is 36MPixels), but may still be good enough on an A1:<br /> - nFD 135 2.0<br /> - FD 400 4.5</p>

<p>Then I also have other lenses, but those I never use:<br /> - (n)FD 50mm 1.8. (You find them for free. But coating is not as good as the 1.4, and you see the difference on the photos)<br /> - FD 135 2.5 (an older lens, with older coating too. The 2.0 is better)<br /> Different Canon nFD non-L zoom lenses (not up to what we expect today in terms of zoom range and/or sharpness)</p>

<p>That's it.</p>

<p>Note that, in general, I prefer the newer nFD to the older bayonnet.<br /> That's easier to change lenses.</p>

<p>Hi guys<br /> Long time I've not been here...<br /> Things look a bit quiet now.<br /> What do you think should be done to provide more visits to this site ?<br /> What does it need to be more visible ?</p>

<p>For me, it's obvious that direct posting to Facebook is a key success factor nowedays...<br /> Also great contests would help increase number of comments.<br>

My very first interest for this website was, back in 2000, to get comments.</p>

<p>Another obvious -never decreasing- subject of interest are questions asked by beginners... and there is obviously enough people here and far enough material to demonstrate that we all know how to produce great pictures.<br>

DPReview is probably holding the palm for that, but they are also holding the palm for the most trolled forums ever seen...<br>

<br /> So maybe again, create a "photo.net" group on facebook, dedicated to help beginners, and using this site's material for demonstration...</p>

<p>What else ?<br /> What do you think ?</p>

<p>OK,<br>

how do you post pictures from photo.net here ?<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/15511662<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/15511663<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/15511661<br>

...</p>

<p>Raoul</p>

<p>HI !<br>

I've shot the Canon FD 400mm f/4.5 with NEX7 too.<br>

While one can get pretty good results, the main issue is CA when shooting birds on bright sky, as an example.<br>

No big deal to correct though.<br>

So a good lens, for sure.<br>

Nevertheless, I have to say the newer Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L is MUCH better. Even with Canon 1.4x II attached.<br>

Well, you'd better use a tripod with Nex 7 then, since you get non-stabilized 840mm equivalent !</p>

<p>Enjoy!<br>

and have a good day<br>

Raoul</p>

<p>Hi<br /> I recently bought both to mount on a Sony A7R (36Mp).<br /> I own a lot of FD lenses, from 20mm to 500mm.<br /> <br /> I've not done many photos with those zooms yet.<br /> After some quick tests, I'd say I do prefer the 28-85. <br />Note that it may be because 35mm is often too long for what I do.<br /> <br /> I have an old test of the 28-85 and the last 35-105 (the 3.5-4.5, with molded aspherical element).<br /> This is in a 1987 edition of "Chasseur d'images Spécial Objectifs".<br />If you read french, you can probably find one second hand and there are a lot of lenses tested. <br />(I bought it to get the review of the Canon FD 80-200mm f/4.0L).<br>

<br /> In (very) short, the 35-105 (the last one) is said to be 'very good' in center and 'good' on borders from f/5.6 on.<br /> The 28-95 reaches an 'Excellent' and 'Very good' rating at same apertures at 28mm, and is similar to 35-105 for longer focal length... with the 85mm requiring to stop down to f/8 for same result.<br>

<br /> I've also done some tests with Imatest with the 28-85mm. Although I'm not yet very confident in the results I get, the first results show a very good sharpness in the center. (Much) Less so in the corners.<br>

<br /> To be honest, I don't think I'll use either of those zooms a lot anyway. They are quite big and,... well, they look optically outdated.<br />Well, at least on a modern 36Mp camera (quite demanding!).<br>

<br />As for zooms, I do prefer a wider zoom - I like the Canon FD 20-35 f/3.5L a lot. Otherwise, I mainly use Canon FD primes, like the 85mm f/1.2, 100mm f/2.0, 35mm f/2.0, 28mm f/2.0, 24mm f/2.0, 50mm f/3.5 Macro,...<br /> Oh and did I say the Canon FD 80-200mm f/4.0L is wonderful ?<br>

<br /> Have a nice day<br /> Raoul</p>

>> William Casey McAllister , dec 16, 2004; 05:10 p.m.

>> Said : Yes. A 550/580 set to flash off will also do the trick.

 

How could you do this ? I don't find a way to do that.

No joke !

I couldn't believe it.

 

So far, I found no way to just trigger AF and not main Flash, just like I did (often) with my 10D (you're right - C-Fn 5 set to 3)... without buying a ST-E2 !

 

Shame on Canon !

Nothing you don't know already : Noise is hardly noticeable up to 400 ISO, still low at 800. Forget 3200. I mainly use center AF sensor in "one shot" mode : be carefull when subject is moving and you recompose! AF works well but you need to practice a lot. It seems external flash helps with 50 1.4 (you can use its AF-assist light without actually triggering the flash by setting a C-Fn).

If you use long heavy lenses like 70-200 2.8 (and why should'nt you ?), use a grip. Even with grip, the balance is not perfect, but at least it's possible to use it.

I use Sandisk Ultra II 512MB and it works fine. I usually reload batteries after 3-4 cards (240-320 pictures). Never use internal flash. Always switch power to "off" when camera is in the bag : I found myself with empty batteries more than once...

Have fun and take a lot of pictures !

I think this is typically the problem with a Canon 1.6 crop factor DSLR : which "standard" lens to use. I have a 10D and exactly the same question.

So what ? 17-85 IS (yes, I know, you already have 17-40, but I speak for myself) ? Nope : 5.6 will give me no background blurr... I need 2.8 or more open. I currently use a 50mm1.4, which is defenitely a good lens. Not too heavy (also this is not a problem for me). But it's not a zoom lens. Alternatives are Tamron 28-75 2.8 (too long the shortest focal), a 24-70 2.8 L (you said HEAVY ? This is too much for me, not to say a word about "obstrusive" !)... I also own a 16-35 2.8 L but, that's too short for a general purpose, also that's my most used lens...

I'd like to have something like a EF(-S) 20-50 f2.0 L, with the size and weigth of a 17-40. But it doesn't exist. So switch to a 1D for 1.3 crop and use the 24-70 2.8 L anyway ? There is no answer to me (yet) ! This is the true weak point in Canon DSLR strategy, for me !

I'm not a professional and only had to cover a weeding once : it was my sister's wedding, at the end of previous century...

At that time -before the digital era- I owned a Canon NewF1 with 'a few' fixed lenses and a very old EOS1000 -yes, the first one.

Lenses available were fixed 20, 28, 35, 50, 85, 135 and 200mm + a basic 28-80 AF zoom.

Well, I figured out, when reviewing the pictures, that I only used... the 85 1.8 and, yes, I did shot a few pictures

with the wide angle of the zoom too.

 

When I converted to digital, a year ago, I wanted the same result than with my 20 years old 85 1.8.

And, good news, now I own an 10D with an EF 50 1.4... which is nearly perfect !

And I make around 30% of my pictures with this one (street + portait + live music).

 

Well, I now also own a 70-200 IS and a 16-35.

And that's where I want to go with you: The major difference for me between the old technology and the new one is that now, if you can afford it, you can buy zoom lenses that are at least as good -if not better- than previous generation fixed lenses. And, yes, they are bulky and heavy and costy. But their quality is as good as primes -at least for me- and their functionnalities are far better.

 

What I remember from my wedding experience is : stress - no-time.

Today, I'd go in theory for a 24-70 2.8 zoom (with x set of batteries !).

But more important, I'd go for a lens I'm used to !

 

Each lens/photographer/subject combination is different.

Slogan hey ?

 

Well, I plan to purchase a 24-70 tomorrow...

Sorry, I just read your 10:56AM note .

Your choice seems logical. With some learning, the non-zoom Epic is a very good camera. I've one friend who is happy with a zoommed one (don't know how long it is). Just don't use slide films.

There is not one answer but two, in my opinion :

 

1. Or you just want to be able to make some snaphsots memories from mountain hikes

then I think your choice may be good (Point & Shoot camera with small zoom). My advice should be : ask your friends and try to see the pictures (SLIDES) they shooted with those cameras.

 

2. Or you want to be able to make consistenly good mountain slides, and this is, with the budget aspect of course, the important point,

then here is MY answer (it may of course not apply to others) :

 

I own SLRs (old, heavy, previously high end, non autofocus ones) and a tiny Olympus Stylus Epic 35mm 2.8. I also had a Canon EOS 1000, a few years ago.

 

First, I think that, whatever the camera you'll use, if you want to make good slides, you can't make the economy of understanding picture taking techniques and related technology. And it may often be that making good slides with a cheaper and less complex (but also far less 'flexible', less 'clever', less 'informative' and less 'accurate') camera requires greater knowledge than making them with more 'complex' ones. For me, it's actually -a lot- easier to make a good picture with my old Canon T90 SLR than with the Epic. Even worse : if the picture is not good with a Point-and-shoot, you will only know it when you receive them from the lab : you don't have any information about the exposure parameters the camera choose.

 

Second, I think an Epic, or -even worse- a cheap (plastic) autofocus SLR may not be reliable enough for hard walks in the mountain. I had some bad experience(s) with the EOS1000. This is why I switched to old (heavier) technology. Non autofocus SLR now sales for a bargain. Even professional lenses and bodies.

 

Third, I own the Epic, and I'm happy with it, to be able to hold one everywhere at anytime. This is a magic camera for that job and the wide aperture (aspherical) lens is really sharp. But it will never reach the quality of an SLR lens (especially for color rendering, contrast and exposure accuracy - important for slides). And it's, as far as I know, far better than a ZOOM Point & Shoot camera.

 

If you really want to make GOOD pictures, and especially SLIDES, consistently and with low probability to 'miss' them, this is my advice : buy an old second hand non autofocus SLR, with automatic exposure metering, and with 2 fixed lenses (such as 28mm 2.8 and 135mm 2.8) or a (cheap) normal zoom (35-105mm) like a Canon T70 or so. Then, learn some basic techniques, and make a lot of 'trials and errors'. This is the only way I know.