February 28, 2015, 09:05:09 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 5 ... 47
31
PowerShot / Re: Convert the PowerShot N into a Rolleiflex Style Camera
« on: January 16, 2015, 12:39:49 PM »
Exactas were manufactured in GDR until the 1970s.
Your are right on this. I did not make it clear that the Exakta has been manufacturing in Dresden all the time, from 1933 until 1970. From 1939 to 1969, all Exakta has the film cutting knife. The last model (VX1000) does not have the film cutting knife.

32
PowerShot / Re: Convert the PowerShot N into a Rolleiflex Style Camera
« on: January 15, 2015, 12:41:21 PM »
Canon F-1 had an interchangeable prism as well. You could remove it and look directly at the ground glass from above.


*) If, after say four or five exposures you were in a hurry to see the results, you could cut the film, and in a dark place remove the short strip from the camera in order to develop it. The unexposed remainder you could still use. Remember that the Exakta at the time was being produced in East-Germany, which was a rather poor country.
The proper way to us this function is to have a reusable emty film cassetts  on the recieving end to keep the explosed film in the cassette such that it will be in total darkness.. Before you want to cut the film, you will advance the film by 2 frames and cut it.
Exakta was made in Dresden way before the second world war. It was a united Germany. It was pretty wealthy.

33
PowerShot / Re: Convert the PowerShot N into a Rolleiflex Style Camera
« on: January 15, 2015, 12:34:35 PM »
If the waist-level viewfinder is to be true to form, then the image has to be upside-down and left to right.
This was the main reason that waist-level viewfinders got taken over by penta-prisms.

My first SLR camera was an Exacta Varex.
Not only was the film cutter handy, but the camera was designed for left handers.
Where are the lefty cameras today?
You are right about the left and right reverse on the finder. But the image in the finder IS NOT up side down.

34
EOS-M / Re: Why do I keep my Eos M?
« on: January 09, 2015, 12:32:21 PM »
The M becomes my travelling camera. It is small, lightweight, and gives me great picture. The AF is definitely slower than the DSLR. But during travelling, 95% of my pictures are scenery and buildings (both exterior and interior). Therefore the slower AF does not bother me. As for changing setting due to the touch screen, It is a problem. I combat it by using a wrist strap and  turn the camera off more often. On a 11 days trip, I have just mess up the setting once. After that I just form a habit of checking the setting before shooting. Both the 22mm and the 18-55 mm lenses have very small amount of distortion, very suitable for photo stitching

35
I took my EOS-M to Turkey on a 11 days land tour on October. I did not miss my DSLR. Thereare some inconvenience. Please read my "EOS_M in Turkey" post. I would buy the 18-55mm lens for the trip for convenience. Your line up does not have a lens with IS.

36
Call me skeptical. The whole video looks like it is staged with a trained elephant and the guy that takes the video is waiting to take the video.

37
PowerShot / Re: New PowerShot(s) for CES Next Week [CR1]
« on: January 03, 2015, 01:37:11 AM »
I don't think we're ever going to see a 24-200mm (equiv) with an aperture range of anything remotely like f/1.4-2, but keep on dreaming, you crazy kids! I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, but this seems ridiculously unrealistic.
It is not too crazy, 1" snsor has a mutiplication of 3 for focal length. Therefore 200mm equals 67mm. Therfore the front element can be about 34mm in diameter or just slighly larger.  It is a piece of cake. The question is how much will Canon charge us and how fast is the AF.

38
PowerShot / Re: New PowerShot(s) for CES Next Week [CR1]
« on: January 02, 2015, 08:20:48 PM »
"1″ Sensor & 24-200 f/1.4-2.0 IS Lens"

Sounds good
Throw in the fast AF it will be a great travel camera. I will never be pocketable.

39
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.

40
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???

41
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.

42
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.

43
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.

44
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.

45
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??

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 47