tim fisher46: Leica M lenses on the A7R?Is that possible?Does anyone have a link or similar to which adapters might be possible?
Owning 4x new Leica lenses, this sounds like a really good option for a forthcoming project of mine where size of equipment is going to be important, & assuming the adapters are not as impractical and bulky as the above picture, this camera may be a Heaven sent.
Also this for Voigtlander's Leica-M-to-Sony E close-focusing adapter (eventually)
Naveed Akhtar: Pentax always wins my heart .. with their beautiful, highly functional, rigid camera bodies .. and excellent IQ .. one after other .. K7, K5 and now K3!
However a few features are still missing .. and can't switch my boat without these, now a days:
- Continuous AF performance in movie and live view, preferably with touch screen!- A Wifi remote control with live view streaming- Better quality lenses (no doubt they are good, but there is a competition out there with top-end m43 and FF Canikons), you need to work out on some higher end kit-lenses and show some more options!!- I would also add electronic shutter to my wish list here!
Rest it's great!!!
I use both Pentax (K10d) and Olympus (EPL2) cameras. I shoot in raw and use darktable and the gimp under Linux. The reults are very similar even at pixel-peeping magnifications, seeming to be limited by 10Mp and 12Mp respectively. The exceptions are when I use primes like the Pentax 50mm f:4 or Tamron 90mm f:2.5 macros on the Pentax.
I have Oly's kit short zoom, but it seems a bit sharper than Pentax's equivalent on the K10d.s
So far, it seems to me sharpness is very dependent on lenses, with the best ones resolving higher than (so far) the best sensors, regardless of the sensor size.
There are many very sharp m43 primes, and quite a few mediocre lenses with Pentax mounting. But the kit lens for my Oly ranks in sharpness with the famous 50mm f:1.4 Pentax-M when used on the same test subject, processed by my preferred software at each lens's best aperture.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Let's just hope the sale to UK employees' pension plan doesn't mean the end of Kodak film. After all, Ilford went into receivership and now it is going on with their core business. And Italy's Ferrania is rising from the ashes right now. There's still a niche that needs to be filled.Today, still unaware of this news, I bought a T-Max 100 35mm roll for my Olympus OM-2n. I hope it wasn't the last Kodak roll l loaded my camera with. I still haven't tried Tri-X and Ektar...
To Graham and Manuel~:
Sorry. I guess I'm showing my age. I still have a couple of rolls, but never checked to see if it was still being marketed. Ilford made a similar film, ASA 100 that was a close second. Perhaps that's still made.
Both Plus-X and FP perhaps that was its name had a gorgeously smooth tonal range that I never achieved with Tri-X.
When you try Tri-X, discover its basic sharpness with an old-timey developer, too. Rodinal or one of its substitutes (Fomadon) will sharpen the images up considerably while still holding grain to moderate levels. Try dilutions of 50-100:1.
And don't ignore Plus-X, one of the truly underestimated emulsions. Rate it at 160 ISO for best results with Rodinal-like develiopers.
FrankS009: For those of us born after the second world war, it sometimes seems that life up until its end took place in black and white. These photos are not only good images, but a reality check.
"These photos are not only good images, but a reality check."
I assume these shots were on early Kodachrome -- the only film I can imagine being available at the time. It had an ASA (now ISO) rating of 10. To shoot available light on a factory floor on this stuff is more than amazing: It is genius.
I know, I used Kodachrome in the fifties; my Weston Master exposure meter would not measure below EV3 or EV4 so the exposiure must have been a guess.
straylightrun: Big surprise. Next is Micro Four Thirds and eventually APS-C before FF becomes the standard in a few years.
I used to think change will happen fast, but time has shown me how slowly it flows. It may well be that FF (35mm-size format) will win out for technical and artisitic reasons, but IMHO, it will take a long time -- decades perhaps.
Very, very good zooms are being designed and produced for APS-C, even with its technical limitations, like long back-focus lengths. A complex lens to achieve a wide field of view, when mass produced, appears to be cheaper than a less-demanding short-back focus wideangle zoom for either m43 or FF that is in limited production.
For now APS-C is more cost-effective than any other format.
In order to achieve the volume of sales necessary to meet present APS-C accessory lens prices, FF prices will have to fall dramatically, and I don't see that happening soon, if at all.
Many of us need some background on the company's history and its names.
IIRC, after Germany was divided after WWII, part of Carl Zeiss AG was located in Soviet-occupied areas, while other factories were in the "free" zone.
Inevitably, there was a trademark battle and the West German Zeiss operations were called Zeiss IKON while the East German products used the Carl Zeiss label. Reunification brought both trademarks to the company, although, frankly, the Carl Zeiss brand was damaged by variable quality and seen by some (me) as being inferior in design and/or assembly to the West German products.
ZEISS (all caps, no IKON or Carl) will, I expect, solve the branding problem for the future.
zorgon: Since when did dpreview start posting rumours?
Am I crazy, or are there others like myself who would snap up a Leica M 240 without the expensive rangefinder assembly, which doubtless adds thousands to the cost, even if it did not have a red dot or the M-moniker?
They could call it the 1a-2 for all I would care. A FF EVF live-view with the M-mount: so simple. Are you listening Cosina?
Gesture: $1,200 interesting and exciting. Likely cost: 2-3X.
I suspect there will be a Panasonic Lumix version of this; if so, it would likely cost ~$1200.
Oh, boy, here we go again! Forward -- into the past!
The photos look to me like Weegee's newspaper work, except with better lighting and less dramatic tonal range (perhaps the diff between Weegee's large-format monochrome film and Tergo's color digital).
Like "60-Minutes" which cheapened and coarsened news reporting decades ago, the described technique is likely to yield lots of raging, angry faces. I smell a book deal or grant-funding application in there somewhere...
Perhaps I am just a cynic.
kff: The question is:when Google release online graphical editor with layers and RAW convertor which can use Nik Collection by Google ?
Or Nik Collection by Google for Gimp ... ?of course, there would be a small problem with Ubuntu on tablets and smartphones ...
As a photoshop plugin, they are useful in Gimp if they are of .8bf or .scm extension plugins.
To install .scm plugins, just dump them into /.gimp-2.8/plugins.
To install .8bf, see Gimp's Help pages.
Richard Schumer: I have bought cameras for their form AND as tools. Over the years, I have sold off the pretty ones and kept the tools. This year, due to an overabundance of funds, I bought another pretty one: a black-and-shiny-chrome Olympus E-PM1.
My Pentax system are my tools. But it's all pug-ugly.
I can polish and shine the Oly shamelessly, wishing I could afford another whose form is very similar and which may be the most comfortable, ergonomic, and aesthetically-pleasing camera ever made: a Leica I, II, or III up to but not including the IIIg. Not only beautiful and finely finished, its proportions were probably perfect, visually.
It reminds me, in a way, of a Jaguar XK120 or Studebaker Starlite Coupe, 1953-4.
Just perfect. I'll get one eventually, but it had better be in working condition!
<<And the camera one uses is the best of all.>>
You're right, there. That was my rationale for buying the Olympus: ir was small enough to carry around unobtrusively like I used to carry a Pentax film ME-Super decades ago.
My Pentax DSLR was way too big for that, especially with any zoom. The E-PM1 with its kit zoom is a little smaller overall than my film Pentaxes with 28mm or 50mm FFL lens.
I do use it more than my Pentax, which I still lug around when I go to a location. But there's plenty of room in the glove compartment of my car or in a jacket pocket for the Oly, its kit zoom, the EVF-2, and the 9-18mm zoom, too.
The bottom line: I use the Pentax as much as I always have, and added the Oly for street shooting and quick-and-dirty snapshots while on the road.
And, from time to time, for just putting on shelf and admiring. It would look very handsome with a Voigtlander 35mm f:2,5 Color-Skopar, don't you think?
I have bought cameras for their form AND as tools. Over the years, I have sold off the pretty ones and kept the tools. This year, due to an overabundance of funds, I bought another pretty one: a black-and-shiny-chrome Olympus E-PM1.
Yes! Yes! Yess!
To me, this metric is *more* important than sensor resolution alone.
Unless the lens produces the image the photographer had in mind, the sensor size is meaningless.
I've noticed on my Pentax k10d I can pull "sharpness" up beyond the Bayer limit but only on certain lenses and never on a zoom. I know this is "false" sharpness, but to me it shows the lens is outperforming the sensor. I can blow these "falsely sharp" images much bigger than ones taken with an inferior lens, even if perfectly focused and without motion blur.
I would find a test that measures this very useful.
Dave: I too was an early adopter, using their very 1st version but dropped it shortly later on when it hung up and bogged down regular. I'd like to try ACDsee Pro6 but have some comcerns and specific questions:
1. It appears the following cameras (their RAW files) are not supported. These would be the Pentax 645D, Nikon D600 and possible the Leica M9 (only M8 is listed). With regards to these 3 cameras, is that correct that these three cameras RAW images cannot be viewed in the ACDSee Pro6 browser part of the program or can they be viewed but simply cannot be adjusted?
2. Lets say I open in ACDSee Pro6 a folder of RAW files from the Nikon D3 and make some simple adjustments to them and output them as jpegs. am I correct to assume, a copy of the RAW files are still left in the folder (besides now the output jpegs of these Raw files....so that later on I can open and adjust these same RAW files in PS Bridge/CS6?
Answers to the above questions would be greatly appreciated.
I dunno about your workflow, preferences, personalality, etc., and I'm not looking for an argument by a long shot; that said, selecting all files in a folder and making them RO is not all that hard for the great insurance it offers. YMMV.
Again, out of my a*se as I don't use ACD it would be hard for me to imagine any software that acts as you fear ACD might. ACD has been around for a long time; they don't seem to mess with their users' files.
Perhaps someone who uses their software can set us straight.
<<It appears the following cameras (their RAW files) are not supported. These would be the Pentax 645D, Nikon D600 and possible the Leica M9 (only M8 is listed)>>
Dunno about the Nikon, but the M9 uses standard DNG raw output and comes with Adobe Elements. So perhaps ACD expects a limited market for that camera. Re the Pentax: DNG is an optional file format, as it is for all recent Pentax cameras that do RAW, so you're covered there.
About saving changes to the orginal RAW file -- I don't use ACD software (not for ten years or so...) but if you protect the file by making it read-only (use Explorer under 'properties') nothing can alter it without you making it writable again the same way, through Explorer.
fastlass: Reminds me of when Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple in '97.
That was about the time Steve Jobs returned to Apple. He not only brought his vision but also the Hollywood contacts he made at Pixar. That, eventually, led to the iPod, xPad and especially iTunes. So it is doubtful whether the money injection alone would have had the same effect.
At Oly, it was not bad management that caused its financial probs, nor bad products or lack of sales as at Applw it was felonious fraud.
There is no Steve Jobs, founding God, to bring back at Oly; the founder is long dead.
Asahi (Pentax) had similar probs after its founder died.
Vision is the thing.
Sony doesn't have it, either.
Yes, Hasselblad has made a mistake -- but it is not in making this camera. It is with being at Photokina at all. Photokina is a camera/photo equipment trade show.
This new Hassy rightfully should be displayed not next to Canon or Pentax, but beside Prada and Gucci. Just as tasteless, just as overpriced.
dopsgp: Many high end brands (eg. BMW, Leica) are feeling the need to create compromised but bling bling "luxury" products for the Chinese market. The easy money is too much to resist.
I was wondering where the market for these gaudy baubles was -- and I think you're right.
This strikes me as the kind of wisdom that led to the production and ultimate demise of the likes of Marmon, Deusenberg, the Packard and Cadillac 12-and 16- cylinder models, Big Bugattis and Maybachs just the the Depression started.
China is entering a bad economic time, similar to Japan in the late '90s to the tun of the millennium .
If Hassy can sell these and manage to stay in business five more years, then I didn't grok economics 101.
Francis Carver: "Hong Kong lens maker SLR Magic will be showing four prototype lenses for mirrorless cameras at Photokina - 25mm T0.95, 35mm T0.95, 35mm T1.4, and 23mm F1.7 designs. The SLR Magic HyperPrime 23mm F1.7 has been completely redesigned from the previous version, and will be introduced in February 2013 at an MSRP of US$399 in Micro Four Thirds, Sony E and Fujifilm X mounts. The SLR Magic CINE 35mm T1.4 will be made in the same mounts, and go on sale in December 2012 for US$279. Meanwhile the 25mm T0.95 and 35mm T0.95 are based on the existing 50mm T0.95 design, and will cost US $649 and US $1,249 respectively."
Read the above mess 3-times, yet still not knowing what exactly is coming out when, in what lens mount(s), and for how much?
Hey, how about doing it this way?
Talk about LENS #1 first.
Next, move on and talk about LENS #2.
Then talk about LENS #3.
Wrap-up with LENS #4.
*"Hong Kong lens maker SLR Magic will be showing four prototype lenses for mirrorless cameras at Photokina - 25mm T0.95, 35mm T0.95, 35mm T1.4, and 23mm F1.7 designs.
The SLR Magic HyperPrime 23mm F1.7 has been completely redesigned from the previous version, and will be introduced in February 2013 at an MSRP of US$399 in Micro Four Thirds, Sony E and Fujifilm X mounts.
The SLR Magic CINE 35mm T1.4 will be made in the same mounts, and go on sale in December 2012 for US$279.
Meanwhile the 25mm T0.95 and 35mm T0.95 are based on the existing 50mm T0.95 design, and will cost US $649 and US $1,249 respectively."*
Izzat better? And not one word was changed....
N.B.:Back in the day, stylebooks recommended at least two sentences per paragraph, but nowadays they ought to throw out that rule for ad copy.