Sunday, January 29, 2012
Umm. Wow. Been awhile, huh? Well, here’s one to hold you over until I decide to start blogging again.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Man, I really thought I had already posted this picture before, but my rudimentary method for keeping track of this stuff suggests that I haven’t. So, maybe it’s a re-post, maybe not. Doesn’t really matter, I’m sure even if it is, you don’t remember it from last time. In fact, I could probably replay the first 250 pictures that I posted and nobody would say a thing. Perhaps I’ll do that someday. But not today. No sir, this is not that day.
This is a rose. It’s yellow. Thus, the title of the post. I took it on a cloudy day last year, in the rose garden at Woodland Park. I’ve found that cloudy days work a lot better for rose pictures than sunny days, because you get a truer representation of the color than when you’ve got bright sunshine everywhere. It can be a bit challenging because of the lack of light, but it can make for some nice shots.
This one was taken with my Minolta-mount Kiron 105 macro that I found on eBay. If you’re the kind of person that likes to scour eBay for old lenses, I *highly* recommend trying to track one of these guys down. I’m always amazed at how nice the shots come out of this guy. It’s been awhile since I’ve busted it out, probably since around the time I took this picture. 😉 Man, I gotta get on that.
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Kiron 105mm macro (Minolta mount). 1/160s, ISO 200. Aperture unknown.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Hey, I’m back! Sorry I missed the past couple days, I was out of town for work. Here’s a flower to make up for it. As usual, I don’t know what type of flower it is, anybody got any suggestions? I feel bad because I haven’t yet worked up the motivation to go out and take any flower or bug pictures yet this spring. There are definitely things blooming, I just haven’t felt like taking any pictures, kind of sad really. We’ll see if that changes anytime soon I guess.
Also, I can’t remember what lens I took this with. I’m fairly sure I used my old (Minolta mount) Kiron 105mm macro. The EXIF data (which I usually use to remind myself what I used) claims a focal length of 50mm and f/1.4. I’m pretty sure that’s what my camera tosses in there by default if you’re using a lens that doesn’t communicate that kind of information, and that’s the only lens I have that doesn’t communicate that information, so I think it’s a pretty good guess. But I’m still not sure. (And, to be fair, that’s also the result I’d get if I either used extension tubes or my reverse-mount, so it’s not quite as much of a slam dunk as I made it sound.. But if I was using either the tubes or the reverse mount, I’d be quite a bit closer in.. so…
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Kiron 105mm macro (I think). 1/160s, aperture unknown, focal length unknown. ISO 100.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Wow, busy week, what can I say? Here’s a shot of a rose, in just under the wire on Friday.
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Kiron 105mm Macro lens. 1/250s, aperture unknown, ISO 200.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Welcome to December! Hope you didn’t have any trouble getting here. I’m kind of breaking one of my sort-of quasi rules today, in that I’m already posting another picture of some roses from across the street, when I already just posted one a couple weeks ago.
But!! There’s a reason for it. Somebody asked me recently about mounting non-Canon lenses on a modern Canon dSLR. It’s true that I talked about it the last time I posted a shot from this particular camera/lens combination (as well as a couple other times over the years), but it never hurts to cover it again. To recap: this was taken with an old Kiron 105mm macro lens that was built with an old Minolta mount. When I say “old”, I mean really old, back when they used actual physical actuators to control the aperture, none of this electronic craziness. I mean GOSH.
I won’t bore you with the full description of why that’s interesting again, especially when I already linked to a whole post talking about it. BUT, I whipped up a little illustration of some of the points I was talking about when I was talking to the reader that was asking, so I figured that was of general enough interest that I should share it here as well. I was talking about how lenses that are built for different camera mounts are expecting to have different distances between the rear end of the lens and the sensor or film. But that’s the kind of thing that is much easier to visualize if you’re looking at a picture of it. So, I made a picture of it. The first section shows the normal situation, using a lens designed for the mount that your camera uses. The next section shows what happens when you use a lens that expects a LONGER lens-to-sensor distance (ie, Nikon lens on Canon mount), and when you attach a mount adapter to it. And, the last section shows a lens that wants a SHORTER distance (ie, Minolta lens on Canon mount), using an adaptor either with or without glass. When I shrunk the image down to a reasonable size, some of the text became too small to read, but the labels for the adapters say “Adapter (no glass)” and “Adapter (cheap glass)”.
So, there you go. Now you all get it, right? Yay!
Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Kiron 105mm macro lens. 1/250s, ISO 200. Aperture unknown.