jamie_robertson2

<blockquote> <p>Big honking inferior lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>You can use Leica M lenses on the A7</p> <blockquote> <p>More buttons than a PlayStation...ugly.</p> </blockquote> <p>Still better looking than the M5</p> <blockquote> <p>has poor auto focus compared with a mid range DSLR</p> </blockquote> <p>Has better autofocus than any Leica M camera in history.</p> <blockquote> <p>are they are about selling unnecessary technology to those who think the camera is all about photography.</p> </blockquote> <p>For something with unnecessary technology, Sony have sold more A7 cameras than all the digital M bodies put together.</p> <blockquote> <p>Just wonder how those old masters managed without the Sony A7 and 42 million pixels.</p> </blockquote> <p>Probably the same way Sony users manage without a Hasselblad and a Phase One 100MP digital back.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Jamie, simply not true. If you are magnifying to the same level, grain is exactly the same size.</p> </blockquote> <p>You misunderstood. I said "If you look at a <strong>30Mb scan</strong> from a MF neg and compare the result to a <strong>30Mb scan</strong> from a 35mm neg"<br> <br> A 30Mb scan from a MF neg will have been scanned at a much lower dpi than a 30Mb scan from a 35mm negative. If they were scanned at the same dpi the MF scan would be much larger than 30Mb. You won't see the grain on a 30Mb scan of a MF negative.</p>

<blockquote> <p>the M8 is relevant today - unlike almost every single digital camera from 2006</p> </blockquote> <p>Utter nonsense. Even if the M8 was a flawless camera (and anyone with half a brain knows the M8 is far from flawless), that comment would still be utter nonsense. Yes it's relevant, but so are countless other digital cameras from 2006 and earlier. </p> <p>I regularly shoot with my old Canon EOS 1D MkII. That's older than the M8, cheaper than the M8, has no IR issues and continues to pump out beautiful 8MP images from its APS-H sensor.</p>

<p>If you look at a 30Mb scan from a MF neg and compare the result to a 30Mb scan from a 35mm neg, the image quality of the MF scan will blow the 35mm away. The 35mm scan will show all the grain of the film. The MF scan will not show any grain at all (unless you're shooting very high ISO film) so the sharpness and tonality will be far superior.</p>

<p>I don't think it will be possible, at least not with Canon EF lenses. You'd need to use lenses from a system with a longer flange focal distance such as those used on medium format systems.</p> <p>Besides, the 4K codec on the 5D MkIV is a joke. It's next to useless as a pro video camera unless you are happy shooting 1080p. Canon have crippled it on purpose to protect sales of it's C300 etc.</p> <p>Hopefully Magic Lantern will hack it to unleash its true potential. Meanwhile Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic are hoovering up all the prosumer 4K sales because they have cameras that aren't crippled. Canon has made a decision to protect C300 sales in the short term but it will hurt them in the long term as people move over to Sony etc for 4K.</p> <p>The new Olympus E-M1 MkII is incredible as a 4K camera. The dual IS system is so good that you don't need to use a steadicam or gimbal. Just hold it in your hands and the camera does the rest. </p>

<p>Looks good but without a decent range of EF-M lenses it's a fairly pointless camera for serious users. Yes you can use the adapter to use standard EF lenses but then you may as well use a DSLR at half the price.</p>

<p>I had a similar problem with my mint condition M6 TTL. A repair specialist swapped the back door with that of a working M6 but the problem remained. In the end I sent it to Leica and it cost me €900 (€896 for labour and €4 for the part!). The meter just needed plugged in to Leica's computer and reset but Leica insisted on doing a full strip down and rebuild. </p>

<p>4K is a sensible move. That alone will ensure it is a massive hit straight away.</p> <p>From a long time user of the 5D2 I would appreciate the superior AF, WiFi, GPS and the touch screen. All big reasons for me to upgrade. If it has decent weather sealing then it's going to be my next DSLR for certain.</p>

<p>I used to use the Olympus E-PL5 and it was excellent for long exposure photography. No problems with hot pixels. It's also very cheap to buy used :-)</p>

<p>Either the Fuji or the Sony cameras will give you improved image quality over your micro 4/3rds set up. Even if the Heliar lenses don't give perfect results right up to the edge of the Sony sensor, you can still crop the images and end up with larger files than those from the Fuji. </p> <p>I wouldn't worry about pixel count either. The full frame sensor of any A7 camera will be noticeable superior to the OM-D. </p> <p>Just to confirm, I have never owned an A7 camera and have no intention of owning one. I like the micro 4/3rds cameras better overall. Their combination of small size and the wide range premium quality prime lenses make them ideal for me. I also own and love the Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95. It's an amazing lens.</p>

<p>I would go for the A7. The Haliar lenses are full frame so the full frame sensor of the A7 makes the most sense. </p>

<p>Forget about it. The image quality is dire and focussing accurately is difficult. </p>

<p>Weird that the error coincided exactly with the noise of the club hitting the ball. Are you using an external mic that could be causing this?</p>

<p>I also like the Samyang 7.5mm. It's cheap, well made and is surprisingly sharp. The lack of AF doesn't matter because 90% of the time you don't need to focus anyway as the depth of field is so great. If I wanted the same field of view from my Canon 5D2 it would cost me a fortune and weigh half a ton.</p><div></div>

<p>I wouldn't trust Tony Northrup to review anything. He knows much less than he makes out. A prime example of his way of thinking is that he thought the multi-shot 40 megapixel mode of the new Olympus cameras would require better glass. Good grief...</p> <p>He's the new Ken Rockwell.</p>

Hi Larry Thanks for your very generous offer but I also do C-41 here with my Jobo CP-E2. Would you just process the roll for the standard 3 minutes 15 seconds? Or would you give it a bit longer?

Sorry guys. The film is Kodak EIR colour slide (process E6), not HIE. My memory was playing tricks. I just never got around to processing it but now I would love to see what shots I took all those years ago.

<p>I have a roll of exposed Kodak HIE Infrared that's been in my freezer since around 1999. What development process would likely give me the most usable results? Would you go for the standard E6 process and hope for the best or would you try BW chemistry?</p> <p> </p>

<p>I've only every played with the M-E for a few minutes but the first thing that struck me was the crappy screen. It gives you no real idea of what your final images will look like (other than composition). Other than that you will probably enjoy the output.</p>

<p>Lots of zoom lenses do that, nothing to worry about.</p>

<p>Thanks again folks, great information.</p>

<p>Thanks again for all your responses. That's plenty for me to think about. I will investigate the Summitar. The Zenit option also sounds very attractive.</p>

Thanks folks. I was hoping for a cheap option, like a $30 Russian optic :-)

<p>Hi guys,</p> <p>Any recommendations for an M-mount or 39mm screw mount 50mm lens that gives messy/swirling bokeh? It's this type of look that I'm trying to achieve: <a href="

<blockquote> <p>I use it with my Oly E-Pl2.</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't think you do, not unless you have a special E-PL2.</p>