meanwhile: You could get a lot of 50 Jupiters on eBay for $649. This is MENTAL.
The main reason the 3's are expensive is because they are rare. Yes, it's a nice Sonnar, but the new one's will *not* be rare, and should be priced accordingly.
You can also pick up a great condition Canon 50/1.5 LTM for US$200, which is as good, if not better than, the J3.
Why are you defending this price? Do you work or advocate for Lomography?
Rubbish. You've already said yourself that a you can get a good J3 for $150. And there are many other options *of the same quality* that are far, far cheaper than this lens.
Yes, the Jupiter 3 is more rare than the Jupiter 8. Big deal! There are plenty of equivalent 50mm lenses the equal of this lens for far, far, far less money. Anyone who argues otherwise has an agenda.
lot of 12 pcs JUPITER-8M 2/53 USSR Lens for Kiev Contax Carl Zeiss Sonnar copy ... $140 ...
You could get a lot of 50 Jupiters on eBay for $649. This is MENTAL.
Hopefully this will push Fuji to put out a ruggedised X100.
"but now there's a 'tab' at the lower-right which can display a projected LCD display showing a magnified view of the focus point, peaking, or a digital split prism"
That's ****ing brilliant.
Why do dSLR users need to grumble about mirrorless?Why do mirrorless users need to grumble about dSLRs?
It's just weird guys.
Yxa: 3780 shots per charge try to do that with a mirrorless
3780 shots is awesome. 1.5kg is less awesome.
The D5 looks to be a great camera.
(I can actually get close to 4000 using my A7ii and a Minigorilla, at half the weight, but it's not nearly as elegant)
papa natas: Well, I'll get hell back here from the teeming millions on account of what I think, and by the way, I NEVER write OMHO.. I'm not humble.1- It's stupid to ass-u-me that we ALL have converted to 4K. That goes to whomever had the brilliant idea to post this video in 4K.2- This Hurley guy, of which I never seen his work, may have or be rough talent. Then, I cannot help but to reminisce the Old talent: those guys such as Hamilton, Adams, Leidmann, Clarke, Newton, and the list goes on, who were issued from the Plastic Arts & Visual Media environment; then came to discover photography with MANUAL cameras.They had to LEARN the trade the good old way: to master composition, f stop and shutter speed with a narrow window of 36 shots. Nowadays it will be a capital sin not to get a dozen of decent images out of 500 shots. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, mind you.For these guys Bokeh wasn't an artistic expression.
Rick Knepper: Why does this seem like a Sony-centric forum? Because of the easy adaptability, Canon users have been adapting many brands of lenses long before Sony released their first ILC.
Given that you said "Same goes for proper exposure", I'll be the pot and you be the kettle if you like. :-)
"... well, it works on Canons without using LV."
You can see the exact current exposure and whether you have blown highlights or muddy shadows without liveview in an OVF?
That really depends on the camera. Not talking about using liveview.
maximme: medium format are COMMERCIAL photography cameras.ie, you make a living using them.
Their target market are those shooting large print commercials.I am sure you have seen the rise of these wall banners, huge bus and trains banners etc.
"wall banners, huge bus and trains banners" != "billboards".
One is viewed from as close as a metre or two, the other from 50m+.
Saea ba ithi: I am interested to see the vision for this forum.
Some of the other forums I have seen here have a great deal of implied context and so many conversational anecdotes that they have a clique quality to them.
With these new cameras, there are more technical options to be considered for reproducible results.
For example, the Sony A7RII I recently acquired is already on its third software update. Synchronizing the updates with adapters will be a new management consideration. With the 3rd update's changes, it advertizes correcting some previous optical aberrations amongst other items.
Resurrecting legacy lens inventory I hope won't be the only discourse. Might you be addressing best lens for specific use cases/purposes that will survive adaptation vis-a-vis waiting for a native mount lens options?
Or perhaps some illumination on how light presented to the sensor from some lenses designed for legacy film or sensors will need "technique", or avoidance.
There is an easy way to help create a vision for the forum - participate. :-)
The other big thing that really does make a difference is the EVF. With an OVF you have no indication if you are exposing properly with manual glass, EVF shows it instantly.
"Why does this seem like a Sony-centric forum? Because of the easy adaptability, Canon users have been adapting many brands of lenses long before Sony released their first ILC."
Then there'll be plenty of Canon users on there as well, and it won't be Sony-centric.
It's also a lot about the flange distance. E-mount is 18mm. EOS is 44mm. That means there are quite a few significant systems (Leica M, LTM, Konica AR, Contax G, Olympus Pen-F) where the flange distance is smaller than EOS, but larger than E-mount. Even FD/FL need an optical adapter to get infinity focus on EOS. Plus add in the problems of hitting the mirror with some lenses, and there are reasons why mirrorless seems to dominate those adapting.
Do Contax C/Y, Mamiya, Olympus OM, Nikon F, Leica R (the main ones just over 44mm but close enough to still have issues) work well on EOS?
"Focus peaking is not needed if you have an adapter with an AF confirm chip."
As long as you are happy being limited to focus and recompose.
Mfritter: 1. How well do various cameras support adapted lenses in terms is EXIF data. At a minimum, the camera should allow one to enter the focal length. This should tie into to reasonable auto ISO functionality - e.g., minimum desired shutter speed. One should be able to code the lens in some way so it can be quickly identified when mounted. It would be super if the identification could correspond to lens profiles in one's software of choice.
3. The issue of smearing with wide lenses on Sony Alphas. Lots of discussion regarding M-mount wides, but more discussion of other options would be welcome. I assume this is not an issue on crop-sensor cameras. So a discussion of 21-mm-effective focal lengths on mirrorless cameras would be very interesting, as well as techniques for meliorating the problem on the Alphas.
The smearing talk seems to be focused on the A7R. Do the A7S and A7 exhibit different performance? Might not less pixel density be more forgiving?
"3. The issue of smearing with wide lenses on Sony Alphas. Lots of discussion regarding M-mount wides, but more discussion of other options would be welcome. I assume this is not an issue on crop-sensor cameras. So a discussion of 21-mm-effective focal lengths on mirrorless cameras would be very interesting, as well as techniques for meliorating the problem on the Alphas."
Other options generally don't have the smearing issues that the rangfinder lenses do. SLR lenses don't have the large exit angles of the light that don't play well with the sensor stack.
Olympus OM 21mm f/3.5 for example works beautifully, as does 20mm CZJ Flektagon f4. It's really only the rangefinder wides that have an issue.