petrochemist

High & dry SEA JACKS LEVIATHAN by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

balloon 4a by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

I splashed out on an ancient SD14 because of it's easily removable hot mirror & the Foveon's unique response to IR (IR being seen in the red channel giving results similar to the old Aerochrome IR film) wrabness aerochrome small by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr seafront garden aerochrome small by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr Getting similar results from a Bayer camera would involve huge amounts of skillfull post processing. The SD14 does this SOOC :)

If the connection is loose enough that the steel wears out the QR plate then it wouldn't be tight enough to hold your camera still. Galvanic action as mentioned by @JDMvW would be a cause for concern if the metals were immersed in water for significant periods, but thats not the way most of treat our cameras! If the bolts are ordinary untreated mild steel there might be a slight risk of the bolt rusting to the point it becomes difficult to remove from your camera. I think the risk of this is pretty small, but I would consider it a bigger risk than the steel/aluminium issue.

Left it too late to edit my initial reply. With a dumb adapter there is no AF. Focusing aids will all function irrespective of the aperture, but focus is much easier to pinpoint at wide apertures.

No the aperture is selected using the lens's aperture ring! The control from the camera is meaningless (as per part one of your reply. :)

When adapting lenses via dumb adapters the camera has no way of controlling the aperture. As long as the lenses stops down to the selected aperture all focusing/metering etc. will be done at that aperture. If the lens has a stop down mechanism & this isn't operated the lens will remain wide open what ever position the aperture ring is in.

Well they're closed for the winter till April so it's not far off 'don't exist'. :) E-bay is generally a quicker route with most types available.

Yes we also post process but getting good results from processing a JPEG file requires it to be fairly good to begin with. RAW can allow a little more recovery from mistakes when shooting. If the exposure was out by 2 stops & the wrong WB selected it will show in an edited JPEG. While RAW stands a much better chance of dealing with it. A comparison between a well edited image from a good JPEG against a developed one from the same RAW data might be of some use, but it would often just show difference in artistic interpretation.

What would be the point? JPEG gives quote reasonable results when the settings are optimised prior to taking the shot. RAW shooters don't do this for controls like WB so a RAW shooters SOOC JPEG will be inferior to a good JPEG shooters one. There are certainly times when RAW is a huge benefit. Fortunately they are pretty rare as I'm rubbish at developing RAW, while my camera is quite good at it when given the right starting settings.

Focusing rails are ideal, for precision, but simply handholding & rocking backards & forwards works as well - if there's enough light which usually means flash. My estimate of distance was from the subject to the reversed flange. Basically the reversed lens takes the rapidly diverging rays from the subject & bends them till they are parallel (something it does with the subject at the point it's sensor would normally be) Then the second lens behaves as if these parallel rays are from a distant subject. When focusing if you're moving the camera & both lenses together it doesn't much matter which part of the system you are measuring to the change in measurement will be the same. I only gave an indication as many photographers don't realise just how close you need to be to the subject 46mm is less than 2inches. As I'm sure Johan mentioned on the page I linked to this technique can be very simple & give great results if you pick a good combination of lenses. Other combinations can give rise to vignetting and it's difficult to predict how a pair of lenses will work together. I've played with the technique on & off for many years (despite Flickrs quoted EXIF - I know it wasn't a 600mm/32 macro) I think this shot was taken using staked lenses nearly ten years ago: Watch Macro by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr This older (october 2010) one used a 50mm prime reversed on the kit lens and shows a little vignetting Detail of 50p coin by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr Both where handheld using off camera TTL flash. With a focusing rail you ought to be able to do considerable better!

Focusing distance for this combination will be nearly identical (around the reversed lenses flange distance - that's 46mm from the flange) however the focusing rings are positioned. with both at infinity magnification on the sensor will be just over 2x Adjusting the non reversed lens will bring focus slightly closer but this is usually only by a millimeter or two With unit focusing lenses the reversed lenses focusing ring will not change the optics at all merely moving the mount out to block more light. Fuller details of the technique can be found at Coupling lenses for extreme macro In use as with most macro work focusing is done by changing the subject-camera distance. FWIW The actual focal length of the combination should be around 35mm (calculated using the lenses diopters but this ignores the reversal which might change things) I don't know ant reason why it would be relevant.

There are many buildings where you can drive by them but not park/unload... Monorails generally have much better movements so if the wind isn't going to be a problem I'd prefer them anyway.

Yes, It stands to reason - longer focal lengths magnify the image more, so the sensor needs to displace further to counteract the same amount of tilt. Having the IBIS overreact by 10 fold is much worse than not having it at all.

None of my cameras have <>arrows at any point, some have a focus confirm dot which works just the same on all manual lenses. Others use different focusing aids such as focus peaking & simple magnified views which again work just the same as they do for native lenses The only difference is some native lenses can tell the cameras when the focusing ring has been moved allowing it to automatically engage magnified view while I have to press a button for it on all other lenses. I found this auto magnify feature a pain so eventually turned it off.

Films latitude is enough that it's not necessary to compensate if the shot is less than about 1:1, but moving into macro the effect is significant enough that it needs to be allowed for. The difference between formats is down to how big a subject is when shooting at macro distances. We're used to thinking of macro as small subjects no more than a couple of inches across. On medium format this isn't too far from the truth, the subjects are still quite small. But on large format this changes everyday objects are often lifesize - giving rise to enough extension to require exposure correction. My LF cameras are only 5x4 so adult portraits aren't quite macro (but a baby's face could fill the frame) Once you get up to 10x8 even an adults face is a true macro subject. :eek: As others have said LF also tends to include movements that significantly slow down the focusing/composition stages.

The behaviour of chipped lenses is very much dependant on the camera. I don't think any of my cameras require a chip for full operation, including metering & any focus aids... Chips help with IBIS if they give the camera correct focal length info, (there's always been a manual means of entering that) other than that they are quite unnecessary on Pentax DSLRs, MFT mirrorless & Sony mirrorless cameras.

I was under the impression that all E-TTL cables use the same wiring layout, which is usable on both Canon & Pentax DSLRs. (Pentax call their system P-TTL but the contact locations appear to be the same) I've brought several E-TTL cables over the years for my Pentax bodies. I remember finding that I couldn't get them to work daisy chained to make a longer cable but all of mine have worked individually even though most were only described as 'for Canon E-TTL'. I would expect your problems are due to a broken wire or dirty/poor contacts, rather than a different wiring requirement. If the cable is faulty you should be able to return it for a refund, but if the price of the cables I brought is anything to go by it may not be worth the hassle. Apparently all Canon cameras since 2004 have used E-TTL II, rather than just E-TTL but my experiences would have been about 10 years after this!

Things have changed dramatically since this thread was started back in 2013. I did use manual focus lenses back then mainly because I had them from years previously & that was all I could afford. I got some good results, and had a fair bit of fun trying, Now more than half my interchangeable lens cameras have the facility to magnify the image in the viewfinder for more accurate focus, others have focus peaking to speed up manual focusing, The cameras also have much shorter flange distances so that a much greater range of lenses can be used. Manual lenses are easier than ever. Using manual lenses I can get many lenses with specifications I couldn't afford in AF versions, like my 50mm/1.2, full frame 14mm/2.8, APSC 10mm/2.8 let alone tilt/shift lenses... The manual route also allows experiments with optics not designed for cameras, such as telescopes & microscopes... On top of all this many modern lenses are designed to get rid of all aberrations, which can leave a clinical image. Using old manual lenses can add character which in the right pace can significantly improves the image. For some subject types things change too rapidly for manual to consistently get the shot and I'm less inclined to play with them when it's as bitterly cold outside as it is at the moment, but I can't see things ever getting to the point when I don't use them at all.

Landscapes can be taken with a wide range of focal lengths, but most shots would be on the wider FOV side. Wildlife on the other hand tends to want long (or extremely long) telephotos. I wouldn't attempt to use the same lens for both. I would go with two lenses to start with. The kit 18-55 zoom while not particularly impressive will be an affordable lens to start with that will be able to capture lots of landscape views & not be terrible at portraits/pets as well. I'd probably back this up with a longish telephoto going to ~300mm. This is IMO pretty much the minimum for wildlife, unless you are very good at stalking. If you are willing to wait in a hide & persuade the subjects to come to you it might prove long enough. I'm not good at wildlife so often have to resort to lenses of 500mm & more to get close enough. I'd put up with a significant gap between my lenses focal lengths rather than restrict the long end it should be possible to get something like a 100-300 or 70-300 without excessive expense. After using these lenses for a while you may find your style of shooting works better with a different lens, but you'll have a much better idea of what you want & can then either replace or supplement your starting lenses with more expensive lenses chosen specifically to meet your refined requirements.

With a DSLR you only see it in the viewfinder if the lens has stabilisation. My Pentax DSLRs all have their version of IBIS (SR), which works fine for the shots, but doesn't hold the viewfinder steady. My 150-500 has lens based stabilisation & it makes a huge difference to the viewfinder, (you need to turn IBIS of if using lens stabilisation or they effectively cancel out). Mirrorless cameras show the viewfinder image as seen by the sensor so IBIS also works in the viewfinder here. Stabilisation has always been a bit tricky to test, using it I have always seen a significant improvement on the extremes that are holdable, Three or four stops beyond the guideline calculation usually come out OK for me, but I have managed that at least once without any stabilisation, and I have shaken up shots well within the guidelines despite having stabilisation....

I've brought several fixed lens cameras new (an underwater compact, boroscope camera, spy camera...) all under £50 each & none of which I consider 'real cameras'. With my real cameras only one was still in production when I got it, though it's replacement was also available. It seems the majority have been 5 year old designs when I've brought them. To me that's seemed to offer a sweet-spot in the balance between price & latest features.

I guess I'm not the only one who finds it difficult to get rid of more outdated gear. But at least I've resisted the temptation to add too many extra copies of the same kit (even once turning down a SLR & lenses that was free). FWIW I'm not retired & will probably be working for at least another 10 years (well beyond the 'retirement age' when I joined my current company), have roughly average income... With respect to the current thread none of my Cameras have cost more than £1000, & only one has topped £500. None has been the latest version when purchased, so many members would consider all of mine to be old.

My first DSLR was a Pentax K100d, taking SD cards & AA batteries, both still available over 10 years after I got it. I've also picked up a couple of Sigma SD14s much the same age and found batteries & memory simple to track down. (I believe the battery here was commonly used in video cameras) I don't think age is too much of a determining factor here. If the battery/memory type is widely used it won't be an issue. If you get something where the battery was only used for that one body then things could be much more difficult.

Yes, at least roughly, it's not so 'inadvisadly' if you have a 300/2.8 yet need a fast 200 and don't have one. FWIW I've used one with a 600mm f/8 & found the combination (roughly 400mm/5.6) far more usable. The combination was also lighter than the 400/5.6 I later brought. I've actually found mine more usable with long lenses than with ultrawides. It can significantly reduce the weight of lenses needed to cover the same range of settings. Add a reducer & you can get a second set of options for each of the lenses carried.