February 01, 2015, 01:11:43 AM

Show Posts

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.


Messages - Rocky

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 46
16
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is Leica really worth it?
« on: January 01, 2015, 01:35:41 PM »
As a M4 user for the last 46  years, I can say that the Leica M4 and the lenses are is well made. They have been trouble free all the time. I do not " baby" my camera, I use them as tools. The lenses are way above average even by today's standard.
I am sure that when Leica goes into digital, The picture quality suffers slightly due to the Bayer sensor. You should  look into DPreview and look at some of the sample picture and see how good the pictures are.
As for using the Leica lens on the mirrorless camera, I have done that on the EOS_M with 90/4.0 and 35/2.0. The pictures are sharp with excellent color rendition with super definition.  It actually beat the 22/2.0 EF-M by a wide margin. That is from a 46 year old lens made for film.. However, most mirrorless are  not made for manual focusing.  It is a slow and tedious process. Therefore this is not a acceptable operation for me.
The Leica lens focal length range in production now is quite limited. from 17 to 135mm only. It does offer one zoom 17-28mm.
The M9 or ME and model after them are manual focus body. It is a joy to use with the Leica lenses. The focusing is silky smooth and precise. Much better than the film SLR and the modern DSLR. With fine focusing movement and DOF scale on the lens, you can actually prefocus and stop down the lens to made sure that you have more than enough DOF and shoot with zero focusing delay.
"ARCANEJ" posted an excellent comment with excellent pictures on the Mono Chrome model.
Is it worth the money??? That depends on how deep you pockets is and your shooting style.

17
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is Leica really worth it?
« on: December 31, 2014, 12:15:12 PM »
It is my understanding that in general, Leica cameras and lenses are relatively expensive.  I have no doubt they are well built and the lenses contain quality optics.

My question is this, is it really worth it? Is the IQ of a top quality rangefinder system with a couple lenses so much better that it justifies the hefty price tag? I know such a question is rather subjective (is it worth it), and different photographers have different needs. And what is good enough for one photographer is not good enough for another. But still, subjectively, is it really worth the added price?

I show my ignorance on the subject by merely asking the question. But I'm curious to hear from others on the topic, especially those who might own one, such as the leica M


Are you asking about the M as a film camera? or as M as a digital camera???

18
Technical Support / Re: Grand Canyon panoramas
« on: December 30, 2014, 01:41:38 AM »
I like Surapon's method. For me, the Pano is used to show as much area as possible. As a pixel peeper, there are always very minor imperfection due to  stitching. the more stitching, the more imperfection. In oder to hide them, you will have to down size the final picture. Therfore, what is the point of having a few hundred mega pixel and down size it to be a few mega pixels. Just imagine that a 24mm lense will cover the area of 16 picture made with  a 100 mm lens. Therefore, if you are using 100mm lense to do stitching you will need 48 pictures to get what Surapon got with  3 shots with 24mm lens
I would use the lens of the shortest focal length with the minimum distortion for stitching.

19
Photography Technique / Re: panorama
« on: December 28, 2014, 12:34:15 PM »
So I did it in CS 5. Why did this happen? Screen shot attached. So why is it not one panoramic image . :'(

The red light and the red reflection on the 4th picture throws everything off. Therefore the 3rd and the 4th picture cannot be joint together. So you ended up having 1, 2,3 as one picture and the 4 and 5 becomes another picture.
So why did it do that?
What is "it" and "that"???
Try to crop #4 such that the red light and the red reflections are barely cut. Then stitch #1, #2, #3, #4 (cropped), and #5. The water reflection will not affect the stitching. The water will be slightly blurring in some area. Photoshop stitching works very well in the windows operating system. Do not use the stitching software from Canon.

20
Photography Technique / Re: panorama
« on: December 28, 2014, 12:04:03 AM »
So I did it in CS 5. Why did this happen? Screen shot attached. So why is it not one panoramic image . :'(

The red light and the red reflection on the 4th picture throws everything off. Therefore the 3rd and the 4th picture cannot be joint together. So you ended up having 1, 2,3 as one picture and the 4 and 5 becomes another picture.

21
EOS Bodies / Re: A Real EOS M Replacement Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: December 21, 2014, 11:33:37 AM »
The Rumor may have some truth behind it. AT Amazon Japan, The EOS-M2 with 22/2.0 and the 16-55 zoom is at about US$465 and Canon gives almost US$60 rebate.
I doubt that Canon will be in the FF mirrorless market in the foreseeable future. It will be to much capital investment, ( all new lenses, "buying" pattern from other companies, etc ) even for Canon.

22
EOS Bodies / Re: Built in adapter?
« on: December 21, 2014, 11:10:22 AM »
Lens flange can be reduced to make a slimmer body. We still have the lens stick out. Therefore a slim body does not really makes the package smaller. On the other hand a shorter flange will give more freedom to the lens designer, especially for the wide angle lenses The EF and the EF_S lens is a good example. But we cannot over stress the advantage of the shorter flange either. The FF Leica M9 and the ME have a lens flange of 27.7mm. both need the micro lenses to be offset to get a more even exposure at the corner. After that, Leica have the software to give it a further improvement. Another interesting observation.the diagonal measurement of M9 and ME to the flange distance to  is 1.57 while the EOS-M is 1.61. Is there a " magic number " somewhere??

23
Photography Technique / Re: What can old-school photogs do better (or not)?
« on: December 13, 2014, 02:04:25 PM »
 I am a very serious amateur in the old film days and shoots B/W, color negative and slides, all in 35mm format. The difference between now and Then is MONEY.
1. A very good camera in these days ( 60's) may cost a month's wage. Now camera's are relative cheap.
2. Every short costs money. Therefore every shot needed to be well composed with accurate exposure, especially for sides.
3. NO AF, therefore we learn to focus fast or relies on DOF.
4. Exposure bracketing and focus bracketing are only used in rare situations.
5. If I can make a 20 X16 print or project the slide to a 60" screen with "good" sharpness, I am extremely happy

Now with digital camera, I tend to be more trigger happy.
1. CF cards are cheap and reusable. "Shoot first and ask questions later" Get the picture is more important than anything else.
2. DSLR and AF lenses are not made MF. Selectable area for focusing is a great tool
2. Exposure bracketing, AF bracketing etc. becomes a second nature.
3. There is Photoshop to come to the rescue. cropping, minor lighting and color adjustment etc.
4. We all tend to be pixel peeper, one way or the other and start to debate the sharpness of the lenses. We are effectively looking at a slide projected to a smooth 60" screen from 15 inches away. That is WAY overkilled.

I have to admit that I am less careful than the old film days.

24
Lenses / Re: Question Sir/ Madam.
« on: December 10, 2014, 05:53:17 PM »
On the other hand, why not an EF-S 24mm F2.0 pancake, rather than F2.8 ? More interesting, for those (like me) who still have APS-C format.

The lens flange distance for both EF and EF-S mount are 44mm. When you look at any EF lens. The lense mount sticks out 5mm into the flange. Therefore only 39mm is allowed between the sensor and the distance of the last optical element. Therefore the 40 f2.8 EF is already semi -retrofocus design. And Cannon has done a good job in making it into a pancake by keeping it at f2.8.
For EF-S, with a smaller mirror, the last optical element gets another 3.5 mm into the camera body. That make it 35.5 mm between the last optical elemnt and the sensor. Canon has alread done an excellent job  to make the EF-S 24/2.8 into a pancake. Anything faster than that will not be a pancake.
As to answer Surapon's question, 24mm EF lens must be a retrofocus design. therefore it is hard to be a pancake. As a foot note, Voigtlander makes a 20/3.5 that is almost a pancake.  The design diagram shows that it is retrofocus design. they have done a super  job to keep it small. One of their trick is to keep it at 3.5 instead of 2.8 or faster.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 06, 2014, 12:59:00 PM »

Based on that, I think it's safe to say that the entire EF-M format is an evolutionary dead end, and that there's basically no advantage to Canon ever building a full-frame mirrorless camera.
I respectfully disagree. Canon may be using EOS-M as a learning tool for the mirrorless. It is doing well in the Asian market. There is no reason why Canon cannot have a new mount for the FF mirrorless. Just remember that Canon was in competition with Leica in the film range finder camera until the late 60's. In fact 18mm lens flange is too short to do a good job for FF digital camera. Sensor like to have as close to vertical light ray angle as possible. Even the Leica  M9 or ME with a lens flange of 28mm still needs the microlens to be offset to get a more even exposure. After that they still needs software correction.

Remember all the prior commentary that EF-S is the cash cow for Canon?  If mirrorless is the inevitable future, perhaps the EF-M is the future cash cow mount for Canon.  I wouldn't write it off just yet.

The question is -- if a new standalone FF mirrorless mount is also coming -- how well will Canon support all four mounts during the 'great industry migration to mirrorless'?  Given how poorly they've supported EF-M since it's launch (again: only two Canon EF-M lenses are for sale at B&H right now), I have concerns that Canon will water down any transition period with adapters until they have to deliver lenses or lost customers.

- A
The EOM-M and Canon FF mirrorless are two totally different situation from my point of view. The EOS_M is a test case for Canon. Canon built it small and relative light. Therefore a smaller lens mount. It will fit into the pocket and the purse.  It was never mean to be a full system camera. The real mistake that Canon made are the slow AF in the original EOS-M, did not import the 11-22mm lens and the M2 to the US.
If  Canon ever get into the FF mirrorless, it will be a serious system camera. It should have everything plus the kitchen sink with a much larger body and lens mount.
Canon has done multiple mounts on the same body before. On its rangefinder film camera in the 60's, it has both the standard L39 screw mount for its regular lenses  and the bayonet mount for its 50mm f0.95 lens only.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 05, 2014, 07:44:49 PM »

Based on that, I think it's safe to say that the entire EF-M format is an evolutionary dead end, and that there's basically no advantage to Canon ever building a full-frame mirrorless camera.
I respectfully disagree. Canon may be using EOS-M as a learning tool for the mirrorless. It is doing well in the Asian market. There is no reason why Canon cannot have a new mount for the FF mirrorless. Just remember that Canon was in competition with Leica in the film range finder camera until the late 60's. In fact 18mm lens flange is too short to do a good job for FF digital camera. Sensor like to have as close to vertical light ray angle as possible. Even the Leica  M9 or ME with a lens flange of 28mm still needs the microlens to be offset to get a more even exposure. After that they still needs software correction.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 04, 2014, 07:15:05 PM »
This is the part where I get lost.  Could the EF-M mount / flange distance / diameter actually support a FF sensor?

Canon has said clearly no. Don't have the link right now, but you can google the interview with a canon exec, i believe it was masaso maeda. It has also been discussed in cr forum a number of times in different threads.

There is no denying, that at the end of the day there will be 3 canon mounts left:
1. ef-m
2. ef-? for ff mirrorless (short flange distance) up to around 100mm focal lengths
3. ef for focal lentghs from about 100mm or 135mm and up - with adapter for mirrorless

Only if you are delusional and completely ignore where the vast majority of the sales, and income, actually come from, EF-s.

You have such blinkers on that you don't see anything but getting rid of 'mirrorslapers' as the answer to any and every question, 'what would you like for dinner?', 'Get ride of mirrorslappers.' 'What time is sunrise?', 'I need a mirrorless.'

Getting rid of the mirror is not the answer to everything, it isn't even the answer to every photography question and there is some doubt that it ever will be.

Some markets may never adopt mirrorless cameras, other emerging markets may never embrace SLR's to the extent they are in the USA. It seems more variation to suit different market is the future,not one or the other.

Steve Jobs said the best iPod Apple ever made was the iPhone, they were happy to cannibalize their own product line because the new model made more per unit, the functionality was dramatically increased but the iPhone included all the functionality and form factor as the iPod Touch. Subsequently people have demanded bigger phones, not smaller. So, what additional functionality does a mirrorless offer other than an EVF and size? Because the SLi is pretty small and people seem to want bigger anyway as can be evidenced by the increase in size of the newer mirrorless models; and including the functionality of the EVF in a hybrid OVF seems eminently doable, as per the X100T.

EF-m is comparatively new, any mirrorless form factor is going to use that mount, it is a clear indication that Canon see their mirrorless involvement to be squarely set in the APS sensor size, and with sensor improvements we will be achieving current 135 format IQ from APS sensors in a few years.

EF-s is the current cash cow and won't be abandoned because there is no need to until such time, if it ever comes, that EF-m completely takes over from EF-s, Canon did a very smart thing in hedging their bets there!

EF is Canon's legacy, it will be the core part of their camera imaging system until such time as entirely different tech is commonplace and the resolution is not up to the job and people are convinced they need much more in the way of capability, which given the current capabilities and camera tech maturity would seem to me to be a very hard sell.
Well said.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 04, 2014, 02:10:16 AM »
Small is not always desired...

EF 400mm f2.8L IS II
EF 2.0X II Extender
Voltrox EF to M Adapter
EOS M
That is an EXTREME case. May I ask how many of you have put the EOS-M with 22mm lens in your own pocket or your wife's purse? That is what the EOS-M is for. If it is done right, we can still put a FF mirrorless with a 35mm lens in the wind breaker jacket easily.

29
EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 03, 2014, 07:10:23 PM »
What is a Rangefinder Mirrorless Camera?  That sounds pretty Retro, and limited production is not Canons thing, particularly in a falling market.
 
I'd be very happy with a FF mirrorless body that used existing lenses, but I'd just ignore one that needed new lenses.  Using a adaptor with my EF lenses would be out of consideration.
That is Leica M9 or ME. It is a mechanical monster. The gearing in the lens and the linkage in the camera alone will need to be precision mechining ( read it as expensive). To be fair, Canon was in that business untill the 1960's. It's camera is only 10 to 15% cheaper than similar Leica at that time.

30
EOS-M / Re: Adapters + legacy lenses on the EOS M: any advice?
« on: November 22, 2014, 12:26:51 PM »
If you have the lens laying around, it is fun to do it. If you have to buy the lens, think twice. EOS-M is not made for manual focusing under the sun.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 46