barry_r

On the Sony AX33, if I select Standard for image stabilization, it says Clear Image Zoom will be turned off. If I select Active, it says Clear Image Zoom will be turned on. I understand that Clear Image Zoom uses a digital zoom algorithm to get more zoom range than provided by the lens. But what is the relation between it and the image stabilization mode such that Clear Image is automatically turned on with Active and off with Standard?

There are usually very mixed opinions on Rockwell. I personally think he can sometimes be very funny and check out his website frequently. He comes from an engineering background so I think he is well qualified to discuss the technical aspects of photography. I don't particularly like his photos with their very saturated colors, and lately he is too much emphasizing what's on sale at various places.

<p>We get the daily paper for a nearby large metropolitan area. I am dismayed at how often photos of buildings show large amounts of perspective distortion, something that would take a couple of minutes to correct in software. I've written at separate times to the architecture critic and the staff photographer. The former answered me but nothing changed - I'm not sure she understood what I was pointing out, evidently she didn't care. The latter never answered me. So much for the state of photojournalism at that paper.</p>

<p>Okay - thanks.</p>

<p>When I go to a forum, it is only showing active threads and recently added threads. I must be missing something obvious, but I don't see links to older posts, like the usual "Next, Previous" or "1, 2, 3..."<br> I've tried using Safari and Firefox, same thing with both.</p>

<p>I have Nikon DX and FX cameras. I pretty much only use the DX for so-called extra reach with longer focal length lenses, the FX for everything else.</p>

<p>So after using the lens some more, I'm thinking it's okay. If I just allow a little delay for the VR to stabilize, I'm getting fairly consistent results, even down to about 1/15 sec shutter speed. Someone on another forum indicated that VR on this particular lens is a bit slow to stabilize. Maybe it's because it's a macro lens, or maybe because it's not the most recent implementation of VR. I just know that on my 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 lens I never gave it a second thought and always get good VR without any waiting.<br> Nick - thanks, I am familiar with Thom's writings on VR.</p>

<p>1/10 sec shutter puts you into the realm of mirror slap. Would that possibly mask any improvement due to VR?</p>

<p>I recently acquired a used version of this lens and am in the process of checking it out. As there is a short time period in which I'd be allowed to return it, I'd very much appreciate timely responses. I should mention that all VR testing was done with the subject > 10 ft away as the manual said VR would be less effective at shorter distances and I am mainly interested in VR using the 105mm as a telephoto lens.<br> I have been concerned about the VR as test shots showed only occasional improvement over not using the VR. Then I determined that if I hold the shutter button down halfway for a second or so before taking the shot, the results are much more consistent. With my other lenses I never gave this any consideration as the VR works well without any delay. Is it just that this lens requires more time for VR to settle down and so what I am finding is normal, or might there be an issue with the VR that is causing it to be less responsive than it should be?<br> Some people mention a clicking/clunking noise when VR is engaged and disengaged. I remember only one time after taking a shot that I heard a fairly noticeable clunking noise and was rather surprised and confused as to what it might be. Does such an intermittent noise indicate a problem?<br> Thank you.</p>

<p>This is one of the questions asked on B&H's listing for the L308S-U:<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1219217-REG/sekonic_401_307_l_308s_u_flashmate_light_meter.html<br> You can scroll down and read the answer there.</p>

<p>Could be a combination of several factors. All else equal, larger focal length means narrower depth of field, so harder to achieve focus. Smaller aperture at the long end means less light for the AF to work with.</p>

<p>ilya: private message sent</p>

<p>I asked this question at the end of another thread and must have been too late as it was never answered, so I'll try here - Doesn't scanning with a flatbed scanner or a DSLR negate the advantage of using film? I'm interested mainly in color, specifically color gamut, which to my understanding is larger for (some) films than for digital. If you scan with a digital sensor (in scanner or DSLR) aren't you again limited to what digital can do and might as well have taken the photo with a DSLR? Please limit the discussion to color gamut and not get off on tangents of resolution, dynamic range etc. Thanks.</p>

<p>Okay, I think I have the information I wanted. Thanks all.</p>

<p>Colin,<br> I said "approximately." Actual size is 56mm x 67mm, so the diagonal is about 87mm. You said you are using film that is 24mm x 66mm. That has a diagonal of about 70mm. So the fact that you can see that entire frame does not mean that it would see the entire 6x7 frame.</p> <p>Anyhow, I was not at any time suspicious of a 6x7's loupe's coverage, merely asking if such coverage is viewable at a single eye position vs. having to move the eye position to take in the full view. A simple question, I thought, that could be answered simply by someone that uses such a loupe.</p>

<p>Giovanni - since you have one of these loupes, can you please address the specific question I asked?</p> <p>Colin - 24mm x 66mm is less than the approximately 60mm x 70mm of a 6x7 frame, so the fact that you can see the entire frame doesn't address my question re. 6x7.</p>

<p>I am asking specifically about the 3x loupes for viewing 6x7.</p> <p>The finder in my camera does not appear to be 3x.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I have a specific question about the loupes that are purported to cover the full 6x7 frame (Mamiya, Schneider, etc.).</p> <p>When using these loupes, do you see the entire frame with your eye in the central position of the lens, or do you have to move your eye position to view different parts of the frame?</p>

<p>"Do we loose something, like the dynamic range, colors or the unique "film look" because of the scanning? Or maybe scanning is actually an advantage, because now we can color-correct the film scan in the Lightroom or Photoshop?"</p> <p>As someone just starting out with a medium format film camera, this is what I am trying to understand. I would want to use film to improve upon what I can get with digital mainly in color gamut, which I am assuming is better in film compared to digital. But if you scan the film, either with a flat bed scanner or a digital camera, aren't you again limited to the color gamut of digital and so defeating the very purpose for using film? (I am not considering high end photomultiplier type scanners for economy reasons).</p>

<p>I just saw that there was a Beginner Photography Question forum but couldn't find a forum such as General Technical Discussion. I haven't formulated a specific question at this time, but let's say it has to do with some technical aspect of how a curtain shutter works. It wasn't clear where I would post it if/when I were ready to do so.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I see that there is a Beginner Photography Questions forum. Where would I post a more advanced photography question that is not camera or brand specific?</p>

<p>Just curious - what in the development might cause this?</p>

<p>Bands were visible with the naked eye.</p> <p>Film was recently purchased from B&H. Date was good.</p> <p>I kept the film at room temperature.</p> <p>There was no exposure to x-ray or radioactive sources once in my possession.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I recently acquired a Bronica GS-1, my first foray into medium format film cameras. It was advertised as mint condition and it certainly appears to be so. I shot my first roll of color negative film and got it back today. There are broad, periodic bands present in the film throughout the image. It's hard to tell if they are light bands on a normal background, dark bands on a normal background or alternating light and dark bands. I searched for some information but a lot of the posts no longer have linkable images to compare with. I attach a sample image, scanned with a digital camera.</p> <p>My first concern is that there's an issue with the camera. If so, I would still have a little time to return it. But to my thinking, a light leak wouldn't be periodic. Also, as it is a leaf shutter in the lens, it's not a shutter issue. Some posts I've read alluded to issues with the development (I took it to a local camera store where they do the processing in house. I'm not sure how good they are.)</p> <p>Any suggestions would be appreciated. Also, I shot a roll of slide film at the same time. The presence/absence of bands would be useful information, but the film is being processed at another site and they said it could be a while before it is done.</p> <p><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zM9inP4JxBA/VpgS5NSdXDI/AAAAAAAAHZo/TJpR4vRHKnk/s576-Ic42/Streak%252520Example.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Continuing this conversation with myself (I don't see how to edit posts): On the other hand, I doubt that manufacturing tolerances are close enough to distinguish a ~5% difference in aperture diameter, are they?</p>