MrTaikitso: Interesting, we inherited an old Leica from my father (who got it from his father), and it looks like that Hansa. I wonder who influenced who, my history of old gear is not good. I know the Leica had this clever prism that connected to the viewfinder so you could take pictures around corners! Sneaky! I had a water pistol that could do that too, and shot my physics lecturer in the face at point blank range by mistake with it after he stepped out of the staff room in the path of my target! I had to write out lines or something, but it was funny at the time - he was a dufus. Anyway, where were we? Ah yes, Kwanon!
@Greg -- I am going to nit-pick you: The Canons were not "exact" copies of Leicas -- they were improvements in concept and/or execution. Where Leica continued to separate viewfinder and rangefinder functions until the M3 in the late fifties, Canon postwar models, the IV, IVs, and IVs2 had integrated view-rangefinders. Also, the Canon's corners were angled, and IIRC, its back opened in the normal fashion. For exact Leica copies, one could mention Leotax, and several others, but Canon, back then, was into improvements on a proven theme.
BTW: I am not a Canon fanboi. I have owned many camera systems over six decades, but never, once, a Canon. Sheer accident.
mpgxsvcd: Not a ton to praise here but also not a lot to hate on. A nice solid little camera. I still think the Olympus E-PM2 is a better value at $170.
I got my E-Pmini2 a couple of months ago and like it quite well. I also got the 9-18mm and it makes a great pair.
The pictures are simply astounding! The jpgs are good enought that for moderate (8x10 inch) prints no RAW processing is required; but when RAWs are carefully developed, there is enormous headroom in the highlights (compared to my older Pentaxes) and the shadows can be bumped a lot, too.
I am so pleased with the little snaps-only (I thought) camera that I might go m43 when I update my K10D if Oly or Pana made a camera wide enough for a comfortable grip in my hands. Something the size and shape of a Leica I, II, or III with an EVF built in would be nice!
Oh, wait. Fuji has that territory staked out already....
I remember a precedent, perhaps, for this kind of case. There was, in the middle of the last century, a chimpanzee, IIRC, who painted some "works" that were eventially displayed on the walls of museums and sold for appreciable prices.
Perhaps it was that case which caused the law to specify works by nature, or randomness or animals are without copyright protection.
Is there a lawyer in the house who can provide an opinion?
"Do you think Mr. Slater's takedown requests are justified?"
That's actually three questions -- one as to law, one of facts, and one of "fairness."
The law is on Wikipedia's side, clearly. The facts are the photographer owns the camera and distributed the photos, something the animal could not do on its own.
Fairness, like beauty, however, "is in the eye of the beholder."
SirSeth: Why the cost? Just curious. It seems like a good lens but I thought Ricoh was trying to bring affordable medium format to morals.
I have a 645 (film) system with all the FA645 lenses from 45mm to 200 including the leaf-shutter-equipped 75mm, all bought cheaply on eBay some years ago. So, for that range of glass, they are cheaply available. But the 25mm, 35mm and any glass longer than 200mm are very hard to find and very dear.
The 35mm, when available, ran about $3000 used then and the telephotos were likewise not cheap or easy to find; the 25mm is too new to have any bargains show up.
As for zooms, they seem to keep their value pretty well, last I checked. And being MF zoom glass, they are big and heavy.
Big glass requires lots of polishing and inspection, and small quantities mean more hand work, is my guess. Still this lens is far cheaper than its competitors from Hassy and Phase One (Mamiya).
As an alternate, one can use via adapter any Hasselblad-mount lens in manual mode: F'rexample this one: http://www.amazon.com/Hasselblad-40mm-f4-0-Distagon-Zeiss/dp/B004AT4X00
ystein Bach: It works... :-)And very often we simply cant tell the difference!
If by "very often" you mean most movies and TV shows ever made, I'll agree with your understatement.
Backdrops can work invisibly when done with skill and subtlety.
Plus, as portraits are pretty much a photograph of the *relationship between the photographer and subject,* a backdrop can transform a serious photog's home studio family portraits.
zorgon: For some reason, I read "Leica to go under the hammer"
And I read it as if "under the hammer" meant smashed, destroyed, "hammered."
Oh, it means "auctioned."
Phil O Sophical: Just had a thought: To read a curved focal surface with a flat sensor...
If the image was "scanned" by the sensor-read process in a circular fashion as the sensor moved towards the lens during the shot.... This would be easy with a liquid-crystal shutter near the focal "plane"The process starting at the centre as a circle and then becoming an anulus as it radiated to the corners, we should have compensated for our curved field.
The camera could be equipped with the curve parameters of any lens. The sensor moving by piezo or moving-coil actuation may be a limit to higher shutter speeds.
Is this an equally silly idea or the germ of a better one
Sure. But just where does one purchase those "liquid crystal shutters"?
AFAIK they are not an off-the shelf item.
Also, there is the problem of moving the mass of the sensor during 1/8000sec. exposure. Not much mass, to be sure, and not much movement, but not much time to do it in.
Was it 4:20 in your time zone when you came up with this?
Michael Piziak: This lens was ahead of it's time in 1840.
It was good for about 60 years until the Tessar was introduced. That was >100 years ago.
N.B. I am not against old things per se as I am quite an antique myself, and, last time I used film, it was processed in Rodinal, a developer about as old as the Petzval design. I can't understand how this design was, in any way, "ahead of its time." It seems to have been right on its time.
It was dreamed up, kisckstarted, designed and produced by a company which has described its products as toys.
I would like to play with this lens, but I would not use it regularly for a subject or event that was important to me.
John TF: The series 14, 22, 35, 55, 85, 135, 200, 320 employs a constant multiplier of ~1.58 between members of the series. Rounding off to these common focal lengths accounts for slight variations from 1.58. Interesting. Also, is it a coincidence that the APS-C crop factor (1.6) is nearly the same number, or was this another aspect of equivalence which was invoked in the choice of APS-C sensor size? Because an APS-C 55 is in some ways equivalent to a FF 85, the next member in the series, and so on. I'm not sure what the benefit of that arrangement would be, though.
I suspect the presence of the Golden Mean (the Fibonacci spiral) which is ubiquitous in art, mathematics and nature -- 1:1.618https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number
5tve: My 85mm f1.4 Samyang on my Sony A6000 with the Camdiox 0.72 Focal Reducer is the equivalent to 92 mm on full frame ( 85*1.5*0.72 ) I love the combination great image quality & fast accurate manual focus with peaking.
I wonder how long it will be before someone makes a APS-C camera with an integral focal reducer & auto focus ?
to @mosc: What you say is true -- no argument there. But, what if the APSC body were mirrorless? With the the mirror gone, a focal reducer could be put there instead.
Instant and permanent compatibility with older, present and future FF lenses.
Richard Schumer: Does anyone know for sure whether this lens is optically identical to the Sigma 30mm E-MFT "Art" lens?
Based on the sharpness of the photo marcelobpt linked to, then I want it for my Oly.
Some internet research turned up they (the lens formulations) are different. This one is an 8-element design; the interchangeable one in the same focal length has one fewer elements and one fewer groups.
Too bad. This fixed one is one sharp lens, but the photo referenced is of low saturation and great dynamic range, especially for a JPG.
Good work Sigma.
Does anyone know for sure whether this lens is optically identical to the Sigma 30mm E-MFT "Art" lens?
Peiasdf: Is it legal to post review of product banned from being sold due to copyright/patent infringement? This is a real question.
"| Is it legal to post review of product banned from being sold due to copyright/patent infringement?|"
Of course it is, unless the reviewer is the one marketing the infringing products. That is, it is not ILLEGAL. Nothing is legal on the face of it; if a person is acquitted in court, he has not been proved innocent, just "not guilty." So in this case, it is not illegal.
Which brings up the question, what does that have to do with this camera/company? They bought the name Kodak openly, paying lots of money for it at auction during Kodak's bankruptcy.
Want a REAL bargain m43? I bought a Oly E-PM2 for $206 delivered.
spatz: I would be happy to subscribe if Adobe used open formats. Proprietary formats mean locking myself to one vendor, and I'm not willing to do that no matter how attractive the "special offer" might appear, unless I can be certain that I will have access to *my own work* at any time in the future.
So far, I am using Lightroom 4.4, which I bought, but when my next generation camera is no longer supported, I will almost certainly switch to a competitor.
@NetImage -- I'm sorry you feel that way. I have used GiMP for more than a decade and this has never been an issue with me; I use the "export" feature, which lets one save in dozens of formats. GiMP's xcf format is useful if one needs to close the program and continue editing where one left off before closing.
Nevertheless its 8-bit limit on images is not so fun.
Well, it took me some time, but my memory finally tied together various strings and I figured out why the bending stress is reported to reduce noise: When a chip is bent, the electrons in the molecules which are in the area of stress are literally moved out of thier electron hole (this is scientifically accepted), leaving that place available to resist "dark current."
That's my best guess.
Sdaniella: newer (still advancing) non-rigid (plastic) organic (polymer-hybrid) light sensitive sensors would be a big advantage over rigid inorganic silicon based sensors
with optimally curved sensors:each pixel could point more directly towards the lens opening straight on, rather than point just 'straight forward' slightly away from lens openings
maybe vari-curve sensors could be created to adjust to variable lens apertures
or even vari-distance sensors from lens openings (sensors that can move closer or further from lens openings)
do I have to patent this (or variations thereof) to be credited with "inventing" it?lolcopyleft! forever!
meanwhile, all I want is availabilty of Canon AF (dual-pixel) across entire sensor along with EOS EF-TSE Lens!!! not just MF in current TSE designs.:)
The reflector of the Hubble space telescope uses electronic means to change the curve of the mirror for various wavelengths, etc.
Your patent will probably be either 1- denied, or 2- appropriated by the US gov for "defense."
@Gesture: I've been using GiMP for a long time; I have never used Adobe; the prob with GiMP is it is 8-bit, while my RAW files are 12- and 14-bits.
The lack of color depth sometimes shows up clearly in the final result and, so, makes transformations like dodging, burning and curves look bad.
I know GiMP is close to releasing version-3.x, which will be 16-bit, but I find it hard to wait.