Just came back from a little hike and overnight in the woods. I took a lot of shots this time :-) Have only been processing a few today. I think IŽll have to go to bed early today cause my whole body aches after trekking with a heavy backpack full of winter camping equipment. IŽve been in better shape
HereŽs a couple, the 2 first with the 105/2.5 ais and the last with the Nikkor-N.C 24mm f/2.8.
Continuing my theme of Indian temples, here is a really tall one on the Arabian Seashore. Murdeshwar is a town in Bhatkal Taluk of Uttara Kannada district in the state of Karnataka, India. Murdeshwar is another name of the Hindu god Shiva. Famous for the world's second tallest Shiva statue, the town lies on the coast of the Arabian Sea and is also famous for the Murdeshwar Temple. Murdeshwar has a railway station on the Mangalore-Mumbai Konkan railway route.
The tall "Gopura" - Gatehouse Tower at the temple entrance is 237 feet tall.
Amazing! Ram, that scene makes me think of Madurai. Haven't been there either but everytime I see such photos I am thinking those are amazing sights to go see. Very unique, nothing like that in north India
ramkumar999 wrote:
Continuing my theme of Indian temples, here is a really tall one on the Arabian Seashore. Murdeshwar is a town in Bhatkal Taluk of Uttara Kannada district in the state of Karnataka, India. Murdeshwar is another name of the Hindu god Shiva. Famous for the world's second tallest Shiva statue, the town lies on the coast of the Arabian Sea and is also famous for the Murdeshwar Temple. Murdeshwar has a railway station on the Mangalore-Mumbai Konkan railway route.
The tall "Gopura" - Gatehouse Tower at the temple entrance is 237 feet tall.
2 I would avoid it as it has a reputation for lube migration causing sticking aperture blades.
I recall reading about this recurring after repair.
I have a 55 f/3.5 that does not have the oil problem and is quite a nice lens. I hear good things about the more modern 60mm.
-Jay-
bs kite wrote:
Reference the Nikon 55mm f2.8 AiS Micro:
2 I would avoid it as it has a reputation for lube migration causing sticking aperture blades.
I recall reading about this recurring after repair.
I have a 55 f/3.5 that does not have the oil problem and is quite a nice lens. I hear good things about the more modern 60mm.
-Jay-
Yes, you've reminded me.... that is what Howard said today (B and H Pro camera dept) about the 55. He steered me toward the 60mm.. Anyway, have not made any decisions yet.
bs kite wrote:
Reference the Nikon 55mm f2.8 AiS Micro:
1. Do you have it or have you had it?
2. What is your opinion of it?
3. Have you used it to digitize film?
Thank you.
Robert
Hi Robert,
1. I have one. But have too the 55/3.5 ai and can tell you no difference with the more expensive 55/2.8.
2. Superb lens, both for macro and general photography
3. Yes a lot, but I used also the 55/3.5 AI with the same good results
Sorry because I have not the time now for more detailed comments (I know the other person here that used 55/2.8 or 3.5 for slide diditizing is John - perhaps he can help you with additional coments).
You can see my humble "old slides & negatives" album at flickr where 99% of images were made with ES-1 slide copying adapter or a PB-6 bellows with a PS-6 slide copying adapter (more recent digitizings):
I suggest using f/5.6 or at most f/8 for the 55/2.8 or the /3.5 (best performance optically) and of course RAW and base ISO of your body. I suppose a 24MP sensor is more than enough, but you can have bonus pixels with the D810 or D850.
Oh, last but not least, there are these two links where I got a lot of useful info:
Old slide (Fujichrome RDPIII Provia F 100 - pushed to ISO 200) from March 2002, Brazilian Savannah, Prata-MG.
F90x + Nikkor 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF at late afternoon.
Duped by D7200 + 20mm extension tube + Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 ai-s @f/5.6 + ES1 slide copy device. This combo makes a ~1:1 repro of the original slide. I had to add the BR2A+BR3 adapters between the lens and the ES-1 for allowing the proper focusing distance.
Oh, and just in case you think the 55/3.5 AI is cheaper because is a poorer performer, take a look at this old test I made:
Comparison of Micro-Nikkors 55mm f/2.8 ais and 55mm f/3.5 ai, with the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 ai + 20mm tube just for reference.
All lenses set around 1:2 magnification.
All shots taken with a D600 + tripod + built in flash + remote shutter + live view focusing in the centre.
I suggest a visualization at the original (largest) size to evaluate results: https://www.flickr.com/photos/labecoaves/14482001069/sizes/o/
Caution: N = 1 for each lens; copy variation can be a factor here.
Images like you have here, offer me some encouragement.
Why did you need the BR2A+BR3 in the bottom photo, but not the top one? Did the 20mm tube vs 32mm have something to do with that?
Robert
I am still learning to digitize, but for my purposes using a camera is more than enough and I would never use a drum scanner or film scanner again, since never saw a visible difference, on the contrary, in some instances depending on camera sensor/lens combo the camera digitizing delivers better results.
Oh, that diference is because one camera is FX (D610) and the other a DX crop (D7200), just to acquire a ~1:1 reproduction.
Have been busy lately, barely keeping my nose above water
Brought the kid out for the last day of the Lights to Night festival where they blocked out the roads and projected images on a number of civic district buildings
Lots of stuff going on - carnival tents, buskers, art installations - but I had my hands full not losing sight of my kid
I am sometimes gripped by this fear he will wander into the crowd and just, well, disappear
Here's one of the old city hall, now the National Gallery
X-T20 with the 24/2 at 24mm with the speed booster
