Don't think that is who I heard on the radio, the radio just said "Attention".

Eh, good enough, and only $8 for the ATTENTION ATTENTION album.

Sounds like Nickelback. Doesn't say on Amazon the genre. It does if you scroll down far enough.

Elle King isn't it, was a dude singing. Sounds like country music.

Looking for music that triggers my insanity, like the song on the radio.

Found a song called Attention finally. Not rock, that song is Pop. You can dance naked to this song. Just don't tell certain people that you listen to Pop, they'll call you gay and other useless words. I listen to all music. Metal isn't that great, Helloween is fine.

On another note, some people might say the singer is a stud. Does that mean he's gay? At least he looks better then you.

Probably only needed to buy that one song. That happens every time I buy a stupid album. Waste of 9 dollars, it was only a good song once.

But if listening to a specific genre makes you gay, I should listen to some country music. Except, that's more boring then this. Metal and country aren't my favorite. Unless it's Weird Al. But Weird Al is boring now too. Maybe all music is.

I think he was stoned when writing and singing this song, LA Girls.

It's a good thing I'm not a singer, I'd be insane while writing and singing it. It would make zero sense to a sane person.

There's a picture that goes with the Attention song. I had to put the camera in my bedroom, 40mm sucks for topless pictures. In a small apartment. Might of got my body in the frame, if I used my 12-32mm.

If I ever come out of my shell, and get a gf, I'll send her that picture.

That picture would make Trump proud.

You need a powerful flash if the camera is that far away. To far away, and I'd need a new flash.

Only took three shots to get that, one was a test shot, was trying to figure out how to do a timer in the slow ass app, the WiFi is slow, slower then my old camera was, maybe iOS is slower. Second the flash was to powerful.

Can't see it with my eyes. Only in that picture. I suppose I could wipe it off with a paper towel, and see if I get anything. That's part of a can opener.

Apparently you can't link directly to a file on Nextcloud, if you shared a folder, the URL it gets after clicking a file, doesn't work. Some kind of JavaScript most likely.

To get the image URL to embed, I had to inspect the HTML. It would be easier to just share the one image, and the folder.

Paper towel didn't get anything. Doesn't really look like a reflection.

Different focus point, looks like something is growing on it. Like hair. Or metal pieces.

Is it like a microscope? I should buy one, and compare.

How did I get both hairy sides in focus? The focus point is supposed to be in the center. Only one little square in the center is set in the focus thing.

How are you supposed to know where to focus? I thought it was what you want in focus, apparently not.

On another note, the Sigma 60mm is smaller then my zoom lens. Not sure that's a good reason to spend $239 though.

Buy the MEIKE, it is most likely exactly the same, and slightly cheaper. I did see the review that mentioned MEIKE, probably before I bought it.

It works, but if you use both tubes, and the Olympus 40-150mm @ 40mm, you have to be really close, less in the frame then using it at 62mm.

That's a budget macro 62mm lens. I probably won't buy the Sigma, it's pointless, the Olympus is fine. Probably is way better outside. The pictures are still uploading.

There's detail that isn't on my YI 42.5mm in macro mode. So the extension tubes were worth $30.

Now waiting for the server, to generate the thumbnails. I did email BuyVM, asking to upgrade to the $15 a month plan. Then I can peg the one core 24/7.

You can see the pictures taken with it here. The boxes obviously weren't taken with the tubes. No medium size image, so to much work to embed it any here. Look at the last two, that's at 40mm, so if you want to be super zoomed in, use a lower focal length. Must have to be closer. How will 12mm work? I have a Panasonic 12-32mm.

There's more detail at 40mm. Less in focus too. Trying to find the right distance blows. Even without the tubes, that lens is picky. Won't focus if to close.

There was no seal on the box. Probably got sold another open box item again. I'm to lazy to send anything back.

Nope, the YI has detail too. Just more bokeh on the Olympus lens + tubes.

Why doesn't Olympus sell official extension tubes? They'd make a fortune, unless they overcharged, which they would. In that case, MEIKE will make a fortune. I don't see the point in a macro lens now. The tubes work just fine.

If you want more in focus, use focus stacking. I'm to lazy to do so. Need to go outside, nothing small other then my dong to take pictures of inside. And that would be very difficult with a 40-150mm zoom lens, it's huge. Good luck zooming in to 62mm, and being far enough away.

Only your first 10,000 photos are bad, and your next 10,000 aren't much better? I have over 20,000 files in my pics folder. That includes the RAW files. That means all my pictures aren't very good. It'll take a long time to get 30,000 pictures, especially if the RAW file doesn't count as a separate image.

Going to put my zoom lens on it, if it's brighter with that too, then I guess the answer is yes.

If it isn't, then the camera might say the wrong aperture for my YI lens. But I did change it to the highest aperture, and it was mostly black, f16 or something, 16 > 1.8.

Might be brighter, hard to tell. If the subject is close, I can use the lowest flash level, at f6.3 or whatever it's at.

Oh and the Tiffen filter doesn't do anything to the image on the new camera, so some auto setting was off with that on, on the old camera. Or the old camera doesn't like that filter.

It's also sharper then the YI lens. So I'll probably mostly use it from now on.

Not really a inside lens, probably intended for outside. Good thing I have a overkill flash. In the kitchen, it looks brighter. There's more light in there though.

You can get bokeh with the zoom lens, even at f6.3. Just move closer. In fact, I'll probably get bokeh all the time now, without trying. If you zoom in, you'll get bokeh too.

The only picture that isn't really better or worse then the YI, is the picture of the pitcher on the counter.

Look at the drive in the background, that's bokeh. Not as strong as the YI, but who cares.

Might not of been as close, as I was with the YI, but the YI is 42.5mm, the Olympus was at 40mm. Neither got the text on the stove sharp.

I'd have to take the picture stepped back farther with the YI for a better comparison.

How do you get everything in focus? Maybe with focus bracketing. Don't know if AfterShot Pro can combine em, don't think it can, maybe if there's a plugin to do it. You can use opensource software to do it.

If you don't care about strong bokeh, the Olympus is a better buy. It was $100 when I bought it. That is brand new. I did get the YI used for $100 or so. So it looks like I got two lenses for $200, instead of just the YI.

What does it do to contrast? See below.

Is that the contrast, or is the one with the filter brighter? Turning the flash down doesn't help much, or at least I don't think it does, did that yesterday.

The Tiffen UV filter was about $6, so I won't be sending it back. It's better then nothing. You can increase the contrast in AfterShot Pro.

The Olympus M. 40-150mm F4.0-5.6 R is a good lens, probably better outside, doesn't always want to focus inside. The Tiffen UV filter is good enough for $6, if you want to spend $20+ for one, be my guest. I did once. But I'm to cheap to do so again. Is Hoya better?

Fuck, I should of bought the Amazon, for the same price. I have one somewhere, the reviews say it doesn't affect the image quality. What lens is it on? Probably one of the manual ones, I don't use.

Hoya isn't cheap, so it's probably better.

I forgot Amazon made em. Didn't own any Tiffen ones though.

You might not need a UV filter. Just search Google for something related to UV filters. Apparently digital cameras already filter UV.

But it sounds like it should make the image darker, not brighter. So decrease the ISO? Or change the exposure? Changing the exposure on the RAW image, makes it mostly match the RAW image without the UV filter. Use Perfectly Clear, and it might match the JPG of the no UV filter. You need more contrast to match the JPG, even the no UV filter RAW doesn't match the JPG.

Is it a good lens? Barely used it, so I don't know. Manual mode is a pain, it's stuck on that, the dial fell off. I did move it from aperture to manual mode somehow, can't move it anymore.

Double sided tape might be safer then glue, apparently glue can get in the body.

It has bokeh if you get close enough, get to close, and it won't focus.