Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A penny for your thoughts. 105mm f/2.8 + 50mm f/1.4

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 2:31:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I was able to pick up a 52mm reversing ring this evening for these two
lenses and tried adding an old 50mm F/1.4 AI Nikkor to my 105mm F/2.8D Micro
Nikkor and I must say I'm really impressed at the improvement of
magnification over just using the 105mm. These were shot at a 45* angle at
f/32 with both the camera and the flash handheld. The DOF is way too
shallow for handheld, but this was a quick experiment.

This was shot using the 50mm in front of the105mm.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_a.jpg

This is maximum magnification of the 05mm without anything in front of it.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_b.jpg

Thanks guys for the great tip, I'll be breaking the old tripod out during
the week when I have some free time.



Rita
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 2:31:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

> I was able to pick up a 52mm reversing ring this evening for these two
> lenses and tried adding an old 50mm F/1.4 AI Nikkor to my 105mm F/2.8D Micro
> Nikkor and I must say I'm really impressed at the improvement of
> magnification over just using the 105mm. These were shot at a 45* angle at
> f/32 with both the camera and the flash handheld. The DOF is way too
> shallow for handheld, but this was a quick experiment.
>
> This was shot using the 50mm in front of the105mm.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_a.jpg
>
> This is maximum magnification of the 05mm without anything in front of it.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_b.jpg
>
> Thanks guys for the great tip, I'll be breaking the old tripod out during
> the week when I have some free time.


Groovy. Thanks for the report on that combo. Do you know what the
magnification works out to? Looks super clean & sharp.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 3:33:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:

> Groovy. Thanks for the report on that combo. Do you know what the
> magnification works out to? Looks super clean & sharp.

Thanks, I've learned quickly to time the shutter release with the unstable
in and out movement of handheld shots. :^)

I think this will be great on a tripod and if shooting a flat object that is
90* to the plane of the lens.

I'm not sure what the magnification factor works out to; I was hoping
someone out here could tell me. I think there was a formula posted for this
a week ago?



Rita
Related resources
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 12:22:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>
>>Groovy. Thanks for the report on that combo. Do you know what the
>>magnification works out to? Looks super clean & sharp.
>
>
> Thanks, I've learned quickly to time the shutter release with the unstable
> in and out movement of handheld shots. :^)
>
> I think this will be great on a tripod and if shooting a flat object that is
> 90* to the plane of the lens.
>
> I'm not sure what the magnification factor works out to; I was hoping
> someone out here could tell me. I think there was a formula posted for this
> a week ago?

The date measures 395 pixels and on a real penny, 4mm or 1/8" so
3160dpi. The D70 sensor is 23.7mm wide (3008 pixels) so 30mm wide =
1:1.3 (more than 1:1 magnification. Though I'm the world's wost
mathemetician. That's about what I get out of my 70-200 plus 2x TC & +2
diopter though the quality is pretty iffy on that arrangement. When I
add a reversed 200mm I get about 4x with fairly atrocious quality
depending on the subject.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 12:39:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:

> The date measures 395 pixels and on a real penny, 4mm or 1/8" so
> 3160dpi. The D70 sensor is 23.7mm wide (3008 pixels) so 30mm wide =
> 1:1.3 (more than 1:1 magnification. Though I'm the world's wost
> mathemetician. That's about what I get out of my 70-200 plus 2x TC &
> +2 diopter though the quality is pretty iffy on that arrangement.
> When I add a reversed 200mm I get about 4x with fairly atrocious
> quality depending on the subject.

I just took the lazy way out and measured the date on the second picture,
which should be 1:1 since this is the maximum magnification of this lens and
was 2" on my monitor. Then I measured the first picture, which gave 5.5".
If I did this correctly I have a magnification factor of 2.75 X, which
really isn't bad. I just hate how close the front of the lens has to be
from the subject. Lighting is difficult.

Anyway, I had a chance to try this setup outside today. I'm finding it
really difficult to manage proper lighting, keeping the camera steady, and
staying focused on a moving insect. I got a shot of an inchworm; well this
guy was not much bigger than a half an inch and about 1mm in diameter. As
you can see some of the lighting issues I had since I had the camera in one
hand and the SB800 in the other.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Inch_b.jpg

Do you know of a way I can keep the same magnification factor and increase
the subject/lens distance to several inches? I have to come up with a
better lighting technique that is easier to use. Thanks.



Rita
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 12:39:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>
>>The date measures 395 pixels and on a real penny, 4mm or 1/8" so
>>3160dpi. The D70 sensor is 23.7mm wide (3008 pixels) so 30mm wide =
>>1:1.3 (more than 1:1 magnification. Though I'm the world's wost
>>mathemetician. That's about what I get out of my 70-200 plus 2x TC &
>>+2 diopter though the quality is pretty iffy on that arrangement.
>>When I add a reversed 200mm I get about 4x with fairly atrocious
>>quality depending on the subject.
>
>
> I just took the lazy way out and measured the date on the second picture,
> which should be 1:1 since this is the maximum magnification of this lens and
> was 2" on my monitor. Then I measured the first picture, which gave 5.5".
> If I did this correctly I have a magnification factor of 2.75 X, which
> really isn't bad. I just hate how close the front of the lens has to be
> from the subject. Lighting is difficult.


Well, don't trust my math. Take apicture of a mm scale to make it easy.


It seems like lighting contrast becomes more extreme with macros. Anyone
know if that's real?


>
> Anyway, I had a chance to try this setup outside today. I'm finding it
> really difficult to manage proper lighting, keeping the camera steady, and
> staying focused on a moving insect. I got a shot of an inchworm; well this
> guy was not much bigger than a half an inch and about 1mm in diameter. As
> you can see some of the lighting issues I had since I had the camera in one
> hand and the SB800 in the other.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Inch_b.jpg
>
> Do you know of a way I can keep the same magnification factor and increase
> the subject/lens distance to several inches?


A longer focal length is the only trick for that I believe. I'm a foot
away from the front element with the 70-200 plus diopter, that one only
goes to 5 feet without the diopter.


> I have to come up with a
> better lighting technique that is easier to use. Thanks.





--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 2:15:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> writes:
> As you can see some of the lighting issues I had since I had the
> camera in one hand and the SB800 in the other.

Try using the little stand that comes with the SB800 and operate it as
a wireless remote (set the D70 to commander mode in custom setting 19,
and put the SB800 in remote mode, channel 3, group A). See the SB800
instruction manual for how to do this--it's confusing but it's worth
the effort of getting to understand it.

> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Inch_b.jpg

Nice shot.

> Do you know of a way I can keep the same magnification factor and
> increase the subject/lens distance to several inches? I have to
> come up with a better lighting technique that is easier to use. Thanks.

The basic answer is use a longer lens. For example, reverse your 105mm
on the front of a 200mm lens.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 4:57:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <117tccqf1ma5i95@news.supernews.com>,
Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

[ ... ]

>Anyway, I had a chance to try this setup outside today. I'm finding it
>really difficult to manage proper lighting, keeping the camera steady, and
>staying focused on a moving insect. I got a shot of an inchworm; well this
>guy was not much bigger than a half an inch and about 1mm in diameter. As
>you can see some of the lighting issues I had since I had the camera in one
>hand and the SB800 in the other.

It might help somewhat to set up a bracket to hold the SB-800 in
a fixed relationship to the camera and lens.

>http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Inch_b.jpg
>
>Do you know of a way I can keep the same magnification factor and increase
>the subject/lens distance to several inches? I have to come up with a
>better lighting technique that is easier to use. Thanks.

What I would suggest will take some searching, but will handle
the lighting and the closeup all at once -- since IIRC you are using a
Nikon D70.

Look for an old Medical Nikkor. It is a 200mm f/5.6 lens, with
a set of screw-in diopter lenses and a built-in ring flash. It is too
old to work as an automatic exposure setup -- but it is designed to
handle that part for you. You set the ASA (ISO) on one ring, and the
reproduction ratio desired (determined by the selection of diopter
lenses), and this sets your aperture correctly.

You are fairly far away at the maximum ratio, and a lot more
distant at the lesser ones.

The only problem is that at a minimum ISO of 200, it is too
bright for the highest reproduction ratios. The solutions are:

1) The special cord which connects the power supply to the flash
head which includes a resistance and reduces the brightness
of the flash. (I wish that I could find the information, so I
could make my own.)

2) Add a 2X ND filter between the lens and the stack of diopters.

Oh yes -- outdoors, you will need a *long* extension cord, or to
find the battery pack alternative to the AC powered supply, or to build
an inverter power supply to run from batteries which are more readily
available. With this, you could add a switchable resistor or switchable
capacitors so you can reduce the flash power without a special cord.

Aside from the built-in ring flash, there are also four small
incandescent bulbs turned on by a pushbutton on the housing for a
focusing light.

O.K. Here is a list of the reproduction ratios, with the
focusing distance from the front of the lens:


======================================================================
1/15 Master lens only 10' 11.99" 3350 mm
1/8 1/8x + master 5' 10.08" 1780 mm
1/6 1/6x + master 4' 4.64" 1337 mm
1/4 1/4x + master 2' 11.04" 890 mm
1/3 1/4x + 1/6x + master 2' 10." 635 mm
1/2 1/2x + master 1' 5.32" 440 mm
2/3 1/2x + 1/4x + master 1' 0.72" 232 mm
1x 1x + master 8.66" 220 mm
1.5x 1X + 1/2X + master 5.98" 152 mm
2x 2x + master 4.17" 106 mm
3x 2x + 1x + master 2.76" 70 mm
======================================================================

At 200 ASA (ISO) you are blocked from using 1:1 1.5:1 2:1 and
3:1 ratios, unless you can reduce the flash output.

The maximum distance will require an ASA (ISO) of 500 or
greater.

The standard battery power pack requires a 240V battery, and
four D cells to power the focusing lights.

There is another feature which will be useless with the D70.
That of imprinting the reproduction ratio (or a frame number) onto the
bottom-right corner of the image -- because this is in part of the area
not covered by the 1.5 crop factor of the D70's sensor. It can be
turned off, so there is no scattered light from it.

I have measured and verified that the flash sync voltage is
within the safe range listed for the D70 -- and the manual says that the
camera may be used with this lens -- with an AS-15 flash adaptor to
provide a PC connector.

If you want to see an example shot with this lens, the following
is one of a spider, which had taken up residence between the storm
window and the main window of our bathroom last summer, and who lasted
well into the fall.

This was taken through the bathroom window, and through some of
the webs woven by this spider. And it was handheld. It was at the
2/3:1 ratio -- the closest that I could get without a ND filter or the
modified power pack cord.

http://www2.d-and-d.com/misc/EXAMPLE/spider.jpg

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 1:46:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:

> Try using the little stand that comes with the SB800 and operate it as
> a wireless remote (set the D70 to commander mode in custom setting 19,
> and put the SB800 in remote mode, channel 3, group A). See the SB800
> instruction manual for how to do this--it's confusing but it's worth
> the effort of getting to understand it.

That's a great idea. I'm using the SC-28 cord now and this has a habit of
flopping in my way on occasion. I'm not sure if the stand will work for me
since I tend to get in awkward positions. I need to come up with some type
of gooseneck arrangement that will give me mobility and speed of positioning
the flash. I'll have to give the "commander mode" a shot when I get the
gooseneck.

>> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Inch_b.jpg

> Nice shot.

Thanks.

> The basic answer is use a longer lens. For example, reverse your
> 105mm on the front of a 200mm lens.

The only lens I have in that range is the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, which has a
77mm front. If I put either the 50mm or the 105mm (52mm front) in front
won't I have serious vignetting problems attributed to the large difference
in diameter?



Rita
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 1:46:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> writes:
> The only lens I have in that range is the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, which has a
> 77mm front. If I put either the 50mm or the 105mm (52mm front) in front
> won't I have serious vignetting problems attributed to the large difference
> in diameter?

I really don't know. You could try a diopter on the 70-200. Canon
has a two-element +2 in 77mm and B+W has a +4 that's probably one
element. If you add a teleconverter then the +4 should put you in the
2:1 range.

The Medical Nikkor is a weird old lens and the ring flash will give
you very flat lighting. That may not be what you want for this type
of shot. Tamron has a 180mm AF macro that's gotten rave reviews, and
will let you do TTL flash metering and so forth. You might look into
that as well.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 1:46:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>>The basic answer is use a longer lens. For example, reverse your
>>105mm on the front of a 200mm lens.
>
>
> The only lens I have in that range is the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, which has a
> 77mm front. If I put either the 50mm or the 105mm (52mm front) in front
> won't I have serious vignetting problems attributed to the large difference
> in diameter?


Not necessarily. When you are zoomed in, it's not using the edges
especially with a teleconverter. I got the diopter Paul Rubin mentions
but I could have maybe got something smaller & a step down ring. I put
my little 28-200 (reversed) on the 70-200 & with everything cranked to
the max there is no vignetting but no room toadjust either. That is
about 4x magnification and it brings me back to having to mash the lens
against the subject but I'm sure that's nearly unavoidable at that kind
of magnification.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 1:48:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:

>> I just took the lazy way out and measured the date on the second
>> picture, which should be 1:1 since this is the maximum magnification
>> of this lens and was 2" on my monitor. Then I measured the first
>> picture, which gave 5.5". If I did this correctly I have a
>> magnification factor of 2.75 X, which really isn't bad. I just hate
>> how close the front of the lens has to be from the subject. Lighting is
>> difficult.
>
>
> Well, don't trust my math. Take apicture of a mm scale to make it
> easy.

LOL. It's not that. I glanced down on my desk and I had a ruler sitting
there, this sparked a brainstorm. I figured this should give me a decent
guesstimate of what the magnification factor would be since I know the
picture taken with the plain 105 should be pretty close to 1:1.

> It seems like lighting contrast becomes more extreme with macros.
> Anyone know if that's real?

I use the diffuser on the SB800 so I can make a reasonable attempt to not
get that "washed out" look.

> A longer focal length is the only trick for that I believe. I'm a foot
> away from the front element with the 70-200 plus diopter, that one
> only goes to 5 feet without the diopter.

Do you know if changing the reversed lens to a different focal length will
increase/decrease the subject/lens front distance? My assumption is it will
not since this is a set parameter for the digital sensor or film plane.

I'm with you thinking the diopter might do the trick on the 70-200mm. I
really like learning while experimenting and I'm having fun doing it.
Thanks for all the wonderful tips.



Rita
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 1:49:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DoN. Nichols wrote:

> It might help somewhat to set up a bracket to hold the SB-800 in
> a fixed relationship to the camera and lens.

This is what I currently use with the 105mm and it works great since I have
great subject/lens front distance.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Bracket.jpg

I'll have to find some gooseneck material and rig something up if I want to
use the 50mm attached to the 105mm.

> What I would suggest will take some searching, but will handle
> the lighting and the closeup all at once -- since IIRC you are using a
> Nikon D70.
>
> Look for an old Medical Nikkor. It is a 200mm f/5.6 lens, with
> a set of screw-in diopter lenses and a built-in ring flash. It is too
> old to work as an automatic exposure setup -- but it is designed to
> handle that part for you. You set the ASA (ISO) on one ring, and the
> reproduction ratio desired (determined by the selection of diopter
> lenses), and this sets your aperture correctly.

Thanks for the great tip, Don. I see one listed on eBay and it looks like
one hell of a kit that goes along with it. What is the current market value
for this setup?



Rita
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:18:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> writes:
> This is what I currently use with the 105mm and it works great since I have
> great subject/lens front distance.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Bracket.jpg
>
> I'll have to find some gooseneck material and rig something up if I want to
> use the 50mm attached to the 105mm.

I have a Bogen 3059 side arm that I use for copy photography:

http://www.adorama.com/BG3059.html

It mounts on top of a tripod column (replacing the head) and lets you
attach two tripod heads to the ends. I don't know if that gives you
enough freedom of motion, but I could see it as a handy way of
positioning an SB800 using the SB800's tripod-mountable stand.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 10:19:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04@aol.com> wrote:

>LOL. It's not that. I glanced down on my desk and I had a ruler sitting
>there, this sparked a brainstorm. I figured this should give me a decent
>guesstimate of what the magnification factor would be since I know the
>picture taken with the plain 105 should be pretty close to 1:1.

Can't remember what camera you're using, but if it's digital you
should be able to easily calculate the ratio from the number of
pixels between the millimeter marks. All you need to know is
the number of pix across your sensor and the size of the sensor.
[Okay, pixel positions aren't exactly the same as sensor cells,
but it all works out pretty much the same]

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 12:06:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <117uql3bha7ei8f@news.supernews.com>,
Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
>DoN. Nichols wrote:
>
>> It might help somewhat to set up a bracket to hold the SB-800 in
>> a fixed relationship to the camera and lens.
>
>This is what I currently use with the 105mm and it works great since I have
>great subject/lens front distance.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Bracket.jpg

That is an interesting fixture. It looks like the flash on the
right is the SB-800 (or one in the same line, even back to the SB-28 or
so, since you are using a flash sync cord and an AS-15 adaptor or
something similar.

But what is the flash on the articulated arm to the left?

One thing that I would do with the articulated arm is to use a
file (or a milling machine with a rotary table) to round the corners
into a single continuous curve -- so they don't hang on something or
gouge your arm.

>I'll have to find some gooseneck material and rig something up if I want to
>use the 50mm attached to the 105mm.

I would suggest that you visit a professional audio store, and
look at the gooseneck mounts for microphones. There are even ones which
fork two goosenecks from a single mount for stereo microphone mounting.

If you need a way to mount the gooseneck to your bracket, I make
adaptors from tripod thread to the 5/8x27 microphone thread. (They
normally go to people who want to mount microphones on the lightweight
light stands.)

>> What I would suggest will take some searching, but will handle
>> the lighting and the closeup all at once -- since IIRC you are using a
>> Nikon D70.
>>
>> Look for an old Medical Nikkor. It is a 200mm f/5.6 lens, with
>> a set of screw-in diopter lenses and a built-in ring flash. It is too
>> old to work as an automatic exposure setup -- but it is designed to
>> handle that part for you. You set the ASA (ISO) on one ring, and the
>> reproduction ratio desired (determined by the selection of diopter
>> lenses), and this sets your aperture correctly.
>
>Thanks for the great tip, Don. I see one listed on eBay and it looks like
>one hell of a kit that goes along with it. What is the current market value
>for this setup?

That looks like a nice one. I need to find a source for the
focusing lamps (I'm down to the four in the unit now).

The manual I don't have, and if you win it, I would appreciate a
scan of the manual -- unless it is identical to the contents of the
section in the _Nikon F Nikkormat Handbook of Photograpy_, pages 6-41
though 6-47.

And I see that they actually have the keys to the lock on the
case. Another thing that I don't have, though I could make one if I
felt the need.

But the real nice feature here is the battery power pack.

The case will hold the lens (cradled in the curved end pieces),
with a Nikon-F body (with plain pentaprism, not the metering ones). I
haven't checked whether the D70 will fit with the lens mounted, but I
suspect not. (Not that that matters, I have too many other uses for the
D70, while I have spare Nikon-F bodies, so I can keep one with the lens
for film work.

As for what I paid for it -- I honestly don't remember. I
bought it at a photo swap meet, perhaps ten years ago or more. I doubt
that I would have bought it at the time if it had been selling for more
than $200.00 -- but inflation takes its toll, and this may well be a
reasonable price, considering the completeness of the kit. Especially
since you have people from all over fighting for it.

I'd best send this so you can see it before the auction closes.

Best of luck,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 1:06:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DoN. Nichols wrote:

> That is an interesting fixture. It looks like the flash on the
> right is the SB-800 (or one in the same line, even back to the SB-28
> or so, since you are using a flash sync cord and an AS-15 adaptor or
> something similar.
>
> But what is the flash on the articulated arm to the left?

It's a cheapy $20 flash that I use for back fill. The nice thing about it
is I don't need wires and it is remote triggered by the SB800.

> One thing that I would do with the articulated arm is to use a
> file (or a milling machine with a rotary table) to round the corners
> into a single continuous curve -- so they don't hang on something or
> gouge your arm.

Good idea, it is now officially on the Honey-do list.

>> I'll have to find some gooseneck material and rig something up if I
>> want to use the 50mm attached to the 105mm.
>
> I would suggest that you visit a professional audio store, and
> look at the gooseneck mounts for microphones. There are even ones
> which fork two goosenecks from a single mount for stereo microphone
> mounting.
>
> If you need a way to mount the gooseneck to your bracket, I make
> adaptors from tripod thread to the 5/8x27 microphone thread. (They
> normally go to people who want to mount microphones on the lightweight
> light stands.)

That will definitely do the trick. I found a temporary solution, maybe
permanent if it works out for all situations. I put a ballhead on a compact
StroboFrame yesterday and the Flash is folded in a position that seems to be
working well. I also picked up a rear cap and a 46mm filter yesterday and
installed the filter in the cap after some cutting and hot-gluing. This is
working great. I no longer have to be excessively overprotective of the
lens.

I couldn't find anything really exciting to shoot last night so I took this
pic of a dandelion seed after sunset. This was handheld.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Dand.jpg

Here's one of an ant on a red flower petal. It's a bit blurry, but I like
the positioning of the light and shadowing.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Ant.jpg

> That looks like a nice one. I need to find a source for the
> focusing lamps (I'm down to the four in the unit now).

Have you considered halogen Mag-Lite flashlight bulbs?

> I'd best send this so you can see it before the auction closes.

Thanks. I'm still uncertain if this is the way I really want to go since
I'm looking for portability.



Rita
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 1:07:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:

> I have a Bogen 3059 side arm that I use for copy photography:
>
> http://www.adorama.com/BG3059.html
>
> It mounts on top of a tripod column (replacing the head) and lets you
> attach two tripod heads to the ends. I don't know if that gives you
> enough freedom of motion, but I could see it as a handy way of
> positioning an SB800 using the SB800's tripod-mountable stand.

This does look really interesting and might open up some possibilities for
me. Thanks.



Rita
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 1:38:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ken Tough wrote:

> Can't remember what camera you're using, but if it's digital you
> should be able to easily calculate the ratio from the number of
> pixels between the millimeter marks. All you need to know is
> the number of pix across your sensor and the size of the sensor.
> [Okay, pixel positions aren't exactly the same as sensor cells,
> but it all works out pretty much the same]

Thanks. I'm using a D70.


Rita
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 2:58:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1181ckb8li38fe2@news.supernews.com>,
Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
>DoN. Nichols wrote:
>
>> That is an interesting fixture. It looks like the flash on the
>> right is the SB-800 (or one in the same line, even back to the SB-28
>> or so, since you are using a flash sync cord and an AS-15 adaptor or
>> something similar.
>>
>> But what is the flash on the articulated arm to the left?
>
>It's a cheapy $20 flash that I use for back fill. The nice thing about it
>is I don't need wires and it is remote triggered by the SB800.

O.K. It simply detects the other flash, and triggers from that?
(I somehow doubt that it recognizes the "Commander" mode of the D70. :-)

>> One thing that I would do with the articulated arm is to use a
>> file (or a milling machine with a rotary table) to round the corners
>> into a single continuous curve -- so they don't hang on something or
>> gouge your arm.
>
>Good idea, it is now officially on the Honey-do list.

O.K. Does the "Honey" who has to "do" this have machine tools,
or just files and drills? (Looking at the photo of the bracket, I
suspect the latter, but I'm not sure. :-)

>>> I'll have to find some gooseneck material and rig something up if I
>>> want to use the 50mm attached to the 105mm.
>>
>> I would suggest that you visit a professional audio store, and
>> look at the gooseneck mounts for microphones. There are even ones
>> which fork two goosenecks from a single mount for stereo microphone
>> mounting.
>>
>> If you need a way to mount the gooseneck to your bracket, I make
>> adaptors from tripod thread to the 5/8x27 microphone thread. (They
>> normally go to people who want to mount microphones on the lightweight
>> light stands.)
>
>That will definitely do the trick. I found a temporary solution, maybe
>permanent if it works out for all situations. I put a ballhead on a compact
>StroboFrame yesterday and the Flash is folded in a position that seems to be
>working well.

Great!

> I also picked up a rear cap and a 46mm filter yesterday and
>installed the filter in the cap after some cutting and hot-gluing. This is
>working great. I no longer have to be excessively overprotective of the
>lens.

A good move. I think that I would be likely to thread the end
cap to accept the filter as a screw-in, but then I do have the machine
tools to do it -- and no great confidence in hot glue for materials like
that. :-)

>I couldn't find anything really exciting to shoot last night so I took this
>pic of a dandelion seed after sunset. This was handheld.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Dand.jpg

I like that shot.

>Here's one of an ant on a red flower petal. It's a bit blurry, but I like
>the positioning of the light and shadowing.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Ant.jpg

Also nice -- though I would have liked it if the ant had turned
around about 90 degrees CCW,

>> That looks like a nice one. I need to find a source for the
>> focusing lamps (I'm down to the four in the unit now).
>
>Have you considered halogen Mag-Lite flashlight bulbs?

Several problems with that:

1) The base is threaded, not the PR style used for the larger
flashlight bulbs, and the smaller Mini-Maglite ones would not
fit without a serious adaptor.

2) The envelope style is rather strange. Typically, most
flashlight bulbs have a weird shaped projection in the front
center where the bulb was sealed after being evacuated.

Old screw-base lamps for radio dial lights were often pretty
close to spherical -- with the pinch-off in the base with the
wires.

But these are as though you took one of the spherical ones,
heated it, and pressed in on the front while it was hot. This
is necessary to clear the lens screen in front of the lamps (it
is crowded in there, with the lamps and the circular flash lamp
too.

3) The voltage is wrong for a mini-maglite (which runs from 3V
(two 1.5V cells), while these are 6V lamps, all connected in
parallel so if one burns out, the other three remain in
operation. Hooking up mini-maglite bulbs would require hooking
them in series-parallel, so when one burns out, two go dark.
Otherwise, the Mini-maglite bulbs could be fitted with the old
bases and adapted.

What I might consider for the task is some of the high output
"white" LEDs, with a complete re-wiring of the voltage needed.

>> I'd best send this so you can see it before the auction closes.
>
>Thanks. I'm still uncertain if this is the way I really want to go since
>I'm looking for portability.

Well -- it is now closed (yesterday evening) at $462.65.

You could have had the portability with the battery pack which
was part of this one (and not part of my kit). You would have had to go
either to a professional photo store, or perhaps to Batteries Plus to
get the 150V battery which it runs from. The battery pack (or the AC
operated one) lives in a leather pouch with a shoulder strap. The AC
operated one has a power cord of perhaps ten or twelve feet (I've not
actually measured it). But it is old enough to have only a two-prong
power plug -- not the three-prong for safety grounding found on almost
everything today. :-)

At this point, I have no idea how frequently these show up on
eBay. This may be a once in every two years appearance (based on the
number of bids which it received), or it might show up once a month.

Do you have photo swap meets in your area? (Check the
classifieds for notices about them.) You might well find one for less.

If you even just find the battery pack, pick it up against
future acquisition of the lens with its full set of screw-on +diopter
lenses. (Note that the strongest of these lenses has no front female
threads, it is intended to be the front-most element (if fitted),
because its curvature is too much to allow any other position for it.)

If you find it, and decide to not get the lens, *I* would be
interested in the battery pack.

But, I may design my own someday -- designed to run from a more
modern battery. Perhaps I could design it to run from the same battery
pack that the D70 uses, to minimize the number of battery styles which I
need. (I would prefer to design it to work from four NiMH D cells, if I
can find them affordably. :-)

The only thing that I could see missing from the set which was
on eBay (or at least not mentioned in the auction description) was the
safety cover, to keep you from getting shocks from the Nikon F's strange
flash shoe which puts a repeat of the PC contact (which is at a fairly
high voltage) pretty close to your forehead. But since you would not be
using it with a Nikon F, this doesn't really matter. :-)

Best of luck,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 2:58:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) writes:
> But, I may design my own someday -- designed to run from a more
> modern battery. Perhaps I could design it to run from the same battery
> pack that the D70 uses, to minimize the number of battery styles which I
> need. (I would prefer to design it to work from four NiMH D cells, if I
> can find them affordably. :-)

http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPR...
!