Viewfinder Magnifier Suggestions....? Sony A-100 DSLR

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:51:51 -0400, Peter wrote:

"infiniteMPG" wrote in message
...
You're trying to put a band-aid on a gaping and gushing wound.

So you're suggesting dump my $500 camera body and buy a more expensive
one when I was lucky to buy what I have? There are some of us out
there on tight budgets who just want to make the best of what we have.
I was lucky to buy the A100... maybe when we win the lottery I'll
upgrade, until then I think groceries and mortgage payments come first.
Juts looking for suggestions for viewfinder magnifiers...


Don't pay attention to the A-hole trolls.

Hoodman makes some that have a minimal futz factor and reasonable price.

http://www.hoodmanusa.com/products.asp?dept=1017

He's looking for a _viewfinder_ magnifier.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

"Robert Spanjaard" wrote in message
el.net...
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:51:51 -0400, Peter wrote:

"infiniteMPG" wrote in message
...
You're trying to put a band-aid on a gaping and gushing wound.

So you're suggesting dump my $500 camera body and buy a more expensive
one when I was lucky to buy what I have? There are some of us out
there on tight budgets who just want to make the best of what we have.
I was lucky to buy the A100... maybe when we win the lottery I'll
upgrade, until then I think groceries and mortgage payments come first.
Juts looking for suggestions for viewfinder magnifiers...


Don't pay attention to the A-hole trolls.

Hoodman makes some that have a minimal futz factor and reasonable price.

http://www.hoodmanusa.com/products.asp?dept=1017

He's looking for a _viewfinder_ magnifier.



OIC

--
Peter

On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 10:08:11 -0700 (PDT), infiniteMPG
wrote:

Time to switch to decafe.... wow.

Meh, glad to hear you have an A-100, too. I also have Tamron, the AF
18-250/3.5-6.3 DI II Macro Lens but could not get the macro quality I
wanted so snagged a Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Lens with a 2X
doubler for real close up stuff.

Better Info, appreciate the input but I came into the DSLR world from
my Minolta STR-201, thru Maxxum, then Konica Minolta Z3, then several
PAS's and then my A-100. Have a 10MP Olympus PAS with SuperMacro
settings and can't even come close to the pictures I get with the
A-100. Not saying they're bad, but not what I want.

You just didn't try hard enough to learn the right techniques is all.

Enjoy your always-too-shallow-DOF destroyed macro images.


As far as hand-holding macro shots, I have a hard time with that
regardless of the camera. Never was a steady hands kind of person. I
just bought a macro light ring

Never before in the world of macrophotography has there ever been a better
way to destroy a subject than with a "macro ring light". The person who had
the need for and invented the very first one should be shot and buried in
an unmarked shallow grave where it could never be found.

and macro micro-slide for my tripod and
hope to have that all up and running. Bought a 2.3X viewfinder
magnifier but it's a POS in my opinion so that is why I was looking
for something better. Yes Robert Spanjaard, that's what I posted, I
was looking for a viewfinder magnifier. Thank you for trying to get
this thread back on track :O)

When I get the 2.3X in focus and set, it's great. But I can't have it
down and even find my subject. Need it flipped up, get it rough set,
flip it down and finalize it. Was wondering if a 1.5X would be better
and just leave it there all the time. I don't need glasses by my eyes
do appreciate some magnifications (still wear reading glasses at the
PC for the same reason).

As far as hauling gear around to shoot, when I head out to shoot macro
shots that is my intent. I don't mind the gear. I usually head off
to a park or preserve and it's me and my gear. A nice little escape
from reality. I used to do it with my 35mm gear so it feel good to
me. Just now I can take 40 shots of the same subject and not have to
wait a week and spend a ton to see if any turned out okay.

On a final note here, Better Info, you see quite convinced that PAS
beats DSLR for macro photography. I popped into some local box stores
recently looking at PAS's for macro and it was rare to find anything
even with macro capabilities, let alone one that did it decently.
Forget the generalities and the snappy come backs.... make and model
of a PAS you would recommend for macro photography. The ones I saw
that accept macro lens kits were not your pocket versions of the PAS's
and were starting to get to looking like slightly smaller DSLR's. If
I have to have a camera on a strap around my neck I'd just assume have
my A-100, but if you suggest some PAS's that do quality macro work
then I'd be more then willing to look into them. But once again, the
question was viewfinder magnifiers, not what's the best camera for
macro photography.

Thanks

You have convinced yourself to believe what you want to believe. I'm not
going to waste my time trying to unbrainwash you. I've already given you
all the advice you need to get exceptional macro shots.

On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 10:08:11 -0700 (PDT), infiniteMPG
wrote:

But once again, the
question was viewfinder magnifiers, not what's the best camera for
macro photography.

p.s. I was replying to this part of your questions about macrophotography:


Don't care to spend a fortune on the magnifier but would like to know
what other's have found best.

infiniteMPG wrote:

On a final note here, Better Info, you see quite convinced that PAS
beats DSLR for macro photography.

Worse Info and its thousand sock puppets (all calling DSLR
users trolls) are on a mission: incite singlehandedly a war
between DSLR users and P&S users by claiming P&S are superior
to any other camera and "proving" this with massively downsized
images stolen from the web (which were made with DSLR cameras)
and claiming that it (the troll) singlehandedly shot them all
with an unnamed P&S camera in unlikely circumstances.

While Worse Info and Co. sometimes have a point, they are useless
as a source as most of their statements are wrong, incorrect,
not applicable outside very uncommon, specific circumstances
(which are not disclosed) or plain lies.

Forget the generalities and the snappy come backs.... make and model
of a PAS you would recommend for macro photography.

It'll never do that, since then someone could prove Worse Info
a liar, again.

-Wolfgang

infiniteMPG wrote:
Nikon Coolpix 990. Sorry, but I don't have any on my Web site, and I no longer use that camera.

That's a 10 year old 3MP camera... and this is supposed to rival macro
pictures from a +10MP DSLR?

If you're stopped down for that kind of DOF, 3MP is about all you need.
Raynox DCR-250 is a great closeup lens for using as the troll suggests
at telephoto settings for more working distance. People even use them on
DSLR lenses g.


I had a Konica Minolta Z3 and got some decent macro shots with it. Or
so I thought. When I got my Sony A100 and my Tamron lens, did some
macro work and put the two side by side, there really wasn't any
comparison. The Z3 pictures were grainy and not much clarity,
especially when put beside the A100 images. Plus I had to just about
touch my Z3 lens to the subject where I can be a foot or more away
with my A100 and get similar magnification.

Guess I just read back and saw people blasting DSLR macro photography
and claiming such GREAT quality and amazing DOF with PAS's so why
can't anyone post links to some images they took and details of the
camera they took them with?

Words are cheap.... and pretty hollow without anything validating them.

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:50:38 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:

infiniteMPG wrote:
Nikon Coolpix 990. Sorry, but I don't have any on my Web site, and I no longer use that camera.

That's a 10 year old 3MP camera... and this is supposed to rival macro
pictures from a +10MP DSLR?

If you're stopped down for that kind of DOF, 3MP is about all you need.

Isn't that so very very wonderful about ALL DSLRs!! Especially coming from
someone like you who can't do macrophotography even if your life depended
on it because you insist on using the wrong tools. Don't bother trying to
refute that. We've all already seen your laughably pathetic attempts and
failures using your DSLR gear for them.


Is that 0.00003 nanowatt light-bulb starting to flicker above your head
yet?

I suppose I shouldn't expect miracles at this point.

"infiniteMPG" wrote in message
...
Nikon Coolpix 990. Sorry, but I don't have any on my Web site, and I
no longer use that camera.

That's a 10 year old 3MP camera... and this is supposed to rival macro
pictures from a +10MP DSLR?

Sorry, I misunderstood - you asked for a non-DSLR which could do good
macro, so I mentioned one I have used myself.

quote
"Okay, let me try this a more straight forward way since making
disparaging comments seemed to be the goal instead of providing some
helpful information...

A) Make and model of good reasonably priced PAS that does good macro
work without shoving the camera face against the subject
/quote

I made no claims about its performance relative to a DSLR as that isn't
what you asked.

Cheers,
David

The troll wrote:

the wrong tools

Right.
For example, inadequate DOF ruins all of this guy's shots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31137609@N08/
Really bad, huh?

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 10:32:35 -0700, Paul Furman the
complete idiot and failed-photographer DSLR-TROLL wrote:


the wrong tools

Right.
For example, inadequate DOF ruins all of this guy's shots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31137609@N08/
Really bad, huh?

Not just really bad, those are ABSURDLY BAD.

Go ahead, ruin some more macro shots and the original natural colors of
your subjects by using high-powered artificial lighting to try to
desperately compensate for that piece of **** DSLR sensor. While you also
limit prints to no more than 5"x3" from diffraction problems.

Thanks for posting a link to examples that PERFECTLY PROVE, EXACTLY, what
I've tried to explain to you all along and why your own macrophotography is
COMPLETE AND UTTER BULL****.

So much for that 0.00003 nanowatt light-bulb of yours starting to flicker.