Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/01/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Close in, the framing was difficult with 2D objects. I would often, with a cotton glove on, have to move the chrome in the paper mount for positioning. With an SLR, that happened less often. Slobodan Dimitrov http://www.sdimitrovphoto.com/ On Jan 15, 2007, at 5:29 AM, Leonard Taupier wrote: > Close in with the DR is not the same as close in with the SLR > macros. Even with the eyes attached it's close focus point only > reaches what some modern normal lenses can focus to. Might make the > correction less critical. The 90 micro focuses closer then the DR. > Without a bellows, none of the M lenses come close to the 55mm or > 105mm for that matter. > > Len > > > On Jan 15, 2007, at 5:14 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote: > >> On 1/14/07 11:46 PM, "Robert Meier" <robertmeier@usjet.net> typed: >> >>> Do you mean the 50 DR gave better results than the 55 Micro- >>> Nikkor? Or >>> not? >>> >>> >> I think he was saying it was better because it was on an SLR. Not >> anything >> about the glass itself. >> Both great. >> Would be my guess. >> >> Is the DR optimized for close in? >> Flat field. >> Inquiring minds want to know. >> Probably used to know. >> But those brain cells adapted themselves to other purposes. >> >> Mark Rabiner >> New York, NY >> 40?47'59.79"N >> 73?57'32.37"W >> >> http://rabinergroup.com/ >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information