bill_pearce2

<p>At least she's starting with the best lenses in the format. The cctv stuff was never anything but junk. </p>

<p>That's not much less than the price new in the box. Just remember the old saying, "There's no accounting for taste."</p>

<p>Actually, the world of C mount lenses is a minefield. There are many fine ones, made by German manufacturers that were used on 16mm movie cameras used by journalists, but as one who shot TV newsfilm in the day, I can assure you that condition could be a challenge. Others that were not so well made were ones designed for surveillance cameras with a 1" vidicon tube that were of predictably low quality that were sold for a very low price.<br>

One of the nicest I ever used was a angeniux 10x zoom, but it was very long and skinny, and not designed for hand holding on cameras like today's m4/3.</p>

<p>I have a Metz flash with a foot described as being for Leica and Olympus, and it works great on all three.</p>

<p>I've got four cameras, a Nikon D3, a Leica M9, a Panasonic GX7 and aan Olympus OMD EM5 mk. II. First off, megapixels don't seem to make a big difference between, 12, 16 and 18. I've taken shots with the D3 up to 17x25 and they looked just as good as the others. If you're not shooting in extremely low light, I don't think there will be a noticeable difference unless you're looking at individual pixels on your computer. If you're doing that, get a life.</p>

<p>These answers don't get to the point, I think. Yes, the difference between 4/3 and 35 mm is 2x, but the meat of this question is will a C mount lens cover a 4/3 frame.<br>

Having once used a lot of C mount lenses professionally, albeit years ago, I can't imagine that any C mount lens would be used on a 35mm camera. The chances of it covering all the frame are 0. I would be surprised if a c mount lens could cover a 4/3 sensor, and it's likely the results would have to be cropped to a square. A 16mm frame is really tiny, about the size of my thumbnail. much like the sensor in small compacts. So, if you have some C mount lenses you want to play with, more power to you, there were some really good lenses made for that format, but just have fun.</p>

Up strap is king!

I once shot with employer-supplied RB 67 and single coated lenses. They would flare in a totally darkened room. Oh,

and don't use one hand held as I was expected to do.

Have you checked the foam light traps in the back?

For the person wanting to cover the legs: go to home depot or lowes or ace hardware plumbing. Buy some foam pipe insulation. Don't

remember what size I used, but it works perfectly, and costs just a few bucks.

<p>They are a part of the Professional Photographic Certification Commission which is affiliated with the Professional Photographers of America (PPA). </p>

<p>There the key. The PPA is in the business of making money. One way to do this is to give certifications. What is the agency that accredits them? I'll bet the answer is none. Beware of people that give those and people that require them. It sounds like something that is a quarter step above UNiversity of Phoenix.</p>

<p>I have the Giottos on tow cameras, neither a D7000, so don't know if that matters, but I have been very happy. Absolutely no problems, the coated surfaces really kill glare and if you are worried about leaving your camera in a hot car and the protector coming unglued I must ask, exactly why are you leaving your camera in a car that hot?</p>

<p>The most bulletproof answer is the OM 1. I suspect that it will remain generally reparable in 50 years, if there are any real camera repairmen around then. I like my OM4 and My 2SP. When the circuts pack it in, they will become displays. But the lenses, many of mine are sooooo good.</p>

<p>I have wet-cleaned my D3 with good results. Just be sure to get the size swab for a FF sensor. The pre-moistened ones are nice and safe.<br>

And BTW, I think all sensors are covered with some sort of glass. Even my M9, which has no AA filter has glass, that is for IR cutoff purposes. I suppose things would be possibly different for MF backs.</p>

<p>I own both an Xpan with all three lenses and a VC 15 in M mount for my M9. I will tell you that there is no comparison between the two, it's like comparing an M3 and a doorknob. In my experience, the 30 is the least useful of the Xpan lenses. The panos with the 45 are NO PROBLEM. It's more than wide enough for all normal uses, and frequently the 30 gives sterile lifeless photos, as it's just TOO wide.</p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>Shooting 500-700 shots at an event is a classic example of spray and pray. If you aren't interested in shooting dicipline, just get more 4 gig cards. Remember, never put more shots on a card than you are willing to lose.</p>

<p>Bill Pearce</p>

<p>Yes, it's John Hermanson you are looking for, and I'm sorry I don't have his contact in fo at hand right now. Someone will, or perhaps an archive search. If he says it can't be fixed, start looking for another one. I would prefer an overhauled one from him over a "new" one off the bay.<br>

Bill Pearce</p>

<p>I find the question a little confusing, but I suck at math, although it didn't stop me from making a living as a professional photographer for most of my life. What I want to know is who is giving this exam, and what would someone's motivation be for getting this?</p>

<p>There are lots of folks in the business of giving out some sort of credentials for folks who seem to need them. Look at the weathermen on your local station, they all have some sort of certificate from some outfit in it for the money, and still you don't know what the weather will be.</p>

<p>I remember a time when I was working as a photographer for an airplane factory, and the chief photog was big on the PPA. I looked into the group and its classes, and discovered that since we didn't do weddings at the factory, and I didn't shoot any protraits, it was a waste of my time. They did print snappy ceritficates, though.</p>