rafaelcasd wrote:
So, the surfboard photo made me nostalgic.
I used to surf Swamis in encinitas every winter for many years. Only made a couple of friends there but they are still some of my best. Art you saw on the deck of DDG-1002 for family and friend day.
Went there yesterday, the place now has many little mementos of people I likely surfed along.
CGrindahl wrote:
The frames are from Silhouette and yes, they are rimless. Sue has worn glasses from this company fo many years. She was with me when I was shopping for frames. I wasn't looking at Silhouette because they cost a pretty penny... well beyond the benefit my HMO provides for glass frames. But after trying three or four different glasses she appeared at my shoulder with the pair in the photo. I tried them on and decided to spend a little money... I'm glad I did, because, as you say, wearing them is like having no glasses on at all. They're feather light and with no frame to catch your eye you simply relate to your surroundings. I know from Sue's experience that they are quite durable. I always keep them in a hard case when not wearing them. I wear them when walking and when driving... but NOT when I'm using a camera... ...Show more →
I don't no why I said frameless . They look good on you. I'm not not sure they would stand up against the abuse I put glasses through.
Were you lying on the dirt for this or does your body have an articulating screen? Great shot either way but extra points if you were prone ! Chickens are so funny.
pbraymond wrote:
Not quite the right lens, but it was the only one I had with me. Perhaps if time and light permits I'll head back out with the 200 Micro. Highly cropped frames, 50-135 f3.5.
These are great Ray! Natural light presumably too?
Beautifully captured Alan. Great light and the 105 provides a great backdrop.
leighton w wrote:
Great shots on with the 50-135. Were you using the macro mode?
Thanks Leighton. I don't find the macro mode all that useful on the 50-135, from memory (watch, I'm probably embarrassing myself here with the lack of knowledge of my tool). It seems like I get almost the same results pushing the MFD at the long end, and I greatly prefer the long end with respect to controlling the background. In addition, the dragonflies were skittish enough from the distance I was at.
cadman342001 wrote:
These are great Ray! Natural light presumably too?
Andy
Thanks, and yes, natural light (which is lighting for 99% of everything I shoot excepting portraits or events).
milt wrote:
Love it!
Thanks Regina. I've never really photographed dragonflies, but one showed up in my backyard the other day, and piqued my interest. For these shots I was just wandering the by the river when I noticed an abundance of insects hopping / jumping / flying around. And happily that included dragonflies. And for what was forecast as a mostly cloudy day, the sun popped out for a few moments :-).
rafaelcasd wrote:
So, the surfboard photo made me nostalgic.
I used to surf Swamis in encinitas every winter for many years. Only made a couple of friends there but they are still some of my best. Art you saw on the deck of DDG-1002 for family and friend day.
Went there yesterday, the place now has many little mementos of people I likely surfed along.
pbraymond wrote:
Siphiwe, you're making some magic with the Df and 35-70 (who'd have thought!).
Oh thank you for the very kind words. You're too generous with your use of the word magic, but it's nice to know that some times my love for the combo aligns with the output. The lens was indeed a pleasant surprise. It was mint, cheap and devoid of any online positive reviews. For a person who'd never shot manual before 2020, it is lovely to use and handles nicely on the equally lovely Df.
cadman342001 wrote:
Were you lying on the dirt for this or does your body have an articulating screen? Great shot either way but extra points if you were prone ! Chickens are so funny.
Andy
If I got down in the prone position, I may not get back up! Thanks goodness for articulating screens.
pbraymond wrote:
Siphiwe, you're making some magic with the Df and 35-70 (who'd have thought!).
Beautifully captured Alan. Great light and the 105 provides a great backdrop.
Thanks Leighton. I don't find the macro mode all that useful on the 50-135, from memory (watch, I'm probably embarrassing myself here with the lack of knowledge of my tool). It seems like I get almost the same results pushing the MFD at the long end, and I greatly prefer the long end with respect to controlling the background. In addition, the dragonflies were skittish enough from the distance I was at.
Thanks, and yes, natural light (which is lighting for 99% of everything I shoot excepting portraits or events).
Thanks Regina. I've never really photographed dragonflies, but one showed up in my backyard the other day, and piqued my interest. For these shots I was just wandering the by the river when I noticed an abundance of insects hopping / jumping / flying around. And happily that included dragonflies. And for what was forecast as a mostly cloudy day, the sun popped out for a few moments :-)....Show more →
You are right about the macro mode on this lens. I'm with you, I'd rather use the long end.
leighton w wrote:
You'd probably be better off upgrading your Windows machine. The one thing I hate about Macs is that you can't upgrade the components. My 2019 16" MBP started wigging out everytime I opened Time Machine to browse backups. I took it to the closest Apple store and was told that it looked like the GPU was going on it and that it was not interchangeable, they would have to replace the whole logic board. The price of that repair would be more than what the laptop is even worth. Needless to say I walked out disappointed. The good news is that it ONLY does it when browsing Time Machine Backups, so I have relegated it to be a couch computer and won't use Time Machine....Show more →
This is a fear with the M1/M2 chips, though to be fair, the Windows laptop I purchased last year for travel (replacing a 12-year old Windows laptop) would have had the same problem if the GPU was wonky as well, I doubt it's economical to replace the CPU with integrated GPU. Nowadays, the lightweight Windows laptops also have soldered RAM. Hmmm, I guess laptop-wise it's just dealing with the Apple premium for RAM and SSD vs any sort of reparability. Desktops, on the other hand, advantage Windows. Of course, one could pay the Apple-care tax though I'm not familiar with how long that is available for.
Overall, happy times for computer users, it's a much better landscape I think stability wise than things were a couple of decades ago, no matter which platform one chooses.
A walk down memory lane regarding the 135 f/2 AI-s. I paid a premium price for a mint quality lens... one that would meet the exacting Rafael standard...
The 135mm focal length was a favorite so it isn't surprising that I added other lenses including three f/2.8 lenses, an AI, Q.C. and K as well as a couple of f/3.5 Q lenses. (The pre-AI lenses ALL had Nikon conversion kits installed.). Along the way I did a comparison of lens performance that I shared on the thread. I'll share it again.
Although I'd actually made the decision before this comparison, it confirmed I could get what I wanted at that focal length without needing to spend so much money OR to carry so much weight. I didn't have the f/3.5 lenses when I did the comparison but I use the lens quite a bit. When I want a bit wider lens it will be the K or the Q.C. I won't sell the f/2 but that is simply because it seems impossible to sell ANY lens. Were I shopping at the moment, I'd be looking for an older lens... something like THIS. (I would note that the slightly heavier/larger Q.C. and K lenses are easier to handle than the smaller AI lens. I feel the same way about the Q.C. version of the 200 f/4 lens)
CGrindahl wrote:
A walk down memory lane regarding the 135 f/2 AI-s. I paid a premium price for a mint quality lens... one that would meet the exacting Rafael standard...
The 135mm focal length was a favorite so it isn't surprising that I added other lenses including three f/2.8 lenses, an AI, Q.C. and K as well as a couple of f/3.5 Q lenses. (The pre-AI lenses ALL had Nikon conversion kits installed.). Along the way I did a comparison of lens performance that I shared on the thread. I'll share it again.
Although I'd actually made the decision before this comparison, it confirmed I could get what I wanted at that focal length without needing to spend so much money OR to carry so much weight. I didn't have the f/3.5 lenses when I did the comparison but I use the lens quite a bit. When I want a bit wider lens it will be the K or the Q.C. I won't sell the f/2 but that is simply because it seems impossible to sell ANY lens. Were I shopping at the moment, I'd be looking for an older lens... something like THIS. (I would note that the slightly heavier/larger Q.C. and K lenses are easier to handle than the smaller AI lens. I feel the same way about the Q.C. version of the 200 f/4 lens)
. They look good on you. I'm not not sure they would stand up against the abuse I put glasses through.
