Alan7140

FZ Prime
  • Content count

    9,601
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    224

Alan7140 last won the day on 21 June

Alan7140 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,788 of my posts have been liked

About Alan7140

  • Rank
    Master Member
  • Birthday 07/01/53

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Tasmania, Australia
  • Interests
    Photography, Guitar
  • Edit my pics?
    Ask Me
  • Fav. Camera
    Fuji X-T2
  • Fav. Lens
    23/1.4
  • Fav. Editor
    Photo Ninja

Recent Profile Visitors

1,152 profile views
  1. Lucky You!
  2. It's the way we were taught at RMIT Uni, Hugh - and it was exactly the way my boss expected me to identify the lens to pass him no matter what camera he was using. Sure, it took maybe once and a half hour or so to commit what was what to memory, but once learned a "wide" angle for the Hasselblad saw me hand over a 50mm, for the 5x4 he got a 90mm, and for 35mm the 28mm was the lens in the kit that fitted the description. You didn't have time to fart about figuring what something was in an "equivalent" format, and to be honest this never became a problem until whoever the culprit blogger was who started the whole equivalent nonsense off in the first place. I never once had a problem in the decades I worked in the profession in film days wondering what a lens was given the simple description of "Ultrawide", "Wide", "Normal", "Long", "Tele" or "Super-Tele". You simply looked in the bag and picked the lens that best fit the description, no matter what the format or camera system was. I bet everyone reading this also knows just by reading those words what lenses in their system/s they refer to. If someone asked me what the lens I was using was, I never had to recite the focal length and its equivalent in 135 format, just a simple "wide" or "tele" as the case happened to be sufficed. People just knew what that meant - even lay-people seemed to know what a "tele" did, and what a "wide" did. Now they probably wouldn't have a clue because they've probably never used a 135 format lens in their life, but nod knowingly to appear as smart as the blogger who sent them up this garden path in the first place. I think possible the problem with this as far as some bloggers are concerned is that it is too simple and makes sense, which means they can't sound like genius know-it-alls by explaining an alternative system that is neither simple, nor makes any real sense. FOV was, and still is, the accurate and correct way of fine-tuning the explanation of a lens on a format in question, although that is really only relevant for people who want a precise answer. 99% of the time it's unnecessary. Some manufacturers used to think that FOV detail was relevant, and stamped it on the lens ring (this was used in earlier lenses a lot, where focal length sometimes wasn't even mentioned) - note they did this and not "Equiv to *** mm lens on 35mm format", which we're being told is apparently the correct way these days. Still earlier was the practice of others simply numbering the lenses 1, 2, 3 etc and inscribing the format, so you were told in the literature that #1 was wide, #2 was normal, #3 was long (or whatever numbers they used), and that was all you needed to know. 6½x8½" format #2 would likely be an 8" (200mm) or 10" (250mm) FL lens.
  3. Good ol' Albert Park Swamp Lake. The reflections are nice.
  4. Silver Efex is underrated, and it's a pity it will die when future operating systems cease to support it now that Google has announced that the Nik collection will not be updated again. While the presets are a good starting point, the degree of further controls that the side panel offers are what really can be used to bring the software into its own.
  5. Except that they worked in B&W because they pretty well had to, of course - there was little practical alternative prior to the '60's. We get an instant choice these days, but a lot of B&W is lacking as people seem far more focused on colour, and therefore never develop the skill of "seeing in B&W" that is really necessary to consistently get the best results. Regaining that skill is a good part of my reasoning for buying the Sigma SDQ-H and using legacy lenses primarily designed for use with B&W (single coated Soviet Bloc glass fit the bill - most of the lens designs predate WW2). I intend that the camera be used only for B&W. Until the mid 2000's by far most of my photography was in B&W using standard B&W film and chemistry, but as colour invaded my working life I lost a lot of the skill in seeing my subject matter in monochrome at time of shooting. I intend to rectify that.
  6. I'm also a sucker for B&W, as you'll be aware.
  7. I'll just add that while Sigma make the best menus I've come across, they make amongst the most difficult cameras to actually get the best from. It can be really hard work, and the cameras themselves really don't help make things easier. Get it right, though, and the results can be very rewarding.
  8. This sort of country is just made for B&W. These are great.
  9. Dallas will be able to help you with that, Walton, but I have to comment that I agree that Lumix menus from a while back were worse than hopeless. I never could figure why some manufacturers get tied in knots trying to set up an intelligible menu (if you think Lumix were bad, the original Fuji X menus were almost unintelligible in parts, thankfully that's largely fixed now). All the other manufacturers have to do is get hold of a Sigma camera if they want to see how to arrange and express functions on a menu that are immediately clear as a bell and don't leave you scratching your head or frantically paging through sub-menus.
  10. Nice one, Chris - nice B&W conversion as well.
  11. The point is that AF Fine Tuning is totally unnecessary on mirrorless cameras, Ann, not how well it works on two Nikon models. Best is not to have to do it at all. As far as AFC goes, if Sony's new A9 lives up to claims, it will blitz anything else - with or without a mirror. 20fps with AF tracking and no blackout at all between shots was always going to happen, but I never thought so soon, though.
  12. Thanks, guys. Yes, Merlin - although it looks distinctly brown on any monitor, this tone prints almost identically on my Epson 7800 to the image colour that Ilford's chloro-bromide Gallerie Warm Tone Multigrade had untoned. Even though both my printer and monitor are calibrated along with a custom paper profile made for the Innova Smooth Cotton paper I use, the image on the monitor still looks a bit browner than it prints. Theoretically they should be exactly the same, but as the printer does full colour prints exactly the same as the monitor display, I'm not going to mess with things as I know how this tone will come out on paper.
  13. Photo Ninja is current with the latest Fuji models, including the GFX. Affinity 1.5 does a superb job of processing X-Trans. So does X-Transformer, even if it is only beta. Mac users get access to the full Iridient program, which processes X-Trans just fine. So does RPP. Helicon Filter processes X-Trans as well as giving user access to the dcraw engine that drives it, enabling root access to command line switches to further modify to users' requirements. Then there's LightZone and Raw Therapee, both multi-platform and open source free programs which also handle X-Trans just fine. There are others, no doubt, meaning there is no problem living with Fuji files unless you're irretrievably welded to Adobe's web. Even then ACR/LR process the files, just not very well. Corel Aftershot Pro also processes X-Trans, but also not very well. This hardly adds up to a case that Fuji files are hard to live with, just that Adobe and Corel have some homework to do if they could be bothered.
  14. 19th Century steps giving foot access to the original foreshore of Hobart harbour from the then working class suburb of Battery Point. (Sigma SDQ-H, 1984 Mir 20M 3,5/20 lens 1/100 @ f/11, 100 ISO.
  15. Agreed, Mike. The D70s was also my first digital camera, I only wish Nikon had continued with the direction of development that this little camera's sensor indicated was to follow. The only thing that let it down was lack of resolution, but its hybrid mechanical/electronic shutter and its resultant unlimited flash sync speed was remarkable - my D2x that followed was a dog when it came to its shutter and flash sync by comparison. Maybe the D70s setup was fragile, but both in image quality (limited resolution aside) and flexibility with flash made it enjoyable to use (as well as its relatively small size and weight). I don't know the reason behind the retrograde step with the 12MP sensor that followed with the D2x, but it was never the enjoyable camera that the D70s was to use.