An excellent article on this type of lens can be found at
I think it unfortunate that the manufacturer chose to make a 'replica' rather than using a conventional focusing helical, diaphragm and T-mount. If a photographer today seeks that specific bokeh, there's no reason he should be penalized with waterhouse stops, rack and pinion focus and a sloppy lens mount.
Any details on the material... how it was sensitized, how it was processed? Who paid for it?
zapatista: Well, constant f2.8 is nice, I wonder how is does vs. an FZ200.
Too bad Sony doesn't update the KM A2 -- one of the lastgreat Minolta designs. And the A2 28-300 f2.8 was a G lens!
bawboh86: Are there any good accessories I can use with my Sony SLT-A77? I see Nikon and Canon mentioned, but not a lot on how to get some of the functionality out of my Sony.
Have you considered:
"portable 5" (diag.) LCD monitor is the perfect complement to your compatible DSLR camera or camcorder."
semorg: Mind you, initially they were hoping to raise $100,000. So the good news is that they got enough money to manufacture these things. The bad news is they'll probably wont meet the demands and those who are not in the first 100-200 will have to a wait for a long time or live with some shoddy quality stuff.
You can fool some of the people all of the time.But there's one upside -- at least it's not being developed using tax money by the Defense Department.
If it were such a wonderful idea, the Chinese/Koreans wouldhave made these with T-mounts, barrel controlled f-stops,helical focusing and sold them for less than $99 dollars delivered. Look how much CAT 500mm lenses are selling for on ebay -- amazing that anyone would think that this paperweight would cost more to produce. And wait until they learn what a 'waterhouse stop' is.
b craw: I have a(n) MFA and have been teaching both digital and film photography for 10 years at the university level. It never ceases to surprise me how many in the photographic community are ill-tempered and close minded. It is part of the reason I am apprehensive to call myself a photographer despite nearly all my work ending in a photograph.
While I am capable of seeing the lack of practicality or need in various photo contexts of this technology, I can envision some applications for particular conceptual work. But asking some photographers to think conceptually - beyond technical masturbation - may be a bridge too far.
[i suppose I should acknowledge my own ill temper here.]
Conceptual fantasy = an idea that a person has no means to execute in a medium he is ill-equipped to manipulate.
It's not uncommon for 'aspiring artists' to choose a 'message'that might be better expressed in another medium -- exceptthat medium takes more effort/experience than 'pushing a button and letting Kodak do the rest'.
But these days play=creativity and we wouldn't want to damage their budding self-esteem... or lose those tuition $$$$.
And asking professors to demand technical proficiency instead of conceptual fantasy might be yet another bridge still further.I guess that would require a PE rather than an MFA
Rage Joe: Wunderbar! I finally get the camera I've always craved for. Only if I could get one covered with elephant's foreskin. That would be perfect now.
Hassy should have re-issued Sony's best still camera, the a900. Add a set of Zeiss primes (or cines) for the best IQ in the 24MB class. They're well deserving of all the ridicule.
Anepo: I have been offered money to photograph as i am not a pro i decline despite taking far better photos than your average mom and dad,not at a pro level however, the reason i refuse is both that i do NOT beleive that i am good enough to take on a job.
AND in my country it is a crime to take a paid job for photographing if you do not have a license in photography (yup no university school degree in photography? Then you cant work in the industry)
However i am allowed to take photos and if someone likes them they can purchase them, they are not allowed to hire me in advance.
Eitherway so far people have asked to buy a photo from me 4 times (an average joe not a company), i have declined each time and just given them an A4 sized print, why? I do not feel my photos are worth the money and i made someones day. Though for the love of me i dont understand those people wanting to buy a photo by me, they are mediocre at best.
Anepo wrote:"AND in my country it is a crime to take a paid job for photographing if you do not have a license in photography(yup no university school degree in photography? Then you cant work in the industry)"
How many of you would be willing to accept a scheme where photographers would need to be licensed in order to work?
How many 'professions' are there where all you need are the tools of the trade to promote yourself as a 'professional'?
I think we have all seen work done by 'non-professionals' that'sof excellent quality -- and there's even a school of thought which argues that it's the content not the object that counts.Face it, we're in a "You press the button, we do the rest" business. Lots of people have figured out how to put a frame around reality -- 'professionals' just seem to do it better.
The business of photography is more about business than art.
Photomonkey: For those sneering at his work he starts out saying that this lens is not for everyone.Frankly his work is very appealing despite the detractors. As for it being in use for over 100 years that is true insofar as view cameras have been around that long. However the usual use has been to increase DOF and only rarely to decrease it.The technique is enjoying a fashion these days because of the renewed interest in alt. lenses.Just as Instagram and any number of PS actions give a photographer a look, this effect is another enjoying some fashion at the moment. As fashions/fads go at least it is attractive.
There was a time when head shots were done with large format cameras. In order to reduce exposure time, images were made using large apertures which meant DOF was extremely limited.Unless the sitter was looking directly into the camera, DOF was not sufficient to get both eyes in the same plane/focus.In order to get the plane of focus to correspond to the plane of the eyes when the sitter's face was not parallel to the film plane, the lens was was rotated slightly around its vertical axis. This resulted in both eyes being sharp and the fall-off in sharpness extending in front and behind equally (Scheimpflug). Both eyes would be very sharp -- but the tip of the nose and the ears were quite soft.
It was a look -- one that few photographers today are capable of reproducing or even recognizing.
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7
10MP | 24-90mm (3.75x) Zoom | $300 (US) £355 (UK) €460 (EU)
WOW -- someone needs a currency calculator!
If there's a market and someone willing to produce, distributeand sell it -- why not? One of the great things about the web is that it allowsniche markets to be easily served.
Except for the almost immediate gratification (digital is farmore immediate), not to mention the almost immediate disappointmentwhen glitches occur, one might as well expose a sheet of film,just in case additional copies are desired.
ThomasH_always: My take is very, very simple, and consistent:
No RAW, no interest, no buy.No viewfinder, no interest, no buy.
Got that in Japan at last? You delivered a half of "must have" features, its a no buy.
When I want FF, I use a Sony a900.When I want a P&S a small sensor is fine.But when it's time for post=processing with either,I want RAW.I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue againsthaving a choice to shoot RAW rather than jpg only.
OK you don't want RAW -- butit sure would have been great for thoseof us who do.I can live without an OVF in a P&S, but RAW is a must for anyone who has gone beyond PS Elements
"If snapshooting was a valid technique, there'd be little difference between their work and the work of the average person on the street. "
Cell phone images of breaking stories would indicate thatcontent trumps technique and Weegee's advice still stands:F8 and be there.
But for those situations where there's the opportunity totake the time, why not? It's not like we're spending moneyfor film and processing.
Some good ideas for those who haven't come up with them previously --however, in that we're not paying for film anymore, I suggestALWAYS taking a shot as soon as the opportunity presents itself --sometimes, that first shot is all you get.Sure, if the opportunity arises to fine tune and explore alternatives, go for it.But snapping first and thinking second can sometimes be rewarding.You can always delete.