| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Doc Sharptail
Joined: 23 Nov 2020
Posts: 987
Location: Winnipeg Canada
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:35 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Doc Sharptail wrote:
I am relatively still new here, but will raise a point or 2.
M/S Edge lists this site as "Not secure".
There really needs to be some way to prevent images from being repeated and re-repeated through quoting.
This must be a massive waste of bandwidth.
Most phbb bulletin boards have built in software that prevents this.
-D.S.
_________________
D-810, F2, FTN.
35mm f2 O.C. nikkor
50 f2 H nikkor, 50 f 1.4 AI-s, 135 f3.5 Q,
50 f2 K nikkor 2x, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 35-105 3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 200mm f4 Micro A/I, partial list.
"Ain't no half-way" -S.R.V.
"Oh Yeah... Alright" -Paul Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Blazer0ne
Joined: 12 Sep 2018
Posts: 836
Expire: 2024-12-07
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blazer0ne wrote:
...
Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009
Posts: 7552
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
SSL helps for SEO. Let's Encrypt offers free SSL certificate but I am not sure if it can be installed to the phpbb version we are using.
_________________
https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vivaldibow
Joined: 23 Jun 2018
Posts: 835
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vivaldibow wrote:
| Blazer0ne wrote: |
Or you could keep it simple with very low cost overhead and stretch the site for another 2 decades and focus more on the fact that more fluff doesn’t always translate to more fun.
Using SSL is hardly a requirement here. Site certificates cost money as well. A cost which could go to more storage. I don’t think you have to worry about much being that the only secure item transferred clear text is the password at login. Unless there is expectation of secure transactions taking place.
HTML doesn’t need to download every instance of an image. It doesn’t work that way. Your browser will pull the image from your local cache. As long as the source image has the same name and path it will continue to do so until you clear the cache. That could be anywhere from 1 hour to 1 year. How it buffers on your screen redraw is another story.
I like the Classic look and feel of this site and frankly preferable over other pumped up sites looking to cover their bottom line. Socially over engineered with a bunch of moderators advertisements and all that.
Some things are tucked away and yes it might help to loose a layer of navigational hierarchy up top so to say but that doesn’t require any aesthetic overhaul. It nice to be hard to find.
My only concern truly being the value of datestamps on comments when we are talking about camera lenses most all of which pre date this site. Museum forum?
I see share streams which are post only to show photos.
I see micro reviews begging for feedback. Maybe even as a staggered review placing the task of the readers to be constructive with the writer about the continuation of their review.
I see common ranting or some say critiques.
Most off all this obviously presents itself better as a spread sheet in the end result but is not the answer. The comfort comes by way of the comment threads which is a mix.
In other words I don’t see any reason to continue the parts section such as lens price guide or lens review as a separate item but rather just as it’s more comfortable integrated into the forum itself as user comments.
Let it be what it is such as a classic car with all its faults and enjoy what it isn’t. |
I am kind of with you. This website is plain,i.e., not ads, no flashy webpage technology, yet very useful and efficient. I am not a software person but I am happy with it. If there is one thing that I was asked for suggestions is I wish I could load photos using the mobile version. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Sharptail
Joined: 23 Nov 2020
Posts: 987
Location: Winnipeg Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Doc Sharptail wrote:
There are plenty of fluff-free phbb boards around that have valid security certificates and control over quoted images.
Let's not over think this 
-D.S.
_________________
D-810, F2, FTN.
35mm f2 O.C. nikkor
50 f2 H nikkor, 50 f 1.4 AI-s, 135 f3.5 Q,
50 f2 K nikkor 2x, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 35-105 3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 200mm f4 Micro A/I, partial list.
"Ain't no half-way" -S.R.V.
"Oh Yeah... Alright" -Paul Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
walter g
Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 2463
Location: NC, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
walter g wrote:
| vivaldibow wrote: |
| Blazer0ne wrote: |
Or you could keep it simple with very low cost overhead and stretch the site for another 2 decades and focus more on the fact that more fluff doesn’t always translate to more fun.
Using SSL is hardly a requirement here. Site certificates cost money as well. A cost which could go to more storage. I don’t think you have to worry about much being that the only secure item transferred clear text is the password at login. Unless there is expectation of secure transactions taking place.
HTML doesn’t need to download every instance of an image. It doesn’t work that way. Your browser will pull the image from your local cache. As long as the source image has the same name and path it will continue to do so until you clear the cache. That could be anywhere from 1 hour to 1 year. How it buffers on your screen redraw is another story.
I like the Classic look and feel of this site and frankly preferable over other pumped up sites looking to cover their bottom line. Socially over engineered with a bunch of moderators advertisements and all that.
Some things are tucked away and yes it might help to loose a layer of navigational hierarchy up top so to say but that doesn’t require any aesthetic overhaul. It nice to be hard to find.
My only concern truly being the value of datestamps on comments when we are talking about camera lenses most all of which pre date this site. Museum forum?
I see share streams which are post only to show photos.
I see micro reviews begging for feedback. Maybe even as a staggered review placing the task of the readers to be constructive with the writer about the continuation of their review.
I see common ranting or some say critiques.
Most off all this obviously presents itself better as a spread sheet in the end result but is not the answer. The comfort comes by way of the comment threads which is a mix.
In other words I don’t see any reason to continue the parts section such as lens price guide or lens review as a separate item but rather just as it’s more comfortable integrated into the forum itself as user comments.
Let it be what it is such as a classic car with all its faults and enjoy what it isn’t. |
I am kind of with you. This website is plain,i.e., not ads, no flashy webpage technology, yet very useful and efficient. I am not a software person but I am happy with it. If there is one thing that I was asked for suggestions is I wish I could load photos using the mobile version. |
Yes, that is desperately needed. You should be able to start a thread or load photos from a mobile device.
You can do it now, but it's a pain. To do it you need to put your mobile device in desktop mode.
_________________
Main cameras
Panasonic G5,Nikon J1,Pentax Q10,Sony Nex 6
Minolta MC W SI 2.5/28, MD 2.8/28, MC W SG 3.5/28, MC Celtic 3.5/28, MC W HG 2.8/35, MD Celtic 2.8/35, QE 4/35, Rokkor X 2/45, MC Rokkor X PG 1.4/50, MC Rokkor X PG 1.7/50, MD Rokkor X 1.7/50, MD 2/50, MC Rokkor PF 1.7/55, MC Rokkor PF 1.9/55, Auto Tele Rokkor PG 2.8/135, MC Tele Rokkor QD 3.5/135, TC 4/135, MC Celtic 4/200, MC Tele Rokkor PE 4.5/200
MD 28-70 f3.5-4.8, MD Macro 35-70 f3.5, Md 70-210 f4, MD Rokkor X 75-200 f4.5, MD 100-200 f5.6
Nikon Nikkor 4/20, O Auto 2/35, S Auto 1.4/50..... Miranda Auto 2.8/28, Auto 2.8/35, Auto 1.4/50, Auto EC 1.4/50, Auto 1.8/50, Auto EC 1.8/50,Auto 1.9/50, Auto 3.5/135
Various Soligor,Sun,Fujita,Komura,Spitatone, etc. Lenses
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10524
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
What's the problem uploading from mobile device? Works fine for me. I'm using Firefox...
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
walter g
Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 2463
Location: NC, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
walter g wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
| What's the problem uploading from mobile device? Works fine for me. I'm using Firefox... |
The box for title of the thread doesn't show up. So you can't start a new thread.
No way to post pics either unless you use desktop mode.
This is on android device. Tested on Chrome, Firefox, Opera, etc.
Tested on every version of android I've had thru android 9.
_________________
Main cameras
Panasonic G5,Nikon J1,Pentax Q10,Sony Nex 6
Minolta MC W SI 2.5/28, MD 2.8/28, MC W SG 3.5/28, MC Celtic 3.5/28, MC W HG 2.8/35, MD Celtic 2.8/35, QE 4/35, Rokkor X 2/45, MC Rokkor X PG 1.4/50, MC Rokkor X PG 1.7/50, MD Rokkor X 1.7/50, MD 2/50, MC Rokkor PF 1.7/55, MC Rokkor PF 1.9/55, Auto Tele Rokkor PG 2.8/135, MC Tele Rokkor QD 3.5/135, TC 4/135, MC Celtic 4/200, MC Tele Rokkor PE 4.5/200
MD 28-70 f3.5-4.8, MD Macro 35-70 f3.5, Md 70-210 f4, MD Rokkor X 75-200 f4.5, MD 100-200 f5.6
Nikon Nikkor 4/20, O Auto 2/35, S Auto 1.4/50..... Miranda Auto 2.8/28, Auto 2.8/35, Auto 1.4/50, Auto EC 1.4/50, Auto 1.8/50, Auto EC 1.8/50,Auto 1.9/50, Auto 3.5/135
Various Soligor,Sun,Fujita,Komura,Spitatone, etc. Lenses
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blazer0ne
Joined: 12 Sep 2018
Posts: 836
Expire: 2024-12-07
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Blazer0ne wrote:
...
Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10524
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
| walter g wrote: |
| visualopsins wrote: |
| What's the problem uploading from mobile device? Works fine for me. I'm using Firefox... |
The box for title of the thread doesn't show up. So you can't start a new thread.
No way to post pics either unless you use desktop mode.
This is on android device. Tested on Chrome, Firefox, Opera, etc.
Tested on every version of android I've had thru android 9. |
Found problem location, but Attila needs to fix it. In board profile "mflenses". The board profile "mfblack" (night mode) works fine.
You can click "Profile" link at the top of the page, scroll down and change "Board Style" to "mfblack".
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blazer0ne
Joined: 12 Sep 2018
Posts: 836
Expire: 2024-12-07
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blazer0ne wrote:
...
Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009
Posts: 7552
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
| walter g wrote: |
| visualopsins wrote: |
| What's the problem uploading from mobile device? Works fine for me. I'm using Firefox... |
The box for title of the thread doesn't show up. So you can't start a new thread.
No way to post pics either unless you use desktop mode.
This is on android device. Tested on Chrome, Firefox, Opera, etc.
Tested on every version of android I've had thru android 9. |
Found problem location, but Attila needs to fix it. In board profile "mflenses". The board profile "mfblack" (night mode) works fine.
You can click "Profile" link at the top of the page, scroll down and change "Board Style" to "mfblack". |
I am use mfblack. Underline in links will be missing on the message body. This can be fixed by using a custom style in Stylus plugin.
| Code: |
a.postlink:link {
text-decoration: underline;
color: #bebebe
}
a.postlink:visited {
text-decoration: underline;
color: #bebebe;
}
a.postlink:hover {
text-decoration: underline;
color: #ffffff
} |
_________________
https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vivaldibow
Joined: 23 Jun 2018
Posts: 835
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vivaldibow wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
| walter g wrote: |
| visualopsins wrote: |
| What's the problem uploading from mobile device? Works fine for me. I'm using Firefox... |
The box for title of the thread doesn't show up. So you can't start a new thread.
No way to post pics either unless you use desktop mode.
This is on android device. Tested on Chrome, Firefox, Opera, etc.
Tested on every version of android I've had thru android 9. |
Found problem location, but Attila needs to fix it. In board profile "mflenses". The board profile "mfblack" (night mode) works fine.
You can click "Profile" link at the top of the page, scroll down and change "Board Style" to "mfblack". |
mfblack on mobile device ( iphone 8 ) shows the same inferace as the desktop interface (same as on PC or "Request Desktop Website" on mobile device). That does work.
But for default mflenses profile, which shows the mobile verison of the webpage, uploading photos is not an option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Posts: 1571
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
I agree with voices opposing to pump-up redesign. The current simplicity is just fine for my taste and usage. If some functional tweaks could be possible without spending too much time or messing everything around, that'll be great.
In my usual experience of the forum (which is not related to mobile devices) restoring search functionality and impoving the way of citing multiple answers would be very good.
By the way, if you type the forum's address with "https://", you'll see a message "Scheduled maintenance, takes approx one day 07.10.2017". I remember my first anxious reaction a couple years ago when the browser tempted an automatic switch to "https://", and instead of the MFL forum I discovered a forum focused on cars or something of the kind. I still don't see the way which let two different sites sit on the same address, with a difference of the protocol. But the actual lack of SSL does not seem to affect google results. While changing something essential may bring web crawlers to redefine the way they rate forum records. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10524
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
| alex ph wrote: |
I agree with voices opposing to pump-up redesign. The current simplicity is just fine for my taste and usage. If some functional tweaks could be possible without spending too much time or messing everything around, that'll be great.
In my usual experience of the forum (which is not related to mobile devices) restoring search functionality and impoving the way of citing multiple answers would be very good.
By the way, if you type the forum's address with "https://", you'll see a message "Scheduled maintenance, takes approx one day 07.10.2017". I remember my first anxious reaction a couple years ago when the browser tempted an automatic switch to "https://", and instead of the MFL forum I discovered a forum focused on cars or something of the kind. I still don't see the way which let two different sites sit on the same address, with a difference of the protocol. But the actual lack of SSL does not seem to affect google results. While changing something essential may bring web crawlers to redefine the way they rate forum records. |
Attila worked very very long and hard to get the forum top of Google search results. Google threatened him with derating when several links they had broke because of some change made to the board. This, IMHO, is the primary reason for no upgrades. Losing Google search ratings would surely be the demise.
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaeger
Joined: 16 Jan 2010
Posts: 715
Location: Brier, Wash.
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gaeger wrote:
As others have said, there was a golden decade of the rediscovery of the joys of manual lenses. The siny newness of it all has worn off, a lot of information is now out there, and the really fantastic deals are more difficult to come by. But I still read the posts and find all sorts of good info. One suggestion for this site: streamline the various boards to funnel the traffic to fewer spots.
_________________
"Here's to the wonder" -- Alan Boyle
Nikkor/Nikon 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 55, 85, 105, 135, 180, 200, 300, 400, 10-20, 18-35, 18-55, 28-50, 28-70, 24-85, 35-200, 50-300, 75-150, 80-200, 70-210, 70-300
Minolta Rokkor 24, 28, 35, 45, 50, 58, 100, 135, 300
My most interesting images | Full photostream
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10524
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
| gaeger wrote: |
| ...One suggestion for this site: streamline the various boards to funnel the traffic to fewer spots. |
Go to http://forum.mflenses.com/ notice the link "View posts since last visit" which lists new posts from ALL of the sub-forums. 
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
e6filmuser
Joined: 12 Nov 2010
Posts: 555
Location: Reading UK
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2021 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
e6filmuser wrote:
An observation:
The proportion of images in old threads which are no longer visible is very high.
_________________
Dedicated to using manual focus lenses with digital. Equiped for photography from macro to panoramic & from ultra-wide to extreme telephoto. Mostly shooting outdoor macro. Experienced entomological taxonomist. Some knowledge of mushrooms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Posts: 1571
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2021 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
Intentions and attempts to restore test shots have been on there, by the posters. They were realized only punctually. It takes too much time and effort to search in your folders and to restore the logic of your original posting. But this also gives a motivation to post new samples from the same lenses! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paulhofseth
Joined: 05 Mar 2011
Posts: 562
Location: Norway
Expire: 2018-06-28
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2021 7:17 am Post subject: neoluddite rsistance to "improvements" |
|
|
paulhofseth wrote:
After programs and subroutines were renamed "apps" most changes to "improve user experience" and to protect users from their own stupid actions have proved less than useful.
Examples are Android phones storing aeons of sms messages (for the memory impaired?)making it hard to find recent ones and Windows making it impossible to delete their own useless programs cluttering up my computer.
The only harmless improvement here would be to allow precise, boolean operators in the search function.
Otherwise the occasional rambling posts do provide ingteresting info.
p. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 3693
Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
The final nail in the coffin would be to discuss web page programming in main thread. Sorry, must have said it .
_________________
---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiftyonepointsix
Joined: 30 Apr 2017
Posts: 292
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2021 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fiftyonepointsix wrote:
My daughter took a course in Web Design, which meant I learned HTML. Proved to be very useful for me. I wrote a FORTRAN program to use HTML for the output files so you could view them on a web browser, including links to bring up more files. All in Fortran-77 of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10524
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2021 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
| fiftyonepointsix wrote: |
| My daughter took a course in Web Design, which meant I learned HTML. Proved to be very useful for me. I wrote a FORTRAN program to use HTML for the output files so you could view them on a web browser, including links to bring up more files. All in Fortran-77 of course. |
Cool! I used FORTRAN in 1968 on school district IBM1401. Keypunched the cards myself.
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paulhofseth
Joined: 05 Mar 2011
Posts: 562
Location: Norway
Expire: 2018-06-28
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2021 6:28 pm Post subject: the glue of the site |
|
|
paulhofseth wrote:
according to a comment above, this is getting perniciously off track, however, offfering small bits of personal info despite its lack of subject coherence may well serve to promote mutual acceptance + civility and as a glue to cement forum paricipation.(In my case i used Algol60).
p. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eeyore_nl
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 837
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2021 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eeyore_nl wrote:
Another possible reason; the popularity of mirrorless cameras had led to much more attention on mf lenses in the regular photo communities. So many people (including me) maybe visit a dedicated forum less often? When I started with mf lenses, I was still a bit of an exception among the photography hobbyists and professionals I know here. Now, many people have at least played with them.
Undesirable side effect; the prices of some lenses have gone through the roof!
_________________
Fujifilm X-Pro2 / Fujifilm X-T1 / some Sonnar & Takumar lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
