|
Post by Peter S. on Mar 10, 2008 12:58:21 GMT -5
...and the huge hole in the bank balance I think no longer one could speak of "balance"... P
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Mar 9, 2008 14:19:51 GMT -5
Hi there,
one additional point: a small sensor is likely resulting in a small viewfinder, too, as the ground glass inside the finder needs to match the size of the sensor. So I would expect a big finder from the 5D and a tiny one for an Oly four thirds camera.
For me the quality of the finder is one key aspect in a camera.
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Apr 6, 2007 6:04:11 GMT -5
Dear Ron,
I am totally keen to see some macros of these houses (as You might have been notified already, I do like building landscapes and houses the most on the whole model RR thing...)
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Dec 5, 2006 8:01:26 GMT -5
Yes, this is exactely what I wanted to point out: it is feasible for a large company, but not for a Joe Doe. And I see no change coming up since "long term" means those 3 .. 5 years in the computing industry, which powers digital photography. I found that unlikely as the board offers both analog and digital sections. ;-) OTOH I can hardly imaging a camera collector without at least some addiction to old, hence analog cameras. Today I did select this one... since I have to make a presentation on our project. (there is no better pointer than the golden tip of a fountain pen ;-) ) Btw, it would have been impossible to post that picture, if I hadn't a digital camera. So I join the club of the ana-digitals... Hm, I think I expressed myself misleading. I wanted to say, that I accept the obsolescense of _this_ P&S, i.e. the Olympus C8080WZ. I presume, there will always be P&Ss, and those will all be digital, since film is not really appropriate for P&S photography. In fact I think, that for 99% of photography both analog and digital were equally well suited. There are certain, different strong sides for both - but I feel that doesn't matter much most of the time. And let aside the technical ability of a camera it is the craftmanship of those high end analog camera's form the last century that gives me inspiration. Maybe the current high end models could do this, too - but I never had one in my hands. Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Dec 4, 2006 8:30:34 GMT -5
... my sense is that a new $3000 digital camera will probably not be in service 60 years from now. I doubt heavily that the life span of a digital camera is more than 4 to 6 years. It might be impossible then to find an computer that has an USB stick. You might be confronted with a rigid copyright control system, that would not grant You control over Your own pictures. Some more years later the picture format (i.e. jpeg) will have become obsolete. Software patents might be the key factor in rendering now standard formats like jpeg unusable. Digital archiving methods are currently under research for the great national libraries. But I doubt, that some downgraded solutions will ever be available for amateurs. So I fear, one must accept the limited usability of both the camera (shorter lifetime) and the picutures (longer, but still limited lifetime) for longer term application. I am also a bit sceptical on the cost argument. Over the last year I took about one film per week. On holiday times more, on working and bad wheather times as now a bit less. I spent for the photos maybe 400 to 500.- €. I spent another 1000 .. 1500.-€ for a very good analog equipment. I got glass ranging from 17 to 400mm (I already told You, that I am a lens addict :-( ) and fast glass ranging from 1.2/50 to 2/135 (I prefer available light over flashlight). It would cost me at least 5000.-€ to buy a digital equipment, that could offer me all the options I have now. But this actually is much more expensive than my analog equipment. In fact that much more expensive I were not able to take that approach. Moreover I suspect that the limited lifetime of the digital cameras plus the bad habit of the camera makers to change the lens mount more often than we find it pleasing do not tend to make digital cheaper in the future. I concede that the calculation changes, when someone takes much more pictures than I do. The fast and ubiquitious way of getting the results is real advantage of the digital image technology. So my decision was to get a digital P&S at a lower cost, accept its upcoming obsolescense - and use my old manual focus gear when going out in the nature. I do most writing with one of my fountain pens - and I use cameras and lenses made out of steel and brass to take my pictures... that is the amount of snobbery I do allow myself. Sorry to post that into the digital forum. But there needs to be an advocatus diaboli, too. Best regards Peter PS: I am an engineer, earning my money with designing _digital_ communication systems, at the moment a radio at 60 GHz for a point to point connection. So I can't say, I would not like digital technique.
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Jan 21, 2008 16:53:31 GMT -5
Got a RB67 here - but it is a heritage and I don't dare to start using it (I wasn't the one who was inherited with the camera). Yes, it is huge - but a very skilled pro-pg preferred it over the Hasselblad (and no, he was not afraid of the cost). So I think, Craigh made a very good deal here.
Craigh,
did You also get the 90mm normal lens? The camera here is only equiped with this one. Otherwise it might have served as portrait machine...
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Nov 19, 2007 17:44:45 GMT -5
Dear fellow camera collectors, not only did I find some remarkable long lenses. I also found a MC Fisheye Rokkor-OK 2.8/16. While I don't want to bore You with a photograph of the lens, I would like to show You one of my first shots taken with it. I found it much more usable than just for fooling around (works well, too ;-) ) or for taking ugly interiors of churches. But see Yourself... Leaving ferry Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Nov 16, 2007 6:34:13 GMT -5
Dear Walker,
yes, the situation was indeed pretty funny. Young cows are very curious. And apparently these two never saw a photographer setting up his tripod...
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Nov 15, 2007 16:29:38 GMT -5
Dear fellow camera collectors, by a matter of accident I acquired two long lenses. The first one was a Tokina AT-X 4/100-300 zoom. I already got the 2.8/80-200 (although this does not see too much light :-( ), so I was lucky to get the longer companion. the new acquisition is the upper one. I was surprised, that this lens is substantially longer. The weight is about the same (and far from being a paperweight). It got a good reputation - but maybe my Minolta camera's suffer from the missing mirror pre trigger. Anyway, this is the first picture I took with it. On the day I got the lens :-) Swiss cattle. On the full crop I see, that it is not exactly razor sharp. But it is pretty nice anyway. The best was the price: about 60 $. Including shipment. But even more funny, a few days later, a original Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 4.5/300 (the later version with the internal focussing, and a decent near focus limit of about 3m (ca. 10 ft). This is pretty nice for this long lens. I tested it using Zorro as a model... Zorro Even when inspecting this on 100% it looks really nice. :-) It had a very good price, too. About 80 $. Cosmetically it looks like new. It has a more convenient 72mm fitler thread opposed to the 77mm of the Tokina zooms. I found it quite strange that I was able to hunt down two 300mm lenses at about the same moment. Best regards Peter PS: forgot to say: both were taken on Kodak Elitechrome 100 (EB-2) slide film.
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Sept 2, 2007 14:09:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Oct 24, 2007 14:27:18 GMT -5
Well, the heyday of S1 had faded - You will need to sacrifice a test film anyhow.
Best regards Peter
PS: the manual focus Rokkor glas generally is regarded as being superior to the autofocus gear (except some APO prone constructions, like the 2.8/70-210 APO G tele zoom).
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Oct 19, 2007 6:14:06 GMT -5
Hi Craig,
so You have an Auto Tele Rokkor-QF 3.5/200? As far as I know, all these 3.5/200 Rokkors share the same design - and I like this lens pretty much. I find it perfect for portraits used at large apertures. The images don't have much contrast, but a very good resolution. Perfect when used accordingly.
These old lenses are charismatic - no comparison to modern gear.
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Oct 16, 2007 13:49:51 GMT -5
Hi Craig,
as a general rule of thumb, You are right. Most of those lenses that are regarded as lemons in the Minolta lineup are from the late period, when the "Rokkor" had been dropped out of the lens designation. But as this rule is quite general it is not without exceptions.
I more evolved rules says, that the cheaper plain MD lenses did suffer from the decrease in optical quality while the more expensive ones didn't. Even some of the more expensive ones might have suffered a bit of mechanical quality - but not the image quality.
But even this has an exception: there is a consensus that the 1.2/50 is not a good lens. One needs to stop it down to F/4 and below so that it keeps up to the top lenses - and this is a desastrous verdict for that expensive lens.
But the most important rule is: avoid the late, variable aperture zooms, that were made by Cosina. These are crappy, e.g. the 3.5-4.8/35-70. This expessively does not hold for the earlier Tokina made variable aperture zooms, as for the very good 3.5-4.5/28-85.
MD lenses, that kept their quality (without the guarantee that I forgot one - didn't check the records) are: - 7.5mm fisheye - no design change ever - 4/17 - no design changes known. If You find one for a good price - get it. - 1.8/35 - less resolution, but better flare handling than the MC, in summary on par - 1.7/50 - I think the MD's are underrated, a bit worse than the earlier ones, but still very good - 2/85 - sharper, but less charismatic than the 1.7/85 (which is a beast one needs to tame) - 2.5/100 - excellent, the early MC may have a better bokeh, but no change from late MC to MD - 2.8/135 - only very slightly worse than the earlier ones, still very good - 4/200 - excellent, no matter which version You get - 5.6/400 Apo - no design change, but limited usefulness - 3.5 or 4/100 macro - excellent, no matter which version You get the latest version is a bit more resistant against backlight. - 3.5/50 macro - excellent, no matter which version You get
The MC 1.4/50 is amongst the very best normal lenses Minolta ever did. So is the MC 1.7/50, The 1.4/58 is said to be a bit soft wide open (in contrast to the 1.2/58, which is a different deisgn, more similar to the MC 1.4/50). But it offers excellent image quality and excellent bokeh when operated at F/2.8 - use it there, otherwise use the MC 1.4/50. I use the 1.4/58 from time to time - and I am very pleased with its results, And it is not, that I had no alternatives...
The Celtic macro is said to use a simplified mechanics - but the same glass than the MC Macro. It is also said, that it was not assembled by Minolta itself (Cosina??). But I would presume, that these were top quality lenses, too. Besides the 50mm Macro is said to have the best sharpness of all normal lenses, when the object is nearer than 5m. It also got no distortions (barrel or pincushion) and the focal plane is perfectly even.
On the 2/45 there is a lot of dispute... some love it, others hate it. I don't like its plasticy appearance - but I can assure, that it is not a bad lens. But You need a very large print, to tell the difference to the above mentioned top performers. Maybe that is what fires that dispute.
Anyway You got a perfect lineup. The MC 1.7/50 for the backlight photos, the MC 1.4/50 for general purpose ultra sharp or narrow DoF with good out-of-focus rendition, the Macro for everything near or small, and last but not least, the MC 1.4/58 with its creamy bokeh almost on par with the MC 1.2/58. It is just that one needs a big bag - and strong shoulders :-(
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Oct 15, 2007 9:15:20 GMT -5
Hi Craig, that's a true bargain! You get the silky operation of the XD-7 just sacrificing some finder information at an incredibly low price. I've heard mixed comments on the MD 2/50. Do You know Dennis Lohmann's Minolta lens list? minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.htmlThat MD 2/50 would be no. 100. The older MC Rokkor 2/50 (no 98) is said to offer excellent sharpness, yet has some light fall off when operated at f/2 to f/2.8. Another excellent bargin lens is the MC/MD Rokkor(-PF) 1.7/50 with the 55mm filter thread. Here in Germany it often can be found for less than 5.- €. According to my friend Hans Weber it outperforms at least the older Summicrons... Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Apr 27, 2007 11:34:43 GMT -5
Dear Curt,
Thank You!
I wonder what will come out of these super wide angle lenses. I took it with me on today's walk with the dog. But every time I look through the viewfinder, I am surprised, what kind of transformation is done to reality sourrounding me. I am way apart from a point where I can previsualize the effect of these lenses. I fear, that beforehand this means, that the photographis outcomes from those lenses are not much more than luck (or the lack of that).
I do however believe, that those wide angles are more useful to my photographing style (and topics) then one of those fancy super-long tele lenses. I am quite curious.
Best regards Peter
|
|