October 21, 2014, 09:11:22 PM

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 4 ... 11
16
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...


17

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.

18
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.


19
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.


20
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.


21
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!

22

-  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.


23
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?


24
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.

25
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).


26
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.

27
Canon General / Re: only canon, nikon and sony will survive?
« on: January 01, 2014, 01:20:28 AM »
Excellent links, thank you.

My interpretation of this, FWIW, is that the consumer has figured out that compact fixed lens cameras are not enough better than cell phone cameras to be worth the hassle, thus dooming the compact camera market.

They also seem to understand that SLR type cameras are still vastly superior to cellphones and compact cameras, thus making for good sales of SLR's.

The mirrorless market segment is not succeeding because 1) the manufacturers have failed to make it clear that they have the image quality of the SLR (my EOS-M is superior to my 50D), and 2) the mirrorless still doesn't work as well as an SLR - primarily focus speed - and if it does, it costs as much as an SLR, and thus isn't normally considered due to #1 above.

My recommendations - better marketing; then technical improvements in the mirrorless models.

How long before we see a mirrorless integrated with Google Glass or equivalent?  Dual pixel autofocus?  Etc.

(if someone can tell me what they really mean in the translated article when they use the phrase sub-machine gun for a camera, I'd appreciate it)

28

As a journalist he should have had the same protection as medical personnel of the Red Cross/Red Half Moon. 'Luck' should have very little to do with anything. Obviously, there's always a risk for war journalists, but any journalist should be able to work without fear of retribution. And hell if I'm going to concede that his death was his fault or his responsibility. He gave his life to inform us, the public, and we should reward him with more than cynically stating that he could have seen this coming.


Unless I completely misread the article, there was no "retribution".  He wasn't specifically targeted, he happened to be in a building that was bombed.

Such are the risks one takes when reporting from a war zone.  This should serve as a reminder to us all that the camera does not make us invincible or immune to the laws of physics.


29
Canon General / Re: Useless or absurd accessories
« on: December 09, 2013, 10:35:48 PM »
What have you seen for idiotic accessories or for items that were just not thought out....

I saw a car window mount tripod head..... You roll down the window, slip it over the edge of the glass, and mount your camera or spotting scope to it. This one was marketed as XXXXXX window mount, real tree camouflage. Why would you need camouflage? With a couple of square inches of camouflage the critters will not be able to see you? That somehow they will miss the car, the big white lens, and the person behind it, but it is the tiny mount that matters?

Sort of like camouflage flashlights :)

I cannot speak to the camouflage, but the slip over the car window tripod head can be quite a useful accessory, if you are shooting things where you don't want to get out of your car but still want a decently stable platform.

I have one - I've used it for shooting waves crashing on the beach during a storm.

(I've also used it to hold a traffic radar antenna when clocking a road race).


30
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Specs Revealed?
« on: December 02, 2013, 10:31:01 PM »
As I've written before, this model may represent nothing more than Canon's attempt to reduce the cost of manufacturing an M body.


But they've already paid for all the tooling for the original body.  Creating a new one to make it smaller (which, given how small the M is already seems silly to me, and I have small hands) seems like a waste of money.

I'm anxiously waiting for Zeiss to come out with EF-M lenses.  Until then, the 22mm and some of my old FD glass with an adapter are keeping me quite busy.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11