[sleeping]

That bellows neither tilts nor shifts. The Bellows that do that for nikon (even the hong-kong ones) push upwards of $100.

Right, I was really suggesting it as a cheap way of getting hold of the folding bellows itself. Although you could maybe hack one into something more flexible by separating the front and rear mounts from the track.

AFAIK the only tilt-shift bellows for Nikon is the PB-4, and you’d be doing pretty well to get one for 100$.

the D80 is a DX sensor camera. as is my D3000. so that’s ok but do all nikon mounts interchange?

To some extent, but not universally. The basic Nikon mount hasn’t changed since the original Nikon F, but there are various clearance issues, e.g. with the aperture feeler on some cameras. The 3000 is pretty widely compatible though, it doesn’t have the AI tab that causes problems with some older equipment.

and have you done business with these folks? their approval rating is high but they are in hong kong which concerns me some.

I don’t know, I tend to assume all of those HK sellers are basically interchangeable, as long as they have decent feedback. The stuff all comes from the same sources I think. You do tend to be getting what you pay for – it’s never up to OEM standards, but I’ve never recieved anything actually non-functional.

[sleeping]

Tilt: chagning the angle of the lens relative to the image plane. This changes the angle of your plane of focus. Traditionally it’s used to put foreground objects at the bottom of the image and a distant background at the top in focus at the same time. Fake miniatures are done by tilting the “wrong” way.

Shift: moving the lens parallel to the image plane. This allows you to “look” up (down, sideways) while keeping the edges of things like buildings parallel.

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/tilt-shift

[sleeping]

You know, nless I’m misreading things you only seem to have a *tilt* lens here, there doesn’t seem to be any facility for shifting the lens for perspective correction. It’s not important for fake minuatures, though…

A section of actual bellows would probably be ideal for the connection between the lens and the camera: http://cgi.ebay.com/Macro-Bellows-Canon-350D-30D-40D-5D-1D-400D-Camera-/390220476774

[sleeping]

I haven’t written anything on this, I just posted that link…

[sleeping]

Another option I’d have would be to jerry rig one of my large format lenses onto a macro bellows attachment, but those things are kinda spendy.

Cheap ones on ebay run about 30-40$.

[sleeping]

Yeah, shorter focal length on the front lens = more magnification. Generally I haven’t been able to use the aperture on the front lens in this situation, though, it’s basically just acting as a modifier (a more powerful, better corrected closeup filter) for the rear one.

You might also think about something like this (it ought to have a fair bit of coverage, it was probably intended for enlarging 645 or 6×6 negs):

http://www.creativepro.com/article/build-a-tilt-shift-camera-lens-peanuts

[sleeping]

Next issue, anyone know how I can figure out what the effective magnification is?

Magnification in this context is simply the ratio between the size of an actual object and the size of the image being projected by the lens. So, assuming a sensor width of about 22mm (normal for Canon), and projecting that un-vignetted you’d have about 66mm of ruler showing, that would give you a magnification of about 22/66 or 1/3x.

Zooming to 80mm should approx, double that to about 2/3x, but to get into real macro territory, you’d need to mount it onto a longer lens.

Incidentally, if you go by the rough rule of thumb that stacked lenses gives you magnification approximately equal to the ratio of the focal length of the lenses, that suggests the focal length of the darlot lens is somewhere in the vicinity of 135mm.

[sleeping]

Of all the themes to generate this much discussion on what’s allowable or not allowable within the description wording, I would never have pegged this one to be that theme. The only thing I could reasonably disqualify at this point would be a zoom-during-exposure. Smoke ’em if ya got ’em.

I don’t think there was ever a way of policing a topic like this easily, not without turning the thread into a kind of spanish inquisition (and no one expects that ;-)). That’s partly why I figure it makes sense to err on the side of leniency here.

Also, the point of the topic, jokes aside, was in my mind more about getting people to think a little bit about what they’re doing in terms of placing themselves and the camera when shooting – the restriction is more of a means to an end than an end in itself, if that makes sense?

[sleeping]

You can actually get pre-cut foam for a lot of cameras’ light seals on ebay, too, if you want to think about doing the job yourself. The hardest part is often removing the remains of the old gummed up foam (it does depend on the exact camera model, though, some have little tricky bits)

[sleeping]

While it’s true that it’s not a prime, if all 3 shots were done the same way at the same focal length, that still qualifies, though, yes? I would think that’s the same as what us non-prime owners are doing – shooting 3 at the same focal length.

It certainly isn’t what I had in mind, but I guess it’s within the letter of the theme, put like that.

But it’s also in front of a zoom lens that slides around between 42 and 46mm. That’s not exactly set at a single focal length as the theme requires.

It’s probably close enough – a lot of lenses will actually change focal length more than that just focusing from one end of the range to the other….

[sleeping]

to further complicate the rules: what about lens reversal macro as one of the photos? (i.e., 2 shot normally, 1 with the same lens but reversed

Simply reverse mounting a lens alone doesn’t change the focal length, just the extension (but reverse mounting one lens in front of another lens is a different story).

[still undecided if i want to post 3 from the nifty-fifty or 3 from the 10mm…..]

They don’t all have to be from the same lens.

[sleeping]

The trouble with the SLR mount pancakes is the mount adapters are quite big (to accommodate the lack of a reflex mirror). If you look at the photo with the 135/2 above, the minolta lens mount is the silver ring to the left of the tripod foot, so the adapter is more than an inch long. The leica adapter is much thinner – 3 or 4 mm and the F3.5 collapsible elmar (or. more likely a Russian knock-off to try it out) collapses to be very tiny:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/boochap/3517859608/

[sleeping]

Yeah, but there are some fairly tiny leica mount lenses that will give it a bit more reach than the 16mm. I could get it in my jacket pocket with a 35mm summicron on it (including the hood). I wonder if a collapsible elmar would work….

[sleeping]

I’d kinda like to see a shot of it beside something for size comparison. The lens really dwarfs the camera in that last pic.

Yeah, that’s a fairly big lens (72mm filters, 6″ or so long not counting the adapter). Here it is with the normal lenses on a paperback:

NEX 3 to scale by awrose, on Flickr

[sleeping]

I understand the purpose of the theme

You mean gratuitous Transformers references? 😀

I don’t get it. Does that make me a dork? (or as my girls might say – dorkier?)

The opposite, I think….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime_(Transformers)

[Author]

Posts