trex1

Hi all,

<p>

I am curious about the 17mm Tokina AF ATX lens. I have a few questions:<p>

 

1. How does it compare to the Pro version? It is my understanding that optically, they are the same lens. Is this

correct?<br>

2. How does it compare to the 17-40 eos lens at that focal length, or to the 18mm EOS lens?<br>

3. How about to the 18-55 eos kit lens?<br>

4. At 90 bucks for the lens, is that good buy?

5. Anyone using this lens currently?

<P>Thanks in advance for all replies!

This is one of those questions, like "can I transplant a cat's head onto a squirrel's body?" It may be possible, but why would you want to do it? (Jeez, I hope no people get any ideas, from reading this...)

One other factor is the way the noise sounds. It's not so much how loud or quiet it is as the actual sound itself. The R cameras make a really annoying tinny sounding click, there are many Japanese SLRs that do this, some Nikons, and others.

 

<p>I would consider the sound a camera makes when being fired to be an ergonomic issue. It really surprises me how much the Japanese manufacturers completely neglect this issue. Pick up any Pentax and almost every Olympus DLSR and you will see what I mean.

 

<p>I live in Japan, and it never ceases to amaze me the grating sounds that Japanese put up with, without batting an eyelid. The television shows are a constant barrage of sounds like you would hear from a pinball machine, not mention Pachinko parlors, black trucks manned by fascists that trawl the streets blasting out violent ugly messages of hate. Well, you get the picture.

 

<p>So, I think it simply does not occur to over conditioned, overridden engineers at these companies to consider the aesthetics of the sound of a shutter being fired.

 

<p>Maitani, the creator of the OM system was very sensitive to this factor, and you can see in the OM1 and OM2 the results. It is one of the quietest softest shutters ever made. I honestly think it is arrogance on the side of the actual manufacturers that leads them to overlook this important point. The guy that runs Cosina is obviously extremely capable, and has a great line of lenses and the cameras are nice, but he just dropped the ball, thinking he had nothing to learn from anyone, when it came to the shutter of his RF cameras. He could have fitted the Bessas with cloth shutters and damped down the cameras, but he figured it was not important..

 

<p>By the way, of the EOS cameras, the nicest sounding shutter on any of their film cameras is on the Elan 7, which is not top of the line. The 1 series film cameras have shutters that sound like jack hammers.

The short answer is "Forget it." If you want quiet, then you have to get an M. It's that simple. The Rs are noisy, not getting around it. It's too bad. Or, you could save yourself some money and get an old OM-1 or OM-2. They are as nice or nicer than a Leica M. Huge finder, quiet shutter, compact, lightweight.

 

Anyway, this is from an owner of about 4 different M cameras, and about 2 different R cameras, the R3A, the R2A. I am speaking from experience.

I happen to really like medium format. I love the huge positives, and the tonal range of the prints blows me

away. Beyond even that, the single most fun I have ever had with a camera has been using the Hasselblad ELM setup

I picked up on Ebay for 300 bucks. I really love that camera, more even than a Leica.<p>However, I wonder if

anyone, apart from flickr fans like me, actually even shoots medium format anymore? Will the films stay in

production? What is really going on? Will film really go the way of the 8 track or cassette tapes, or VHS after

DVD appeared?

The program that Amol linked works great on Intel based computers. It will work on the newer macs, but not on old PPC macs.

If I am not mistaken, the X1 is just a sheep in wolf's clothing. Probably a Panasonic. You can get a really nice Panasonic interchangeable lens small camera now. It just came out. I played with one in a store here in Tokyo, and its definitely the "Bee's Balls." Forget the model number though. It looks a lot like the Olympus Digital Pen, but a much faster nicer camera than the Olympus which is real miss by the looks of it.

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I just got one of these, and it uses old 1.35v mercury cells, now no longer available.</p>

<p>I read that the only non linear element in the meter is the CDS cell, so that you can use two 1.5v batteries with no problem as long as you calibrated the meter:

<p>Any ideas?</p>

Well, how come Tokina and Tamron seem to be ok?

<p>I think I agree, Sigma is shooting themselves in the ass. Having said that, some of their lenses are very nice, in terms of the glass, very nice bokeh, but they are brain dead as a company. </p>

In terms of age, reliability, practical useability, and any number of other factors, the Bronica is easily the winner, but the fact is, that for me, the Hassy is more fun to use. It's kind of like the choice of buying a brand new Toyota for $3000 or an old Mercedes for the same price.

I meant to add, that for shooting, the Hasselblad seems to be much more intuitive, and flexible. The motordrive makes a huge difference. I can take picture after picture of my daughter while focusing on taking the shot, and not messing with the camera. That is the real reason I am so conflicted. To look at the Hassy it is this unwieldy steel behemoth, and the choice should be easy, but I really think the design is so good that even for such an ancient camera c.1980, it presents a real alternative to a brand new SQB.

The problem is that whichever I end up selling, the money will go to bills, and not more gear. Also, the chance of finding another mint SQ is not so high. The chance of getting another Hassy in probably much better shape than the one I have now is quite high. It's really an impossible decision.

<p>Reduced utility. Maybe I am just being sentimental about the Hassy.</p>

<p>I would think the Bronica... What do you suppose a mint SQB, and I mean like new, is worth? Or the 150S lens, the 3.5, with some dust in it, but otherwise perfect. No one seems to want an old ELM, especially with a lens with scratches and fogging in it..<br>

The SQB is so much more nimble, quicker to focus, the 150 is small, light, fast and focuses closer than the expensive hassy equivalent.<br>

You can see why I am having trouble making up my mind. <br>

I really like the solidity and feel of the Hassy more than the Bronica, but the Bronica has BIG advantages over the Hassy.</p>

Hi David,

 

I read many of your posts. Indeed it is a tough choice. The reality is that I can't keep both even to run tests. I need to liquidate one, pretty quickly, to fund a move. My inclination is to keep the blad.

I have both of these wonderful cameras. Each of which I paid about 300 dollars for. The Hassie is well used, but

in very nice shape. It came with a 12 and a 24 back. I really, really like this camera a lot. The Bronica came

with the 80mm PS and is like new. It also came with a 150mm S lens that is very nice.<p> I love the operation of

the Hassie, but not the weight. I love the operation, and lightness of the Bronica, but not the mirror flap,

which shakes the camera when you fire it, unlike the very smooth Hassie mirror flap (has brakes, I believe).<p>I

would really like to hear what you would do and why?

<p>Definitely the Pentax over the mamiya. I have used and owned both. The Pentax is one of the best cameras I have ever used. It is possibly the best MF camera on the market, for film use. For film IMO it beats the Contax and Hasselblad 645 systems.</p>

<p>Definitely the Pentax over the mamiya. I have used and owned both. The Pentax is one of the best cameras I have ever used. It is possibly the best MF camera on the market, for film use. For film IMO it beats the Contax and Hasselblad 645 systems.</p>

Thanks for the heads up Jeff. Maybe I need to shoot raw, and really get on board with post processing. How do you print your shots? Can you give me a sample of your work-flow from pushing the shutter button to final print? It would certainly be nice to think it is not the lens, then I would not have to sell my $30 Canon zoom to buy a Leica lens....

I was browsing a thread today, on the 7D vs. the 5D and one poster made the comment that the lens is the deciding

factor, not which Canon DSLR you buy. I must say that I have often been disappointed in the sharpness of my shots

with my 40d, which has a superb sensor on it, and now wonder if it is the lenses?<p> My first DSLR was an Olympus

E10, which I would still be shooting with today, if it were not for the incredibly slow rate at which it

processed the images, and possibly its lousy low light ability. When I look at large 8x10 prints from the

Olympus, they are way sharper and look much better than anything that has come out of any recent Nikon or Canon

DSLR I have owned. Similar can be said for the Sony R! I had. Both of these cameras, the Sony and the Olympus had

very sharp lenses that had the sensor very close to the rear end of the element.<p>Any ideas?

Ulrik, it does not look like that, when I looked at the camera. In any case, I would be very very happy if I could get hold of the original Hasselblad made yellow or blue leatherette.

Hi Michael. I am wondering if Hasseblad still sells leatherette and how much they charge. It would be the best option, as it is OEM.

Hi all,<p>

 

Anyone know where I can get new leatherette for my ELM? I would be even more thrilled if it was blue or yellow!<p>

 

Cheers!

<p>My question is also, if I shoot a 6x7 200mm lens on my 645 will it be exactly the same as a regular 645 200mm lens, in image quality, perspective, etc.?</p>