vaflower wrote:
I shoot with 5dmkiii and Leica M6. Whenever I want to shoot manually, I go with rangefinder system because it is made for shooting manually.
I now have some Zeiss ZM glasses 21, 35, 50 and they are as good as ZE glasses I owned before. The Zeiss microcontrast signature is still there at much more manageable size. I had a huge ergonomic issue with shooting manually with Zeiss glasses on a big Canon DSLR before. It is just awkward to shoot on a fly and people are just appalled when you point the thing at them.
The whole thing is just huge and that is with 5dmk ii. I can't imagine how can I go on shooting street with the beastly 1dX and Zeiss 21 Distagon.
Honestly since 1Dx is not exactly a bargain camera here so finance is probably not a constraint to move to a M system. I bet some of you here will eventually realize that and make a move. 1DX is a great camera but it is not born for manual shooting....Show more →
Yes the 1DX is a rather big camera. But using the 1DX for AF and a rangefinder for MF would make it even more heavy and big. And I don't like to move to a M system. Do you like to move to the 1DX ?
I started a thread about how the MF with the 1DX and Zeiss lenses has improved.
And every post you make is that we should stop using the 1DX camera because you like rangefinder cameras !!!!
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Yes the 1DX is a rather big camera. But using the 1DX for AF and a rangefinder for MF would make it even more heavy and big. And I don't like to move to a M system. Do you like to move to the 1DX ?
I started a thread about how the MF with the 1DX and Zeiss lenses has improved.
And every post you make is that we should stop using the 1DX camera because you like rangefinder cameras !!!!
Should I remind you of what it means to have a civilized discussion. Or do you want to make a speech ?
Here's my opinion. Using manual lenses on the beastly 1DX make very litter sense.
vaflower wrote:
Should I remind you of what it means to have a civilized discussion. Or do you want to make a speech ?
Here's my opinion. Using manual lenses on the beastly 1DX make very litter sense.
Having two cameras in my bag would make a lot more sense!! One for MF and one for AF.
And your post is really good if you like to have a civilized discussion!!
"1dx +manual focus ? seriously ? If I want manual focus, I would rather shoot rangefinder."
Lars thanks for starting this thread. It is good to know that the 1Dx and ZE lenses work well together. Info such as this is good to know for those considering picking up a 1DX. I am currently deciding if that is something I will do.
Though almost like Jim(all my Zeiss's are ZF) I use a chipped adapter and it would be interesting to see if the chipped adapter were sufficent to work on the 1DX.
When has making sense ever been fun? Furthermore I seem to make more money when I have fun than when I make sense, probably because having fun engages creativity which activates all sorts of other positive synergistic processes. No, sense if for cowards!
My ZF 25/2.8 and100/2 ZF does very well with chipped adapters, though I´m usually not into those eye lash thin shallow in focus portraits. I almost could glue the 100-300 Vario-Sonnar to the 1DX. Together they make a great tool!
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Yes the 1DX is a rather big camera. But using the 1DX for AF and a rangefinder for MF would make it even more heavy and big. And I don't like to move to a M system. Do you like to move to the 1DX ?
I started a thread about how the MF with the 1DX and Zeiss lenses has improved.
And every post you make is that we should stop using the 1DX camera because you like rangefinder cameras !!!!
Interesting. Actually, this is how I shoot now. 1DX with 70-200 and longer lenses for the benefit of AF/IS. M9 with 12-90mm lenses for benefit of outstanding w/a & normal performance in a very small package where MF is not a deficit compared to AF. In fact, until the 1DX's improved AF precision, I'd say my MF M9 results were more consistent than w/a AF. It's one reason I went with a rangefinder, because it's extremely easy to focus w/a lenses quickly and accurately by eye. I was considering adding a few ZE lenses to my kit, but the thought of the size and weight, in addition to my existing set of L primes and zooms, really turned me off. But this is me, which I accept is not what others will want. FWIW, I will often go out with both systems for the benefits each offers. The size/weight of the M9 & 3 or 4 lenses is less than bringing another 1D body and lens. To me at least, this combo makes a lot of sense.
vaflower wrote:
Should I remind you of what it means to have a civilized discussion. Or do you want to make a speech ?
Here's my opinion. Using manual lenses on the beastly 1DX make very litter sense.
You do realize that there are many manual focus lenses available for the 1DX that are completely unavailable and/or unusable for any RF system
Examples:
17 TS-E
24 TS-E
45 TS-E
65 MP-E
90 TS-E
Zeiss 50/2 Makro-Planar
Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar
Zeiss 135/2 APO-Sonnar (no current RF could even focus a 135/2 due to RF baseline limitations)
Every MF lens longer than 135mm.
Frankly an RF sucks as a manual focus platform unless you want to focus only in the dead centre of the frame or accurately focus a fast & wide lens via an optical viewfinder. The 1DX used on a tripod with Live View can offer accurate focusing that can only be otherwise achieved with a view or technical camera (as is common to main-sensor LV systems), a capability no RF currently has, although the M240 will have it when it finally arrives. Additionally the 1DX can do accurate manual focus of macro, tilt-shift and lenses over 135mm, none of which can be done with an RF (admittedly a Visoflex allows long & macro lens use on an M, but only by adding a low-quality SLR finder to the mix).
RF usage is about a particular method of working. If you like the process of shooting an RF, enjoy it. But don't claim that an RF is a better MF platform as RF's are extremely limited in capability (they just happen to do what they are capable of relatively well) compared to a DSLR or a LV-based camera like an SLT or Mirrorless system.
I'll note that personally I wouldn't shoot either an RF or a 1DX. The RF is too limited, the 1DX too large. My personal choice is a compact DSLR like the Pentax K-5 or a Mirrorless system like the NEX-7. But that preference is driven for my taste for compact and light systems combined with mid-speed primes. I don't claim that they are better than an RF (just more capable) or a 1DX (just more compact).
BTW, my dream camera would quite possibly be an M240 with an EVF comparable to the A99's instead of an optical RF system.
Anyone has changed the focusing screen in the 1DX? Curious to know whether it improves MF. Will the changed focusing screen impact AF? Am eager to get the Zeiss 135mm APO.
If you choose to focus via "what you see" than ofc it will improve MF. But it wont improve MF confirm via AF, neither it will improve AF. Most likely it will do opposite especially with slower lens (f5.6).
MF screens are never that bright as AF screens, which has results on AF and obviously on what you see in OVF when you stop down to f8 (near darkness ).
From my rather short experience, best MF screens are one with microprisms. Split-prism isnt that useful (tho when its cross 45° then it might be, but it blacks out pretty soon). I dont think regular MF screens (plain) are enough to focus by eye on almost any today FF camera.
Did the change to the EC-S screen a while back for the 1Dx. Had to since I am shooting with the Leica 50mm f 1.4 R e60 version. The stock screen is brighter but mushes through the focus. With the EC-S screen - pretty much dead on, even though the screen is dimmer, the transitions from oof to in focus is quite dramatic.
I'm using the same screen with a f/6.3 telescope and although it's kinda dim, it works great.
You'll have to dial in - 1/3rd of a stop compensation. No biggie.
I find the focus screen MUCH more accurate than the focus confirmation chips of the zeiss. Had the 50 planar, 21, 50 macro and 100 macro on the camera with the old screen and focus confirmation chip but the accuracy / ballistics isn't there. New EC-S is a far faster and more reliable solution. And allows you to be faster on the draw with regards to focus.
The 1Dx gives you two options. I tried the other one and it proved to be too aggressive. Just leave it at the stock setting and dial in -1/3 compensation.
I'm able to get a 90% in focus rate with this lens using my 5D2 and the matt screen, but I'm looking for options for an eventual body upgrade so if the 1DX can give me the same in focus rate using the precision matt screen, I'm tempted to go with it even though I'm not too happy about the size and form factor.
PM01 wrote:
The 1Dx gives you two options. I tried the other one and it proved to be too aggressive. Just leave it at the stock setting and dial in -1/3 compensation.
Never use Canon before. But dial EC manually won't always work, sine this light loss/gain almost like an offset instead of linear changing with light/aperture. though most case modern camera can easily handle two stop exposure error with only little penalty on IQ.
).