Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,514   Posts: 1,543,663   Online: 929
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 44 of 44
  1. #41
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by John NYC View Post
    But you are also assuming people are shooting very stopped down.
    No I'm not. Surely you don't think there is as much solid angle of stray light at the rear of the lens as there is on the front element? That is why hoods and compendium shades are so effective.

    P.S. Rear filters also don't vignette.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,095
    The ads for the Graphics are BIN/make offer. If you were to suggest $200.0o what can he do spit at you?
    Of the two the one with the 190 would be the more useful camera.
    Both have the tripod mount/head, that's going to save some money on that item. Decent heads can cost a pretty decent dollar too.
    If I were doing the calculating on the set, $100 for camera, $100 for the lens. And do some research on a head. It could be another $100 or more.

    With the Graphic View you absolutely need their head. Because there's nothing else that fits the triangular rail. I've made offers on items before and it's just a beginning of a negotiation. You say 200, he says 350 etc. There may come a point that you both agree on.

    I think there were some photo's of St Ansel with a Graphic View in an early edition of "The Camera".

    The limiting factor would be the bellows length. With a 190mm(7 1/2") lens and 300mm of bellows You are easily in portrait distance. Landscapes? around 120-135. Wider if you like but the camera won't allow a 90mm without a recessed board.
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    No I'm not. Surely you don't think there is as much solid angle of stray light at the rear of the lens as there is on the front element? That is why hoods and compendium shades are so effective.

    P.S. Rear filters also don't vignette.
    You are talking practice. I am talking about the possible. For all practical purposes, you are correct.

    I have a grand total of four 67mm filters and two conversion rings for all my lenses that I use them on. It didn't bother me to pay the extra money. For that I get a lot of convenience.

  4. #44
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by John NYC View Post
    I have a grand total of four 67mm filters and two conversion rings for all my lenses that I use them on. It didn't bother me to pay the extra money. For that I get a lot of convenience.
    Ah, see, if I could get by with a 67 and some stepdowns, that would be wonderful. But alas most of my front elements are 77mm (RB, RZ) and up. That's when MC filters get really pricey!!! My multicoated red filter for the Nikon 150 SW, well, I don't even want to talk about it. Scares me to use the damn thing Then I discovered rear filters for the RB fisheye, and I really started to think...
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin