maxJ4380

I thought i was the only one who had to deal with windy days... I suspect that the gustiness of the wind on the day, might be causing some issues with the cadence ? things seem to jump around a bit, not that the the g7 should have any cadence issues but rather the gustiness is making it look like that. I also suspect that the edit points dont help the issue either. Just seems to make it more apparent. Obviously its a test and your not trying to tell a story, however the jumpiness is a bit distracting. For me anyway. As to softening I think it looks ok from here, from what little i know... personally i'm still working out some of the ground rules for a look i like. I think your much further along the road to where i am at. In fact the last project i did went the other way and i was sharpening ever so slightly. So there you go. Hopefully some of the more experienced people can be more insightful.

Never thought i had particularly large hands, however one gripe i have found (its a personal one) is when i grip the e-m1 my little finger tends to wrap underneath as the camera isn't tall enough. Not that i want to call the e-m1 vertically challenged. Its more of a me thing than a camera design issue. One of the reasons to get it was the mft form factor. Its just a little uncomfortable to hold after a little while. At the moment it lives with the ziyhun space plate on the manfrotto base plate and that seems to work ok. I don't seem to have any issues with the plates on the bottom, i don't seem to accidently hit at all and i can put pretty much any lens on it without fear of it falling over. I suspect one of those optional HLD-9 Power Battery Grips is in the near future for this camera and the gimbal should accommodate the extra weight. At the moment its about 50 % tripod time and then 50% hand hold. Its nice the space plate and base plate are out of the way of the battery door and its easy to change the battery without having to take something off. I did get a few photos with the super takumar 35mm f2 today and i'm quietly confident that i met or exceeded the mission brief of finding a yellow lens. i should also point out it was nearly 4pm and winter here, so the sun is low in the sky. From the left, straight out of the camera. For the middle shot, and to get back to a less artistic image, i took a grey point off the lavender as thats kinda grey, perhaps a little too blue ? I do like the colour of the dirt in the middle photo but i suspect the rest of the photo is a bit too cool ? which might come back on using the lavender as a grey point also the gerbera isn't as orange as in real life. I can of course massage things in post but that kind of defeats the purpose of the exercise. Plus its all subjective anyway lol. Third is from the iphone 13 for a bit of a comparison, the flower certainly is more orange, maybe it pops a little too much. I guess the iphone is doing some " magic " although i am sure the profile is set to normal. I think its kinda interesting how cameras / lenses interpret an image and then how humans interpret that result as pleasing or not. I'll also add i don't like to overthink it, more of a conceptual thought rather than a whole process. Next shot is taken at the same time and i threw it in as i thought there was abit of fine detail in it with the spider webs. After that the battery died. I was hoping to get it charged for sunset however i was a bit late and it was abit of a bland sunset as well. So far i am liking this lens, from the very limited time i have played with it, it behaves like i thought it would. I have a bunch more things to try with this lens yet. I doubt anyone else will buy this lens for the same reason i bought it. Most would buy it and stick out under the sun or uv light to clear away the colour cast. To me thats what makes it unique. I do have other takumars super taks and smc's and the 17mm smc on the desktop beside me is clear or almost clear of a colour cast. I'll have to check the others now ... The 17mm smc also has a filter wheel built in with a red, yellow, and clear, i remembered that only a couple of days ago... I should get some comparisons to satisfy my curiosity. Also its very much a mint looking lens and the focus works smoothly and aperture work nicely, i also bought one that had front and rear lens caps. After my first couple of takumars it began to annoy me that people will sell these lenses and ship them round the world without a front or back lens cap. I am confident i have always paid good prices for the lenses i have bought and honesty i think its just lame, that people cheapen out and won't put a cheap cap on it. I have a birthday next week, kind of ironic and depressing to think that i am as old or older than these lenses. These lenses keep working just fine, however my shoulder is starting to pack it in... 🙄

More blogging My lens has arrived, i think. Well before my birthday. Haven't opened it yet will do that later today. I would open it except its a pretty ordinary day here, overcast and a few drops of rain. I'd be more excited if it were sunny... The postie has done her normal thing and left it out behind the rose bush, apparently no one will notice it there. I guess she also assumes someone will pick it up before it rains... I got an andoer 50cm camera slider, it moves quite smoothly. I'm impressed with how solid / rigid it is, i wouldn't try standing on it, but for every camera and mount i have subjected it too, its been awesome . In hindsight i should have bought the 60cm slider as it would still fit between a doorway and i'd have an extra 100mm of travel. I tend to lose 45mm of travel from each side of center which is a bit annoying. The only issue i have had is when i mount it to a tripod within a minute of use the 3/8 bolt loosens and the whole slider can then swing in the breeze. Not exactly inspiring. To fix that issue i inserted a 10mm end mill into the drill press and cautiously milled some material away. There are two holes in both the mount and camera slider, neither match up. One is 3/6 and the other is 1/4 inch. The 1/4 inch hole got slotted as well which allows the holes to align. I previously have had to machine the front away as it was catching on the tripod somehow. If this doesn't hold it steady i'm not sure what else i can do. One of the first things i did, was to cut 100mm of a 600mm steel ruler, it fits snugly between the rails there's double sided tape holding the ruler in place. I dabble with animation and i figure it would help with consistency.

Too late. there's a f2 35mm takumar on its way, i may also get a warming filter for the double whammy or more likely just for comparisons Lens should be here by the end of the month. It kinda rounds out my takumer set, i have most of the focal lengths i think although none are matching, there's taks, super taks, and smc's. i don't think i have a 28mm and definitely no eight element either. Next item will be a speed booster i think, to claw back some of that crop and i presume it gives me an additional focal length for each lens. Well thats how i'm looking at it anyway.

Awesome.. a new market opportunity opening up, for buying cheap plastic lens caps and grinding RX1R III into it with the dremel. Obviously i couldn't sell them too cheap as one of the smarter cookies might smell something fishy going on...

Herbie goes to monte carlo 1977. Even more vintage... or the village people that was 1980 as well.

I have a sirui in 24mm mft. I quite like it. when i first looked at it on youtube they were preproduction models i believe. I thought the flares might be a bit to much, however after buying it, i find the flares not to be too overpowering. I suspect either sirui toned them down or perhaps or youtubers sought out the absolute brightest lights to test on, which may not have been in the lenses best interests. Be interesting to see how your anamorphic adapter behaves. It was prime day everywhere wasn't it ? may not have been just us aussies... btw i like your room light. I have been setting up a black velvet curtain and i have some fairy lights to do some bokeh experiments with. If i can find something similar it might make it in as a foreground object.

know this, your not alone... it was a fad and a bad fad at that. Sad it is, that creators haven't learnt anything as it still continues... if we judge humanity by our youtube creators you'd have to say humanity is doomed. When i want to see a genuine shocked face, i go watch some thing from styropyro he is always good value.

I see lots of banding in your images kye, i hope its mot just me lol. i presume that's from the jpg setting. I used to get banding from jpegs when i used them in timelapses till i learned better. Can you maybe up the jpeg quality a notch ? I know their only test shots, however i kinda feel the banding is hindering the visual aspect abit.

Been on the look out for a yellow lens for awhile now. Some one said something down in the lens thread a while ago about a yellow lens , that got me thinking... Also i know there's two trains of thought with with photography / videography either do it in camera or do it in post. In most ways i like the in camera theory. Seems more authentic to me to do it in camera or more personal / intentional perhaps. In post seems more like an after thought to my way of thinking. Not wanting to rock any ones boat and if you like to do things in post that's great, please continue. Anyway finally decided on a lens, a super takumar 35mm f2. Should be a thorium lens from what i have read. So probably best, not to sleep with it under the pillow. I purchased this lens mostly with the intent of adding some warmness to an image / video. Not sure if the result will be a yellow or more sepia effect. There's a couple of images for your perusal. Should arrive before my birthday i hope.

I did some research some time ago from what i have read raynox are the wide angle adapter of choice. If you are keen to go further maybe do a little of your own research.

kye does your takumar 35mm f3.5 have any yellowing ? the reason i ask is I'm looking at 35mm takumars for that reason (thorium lenses i believe) rather than doing it in post. It will probably end up a one trick pony however i think i can live with that. Is that a client constraint ?

18 hadn't changed as far as i remember. i suspected 19 or 20. i skipped 19 got 20 and things has changed... took a bit to figure it out. I also bought one of these on prime day, had it in the cart, was hoping it would come on sale and it did. Saved $20, so worthwhile waiting the extra week or so.

i think i'm on version 17.2.00 of dng converter, their all backwards compatible. I convert to camera raw 4.6 as its the last version listed for cs3. it pretty simple to use, select your directory and hit convert, er.. pick a directory to save your files otherwise you'll waste 10 minutes wondering where they went... Its a 1.6 gig dl which makes it a fair size. Its free as well. its a handy program, once you have a dng, the worlds your oyster. either photo or video editing, you can do image sequences as well, which avoids the banding you get with jpg's, if your into timelapse or hyperlapses or some form of animation. Camera Raw 2.4 and later: The DNG file will be readable by Camera Raw 2.4 (Photoshop CS) and later, and Lightroom 1.0 and later Camera Raw 4.1 and later: The DNG file will be readable by Camera Raw 4.1 (Photoshop CS3) and later, and Lightroom 1.1 and later. The DNG file will often be readable by earlier versions, depending on the camera model. Camera Raw 4.6 and later: The DNG file will be readable by Camera Raw 4.6 (Photoshop CS3) and later, and Lightroom 2.1 and later. The DNG file will often be readable by earlier versions, depending on the camera model. Camera Raw 5.4 and later: The DNG file will be readable by Camera Raw 5.4 (Photoshop CS4) and later, and Lightroom 2.4 and later. The DNG file will often be readable by earlier versions, depending on the camera model. Camera Raw 6.6 and later: The DNG file will be readable by Camera Raw 6.6 (Photoshop CS5) and later, and Lightroom 3.6 and later. The DNG file will often be readable by earlier versions, depending on the camera model. Camera Raw 7.1 and later: The DNG file will be readable by Camera Raw 7.1 (Photoshop CS6) and later, and Lightroom 4.1 and later. The DNG file will often be readable by earlier versions, depending on the camera model. Camera Raw 11.2 and later: The DNG file will be readable by Camera Raw 11.2(Photoshop 20) and later, and Lightroom 8.2 and later. The DNG file will often be readable by earlier versions, depending on the camera model. Camera Raw 12.4 and later: The DNG file will be readable by Camera Raw 12.4 (Photoshop 21) and later, and Lightroom 9.4 and later. The DNG file will often be readable by earlier versions, depending on the camera model. Camera Raw 13.2 and later: The DNG file will be readable by Camera Raw 13.2 (Photoshop 22) and later, and Lightroom 10.2 and later. The DNG file will often be readable by earlier versions, depending on the camera model. Custom: Backward Version: DNG 1.1, DNG 1.3, DNG 1.4, or DNG 1.6 (default 1.6)

Pardon my ignorance, cant you use adobes dng converter to change raw file to dng's ? you can then do anything you want. Well thats how i get my raw files into photoshop cs3 and that has to be older than 2017 lol. I guess there's probably some sort of image loss going on in any conversion however my 58 year old eyes don't notice it.