wiskerke

Interesting case. Maybe you could test with and without the filter at a couple of focus lengths and different f stops. At least at the extremes. Then check if you can see it in the viewfinder/live screen. If that's the case maybe test a couple of filters (could be used of course) at a shop or some other outlet and see if there are any that give a perfect image. (= as if there's no filter.) I have no idea how it will show on a Siemens star, but I'm pretty sure it will be visible. Good Siemens stars here. I would print 3 and tape them each to a stick and put them in the scene you normally use. One at the point you normally focus on and two further away. Mark the distances so you can repeat it somewhere else like outside a shop. wim

There's even a report from 1999 on film. So it seems no sensor related problem. The effect seems greater at longer lenses and smaller sensors though. So far no real explanation. wim

The box should have a label like the image on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bintje It could well be this variety btw. Google Images. wim

I have been reading up on this problem for a while now and I have seen reports as early as 2007 of people who have fixed it by omitting the filter. Also good quality filters are being reported as problematic. Keywords I have used so far: diagonal; banding; bokeh; filter. No real explanation yet. Other than: told you not to use filters. So far only 1 solutions: don't use a filter. Here's a nice write up about bokeh. wim

Here you go! From today's inbox: https://store.hasselblad.com/products/907x-50c Just €6,590.00 for 50 megapixel. But the same Hasselblad crop as always. A sort of 6x6 APS - 43.8 x 32.9 mm. Let's coin the phrase APS-H here. 😁 Oh no, that's already been taken by Sigma for the SD Quattro. 🤦‍♂️ wim

Bauhaus 1926 prefab experiment predicting container housing. Dessau Germany. Japan; book; $$ wim

The Renault Six club. wiki wim

Well spotted! So Gen, it may not need a repair after all. Or it may, but that wouldn't resolve the problem. I would do some testing with everything manual on a sturdy tripod. Use the self timer or a remote. wim

If you're happy with the image quality, the successor was better in all respects. But it's going at twice the price used. The old ones go from 450 US upwards and the new versions from 900 US. The old ones are abundant in Japan. Not checked the new version though. The difference is easy to spot: the old one has an aperture ring; in the new one the aperture is set on the body. Here's a side by side image. Here's the side by side specs on dpreview. Here's the dxo lens database which alas is not being maintained as it used to be. They're mainly into phones now I guess. But all relevant lenses are still in there. You have to check current street prices yourself of course. Sharpness is the relevant column. Set things like mount and maybe check something like the super telephoto box. It is very useful to see the whole field though. Especially to see where the lenses you like most are sitting. That gives you a ball park of where to look. No use looking for a quality that's far below or beyond you're using now. For US readers: but do keep an eye out for the left field. In this case: maybe try the outlier Tamron SP 150-600mm which may be just the ticket. Quicker but even softer than the older Nikkor, however: 600mm! So you will need some good PP skills. The price used will be nearer to the old Nikkor. (The Northrups about it on youtube) I have a small collection of 400 to 600mm lenses because I got inspired by Andreas Feininger at one point: (This would probably be the equivalent of a 1200 to 1500mm.) I have converted some old manual lenses as well, and yes it all works. But as soon as things start to move, it's a whole lot more difficult. And modern quality is a lot better than those sixties and seventies lenses. Feininger got around it by shooting 4x5. His use of long lenses was all about perspective btw. (not my picture) Mine at 1200mm Edit: in the left picture you can see both the windmill and the same church tower. After renting some modern long lenses and working with a lot less forgiving Sony, I've stopped f.. ehhm tinkering around with that old glass. But hey it might work for you. wim

Hmm your example image was at 5.6 and 400mm, so wide open. It could not be the shape of the aperture, but it could be something else. Aperture blades don't weigh a thing. Stuff that rattles loose is either heavy or not fixed. If you have the VR on, can you hear the unit working if you put your ear to where it sits in the lens, which is somewhere in the middle. If you have the lens off the camera and you hold the lens horizontally; then flip it over, can you hear something shifting inside? Could there be something else flying around inside? Take a small flashlight and look through the lens from either side. Open and close the aperture, see if there's a blade missing that could be sticking out somewhere. Or if something else is moving around there or is sticking in from the side. (Nikkors still have a mechanical coupling for the aperture I believe. just in case, here you can see someone operating it around 0.45.) My best guess is a dislodged VR unit though. BTW is yours the Nikkor 80-400mm VRII or the original mk1? The serial number suggests it's quite an early mk1. The general consensus seems to be the original is not worth repairing, with the newer one being not very expensive plus a lot better. Operating on one yourself is not for the faint of heart. wim

The real thing. But then this happens. Maybe this should be in the other thread. The price certainly does. Much more on FB. wim

#StayHomewithLeica: Jim Marshall - Show Me the Picture with Amelia Davis 2 hours on youtube. wim

You're welcome! I only looked at FB afterwards. I just checked the image, mainly because I thought wt* is that? After finding the name I combined that with Audubon Zoo. Not been there btw, but I know where it is. As we speak I'm wandering through it - with Google Streetview. 😂 Not seen the bird yet. wim

Spectacular! Sunbittern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunbittern wim edit: just found these on FB and on OnlineZoo.

Those exist. Slightly more boxy and called Sony RX100. 😂 I still have my XA. People have adapted the lens to digital. I know because I have toyed with the idea also. (1; 2) wim

Hmm at $8,496.95 / 8999 Euros it is expensive, but not outrageously so. Even a Fuji GFX 100 is not outrageously expensive at roughly 1000-2000 more. A Mamiya Leaf Credo with 80 megapixel, but costing 35,000 that's outrageous. So that's outrageous because by now the competition has come up with a better product that's far cheaper. Maybe that's why the Nikkor is outrageous too. But the Leica Noctilux at 15,000 is outrageouser. Hubble is almost surplus, it's service contract running out per June 2021. But a bit impractical. I think I will go for the 108 megapixel Xiaomi phone. 😂 From 380 to 950 euros it's well within my budget. If I shrink the images to 6 megapixel I may sneak some past QC. wim

Maybe I'm having problems with my eyeglasses too, because at first glance I thought it said food on a stick. Could still be a good subject though. 😁 wim

Dunno, but be careful when a man is holding his bible upside down. He's going to throw the book at you. And you know where that expression came from. 😂 wim

The 850 of M-B engines. It should fit. It's been a while since I have been using Vuescan, but what is that you want to do that's not in the manual? Btw where has the User's Guide gone? This one is from my bookmarks https://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc.htm And the pdf: http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.pdf His workflow and pre-sets look pretty decent. There's the 2011 Vuescan Bible now free afaik here. In the past, Hamrick has been quite accessible. wim

Maybe add that in a couple of non-western languages and non-western scripts. 😂 And now I think of it: anyone with images of popular beers having the same problem? wim

I would take a couple of pictures: books on a pile; in the bin; in the trunk; pile of books in front of local charity; maybe even burning one or two. Shredding the cat calendar for cat litter would also be an option. Or a dog chewing on a portrait of a cat. The Encyclopedia Britannica could lend itself to lots of visual fun as well: a paper plane from a Wright brothers page; all sorts of images on a pin stuck into a map; on a bamboo skewer stuck into a modern version of the illustrated thing. Just held in front of the camera with the modern thing in the background. In the hand; on a skewer; held by someone else in Michael Portillo style. Wrap your sandwich; fish; fish and chips; flower bulbs in a page. Have fun with a funnel and pages being poured into someone's head; ear-in ear-out; the bin. Illustrate mansplaining with pages; whole book; the entire Encyclopedia coming out of a man's mouth. Oops. Good you're a man too. Cheers! wim

PU's are probably the only ones that are paid by credit card. Credit card sales are reported automatically. So often the only ones that show up during the weekend. The fact that they're weekend sales give credibility to they're being legit Personal Use imo. However some may fall in the I thought I was buying the real thing category. - Amlodipine - let me google that - ah I see: blood pressure. Regular sales do sometimes show up too during the weekends, maybe because of staff working overtime or an overdue database refresh? wim

Ooops. I have (among other things) a couple of these to remove broken or worn screws. Your local ferragens will have it. Always worth a try before getting the drillbits out. Google remove a damaged screw from wood and you'll see how it should work and if there are any alternatives in your case. wim

24 for 774 7 distributor zooms very low wim

Someone is doing a book on hides. wim