April 25, 2014, 01:02:15 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 - TAF

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Lenses / Re: New TS-E Lenses for Photokina [CR2]
« on: April 21, 2014, 08:37:21 PM »
Unique feature?

Maybe a uniquely high price?


Nothing unique about a Canon L lens having a high price...

Perhaps they'll be unique by being really affordable L's?  Nah...


2
Photography Technique / Re: Am I the only one this has happened to?
« on: April 20, 2014, 07:37:21 PM »
The real perverts are the ones who see everyone else as a potential pedophile all the time.

Maybe he thought you were poaching on his territory.

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 20, 2014, 07:32:22 PM »

Quote
I'll hit the shop on Saturday for more details and start the nego.

Now that we weren't able to dissuade you from buying the Rollei, I'm feeling a bit more comfortable to hijack this thread. Not only I didn't managed to dissuade you out of buying I got some severe GAS myself in the process :). I'm thinking of buying my first TLR. However, I cannot afford to spend more than around 100-120$ including shipping (which unfortunately in my case could mount to 50$ by itself).   I've read a bit for the last few days and figured out that my best chances are Super Ricohflex, Czech Flexarete, Yashica A or 635 and maybe with a bit of luck Yashica-mat (not the 124). Even these, for 60-80$ (after shipping deduction) are extremely hard to find in working condition.

Am I missing something here? Are there any "cheap" but reliable TLR's (not Lubitels or Seagulls of course). Or should I pass it for now? My intention is mostly to shoot landscapes and portraits on 120mm B&W film and develop it myself.

Thanks .       


Hit eBay for a Rollei.  The 3.5D and 3.5E sometimes sell for that amount (less the shipping).  I got my first 2.8E for not much more (I think I paid $150 for it).

Since you plan on using it, I would avoid the earlier models (the Old Standard etc) as they are getting old enough to likely require servicing.  And their internal mirror will be failing (the silver does deteriorate over time, much more so on the pre-war models), and the ground glass isn't nearly as good as 'later' ones (meaning 1960's vintage).

I write that as someone who rarely uses his 1929 Rollei (first year of production).  I much prefer the more modern ones.

Also, keep your eye open for one with a built in meter that is broken; you can frequently get a really nice camera with a bad meter cheap.  And if the one you are eyeing has a meter, make certain it is working, or offer lots less.  I've never had an model Rollei with a working meter (I've gone through quite a few in the last 40 years).  Electronics was not their strong suite.

You'll never go wrong with one of their TLR's.

4
So the solution to using an AF-B on a 5D3 is to buy an Ed-C from Canon (less than $20 delivered), take the mounting piece off (four size 00 philips screws), remove the mounting piece from the AF-B, and put the piece from the Ed-C on.  The screw holes in the opposite corners will line up perfectly (lower left and upper right when looking at it).
Mystery solved.

Hi TAF,

thank you for your clarification.
After thinking a while and using Google a lot I came to the same conclusion: To mount the Ed-C onto the AngleFinder-B and maybe squeezing the screw holes a little bit.

My problem:
Even after searching a lot on the Canon website or even the worldwide google search, I haven't found a single source where to buy the adaptor Ed-C. The only result I can find is a focusing screen called Ed-c, but no adaptor to the AF-C.
It might be that I am "partially blind" and just could not find, where others just make three klicks and say "here it is", so I might need a hint where to look  ;)  Do you have a good source / link to a website at hands?

// MB

You're not blind - Canon makes it exceedingly difficult.  I traded email with customer service for a week before I got the right answer.  This is what they sent:

"The Canon Direct Store does not sell parts.  If you wish to purchase parts, please contact our Jamesburg Parts Order Center.  They can provide you with the price and availability of the part or Ed-C Adapter you're requesting.  You may call them at (866) 481-2569 between 9 am and 7 pm ET, Monday through Friday (excluding holidays)."

So if you are in the US, call that number.  The part number is YG2-0430-000 ADAPTOR ED-C (MECH) and it is $12.16 plus $6 postage (and sales tax).


5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 14, 2014, 11:19:42 PM »
Went to my usual shop today for some CF cards.

Since my last visit a Rolleiflex popped up in their Vintage section. 2.8F, visually and optically mint. Asking price of 2300 USD (in local currency). Can probably be bargained down quite a bit (around 10% would be a reasonnable aime just for principles).

Just one comment....now THAT is a viewfinder!!! Why the hell does no company keep making this kind of camera??? The form factor is truly excellent!

I was so troubled that I forgot to ask for the accessories accompanying it and got the wrong serial number (taking lens not camera). I was in a rush to get my bank card away.

Anyone to dissuade me? Or will there be some GAS propaganda?


Dissuade?  Hardly.

You must answer only one question - will you get $2300 worth of enjoyment out of it, instead of some other form of enjoyment (a new lens for your Canon perhaps).  If the answer is yes, read on...

OK, I have two 2.8E's, which I use fairly regularly.  In the old days I would load one with color and one with B+W to cover both bases.  These days, I stick with B+W, and only thus only carry one at a time.

One word of advice (keeping in mind the camera is at least 25 years old, and more likely closer to 40); if it comes with an original leather neck strap, DO NOT use it.  Even if it looks perfect, it is likely there is dry rot internal to the leather, and when you least expect it, it will break.  The thin straps are awful anyway, but by now they are dangerous to your gear.  It's easy enough to adapt a modern strap to the camera to not make it worth the risk.

Accessories - You'll want the lens hood.  The 2.8F will use Bay III components, and there are plenty of filters and such out there at very reasonable prices.  I'd suggest the panoramic adapter (it goes between the camera and tripod, has a built in level, and has indexing steps so you get perfectly spaced pictures...useful on other cameras too :-)), and if you're into stereo, there is a stereo device that the camera attaches to, and you shoot one shot, then slide the camera over to the other side and get a perfectly spaced second shot.  Also potentially useful for other cameras.

I keep hoping that someone will come out with a digital back.  The back is removable from virtually all Rollei TLR's so you can use a sheet film adapter, so making a replaceable digital back would be "easy" (once they get those 6x6 cm sensors out at reasonable prices).

I have to admit, I keep looking at a 'droid and thinking it would make a nice viewfinder for the top of my 5D3 so I could belly shoot in digital...


6

Hi BL,
seems that either you've got an other mount on your AF-B than I or that the 5D-c has a different mount-shoe for the eye-cap than the 5D-III.
Here is a picture of my AF-B in total plus it's mount next to the mount-shoe of my 5D-III.
I hope that someone just could tell me "buy the 'Adaptor xxx'" or so :-)
[/quote]

MB;

I owe you an apology.  Upon closer inspection, it is actually apparent that my Angle Finder B seems to have been 'hacked' by a previous owner.

A few weekends ago, I stumbled upon a new in box AF-B; it looked like it had never been opened.  So I bought it, took it home, and tried it.  It fit my 50D, but not my 5D3.  WTF.

Then I got out the calipers and did a close inspection of the one that does fit.  The metal mounting piece is clearly different...then I noticed that two screws were missing.  Humm...what's this?

It turns out that the mounting piece from an Angle FInder C (the adapter part "Ed-C") just happens to have a hole though it EXACTLY the same diameter as that of the AFB.  And two of the four holes for the little phillips head screws line up.

So the solution to using an AF-B on a 5D3 is to buy an Ed-C from Canon (less than $20 delivered), take the mounting piece off (four size 00 philips screws), remove the mounting piece from the AF-B, and put the piece from the Ed-C on.  The screw holes in the opposite corners will line up perfectly (lower left and upper right when looking at it).

Mystery solved.

I am quite ashamed that I hadn't noticed that before, so again, my apologies for misleading y'all.

7
Hmmm, I've got an old "Angle Finder B" lying around here, from my analog SLR times (EOS 100, back in the 1990s).
Has someone here experience in adapting an Angle Finder B to the new Canon DSLRs, e.g. 5D Mark III?

Regards,
Mattias

If you have the "S" adapter, it works just fine on the 5D3.  That's what I use.

And I do use it hand held most of the time.


8
I would like for Canon to offer a replacement focus screen for the 5D3 with the traditional split image center so I could more easily focus my Zeiss glass.

Of course I expect it to retain the 63 point AF as well.


9
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS
« on: February 17, 2014, 09:41:14 AM »
If my L version ever breaks, this will be its replacement, but I'm not certain I would head out right now to by one.

However, should someone comes out with a more interesting choice, such as a 24-105 f2.8, or a 28-135 f2.8, either of those would part me from my money much sooner.

(and no, the 24-70 is not acceptable; the long end is simply too short to be useful for me)

Thank you for the excellent review.


10
EOS-M / 22mm M Lens with debris inside?
« on: February 15, 2014, 10:30:43 AM »
Folks;

As i do before every use, I took a look into the front of the lens to make sure there is no dust on there, and I noticed a few pieces of white material.  Then I looked closer and realized it is INSIDE the lens; one piece is stuck to the inside of the front element, and another is stuck on the iris blades.

It looks like the plastic they make the internal gears from.

Has anyone else noticed this?  I'll call Canon next week (the camera/lens is only 7 months old), but I was wondering if anyone else has experienced this?  And/or how Canon might deal with it?

Thanks!

11

-  It's good to see you are carrying most of the weight on your shoulders/hips.  Now if you would just dump those camera neck straps, you'll save yourself the eventual neck surgery you're going to need otherwise.


Rusty;

What is your favorite approach to use in place of the neck straps?  I'm always looking for something better.


Surapon - amazing!  But I can't help but hear the commercial tag line "I've fallen and I can't get up".  Or picture the scene in 'Airplane!' where the woman hangs the Minox around her husbands neck and he keels over.


12
Is there some alternate meaning to 'fast zoom lens' that I'm unfamiliar with? The ad reads as if fast is a bad thing :o

Sort of.  While most of us think of a 'fast lens' as having a larger f-stop, I suspect that this fellow is referring to the speed at which it autofocus.

The question is, why does he have two?


13
It seems that we are reaching a consensus on the absurdity of wanting a mirrorles that is full frame and while it is small and lightweight. The small distance between lens and sensor still causes problems at the edges of the sensor, even using special microlenses. In the current technological level, it is perfectly plausible a mirrorless camera compatible with EF lenses, with full frame dual pixel AF sensor with 40 megapixel. Could be a great  camera for studio and landscape, with OLED viewfinder with large area and a articulate LCD screen of 5 inches. Similar to current hasselblad body would allow a high capacity battery and optimum heat dissipation. It would be intended for people who do not need the speed of 1DX, and not wanting a small body with A7r.

See reply #110.  And now that Canon has announced the VIXIA Mini X, it becomes clear that at least SOMEONE at Canon is willing the thing beyond the form factor of the SLR.

Perhaps we will see the "Canon 3003" (or would that be the Canon 500?) in the not too distance future.

14
It's becoming a moot point - videographers who use DSLRs, don't use the OVF anyway, they get loupes - using the 5D or 7D essentially as a MILC camera. I use a loupe for macro work in live view. If they got rid of the mirror box altogether, they could make a better form factor. Seeing that Canon is emphasizing video and has the dual pixel AF - we may yet get something like that.

I would love a sensibly designed camera with a 3" eye level EVF - could be done. It really makes no sense to have a tiny eye level EVF and a large one on the back - one large eye level one should be fine. We're stuck in the DSLR mindset.
shooting with a long lens, holding thew cam in front of you looking at the live view panel is not the most stable way to shoot!!!!  That's why it's designed that way, by holding the camera to your eye you have the perfect balance to get a steady shot.  Your elbows basically form a tripod...

Notice too...most video folks also use some kind of harness or a monopod to steady the camera. 

So, from a still shooters perspective, it makes perfect sense to have that tiny OVF or EVF.  Video has different needs...
Put a 3-4" retina like display on the top, a full frame sensor (with dual pixel AF) inside, and an EF mount on the front, and you've got a design that would be easy to hold stably, can be used over your head in crowds (like the classic TLR can), and if you really want to use it at eye level, a pentaprism like assembly could attach to the top or back (it could be an EVF or a mirror on the top, on the back it would need to be an EVF).  The connector for that optional EVF could feed external monitors (perfect for studio work).  External grips could be anything you want.
One of the things I like about touchscreen interfaces and WiFi is that we are no longer bound by having the viewfinder attached to the camera.... It can be a phone or a tablet 30 feet away.


Which could certainly be an option (built in or extra...probably extra knowing Canon).


15
Mirrorless cameras DO NOT compromise quality for portability - mirrors don't improve IQ - period.

Well, mirrors definitely improve the iq of the optical viewfinder vs. a cheap evf :->

It's becoming a moot point - videographers who use DSLRs, don't use the OVF anyway, they get loupes - using the 5D or 7D essentially as a MILC camera. I use a loupe for macro work in live view. If they got rid of the mirror box altogether, they could make a better form factor. Seeing that Canon is emphasizing video and has the dual pixel AF - we may yet get something like that.

I would love a sensibly designed camera with a 3" eye level EVF - could be done. It really makes no sense to have a tiny eye level EVF and a large one on the back - one large eye level one should be fine. We're stuck in the DSLR mindset.

shooting with a long lens, holding thew cam in front of you looking at the live view panel is not the most stable way to shoot!!!!  That's why it's designed that way, by holding the camera to your eye you have the perfect balance to get a steady shot.  Your elbows basically form a tripod...

Notice too...most video folks also use some kind of harness or a monopod to steady the camera. 

So, from a still shooters perspective, it makes perfect sense to have that tiny OVF or EVF.  Video has different needs...


I believe the future lies along a different path entirely.  I think you give the camera designers of 65 years ago too much credit vis-a-vis the notion that their goal was stability.  I don't believe that was the case - I seem to recall reading that their motivation was to avoid the parallax that all rangefinder cameras suffer from.

If you've ever used a Rollei TLR, you would probably agree that they are far more stable (with the neck strap taut and the camera cradled in your hands at waist level) than a SLR held to your face.  So perhaps the future is...a digital version of the Rollei 3003 (or Hasselblad 500).

Put a 3-4" retina like display on the top, a full frame sensor (with dual pixel AF) inside, and an EF mount on the front, and you've got a design that would be easy to hold stably, can be used over your head in crowds (like the classic TLR can), and if you really want to use it at eye level, a pentaprism like assembly could attach to the top or back (it could be an EVF or a mirror on the top, on the back it would need to be an EVF).  The connector for that optional EVF could feed external monitors (perfect for studio work).  External grips could be anything you want.

Most interestingly, the lens mount could be interchangeable.  Why not an EF mount, a Nikon mount, a Leica mount, or any other mount you can think of.  The flange distance changes as required - the mount that holds the lens mount is the constant - and could contain all the needed electronic connections for any AF lens (or not bother for manual focus).

The basic design could be made by ANY camera manufacturer - in fact, I would almost expect SIGMA (with their Foveon tech) to make such a thing and try to steal some of the business from the other companies.

That's a body I would buy.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10