GR1664886157

Does anyone know what camera gear the photographer used to produce the most expensive photo to date?

As an aside, that old lens combo produced a fantastic portrait of my unsuspecting wife with no CA at 400mm. The focus would have been to infinity, so I wonder if focus is more impactful than zoom?

Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and experience. I rummaged through my "bits box" and found a vintage HOYA 200mm and x2 teleconverter. This setup produced some CA on branches at 400mm f5.6 ISO200 1m-2m distance, but not as much. I saw no animals today except for a bee that is perhaps not an ideal subject for long distance zooms.

Generic cards were not delivered:( I have now tried a FluCard and it's a bit rubbish. I can connect to the FluCard from various up to date browsers on my Mac, but the Remote Capture screen does not display all the options claimed in the manual. Furthermore, once started, I am not presented with an option to turn-off Remote Capture. The manual does say that FluCard will not work with all browsers. Has anyone used it with browsers released in 2021? http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/support/man-pdf/o-fc1_operation_en.pdf

What is annoying about the Sigma's limitations at 300mm is that the Sigma's macro focus only works at 300mm. It is also a heavy lens and a lot of bulk to carry, so if its not all usable then it might as well never be used. Many of my other lenses can reach 200mm and I now feel obliged to work through them diligently to identify which lens has the longest usable focal length.

Only if you know what you are doing ;) The image does not display the actual targeted metal contact on the flash. As an un-initiated I followed the general path of the needle shown in the image and landed the tip of needle on a nearby, but incorrect, piece of metal. 0V recorded, which I knew was wrong but did not know why. Later, I slid the needle into the flash so that they locked together in the same way that the flash and hotshoe would lock together (e.g. the needle is fixed and does not drop out) and doing that is not what is shown in the image. Only after 4.96V was recorded did I know the needle was in the right place, and that is how I came to find the intended contact. The guide is clear if the reader has a little bit of prior knowledge. BTW, International Standards Organisation (ISO) mandates cameras support 24V. By definition only manufacturers that use cheap non-specification components would have an upper limit of 6V. DSLRs from actual premium brands such as Minolta and Fuji support 400V and 600V respectively .. :eek:

Granted, I am a luddite. I did not consider the feasibility of billboard pixel peeping. In my view of the world most photographers will remain amateurs who share images electronically. I wonder how many pixels are in contemporary digital billboards..

Ah... the guide was not idiot proof. Another way to test is to push the multimeter's needle through the flash connector as though the needle were the bracket of the camera's hot shoe. 4.96V :)

It may have been overlooked but the opening post did ask for pre-processing fixes. The first edits occur before the camera is turned on, including tasks such as framing the shot, and cropping or other post-production edit is covering-up imperfections. I do crop etc., but it is not an intention to go there. When a 6MP camera produces more pixels than most new monitors can display, why are camera makers pushing > 30MPs? o_O

Following this advice I tried to buy a 285HV. It turned out to be an older 285, but I tested it anyway, and followed this guide: Measuring the Voltage on a Vivitar 285 Flash | Jeff Geerling The 285 is flashing, but the multimeter is reading 0V when fully charged - is that possible? (the multimeter is reading rechargeable 1.2V batteries correctly).

How annoying. Maybe I would have been better off using an auxiliary with the kit lens.. :( That is a really useful graph. Are there similar graphs for other lenses?

There was no filter on it. The DG seems have a filter inside it though, and I say that because the colour produced by a DG is the same as a the colour produced by Sigma DL only when a DL has a skylight added!

Sigma 70-300 DG macro.

Indeed this is among the worst of the pictures taken while intentionally testing that IBIS was working, and I am keen to understand what went so wrong with this particular shot - its not an example of CA I have seen before. The magenta just seems erroneous. The colours above/below the beak also seem bizarre to me. As for whether is aesthetically pleasing or not - it is certainly not colourful, or interesting, or even a good illustration. It does however have artefacts that capture a reality of digital photography, which is an authenticity that so many photographers try to hide - I agree this one belongs in the trash beside many of Jackson Pollock paintings, but if the unique style can be mastered then who knows.. ;)

There seems to be something wrong and the message here is that the owners of photo.net are unwilling to support this community.

I like that idea a lot, and I guess you can sit on it too! Some very pricey photography cases have customisable foam inserts, and I found the same concept is used to transport tabletop figurines at what appears to be a lower price (though sizes may vary). https://www.amazon.co.uk/Large-Storage-Pluck-Raster-Foam/dp/B07BGFXQTM/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=Tabletop+Tyrant&qid=1613440985&s=kids&search-type=ss&sr=1-9

That is not how psychology works. The old members have something new members do not. There can be a feeling of being cheated, unappreciated, unwanted.. those are tangible 'things' that can place limitations on the activity of new users. You are treating this as a Priority 1 fault, right? ;)

I have just realised is that the Sigma DG lens delivers a much warmer colour tone. Furthermore, when I add a skylight filter to a smaller Sigma DL the two lenses produce almost identical colours. Could the Sigma DG's features be responsible for the CA in the photo?

It depends where the member lives. Members in the UK or EU can withdraw consent to process data and enforce GDPR "right to erasure", for which the minimum fines for non-compliance are €10m or £17m - depending on which jurisdiction is enforcing the data privacy regulation. This risk is why some US websites are unavailable in the EU and UK. Art. 17 GDPR – Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’) | General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

After airbrush above the beak and desaturated underneath - point fix, but similar aberrations appear elsewhere in the photo. Any critique of methods used or camera settings? I was about 3-4m away from the subject.

I agree, particularly as there appears to be an aberration around the branches. However, the CA tool (at least in Gimp) applies only to blue/red, and neither of those bands are out of alignment. My finding is that magenta and green are misaligned. Magenta can be simply filtered without loss and the green is more problematic. Other pictures of this subject have a clear beak, but all have a magenta/green aberration around the branches that may have wind movement. It appears to me that the beak moved during exposure because if it was slightly higher then there would be foreground black above, and background green below - which is what the image shows. However, the lack of motion blur defies my understanding of how sensors work (unless the sensor has a refresh rate?). I was testing IBIS at the time - could this be related?

The small brown bird was no more than 10cm long. There are artefacts, particularly around the beak (bright green line underneath / black shadow burn above), that I do not know how to prevent pre-process or remove post-process. Do you think using a flash would have helped? Camera Model: SAMSUNG GX10 Focal Length: 30000/100 Exposure Time: 1/180 F-Number: 9.9 ISO Speed Ratings: 140

It is OK to buy/use fungus infected telephoto lenses because at long zooms the deformation will be too small to detect on a pixel. I have done more digging. Unfortunately the germination temperature of some fungi is higher than the lethal temperature for other fungi. I did not discover a temperature that the glass would need to reach to kill fungus, and there is a risk that raising the temperature might germinate fungi spores that had been dormant. I wonder, however, if it possible to burn off fungi using a cheap laser pen because I read that the energy in cheap lasers can often be higher than in lasers with proper quality controls - apparently this can happen because invisible infrared emissions are sometimes dangerously uncontrolled in cheap laser pens. Has anyone tried that?

Disgraceful. I have been caught out by people following your advice :mad:

The following experiments suggest UVC has more value in clearing lens fungus/bacteria. Can a UV lamp kill fungus and make the lens safe for use? - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com