meta user
network profile
| bio | website | coderscentral.blogspot.com |
|---|---|---|
| location | Colorado Springs, CO | |
| age | 48 | |
| visits | member for | 2 years, 10 months |
| seen | May 14 at 12:00 | |
| stats | profile views | 302 |
Started programming on a Control Data mainframe in FORTRAN IV, back when that was still a new thing. Was apparently quite masochistic, because I kept programming anyway. For that matter, I still do...
Gold C++ badge #20
Gold C badge #12
Legendary badge #35
|
Mar 28 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
|
Mar 25 |
awarded | Caucus |
|
Mar 25 |
awarded | Constituent |
|
Mar 18 |
awarded | Guru |
|
Mar 11 |
awarded | Good Answer |
|
Feb 5 |
awarded | Good Answer |
|
Jan 25 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
|
Nov 7 |
awarded | Enlightened |
|
Oct 26 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
|
Oct 24 |
comment |
Should the depth of field in the viewfinder be the same as the final images with the aperture set to wide open? @BBking: One body, tripod, swapping FS. |
|
Oct 23 |
comment |
Should the depth of field in the viewfinder be the same as the final images with the aperture set to wide open? @MattGrum: That matches my experience pretty closely -- but the question here is how closely what you see in the viewfinder will match what you'll see in the picture. At least with most current stock viewfinders, the answer is "not very" (though manual focus cameras matched much more closely). |
|
Oct 22 |
comment |
Should the depth of field in the viewfinder be the same as the final images with the aperture set to wide open? @mattdm: In each case I focused so the near end of the DoF (as it appeared in the viewfinder) just about included the 5 of 135 (I.e., it was visibly blurred, but still readable). With the "L" screen, the apparent DoF matched that in the picture pretty closely (the 5 is blurred, but readable). With the stock ("G") screen, that 5 was readable in the viewfinder, but isn't even close in the picture (and I'm confident that reducing the reproduction size won't make it readable either). |
|
Oct 22 |
comment |
Should the depth of field in the viewfinder be the same as the final images with the aperture set to wide open? @whatsisname: If I hadn't changed the focus, then yes, they'd be identical. What I did, however, what changed the focus so that in both cases, what I saw in the viewfinder was the 5 in 135 being visibly blurred, but still readable. |
|
Oct 22 |
revised |
Should the depth of field in the viewfinder be the same as the final images with the aperture set to wide open? Added pictures demonstrating effect being discussed. |
|
Oct 22 |
comment |
Should the depth of field in the viewfinder be the same as the final images with the aperture set to wide open? @MattGrum: Then you obviously don't know anything about any of them, because a different viewfinder screen will make a difference even with a much slower lens like f/5.6 or f/8, not just lenses wider than f/2.8. Yes, the more diffuse screens are recommended primarily for faster lenses, but they make a difference, regardless. |
|
Oct 22 |
comment |
Should the depth of field in the viewfinder be the same as the final images with the aperture set to wide open? While true, it may not necessarily apply. The simple fact is that (on most reasonably current SLRs) the depth of field you see in the viewfinder is radically different from what you're going to get in the picture (and that remains true even when/if you activate DoF preview). |
|
Oct 22 |
answered | Should the depth of field in the viewfinder be the same as the final images with the aperture set to wide open? |
|
Oct 21 |
comment |
What lens and mount is this Sigma lens for Canon? Looks like Canon FD (aka "breechlock"). As to "what is the lens", apparently a 55-200/4-5.6. But you apparently knew that already, so I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking what cameras it'll fit? If so, I believe that's pretty much any pre-EOS Canon SLR since the Canon F-1. Before that there was an FL mount that was somewhat compatible -- you could use an FL lens on an FD body, but I'm not sure about the reverse (and you probably don't care -- FL mount would be some pretty ancient bodies). |
|
Oct 21 |
answered | A budget tripod for astrophotography ball-head or 3-way pan-head? |
|
Oct 21 |
comment |
What lenses can I mount on Canon that will give me a different, exotic look for portrait photography? @ArsenZahray: from Novoflex (among others) makes a Leica-R to EOS adapter. If you're planning on a more permanent conversion, you might consider Leitax instead. Since Leica discontinued the R series, you can pick up those lenses relatively inexpensively, though the mirrorless cameras (micro-4/3, NEX, etc.) can take almost any SLR lens with the right adapter, which has driven up prices on lots of otherwise obsolete SLR lenses. |
