aly324

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 5:33 AM, no_connection said:

It depends on how you look at it, but if you indeed look down just a teleconverter you see a smaller sensor than without, and as far as I see the converter is not part of my eye.

A lot of lenses is made like that from what I have seen, in one way or another. 50mm f1.4 for example.
And some with teleconverters built in too.

Does cropping increase the focal length of a lens? A speedboster is just decreasing the area that the image is projected on as far as the sensor see it, or from the lens perspective it increases the area of the sensor. I'm not saying calling it a focal reducer is wrong, per say, but for me it makes more sense to look at it that way since you don't change much of the lens properties. And it removes the need to "convert" any numbers.

While it's ultimately a matter of definition as you say, it seems to me rather more natural to consider the speed booster + lens a new lens with a new focal length, than to consider the speed booster part of the sensor. Same as a wide angle front adapter or a teleconverter.

19 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Good deal on the S2 body there.

Shame the lenses are so expensive still

Does anything adapt?

The S adapts most medium format DSLR lenses--manual MF lenses (Mamiya 645 and the old Hasselblad Vs etc.) via expensive Leica adapters or cheap Metabones ones, and HCD and Contax 645 lenses via expensive electronic Leica adapters. Not as flexible as the mirrorless GFX but not far behind. In my experience with adapting Mamiya and Contax 645 lenses though, they are so inferior to the native S lenses that using them felt like defeating the purpose of having the S body.

Also used copies of the common S lenses actually aren't that expensive. I got my S35 and S70 for under USD 2k each. Pretty reasonable.

For better ergonomics and better lenses (and in my opinion more refined images), get a used Leica S2 medium format DSLR. It has a 3:2 sensor (which I prefer over 4:3) and a beautiful viewfinder and is weather-sealed. CCD and 16-bit color depth also.

The lenses are really superb, even if bulkier than the Hasselblad equivalents. The lenses are even better than the Fuji GFX and Hasselblad X1D lenses in my experience (I've used the Fuji and looked at X1D sample images), especially if you like Leica's gentle style of rendering spatial and tonal transition.

I bought (and sold) a used Leica S2 body for $3k flat. But even generally you can get a body for $3500 or so. The Summarit-S 70mm, roughly equivalent to 55mm POV on 35mm, can be had for under $2k. 

Does the A99 ii overheat with the latest firmware? With the battery grip? 

6 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

Unless these were stolen to order and are headed for Russia or China I suspect the thieves won't have realised quite how small (and therefore interconnected) the market for these lenses is. You could probably fit the entirety of it into a mid-size college's basketball arena (and still have room for their significant others).

The Chinese and Russian markets for lenses are just as interconnected. I live halftime in China and the prices are completely in sync with those in the US.

I've used a number of Leica M, R, and S bodies and lenses. Now I shoot stills with an S 007, and videos with a Sony FS7 and A7Sii. I would love for the next S to be upgraded for video. (Someone above mentioned an upcoming one, but that's really based on one poorly translated sentence from an interview with Leica CEO and I think not reliable.) Before that I'm also considering an SL as sort of a combination of the S and the A7S ii. It'd be nice to be able to carry one body instead of two. But after using the S, I don't think the SL's photo quality will suffice for me.

In my mind there's little doubt that Leica gear is overpriced (especially when bought at retail prices) relative to performance. At the same time, the merits and aesthetic qualities of Leica glass + processing cannot be fully captured by DXOmark and other quantitative metrics that naysayers tend to cite. For me the richness and subtlety of the colors are always what strike me. Zeiss glass is sharp, Canon and Nikon glass are sharp, but the colors aren't the same. Increasing the saturation or vibrancy in post doesn't yield the same results.

This is definitely subjective, and much harder to pin down than "sharpness" and even bokeh. But the difference is there in the images, and becomes very noticeable if you use the equipment over a long period. I don't think it's about irrational love for a brand or Leica mythology at all.

Erwin Puts, a clear-headed authority on camera and especially Leica products, has some useful words about the uses and abuses of numerical tests and rankings. http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/styled-15/

In particular he points out the questionable utility of close rankings given the inevitable margins of errors in tolerances and testing, and the wrong habit of thinking encouraged by numeral scores: that a score of 2000 vs 1000 in a test must mean camera A is "twice as good" as camera B, or that camera A "beats" camera B.

His critique that this whole industry of rankings is ultimately meant to stimulate consumer desire is definitely germane. I don't know DXOmark's exact origins, but I suspect one can trace the history of camera tests pretty closely to advertising. Puts draws comparisons with the car industry. 

Then again, we all need to live, and EOSHD is itself part of this ecology of course. We just have to be self-aware.

I really appreciate his combination of rigor about quantitative tests and critical use of them.

Can't wait for the full frame NEX with 5-axis stabilization! I hope Sony at least gives us decent video on that one.

Do you have to specify the focal length manually every time you put a "dumb" lens on the OM-D for the IBIS to work properly? Is there a way to put a computer chip on the lens to make it recognizable?

Andrew, you seem to suggest that the vari-ND in this adapter may not be the two-polariser kind. But what else can it be?