Jump to content

noone

Members
  • Content Count

    910
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About noone

  • Rank
    Frequent member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,981 profile views
  1. I think the probe lens will be about it unless you can find a VERY small camera. You could also just use as long and fast a lens as you can get and get as close as you can and MAYBE it might work like shooting through a cage or wire fence?
  2. noone

    Lenses

    I love using good primes AS zooms! Just got a tiny Sony Nex-3N for less than $120 Australian posted (well under $100 US) and it has a bit of a point and shoot camera about it with a zoom toggle switch around the shutter button just like a P&S and it works great with good primes for Clear Zoom (I have not tried it for regular digital zoom and doubt I will beyond 2x)......a pity it does not work for RAW or video but only Jpeg stills (it is a few years old now). I wish Sony made something like that now and it worked for video. This is from the weekend (International blues music day) using the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 and quite a bit of clear zoom.
  3. noone

    Lenses

    The Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 has spoilt it for me so not looking for 50ish lenses anymore. I agree that age and condition of an individual copy of a lens means you can not really compare two lenses and have that representing ALL copies of those. That said, I have had a LOT of them and from memory would rank them for my liking something like- 1) Canon FD 50 1.2 L best legacy lens by far (though a long way behind the Sony Zeiss). 2) Sony 50 1.8 APSC stabilized AF lens if it was full frame it would be 1 3) Pentax 50 1.2 K second best legacy lens by far (I used it for around 20 years and it fell to bits from overwork and being tossed around my bag a lot even though it was extremely well built) 4) Nikon 50 1.8 AF (non D made in Japan) A lot better than its price. 5) Canon AF nifty fifty (I just never really got to like that much though it was ok). Below that all the rest (and there are a few) are pretty much about the same . Not rating a ancient Biotar 58 f2 I had (tiny, lots of blades, only a single coating and no click stops). Very sharp but very low contrast. I liked it a lot but would not use it for many situations.
  4. They are ALL doomed as far as cameras as we know them right now. MIGHT be a bit more than five years though. In ten to fifteen years, I would not be surprised if the biggest imaging company was one that does not currently exist.
  5. ALL dedicated camera companies are in trouble. Canon just show it more because of their aging sensor tech. Each month, the reason for dedicated cameras gets less and less. I still want proper cameras because I am anti social and hardly need a mobile phone but I can see the pace of phone camera progress Is light years faster than "normal" camera progress. Things like low light ability and specialty lenses (EG tilt shift, macro, long lenses and ultra wides) still have an advantage for cameras over phones but even some of those advantages are being overcome for phones. Give it a few years and it will be more than Canon in trouble as the market will simply not be big enough other than some very good (and very expensive) gear sold in small numbers. When a phone CAN do what my 17mm tilt shift or 150 2.8 macro or 300 2.8 or even my superzoom P&S can do (and they will at some point), the gfame will be over.
  6. noone

    Lenses

    Well a large percentage of people are using APSC and on those 50mm Is pretty close to 80 (75mm FF angle of view for most and 80mm for Canon 1.6). I guess they just made a lot more 50s for a lot longer and it used to be people got a 28mm a 50mm and a 135mm with 85s becoming a thing after that. I have just got a cheap little APSC Sony and my only AF remaining E mount lens Is the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 which I am going to be using pretty much AS an 85 (well 82.5) and it will do better than many of the real 85s I had on FF (Sony 85 1.8 FE possibly excepted) and will be a hell of a lot easier to use than my old FD 85 1.2L FF.
  7. On the 28-70 kit lens, it I actually a pretty good lens and including for video (at least with an A7s). I used it pretty much as a constant f5.6 and it is close to parfocal, focuses silently and reasonably quickly (in a limited range for video) is stabilized and light so a good choice for the A7 and A7s. It is very good in the centre and ok at the edges. Apparently there is some copy variation but mine was quite good.
  8. I had both an A7 and A7s. I loved both but not the A7 for video though it was just ok for my limited video needs. I ended up selling the A7 as it was not being used so much and I love taking low light photo and occasional video and the A7s was my all time favorite until it died.
  9. GH5 does not have APSC or FF sensor. Dare I say the A7sii? Ok the AF tracking may not be the best (or exist at all) except in a limited range like a band on a stage. The original A7s as well but no IBIS so you would need a stabilized lens.
  10. I do not see how they are any different to any other camera company. Sure there Is a bit of sameness about the cameras but that applies to just about everything and if they added too many things different to previous models rather than incremental improvements you would either get a much longer time between models or people would abandon all their previous gear (and possibly the company) especially with cameras that have few add ons like the RX100 series. I think Canons issue is they reiterate the same camera but at a point that was long passed by others many models ago (with sensors) while Sony has not reached that point (yet).
  11. Damn! Just emailed them and they have no plans for an Apodization filter. Oh well, my search continues.
  12. noone

    Lenses

    Some wide angle lenses have rear filter holders or you can buy purpose made adapter filters now or kludge together the glass from various filters into the space in some adapters (see the thread on the new filters for adapters).
  13. I was wondering when some company was going to do that. Some time ago, I found that some adapters have a small ledge in them and in one case, found it had a circular edge that almost exactly fit the glass from 43mm filters. I had been playing around with filters of that size to fit into the rear slot of my ancient Tamron 300 2.8 but to get it to fit, I had to file some of the metal edge off and then after realising it was about the same size as the space in one of my adapters, I filed the rest of the rim off (was just a cheap IR filter to start) and it fit very well with most lenses (some were a little long against the glass) as the depth was almost the same as the ledge depth as well as being the right size. I started looking for an apodization filter which became my holy grail. I stopped when my A7s camera died but have just got a cheap little Sony APSC camera so will start trying it again. If anyone knows of any (cheap- I know, I know) apodization filter, please let me know. I had found a few companies that did make them but not in the size I needed (some might have made me one but it would have been cheaper to buy one of the few lenses that have those filters built in and I can not afford those). Maybe this company might start doing that? I have posted about this before. This is the IR filter glass in the adapter and showing the bare ledge and a photo taken (as taken) using the filter behind my Canon 17mm TSE (a IR filter for my front filter holder would be huge and expensive for the lens otherwise).
  14. Depends. IF it works seamlessly and with a particular lens for a particular purpose, AF, otherwise I am fine with MF. EG of my favourite lenses, AF almost exclusively with the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 but with my MF tilt shift 17mm, well I do not get a choice but it would not be needed anyway.
  15. noone

    Music videos...

    I like trawling YouTube for live music videos. This is one of my favourite bands And being without any shred of shame those songs are from their Album "Snow White" and a few of my photos are used (at very small size) in the collage on the album . They never sold that many records but would sell out live shows and became the first band in the Australian Live music associations hall of fame. They were the next big thing in their youth, got a two record deal with Warner's USA, made the first album but Warner's wanted them to change some things, they didn't so the record was not supported and they got paid out for the second without having to make it. Snow White is a later album from Warner's Australia but because of a little swearing from the lead single, it got little airplay except on a few stations and late night TV (it was a few years ago).
×
×
  • Create New...