steve_gallimore1

If you're starting to get in to the realms of photon noise, as opposed to electronic noise, then yes, Joe's ND filter does actually have the same result as a lower ISO, allowing a longer shutter speed and thus more photons to be captured. Totally irrelevant to the original topic, but, hey, it's photo.net ;)

Can't offer any suggestions on Adobe stuff (Linux user), but if the external HDD is for working or short term storage, do yourself a favour and use a SSD in an enclosure rather than 'spinning rust'. For longer term storage, classic HDD are far cheaper and you don't care so much about the performance. As to using magnetic storage for archival purposes, I'm not going to make any statement on that other than that the topic of long term data backup is complex, full of personal opinions, light on experience and has no good single answer. Laser engraving on to platinum, perhaps, as a millennial option?

Assuming they reopen the borders... which are currently closed to most non-EU residents, with strict additional restrictions for some countries (outbreaks of 'Variants of Concern') Find info here: Info Coronavirus Covid-19 Covid et interdictions de voyages : quelles sont les règles ? Les prochaines étapes du déconfinement en détail If travel is allowed, bring a good supply of paper (surgical) masks, some places won't allow other types. Masks currently required in all public spaces, indoors and outdoors. A 9pm curfew is currently in force, but may be lifted by late June (see links above). Expect restrictions on visitor numbers for anything indoors and some things outdoors. Expect to have to reserve in order to eat, particularly if you want a table indoors (if allowed). Large metropolitan areas in particular risk being hit with instant restrictions in the event of an outbreak of a variant - this includes the south coast. Expect the south and west coasts to be exceptionally busy as most of the French population will be holidaying at home this year. No idea on what the rules are for Monaco, sorry. I live in central France, so I'm not completely sure on the situation in the south, things are only just starting to reopen here.

Take a look at 35mmc.com, Hamish Gill has done a very comprehensive series of reviews on these meters.

Coming back to this... I've tried a few options: My television is next to useless, noticeable colour cast, red to the left, blue to the right and does something horrible when scaling images to fit the screen, so quickly gave up on that! Desktop computer with colour corrected monitor is great, but not the most comfortable option. So, for me, the best option that I've found is an old 7" tablet with a good screen (what Apple would call 'retina'). Colour is accurate, it's a comfortable size for viewing on the sofa, easy to flip between landscape and portrait and the screen resolution is sufficiently high that you can't see the pixels at normal viewing distances. It's useless as a tablet (Android 4 on an Intel chip, so prehistoric and unsupported), but makes a very nice photo viewer. We also have an old (2nd gen) iPad which is bigger, but the lower pixel density is not so good for photos. So this experiment has convinced me that it might be worth looking for a bigger tablet with a high density screen, maybe a slightly more recent iPad, or something similar. But the little tablet is working well, cost nothing (well, it did cost, but it served it's purpose for a good few years) and has been very useful in allowing me to browse through my photos in comfort in order to select which ones to print.

There are also simply some photos that cannot be done without artificial light - I did a recent family self portrait, myself, my wife and our daughter, laying on the bed facing the camera, sheet over the window behind us, blown out to white, very high-key. Without the speedlight, firing backwards from the hotshoe, at a reflector on the opposite wall, we'd have been in silhouette. I might have been able to do something with high ISO and bringing up the shadows in post, but the eyes would have been dull, not the same. Little bit of preparation, couple of test shots, get everyone in place and done, only post was a slight crop to remove clutter around the edges of the frame (18mm equivalent lens) - result straight out of camera was exactly as I'd envisioned. Could have done the same on film (if I had an 18mm lens), with the flashmeter instead of a digital test shot. No fuss, no 'digital magic', just 'pure photography' Yeah, I'd love a north facing wall of windows and high ceilings too!

Sorry, I shouldn't post while tired, my meaning was not clear. Of course the 40-150 is a mid to long tele (80-300), my point was that it gives good reach for a tiny outlay, weighs next to nothing and performs surprisingly well. I just put together a fantasy 'kit' (used) on mpb.fr, Oly E-M5 body, 12-40mm f2.8, 40-150mm f4-5.6, came to €850, leaving breathing room in the notional 1000 budget (in $, I think) to either upgrade the body to an E-M5ii or add another lens. Or, of course, you could choose a cheaper main lens than the f2.8 zoom. Please, please show me where I can buy a Nikon Z6 for the price of a used Oly E-M5, that would be a steal!

Definitely look at a used mirrorless body. For your budget, you'll be able to get something perfectly capable and a couple of lenses. Olympus E-M5 - rugged, huge range of affordable lenses, the 40-150 'kit' lens will get you reach on the cheap and is a good performer, weighs nothing, size of a coke can. Loads of wide angles to choose from. Good in body stabilisation. I personally use an E-PM1, normally with the 17mm f2.8 pancake, fits in my coat pocket, not as capable as the E-M5, but tiny. Fuji - X-T1 or, maybe X-T2, lenses are slightly more expensive, worth keeping in mind that the Fuji system tends to favour prime lenses over zooms. I use an X-T2 with a trio of 23/35/50 (35/50/75 equivalent) as my main camera. Sony, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, lots of options. Most better mirrorless will give you a lovely big viewfinder.

It's worth learning, you don't have to use strobes, but it's nice to have the option. A good artificially lit photo is one where you can't immediately tell that strobe(s) were used. You can manipulate 'natural' light too, with a reflector for example, is that still 'available light'?

The body materiel doesn't really mean a lot - it is possible to crack a cast alloy body, while a plastic shell can adsorb some impacts.Of more importance are the internal mechanisms - swinging mirror assemblies, rangefinder prisms, these don't cope too well with sudden deceleration. The orientation at the time of impact could greatly influence the outcome. In modern digital terms, IBIS might not react too well to suddenly being slammed against the limits of it's travel...

I have no idea what is required for 'pro-looking shots', but 16 megapixels is enough for commercial work. Plenty of options to choose from there, both DSLR and mirrorless, you don't say what your budget is, but you can get a perfectly capable mirrorless body for less than 200€/$/£ used. It's the lenses that will cost, so you need to plan the whole system, to a degree, before jumping in with the first cheap body you find. If size and weight is an issue, you might want to take a serious look at a micro 4/3 system (Olympus or Panasonic). Take a bit of time to research, most systems cover the common lens options from ultra wide to long telephoto, but not all do so cheaply. Edit - just read your reintroduction post, sounds like maybe ruggedness, stabilisation and good out of camera jpegs are priorities? Take a look at the Olympus E-M5 perhaps?

Skeggie... memories of a childhood on the east coast, though we were more often in Hunstanton (Sunny Hunny) or on the Norfolk coast. My memories of Skegness are of wind, rain and our tent being blown down!

I reckon mine holds the camera together! That and a fair bit of gaffer tape...

If you've already got the bracket, then you're half way there. You might be able to get an adaptor that can be fixed semi permanently to the Slik tripod? Personally, also coming from screw down tripods, I like the Arca dovetail, or rather, it's clones, it's simple, solid and fairly universal. I've converted my studio tripod (WW2 vintage, with British War Department 'Broad Arrow') with a new head. Glad you like the cows, I do live in one of the more rural areas, but if someone had told me in 2018 that I would be spending the next couple of years doing cow portraits... As to the Pi, the original was a return to my youth, RiscOS and BBC Basic, now I'm amused and intrigued to see just how much I can really do on a minimal financial/electrical budget.

If a tree falls in the woods... E-PM1, 17/2.8, monochrome in post

Farm E-PM1, 17/2.8

Here's a couple of very quick photos showing my l-bracket and tripod, I often use it as shown in the photo, or with the legs at the next 'click' and the centre column dropped down, or reversed. The camera is a Fuji X-T10, I think you're using an X100 if I remember correctly? The lens is a old Konica 50mm macro with a couple of extension tubes, so it's quite big for the camera. You're best searching the usual purveyors of internet tat to find a bracket tailored to your camera, I think mine was about €20, the tripod was about €70. And yes, that is a Raspberry Pi 400 in the background, my ultra budget photo editing machine (€300 - RasPi, SSD, USB hub, card reader, assorted cables and 24" monitor)!

I understand your frustration with the quick release plate not letting the camera sit flat. I use an Arca Swiss compatible grip/l-bracket that adds a little bulk, but follows the lines of the camera and has a flat base - it also offers a fair bit of protection from bumps. This fits the Arca Swiss compatible head on my tripod(s), the travelling one being a version of the Chinese MeFoto? (mine is actually branded Rollei), light weight five section legs, reversible centre column, one leg detaches for use as a monopod (never tried). It's not the best piece of kit in the world, but it is solid enough for the price, packs small and quick to deploy. I normally use it without extending the legs, either on the ground or on a stone wall or similar, so it's pretty solid for my purposes.

I think my idea of 'light weight' differs from some! If keeping it minimal, I'd just take a standard (50mm equivalent) lens. Adding a little more weight and faff, I'd drop the 50 and go with a 35 & 80 combo, or another similar pair, such as a super wide and a standard, or standard and a longer (but small) tele, say a 135/4. That's about the most I'd personally be prepared to carry though; one body, two lenses. In your case, and not knowing the Nikon lenses at all, maybe your Voigtlander and the 70-200/4 mentioned above? Do you have a tiny super wide? That would cover most options. Or, can the compact cover the wide end of things acceptably?

I can honestly say that I am not a fan of (Rochester) Kodak's design language of this period. Normally there is something at least admirable in brutish function over form, but I really struggle with these ones. Pretty, they are not. Look forward to seeing the rebuild and resulting photos though!

The post, that's holding up the tree stump, that's doing duty as a fence post, may be in need of replacement...

Some taps for your pump, Gerald: X-T10, Hexanon 40/1.8

You can add a third definition of photography, that of documentation, evidence. Obviously, the goal would be to strive to depict the subject in a clear and (as much as humanly possible) unbiased fashion. Without having seen the photos in question, it sounds like they fall under this category. I have hundreds of photos of fish farms, seashores, coastal erosion from a previous existence as a marine science student. They are not artistic, but they served a purpose and arguably, in some respects, have more historical value than, say, a beautiful sunset.

As above, Industar is for a Zenit SLR, probably an early Zenit E or B/V, before they switched to M42 (earlier cameras had bare aluminium lenses, not black). As to the Tessar, do you have access to a digital mirrorless camera? A cheap LTM to mirrorless adaptor will tell all...

Wait until the roll is processed before shooting any more, or jumping to any conclusions, but yes, it's likely to be hopelessly out of focus (beyond infinity). Some of the lenses available for the Paxette may have also been manufactured in LTM, but the odds of this being the case for any lens with 'Braun' in the name are vanishingly slim. Unofficial one-off modifications may also exist. Given the very long flange-film distance of the Paxette (44mm, though I only found one source for that measurement), you may actually have more success adapting the lenses to a SLR, maybe Canon FD or Konica AR? (Check the FFD though).