Wasp nests

Spring has come!
Streams are flowing, thawed areas have appeared, flies have come out, they are making the first flights of their land after the terrible permafrost.
And some kind of Eumenine's nest, in a hole from a screw.

Pictures:

P1291422.jpg — (501.86к)


P1291406.jpg — (469.99к)


P1291381.jpg — (419.25к)

Yes, the aperture of pribluda pan will clearly be more than mine. So in vain he Olympus hait. It remains to change the lens to a normal one (without such terrible aberrations) and a completely working gizmo will come out. For comparison, here is yesterday's full-frame image, the aberration is several times less (despite the fact that the lens is stronger).

[attachmentid()=251710]

So think about it, Esox, why does Olympus have a really big aperture, 2.8 - 3.7 aperture at the far end , and the Kenons Ah aperture at the far end is 5.5, even if there is a 4X zoom? And how does this relate to the fact that the kenon object is more macro-oriented?

Olympus and without a lens in macro mode soaps and gives a barrel, but at the long end there is almost no distortion and the maximum aperture.
And the lens can be prisobachit at least 10X, only whether you can take pictures on it in nature-that's where the question is ))) I can remove the lens from the MBS and take a picture, and the picture of your pixels is again muddy.

Meanwhile, I discovered a new species in our kitchen, this is no longer Anisopteromalus calandrae, which lives on the bread grinder, whose photos I used to have. This is already some other bug, larger, almost 3 mm, with a protruding stinger. We need to prepare a publication about the faunal find

Pictures:

P1291459.jpg — (295.82к)

In the meantime, I solved the problem of lack of light. The A550 is very sensitive to it, and hand-held close-ups, except on particularly clear days, are best avoided without a flash. With the nozzle, the aperture still fell. And the flash, as I already noted, is not enough for it. At first, I solved this problem with one small reflective screen, but the effect was not very good. Now I have placed the screen around the entire perimeter of the camera, and the result is almost a ring flash effect. So from now on, no tripod, no haze and minimal noise. And most importantly - you can shoot in nature, including shootsro running insects (if, of course, you can catch them in focus)!

With full zoom (4X), full frames, raw (except for the last one, I lightened it a little, because the lighting system didn't work quite right), compressed:



[attachmentid()=251757]
[attachmentid()=251752]

The detail (in the sense that I understand this term) is excellent, but the GRIP is too small. It is a pity that my camera does not have a bracketing mode, otherwise it would be possible to glue the stack together as well as Carcharot's with a bee (the one that was shot through a particularly Orthodox binocular). Aberrations are minimal, visible only at the very edge of the frame.

The twentieth example can be explored for a long time, scaling, as in Google Earth.:



With incomplete zoom (about 2X), full frame, compressed:



Yes, this is the same hefty mutilid that I mentioned in the next topic, but it was found after all.

An increase in the visual field led to the fact that a spherical aberration came out, leaving only the central zone free. Here we ask for cropping and the conclusion: it is impractical to shoot large os entirely with this lens. But all the same, I was personally impressed by the quality, now all sorts of funnel watering cans really have reason for concern.

I think that the limit of macro quality available with my equipment, if I may say so, has been reached. Now there is a desire to move on to micro photography. And some results are already there (tripod, full shots, horror):

[attachmentid()=251758]
[attachmentid()=251759]
[attachmentid()=251760]

"What a terrible quality" - you say? And what else can it be with such a plastic lens from a flashlight that has served me faithfully for many years? I fixed it up purely for fun, not even hoping that anything would work out.



But what is surprising is that the image quality is very close to the "Analyst" (the magnification is quite a bit short of its minimum), and a natural question arises: from what substance and on what lathe are the lenses of this microscope made, that they, despite their tiny size, have aberrations slightly smaller than that of this lamp? But in what my microeconomics beat "Analyt" with a crushing score, so it was in svetosil. So if you replace the lens in the nozzle with a human one, you should get quite a worthwhile microscope.

And I can advise Pan Stepov, with his design talent, to repeat it here is a device like this. I don't know how it is about the lens from Zenit, but the matrix from a good webcam that is supposedly not repairable was definitely skommunizdil by Pan. This should keep him occupied for a long time and distract him from sadomasochistic monitoring of the oil price and other nonsense.

This post was edited by ENO - 29.01.2016 21: 43

Well, finally Ezox gave birth to something, I'm talking about the "screen" - a very cool idea. Objects "under macro" are always dark, but this is not important on DSLRs, since the ISO is even 1000 without noise, and on a soap dish above 100 the noise already climbs out, or everything is scuffed with noise.

But the "micro" is of course terrible, not only that the dregs, but also aberrations and spherical and chromatic in general kapets))

I don't have any matrix from a webcam and a webcam too, and an object from Zenith even more so, but I already knew this method for a long time, I don't need it since MBS is there, so take it yourself and do it)

 
One hundred and fifty-last time I ask: nafiga when shooting "nosey" macro mode? Just on the" dinny end " you need to focus.

Esox.. read physics)) with a snout, the macro mode "returns" in any zoom position, and resp. all distortions of the primary object are also associated with it
Bourgeois what, fools, to make the perfect object on soap for $ 200, so that both macro, zoom and wide angle were perfect )))))

It would have been better if Esox had shaken up academic science and identified corruption, but alas...

Strange kind of Olympus physics, quantum mechanics directly. Oh, well.

 
And some kind of Eumenine's nest, in a hole from a screw.

It may well be a bee's nest.

It may well be a bee's nest.

No, not bees, I didn't guess, this is Eumenina, I myself watched her make it in early October. I didn't take pictures because I was afraid that the nest would be abandoned

This is about the structure:

http://www.antvid.org/Vespa/Gal/Ancistrocerus%20gazella.html

No, not bees, I didn't guess, this is Eumenina, I myself watched her make it in early October. I didn't take pictures because I was afraid that the nest would be abandoned

This is about the structure:

http://www.antvid.org/Vespa/Gal/Ancistrocerus%20gazella.html

Well, once I've observed it, that's another matter. It is possible that even the same type, since in October it was...

Well, once I've observed it, that's another matter. It is possible that even the same type, since in October it was...

And for some reason it seems to me that the picture shows a male Euodynerus

I didn't leave b. I also took pictures of the ancystrocerus nest, including the internal contents.





In general, single wasps and bees, if they are well flown from the approximate circles, are quite problematic to drive away from the nest by any methods other than total landscape change. Well, maybe chemistry still.

And for some reason it seems to me that the picture shows a male Euodynerus 

No, it's all right, and I caught it after shooting it.

Ezox, here's a new problem for you
I still have this nosey thing, I made it back in December, but I also need to change the camera a little, just a trifle.
In general, the bottom line is that through this snout, objects of the living and not only the world in the sun, and not only lighting, appear exclusively in the rays of a certain spectrum invisible to the ordinary eye.
In the photo from the window, taken in December, you can see where the live grass is intensively growing, and where it is not.
Pictures of landscapes through it, especially in early spring-pure thermonuclear, and + you can find the earliest sprouts, and some spider beetles.

Pictures:

IMAGE_849.jpg — (273.98к)


IMAGE_848.jpg — (318.36к)


P1010546546029.jpg — (249.61 k)


P1010011.jpg — (299.89к)


P10108024.jpg — (356.23к)


P101880016.jpg — (467.82к)

IR? And the UV is weak? It will be possible to look out for rodent urine on the steppe. No, I have nothing to redo for such garbage, unlike Pan, who sells packaging of digital equipment under the brand of repair type, I have only one camera.

Meanwhile, I finished the reflector with a file and cut it with a knife to the field version. I had to remove a couple of centimeters of the edge and also make a cutout on the underside so that I could take photos at small angles to flat surfaces, and not just at 90 degrees. The uniformity of lighting, of course, has suffered and the brightness too, but now it can be used in "combat conditions". Although no, there is still one small improvement: a weak flashlight for "aiming"should be added to the design. Sorry, but I'm too lazy to copy and compress images specifically for the forum. I also don't see any point in displaying full-frame uncut images, so I'll keep the photos as I saved them on my computer.:









To determine the OS, as for me, the detail is quite sufficient, but for ants and other small things-no, there is definitely a need to change the lens or put an additional one. I'm like that, except for the creepy lamppost, until I found it. But I still have a lot of unverified boxes in my apartment...

Today was the first clear day in a long time, so I was finally able to get a normal picture in natural light:



This is an adult female stick insect Heteropteryx dilatata (dry, but with their lack of mobility, it would have turned out exactly the same with a live one), full zoom, full frame (yes, the head is hefty), ISO 200 (it doesn't work out less, there's not enough aperture).

For comparison - with a flash through a reflector, ISO 80:



And for laboratory and home conditions, for dry specimens, I will make another option, with perfect light, where the wasp really needs to be shoved inside. I also plan to make a smoothly rising object table, and then, finally, it will be possible to stack and "scan" the entire collection. And let the pan continue to look for sprouts in the IR on the steppe, since the eyes of green on gray do not distinguish well enough.

No, I have nothing to redo for such garbage, unlike Pan, who sells packaging of digital equipment under the brand of repair type, I have only one camera.

I do not know what there at Ezoksa hurts again, only and "only", such gum on aukro costs 100 UAH, you OK not the parasite like, so buy, though, who will send it to you

And the pictures are again muddy, and dark as a Negro in zhzheludke

Aukro - this is the Ukrovs, we do not have such a thing. And we don't have any hryvnias. Yes, and I personally have no desire to engage in such garbage.

IR? And the UV is weak? It will be possible to look out for rodent urine on the steppe. No, I have nothing to redo for such garbage, unlike Pan, who sells packaging of digital equipment under the brand of repair type, I have only one camera...

And here's my last picture of Panov (P101880016.jpg) I liked it - a lot of things fall into place.

I thought I thought what was wrong with this picture, and it came to that..
Mdya, exactly what-who has what hurts

Ezox, you won't get any similar "quality" pictures from me, because your pictures are just creepy
Well, I say-it will work for science, but so-trash trash.

And I have updates, in general, these pictures.. including the mask on the glass, I took a photo .. from a distance of 40cm(!!!) This is just tin, and it turned out thanks to the addition of just one more special lynza
And no autofocus.

This is at maximum zoom, the field of the frame, if you fold back the edges with distortions, is 3 cm at a distance of 40 cm. Well, essno zoom can be reduced.

Pictures:

P2010119.jpg — (248.2к)


P2010238.jpg — (513.06к)


P2010208.jpg — (356.88к)


P2010128.jpg — (332.89к)

But this result is understandable in principle, but I can't understand this result yet.. As I wrote above, the zoom can be reduced. At the same time, the frame field increases, and the GRIP increases. And when the zoom is reduced to zero, the GRIP increases.. ad infinitum. That is, it turns out that in this position the camera provides a sharp image from 2-3cm and up to the stop =0
That's what it's called?

Father-in-law, here are two photos, the cactus was photographed from a distance of about 10 cm, and almost everything is sharp there - both the foreground and background. And this is when the aperture is open. In general, in this mode, the aperture has little effect on the GRIP, only contrast and clarity are added, but there are no circles of blurriness even at the 2.8 aperture..

Lenses - biconvex + negative meniscus.

Pictures:

IMAGE_851.jpg — (228.25к)


P2010141.jpg — (532.9к)


P2010145.jpg — (555.55 k)

Fse ) I understood how it works. This photo is from 100-120 centimeters Now this is bagpipes Now even the most timid single wasps should not be afraid )))

Pictures:

P2010321.jpg — (564.56к)


P2010267.jpg — (329.05к)


P2010316.jpg — (521.26к)

As I understand it, Pan went to a secret flea market again, picked up a big bag of all sorts of Soviet defense lenses, and now he's trying to make a super-super-macro-telephoto lens out of them so that he can plug all the funnels of the watering can into his belt. And the main thing comes out. Only, of course, I don't mean the quality of the pictures, but the appearance of the lens. In this regard, I can advise Pan to buy a "Zenith lens" at the same flea market, that is, virtually any Soviet one, turn it over backwards and stick it in this position as a nozzle. The appearance will be no less cool, but the macro quality is also excellent. I, by the way, have as many as two similar pieces (my grandfather was an amateur photographer), but the flimsy design of the A550 even holds the nozzle that is, with difficulty, and with the Industriar it would be a complete bummer (in the literal sense of the word).

And when the zoom is reduced to zero, the GRIP increases.. ad infinitum.

Something on the pictures of "infinity" is not visible, the cars outside the window floated terribly. But the fact that it is very large, of course, there is no doubt, but I would like to look at the macro "in this mode".

"Oska" from a distance of 40 cm is certainly cool in terms of distance, but absolutely unacceptable in terms of image quality. I would have photographed it many times better (even if not from 40 cm, but, say, from 15) in fully automatic mode without any attachments. Something like this:



In the meantime, I moved on to practical testing of my personal equipment "in conditions close to combat." That is, I went through the same "quest" as Pan did a few days ago: I wandered around the apartment, photographing everything small that caught my eye (unfortunately, in terms of animals, I came across very little). Pan, I remember, then turned out "katamenes under LSD", but I have the following:










[attachmentid()=252158]
[attachmentid()=252159]

Who would have thought that the wallpaper has such a complex texture (I used to think that there were only "peas"), and the tiny eye of farnatia looks so psychedelic (I didn't squeeze it on purpose).

Conclusions:

1. Definitely not enough light. The illuminated area abruptly ends a few centimeters from the lens, so it turns out, for example, an illuminated drosophila head combined with a completely shaded body. The design of the reflector needs to be slightly changed.

2. The aiming flashlight must be mounted in the reflector, and not hung on the lens. In general, with the light, I plan to mess up a lot of things, the last two photos seem to hint.

3. The GRIP is negligible, and I absolutely do not see how it is fashionable to fix it. When shooting with a tripod, I already figured out how, but with hands with a lack of light with my camera, apparently, not fate.

Yes, of course, and for one with the Zenith objective, you can also buy a DSLR BU)) Maybe it will be better with the object, but it weighs 300g clearly, I have a soap dish itself weighs so much + a 100g nose in a complete set.

And with dorkus, Ezox-ixpert didn't guess, I don't have a tripod at all, and in such cases you need to shoot through the viewfinder, attach the camera to the case(tm) and hold it with both hands.

Your oska, Ezox, is not comparable in size to mine, this one is approx. 3mm, and the one in my last picture is approx. 1mm. And this Oska is the same as in the picture in my first message. So, I identified it, it is an oska from Microgastrinae, and at our house it parasitizes on the larvae of leatherworms, which are wound up in old wool on moth dust. But Ezox, judging by his numerous pictures of imago kozheedov, and such an oke-see these kozheeds live in dry material )))

I just took a picture of a flower in a terrarium:

1) - without a snout, in the standard super-macro mode as the manufacturers did, ISO 200 aperture 2.8, DF 3cm, autofocus.

2) - snout with hyperfocal lens combination, ISO 200 aperture 2.8, DF 5cm, without zoom.

3) - snout with hyperfocal lens combination, ISO 200 aperture 2.8, DF 110cm, max. zoom.

4) - snout with one lens, ISO 200 aperture 2.8, DF 10cm, medium zoom.

In fact, shots of a flower from 3 cm without a snout, and from a meter with a snout-are approximately equivalent in terms of blur and frame size, but the GRIP is larger with a snout, and the distance is determined by a macro from 3 cm. This is a HORROR when shooting animals.. How many just flew...

Well, a picture with one lens is something already similar to an artistic " wet " (tm) macro with a good blur, but this is from 10 cm, the most timid osk can fly away

Pictures:

P2010404.jpg — (342.47к)


P2010388.jpg — (443.78к)


P2010390.jpg — (378.23к)


P2010400.jpg — (370.75к)

These kozheaters are extremely rare to me, and I mercilessly destroy them. And they can't get to the collections - everything is sealed. And certainly no "sedge" their unfinished population is not able to support. But Pan has a whole eco-system on the dust from moths that got into the wool of the old scoop megacollection.

After killing the horror, the pictures are almost identical. In all cases, before art, as before the sky. But who knows, maybe there was something wrong with the full-size images...

And I have a grief-jinxed, it seems pan, swampiness of my camera for macro photography. For a long time, when macro photography, the flash often lit up everything nafig, but after turning it off, it passed. And now fse. From now on, you can make out something on macro photos with flash only if you pre-set the maximum negative exposure compensation, but this is still not the case. I suspect that there is a problem with the flash itself - the camera has stopped dosing it and turns it on to the maximum. As a" bonus " - fast discharge of batteries. To top it off, I didn't find any ways to manually adjust the exposure time, which could compensate for the illumination (only above 1 min, but this is not the case). Also, manual adjustment of the diphragm was not found, but this is due to another problem - a lack of grip when working with the nozzle.

So Pan still has reason to gloat.

This post was edited by ENO-02/01/2016 22: 18

Ezox, you at least read about bokeh, chtoli)) The bottom line is that on soap dishes, bokeh is very rough, without "stars", in the form of torn fragments, but on the last photo - already smooth background blur.

And that's why I don't use the flash, not only does it drain the batteries, but it also increases the probability of killing the camera because the voltage there is very high, 310V generator and when the flash pulses above 1000V. So you need to get away from the flash by all means. Normal illumination from that LED with a mustache, do it, and do not suffer)
And manual modes are still yes, only on the Carcharotovsky A6x there are, but they are not needed when using the flash, the camera itself calculates the shutter speed is not bad. So you can see that your Ezox shutter is covered, or something is messed up in the settings)))

What could have happened to the shutter? It works after all. Without flash, the images are perfect, even in bright light (I photographed the light bulb and the hand behind it to check). And I didn't mess anything up anywhere, it's on the menu, like in three pines growing on Oleshkin sands - you can't really get lost. The strange thing is that the light (but not so terrible as after the flash) appears even during focusing (only in flash mode), so the camera knows that the light will be too much, but does nothing to correct the situation. At the same time, in normal mode, despite the fact that, all other things being equal, the illumination of close objects in the image is similarly redundant (as it always was), when focusing, the image does not over-light.
I had a similar problem a couple of years ago (but not related to the flash), when shooting distant objects at maximum zoom, only they did not brighten sharply when focusing, but darkened, and as a result, the photos turned out to be very dark. After that, it became almost impossible to take pictures of such distant birds, but since I am not an ornithologist, I was not particularly upset. In general, some strange cases. So Pan doesn't have to look at Powershots and should be happy with his kayak.

I can't do it without flash, because flash is my working tool, otherwise you won't be able to see the contents of the cells of the polyster nests in the field. And in general, with a scanty aperture and a noisy matrix, with the exception of particularly sunny days, high-quality macro photos have never been released with this camera. I have already taken many thousands of photos with the flash, and until recently everything was OK. But then again, perhaps, the fact is that almost always my flash worked in macro mode, but now, with this "nosey" one, I started actively driving to full speed, maybe something didn't stand up. And LEDs, even the most powerful ones, are ersatz. The diode shown in the photo, I was going to use for shooting videos and for aiming when focusing.

Gee, I didn't look at the background pictures of the flower at all. Probably professional. In macro photography, for me, a GRIP of a couple of cm is already a lot, and I'm not interested in further increasing it.

.. The strange thing is that the light (but not so terrible as after the flash) appears even during focusing (only in flash mode), so the camera knows that the light will be too much, but does nothing to correct the situation. At the same time, in normal mode, despite the fact that, all other things being equal, the illumination of close objects in the image is similarly redundant (as it always was), when focusing, the image does not over-light...

Check if you accidentally blocked the flash sensor when installing your reflector. If so, the camera in any mode will produce a full pulse for the flash.

P.S. By the way, do not believe Pan regarding the terrible flash 300V. This is only on the lamp such a voltage. And on the circuit breaker in the camera no more than 3-5V, depending on the model.

If something clicks - this does not mean that the shutter works, the curtains stick and everything, and you can only check when shooting during the day or with a splash, because the usual light of lamps is not enough to unbalance the matrix, and there is enough electronic shutter.
A typical photo with a flash when the shutter breaks
https://pp.vk.me/c616130/v616130307/11ba2/FAvDOb2eKr4.jpg


About 300v only on the lamp is cool, you can immediately see another expert opinion, it would be necessary to disassemble AVA photos more often in order to feel these very 310V fingers in the most unexpected places, since 310V is separated on the board, accumulates on the flash capacitor, which is usually soldered somewhere near the processor )) And on the lamp in general, first there is a high-voltage ignition pulse of OK 1000V , there is a choke for this. And if water gets on the camera when using the flash, then immediately on release, and even in wet weather, too, and without a flash - options are possible.

And the soap dishes adjust the shutter speed according to the data from the matrix, there is no exposure meter sensor there. So after all, Ezox either ruined the shutter, everything happens for the first time, or he picked up the patterns and unleashed the flash and shutter speed.

No, the flash is on a regular macro without any attachments. With the nozzle, everything is fine, there is just no way without full light:



Well, ixperd Hierophis also hit the finger in the sky, I don't have anything like that creepy picture on the link. Here is a similar story on a full automatic machine:

[attachmentid()=252217]

But with the flash - horror:

[attachmentid()=252216]

The same, but with an exposure compensation of -2 (by the way, what kind of beast is this, how does it work?):

[attachmentid()=252218]

But, approximately, so it should be (without any compensation) in the norm:

[attachmentid()=252212]

In the sun without flash, everything is perfect (like for my camera):

[attachmentid()=252213]

So the problem is somehow related to the flash.

Well, then, Ezox, the fox has covered your breath.

That's what I needed to prove. And pan all the shutter, yes shutter. The paper greatly distorts the white balance. But I think it is possible to choose a more "neutral" material for the light filter. And, of course, not to glue, but to make a curtain, because I also sometimes need full light. But this "manual sunset" does not save you from the increased load on the batteries and the entire electrical system. Is there no way to change this block to a working one?

Again, how does "exposure compensation" work? Judging by the exifs, when shooting without flash, it adjusts the shutter speed, but when shooting with flash, it does not. Maybe it does affect the flash power? You can't tell by sight, and I don't have a luxometer. Oh, it's a pity there is no risochki "-3", I think the result would be close to normal.

Also, again, according to exifs, I tried to understand the reasons for the" eclipse " with a large zoom. As it turned out, the point is that the shutter speed drops to indecent values (1/500 - 1/1000). Moreover, even with the nozzle, it pops up in 50% of cases, and regardless of external factors. For example, you can take a normal photo in a series and make the next one dark. This case can be adjusted with the same "exposure compensation", but the result is not very good, the scale discreteness is rough there.

Here you can immediately see what kind of Esox scientific-nothing is proven, it will be proven only when the cause is found and removed.
Here is the fact that the batteries sit down-this is bad, you can change everything, and even need to, only a) you need to be able and b) you need to have and Esox hardly held an embroidery frame in your hands, but here you can not do with one soldering iron.
So for you, there are not many exits, or a bum, or a service, and the service is a lottery, you can stay without a photo, especially in your reality )

Expocorrection is an exposure compensation based on the shutter speed and / or aperture and / or ISO, this does not affect the flash in any way.

For the flash, there is a special menu-adjust the leading number, but you obviously don't have it, and it wouldn't help - if the flash is buggy, then there's no point in adjusting it. And there are obvious glitches with the shutter speeds, maybe you don't have a flash, but the light meter is buggy in the processor itself, and judging by the increased power consumption, there may be a hole in the crystal, and this is not treated at all, but only progresses. But again - maybe Ezox chose an average exposure camera instead of the central one, IMHO, the muti option remains in the settings, because in practice it is the most frequent, they pick up lamers, and then cry ))))

By the way, Ezox, since you are so smart and got to exif, then look at the parameters of your over-lit images in it, what is there, maybe there are low shutter speeds, or the aperture is opened to the maximum, and the flash has nothing to do with it, but with the exposure meter.

I wonder from what oak tree Pan got the idea that I'm going to change personally? Naturally, the master was meant.

So, by an experimental method, I proved that pan nifting is not understood in photo technology, exposure correction in the A550 with the flash turned on means exactly exposure correction of the flash (so Google and score for enlightenment). That is, the same menu when the flash is turned off and when the flash is turned on regulates completely different things. When turned off, this is the shutter speed. The aperture and ISO are not affected by exposure correction in this camera. IMHO, if the task is to reduce expropriation into one small bar with a slider, this scheme is the most rational of all possible ones. But it would be better, of course, if they made two different slats, but more authentic.

Conclusions:

1. The flash itself is obviously fine, since it is quite regulated (indirectly through exposure correction).

2. The exposure meter is also probably fine (at least in this range of values), since even before the shutter is triggered, during focusing, the screen simulates the flash operation, indicating that the frame will be overexposed. This is in "macro" mode, but no flash simulation appears in normal mode. It also doesn't appear in any mode when the flash is turned off. It is a pity, of course,that the results of the exposure meter are not displayed anywhere in numerical form.

3. By way of elimination, only one thing remains: the problem is in the part of the" camera brain "that is responsible for switching the flash control switch to"macro" mode.

In principle, if there was direct control, as pan put it, of the leading number of the flash, or if the flash exposure correction of more than -2 eV was available, then the problem could be considered solved, or rather bypassed. Unfortunately, in the poor management of the A550 neither one nor the other.

This post was edited by ENO-03.02.2016 15: 47