richard_wrede

<p>I got a 3n instead couldn't resist the deal I got only major difference is the touch screen is only on the 5n (and it literally had twice the dpi on the screen too)</p>

<p>I got a Fotodiox adapter at Amazon (the eBay seller had horrible feedback) it works great. Just a tiny bit "past" infinity which is fine, I can now focus at infinity wide open. The other Fotga adapter will eventually be sanded down. Perhaps one of the fellas in the shop at work can machine it down.</p> <p>But either way I now have two adapters and can quickly change from a wide angle to normal lens as I use wide open only about 1% of the time.</p> <p>Thanks for the suggestions</p>

<p>just found another forum http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53698580 and it sounds like my adapter is indeed too thick. It suggests a Fotodiox brand adapter as being thinner and possibly going past infinity which I could live with. The only one on eBay is $24 from a questionable seller.</p> <p>Is there a way to shave off some of the adapter? it is the two-part kind, dark anodized aluminum base, chromed inner ring. The inner ring is removable with 3 screws (rotatable). I was thinking of rubbing it on some sand paper on a flat surface but that could lead to a sloped uneven mount.</p>

<p>using a FOTGA adapter, it had good reviews, focusing to the stop, not using the scale. I found that the Sony flange to sensor distance is 18mm, the LTM/M39 flange to film distance is 28.8 I need an adapter thickness of 10.8mm. I don't have but a ruler so not that accurate but it seems I have an 11mm thick adapter, would .2 mm make that much difference?<br> It won't adjust</p>

<p>I just noticed today while putting different lenses on my camera (Sony NEX 3n) the focus is off at infinity with the aperture wide open. I tried 3 leica, 2 canon and a Nikkor, all M39 LTM mount with an adaptor. I never tested this with film, is this fairly normal? when stopped down to f4 or 5.6 it's fine.</p>

<p>I'm thinking of getting a Nex 5 and an adapter to use some of my old Leica, Nikon and Canon screw mount lenses with. My main question is, I know the camera is auto focus of some kind, the Stats mention nothing of manual focus, just how does this work? is it as simple as focus with the lens and you can see it on the screen? that would be cool.<br> I also want to know, do the Nex cameras have image stabilization? I kind of need it as I'm used to it with my Canon and these old hands are getting shakey..LOL </p>

<p>thanks for the reply's. I'm familiar with the 'needle trap' auto system, several of my cameras have it including it's big brother, the 7s.<br> someone on another forum, who owns one of these said, the action for manual is normal, just the aperture not opening all the way on f/1.7 is wrong. going to try Naptha and cleaning the blades and try to get at the linkage from the top but I'm not going to do a full tear down of the front, it works good enough for me (will probably never even use f/1.7) and it is in near mint condition so I don't want to chance screwing it up to gain probably 1/2 of an f-stop</p>

<p>Let me see if I can describe this without confusion... The aperture on AUTO seems like many other cameras, except the aperture is closed down to f/16, then as you press the shutter button, the aperture opens up to it's determined setting. Ok, Opposite of normal cameras but it works.</p> <p>In MANUAL however, the aperture is always at f/8 (unless you have it set to f/11 or f/16) if you have it set to, lets say, f/4 (or whatever larger than f/8) as you press on the shutter button it too opens to the desired aperture setting. This seems weird to me especially at f/1.7, it doesn't quite open all the way, you can still see the edges of the blades, not so much from the back of the camera but definitely from the front.<br> I know there are a million of these out there, is this how your 7s II works or is mine weird?</p>

<p>On Vacation, Gossen Digisix2 meter Incident reading pointing AT camera. These came out perfect and are exactly how it looked that day.<br> 1957 Canon L2 with Canon 50mm 1:1.8 lens. These images came out better than the ones with my Digital camera<br> <img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7587/17094953715_da8317d464_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="391" /><br> <img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7724/17094953025_9eafaf4657_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="388" /></p>

<p>The mystery is solved I apparently didn't have a good reading before. This is with an Incident reading (pointing meter at camera, not light source) It was a dark rainy dreary day. The colors on the lighthouse are perfect<br> Canon L2, Canon 135mm 1:3.5 lens<br> <img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7598/16908743869_68b9d50934.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Thanks all. I goofed,... the compensation "rule of thumb" I was thinking of is for extension tubes and Macro, not Telephoto. I too played around with it with a better new scanner but it is just too dark. I'm currently experimenting with great success using Incident readings so we'll see what happens. <br> Film is expensive so I don't bracket unless it's a really important shot I don't want to miss. </p>

<p>I'm going to be shooting with my 135mm Hektor on vacation and I don't want the same thing to happen as last time... most of my shots in less than perfect lighting conditions came out grossly under exposed and hard to get a good scan. I've heard of a rule of thumb for compensating meter readings while using a telephoto. (hand held meter)<br> <img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2885/13800741375_02dfe6b34a.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="328" /><br> As you can see, yes a crappy scan none the less. Most all of my shots with heavy overcast turned out like this.<br> Some shots came out just fine where lighting was favorable<br> <img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3734/13800770313_b9bc668c9b.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="345" /></p>

<p>I guess he (Jim Doty) is pretty much saying what most of you have said here and it makes a lot of sense... in an average lit scene it can be pointed at the camera, a dramatic side lit scene, you would point it at the light source if the lit part of the subject is what you are going for. Here is a quote from his article:</p> <blockquote> <p align="LEFT">"Where you point the dome depends on which side of your subject you want to be normally exposed. For me, that usually means I point the white dome at the primary (brightest) light source.</p> <p align="LEFT">In the following photo, I pointed the white dome to the left at the setting sun so the side of the boulders facing the sun would be properly exposed. That meant the side of the boulders away from the sun would go very dark.</p> <p align="LEFT">Had I pointed the white dome of the meter to the right, away from the sun, the shaded side of the boulders would be normally exposed and the sunny side would be seriously overexposed. If I stood near the rocks and pointed the white dome at my camera (splitting the difference between the other two exposure possibilities), the sunlit side would have be overexposed and the shaded side underexposed.<strong> </strong></p> <p align="LEFT">It's your choice where to point the white dome. Just don't fall for the advice that you should "always point the white dome at the camera". That won't always give you the exposure you want.</p> <p align="LEFT">This is just my preference, but in the sunlight with frontlit and sidelit subjects, I usually point the dome at the sun.</p> <p align="LEFT">In sunlight with backlit subjects, I point the white dome at the camera (away from the sun) and subtract 1 stop of light from what the meter says. That's because backlit subjects usually look best somewhat underexposed."</p> </blockquote>

<p>All of my incident meter owners manuals say "point the meter from the subject towards the camera (or equal if it's an inaccessible subject) and the Sekonic manual even says "if it is a distant landscape, point it at the sun, take a reading, point it level like your pointing it at the camera and take a reading and set the camera to the average reading of the two.<br> I've been reading the article at JimDoty.com, <a href="http://jimdoty.com/learn/exp101/exp_inc_meter/exp_inc_meter.html"> http://jimdoty.com/learn/exp101/exp_inc_meter/exp_inc_meter.html</a> and he almost always points the meter at the Sun (or the light source).<br> The theory of the Sekonic (and other meters) Dome is by pointing it at the camera, you get the shade (underside of the dome) and the light (top of the dome) and the Cell can average them to get a correct reading.<br> What are your thoughts and experiences on the subject? Personally, I recently used my new Digisix2 Incident meter in full shade and in full light and in all cases the images came out great.</p>

Thank you, I suspected as much. Problem is my yellow scale ring is just painted onto the EV/TIME disc so it has no choice but to move. I wonder what's up with that? Manufactured wrong? Poor design? Oh well, it works if I set it after taking a reading and it's in mint condition so it's a keeper