joy of healthy skin a lifetime guide to beautiful problem free skin
LINK 1 ENTER SITE >>> Download PDF
LINK 2 ENTER SITE >>> Download PDF
File Name:joy of healthy skin a lifetime guide to beautiful problem free skin.pdf
Size: 1725 KB
Type: PDF, ePub, eBook
Category: Book
Uploaded: 15 May 2019, 19:47 PM
Rating: 4.6/5 from 722 votes.
Status: AVAILABLE
Last checked: 13 Minutes ago!
In order to read or download joy of healthy skin a lifetime guide to beautiful problem free skin ebook, you need to create a FREE account.
eBook includes PDF, ePub and Kindle version
✔ Register a free 1 month Trial Account.
✔ Download as many books as you like (Personal use)
✔ Cancel the membership at any time if not satisfied.
✔ Join Over 80000 Happy Readers
joy of healthy skin a lifetime guide to beautiful problem free skinAll I have are Manual lenses. I tried this once on a D200 and found manual focusing difficult. But my friend says it is no problem on the D700 probably because of the larger VF. Anybody have any experience with this? The focusing screen, like those on most autofocus cameras, is not really optimized for manual focus, but it is adequate. Edit to add that my experience with manual focus on the D700 is based on using the following lenses: 24 2.8 AIS, 35 2 AIS, 50 2 AI, 105 2.5 AIS, and 200 4 AIS. I still use all nikon AF lenses on my D700 though, and use a leica for manual focus because I find rangefinders so much easier than SLRs for focusing. In other words, if the entire viewfinder looks sharp, the image is probably in focus. Now, the D700 (like most AF bodies) has an electronic rangefinder that gives you a green dot, visible on the bottom side (a bit to the left) of the VF, which indicates focus is correct. In case of doubt, you can trust it. Just leave the focusing point in the middle and use it as reference for your manual focusing. Keep in mind that the D700 has a nice VF, so if you use fast glass, you'll be able to judge on your own. You have very good friends who lend you neat gear. Show them your appreciationg and have fun with the camera!:) Plus you can view on screen and check! With the D700, I use the green dots, which work well when there is sufficient contrast between the subject and background. When there isn't, I use the focusing screen. Same techniques on the D200 when I had it, with a little help from a Katz Eye focusing screen. Believe this or not but my buddy is leaving in a few minutes for Nassua for the weekend with his wife, taking only my Ricoh GX200 (we made a 3 day trade).So I'll have a fun weekend. Make sure you adjust the diopter for your own eye. Bob I understand you're just borrowing the camera, but should you be interested, you can purchase third party focusing screen which have split prisms, micro prims, optimized for fast glass.http://www.altronic.pl/!mag2011/userfiles/how-to-manually-do-windows-updates.xml
- Tags:
- joy of healthy skin a lifetime guide to beautiful problem free skin, joy of healthy skin a lifetime guide to beautiful problem free skin care, joy of healthy skin a lifetime guide to beautiful problem free skins, joy of healthy skin a lifetime guide to beautiful problem free skinny, joy of healthy skin a lifetime guide to beautiful problem free skin care products.
It is a lot of fun, and doesn't seem to be very commonly used.But being digital, I do bracket my focus with a few shots as I turn the MF ring just to be on the same side. At least thats what I do for now with my D90 hope that helps:) The focus confirmation indication is not as helpful as it could be, since it stays on over a short range of focus rotation and not just at a single point. Focusing by the screen was inaccurate, but only because my screen was not shimmed properly. When I removed one of the two shims, focus improved. I continue to use my MF 15mm and 18mm lenses. With those, the DOF is so great that scale focusing is quite sufficient. I don't have a D700 (yet) but with those points in mind, I'm now doing well with my D200. There will be a D700 in my future, I imagine. I also have the FM3A and the F6. See also my Guide to Nikon AF Settings for other cameras. It chooses how the camera uses all, few or one, of the many AF sensors. From top to bottom, I call them the Big White Rectangle, the Crosshair, and the Tit. That's why it's a big rectangle: the D700 uses whichever sensors it wants. It works great. The graphic shows a single sensor, with lines showing that it can move as chosen next by the camera. The D700 can move it in any direction, not just the fours ways shown in the icon. The icon shows just one fixed sensor. Some modes won't display the AF areas that were used. That's the C, as is Continuous, position of all Nikons today. In this mode, the D700 magically and automatically identifies the correct AF sensor (or sensors) and just uses them. All I have to do is compose and shoot. If I don't mention a setting, I leave it at default or it's not related to focus. I never get any other than the first shot or two of a series in focus at this setting. It's a silly setting which makes the camera work fast in the store, but sucks for moving subjects.http://www.swalaya.in/userfiles/how-to-manually-download-and-install-windows-updates.xml This default setting is why most people's continuous action sequence shots are not sharp: the D700 just shoots even if it's not in focus. This slows it down — a lot. This is the default for the AF-Single setting for still subjects, but a bad idea for moving subjects. In this position, most of my sequence shots are in focus. I hit the shutter, and my D700 shoots as soon as it figures out which sensors to use in the Big White Rectangle mode, or immediately in the other sensor modes (Crosshair or Tit). If you're way out-of-focus you'll get a fuzzy first shot, but you won't miss it and the D700 will be in focus for the next shots as fast as it can. This means D700 magically picks the right sensors itself. You'll see it move all around, and it really works. This only works in the Crosshair and AF-C mode; it doesn't move around in the Big White Rectangle, Tit or AF-S modes. If you prefer, you can autofocus with the center sensor, and in this 51-point 3D tracking mode, keep your finger on the shutter and the AF area will move all by itself, tracking the subject as you recompose! They work for sports and for still subjects. I just grab the camera and shoot. In AF-C and White Rectangle Modes, no AF sensors light up. You just shoot. Now, in Big White Rectangle Mode, the selected sensors light up, and the focus locks as long as I hold the shutter halfway.This means the camera knows all these areas are in perfect focus. Now tell the camera which player is yours, and it will track them all over the frame! By tracking the subject, the D700 is so smart that it tracks the subject if the subject moves, or if I change my framing. If you've gotten your D700 through one of my links or helped otherwise, you're family, so feel free to make a printout of this page for your camera bag. I have to feed six mouths in addition to my own. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.https://78as.it/edmi-mk10-manual Given the fact that the Df was supposed to be used with legacy glass, is it's viewfinder better for manual focusing compared to the d700. Many thanks! PatI have no doubt that many would disagree with me. However, as far as I am concerned, a split-image focusing screen, perhaps with a ring of microprism, is a must for manual focusing with wider lenses. I don't find the Df's viewfinder any easier to use compared that on other Nikon DSLRs. Of course, with digital, using live view is now a better way to manual focus. But your camera needs to be on a tripod.My first SLR was a Minolta SRT-101 which had only microprism, which I found insufficient as I prefer image matching in rangefinders (such as the Leica M). At the time some Nikkormat only had split-image.But, I did do a side-by-side manual focus test between the D800 and Df. Based on detailed review of 1:1 crops from both, I could not pick a winner.That's far more accurate than any split image or microprism screen.Never had a problem to focus and I us a mix of lenses from AI to AF-S. Every time some of my fellow photographer looking thru of the Df, saying, ohhh, how bright it is. I never paid attention to it, just focusing all of the time manually. All of my viewfinder optically adjusted to my eye-site. To add more, I like the images the most of the Df, technically. Most of my images shoot with the Df, lately. They are, of course, absolutely fine if you want to focus on the middle of the image - but I don't often want to focus there, either for composition (that's not where I want the focus plane) or lack of contrast at that point. It'd be interesting if someone could implement a focus screen that allowed the split prism to be moved around the frame (but more than a small matter of engineering). Live view, especially with focus peaking, seems like a much better long-term solution. I'm prepared to believe a Df's finder is slightly better for manual focus - it's designed to be, obviously, although it certainly didn't stand out at me when I've tried one. Of course, if you're prepared to use the focus confirmation light as a back-up, the D700's MultiCAM 3500 has quite an advantage in coverage.With loads of light, maybe.It is possible to purchase focusing screens modified to fit various DSLRs, e.g. the S screen is regarded better for large aperture lenses (available from focusingscreen.com). There is some discussion on manual focusabilility and replacement focusing screens on If I had to grab one and focus manually by eye quickly, the D3 I had would be my choice. The D600 I had seemed a little better for MF than the D800 I had at the same time. I did have a D700, but don't recall using it much with MF lenses. I struggled with wide angle manual focus lenses on the D800. The D810 seems a little better for eye and indicator focusing, I think. Short teles seem easier than wides for manual focus with the standard FX screens. I used a 75-150E on the D600 some with good results. It was and is easier to focus manually with the older film bodies, for sure.Furthermore, your eye has a logarithmic response to light. You see very little change over one stop, but it makes a big difference in the results. At the same time, focus is more critical, hence easier to miss the exact spot in practice. The law of diminishing returns applies. DOF is proportional to the diameter of the iris, whereas the amount of light transmitted is proportional to the area.More light is more light. Not a myth. Depth of field is another matter. It depends on the screen. Is it an 'active' screen, with some sort of microlenses, or just a diffusing screen. Those old diffusing screens also show the depth of field nicely. And we do see the decrease, i.e. have more trouble focusing an image with very little depth. Screens that use optical tricks to direct light towards the viewfinder's pupil also change how the image, and more particularly the out of focus part, looks. There is not such a great contrast between in focus and just out of focus. The shallow depth of field makes focussing much harder than any 'pop' would compensate for. Split image rangefinders are not really affected by f-stop, except that when the lens' exit pupil gets too small, or too far away, the rangefinder will no longer be illuminated. They work fine, and keep working fine with fast lenses.Slight disclaimer: I only have a moderate understanding of how this works. But this seems informative.They do redirect the entire cone projected on the focussing screen, in zones, making the angle of incidence less acute, i.e. directing that light more towards the screen and the viewer's eye on the other side instead of away to sides. That produces a more evenly lit viewfinder. A Fresnel lens however does not create the visible image we need. A matte screen (etched or ground glass) does that by diffusing the light projected onto it. Most of that light will not be going towards ourr eyes, i.e. the finder is rather dark (compared to, for instance, the parts of the split image rangefinder). New screens use techniques akin to what makes cat's eyes (the road markers) and projection screens work, i.e. instead of diffusing the light falling onto it, scattering it in many directions, they use tiny beads or cones all over the screen that direct the light towards one point, the place where our eye is supposed to be. Those optical active screens however also have an effect on how the image looks, and in particular the out of focus parts do not look the way they will when captured on film or by sensor. That we do not notice much is because of what Edward said: having enough light our eyes adjust to create a more or less equally bright impression. We will have to look for the difference conciously, compare the two, and then we will see it. Without paying special attention, we will start to notice things only when it gets either too bright or too dark. Split image rangefinders are wedges, that divert light from the out of focus image, producing a lateral shift of the parts of the image each wedge covers relative to each other. The two images coincide when the light projected onto them is convergent on the wedges. They do not care about aperture size much, except that when the cone of light gets too narrow they no longer are completely illuminated and typically one half darkens (depending also on from where you look through them at the lens' exit pupil, i.e. depending also on the position of your eye.)The latter are commonly used to reduce the weight and cost of components.The general idea appears to be that when DoF is shallow, it is easier to see when an image is in focus and when it is not. The differences between in focus and not in focus however are still small, the process of getting focus on the exact point where you want it to be (whether manually or using AF) is a nervous one, and i would say there really is no such 'pop'. It's harder, not easier, to focus a shallow DoF image, using a fast lens because there is not much DoF to cover mistakes. And as hard as ever to get it precise when not wanting to rely on DoF to cover mistakes. But YMMV, and all that.We will have to look for the difference conciously, compare the two, and then we will see it. Wide open (the D810's meter is off). Sorry this and the following image are so blurry - my finder diopter is set to accommodate my weird eyes, and I didn't really register that this might be why the RX100 was struggling until it was inconvenient to reshoot; I don't believe the blurriness affects the comparison, and I didn't want to try to compensate by sharpening in case the image processing seemed to affect the results. The D810 is focussed in the same place (the back of the chair - I didn't change the focus point). And there's no difference. Not looking through the finder (where I can actually see things in focus), not comparing these manual exposures - the white thing on the wall is almost exactly the same exposure. There's no difference to how out-of-focus the background is. This doesn't mean you can't see the focus plane, of course - perfectly sharp is still perfectly sharp - it just means that the rate at which objects appear out of focus as they become more distant from the focal plane is not the same in the finder as they are in the final capture at wide apertures. And that's always the advice I've heard on these forums. There is nothing it does to hide differences between two arbitrarily chosen apertures. There is nothing it does to produce an image that we can inspect. Nothing to do with Fresnels and 'modern' finders. And since there's also nothing else that could explain such a supernatural phenomenon, It must be you.,-)In the best (cleanest) of my tests, I placed the background (printed paper) a bit closer to have less blur, tried to be absolutely steady, to get a much closer exposure, and this time I found very slight differences between half stops, from f1.2 to f5.6 (I stopped the test at f5.6). Sincerely, I cannot get absolutely clear results, so I cannot use them to prove anything. I assume Q.G. is right, it makes sense. I have no clue on this, and my experience is also unclear. It was also my assumption that AF cameras are even more difficult to focus by eye; what Rodeo said. Time ago, I tried to find MF differences between F3, F6 and D700 screens. I think I wrote something in this forum, but I cannot recall it correctly. But for sure there were very slight differences, if any, between them. Only the split prism works for me under not so sharp conditions; it works perfectly with all my f1.2 or f1.4 lenses in all conditions.If I was a real professional, I'd have brought two tripods and a macro rail with me to work rather than trying to hold my RX100 steady with one hand and press the DoF preview button with another, while engaging manual focus mode on the RX100 (painful one-handed) and fiddling with the D810's finder diopter. I resorted to standing my D810 on an ash-covered bin (the grey thing bottom right) - I don't smoke. Things I do for this forum. Firstly, consecutive shots within a few seconds of each other. I'll report the aperture and the averaged pixel colours of the bench for each shot. Apologies for the run of posts, but it seems cleaner than trying to squeeze everything in. Obviously this isn't perfect - all I could do is wedge the compact against the back of the finder, I wasn't equipped to keep the RX100 perfectly stationary compared with the D810. That would allow a scientific experiment of how large a difference is present, but almost exactly identical numbers on two separate attempts (do check yourself on the above images) does suggest I didn't mess it up completely. But experimentally, I'd absolutely claim that the finder screen is hiding depth of field at larger apertures. With a pure ground-glass (non-fresnel) screen, I would not expect this to be the case. Forgive me for not trying to take photos of the live view image as well. Remind me not to try to do this again. Way more painful than it's worth. If I do need to, I'll have to bring a longer lens - I only brought the 35mm Sigma because we're due thunderstorms and I was optimistic for prettiness. The depth of field would have been much more obvious with something longer, but I hope it's visible enough.There are no optical illusions at play. There is no magic involved. Fresnel lenses and such can only do what they can do. It's really all basic optics. I think Jose is right, pointing us towards the origin of the myth you are trying to prove. As so often with photo-myths, it is a solid bit of reality, but misunderstood and turnied into something it really is not. Yes, compared to many old cameras, the viewfinders of present day DSLRs are bad. Not as easy to use for anything but framing purposes as viewfinders once were. That, because people relied (and still rely) on AF anyway, and are not very likely to switch to manualk focus (which appears to be seen as a defect nowadays), so why bother making a high quality viewfinder with expensive screen. So they do not, and the finders in my Nikon DSLRs are indeed not as good as those of older film cameras i have and have used. And again, there is no such magic you think Fresnels are capable of, Andrew. They are just field lenses, that converge a diverging beam of light a bit. But i'm open minded, believe it or not. So let's see a decent explanation of how that would work, and i'll gladly change my mind.Out of curiosity, I did it again, trying to be as clean as possible. Results are maybe enough to have an idea of this behaviour, but I still find it somewhat confusing. It is more complex than it could seem at a first sight. FWIW, I have used a non-suspicious MF camera, a F3 with the HP finder. The control of light has been done with the shutter speeds by adjusting the hystogram. Check it by yourself (attached is a 100 crop). First the whole image, Firstly, apologies for missing your previous post - I was too busy pasting my own sequence and just missed yours until QG brought my attention to it. For the record, quoting the Mir.com.my Nikon pages: Other than the Nikon F3AF model, the standard focusing screen used on any F3 camera is the Type K screen: It is a combination of Type A and J screens. We may mainly be proving how hard this kind of thing is to photograph - though commendable effort. Sadly, taking two cameras into my office (where we're not really supposed to have any - hence shooting outside) was one thing; taking my tripods in was another. I should try some day - I've never actually used my macro rail. QG: I'm very prepared to believe that cameras are different. The assertion that larger apertures are indistinguishable has been common on this forum, and certainly wasn't started by me. That's easily within rounding error (I was averaging several pixels within the bench, but obviously my RX100 wasn't completely stationary). There really is no visible difference between the two fastest apertures, and no measurable difference as recorded by my RX100. I believe I've confirmed the same behaviour with a D700 in the past. I am interested to know how this works - but the measurements indicate that it is so, and the lack of explanation doesn't invalidate them. I'm expecting someone to tell me that at least some of the following is wrong. To try to see what was going on, I just had a go with my F5. What I couldn't try on my F5, and couldn't quite be bothered to get my D810 out to prove, is how visible the aperture changes are. The D810, like the D800, D3 and D4 series (and D750 I think), drives its aperture motor separately from the mirror so you can hold down DoF preview and adjust the aperture while looking through the finder. I'd have run out of hands to try this earlier. Unfortunately, the EC-B is quite a complex bit of kit, and I still can't quite see what's going on (and I'm not prepared to unscrew it). Shining a light on the prism-facing side of the screen shows a completely smooth surface - other than fine traces for the LCD wiring - that's appreciably convex (the lens on the back of the finder screen is either not fresnel or not entirely fresnel). Shining a light off the mirror side produces diffraction patterns - but regular ones without an obvious circular component. Shining a light through the screen clearly shows the circular fresnel pattern. Without a couple of hours with a macro lens and a lot more lighting than my phone, reproducing that will be difficult, so I'm afraid verbal description is what you get. What's going on? Well, it looks a bit like there's a non-fresnel screen on the mirror side, a fresnel inside the screen arrangement, and a conventional lens on the back. But that could be rubbish. The way I had always thought a fresnel screen helped was by capturing the light cone from the exit pupil. As QG says, a fresnel is just a (thin) lens, so I'd assumed there was more to the arrangement than that. I'm prepared to believe that the behaviour I've been prescribing to the fresnel in terms of whether light hitting the screen at an acute angle is captured should in fact have been blamed on the microstructure of the screen - though if in fact there is still appreciable scattering at the back of the finder, maybe the fresnel still cannot capture all of it and is still partly to blame. The discussion here on Luminous Landscape says the following: Similarly, “focusing snap” and viewfinder brightness don’t exactly go hand in hand. The super-bright screens are essentially bundles of very small fiberoptic cables, sliced crosswise, or miniature fresnel (flattened) simple lenses. While they transmit a ton of light, they can be very difficult to focus on. Everything looks pretty sharp; it’s not very obvious what’s in focus and what’s not. (The effect is worse with wide-angle lenses, which have more depth-of-field.) Old-fashioned ground-glass screens had better focusing snap the coarser the grind (surface texture) was. I'm interested in more details of why, though. As for whether the finder of a DSLR is as good as that on a film camera, that's another matter. Technology indubitably improves, but at least from the multicam-3500 generation, the entire finder screen is seen through an LCD - which is why everything goes dark and blurry if you take the battery out and look through the finder, although also how the active AF points get to go away when you're not using them. This is definitely not true of the F5, and obviously can't be true of manual cameras. How much effect the LCD has on the finder view I can't say, but I doubt it can improve visibility (and I'm kind of guessing there must be a polariser in there somewhere for the LCD to work, so there'd be some light loss). However, I don't remember a huge outcry when these LCD designs were launched, so I guess the effect can't be enormous. (My Eos 300D certainly doesn't do this - it just has LEDs that light up at the focus points - but being a pentamirror it doesn't really inform me about relative brightness in finders.) Fun evening. I think I'm zeroing in on an education. Which is the effect may not appear in the viewfinder of an F3 but does show in a D810 - they do not use the same type of focusing screen. Edit: Andrew cross-posted - didn't see his post while writing mine.On AF cameras, we should expect it to be better. If I recall it correctly, they say AF screens are not optimized for MF just because they lack focusing aids like the split image and microprism things. After that, they mention some AF screens (cameras) are better than others. The good ones (which also lack that MF focusing aids), are the D and F one-digit pro series. DoF is also extremely subjective or dependant, sometimes it looks even an absurd concept. I assume it will be the same on AF cameras (with priority on the brightness of the screen).No problem here, but I still tend to think that main differences are due to the ground glass type, not to the fresnel position.It also too hard to use apparent brightness to measure effective aperture. What you should do instead is to measure the size of out-of-focus point spread function. So find a point source light and shoot an out of focus image like the one below. Then shoot an image of the viewfinder. Make the blobs as big as possible. I'm prepared to believe that the issue with the screen not showing wider apertures is to do with another aspect of the microstructure of the screen (microlens or not) rather than with the fresnel. My apologies for conflating the two, especially if I was the first to do so - my confusion is based partly on Nikon's list of screens for the F5, for which most but not all of the screens show stylised fresnel rings. Pete: Agreed. Unfortunately I had the wrong lens - you can compare branch thickness in the images I shot, but they're a bit hard to see, even in the full-size versions. These are, for the record, a PiTA to shoot. I'll see if I can give it another go this evening - I was deliberately going for outdoor shots earlier because I didn't want to confuse matters with light strobing, but that isn't an issue if I'm just pointing at an LED. My turn to try two tripods and a macro rail. It will go down well with my wife - we have an anniversary this evening.Notice that the last frame is f1.4 again (red characters), to make easier a comparison with the f4 shot. According to Zeiss, the F6 is a good one; I also tested it, but I cannot see a substantial difference with the D700. I was wrong. Q.G., you have my apologies. Please accept the above assertions as misinformation, or at least incomplete. I'm also very confused. But you get a 4am post because I don't like leaving misinformation on the internet with my name on it. I tried to do the set-up I mentioned (involving four tripods, two LED torches, an F5, a Samyang 85mm, a D810, a macro lens and a macro rail - I'm better equipped at home). Minimum focus distance on the Samyang, one LED at the focus point to check I wasn't moving, one in the background.Wait, what? I didn't take any definitive photos in the end, because I was too busy experimenting. Wondering if the F5 screen was different after all, I put the Samyang on my D810, put it at minimum focus distance and pointed the camera at a light. Waving the camera around, the difference in blur is very visible in the centre of the finder and arguably not visible at all at the edge - which I'm prepared to believe is a function of the vignetting of the 35mm (and possibly of the finder). Photozone reports two stops of vignetting on the Sigma 35mm, which is pretty spectacularly much. The 50mm would have been a bit less. So. Why on early didn't I notice this before. This time, I was explicitly at minimum focus distance - above, I was actually focussed on the flowers, so the background was less blurred. Possibly that may have been affecting the finder (at minimum focus and extreme background blur, you get the diffraction pattern break-up of the image in the finder that you don't get with more reasonable out-of-focus behaviour). I'd be interested to know if this tallies with the experience of others. As for the change in illumination.This confuses me a bit, but not nearly as much as the fact that when I used the RX100 to shoot through my D810's finder, it measured no difference in brightness. I'm clearly not the first person to have come to the belief that the finder doesn't show wider aperture differences, so something confusing is happening here. I might currently claim that you can see wide aperture out-of-focus regions if they're very out of focus (to the extent that the focus screen grain makes the diffract) but not otherwise. Or even this might be incorrect. Jose: Thank you. And also for the images. I can't see a visible difference in behaviour between the F5 and D810 screens, for what it's worth, so I'm not surprised the D700 and F6 are similar (except arguably that the D700 doesn't have a 100 finder). My education continues. Sigh.