rico_tudor

A <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AG5j>recent thread</a> on the subject.

Martin,

 

According to <a href=http://www.kyoceraimaging.com/tourspecs.asp?itemnum=311050>Kyocera specs</a>, the T3 weighs 227g (8oz). It's perfectly comfortable in my shirt pocket, aided by the sleek lines (no protruding bits). Admittedly, the T doesn't quite qualify for this treatment.

Don't own one myself, but from the spec I think of the T2 as a T with all the fun parts removed. I greatly enjoy using the T and T3

On ozone-alert days, you hardly need to apply sepia toning. My kind of town!

M4 + Cron 35 (v3)

 

It's what I have, and does what I want. Anything more seems to involve blinking lights, VF intrusions, and buckets of money.

Agree with Jason's suggestion for the slower lenses. I have the Planar 100/2 and the Sonnar 100/3.5 (discontinued). For a tight head shot, f/2 is a no-go. I find f/4 a practical limit given the DOF, and perhaps f/2.8 for head and shoulders. The two special features of the Planar (superbly low linear distortion, uniform performance across the field at full aperture) are rather pointless for portraiture. Therefore, I recommend the cheaper Sonnars (85 or 100), which also serve nicely for travel.

The T3 is no speed demon where AF is concerned, and I accept that limitation. What is inexplicable and irksome is the noticeable <i>shutter</i> lag when focus is already locked (lens extended): call it 1/4 second. For candids, I prefer the original T which has a leaf shutter with <i>instant</i> response, plus my choice of scale focus or M-style rangefinder. Nice!

<p align=center>

<img src=http://patternassociates.com/rico/contax/misc/t.jpg>

Used the venerable Nikon Coolpix 900 for the VF shots. I wanted to include my M4 but the AFOV is simply too big: that view is one reason to join the RF cult! As for old-school Nikon, I bought the FM2n when it first appeared, and the VF was awesome (for an SLR). Eye-glass wearers may disagree.

But real estate is exactly my point:

<p align=center>

<img src=http://patternassociates.com/rico/d30/misc/vf-d30.jpg>

<br>

Canon D30 viewfinder, EF 28/2.8

<p align=center>

<img src=http://patternassociates.com/rico/d30/misc/vf-rts3.jpg>

<br>

Contax RTS III, CZ Planar 50/1.4

<p>

These are shots through the VF, showing what I see with my eye. Obviously the Contax is far more pleasant, expansive, immersive: the technical term is "apparent FOV" and is usually specified as the angle subtended to your eye. The "fractional FOV" I posted earlier can be converted to angles with a little bit of trig, and the binocular crowd do just that, but a fraction of the linear frame seems more natural for photogs.

<p>

To recap, that inscrutable table tells you which SLR has more VF real estate. While magnification is only one factor for real estate, it is the only one of the three that affects ease of manual focus.

<p>

As for the Nikons, here's the relevant data (sourced from <a href=http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/>

Photography in Malaysia</a>):

<p>

<tt>

VF.....image...prism..fractional<br>

mag....crop....cov....FOV<br>

------------------------------------------<br>

0.86 x 1/1.0 x 0.93 = 0.80 FM2<br>

0.80 x 1/1.0 x 1.00 = 0.80 F3 (DE-2 finder)<br>

0.75 x 1/1.0 x 1.00 = 0.75 F3HP (DE-3 finder)<br>

</tt>

<p>

The FM2 has more real estate for the eye than the later high-eyepoint F3, but is equal to the original F3. As with binoculars, there is a design tradeoff between prism weight, high eyepoint (a.k.a. eye relief), and apparent FOV). A tough call unless you wear glasses!

At 0.95x with 50mm lens, the *ist D has the highest magnification VF for DSLR, but that doesn't make it the best or largest. A roll of toilet paper has 1.0x magnification, but gives a smaller view than the 0.72x Leica M. Cropping of the nominal 135 view, as attenuated by sensor or film gate, must be factored. Also factored must be any possible short-changing at the prism head e.g. only 95% coverage for the Pentax.

<p>

<tt>

VF.....image...prism..fractional<br>

mag....crop....cov....FOV<br>

------------------------------------------<br>

1.00 x 1/1.0 x 1.00 = 1.00 (perfect SLR)<br>

0.91 x 1/1.0 x 1.00 = 0.91 (Leica M3)<br>

0.74 x 1/1.0 x 1.00 = 0.74 (Contax RTSIII)<br>

0.70 x 1/1.0 x 1.00 = 0.70 (Canon 1Ds)<br>

0.95 x 1/1.5 x 0.95 = 0.60 (*ist D)<br>

0.72 x 1/1.3 x 1.00 = 0.55 (Canon 1D)<br>

0.88 x 1/1.6 x 0.95 = 0.52 (Canon D30)<br>

</tt><p>

The M3 looks more expansive yet because you can see outside the 50mm bright lines.

RF? Wow! I had to focus my old 6x6 folder by scale. That Iskra looks magnificent, and you are certain to be treated kindly on the mean streets.

<p align=center>

<img src=http://patternassociates.com/rico/photo/misc/tokyo3.jpg><br>Tokyo, spring, 2001

<p align=center>

<img src=http://patternassociates.com/rico/photo/misc/kyoto1.jpg><br>Kyoto, spring, 2001

Use 100% color negs, processed & printed by 1-hr shop. Will scan with FS4000 on rare occasion.

 

Have developed a lot of B&W 120 and 135 in the past, and will do so again. I miss Pan F already.

<<American cars switched over to metric some time ago...>>

 

Say that when shopping for tires!

Tommy,

 

Your attitude is my ideal: breaking the addiction of high contrast and sharpness. Interesting that you favor the 35 ASPHs, since they are not notably sharper than the pre-ASPH 'cron (as shown by image samples posted here, and the published MTF). I also consider their bokeh as pleasant. The main attraction of the 35 ASPHs is their quality being extended to the edge while wide open. Only the matter of size and weight makes me hesitate to upgrade my pre-ASPH.

 

That said, there remains a part of me enthralled by the 28 and 50 ASPH, their raw performance, and the fact that I use those FLs most.

 

(Insert paroxysm here)

I have many Zeiss lenses in C/Y mount, and use them quite often on a Canon D30. All of them clear the mirror, but the linkage of some are snagging the plastic interior. (150KB <a href=http://patternassociates.com/rico/contax/misc/damage.jpg>image</a> of the damage.)

 

If WA R lens are hitting the mirror, experiment with the D Rebel or 20D bodies, which have a smaller mirror. This mirror design accommodates the economy EF-S lenses (smaller image circle, more deeply recessed).

007,

 

FYI, you have version 2 of the 35 'cron, although I believe the optical formula is the same as version 3 (6 elements). Main exterior difference is the stick aperture control.

Speaking from a meterless M perspective, I give the T3 a qualified thumbs-up as travel cam.

 

Advantages. Genuine shirt-pocket size with no snagging protrusions. You get a spiffy leather case with belt-loop. Inbuilt flash covers interior snapshot situations without red-eye, and even permits "shutter-dragging" to balance the light. The lens is deadly sharp, fully suitable for (135 format) landscape, can focus to 40cm (or 1:8), and you can attach filters. VF is quite expansive. Relatively quiet for all the motors. Build quality is excellent.

 

Downsides. Shutter lag can be reduced, but not eliminated. Handling is fussy given the small size, and menu-driven controls. The latter is needed to focus by scale, compensate AE, etc. DX (boo, hiss) cannot be overridden. Automated film advance is a battery-draining gimmick. Lens is fixed, of course, and vignettes somewhat. VF brightlines aren't.

 

Image results are stunning in sharpness and color, but contrast can overwhelm the media (prints in my case). I prefer the rounder effect of my old 35 'cron for subjects like people.

Next stop: Rokkor 500/8 catadioptic!

Passing this ban will merely cause photography in the subway to go underground.

Difficult to see that black wax seal, and even harder to photograph!

<p align=center>

<img src=http://patternassociates.com/rico/photo/misc/dag92.jpg>

<br>

DAG seal on M4 serviced '03

</p>

Ferdi,

 

I shoot color negs on an M4, at 35mm only. General opinion says the VC pancake II is a fine optic, and the price alone is attractive. Personally, I felt compelled to explore the 'cron mystique, and picked up versions 3 and 4 (hardly an economical maneuver, admittedly). To my critcal eye, there is no difference between six elements and seven. The v4 has better access to the aperture ring.

 

All lenses I mentioned are tiny, and that's an advantage over the ASPH.

<i>I was such an ugly kid.

<p>

One time I lost my parents at the beach. I walked up to a cop and said "I lost my parents. Do you think you could find 'em?" He says, "I dunno, kid. There's so many places they could hide."</i> -- Rodney Dangerfield

I like selective focus, so <i>boke-aji</i> is important. Most of my lenses render the background with a hard edge, and the foreground as a smooth blur. I understand this asymmetry is an unfortunate consequence of modern designs. I would much prefer the background OOF to be smooth. Circular aperture is equally important when point sources are present, but don't alter the point-spread function of the lens.

<p>

<a href=http://patternassociates.com/rico/contax/misc/as200a.jpg>This image</a> (180KB) shows the difference in near OOF rendition versus far, and was shot with a Carl Zeiss Aposonnar 200/2, wide open, 2m distance, on a D30 (Canon DSLR). The 0.5x-scale full image is followed by 1x-scale crops.

Have to disagree with Ronald about Calumet: I took a pleasant stroll down Division this spring for Leica Day, and the menacing Cabrini Green of yore is gone. The Goose Island environs are a good source of industrial tableaux for the street shooter. Calumet itself is spacious and modern, but lacks character. Central, in contrast, has the quality of a living museum.