philip_wilson

<p>As a G1 (and G2 shooter) of many years I would make the following suggestions.<br> 1 Get into the habit of checking the top range display to see if you are focusing where you plan to. After a few weeks of doing this you will no longer need to do it.<br> 2 You will always have at least 1 or 2 shots on a roll where the focus is not what is intended with the G1 - especially if you shoot the 90mm a lot.<br> 3 The G1 focuses best on strong vertical lines in my experience. Be prepared to focus, lock focus and compose.</p>

Ray. You can manually chose a lens from the list in the camera which has the same effect as putting a coded lens on. Of course if the lens is not a Leica lens then you have to choose a Leica equivalent. In terms of coding the lens yourself a dremmel helps the sharpie ink stay on and you need a lens where the adapter (or ring) does not let light in and is close to the sensor in the lens mount- this is not the case with all lenses or LTM adapters.

I like mine and the lack of EXIF is not a big deal. You can paint the marks on the bottom of an old ring (e.g. Sharpie) to get the auto settings if you like. In terms of not setting the lens, the viewfinder frame is correct but you lose the image correction and eXIF. The camera (even in RAW) will apply a vignette correction at the edges which is noticible with a very wide lens - especially wide open (for example my CV 12 mm). You should also be aware that even when corrected and with Leica lenses the aperture data is not always exactly right in the EXIF. I like my M240 a lot but find it a bit more digital in operation than my M8. Switching between a coded Leica lens and uncoded lens is a few button presses if you want to manually code the older lens.

I have both and they are great cameras. As people have said the G2 has better AF and the rear focus button which helps. That said the G1 is a very good camera and for me feels better in the hand. Given the price difference I suggest you get a G1 but look for one with the green sticker in the film area as you can use the 35 mm lens on this body.

<p>If you mean rotational play all my EOS bodies and lenses show it. Both my 70-200 lenses (F2.8 non IS and F4 IS show about 0.5mm of rotational play) and my shorter lenses show a bit less. It has no impact on IQ as far as I can tell. I think it is just cost based engineering. You clearly can make a system with no play (my Leica lenses and bodies have no play at all and even my Canon FD system has almost zero play) but it will cost more.<br> I think it is just trying to keep prices down - with manual focus lenses the engineering was much more robust as the lens was always being manipulated by clumsy humans. AF lenses are clearly designed to be less solid. I have several L series lenses with a significant level of plastic parts which would never happen in the old FD days. High tolerance engineering is expensive (see Leica for more details) and most people don't care that much as lenses become obsolete more quickly as technology advances.</p>

<p>Difficult to tell - what setting were used in the Clorox images. To me it looks like the images are out of focus (the camera may be focused in front of the bleach in the right side image). There is also probably some camera shake as 1/40 with a 50mm lens on APS-C is quite slow - but it looks like a shallow DOF and focused in front of the image. I assume you are using AF can you perhaps play with your AF settings and make sure AF is active on the lens. For a good test tape a newspaper to the wall, use a tripod and a fast shutter speed and see if there is an AF issue. It helps to only use the centre point for focus (with multiple focus points active the camera does not always focus on the one you want).</p>

I have used the canon 1.4x with the 17 mm TS lens and it works fine but you have to be careful. The front if the TC actually touches the rear lens element although it is only the rubber part that touches not anything solid With the 17 and 1.4x the IQ is pretty good and you essentially get a 24mm lens. I would suggest that you actually need to try the TC on the lens before you buy it

<p>My suggestion is just stay with a single adapter - it is better to get a cheap (Chinese) one than stack adapters in my experience. I would also stay with MF lenses and not worry about trying to adapt electronic lenses like EOS. In my experience they never really communicate with the camera well so aperture setting can be tricky (or impossible). </p>

<p>Yes High Iso is not an M8 forte - try and stay to 200 or 400 for colour or B&W (shoot RAW). In B&W you can go to 800 and more if you like the grainy effect. One thing about the M8 is that noise looks closer to film than is normal for a digital image.</p>

I found this useful when I started with IR on the M8 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/m8-infrared.shtml

Do you have the later internal focus lens or the earlier lens? I have the later IF lens and it is good but I find the 80 -200 f4 L zoom is actually better (if slower)

Alan as others mentioned the CCD sensor in the M8 is great. I also have the M240 and in many ways still like the CCD sensor in the M8 and the fact that it is "less digital" than the M240. By the way just shoot raw with the M8 as the JPEGs are terrible. Also if shooting IR it is worth getting in the habit of focus bracketing as it is much more sensitive to accurate focus than IR film was.

As an aside the hood is not worth the effort of trying to find one as it has almost no effect. Newer wide lenses like the EOS 16-35 f2.8 have effective hoods. This lens does not!

I have used M645 lenses quite a lot. On canon EOS. I have used them on a Mirex tilt shift adapter and they perform very well indeed. While it is years since I sold my RZ I suspect that the lenses will work well on nikon. You may want to consider a TS adapter if you can find one as it gives you a versatility you do not get with most nikon lenses

Sorry indeed I do. I always think of it as an F4 lens but of course it is really f3.5

<p>Since it is fall - Lake Minnewanka by Banff</p><div></div>

<p>Depends on what you are looking for. Personally I prefer the M8 and M9 CCDs to any of the CMOS solutions but in terms of high ISO, frame rate, power etc... CMOS is better. I have yet to find a camera with no noise at ISO 3200 although some (e.g. the new Canon 1Dx and 5D get pretty close - I am sure Nikon do as well but don't shoot them). My new Leica M240 is very good - better than the Canon 5DII and probably as good as the 5DIII but I do not look to Leica for a leading sensor. Mind you the Leica sensor has more mega pixels and is full frame. I cannot really comment on the Fuji bodies as I have only tried them in stores but they seem well made and the lenses do a good job.</p>

Edward the Zeiss 50f1.5 is a very different lens and you either like it or hate it. Personally I love mine but it is not an everyday lens. I probably use it less than 1/10th as much as my 50 cron or 35 lux. But while sometimes the Bokah looks odd it can deliver a unique look. It is one of those lenses like the Fuji Gx680 180 f3.2 or the old Canon FD 85 F1.2 that can produce a unique portrait - especially on the crop M8. The Leica noctilux is another lens that can deliver a unique look. Wide open none of these lenses is perfect (I don't own the noctilux and to be fair the Fuji is pretty good) but they do allow you to create an image that stands out. Wide poem there is no modern lens I know that creates an image similar to the Zeiss Sonnar - whereas my Canon system gets very close to the 50 cron for a lot less money.

Walter sorry to disappoint you but the good EF lenses are better than the good FD lens. The average EF lenses are a lot better than the average FD lenses. They don't feel as good to use but 30 years of progress does make a difference. Even the top EF zooms these days deliver remarkable performance and are hard to tell from prime quality. Of course these f2.8 zooms cost $2000+ and are very bulky but optically they are excellent. I doubt anyone will make an FD digital body as it would not be able to take EF lenses due to the different flange distances - of course in these days of 3D printing who knows.

Good to hear it worked out

Go with a full frame body and get a very good tripod and focusing rail. I don't own the lens but I have rented it - it is fantastic but difficult to use. Be aware that as you increase the magnification the viewfinder gets very dark. Despite the indicated f stop on the lens this lens lets a lot less light through than you might expect.

<p>The modification kits are from the same guy who makes the glassless adapters - this like describes the products</p> <p>http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/fd-fl-lenses-on-your-ef-body/<br> I have the 0.75 adapters and they work well on long (L series) tele focus lenses. The 300 F2.8 is about the shortest that will focus at infinity (and even here not perfectly wide open). On shorter lenses it will work - I have been able to shoot the 85 F1.2 on an EOS body but was limited to about 7 feet of focal range</p>

<p>With Canon the only easy way is the Canon EF-M (mirror less) bodies. The challenge is the distance between the rear of the lens and the sensor / film. The Canon FD system was the shortest of any slr (I think Konica may have had a shorter system for a while). Thus all digital SLRs (including Canon EOS) have a longer distance between the back of the lens and the sensor than the FD lens is designed for. The EOS system is 44mm and thus the lens will not focus. EdMika makes adapters that are super thin (about 1.5mm) and the thin adapter and lenses that focus past infinity - in essence the big telephotos will allow and FD lens on an EOS body. This is fine once you get to FD 400mm+ L series lenses (my 300 F2.8 is marginal) but not much use for most FD lenses. There are adapters that contain a glass element to re-focus the Fd lens on an EOS body but in my experience IQ is terrible unless you can find one of the few Canon made. In addition the increase the effective focal length of the lens by 1.26x typically<br> Almost any mirror less body will work with FD lenses but you have smaller sensors on most of them giving the field of view of an apparently longer lens (e.g. on Canon the 50mm FD lens gives the field of view of an 80mm lens on an EOS M body). At the moment only two manufacturers make full frame digital bodies the Sony A7 and the Leica M 240.</p>

<p>Edward _ I like responsive shutter buttons and it was one of the thing I liked about my 1NRS (Pellicle Mirror film camera). It is a unique experience as you see through the lens all the time - a smaller apertures on a motor wind it always felt a bit like watching an old movies as the viewfinder went bright and dim as the lens stopped down between images. I think it shot either 9 or 10 fps at full speed! I still have it but never use it in the RS mode these days as you go through a lot of film fast!. Because it had the shutter response of a 1 series SLR but without the need to flip the mirro it had an amazingly responsive shutter. I remember the early P & S cameras and the massive lag - I once tried to shoot skiers going off a jump and you needed to press the shutter wham they were a gate above the jump to have a chance of catching them in the air!</p>

<p>Tim I bought a couple of adapters from a guy in the Netherlands (he takes a mercury cell case and builds an adapter from it. Once installed the metering is spot on - I think with postage they cost about $40 for two. It was the guy who wrote this very impressive article on the subject</p> <p>http://www.butkus.org/chinon/batt-adapt-us.pdf</p>