guyfawkes

guyfawkes

Lives in Birmingham, UK
Works as a Retired.
Joined on Feb 20, 2012

Comments

Total: 505, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Semajal: PT Cruiser is one of the ugliest cars ever conceived. Honestly It doesn't have any retro feel, just looks ugly as sin.

@electrophoto, and if I recall correctly, didn't it have doors of different dimensions?

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 13:34 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Hallelujah!!! The laws of physics have been changed. Thanks to Metabones. An f/1.2 becomes an f/0.7 after inserting a chunk of glass, with multiple elements, between it and the camera.
Give them the Nobel Prize for physics!!!

@ Roland, I'm not sure if you are missing the raison d'etre of a speedbooster/focal reducer. It is not to compare a lens designed for 35mm film cameras on a digital FF sensor, but to enable the same lens to give its natural FoV when used on the smaller M4/3 and APS-C sensors. It isn't a viable argument, IMO, to deny the advantages of using a reducer on a smaller sensor to the noise implications of actually using this smaller sensor. The noise argument is tenuous to say the least as all sensors are not equal in this area.

The latest APS-C sensors, in particular the Fuji X-Trans, are very good up to a point which is relevant to the majority of users. A native FF sensor should be better in this area, but only at the higher ISO settings. For example, the extra stop that the speedbooster provides means an APS-S need only be exposed at 3200 ISO, say, when ISO 6400 will be needed on a FF sensor for the same effective exposure. How relevant, if at all, will the noise difference be?

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 13:28 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: A little vaseline on any lens and you've got it!

:D)

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 20:28 UTC
In reply to:

CaPi: It died before its time.
Let it rest with the Delorean.. the Duisenbergs..
Some corporate decisions are hard to fanthom..
Like IBM letting Microsoft hold onto the rights for DOS..

The difference is Duesenbergs are very desirable and highly collectible. I own one, but sadly it is only a metal scale model of an SJ Town car. D's made in an era when America produced some truly great, and innovative, automobiles.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 17:33 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: A little vaseline on any lens and you've got it!

NO! Not on the lens, but on a UV filter.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 17:21 UTC
In reply to:

love_them_all: It's probably one of those lenses I am so eager to try, but would get bored after a few days. To me (may be not for you), the look gets old very quickly once you see lots of it.

Yes. Just like OTT HDR.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 17:08 UTC
In reply to:

Billious: I wonder how much a clean used Thambar (1935) costs?

To find one in as new condition would likely cost more than this one.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 17:07 UTC
In reply to:

millerfilm: Absolutely shows why you should try like anything to never let your brand name be sold to anyone. Ever.

Not always. Kyocera made excellent products using the Contax name, and the same for Cosina with Voigtlander.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 10:04 UTC
On article Take a look inside Leica's factory in Wetzlar, Germany (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

guyfawkes: Image #5 is a Fed 5 and it is very unlikely it left the factory with a fake mocked-up Industar lens masquerading as an Elmar. It is strange that a fake is based on an original Fed design and not the ubiquitous Zorki 1 and 2, or Fed 1, which fakers love to use to turn into any number of "rare" Leicas, because they were originally unashamedly copies of a Leica II.

Not sure where you came across this information, but it doesn't stack up. Ask youself, why would Leitz licence their camera to a nascent camera industry with no prior experience in constructing precision cameras? FED produce copies, not licenced products. You really should read this instead:

http://www.fedka.com/Useful_info/Commune_by_Fricke/commune_A.htm

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 09:59 UTC
In reply to:

Blaklynx01: Many think it's manual focus...

it's FIXED FOCUS!

(yep, I yelled.... and?)

"light...is auto-focused by the lens."

Just shows that those who developed this could not have been knowledgeable photographers to have made such an inane statement.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 14:08 UTC
In reply to:

Semajal: PT Cruiser is one of the ugliest cars ever conceived. Honestly It doesn't have any retro feel, just looks ugly as sin.

The Ford Pinto, anyone?

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 14:03 UTC
On article Take a look inside Leica's factory in Wetzlar, Germany (134 comments in total)

Image #5 is a Fed 5 and it is very unlikely it left the factory with a fake mocked-up Industar lens masquerading as an Elmar. It is strange that a fake is based on an original Fed design and not the ubiquitous Zorki 1 and 2, or Fed 1, which fakers love to use to turn into any number of "rare" Leicas, because they were originally unashamedly copies of a Leica II.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 13:51 UTC as 44th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Lokifish: This is fake = I can't math, much less physics.

Focal reducers have been in use for longer than 35mm still cameras by both large format and in astronomy. In both cases, the reduction in FL and F/ when using a focal reducer have been well understood. So either science and history is wrong, or those crying "fake" are.

Yes, the lens on my first 5x4 camera, an MPP Mk. VIII rangefinder, came with a 135mm Symmar, and which when the rear lens group was unscrewed the front component was a 270mm. So the rear element component was indeed a focal reducer.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 17:05 UTC
In reply to:

TMHKR: So many comments about equivalence, what are you guys trying to do, summon Tony Northrup?

cosinaphile. Agreed.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 16:57 UTC
In reply to:

StevenLee: I'm certainly not a technical expert, but I'm struggling to understand the concept here. How can it be any sort of advantage or benefit to have to swap out cartridges to essentially change the shooting mode? Seems a really strange idea.

Joseph, I did allude to principle and not exactitude, but I believe they could have made it more retro by direct function input, as you suggest re ISO.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 16:24 UTC
In reply to:

TMHKR: So many comments about equivalence, what are you guys trying to do, summon Tony Northrup?

Roland, I fully understand the equivalence arguments. Other than equivalent focal length, which IS important to know because digital cameras have been equipped with so many different focal lengths depending upon their sensor size, we need a reference for FoV, but all the hype and argument for DoF equivalence will be lost on those not shooting with cameras of different sized sensors. With nearly 5 decades of film shooting behind me and with cameras ranging from 16mm sub-min to 5x4, I have NEVER needed to know the equivalence of any lens. despite the different focal lengths I will have used on these cameras. I have worked within the constraints of each format and have never once considered if I have a certain DoF on 35mm what aperture should I use if I wished to shoot on 5x4, for example. Film photographers assumed this as a matter of course. And until DPR first introduced this concept a few years ago I hadn't previously seen any reference to it with reference to film shooting.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 16:17 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Hallelujah!!! The laws of physics have been changed. Thanks to Metabones. An f/1.2 becomes an f/0.7 after inserting a chunk of glass, with multiple elements, between it and the camera.
Give them the Nobel Prize for physics!!!

I believe that they must be, based on your spirited attempts to enlighten them. I'm just waiting for comments to say my practical test proving the efficacy of focal reducers is all wrong and I must be deluding myself. :D)

The only question I have is Pentax Q + Nikon FF lenses. Why?

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 19:06 UTC
In reply to:

Jonathan Mac: I've seen a couple of Sony DSC-R1s for sale recently, though they don't seem to have lost value as much as other "compacts" from the time. I really wanted one of them but had to settle for a Canon A75.

Munro, I'm not sure that was the reason Sony never did an R1-II. Canon had at the same time just released the first sub-$1,000 dslr, and that Zeiss lens was costly to make and couldn't be adapted for dslr use. I wish there had been a v.2, but what would you like to see it include given the state of production at the time? Sad to relate, it was the right call. It wouldn't have competed against the burgeoning dslr market.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 18:40 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Hallelujah!!! The laws of physics have been changed. Thanks to Metabones. An f/1.2 becomes an f/0.7 after inserting a chunk of glass, with multiple elements, between it and the camera.
Give them the Nobel Prize for physics!!!

@Enginel. Clearly, many don't understand exactly what happens when a focal reducer is used. I do wonder, also, how many detractors have ever used one?

I have two for my Sony 5N so I can use my Leica R and Minolta MD lenses. I can emphatically state that they do increase the effective aperture by the one stop claimed. And it is easy to demonstrate this as I was curious myself about the claims made. Attaching my f1.4/50 MD via a simple dumb adapter I took a photo in aperture priority mode followed by the same shot except now with the lens on a focal reducer but still at f1.4. And guess what? In my test the normal exposure was at 1/2000 sec, but with the reducer the exposure was 1/4000 sec. The effective exposure was thus f1. Let the naysayers argue the point ad finitum, but here's the proof.

It is important to always bear this in mind when setting manual exposure as each stop on the lens will behave as though it were a stop faster.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 18:08 UTC
In reply to:

Jack Simpson: Wooooo Hoooooo .... so, I could turn my (normally) boring Tele Takumar 400/5.6 into a Yowzers 2200/3.72 lens and have another reason to bring me Pentax Q7 back to life :)

Good luck with trying to frame and focus with it! :D)

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 17:25 UTC
Total: 505, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »