michael_chuang1

<p>Thanks for posting the great photos (I particularly like the indoor portrait of the young woman and the man, and the Transit Station) and for the advice on the FED. Certainly not redundant in my case. As to gun oil, I suppose it's all good so long as you don't apply FireClean (cough Crisco(ish) cough) to the body!</p> <p>/ducks</p>

<p>Playing with a new (to me but bought used) Nikkor CX 70-300 on the V2.</p><div></div>

<p>Fair winds and following seas, JDM. I will miss your articles and comments.</p> <p>As to the rest, if brevity be the soul of wit, why did it take 1144 words to say what could have been said in six?</p>

<p>Is chocolate better than vanilla? Red Sox better than Yankees? Barring a damaged lens, it's possible to make good images with any of those lenses. For many people, differences in technique will far outweigh inherent lens differences. Without intending offense, if you're basically asking whether Nikon or Canon lenses are better, you're probably one of those many people. Hell, I'm mostly one of those people. Usually I don't have the discipline to get out there when light is optimal, drag out my heavy tripod, rig up for remote release, etc.</p> <p>Nothing else to add to prior comments, except to note that all the lenses you've listed are either very wide angle or at least have fairly wide at one end of their zoom range. Not all good or compelling landscape photos are a matter of "cram in as much as you can" via wide angle lens.</p>

<p>These are both enjoyable and excellent. Thanks for sharing!</p> <p>How did you digitize these by the way? Commercial service or yourself? Locally I found a place that develops C-41 and scans at 2000x3000 for about $8 per roll (24 or 36). It's good enough for "proofing" and most web uses. The downside is that turnaround is very slow, and sometimes scanning is botched; the guy is cooperative and will re-scan without complaint, but it's another 2 weeks, and I'd rather he just do it right the first pass and save us both time. When done right however, the results are quite good.</p>

<p>> Batis, Touit. Interesting marketing names for lenses<br> And let's not forget the Loxia and Otus ranges. These names are all some sort of bird, but good choices since a Google search pops up the lenses on the first page. (Compare with Nikon's horrible "Nikon 1" and "Coolpix A" nomenclature.) A wag on dpreview claims to be waiting for the "Destitouit" line of bargain Zeiss lenses. Hah!</p> <p>Good to see additional lens options for the E (FE) mount. I'm happy to see 25/2 and 85/1.8 instead of some faster 50-ish lens. Never could get excited about the 50-mm perspective, "normal" be damned. OSS sounds good for those of us too cheap/impecunious to move to the IBIS-enabled A7II. Not sure about the OLED DOF scales, but I'll wait and see before offering my uninformed opinion. Presently I have no native FE lenses, shooting only "legacy" lenses via adapter on my A7, but these might convince me to consider the A7 as a "real photography" camera instead of a "fool around with old lenses" camera.</p> <p>(A7 partisans, relax. I'm not implying the A7 is unsuitable for "real" photography. It just happens that <strong><em>I</em></strong> use it as a digital back to play with old lenses at their intended FOV. Have a newly-acquired Sigma-XQ Filtermatic 24/2.8 in Nikon mount to try out right now, as a matter of fact.) </p> <p>For the curious and the anal-retentive:<br> Loxia: genus name for some birds in the finch family<br> Otus: a type of owl<br> Batis: sub-Saharan wattle eye (?!) birds<br> Touit: genus name of some new world parrots</p>

<p>Two major problems with an EOS lens to FD body adapter:<br /> 1. EOS-mount internal diameter is 54mm, FD-mount internal diameter is 48mm.* <br /> 2. You'd need some electronics/powersource to control the EOS lens' aperture.<br /> *I only have EF-S lenses where I am sitting right now, but suspect that the "internal" parts of some EF lenses may not "taper down" to acceptable diameter in <2mm. But that's a WAG.</p> <p>Regarding the shooting old lenses at "intended" angle-of-view issue, I initially went the NEX-6 route but finally gave up and bought a used Sony A7. Couldn't be happier. Well, I'd be happier with a cheap EOS-to-NEX adapter and cheap Maxxum-to-NEX adapter. (I know about the Metabones EOS-to-NEX adapter at ~$400 and the Fotodiox version at $109 but don't have enough good EOS glass to make even a hundred-buck investment worthwhile to me. Similarly, both the Sony LA-EA3/4 adapters cost more than I am willing to cough up, considering the mostly-not-so-impressive Maxxum lenses I own.)</p> <p>On the other hand, I can shoot e.g. old Deckel-mount lenses (admittedly through a Rube Goldberg-esque combination of Deckel-to-Nikon, Nikon-to-NEX adapters, but still ...) on a 24MP digital body with close-as-makes-no-difference WYSIWYG EVF. How cool is that?</p>

<p>Re the <a href="http://phsne.org/shows.html">PHSNE show</a>: for those not local to the area, Wakefield, MA is a northern suburb of Boston conveniently right off of US 95 (also called 128, yes <em>that</em> Tech 128) and the camera show venue is in a big meeting hall just south of downtown Wakefield. It's nice that there is actually a downtown with non-chain restaurants, churches, regular retail shops, banks, a great ACE hardware store, and so forth. I previously posted photos of the Town Commons taken using a Canon <a href="/canon-fd-camera-forum/00cttC">FDn 300/4</a> (non L) and an FDn <a href="/canon-fd-camera-forum/00ctyt">35-105/3.5 zoom</a> (on Sony a7) both of which I bought at the prior autumn PHSNE show.</p> <p>Gear is mostly film oriented with lots of 35mm stuff, a smattering of medium format, and less than a smattering of LF. Digital is present as well, but generally not the emphasis. Usually there's someone selling old photos as well. Film-gear prices are generally quite good. Last fall apart from the aforementioned FDn lenses I also got a Topcon RE-2 with Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Primagon 35/4.5 and a Komura 300/5 for the package price of $40.I actually only wanted the Primagon because someone gave me an Exa body and I was looking for a wide-angle to go with it, but you know how these things go....</p> <p>Another 'set" purchase was two new-in-box Yashica AF lenses, the 50/1.8 and 28-85/3.5-4.5 for $5 each. To my shame I have not yet shot with them, but they seem to be working fine with the Yashica 230 AF which I bought at a previous PHSNE show for $2 (sic) including the kit 35-70 AF lens. There's usually a scrum when they open up the dollar table; last year my elbows had not been sharpened recently, so I waited until the madding crowd was done. Picking among the boxes of detritus I nonetheless found a working Nikon FG (with the grip!) for, yes a dollar, and also a working Maxxum 650si for a dollar. As the saying goes, can't beat that with a stick. Yeah, most of what I buy is crap, but there're nice things at the show as well.</p> <p>This year the auction is Saturday afternoon. I've only attended one auction. That year there were over 100 lots of things including a Canon FL 1200mm f/11 lens, a Nikon RF telezoom I'd never even heard of before, and all manner of rarities. Being impecunious (a fancy way of saying cheap) I left that auction with a pre-AI 300/4.5 Nikkor and a set of glossy Classic Camera magazines, but it was fun to see all that stuff.</p> <p>So, if you are in the Boston area, head over to Wakefield this weekend. Fondle the cameras and chat with the (mostly) friendly dealers. Take a break from the show and head over to the North Avenue Diner a few blocks over (on North Avenue, strangely enough) and have good hearty breakfast food, then come back fortified to check out the auction. I'll be the Chinese guy with glasses and ponytail staggering under a load of cheap old cameras and lenses. (No connection to PHSNE.)</p>

<p>Hi Carl,<br> In terms of third-party wides, I've used and like the Kiron 24/2. A Kiron 28/2 came to me recently and provisionally it also seems good, though I've only made a few shots with it so far. Unfortunately Kiron is now something of a cult item, but one can still find bargains. (Somewhat curiously, used prices at real camera stores are generally markedly cheaper than eBay or Craigslist prices, at least in my experience.) Stephen Gandy's <a href="https://cameraquest.com/VivLensManuf.htm">Cameraquest</a> site has a page "decoding" which OEM made which Vivitar lens, but briefly, those (of a certain age) with serial numbers beginning with 22 were Kiron made. I also have a 28/2.5 Vivitar, albeit in Nikon F-mount, but only have limited experience with that lens, though early testing (read "screwing around with it") looks promising.</p> <p>The Soligor 35/2 C/D (Nikon mount, shot on Nex-6 only, so YMMV) has been decently sharp with good color rendition, so long as one keeps the sun out of the frame. Flare was terrible on the digital, dunno how it does on film. I have little experience with this lens, mainly because I prefer the 24-mm and 28-mm perspective for wide angle. (And weirdly enough, I'd rather have a 40mm than a 35-mm perspective for "mildly wide" though I couldn't exactly tell you why.)</p> <p>In terms of ultrawides, an old Vivitar 20/3.8 (82-mm filter thread) was surprisingly good (on a Sony A7). My copy has a rather beat-up body, but clean glass and only cost $10 at my local (if you call an hour away "local") camera store. A newer Cosina-made Vivitar 19/3.8 (62-mm filter thread) was terrible (on film, traded it in well before digital) with poor sharpness and annoying "handlebar moustache" distortion. I have both the Tamron SP 17/3.5 Adaptall-2 and the Tokina 17/3.5 SL; my copies are quite similar in image quality and both pretty decent. The Tamron cost market price (used) and the Tokina was a yard-sale bargain at $8, so I'm sort of prejudiced toward the latter. Additionally, if you are a filter kind of guy, the Tokina takes 67-mm filters directly, while my Tamron SP (model 151B) takes 82-mm filters via the clamp-on hood (the lens itself is not threaded for filters). An older version of the Tamron (model 51B) has built-in filters.</p> <p>As to your legacy FTb, get it fixed if you want to shoot it for the sentimental value, otherwise IMO you are much better off buying a working FD body and hanging on to the FTb as a keepsake. It's astonishing how inexpensive FD bodies are now, if one is mildly lucky (and not concerned with perfect cosmetics), e.g. black FTbN with very minimal brassing $40, "Black Beauty" EF with mild brassing $40, near-mint F1 $100, and so forth. I'd be stunned if a CLA cost less than the average (if not maximum) price of the preceding.</p> <p>Please keep us posted on what you end up getting and how you like it!</p>

<p>Two comments about the Kiron 105 macro: 1) you probably know that the same lens is sometimes found labeled "Lester A. Dine" ; 2) Kiron made some Vivitar lenses (serial numbers begin with 22xxx). I have a Vivitar 100mm f/2.8 macro (note it's labeled 100 and not 105 mm) that is identical in construction to the Kiron. The only difference is that numbers are stenciled in green on the Vivitar rather than in blue is in the Kiron or Dine lenses. Performance is the same as my Dine lens. This particular Vivitar is NOT designated "Series 1" by the way.</p> <p>People are onto the Lester A. Dine = Kiron thing, but you may be able to find a bargain with the Kiron-made Vivitar. I got mine in great condition for 40 USD. But be careful since there are other 100-ish Vivitar macros out there which may not be as good.</p> <p>No experience with the other lenses on your list. I use a AF Tokina 100/2.8 macro (1:1) with which I am very happy, but need to compare it to a recently acquired Nikon AF-D 105/2.8 macro. Not that those are relevant to a Pentaxian since the Tokina is to my knowledge available only in screw-drive AF Nikon and EOS. I can say from personal experience that the older Tamron SP 90/2.5 macro (52b) is pretty decent, but only gets down to 1:2 natively. I prefer the Kiron or the AF Tokina in terms of IQ and operation.</p>

<p>I have the older (without tripod collar) 80-400 in Nikon mount. I only shot with it a few times (on a D200) using sloppy methods, so this may be unfair, but I was underwhelmed by IQ at the long end.</p> <p>As to how/why I came to acquire the 80-400, I found a very clean copy in the local camera's store's "used" cabinet at a good price, and have always liked the build quality of Tokina's ATX line. I have also had good experiences with the 12-24/4 AF, the 100/2.8 AF macro and like the 16-50/2.8 AF (even if people complain about soft corners wide open). So I bought the 80-400, especially since, as Dorus notes, it seemed like it might be good for critters/travel. (The lens is very compact for something that reaches 400mm, but also quite heavy with what seems like a lot of metal in its construction.) Sadly, IQ was more like the ATX24-200 than the 100 macro, if that means anything.</p> <p>If anyone is still interested I can dig out the lens and try some shots with better technique.</p> <p>ETA: looking at the DPR thread Andrew linked, I can vouch for the quality of the Sigma 100-300/4. Have not done direct comparisons with the Tokina 80-400, but am quite sure IQ is overall better. It's a rather large lens, however.</p>

<p>><em>I am increasingly coming to feel that if it uses film, it probably belongs here on "classic". The great divide is film vs digital. Whether a camera is AF, etc., becomes of less significance as time goes by, I think.</em></p> <p>Concur. For what my (mostly) lurker's opinion is worth, this is the "neat film camera I've played with" group, where "neat" is left up to the OP's discretion, within broad limits. There's enough of "you're not having fun right!" in the rest of life, for crying out loud.</p> <p>Anyway, to respond to Tony: FM2N (also got a "plain" FM2 as well recently, haven't finished even the first roll yet), MX, OM-1 as shooters. Have a few M42 bodies I need to run film through as well, but they are unlikely to be regular users.</p> <p>And a follow-on question: Any "ones that got away" you regret not acquiring when you had the chance? Most film cameras are wonderous cheap these days, but not all. Back in the antediluvian days when I was an aimless grad student the local camera store had a pair of used OM3Ti bodies in nice shape for IIRC $300 each. At the time the store encoded the trade-in value they paid for used equipment on the price tag itself. Some friends who worked there taught me the code, and it turned out that the store's price was $175 each. A friendly manager was in the habit of letting me buy used stuff for $5-25 dollars above their price after some bargaining (he must have known I had been admitted to the Order of The Code). But I told myself I was a Nikon shooter, damnit, and didn't need to get into the OM line. Plus I had rent to pay. Still, arrgh! I also traded in a Soligor 100f2 in OM mount for $10 worth of store credit. Lesser arrgh there though.</p>

<p>More iris. This is the entire micro 4/3 frame, BTW. So effectively a crop of a hypothetical 135-format frame, but the "full" GF2 frame, if that makes sense.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for posting this, Ian. I am very impressed by the macro performance. I have the same 50-250 ATX in Canon FD mount which I shot once on a Panasonic GF2 (micro 4/3). I was pretty pleased with hurried test results from my copy, but shamefully have not done more with it since. My technique was less than optimal since it was late evening and I was impatient. Lacking a tripod collar, I had the plate bolted to the GF2 body, which made a very long moment arm with the long lens and the 1/80th shutter speed even with lens wide open. I think the first image was at 200mm since I was comparing the Tokina to the Canon FD 200/4 macro, even though I was not testing the macro function specifically.</p> <p>Now that I've acquired a Sony A7 it may be time to give the Tokina another try, especially the macro function given your great results. Incidentally, I agree completely it's nice that the lens starts at 50mm. </p><div></div>

<p>That initial water tower photo certainly looks promising. This question has little to do with this specific lens, I suppose, but what is your success or keeper rate with cats? Playing with the odd (some VERY odd) mirror lens I've been satisfied with my results a few times, but the vast majority have been misfocused. That said, prior results were using a DSLR sans live view. Perhaps I'll have more "luck" with mirrorless and magnification.</p> <p>Incidentally, of the various catadioptric lenses I've tried, I have been most satisfied with the latest model Nikkor 500/8, the one with the orange markings. Thanks for posting this, and I'm looking forward to your planned side-by-side comparisons.</p>

<p>Hello Mary,<br /> I bought an EM1 with 12-40 about a year ago, and also intended to use my Nikon-mount telephotos via adapter. I used some no-name, made-in-China thing from Ebay. That worked okay, mostly. Setting exposure (semi)manually did not seem to hinder me appreciably, but I did miss AF for critter purposes. I don't yet own the 40-150/2.8, but have played with one at a local show (where the Olympus dealer brought his wares) and it is well balanced on the EM1 body. It is indeed largish for m43, but my thinking is that it is much smaller and lighter than the nominally equivalent DX/FX lens (to my mind the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR or the Sigma 100-300 straight f/4 -- I appreciate the DOF "equivalence" arguments, but frankly I like having a little extra DOF with telephoto, for the most part).</p> <p>Over the last year I went from Nikon DX to nearly 100% shooting with m43 and have been satisfied. I initially thought of m43 as the "second string, compact, travel" kit, and DX as my "real photography" kit, but that's changed with the EM1 and its "kit zoom" whereas before I was using a Panasonic GF2 for m43. (Bear in mind that I'm a bitter clinger to the D300 body, however.) Presently for m43 telephoto purposes I use the (non micro) 4/3rds 50-200/2.8-3.5 zoom with the MMF3 adapter. This combination gives decent phase-detect AF on the EM1. The 50-200 is bigger than the 40-150/2.8, yet I find packing the EM1 with 12-40 and 50-200+MMF3 still much more convenient than say D300 with 16-50/2.8 and 100-300/4 or AF Nikkor 300/4. So the kit is large for m43, but small compared to my old DX kit.</p> <p>The old 4/3rds lenses AF adequately with the MMF3 on the EM1, but AF is hopelessly poor with the MMF3 on Panasonic bodies, so those are not great backup/alternate bodies if you use 4/3rds lenses. I'm looking forward to the 40-150/2.8 which also has a matched 1.4x converter, as you know. When the m43-mount 300/4 arrives I will be very happy. Poorer, but happy.</p> <p>The current "real photography" set up is EM1, 12-40/2.8 native m43, and with the MMF3 adapter the old 4/3rds Zuiko 50/2 macro and the 50-200/2.8-3.5. A more compact 2-lens travel kit (where I might take pictures, but photography is not the reason for travel) is the EM1, 12-40 and Panasonic 45-200/4-5.6 zoom.</p>

<p>>Sorry to cause envy. It wasn't my intent...guess I should have thought of that.<br> Nah, we're all good here. But if you show photos (taken with these superteles, nacherally) of your supermodel girlfriend (whose father owns a brewery) <strong>then</strong> we may have problems. Kidding aside, that's an impressive collection. I've only once physically laid hands on an FD 800/5.6 and was frankly happy I'm too poor to be realistically tempted to buy one. Looks like a monster to handle. I'd have had to upgrade tripod legs, head, technique, etc.<br> If/when you break down and come to the pixellated side consider one of the Sony A7-family bodies. I'm enjoying using my much more modest collection of FD glass on a regular A7.<br> >So JDM, you're not the sickest.<br> With respect, JDM is at least <strong>one of the sickest</strong>. Because of the mirror-lens thing. I was appropriately embarrassed about my mild mirror lens fetish, hiding in the figurative closet, and out comes JDM with lengthy postings about his mirror lenses. Thanks for normalizing that deviancy, Professor! Sheesh. It's not over. Surprisingly, I found the Tamron SP 350/5.6 at the local camera store over the weekend and bought it. For a reasonable price, yet, which is a good thing since I'm not terribly impressed with the first shots, but that was just screwing around handheld and indoors. We shall see.</p> <p>Thanks for sharing the above, Alan!</p>

<p>Thanks for the heads up, Andrew. Sheesh. Who knew one needs a wookie suit in Korea as well? Global security theater. Great. In a memorable incident at DTW an excessively gung ho TSA person told me that having "all that camera gear" in my bag was "suspicious" and that everything had to be hand searched and 'splodey swabbed. He took the unusual step of opening my bag on the x-ray table rollers to point accusingly, prior to picking up the bag by one handle (large briefcase-style bag) thus threatening the contents with a fall to the floor. I was thinking something along the lines of "If I wanted to look at things like you I'd have become a proctologist," when to my surprise a more senior agent came over. Senior agent admonished younger one for improper procedure and told him that "Pro photographers routinely have multiple cameras and lenses. There's nothing unusual here. Now I'll take over."</p> <p>Carefully senior agent brought my bag to the stainless steel examination table. While he couldn't actually apologize for junior's behavior, he muttered something about "because that got started I do have to do a visual inspection." Seeing a film Canon FD body he brightened. "Hey, I shot with an FTB for years before I got an A1. Never got into the T series." We ended up having an FD-gear conversation that probably took longer than it would have for junior wannabe G-man to swab all my gear, but it was definitely more fun. Oh, the highly terroristic pile of gear? Nikon D300 with three lenses, a couple of film bodies with one lens each and a pocket digicam.</p>

<p>One thing to be aware of with the Timbuk2 Snoop bag is how the camera insert is attached to the outer bag. If you look at photos from Timbuk2's own website you can see that a velcroid "hook" flap keeps the insert (lined with light blue "loop" material) in place. I have the XS version of a prior model-year Snoop bag, and although I liked much about the bag, I kept snagging the retaining flap when taking stuff out of the bag. This was annoying enough that I've retired the bag in favor of a Thinktank Retrospective 5. The flap-snagging thing may not be a problem with the larger sizes, but I have no personal experience with those. Incidentally, the snagging gear was Olympus E-M1 with 12-40/2.8 zoom and the reversed hood was the main problem. Finally, compared with the ThinkTank (below) straps, I did not like the Timbuk2 "messenger" strap as much: kinda stiff, sorta slippy, not as amenable to using shortened. On the plus side, the bag is well made, and the guys at the store (bought at the shop in San Francisco) were helpful and friendly.</p> <p>No experience with the TT 7 or 10 models, but the Retrospective 5 comfortably holds the E-M1 body, 12-40 zoom, a Panasonic 45-200 zoom and a smaller prime or two in the front pocket (in my case the Panasonic 45/1.8 and/or the 4/3rds Zuiko 50/2 macro with the MMF3 adapter). I was initially suspicious of the Retrospective strap, but it works great: comfortable, does not slip off my shoulder. If you're wondering why I cram all that stuff into the 5 instead of buying a larger model it's because I'm cheap and had the good fortune to pick up a used but tidy Retrospective5 for $10 at a camera show. Sounds like you're all set for a larger shoulder bag, but FWIW I've been quite happy with the TT Urban Disguise 60. Too happy since it's also become my usual work bag. The strap on that thing is great, with IMO just the right amount of padding, and a good non-slip surface (now wearing off due to daily use > 3 years).</p>

<p>> I can attach a 1.4x to my Tamron 300mm f/2.8 LDIF<br> And you get a free workout as well! (I shot with the olive-drab Tamron 300/2.8 for years and liked it, but cosmetically the lens barrel looked as if it had mange because of all the flaking paint.) You owe it to yourself to get the 400/4.5 for weight savings. ;)</p> <p>Incidentally, I saw a nice tidy FDn 400/4.5 at a recent camera show but didn't ask what the seller wanted for it because I was afraid I'd buy it. He also had a 55/1.2 that I was able to convince myself I didn't need. Whew. Didn't entirely pass GAS however, I came away from that show with a pair of Minolta fixed-lens rangefinders.</p>

<p>> can't recall now what swayed me to the 8008<br> For me it was the pseudo-analog over/under metering display in the viewfinder. The N8008s has +/- 2 stops (in 1/3-stop increments), while the N90/s inexplicably has only a single stop in each direction. I found the +/- 2-stop range in the 8008s much more convenient using the camera in manual mode with spot metering.</p> <p>> F80 - [...] will not meter with most manual focus lenses<br> Yep, it's missing the AI "feeler" around the lens mount. Too bad, because otherwise it's a nice, light modernish film body.</p> <p>This is super-late to the party, but if really wanted to shoot film "seriously" with an AF Nikon I too would go for the F100. (Tried the F5, when used prices dipped below $300; did not like the bulk, and really didn't like the fact that on/off was essentially a two-hand operation because of the button that needs to be depressed to operate the actual power switch.) Between the cheap-as-dirt yet modernish film bodies I prefer the N8008s because of the over/under display as noted above. I am not sure if it works meaningfully with G-type lenses (IIRC some modes are crippled/nonfunctional), and the AF is, as noted, worse than the N90, but for fast-moving subjects I'm gonna shoot digital anyway since electrons are effectively free and totally recyclable, while a burst of film is expensive and likely to be mostly garbage. N80 is out (though I own one) because it doesn't meter with non-CPU lenses.</p> <p>The N80, N8008s and N90/s are astonishing wondrous cheap these days. In the last year I've picked up (all working) two 8008s bodies for (USD) $7.50 and 2 (!), an 8008 (no "s") for $5, and three N90s bodies for $5 each. The N90ses came with boxes and blank cards, yet. I've doubled the value of one each of the N8008s and N90s by putting a roll of film in each, but to my shame haven't finished either roll yet.</p> <p>Oh yeah, "Windex" commercial window cleaner fixed up the sticky N90 back problem for me, but the little stenciled icons for the bazillion "modes" got damaged. No loss for me personally since it wasn't a pristine camera to start with, but be careful if you care about that sort of thing.</p>

<p>In the interest of vulchuh culchuh (as they say in the Boston area -- all these years out here and it still grates on my Midwestern ears) I'll toss in this captive cinereous vulture from Chicago's Lincoln Park zoo. Not even close to a patch on Mary's amazing image though!</p> <p>Edwin: neat!</p> <p>Anthea: How do you like the E-M1/12-40 so far? I made the mistake of playing with the set at my local camera store around this time last year and walked out of the store considerably lighter in the wallet. And empty-handed since they were out of stock and there was a waiting list. Among the many like-able things about the E-M1, I think the quality of the EVF was what pushed me over the edge. Now the want list has the 40-150/2.8 front and center. sigh. I ought to sell the 4/3rds 50-200/2.8-3.5 but honestly am kind of interested in comparing the two.</p><div></div>

<p>Erin,<br> Of the four cameras you listed personally I'd take the Canon SX40, especially because Canon seems to be selling <a href="http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/cameras/refurbished-powershot-digital-cameras/powershot-sx40-hs-refurbished?utm_source=google&utm_medium=Product_Search&utm_campaign=Google_Product_Feed&cm_mmc=GA-_-Digital_Point_&_Shoot_Cameras-_-G_Canon_Product%20Listing%20Ads-_-25065">refurbished ones at $149</a>. Lack of a viewfinder rules out the L830, SX510. I have the older SX<strong>500</strong> (bought in a moment's weakness on deep-discount closeout at a Staples I'd wandered into looking for something else) and find shooting at arms length to be suboptimal, even with some sort of image stabilization. The problem is literally magnified at the far telephoto end of those superzooms. Don't know about the other Nikon, but even as a long-time Nikon DSLR shooter I've generally preferred Canon compact cameras. So there are my biases.</p> <p>I've only played with the SX40 briefly in a store, but like the following: has a viewfinder; 24-mm equivalent wide end; articulated screen. That said, it's not exactly a tiny camera if compactness is an issue. In terms of physically small, large zoom range cameras, for a long time I carried around a Panasonic TZ5, then a ZS19 as an "everyday carry" camera. The former was bought used for around $50 if I recall, and the latter I fished out of the electronics recycle bin at my local camera store. In other words, free. These days I use a Fuji XF1 instead, mainly because I like the manual zoom ring, but if I were buying a "do it all" camera I'd consider one of the Panasonic "travel zoom" type cameras.</p>

<p>Brad: Nice photos, and <a href="http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/flanders.htm">good choice</a> for today. Thank you.</p>

<p>The brick wall :) by Schneider-Kreuznach Balda-Curtagon.</p><div></div>