Upvote
0
Thanks for being a gatekeeper, we really need helpful people like you to tell us what serious professionals need and what amateurs with money can waste it on. Well done!On the other hand, if you want to buy such an "automated" TS lens, perhaps for the sake of novelty and GAS satisfaction, have at it; I'm sure you can have some fun with it. But for serious professionals, automation of TS functions will be expensive, superfluous and unnecessary. YMMV.
Indeed, sir. You are absolutely correct. Any person can pick up a camera and just use it in any way and if they are personally satisfied with the results for them, then voîla!, they then have a result that is good for them personally and who's to argue that they aren't satisfied with it? After all, that's what the "A" is for on the camera settings. Absolutely agree.What if I want light to dictate MY end result?
What if I don't want to dictate?
What if I don't want to use a tripod?
What if I don't want to use any existing focal length or available aperture?
Isn't it my choice, after all?
Isn't photography "writing with light" and not generating it?
You seem to delve in photographic theories, I'm ok with this. But you seem to forget that some of the very best photographers simply rejected them (I'm not speaking of myself, obviously).
"La meilleure des regles est de ne pas en avoir".
PS: Which Rollei rangefinder cameras are you speaking of? Never heard of any, unless you mean Rollei merely as brandname put on some obscure Cosinas).
I have left a fully charged battery in my EL-1 for months and have not seen much if any battery drain, seems odd to me that yours does.Thanks for those real-world details. Very useful!
Excellent, thank you gentlemen! I need some assistance with a PC so I will get it rolling.
ON1? Sorry to hear that.I wish that had gone better, they weren't much fun to deal with.
For a couple years in Zurich my backpack always had a Contax G2 with 28/2.8, 45/2, and 90/2.8. I did really like the 45. 50 does feel a bit tight or tele. 45 maybe a tiny tiny bit too, maybe 40-42 is "normal" for me? I think SLR's settled on 50mm as it left a lot of room for the flipping mirror, while for rangefinders you could do anything from 35-50 about as easily so it was more a question of what the designers wanted and less of what would fit.I shot color slide film in a rangefinder camera with a fixed 45mm lens for years. I could visualize the composition without putting the camera up to my eye. I had to get everything right in the first place. It was a great way to learn. I made many of my best pictures that way. And 45mm is even closer to theoretical “normal” than 50mm.
Short answer - no. Not possible
Fuji x-mount has a flange distance of 17.7 mm. The lens need to sit there from the sensor focal plane
Canon RF is 20 mm. EF is 44 mm. There is no way an x mount lens can sit at those distances and still focus across its range
Besides, x mount is also crop format, so it won't fill the whole imaging circle.
Given those constraints, it's counterproductive to even attempt doing this
Long answer: no, doesn't even make sense