"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:18:33 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?

Of course, you like cherries.


Reggie, today I took the Nikon 18-200 VR back to the store. They're going
to send it to Nikon to get checked out. They also think there may be
something wrong with the autofocusing. I'll let you know what they say.
--
John H


It's a zoom lens. That's what's wrong with it. Cut loose with some more cash
and buy 2-3 lenses suited to their proper purposes, you piker.

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:18:33 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?
Of course, you like cherries.


Reggie, today I took the Nikon 18-200 VR back to the store. They're going
to send it to Nikon to get checked out. They also think there may be
something wrong with the autofocusing. I'll let you know what they say.

I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to specs. I
am very pleased with it.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:31:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:18:33 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?

Of course, you like cherries.


Reggie, today I took the Nikon 18-200 VR back to the store. They're going
to send it to Nikon to get checked out. They also think there may be
something wrong with the autofocusing. I'll let you know what they say.
--
John H


It's a zoom lens. That's what's wrong with it. Cut loose with some more cash
and buy 2-3 lenses suited to their proper purposes, you piker.


This damn thing cost enough to focus properly!

Piker my ass!
--
John H

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:47:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:18:33 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?
Of course, you like cherries.


Reggie, today I took the Nikon 18-200 VR back to the store. They're going
to send it to Nikon to get checked out. They also think there may be
something wrong with the autofocusing. I'll let you know what they say.

I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to specs. I
am very pleased with it.

Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!
--
John H

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:31:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:18:33 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?

Of course, you like cherries.


Reggie, today I took the Nikon 18-200 VR back to the store. They're
going
to send it to Nikon to get checked out. They also think there may be
something wrong with the autofocusing. I'll let you know what they say.
--
John H


It's a zoom lens. That's what's wrong with it. Cut loose with some more
cash
and buy 2-3 lenses suited to their proper purposes, you piker.


This damn thing cost enough to focus properly!

Piker my ass!
--
John H


All zoom lenses are a compromise. That doesn't excuse defects, but still, a
compromise.

"John H." wrote in message
...


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to specs. I
am very pleased with it.

Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!
--
John H


You could always sell the boat and replace everything with Leica.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:31:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:18:33 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Last year I bought a macro tube for my Oly and never used it for one
reason or another. Being bored today, I went out and took some shots
with it.

All the images are as shot - the only "edit" was a conversion to .jpg
so it could be viewed by others. All were shot in ORF (raw). If
anybody wants the RAW files to play around with, let me know and I'll
up load the RAW file for download.

This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the meter, ISO,
shutter speed and what ever else. It would have been a good one.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

This was just an experiment to get used to the macro tube.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...7_edited-1.jpg

I was quite surprized at the detail you can get.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...8_edited-1.jpg

This is one of those "baffling" images with some interesting side
effects from the ice that I didn't anticipate. It's a very different
image.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...9_edited-1.jpg

There is a considerable amount of noise in this image which I can't
explain - it should not have happened given how I set it up.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...4_edited-1.jpg

This is the same image (taken as a bracket) and not retouched. Go
figure.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...5_edited-1.jpg

Just messing around.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...6_edited-1.jpg

I have to get used to a whole different approach to depth of field
with the macro tube. This is a good image, the idea was good, but the
execution leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...3_edited-1.jpg

Serendipity - I really like this image - anybody guess why?
Of course, you like cherries.

Reggie, today I took the Nikon 18-200 VR back to the store. They're
going
to send it to Nikon to get checked out. They also think there may be
something wrong with the autofocusing. I'll let you know what they say.
--
John H

It's a zoom lens. That's what's wrong with it. Cut loose with some more
cash
and buy 2-3 lenses suited to their proper purposes, you piker.

This damn thing cost enough to focus properly!

Piker my ass!
--
John H


All zoom lenses are a compromise. That doesn't excuse defects, but still, a
compromise.



yes it is, but the lens makes a great walk around lens.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to specs. I
am very pleased with it.
Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!
--
John H


You could always sell the boat and replae everything with Leica.



My only remaining film camera is a Leica, which I like to take on trips,
because it is relatively small, quiet, and I have three really sharp
lenses for it.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to specs.
I
am very pleased with it.
Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about
taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!
--
John H


You could always sell the boat and replae everything with Leica.

My only remaining film camera is a Leica, which I like to take on trips,
because it is relatively small, quiet, and I have three really sharp
lenses for it.

Is there such a thing as a Leica lens that's NOT sharp?

I had an M5 (?? current rangefinder model around 1971). Women hated it. It
revealed every pore on their face, every imperfection.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to specs.
I
am very pleased with it.
Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about
taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's not the
latter!
--
John H

You could always sell the boat and replae everything with Leica.
My only remaining film camera is a Leica, which I like to take on trips,
because it is relatively small, quiet, and I have three really sharp
lenses for it.

Is there such a thing as a Leica lens that's NOT sharp?

I had an M5 (?? current rangefinder model around 1971). Women hated it. It
revealed every pore on their face, every imperfection.




Mine is older, with a pop down lever on the bottom for "rapid film
advance."