matt_t_butler

Yep, the RF lenses are 'fly-by-wire' , the focus rotation direction can be changed and focus ring response can be modified. From Canon Hong Kong website : 'To cope with various user applications on focus operation, all RF lenses adopt the electronic ring design to drive the motions of the focus ring and control ring, making customization possible. RF lenses allow users to change the rotation direction (clockwise or anti-clockwise) of the focus ring and control ring to match their preferences. Besides, the focus ring rotational sensitivity during manual focusing can also be customized. By default, it is set to “Varies with rotation speed”. Sensitivity of the focus ring will depend on the speed at which the ring is turned, the focus will change by a greater degree when the ring is turned faster; while slower rotation allows fine focus adjustments. Another option “Linked to rotation degree” is also available in which the focusing distance will be directly proportional to the rotation degree, regardless of the rotation speed. This option can provide the same control characteristic and sensation similar to cinema lenses. It is extremely convenient for videographers who want to manually and precisely control the focus position'. Link: Canon launches the New RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM

Better late than never to add my 2 cents here ... I frequently use an FD to EOS adapter - there appears to be no brand name - only the word Canon in block letters which probably means it was made for Canon FD's and NOT by Canon ... Gives 'creative' soft focus effects at low apertures and passable sharpness at f11 and above. I recently used a FD 300/f4 (effective 375mm/f5.6 with adapter) for some shots in a time lapse short shot on a full frame EOS camera. The sharpness was acceptable but I did have to snap up the contrast a little in grading. .... of course with the release of recent EOS-R mirrorless camera, hang on to those sharp FD's and keep an eye out for the future Chinese adapters if you can't afford the Novoflex and MTF FD to EOS R versions.

Novoflex have announced a FD to EOS adapter available November 2018 - a lot cheaper (119 euros/105.5 English pounds) than the MTS version. Product code: Artikelnummer: EOSR/CAN en Link: Adapter Canon FD-lenses to EOS-R mirrorless - NOVOFLEX Präzisionstechnik GmbH I guess the Chinese knock offs won't be too far behind with their affordable product releases.

From other informants ( still free, over at Canon Rumours) a possible EOS R Pro version with a 75 MP sensor ... link : Canon EOS R body with more than 75mp on the horizon [CR2]

Spotted on UK based MTF site ($ conversion - ouch!)

Have found this interesting Canon lens focus info page with good background info and video clips of the internal focus mechanisms of STM and USM types. Canon Focusing Technology - Tech Guide For Lenses - Canon Ireland

Has anyone used these lenses in manual mode? Is the focus mechanism a direct 'gear' drive or is it encoder style? (i.e. not directly mechanically coupled but controlled 'fly by wire'.) If the later can one vary the 'feel' of the focus ring in the camera's menu, if not how does it respond?

.... back to the 80s. East River, NYC November 2018

.... a little off-topic but related. As a teenager I worked for a large ad agency that had its own photo and film studios. Product, model and copy-work was shot on 5 x 4 and 10 x 8 cameras. Every negative was given a unique job serial number sequence + the number of exposures. This number would be also hand written in permanent ink on the clear margin of the negative. (Proof sheets were sent to the creatives who usually lost them!) Each individual negative was then placed in its own glassine bag numbered identically and inserted into a storage envelope with the sequence of neg numbers and client reference written on the outside and finally filed numerically in large fire proof cabinet. That info was also copied into large index book for later print orders. Negatives from photo jobs shot 5 to 10 years before could be easily located for later printing. Primitive metadata indeed!

So far I have been fortunate where none of the CF cards have failed - whereas I have had some major hard drive failures. In my personal use the cycle rate (or re use) of the cards appears also have an effect on their reliability - the less cycles the better. Perhaps the older cards will last longer than the more recent .... only time will tell, but to be safe I also back up to modern drives.

Think back to the days of film - one purchased a roll of 24/36 exposure film and paid for the processing. After either printing at home, getting autoprints from the chemist/drugstore or from your pro printer the negatives were hopefully filed away for any other additional printing. This exercise cost a lot of money even if you were a pro or amateur. I had the practice since the early 2000s to keep all my original CF cards : some were a huge 64MB or 128MB back then! I could cost it into my quotes - I would also make a safety copy on a hard drive. These cards still work today as they only had one or two capture cycles and are fine for exporting for back up and post work. As I specialise in time lapse my image sequences filled a lot of cards - and back up hard drives. As hard drive speeds and storage technology has improved I simply 'migrate' my original CF's to that new device for back up. Do any other members follow this protocol for data preservation?

The Devin one shot camera illustration pictured in the opening post used a pellicle mirror system - the pellicle was very fragile with a thickness of 0.0005 inches (five ten thousands of an inch) or about 12.7 microns. Think of extremely thin cellophane or a Wratten gel filter. The light loss for each semi transparent pellicle was utilised by the clever placement of the pellicle(s) to deliver the correct amount of exposure to each photographic plate to make a balanced B&W negative for each colour separation. My understanding of prism block systems (optical glass) used in 3 tube color video cameras did lose light that was then boosted by signal amplification.

I guess because I mainly shoot time lapse sequences during the day and night - that sometimes can take many hours to shoot, I always remove the camera strap to avoid any 'flapping' that could shake the camera. The body cap solution is just a precaution to avoid accidental viewfinder flare, because unlike regular photography I tend to use long exposures per frame, with my time lapse camera set up and controls locked. Each to their own ....

I shoot a lot of long exposure time lapse image sequences at night on my DSLR. After using lots of small pieces of black gaffer to block strong backlight sources from flaring into the optical viewfinder, I accidentally stumbled upon this not very elegant but effective solution which I will share ..... Use the Canon EOS's body cap to snugly fit over the rubber surrounding the eyepiece as shown in the following photos. (But be careful if tilting your camera up - gravity could come into play!)

I have a bunch of FD lenses that I use on Canon EOS bodies with the FD to EOS adapters that have a questionable optical element to allow infinity focus. Used wide open they result in a very hazy fog filter effect. But stopping down to f11 or so give a reasonable result - not super sharp but an acceptable 'cinematic' look. The build quality is remarkable considering the vintage of the lenses ... and this photographer.

Thanks guys, legacy FD lenses without the cheap glass element in the existing FD to EOS adapter should give the EOS R images a unique vintage look.

Can one use the manual FD range of lenses with an 'open' FD to EOS adapter (no glass element) on the recently released Canon EOS R camera body? (with one of the new EOS to R adapters of course)

Tried search box with nil results. Perhaps a moderator could assist if there is an earlier thread on another forum? My question is : what would be a good brand of adapter? I am aware of the specialist Canon branded adapter made for their FD telephotos but was wondering which contemporary Chinese/other brand FD to EOS with the glass element for infinity focus is the best?

A great selection. The photographer could have been using a very early version of a Kodak 'Pocket Film Camera' that still used a bulb to fire the shutter and took roll film similar to the cut negatives in the author's negative index system to get the 'candid' shots. He/she could hand hold this camera as it had a shutter that topped out at 1/100 sec, where as the standard 'I' (Instantaneous) on a Box Brownie was 1/33.

Does any member have experience in using or have first hand knowledge about these mid century cameras? I understand some were made with an aluminium body for rigidity and contained two very thin semi-transparent mirrors for directing the image rays through to the respective Red, Green and Blue filters (Wrattens #25, #58, #47). Kodak made two types of B&W panchromatic plates for use in 'One Shots' - one for the Green and Blue record and the other for the Red. The mirror alignment was so precise that the image on the glass negatives were identical in size without any colour fringing in the final positives. The B&W glass negatives could be developed with a standard photographic chemistry. Any other anecdotal and recollections would be appreciated.

Kodak still market their optically clear filters branded Wratten 2. I don't know how thin these 'new' filters are but one can buy second-hand and generally unused original gelatin Wrattens on Ebay for reasonable prices. If anyone on the forums knows the thickness of Wratten 2 filters please let me know. Try Googling ' WRATTEN 2 FILTERS' for photographic outlets that stock them - they are used by cinematographers as well. Kodak link : Loading site please wait...

I just reactivated my Spotmeter F and can confirm that if the orange ISO/TIME button is set to ISO - displayed on the LCD panel in small type 'ISO' - then no readings can be taken. Pressing the orange ISO/TIME button again sets the mode to TIME - also then displayed on the LCD panel as 'TIME' - and then readings can be taken. A great meter, I still use it occasionally and is as accurate as it was back in the early 1990s .....

From earlier post: 'Cokin P Filter kit has a Red P003 (Wratten #25). Green P004 not suitable for tricolour work. (Needs clarification)'

Erratum for moderator In the original opening post there is a line: 'Tricolour set for direct separation (‘in camera’) B&W photography' Should read : Tricolour set for direct separations from original B&W photography. The words 'in camera' - as pointed out suggests the process can be done entirely in camera.