christian_irgens

The above was shot New Year's Eve at the Oculus in NYC. Canon EOS M50 Mk. II with Sigma 56mm f/1.4 wide open at 1/125 second at ISO 200. Godox V860 II C in a Flash Disk, handheld camera left.

There is one issue that has been overlooked. Kodak stock was widely held by large mutual funds because of its nice cash flow and dividends. As mentioned above Kodak did most of the basic research on digital imaging. The research was quite expensive, but a lot of it was funded by the military for use in satellites. It was certainly clear to a number of Kodak executives that this was a technology that could eventually lead to consumer products. But going from military cost-no-object research to developing retail devices was still expensive. The primary players in choking the consumer oriented R&D were major Wall Street mutual funds that objected vociferously to the spending of money with no immediate return in sight. Kodak had the technology and the resources to bring it forward but was strangled by the finance people.mm Cameras were never really important to Kodak, Instamatics by the millions notwithstanding. The camera was just a tool that people needed so they would by film and printing services. Pre and post WW II advanced 35 mm cameras were contract manufactured in Germany. But there was certainly a case for manufacturing and selling digital sensors even though the film, paper, and chemical business would die. It is possible, though, that the Photo CD and Kodak inkjet paper (and maybe the Kodak printers) could have been a sustainable business, although never of the magnitude of the legacy trade. And I nevertheless miss Kodachrome 120....

Canon M6 Mk.II, EF 100 mm f/2.0 via EF to EF-M adapter. P mode, 1/160 sec, f/2.0, ISO (Auto) 5000. Shot in NYC Subway station at 125th and 8th on the mezzanine. Crappy ambient fluorescent light. I should have toned down the inside of the white hood.

I had the original 17/4 and was very disappointed with it. Part of the reason was that for my FL system I had used the phenomenal 19/3.5 R which was a superb lens. As to the differences between the different coatings, I can't contribute anything.

My (original) F-1 days are long behind me, but I have used different NiMh batteries for many years, mostly in Speedlites. In the beginning I went for max capacity which was good and bad. If you recharged the cells just before a shoot it was good. Then you recharged them after the shoot and two weeks later they were pretty dead. Bad. My more knowledgable friends suggested Eneloops, advice I resisted for a long time. Then I read reviews and specs and I was sold. Have used them for many years now and am very happy. Extremely low self-discharge rate. Also, i have never had a single cell go bad on me. The regular Eneloops are 2,000 mAh while the Pros are 2,500 with a lower recycling lifespan. I tried some 1.5 Volt rechargeable lithium batteries from Amazon. Not a good experience. High internal resistance which led to significant heat buildup. Flash recharge time was never as fast as (regular) Eneloops and after about ten full power pops the recharge time became unusably long. Only item I ever returned to Amazon. While alkaline have a higher nominal voltage than NiMhs they also have higher internal resistance, so the effective voltage unger load is lower. I never tried rechargeables in my F-1, but some of my grips for EOS have optional AA magazines. Going a bit out on a limb here I don't remember Canon advising against NiMhs.

Mick: I am just about four years older than you, and I am also considering the EF to RF transition. My EF system is more comprehensive than yours, I got into EF in 1993 and went digital ten years later. But having been a professional since 1979 AND being an inveterate gear acquirer I obviously have an awful lot of EF gear. 12 White ones, anyone? My flagship camera is the 5 DsR, an amazing piece of equipment. Yet my mirrorless baby steps with M 5 and M 6 Mk. II have convinced me that there are clear advantages to ML. Near full frame autofocus and eye focus are the two most important plusses to me. Currently my thinking is to wait for the R 5s (or whatever the high MP camera will be called) and get the control ring adapter. I also have all but the 28 mm of the Sigma Art f/1.4 lenses, so I generally consider myself well lensed up. Though I do see a 24-105 L in my future also. But a wholesale lens switch over I don't envision since my current lenses range from very good to exceptional. I do very little paid work nowadays (and I could probably do it all with the M system.) Interestingly enough I think I have become a significantly better photographer as I have scaled back my workload, which has given me a lot more time to experiment with composition and lighting. It is feasible that I might be quite happy with the current R 5. But since I routinely print 24"x36" I like to have as much resolution as possible. On the lens issue the only reason I can see that might make me upgrade is if some of my very good EF non IS lenses are to be replaced with a superior RF IS lens. I guess everything is possible....

I am not much for flower photos and rarely do macro shots. However, (semi) recently I took two pictures of flowers in vases, they were largely just found opportunities. The pink flower was in a window at a restaurant on Jones Beach on Long Island. The white flower was on a table (again in a restaurant, or cafe) in Barnes & Noble's Manhattan flagship store. Here I worked the shot a good bit more. I shot it from different directions, moved it to at least one other table and again moved around it to achieve different looks. All in all I took eight frames (or is that an old fashioned expression, only used by aging former film shooters?) Interestingly enough, it's the first shot you see here. So either my first shot was well chosen, or all my maneuvering and repositioning were just wheel spinning. Both flowers were shot with the M 6 Mk. II and the Sigma 56 mm f/1.4. I was sorely tempted to take out a flash to change foreground to background light ratio, but realized that might stretch B&N's hospitality. On to another issue, 85 mm lenses. I have had the EF 85/1.8 as well as the quite similar EF 100/2 for many years and been very pleased with both of them. They are both small, sharp, contrasty, inexpensive, and discontinued. Major retailers still have stock of the 85, though the 100 is getting scarce. Some time ago I posted here a fashion shot with the 5 DsR and the 100 mm, wide open, ISO 6400, full length. When pixel peeping you could see individual eyelashes! But back to the 85. Today I use it with my M 5 where it becomes a 136 mm f/1.8 equivalent. Quite nice! The RF 85 is longer, thicker, heavier, and 43 % more expensive, But it does have IS. A little while back I bought a Sigma 85/1.4 Art. A fabulous piece of glass. But when the EF 85/1.4 IS was introduced I thought that was more useful for caffeine inflected old hands. So the Big Sig is on the block, hit me up if you're interested. Canon has always made great 85/1.8s, going back at least 50 years. I have owned FL, FD, and EF versions of this lens, always my primary headshot lens.

Not saying it is impossible, but I see Mark's three images right above your post. Again, Mea Culpa!

Sorry about the doubling of the images!

I am going to somewhat violate the rule about the number of pictures we can post, but not by much. Previously I have mentioned that I increasingly use my M5 and M6 Mk. II cameras for almost all my personal work. Obviously, I am aware of some of the compromises involved with these cameras. But, a little while back I decided to see what kind of quality differences I could detect between M6 and FF. Since I haven't acquired an RF yet, my M6 actually has the second most pixels of my cameras, surpassed only by the superb 5 DsR. So I decided to match the M6 against my 5 D Mk. IV, and for lenses I used the EF-M 32/1.4 and the Sigma 50/1.4 Art (which is better than my EF 50/1.4.). I used two solid tripods side by side as well as two remotes. Settings were ISO 100, Av at f/1.4 which led to about two seconds exposures. RAW file sizes were just about 35MB, the downsized JPEGs are about 600KB. From each photo I have cropped in on the street sign (which was the focus point) without compression, giving each a file size of about 425 KB. To my eyes (which admittedly are somewhat myopic) there is very little quality difference between the two images; your eyes might be better! The M system is far from perfect. I am hoping for an M5 Mk. II with the M6 II sensor, the M5 built in EVF, and the M50 flip and twist screen. I also like the Sony 6000 series and the Leica CL form factors. Do I really need a prism hump when there is no prism? Furthermore, I think Canon is shooting itself in the foot, and damaging at that, by not developing more EF-M lenses. Only two non macro primes? Compare that to the Sony E mount offering with its plethora of high grade primes. Fuji, which doesn't make FF cameras, has an enormous selection of APS-C lenses, which is still expanding. I am seriously jealous! With the help of Sigma 16mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.4 I have managed to put together a useable little system, BUT I WANT MORE EF-M LENSES!!! Rant can expand as needed. IMG 1 IMG 2 IMG 1 Crop IMG 2 Crop

With spring springing I have started to return to Jones Beach on New York's Long Island. The photo is of a "Splash Pad Park" funded by the Dave Matthews Band. The bent pipes caught my eye, and I was quite intrigued by them. Walking around the installation I took five different shots with my M5 and a Laowa 9 mm f/2.8; I felt the super wide angle lens (14.4 mm FF equivalent) would let me get inside the whole thing and show it off well. I made some modest contrast and saturation increases, otherwise the photo is a straight shot. No polarizer, no minus exposure compensation, no nothing. I will admit, however, that I plan to return with a polarizer and a tripod to see if I can improve on the concept. Stay tuned!

This is just a photo, with no claims to fame. It was only a test of my M6 Mark II with the EF-M 32 mm f/1.4 at night, shot wide open. A previous shot, also at f/1.4, Aperture Priority and Auto ISO had driven the ISO to 5000 @ 1/60 second. I thought the image was rather decent, if of course quite grainy. That led me to drag out a three legged thing, set ISO to 100, also f/1.4 giving a 2.5 second exposure. In spite of the longish exposure there is very little grain. Conclusion: The M system is quite capable and the 32/1,4 is a stellar lens. I have a long list of lenses I wish Canon would make. And if Canon will not, I hope Sigma will expand their EF-M offerings. And where are Tamron and Tokina? Maybe Viltrox will step up their game? Maybe I should buy a Sony Alpha 6600 and start over; they have a great lens offering for their APS-C system. But that I am even contemplating such a thought feels heretical! I must admit, though, that I really like my used Sony RX-100 Mark VI, which I consider the best small P&S camera extant. Oh, the horrors....

This is obviously seriously nuts! The small and light M camera can be almost completely hidden by the lens cap of the monstrous Sigma 105/1.4 Art lens. Clearly this is not a combo to take for a casual stroll in the park. But if you have it, why not try it? The eagle eyed among you may spot the Metabones Speedbooster between the camera and lens. Again, why not try it? The resulting combination is a 74 mm f/1.0! Call it a NoctiArt or a NoctiSig. What I wanted to see was how shallow DOF I could achieve with a small sensor camera. I enlisted my always available, yet mostly non cooperative, model, and grabbed some shots before he could protest. This was shot quite near the 1 meter minimum focusing distance of the lens, so that will of course contribute to limiting the DOF. And I like the result. The portrait was shot at f/1.4, 1/125 sec. @ ISO 200, available kitchen light. Obviously this is not a serious test, more of a "Hey, this could be fun to try!" kind of thing. One day I will use my EF 85 mm f/1.4 and the Metabones, which will work out to 60 mm, again at f/1.0. The best comparison will probably be the Sigma 56 mm f/1.4 shot wide open. I will probably shoot something really exciting like a text rich page of The Times. One day.....

I have acquired the three Viltrox f/1.4 lenses for my M system; my primary purpose was to get narrower DOF than the EF-M 22 mm f/2. The 23 mm f/1.4 is not as sharp as the 22 mm. Likewise, the Viltrox 56 mm f/1.4 is not as sharp as the Sigma 56 mm f/1.4, but all three Viltrox lenses are quite workable. The lady in red was shot with the 23 mm @ f/1.8, 1/60 sec. at ISO 200, P mode. Ambient only, large kitchen window camera left and a hanging globe with 100 W (equivalent) daylight LED. The ferocious feline was shot with the Viltrox 56 mm @ f/1.6, 1/100 sec. at ISO 200, again P mode. Light as before. What I found somewhat interesting is that in the original high resolution file I can read the opinion piece in the paper where the zone of focus is. Both pictures were shot with the M 6 Mark II. It is an OK camera; what I don't like is that you can not have a flash or trigger mounted without giving up the EVF. So I am waiting for the M 5 Mark II. I also wish for a different/better form factor, more like the Sony A 6000 series or the Leica CL, I can do without the pentaprism like hump. And like most serious photographers using the M system, I wish for more Canon EF-M primes with quality similar to the EF-M 32 mm f/1.4. Nine years into the system there are five (!) zooms, but only two non macro primes. With the EF-S system the Rebels were a bit smaller than the FF offerings (especially the Rebel SL series), but the lenses were largely similar in size to the EF lenses, and for primes you had to use EF lenses as there was only ONE non macro prime, the 24 mm f/2.8. But with the M system it is a whole new ball game. Smaller, lighter, yet excellent primes are much handier than equivalent EF lenses. I fit an M 5, three primes and three zooms into a Tenba Tool Box 8, which is about 8x8x3 inches. Not doable with the EF-S system. And I believe Canon are losing significant potential lens sales here. Luckily we have Sigma and some other players. Interesting times.......