Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,840   Posts: 1,582,511   Online: 941
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. #31
    Andrew Moxom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Keeping the British end up in Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,871
    Images
    333
    I appreciate all the advice, and it appears there is still much debate about which is the right path, and the information is all valid. I think I have what I am looking for, and that's to go with tubes. I feel this thread needs to end now. Thanks for taking the time to post and add to this thread.
    Please check out my website www.amoxomphotography.com and APUG Portfolio .....

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell View Post
    [...] Here's the part of shooting this type of shot that always tripped ME up:

    The 150 with the 8mm tube gives you a field width of 2 to 3 feet.
    The lens alone has a field width of 3 1/2 feet.

    Don't you think it is ironic that most of the pictures you want to take are in between the close-focus limit of the lens, and the far focus limit of the lens with short extension tube ?

    How would solve this problem,
    without buying a new lens ?
    Simple.
    By not trusting erroneous data.

    The 150 mm lens, unaided, has a minimum field of view of 40 cm (1.3 ft).
    Not 3.5 ft.
    It has that, because it has 21 mm of extension built-in.

    The 150 mm lens with 8 mm tube has a field of view of 107 cm/3.5 ft (maximum) to 29 cm/0.95 ft (minimum).

    Lots of overlap with the lens alone, so not a good choice, the 8 mm tube.

    The most logical tube to add would be the 21 mm tube, with the lens + tube combination starting where the lens alone stops.

    If you can't find the old 21 mm tube, the next best one to use with the 150 mm lens would be the 16 mm. But you then pay for 5 mm overlap, which you of course don't need.

    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell View Post
    How would YOU take this kind of picture ?
    250 mm lens with 32 mm tube.

    Edit: make that 80 mm, (110 mm,) 120 mm or 150 mm, all without tube.
    All that talk about proxars or tubes made me forget we were talking about head and shoulders. You do not need tubes or Proxars for H&S.


    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell View Post
    Note: this is not intended as an attack,
    merely a gentle nudge to keep us on topic
    to try to help answer the author's question.


    Thanks.
    I don't mind 'attacks'. I do 'attack' myself too.
    I hate disinformation, and nonsense, and will not (cannot - it's my faulty personality) leave it unchallenged.
    Last edited by Q.G.; 05-13-2008 at 02:08 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #33
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Moxom View Post
    I appreciate all the advice, and it appears there is still much debate about which is the right path, and the information is all valid. I think I have what I am looking for, and that's to go with tubes. I feel this thread needs to end now. Thanks for taking the time to post and add to this thread.
    Andrew, I appreciate your position here, and applaud what appears to be an attempt to pour oil over troubled waters.

    There should be no guilt over your involvement in what has, or is in imminent danger of, descending into a flame war, or a series of ad hominem attacks.
    As usual, though, there seems to be an unwritten rule that, "He who quits admits the error of his argument by his silence."

    I will defend what I have written by means of ... great heavens!!! ... more than 50 years of contact with optics and photography, as an amateur and later professional Photographer, and as formally trained Optical Quality Assurance Specialist ... but I agree, this is not the proper place to continue.

    I'll start a new thread, "Proxar Considerations" ... in the "Soap Box", where each of us can present our arguments and hopefully, reach some sort of truth.

    Hopefully also, readers will be able to assess the validity of each of our arguments from their content and tone, syntax, and how well they apply to the subject.

    What about it, gang... are willing to go to the Soap Box ... or are you going to ADMIT DEFEAT?
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  4. #34
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    [QUOTE=Q.G.;629453]Simple.
    By not trusting erroneous data.

    YEP, GOOD CATCH ! Thank YOU !

    If I had been working on the table saw, the cat would have my fingers !

    After some head scratching, I guess the only reason I was tossing out those numbers was that I maybe was thinking about the 250.

    SO, finally, I took out the old Hassie book (I kept long after parting with the camera) And even the old focuses to 5 feet, close enough to do the job. Would old photographers focus as clearly !

    I know that I get distracted by the adrenaline. Thanks for the sweet reason, and good data.

    don

  5. #35
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    In recognition of the sensitivity of some of those who dislike intense discussions, I've posted a couple of replies in the Soap Box. Let's continue this discussion there.

    All who are *convinced* that they are the keepers of sacred, undeniable TRUTHS, and photography gurus of the nth degree - so high on the scale that no mere mortals can touch them, are welcome.

    Add "Mere Mortal" to my signature.
    Last edited by Ed Sukach; 05-14-2008 at 08:02 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Syntax error
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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