Jump to content

Dave Reeve

Members
  • Content Count

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dave Reeve

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,118 profile views
  1. Yes there is a difference. I had a 16/32 and a moller 32 - one with great front optic one with great rear optic. I took it to a lens repair shop to see if the elements could be swapped to make one great lens and there were subtle differences in the optics. Also worth noting that the repair shop got hold of a couple of another 16/32s and went to undertake a swop from one of those and the element was a little different there as well. So not only are there differences between the 32 and 16/32 but not all 16/32s are alike...
  2. Selling an Iscorama 42. Much cheaper than the other 42s on Ebay but read the blurb. I'll try to take some pics in the coming weeks and may pop into town to get the front threads sorted and useable. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Iscorama-42-anamorphic-lens-/122186897265?hash=item1c72e81771:g:KJUAAOSwA3dYKNP4
  3. Lovely. And great music choice too - one of my favourite 90s bands - every time I saw them was like seeing a completely different band. I have to admit I still don't get what you mean by the bayonet on the lx100 - mine doesn't seem to have this.
  4. It's a step up on my LX100 baby-H film that I shot last year but that was pre-rangefinder. I was half-pleased with the results but this inspires me to try it out with the rangefinder. I'd like to try out the rangefinder against the CoreDNA - have you had a look at the CoreDNA?
  5. I was heading towards getting a Rectilux but ummed and arred over the Rangefinder being a solution for all of my lenses - while I'd need a couple of Rectilux versions. But the tests posted earlier made the Rectilux really shine in comparison to the Rangefinder - so if the DNA can match the Rectilux and be a solution for all of my anamorphics then great. So it's a case of watch that space - am looking forward to seeing some tests. While it's unlikely, it would be good if Andrew would be willing to conduct an objective comparison with the Rangefinder? I know there's a wee bit of tension there but surely all products to the market should be considered equally?
  6. A few days left on ebay. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/121739669206?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 Kind of sad to be letting it go but but it's just not getting the use it deserves.
  7. Hi I'm selling my Iscorama 2001. Just not using it enough and feel it deserves to be used! It's in great condition - not far off perfect. a Little chip in the front barrel just above the 'R' of 'ISCORAMA' as pictured. Focus all smooth. Based in London if you want to take a look. It's nikon mount currently with an EOS adapter. Feel free to ask any questions. Euros 2500 inc delivery.
  8. Hi just a short mood piece I wanted to share shot on the Panasonic LX100 with a Baby Hypergonar attachment. I'm yet to read the camera's manual though and think I'd benefit from doing so...!
  9. That's a really useful video Richard - and kind of new age... I'm sure in the coming months I'll be ordering one of these optics but will have to discuss the options - especially as I'd like it to work with my cinegon and 54 if that's possible. Tommy - I don't have a 2004 but I do have a 2001 and while I love it I just don't have the time to use it that much so might consider selling it on. I'd say it's a bit closer to 1.42 than 1.5 in aspect. Some stills that I've taken with it:
  10. Lots of lovely shots in there! Congrats! Looking forward to seeing more. Seb - you seem to use your babyH more than any other anamorphics and I'm going to give mine a go with my GH4 soon and was wondering if you have any tips you can impart? Also - how did you do that lovely fade down at the end - it looks fairly composed.
  11. Sound advice Bioskop! Thanks for your thoughts...
  12. Thanks Rook - I did a circle test and it came in at around 1.41. Here are some pics stretched to 1.41: '> '>
  13. It's been a long time since i've logged in - babies/life etc. ! But I have a job coming up, actually a couple of jobs, in which I want to consider anamorphic lenses. So dipping into my anamorphic draw the first to test is the Iscorama 2001. Having taken some pics with it the aspect seems to be closer to 1.41 rather than 1.5. Any reason for this? The lens doesn't actually say 1.5 on it anywhere so perhaps 1.41 is correct. Any ideas? Anyway - chances are I'm going to sell this one although I'm aware the chances of finding another are extremely limited...
×
×
  • Create New...