That's actually a kid (goat) Anil.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
How about a mirrorless full frame camera stuck in an AE1 type body? No autofocus, full manual controls and good
battery life. Oh, wait - that's a Fuji XT1 in manual mode.
But the XT1 doesn't meet your criteria ... it's not full frame.
B+w on all my lenses. The difference between is negligible and if your shooting a strong enough back light to get flare off the UV filter, your probably already getting flare from the lens anyway.
However being able to wipe off my lens with a shirt, drop them in and out of bags with no lens cap, grab and touch them anyway I want, avoiding dirt and dust on the front element, and potentially protect against a stray object finding your front element out weigh any nearly invisible difference in IQ. Plus when you resell, the front element looks absolutely perfect.
The times where the filter comes off is when using my LEE system or a polarizer on UW lenses.
As usual Roger over at lensrentals.com did it:
Only a small handful of users have asked to try out the buy and sell forum, at this point, I'm wondering if the effort already expended was time wasted.I have had a lot of lookers, but no questions and no buyers. I think my item is priced right for what it is. I have it listed on eBay, too (for sale, not auction), so I am not sweating it and in no real hurry to sell. The lens is definitely high-end specialty item...so I have to find just the right buyer who wants to save some money.
Has anyone sold anything or received questions?
I sure miss seeing your work, Bob!!
I'm probably in the minority here, but I think everyone who wants a soup-to-nuts 'yes, we offer that' in mirrorless would be wiser to leave Canon/Nikon immediately. Fuji, Sony and the m43 gang will far, far better support your ambitions. They have multiple mirrorless body price points and all sorts of tiers of tiny/average/big sensors and cheap/okay/semi-pro build qualities. Plus, they have a ton more lenses that are native to the mount than with EF-M.
I also do not understand why folks want reach for these microscopic bodies. I might be way off here, but mirrorless needs to be small. Period. The minute the camera gets above length X with lens attached -- let's say 6-8" -- I think the upside of that tiny body is lost. Sure, it will pack in a bag far more efficiently when you take the lens off -- and I see a lot of folks rave about how small it truly packs down to -- but I always have a lens on my camera, so that awkward 'T-shape' of camera plus lens will still be a pain to deal with. In my mind, Canon should cap mirrorless to a FF equivalent of 85mm perhaps. Otherwise you get something like this (see attached) and I have no idea why on earth you'd do that without the bigger body as a counterweight and grip to properly wield that thing.
I think mirrorless ought to be well served from, say, FF equiv 24mm to about 85mm and stop there. Who wants to hold a pickle jar of a lens with a body as big of a deck of cards?
This also might serve as a way Canon could nerf (make less appealing) the EOS-M in an intelligent way to protect SLR sales. Rather than withhold vitally needed tools (like a viewfinder) or cripple the performance (the AF), just limit the focal length options. Think of this sales pitch instead of what we have now: "EOS-M will give you stellar shots with all the viewfinder comforts and knobs and switches you love and great AF performance, but only from 24-85mm FF equivalent. If you want an ultrawide or a tele, please see our terrific line of EF-S and EF mount cameras."
But if you want Canon/Nikon to evolve all their hardware -- lenses, bodies, flashes, etc. -- into the smaller format, give up now. Won't happen for years and years. Again, consider a company like Sony/Fuji/m43 who is actively trying to build up their mounts with more options. You'll find more joy there.
OK...let me clarify... I live in the USA. So he is "my" president. Of course that was implied, but I understand that you are a little slow. The insult and insinuation from the partisan politics people is that he is not a United States Citizen. Bill O'Reilly could pick any country, name one....No racism implied here...that is all YOU dude.Let's see ..we are talking about photos of the moon and somehow you fit in insulting our president.
What would be insulting about being Indonesian (I mean - to anyone who isn't inherently racist)?
And he's not "our" President. Yours, maybe, but there's still a big ol' world out there outside of the US of A...
WARNING! Sarcasm!Firstly let me say that I have no interest in whether or not man landed on the moon. However, the whole did we didn't we debate is rather complex.
No it's not!
A very small group of nutters have the totally insane idea that maybe it was faked, despite an absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence that it wasn't.
Nothing complex about it.
But what about the re-touched images! What about all the images that were re-touched to remove the reticule marks? Surely it could not be as simple as they wanted the images to be cleaner or more artistically pleasing?
Sarcasm warning lifted!
Almost all pictures that you see in print/publication are doctored. An essential kit of any darkroom was a series of greys and a set of tiny brushes for re-touching photos. Now we have photoshop, but it's the same thing.... you edit pictures before publication.
The Sigma is one hell of a lense but get's partly beaten by the Samyang 35mm 1.4, especially in the corners. It's sometimes interesting to see how other good competitors are getting less known if someone hypes the new one
If you're willing to pay some attention on the pictures and you're not afraid of manual focus (but therefor with a fantastic focus-ring), you can get the samyang for a fraction of the price.
Just a link, not a picture (it's not that important, but anyway): http://tf.weimarnetz.de/downloads/35mm_compared.png
pictures (c) by photozone, just taken for comparision
They can find evidence of the faked moon landing, but they can't dig up President Obama's Indonesian birth certificate?Let's see ..we are talking about photos of the moon and somehow you fit in insulting our president,. Thanks for letting us know that you are stupid enough to be an avid watcher of Fox News Channel.
For birders, and creepy stalkers, this is The Ultimate Lens! However, I don't see it in my possession anytime on this side of the grave. Gear like this would also create problems in finding suitable tripods and heads, and you would also need to hire a substantial amount of sherpas to haul it around to the birding locations.
Offering for sale @ $100,000 and actually sell for that price are not one in the same!
The nonsense has made a lot of headlines though.
£99,000 is $157,000.
They have changed hands for over $100,000.