Sigh! :)
I still have them but only bits and pieces are in use now. In the rare case I need high macro, the bellows above is wedged between a Canon MacroPhoto lens (see up thread) and a Canon body. I can also use M lenses on Canon R mount body. But the only Leica piece that I actually use on a...
No direct experience with this kind of thing but I'm not going to let that stop me from shooting my mouth off ;) Anyway, Flickr returns 1000+ photos when asked about "nikkor gfx":
https://flickr.com/search/?text=nikkor%20gfx
But random sample of a handful doesn't turn up anything at full res...
Capable, yes. Cheaper, take a look around eBay please :) Note the I was just playing with words. Fujinon 250 that's the real killer is GF 250/4, not W 250/6.7. The W is magic in its own way because it's a tiny thing that covers 80°. Look closely above: a 250 wideangle for 8×10 in a #1 shutter...
Differential focus sure can have a look to it. And the look intensifies as focal length goes up. Medium format digital lowers the crop factor below 1 so this got cranked up more. And increase in resolution jacks things up even more. But after a certain point, one might need to start controlling...
Well it's all relative. Back in the old days the small ? medium ? large format progression had been variously interpreted as 35mm ? 6cm×4.5cm/6×6/6×7/6×9/2"×3" ? 4×5, 2×3 ? 4×5 ? 8×10, 4×5 ? 8×10 ? 11×14/7×17 ? 12×20 etc. Back when 4×5 was the dominant view camera format, that size was the sweet...
Hmmm, once again no EXIF camera data... May I ask what aperture, shutter speed and ISO these were done at? The picture with license plate TOOWILD is especially interesting—it has the kind of well defined shape of dark object that can be seen usually just in tightly controlled studio shots like...
Looks like EXIF data have been stripped... 100% crop of the statue photo clearly shows differential focus between the column and the dome behind it. And the foreground would likely be the same. One does wonder what aperture was used, and ISO speed too. In 35mm full frame terms, this kind of...
You mean privacy of your non-public photos depends on hiding your Flickr user id? I heard mapping from photo id embedded in the Flickr image filename back to a user id is rather simple... Doesn't Flickr allow public/friend/family visibility controlled on per photo basis? Anyway, back to this...
The 500 Rule for avoiding star trail says your full frame equivalent focal length would be 500÷(3×60) = 2.78mm. So what focal length was actually used?
The beginning of the video has many places with height reference. The camera point of view is such that the person would have been awfully tall if the camera were strapped to the neck. A head mount like this would be more likely: