joseph_wang3

<p>I HAVE ONE !<br>

Indeed it is the Sony VG900. Although it is designed as a camcorder, it is mirrorless and I am using it as a full frame still camera. It is doing the job well. It has 24 MP. </p>

<p>I go for the Zeiss. Indeed I have one.<br>

Among the Zeiss ZF and ZE lenses, the 100 is the top performer. Its optical quality is similar to those for the making of movies. The costs of cine lenses are astronomical. Now, one only need to pay peanut(compare to what you pay for cine lenses), you will get the performance of cine lenses.<br>

The special feature of this cine lens that it covers 24X36 in Macro scale at f2. This kind of performance requires special optical construction and the standard of this lens has not been matched by any other brands including Leica and Canon, at least at the time when I am writing this. </p>

<p>I go for the Zeiss. Indeed I have one.<br>

Among the Zeiss ZF and ZE lenses, the 100 is the top performer. Its optical quality is similar to those for the making of movies. The costs of cine lenses are astronomical. Now, one only need to pay peanut(compare to what you pay for cine lenses), you will get the performance of cine lenses.<br>

The special feature of this cine lens that it covers 24X36 in Macro scale at f2. This kind of performance requires special optical construction and the standard of this lens has not been matched by any other brands including Leica and Canon, at least at the time when I am writing this. </p>

<p>Hi Karim,<br>

you said the mirror and related components can easily be removed. Do you happen to know who can do this ? Can you do this ? <br>

I walk around the camera repair shops in Hong Kong. None of the people in these places are willing to do this for me.</p>

<p>Well, M lenses on 5D2 is not a waste. Well, it is something, at least the 5D2 in magnified video mode can focus better than any M camera.<br>

I have a NEX, but I still want to cut my Canon. When it is too dark, I still want to take photo,rather than going to bed.<br>

There is one important reason why I wish to cut the Canon and this is the ONLY solution. I have a Zeiss 65mm f1.2 cine lens for 35mm. It has the bokeh to dead for. It's so special that none of the current Canon, Leica and photographic Zeiss lenses can compare. It cannot be coupled to Leica M camera because it has complex floating elements. Cutting the 5D2 is the only solution. GH2 and NEX are not big enough to show up the excellent bokeh.</p>

<p>Does anyone fancy a 5D Mark II M ?</p>

<p>I do. I have a number of Leica Ms. However, none of them can focus as precisely using the magnified live view from 5D mark II. When I have problem to focus in the dark with Leica, the live view from 5D II can make me see what is going on, it helps a hell a lot to focus. I wish to convert my 5D II to Leica M mount. The problem is who can do the conversion ?</p>

<p>It involved removal of the mirror, mirror chamber, prism and conversion of the 5D II to a mount dimension similar to Leica M. There are examples in the web with the conversion. Does anyone know who is able to do this kind of conversion ?</p>

<p>http://vimeo.com/groups/8432/videos/20703835 <br>

In the end of the video, it showed the converted 5D 2 with mount dimension similar to Leica M.</p>

<p> http://www.dchome.net/viewthread.php?tid=854905&extra=&page=1 <br>

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/04/09/canon-5d-mark-ii-completely-disassembled/</p>

 

<p>The side of the corp is 1/5 the length of the original. </p>

<p>Yes, there is an orange cast in the Leaf image. The two posted images come from a large corp from the original print. The difference in the quality is evident. The images from my scanner is much more usable than those from my Leaf.</p>

<p>Here is the image from the Leaf. It is a large corp from the original file.</p><div></div>

<p>Good, there are some responses.<br>

I have several prints, each I scan with my X5 and took photos from them using my Contax. I use studio flash two of them. Some copies shown bad reflections so I move the flash around so that I get rid of them. I use f8 in my apo-Makro-Planar, ISO 100 in my Leaf. </p>

<p>Good, there are some responses.<br>

I have several prints, each I scan with my X5 and took photos from them using my Contax. I use studio flash two of them. Some copies shown bad reflections so I move the flash around so that I get rid of them. I use f8 in my apo-Makro-Planar, ISO 100 in my Leaf. </p><div></div>

<p>I have some A4 silver prints and need to make copies from them. I have lost the original negatives. I have two options, either I scan them in the scanner or take photos from them using my Leaf digital back. The camera I am using is Contax 645 with 120mm Contax lens. I sent the ISO of my back to 100. The results are amazing. Which one gives better results, the scanner or Leaf ? I will post some results later.</p>

<p>No, modifications of G lenses in Japan By Mr Miyasaki does NOT change the optics at all. G lenses have two parts, the core holds the lens elements together. The outer shell is titanium and this is removed at conversion.</p>

<p>THe person who is responsible for the conversion will adjust accordingly so that the image is in focus. Who is able to do the conversion ?</p>

<p>Could someone please help on this. I wish to convert the lens on the Voigtlander Bessa I camera to some other lens such as Schneider. I know this can be done after seeing a hybrid camera. This camera has a Voigtlander Bessa I body with Schneider 47mm f5.6 lens. Please tell me who or which company are able to do this kind of job ?</p>

<p>In the past, I was scanning with Hasselblad 646 for my Contax 645. The film I was using was Fuji Reala 100. I did find my prints lacked fine details and sharpness.<br>

Now, I am scanning with my Flextight X5 as well. My prints are now very much improved. The difference was the use of unsharp mask. I find the use of unsharp mask less helpful in the Hasselblad software because the image was difficult to adjust. The image has a very low resolution to start with in the Flextight software. <br>

I would transfer the scanned image to Photoshop and adjust with unsharp mask slowly. Do it slowly and you will find the sweet point when the image is sharp enough but not overdoing it. The image can be improved a lot in this way.</p>

 

<p >I am glad to see the contribution from Paul who comes from Hasselblad USA. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I had nothing unhappy with Hasselblad in the past. However, I wish to express my concern with Hasselblad right at this time of the day.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The degree of closing of the H system is worrying. Look, the Hasselblad H28mm lens is closed to Hasselblad H1 and H2 users. It is putting commercial interest right in front of user friendliness and it is not the best interest of the photographers.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Pretending making a full frame while doing 48x36 is just not good enough. I am not sure what H3DII 60 is but I would ask Hasselblad to stop this if it is still 48x36. Look at Phase one, they are doing 53.9X40.4 and they are more in the position to say full frame. If H3DII 60 is still 48X36, Hasselblad is truely struggling.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >While Hasselblad is increasing the pixel count with the H system all the time, the scanner has been static at 3200 for many years. Again, this kind of situation is like this because of commercial reasons. If Hasselblad increase the dpi for scanners it might curtails the sales of the H. So Hasselblad deliberately limited the dpi of the scanner. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I don't see the H3 very user friendly, all my other cameras can trigger the flash on top but not the H3, even my 50 year old Leica M3 can. The flash I am using is Sunpak.</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>Jeff, it is not a pointless discussion. All cameras I have been using triggers the flash on the top of the cameras automatically. This simple function works in all the cameras including Sony, Contax, Leica, Canon, Nikon and the Hasselblad V. Old cameras including 1953 Leica M3 works like this. You might need to connect the cord but this is the rule for more than 50 years. I really do not understand why Hasselblad has to make H3 against this rule and I have to relearn how to trigger all over again on this H3.<br>

I would believe Hasselblad is making this camera this way in order to make it into a closed system.<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/photokina/H3-concerns.shtml<br>

"If you aren't getting good results, there is a chance that your workflow is at fault.'' Thank you for your comment but unfortunately I am getting good results with excellent workflow. You might be happy with 3200 dpi but I wish to have ones with higher dpi. An artificial line of 3200 dpi is limiting the scanner to extract the brilliance of film photography. It is especially true if you need to crop the image. Look at Nikon's scanner, its price is only 1/7 of my Hasselblad flextight X5 but it is doing 4000 dpi. <br>

Believe me, Hasselblad is struggling and is losing to the strong competitors like Phase one. </p>

<p>Yes, I agree that I am bashing Hasselblad. First, they sent an artificial limit to their Scanner. I would believe this limit on the dpi was sent solely for commercial reason. If the result of the scanner is so good, less people will buy the digital camera. Second, the H3D was made less user friendly, again this is for commercial reason. Sorry, I must say, Hasselblad is setting commercial obstacles, on top of important feature like user friendliness and scanner dpi. In order to handle the H3D, I have to relearn how to use it, the camera do not behave like the others. In order to make scan on higher dpi, I have to scan the 6X6 in smaller pieces, and later on paste them in the photoshop. How anonying ! Thank you Michael for the answer.</p>

<p>My friend brought one of these and we had a chance to handle this. We fitted a flash onto it so that it could trigger other flashs in the studio. However, this thing is different from any other camera we are using, for a while we just can't manage to make it to trigger the flash on top of it. Being a user of other cameras such as Canon 5D, Contax 645 and Hasselblad 501CM, we do not find this camera friendly to use at all. We believe it has a very complicated camera-user interface.<br>

What is the opinions from others ? Do others have the same feeling, or perhaps they have a completely different view ?</p>

In one occasion I was shooting portraits with a Canon 350D and Contax 645 using Fuji Reala. For

the Canon I use RAW file to make prints. For the Contax I used Hasselblad Flextight X5 and scan

the images in 3200 dpi 16 bit colour. In the end I compared the prints and discovered that the

ultimate result belonged to the Canon. The prints from the Canon are better.

 

Wait a minute, I did the scanning again. This time I only scanned part of the 645 film with 24x36

holder.In this case I can use 5000 dpi or even 8000 dpi. The images come back to life again. They

are much richer in colour with better definition in fine details. The results of using higher dpi are

significantly better.

 

Why the hell they limited the 6x6 or 645 scanning to 3200 dpi ? This is true for my ex-646 scanner

and my Flextight X5 which is supposed to be the top model. I would believe if they increase the dpi

for 6x6, the end result will be better than the best digital camera. If scanning is that good, it might

curtail the sales of the digital cameras including the H3.

 

Does anyone know some way to increase the dpi for the Flextight scanner ? Are there any other

software available for the Flextight ?

I vote for Contax because I am using it and like it. I do not know much about the Mamiya.

The most important reason that I am using the Contax is for the 120mm lens. This lens has

excellent performance all the way from infinity to 1:1 magnification. It is optically better than

the Hasselblad 120mm lens. The second important reason is that you can use all lenses from

the Hasselblad V on the Contax. It is ironic that I am fit more Hasselblad lenses on my

Contax than my Hasselblad 501CM. As far as I can understand you could fit Hasselblad

lenses onto the Mamiya.

The shorter is the focal length, the better is the stereo illusion. The shorter is the distance

from the subject, the better is the stereo illusion. You get the best stereo illusion when you

take the photo with a wide angle lens in short distance. The stereo illusion is very much angle

dependent.

In the opposite side of the spectrum, the smaller is the angle, the flatter or less stereo is the

look of the photo.

The other point which has not been mentioned is the perspective. EFS 60 2.8 and EF100 2.8

gives a different appearance to the subject ( assuming you are using small frame camera). For

the same magnification, you will have to move nearer if you are using the EFS 60. The

perspective of the nearer subject is often more interesting or more "3D" than the subject

from EF 100 2.8. Indeed, the longer focal length gives a "flatter" or "clinical" appearance.

I do not agree "almost everything that could be said on the subject has been said." I would

say EFS 60 2.8 is an impressive piece of lens from Canon. Its design is superior to that of

Leica Elmarit R60 2.8 and Contax Zeiss C-Y 60 2.8. EFS 60 has internal focusing but the

distance of the last element is kept in close proximity to the light sensor, whereas the Zeiss

and Leica counterpart has to go far from the light sensor. Keeping the last element close is

one of the key to reach good image quality even in large magnification. Congratulations to

Canon in the design of this lens.