Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About richg101

  • Rank
    Long-time member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Bristol. UK
  • Interests
    Designer, Photographer, Musician, Film Enthusiast

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi there, I am wondering why you say that the MC iscorama isnt worth buying? Thank you, any info much appreciated.

  2. Hi Rich

    I'm contemplating the KineMax for a feature I'm in the process of getting funded. I was considering getting their KineMount with the Nikon KineEnhancer...I own 3 Nikon AF-S F2.8 ED zooms...the 17-35, 28-70 and 80-200...all with aperture rings. I also own the Sigma F1.8 18-35 and 2 Tokinas...all in Nikon mount.  I know you built a custom speed booster for Rob, and my questions are (1) Was it a Nikon mount (2) Any thoughts on the optical quality of their Enhancer and (3) If not a Nikon mount for Rob, would you be interested in manufacturing a Nikon Booster for my KineMount. As a lot of the cheap boosters  degrade the image, and in my view the image on the KineMax is what I'm looking for at an incredible price, I want to make sure there are no weak links in the chain, or else I will opt for the non optic adapter.

    thanks in advance,


  3. If you read my post I said 'I have a feeling'. my feeling was wrong. Fair enough. well there you have it. sony could have made a smaller lens with performance to match the shite canon offering, but instead used that extra space for further elements. the result? a lens that delivers resolution good enough for the 42mpx a7rii.
  4. I have a feeling the reason the sony is so large is that it might be a re-purposed lens. probably originally designed for a-mount, or at the very least designed to be onfigured to be used with a a-mount camera, and then the optical design has been translated into e-mount. the additional 30mm length to make up for the lack of mirror. yep. micro lenses, cover glass etc. all make shorter back focus distances a potential problem. The Loxia lenses take leica style designs and apply correction for micro lenses and cover glass.
  5. a 80mm/2 designed for what looks like the sony 50mp cmos would be small and lightweight - no heavier than a 50mm/1.4 for full frame. The lack of mirror means the system benefits in the same way a leica M system benefits - small lenses due to not needing to be placed 45-75mm from the sensor to clear the mirror. think scaled up Loxia lenses. fast, compact, very high quality.
  6. A MF to FF speed booster is not a viable product because of a few problems:- 1. a good quality optic will be very expensive. the Kipon unit won;t perform as well as the speed booster ultra, and as shown on my tests a few pages up, even the speed booster ultra negatively affects the overall image quality when compared to a straight lens on full frame. add to that the need for electronic contacts to use lenses like the contax645 or rolleiflex hy6 'digital ready' lenses. the cost will mean the customer base will be limited. 2. Most speed booster purchasers do so to get around having
  7. the magic comes from the available optics for a given format. 1. you cannot buy a 60mm/1.4 aps-c lens equivalent to an old leica summicron 90/2 when used on full frame. yes you can stick a 0.7x focal reducer on there, and I have done so (with the sb ultra on a a7rii). the amount of defocus is the same but the rolloff is quicker on the focal reduced lens on aps-c. the in focus areas are also drastically inferior, and there is significant reduction in fov, and added distortion. all of these attributes contribute to the advantage of the larger sensor. 2. you cannot buy a 50mm
  8. I agree with this to a point. my 9year old leaf aptus ii 10 at 80iso (56mpx ccd, 16 bit) destroys my sony a7rii for colour in situations where there is good light. Still I think you are wrong to disregard the effects of a large sensor on dof rolloff. the new Phase 100mpx back is a sony cmos sensor. being 16bit and developed to mimmic the desired look you get from a ccd in its comfort zone has created the best mf sensor ever apparently. in good light I expect my ccd will deliver just as beautiful images, but in bad light the phase 100mpx cmos makes me wanna cry at how good it performs.
  9. you need to burnish the casing back to gloss with a very fine polishing pad. i think a 4000 abralon pad will work well on this. leave the taking lens on for protection of the rear element and to use as a handle to hold onto, then rotate the iscorama in the abralon pad. make the abralon pad moist but ring it out so it's almost totally dry - just damp. a good quality black marker pen like a sharpie will darken the grooves on the grip. I'd avoid wax based products since these are nearly impossible to remove from glass if they end up on the elements. i would however maybe
  10. point of focus is the text on the front of the lens. bokeh bubbles are the same for both shots meaning the ratio between the in focus and fully out of focus areas is the same. HOWEVER, on the aps-c shot the canon text on the camera body, the underside of the tripod head, and the text on the flash are are more blurred than the full frame image. so for a bigger sensor the dof rolloff is slower and therefore more of the camera is in focus. as distance increases and focal length is lengthened this attribute is magnified.
  11. i'm gonna have to start working hard to get some points. anything to make up for my 1.5" fully extended. this opinion is one of the main reasons certain very good photographers miss out on the better work - the disregarding of how important equipment really is from separating two equally good photographers. naturally the one who decides to go that little further - investing in equipment you need to pay a lease to use, rather than saying to themselves they can spend the extra money on a holiday or a new car and carry on using run of the mill canon crap. shooting medium format digital
  12. yes, this is true. but a speed booster is a focal reducer. the ultra is a marvelous piece of glass and as a rule a basic 50mm f2 + speed booster ultra (creating a 35mm/1.4) will vastly outperform most true 35mm/1.4's. Technically a sigma 35/1.4 will meet or exceed, but at the cost of losing all sense of soul and character.
  13. Full frame https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7697/27662722381_982d10fc99_o.jpg APS-C + SB Ultra https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7272/27737331565_423e3503be_o.jpg now I'm gonna say that in order to view the differences you should download the full size files, and bring them into photoshop so you can flip from one layer to another. the differences wont be apparent without. The main thing is overall image quality. shorter focal lengths just don;t deliver the same refined in focus areas - the point of focus on the aps-c shot is drastically harmed by the purple fringing. S
  14. DOF does look odd. As a general rule we're not used to seeing relatively wide shots from a distance that provide such shallow dof, and refined in focus areas. view in full size and you;ll see the point of focus was the text on the boat. makes the front of the boat jump out. I'm happy to send the mos file from the camera if you want proof that no added blur was applied! every person who sees this image asks what lens was used. I always feel bad trying to explain that no matter how much they spend on a lens for a full frame dslr they'll never be able to replicate the dof rolloff and fov.
  • Create New...