This topic is in the 2013 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2013Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
p.22 #1Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
sebboh wrote:
i did, the optical formulas may be similar but the lux smokes the cv at least on aps-c. fine detail at large aperture is better though contrast might be lower, color is nicer, and field curvature is less problematic for stopped down landscapes. i didn't play with the voigtlander long enough to judge bokeh stopped down, but both are quite funky wide open.
Interesting. I'd read from several users of both that the Nokton was sharper wide open, but I haven't tried one myself. I hadn't heard that the Lux had a flatter field, either, but it doesn't surprise me, considering how much curvature the Nokton has.
douglasf13 wrote
The Nokton 35/1.4 is more or less a copy of the lux pre asph. Have you tried one lately? It also is the least color shift 35mm lens that I've tried, although it obviously isn't close to being sharp across the frame.Interesting. I'd read from several users of both that the Nokton was sharper wide open, but I haven't tried one myself. I hadn't heard that the Lux had a flatter field, either, but it doesn't surprise me, considering how much curvature the Nokton has.
Aug 09, 2013 at 05:53 PM
p.22 #2Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
douglasf13 wrote:
Interesting. I'd read from several users of both that the Nokton was sharper wide open, but I haven't tried one myself. I hadn't heard that the Lux had a flatter field, either, but it doesn't surprise me, considering how much curvature the Nokton has.
yeah, i've heard that too. i think there are two issues at play there: 1) on a rangefinder the lux isn't usually calibrated for f/1.4 and it does focus shift and 2) the voigtlander probably has higher contrast wide open which makes things looks sharper at smaller magnification. the lux looks soft with a lot of veiling flare but keeps showing more detail as you boost magnification. the 35 lux pre-asph and the rokkor 58/1.2 are the two lenses i've been most surprised by in this regard – putting them on higher density sensor makes them look better instead of worse even though they look kinda soft on lower density sensors.
regarding field curvature the lux has the typical zone b wave pattern often seen in fast leica lenses. posted an example on the leica versu zeiss thread here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1190503/4#11368028
the extreme corner is actually decently sharp at f/1.4 while the mid zone is mush. stopping down gives acceptable performance (to me) across the frame. on the voigtlander i couldn't get the corner and the center sharp at the same time. i'd be curious to see the two compared on FF, but it'll be a difficult comparison to do until we have a FF nex due to the vagaries of focusing both lenses on a rangefinder (since the m only has center point focus magnification).
Interesting. I'd read from several users of both that the Nokton was sharper wide open, but I haven't tried one myself. I hadn't heard that the Lux had a flatter field, either, but it doesn't surprise me, considering how much curvature the Nokton has.
yeah, i've heard that too. i think there are two issues at play there: 1) on a rangefinder the lux isn't usually calibrated for f/1.4 and it does focus shift and 2) the voigtlander probably has higher contrast wide open which makes things looks sharper at smaller magnification. the lux looks soft with a lot of veiling flare but keeps showing more detail as you boost magnification. the 35 lux pre-asph and the rokkor 58/1.2 are the two lenses i've been most surprised by in this regard – putting them on higher density sensor makes them look better instead of worse even though they look kinda soft on lower density sensors.
regarding field curvature the lux has the typical zone b wave pattern often seen in fast leica lenses. posted an example on the leica versu zeiss thread here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1190503/4#11368028
the extreme corner is actually decently sharp at f/1.4 while the mid zone is mush. stopping down gives acceptable performance (to me) across the frame. on the voigtlander i couldn't get the corner and the center sharp at the same time. i'd be curious to see the two compared on FF, but it'll be a difficult comparison to do until we have a FF nex due to the vagaries of focusing both lenses on a rangefinder (since the m only has center point focus magnification).
Aug 09, 2013 at 06:32 PM
p.22 #3Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
sebboh wrote:
My problem is that, over the last couple of years, I've transitioned from a 50mm shooter to a 35mm shooter, and that will be a bit tougher for the sensor, especially when compared to Leica or my RX1. Still, a FF NEX may be good for a bit of short tele use, for me, if I can justify spending the money on something I wouldn't use all that much.for 35mm i think i'll just use the rx1. i don't think there's gonna be reasonably compact interchangeable lens that will beat that lens for a while. just wish it had a built in viewfinder.
the lux pre asph is tempting though, too bad it costs as much as my rx1.
Sure, if you're hung up on getting a pristine copy. Unless you got a really screaming deal on the RX1, I didn't pay anywhere close to that for my beater Lux.
douglasf13 wrote
Yeah, and I'd imagine that the FF NEX won't have an AA filter, so I'd guess that corner performance would improve a bit. 50mm looks good enough to me.My problem is that, over the last couple of years, I've transitioned from a 50mm shooter to a 35mm shooter, and that will be a bit tougher for the sensor, especially when compared to Leica or my RX1. Still, a FF NEX may be good for a bit of short tele use, for me, if I can justify spending the money on something I wouldn't use all that much.
the lux pre asph is tempting though, too bad it costs as much as my rx1.
Sure, if you're hung up on getting a pristine copy. Unless you got a really screaming deal on the RX1, I didn't pay anywhere close to that for my beater Lux.
Aug 09, 2013 at 08:06 PM
p.22 #4Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
freaklikeme wrote:
They managed to turn their losses around in the middle of one of the worst global economic downturns in history with digital cameras that "couldn't compete in the digital camera game." I'm not saying Leica doesn't deserve criticism, but they should get credit where credit is due.
Credit for having loyal fanbois who will buy and praise anything with a red dot on it? Absolutely.
But for building a digital camera that even matches, forget exceeds, the performance of similarly-priced or even half-the-price competitors? Not convinced that credit is due.
They managed to turn their losses around in the middle of one of the worst global economic downturns in history with digital cameras that "couldn't compete in the digital camera game." I'm not saying Leica doesn't deserve criticism, but they should get credit where credit is due.
Credit for having loyal fanbois who will buy and praise anything with a red dot on it? Absolutely.
But for building a digital camera that even matches, forget exceeds, the performance of similarly-priced or even half-the-price competitors? Not convinced that credit is due.
Aug 13, 2013 at 02:42 PM
p.22 #5Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
One month to go...?
Aug 13, 2013 at 02:55 PM
p.22 #6Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
carstenw wrote:
One month to go...?
Seems like. I hope I can drop by Sony plaza to take a look..
One month to go...?
Seems like. I hope I can drop by Sony plaza to take a look..
Aug 13, 2013 at 10:37 PM
p.22 #7Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Lee Saxon wrote:
But for building a digital camera that even matches, forget exceeds, the performance of similarly-priced or even half-the-price competitors? Not convinced that credit is due.
who builds a digital FF rangefinder for half the price of Leica?
oh, no one.
Nikon built the S3 2000 and with it's lens it cost more than a contemporary M6 and 50 Lux did. So, if Leica is pricing twice above the "competition" why doesn't Nikon, who has a recent history of building RF cameras, come in and severely undercut them to capture that market?
because your assertion is laughable, that's why.
if someone could do it, they would do it. Nikon already has much of the tooling. they already have the expertise. they have the history to get people to buy. but they leave that market alone.
but it's ok. you clearly know more about the production costs of rangefinder cameras than all of the companies in the market and if the Leica "fanbois" (nice spelling btw, did you steal that from SA circa 2002?) weren't so dumb they would just buy that imaginary half price digital FF rf camera you imply exists.
or are you one of those people that thinks a NEX7 or 5Diii is an actual competitor to a Leica M?
But for building a digital camera that even matches, forget exceeds, the performance of similarly-priced or even half-the-price competitors? Not convinced that credit is due.
who builds a digital FF rangefinder for half the price of Leica?
oh, no one.
Nikon built the S3 2000 and with it's lens it cost more than a contemporary M6 and 50 Lux did. So, if Leica is pricing twice above the "competition" why doesn't Nikon, who has a recent history of building RF cameras, come in and severely undercut them to capture that market?
because your assertion is laughable, that's why.
if someone could do it, they would do it. Nikon already has much of the tooling. they already have the expertise. they have the history to get people to buy. but they leave that market alone.
but it's ok. you clearly know more about the production costs of rangefinder cameras than all of the companies in the market and if the Leica "fanbois" (nice spelling btw, did you steal that from SA circa 2002?) weren't so dumb they would just buy that imaginary half price digital FF rf camera you imply exists.
or are you one of those people that thinks a NEX7 or 5Diii is an actual competitor to a Leica M?
Aug 13, 2013 at 11:14 PM
p.22 #8Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Your argument would be convicing, redisburning, if I accepted your underlying hypothesis that only a rangefinder camera competes with another rangefinder. That may be true for some, but not for all customers.
To wit: bobu, a member of this board, used 2 Leica M9 and M glass. He ordered 2 M Type 240 before the specs were known. When he saw the actual product and the pics it delivered, he cancelled and switched to 2 Nikon 800E with Zeiss glass.
Now you may agree or disagree with his decision, but it does show that there is at least some competition between Leica and non-rangefinder cameras
To wit: bobu, a member of this board, used 2 Leica M9 and M glass. He ordered 2 M Type 240 before the specs were known. When he saw the actual product and the pics it delivered, he cancelled and switched to 2 Nikon 800E with Zeiss glass.
Now you may agree or disagree with his decision, but it does show that there is at least some competition between Leica and non-rangefinder cameras
Aug 14, 2013 at 12:42 AM
p.22 #9Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
I'm sure my timing for buying an RX1 will turn out to be absolutely terrible...
Aug 14, 2013 at 01:20 AM
p.22 #10Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Yes, philber, I never understood the mystical qualities of the Leica RF, but they don't have much else now in the way of differentiation now. Why even include an EVF and LCD if the RF is so special? - not a knock here, it's a serious question as I would like to know.
All my RF experience was in MF film and I would never swap the Sony EVF/LCD for it, even if it was cheaper. It was fiddly and required huge guesswork about the character of the final image, far from ideal for me.
I would guess many more feel that way about TTL VFs, it's not like the world is bemoaning the fact their cameras lack a rangefinder, and if only C/N would make them one. For every rusted on RF user there are others who won't like them at all.
I know Bobu is interested in results above all else, and made a good choice in my view. Bottom line is the image quality that pops up on screen. Others are as good or better than Leica. Many users can work around different types of camera, but that bottom really is the bottom line.
All my RF experience was in MF film and I would never swap the Sony EVF/LCD for it, even if it was cheaper. It was fiddly and required huge guesswork about the character of the final image, far from ideal for me.
I would guess many more feel that way about TTL VFs, it's not like the world is bemoaning the fact their cameras lack a rangefinder, and if only C/N would make them one. For every rusted on RF user there are others who won't like them at all.
I know Bobu is interested in results above all else, and made a good choice in my view. Bottom line is the image quality that pops up on screen. Others are as good or better than Leica. Many users can work around different types of camera, but that bottom really is the bottom line.
Aug 14, 2013 at 01:47 AM
p.22 #11Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
ricardovaste wrote:
I'm sure my timing for buying an RX1 will turn out to be absolutely terrible...
Would you rather not buy it and risk being wrong about that, or buy it, and risk being right?
I'm sure my timing for buying an RX1 will turn out to be absolutely terrible...
Would you rather not buy it and risk being wrong about that, or buy it, and risk being right?
Aug 14, 2013 at 03:04 AM
p.22 #12Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
philber wrote:
Your argument would be convicing, redisburning, if I accepted your underlying hypothesis that only a rangefinder camera competes with another rangefinder. That may be true for some, but not for all customers.
well obviously it's true for enough that Leica continues to go on making RF successfully but canned the R line.
I see a lot of people making the same argument that people make wrt to the Nissan GT-R vs the Porsche 911; there are frankly a lot of similarities. But in the end, the people who say that the Nissan competes with the 911 are people who own GT-Rs or who don't own either, while Porsche continues to sell their backwards little car with it's engine in the wrong place and styling that hasn't changed much over it's entire half a century lifespan and do just fine.
if you make the statement that OVF and EVF are equivalent, or that RF and SLR are equivalent, than you just aren't very critical about small differences. some people are like that, but it doesn't make it true. it just makes you unobservant or not particularly invested.
and neither is APS-c equivalent to full frame.
in the end you say that Leica sells a product that cant compete with cameras that cost half as much. but the last time someone tried to enter the high end mechanical rf market they sold 5000 USD kits at a loss, and the people who did it had a lot of experience making rangefinders.
RF, SLR, etc. are not "features" to be easily dismissed. they are core to the camera's identity and a FF nex, as cool as it is and as much as I want one myself, is not a rangefinder and it's not a Leica competitor. It's just a full frame NEX.
this whole argument seems like an excuse to gloss over details because they do not suit your arguments. but, those details exist and are documented. a D800 does not have a coincident rangefinder. neither does a FF nex. people looking to shoot a RF don't want to shoot a NEX, people who want an SLR don't buy a Leica and people who think EVF is just fine will obviously not want much of their camera budget going to expensive 100% coverage viewfinders like the Sony a900 had or rangefinders like we see in Leicas.
"doesn't make a difference to me" is not the same as "doesnt exist". while you may actually believe yourself when you say
philber wrote:
Your argument would be convicing, redisburning, if I accepted your underlying hypothesis,,,
but what you really should be saying, if we're being accurate here, is
your assumptions may or may not be correct but even if they are I'm going to ignore them because it doesn't suit me being right
philip_pj wrote:
it's not like the world is bemoaning the fact their cameras lack a rangefinder, and if only C/N would make them one.
well, the Japanese convinced Nikon to do it, so there's that. it did not work out well for Nikon given how expensive it is to make a proper RF. a fact that many of you seem quick to ignore or are simply ignorant wrt RF production costs.
Your argument would be convicing, redisburning, if I accepted your underlying hypothesis that only a rangefinder camera competes with another rangefinder. That may be true for some, but not for all customers.
well obviously it's true for enough that Leica continues to go on making RF successfully but canned the R line.
I see a lot of people making the same argument that people make wrt to the Nissan GT-R vs the Porsche 911; there are frankly a lot of similarities. But in the end, the people who say that the Nissan competes with the 911 are people who own GT-Rs or who don't own either, while Porsche continues to sell their backwards little car with it's engine in the wrong place and styling that hasn't changed much over it's entire half a century lifespan and do just fine.
if you make the statement that OVF and EVF are equivalent, or that RF and SLR are equivalent, than you just aren't very critical about small differences. some people are like that, but it doesn't make it true. it just makes you unobservant or not particularly invested.
and neither is APS-c equivalent to full frame.
in the end you say that Leica sells a product that cant compete with cameras that cost half as much. but the last time someone tried to enter the high end mechanical rf market they sold 5000 USD kits at a loss, and the people who did it had a lot of experience making rangefinders.
RF, SLR, etc. are not "features" to be easily dismissed. they are core to the camera's identity and a FF nex, as cool as it is and as much as I want one myself, is not a rangefinder and it's not a Leica competitor. It's just a full frame NEX.
this whole argument seems like an excuse to gloss over details because they do not suit your arguments. but, those details exist and are documented. a D800 does not have a coincident rangefinder. neither does a FF nex. people looking to shoot a RF don't want to shoot a NEX, people who want an SLR don't buy a Leica and people who think EVF is just fine will obviously not want much of their camera budget going to expensive 100% coverage viewfinders like the Sony a900 had or rangefinders like we see in Leicas.
"doesn't make a difference to me" is not the same as "doesnt exist". while you may actually believe yourself when you say
philber wrote:
Your argument would be convicing, redisburning, if I accepted your underlying hypothesis,,,
but what you really should be saying, if we're being accurate here, is
your assumptions may or may not be correct but even if they are I'm going to ignore them because it doesn't suit me being right
philip_pj wrote:
it's not like the world is bemoaning the fact their cameras lack a rangefinder, and if only C/N would make them one.
well, the Japanese convinced Nikon to do it, so there's that. it did not work out well for Nikon given how expensive it is to make a proper RF. a fact that many of you seem quick to ignore or are simply ignorant wrt RF production costs.
Aug 14, 2013 at 08:32 AM
p.22 #13Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Lee Saxon wrote:
Credit for having loyal fanbois who will buy and praise anything with a red dot on it? Absolutely.
But for building a digital camera that even matches, forget exceeds, the performance of similarly-priced or even half-the-price competitors? Not convinced that credit is due.
That's one way to look at it, if you're trying to make yourself look like a cynic who feels somehow betrayed by the brand. I don't pretend to understand the love people have for rangefinders (anymore that I understand the love for Fuji, the RX1, M4/3s, and the Sigma DPMx's) but I do understand how difficult it is to market a niche product successfully enough to create the kind of intense brand loyalty and brand evangelism it takes to make a company profitable. You may write it off a people buying into the "Leica mystique", but what I see is a company that understands its base well enough to get them buy new products, even if those products are behind the curve when compared to cameras outside of their niche.
freaklikeme wrote
They managed to turn their losses around in the middle of one of the worst global economic downturns in history with digital cameras that "couldn't compete in the digital camera game." I'm not saying Leica doesn't deserve criticism, but they should get credit where credit is due.But for building a digital camera that even matches, forget exceeds, the performance of similarly-priced or even half-the-price competitors? Not convinced that credit is due.
That's one way to look at it, if you're trying to make yourself look like a cynic who feels somehow betrayed by the brand. I don't pretend to understand the love people have for rangefinders (anymore that I understand the love for Fuji, the RX1, M4/3s, and the Sigma DPMx's) but I do understand how difficult it is to market a niche product successfully enough to create the kind of intense brand loyalty and brand evangelism it takes to make a company profitable. You may write it off a people buying into the "Leica mystique", but what I see is a company that understands its base well enough to get them buy new products, even if those products are behind the curve when compared to cameras outside of their niche.
Aug 14, 2013 at 09:20 AM
p.22 #14Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Well, Redisburning, it seems that it is you who discount any argument that doesn't suit you. I never said that the D800 had a rangefinder, and suggesting that I did, as well as other assertions you make about statements I never made are unnecessarily acerbic.
All I am saying is: not all Leica buyers decide on their choice of camera based solely on the M being an RF camera. Others may make that choice on other factors, including, and it is a major one IMHO, the luxury image that Leica have managed to give themselves, as opposed to the mass production images or Canikony.
You don't want to hear this? Fine, I don't care, let's leave it at that.
Lastly, your Porsche/Nissan comparison has some validity to it IMHO, as far as products and image are concerned. But you should not overlook the fact that the 911 today only accounts for 11% of Porsche sales. Had they not moved on (the Cayenne is by far their biggest seller), they would be dead. If you are equating the Leca M with the 911, you yourself are projecting a bleak future for Leica. Let's hope it does not materialise.
All I am saying is: not all Leica buyers decide on their choice of camera based solely on the M being an RF camera. Others may make that choice on other factors, including, and it is a major one IMHO, the luxury image that Leica have managed to give themselves, as opposed to the mass production images or Canikony.
You don't want to hear this? Fine, I don't care, let's leave it at that.
Lastly, your Porsche/Nissan comparison has some validity to it IMHO, as far as products and image are concerned. But you should not overlook the fact that the 911 today only accounts for 11% of Porsche sales. Had they not moved on (the Cayenne is by far their biggest seller), they would be dead. If you are equating the Leca M with the 911, you yourself are projecting a bleak future for Leica. Let's hope it does not materialise.
Aug 14, 2013 at 09:23 AM
p.22 #15Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
It's not a question of how much it costs to make a good RF; it's a question of 'does a DRF camera serves the needs of the the user better than a DSLR or EVF camera' ?.
It's evident that RF lovers are in minority compared to the SLR/EVF group and that fact isn't mainly related to Leica's pricing.
People who likes and wants a DRF will pay whatever price Leica demands even if the cameras (M8/M9) are far from perfect concerning electronics and reliability.
People who doesn't care about rangefinders wouldn't buy a M9 even if the price was less than $1000.
It's evident that RF lovers are in minority compared to the SLR/EVF group and that fact isn't mainly related to Leica's pricing.
People who likes and wants a DRF will pay whatever price Leica demands even if the cameras (M8/M9) are far from perfect concerning electronics and reliability.
People who doesn't care about rangefinders wouldn't buy a M9 even if the price was less than $1000.
Aug 14, 2013 at 09:29 AM
p.22 #16Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
philber wrote:
Well, Redisburning, it seems that it is you who discount any argument that doesn't suit you. I never said that the D800 had a rangefinder, and suggesting that I did, as well as other assertions you make about statements I never made are unnecessarily acerbic.
if that's really what you took from my post, you need to take a reading comprehension course.
you are very, very confused.
Well, Redisburning, it seems that it is you who discount any argument that doesn't suit you. I never said that the D800 had a rangefinder, and suggesting that I did, as well as other assertions you make about statements I never made are unnecessarily acerbic.
if that's really what you took from my post, you need to take a reading comprehension course.
you are very, very confused.
Aug 14, 2013 at 09:43 AM
p.22 #17Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Hopefully zeiss will surprise us with an ikon d or contax gd with cooperation with Sony.
Aug 14, 2013 at 09:56 AM
p.22 #18Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
redisburning wrote:
if that's really what you took from my post, you need to take a reading comprehension course.
you are very, very confused.
I like FM forums for many reasons. First of all, it is a tremendous source of information and the level of knowledge of posters here is very high. Another reason that I spend time on FM forums is that, in general, people refrain from argumentative insulting posts and I am always disappointed to come across posts like the one quoted above.
if that's really what you took from my post, you need to take a reading comprehension course.
you are very, very confused.
I like FM forums for many reasons. First of all, it is a tremendous source of information and the level of knowledge of posters here is very high. Another reason that I spend time on FM forums is that, in general, people refrain from argumentative insulting posts and I am always disappointed to come across posts like the one quoted above.
Aug 14, 2013 at 02:37 PM
p.22 #19Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
SAR seem quite confident that a FF NEX will be announced soon.
I started looking at at my adapters, will they allow for the full image circle?
Just looking at them, the answer is "obviously not".
Tried with the Metabones EF mk II adapter and the Canon 70-200 F4 IS lens at 200 mm.
Pointed the lens with adapter at something bright and projected the image onto something black with a ruler.
As it is, the EF adapter allows a 36 mm image circle, roughly. That corresponds to a crop factor of 1.2
The inner barrel can easily be removed, exposing the electronics.
Now, I got a 41 mm image cricle. That correponds to a crop factor of 1.05 from a 36x24 mm sensor.
Still it is possible to "modify" some of the covers and maybe get a little bit more, but It looks like we are going to upgrade our adapters if the manufacturers bother with a redesign.
I started looking at at my adapters, will they allow for the full image circle?
Just looking at them, the answer is "obviously not".
Tried with the Metabones EF mk II adapter and the Canon 70-200 F4 IS lens at 200 mm.
Pointed the lens with adapter at something bright and projected the image onto something black with a ruler.
As it is, the EF adapter allows a 36 mm image circle, roughly. That corresponds to a crop factor of 1.2
The inner barrel can easily be removed, exposing the electronics.
Now, I got a 41 mm image cricle. That correponds to a crop factor of 1.05 from a 36x24 mm sensor.
Still it is possible to "modify" some of the covers and maybe get a little bit more, but It looks like we are going to upgrade our adapters if the manufacturers bother with a redesign.
Aug 19, 2013 at 02:24 AM
p.22 #20Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
alundeb wrote:
SAR seem quite confident that a FF NEX will be announced soon.
I started looking at at my adapters, will they allow for the full image circle?
Just looking at them, the answer is "obviously not".
Tried with the Metabones EF mk II adapter and the Canon 70-200 F4 IS lens at 200 mm.
Pointed the lens with adapter at something bright and projected the image onto something black with a ruler.
As it is, the EF adapter allows a 36 mm image circle, roughly. That corresponds to a crop factor of 1.2
The inner barrel can easily be removed, exposing the electronics.
Now, I got a...Show more →
ah, i knew only buying cheap adapters with no baffles would pay off somehow (besides the obvious money saving bit). all mine allow a FF image circle.
SAR seem quite confident that a FF NEX will be announced soon.
I started looking at at my adapters, will they allow for the full image circle?
Just looking at them, the answer is "obviously not".
Tried with the Metabones EF mk II adapter and the Canon 70-200 F4 IS lens at 200 mm.
Pointed the lens with adapter at something bright and projected the image onto something black with a ruler.
As it is, the EF adapter allows a 36 mm image circle, roughly. That corresponds to a crop factor of 1.2
The inner barrel can easily be removed, exposing the electronics.
Now, I got a...Show more →
ah, i knew only buying cheap adapters with no baffles would pay off somehow (besides the obvious money saving bit). all mine allow a FF image circle.
Aug 19, 2013 at 02:33 AM