gdanmitchell wrote:
Last time I checked my adapter, I'm pretty sure that it IS true for shift but that it is NOT true for tilt. Tilt is continuous and not in 1mm increments.
That's my recollection as well from when I had a Mirex. Personally I'm opposite Audii and would've *preferred* both movements be geared. Both for repeatability and because the gears can be made self-locking (my Mirex, at least, had very little "hold" to its tiny little tilt lock screw). As you can probably tell, I was not wild about the product. I don't blame them; I doubt there's much more that could've been done in the limited space between the DSLR and 645 flange distances.
Lee Saxon wrote:
That's my recollection as well from when I had a Mirex. Personally I'm opposite Audii and would've *preferred* both movements be geared. Both for repeatability and because the gears can be made self-locking (my Mirex, at least, had very little "hold" to its tiny little tilt lock screw). As you can probably tell, I was not wild about the product. I don't blame them; I doubt there's much more that could've been done in the limited space between the DSLR and 645 flange distances.
Oops! When I wrote that, I must have been thinking of the rise/fall/shift movements, which I use with almost every photo, and not the tilt movement, which I very rarely use.
And for the record, I very much prefer geared movements -- well, at least those that use a knob that rotates and not a toothed rack that locks in place every millimeter -- including for tilt and swing, such as offered by the Cambo Actus.
Lee Saxon wrote:
That's my recollection as well from when I had a Mirex. Personally I'm opposite Audii and would've *preferred* both movements be geared. Both for repeatability and because the gears can be made self-locking (my Mirex, at least, had very little "hold" to its tiny little tilt lock screw). As you can probably tell, I was not wild about the product. I don't blame them; I doubt there's much more that could've been done in the limited space between the DSLR and 645 flange distances.
The Mirex adapter, in my view, is a pretty finicky piece of equipment. It isn't very easy to adjust in the field, for various reasons, including some of the small and odd controls.
However, I agree with you that this is probably pretty much what was possible given the various constraints involved in manufacturing it and making it work with the combination of lenses and bodies not originally intended to work together.
I'm fine with this, as I usually don't use the adapter... and I'm willing to put up with the added complexity and funkiness on those occasions where it is useful. I mainly use mine on a 5DsR with a Pentax 80-160mm lens for certain subjects where I prefer to use a longer focal length with subjects that produce DOF challenges with my Canon lenses. (Desert landscapes are one example. Certain water subjects are another.)
And... in those cases how cool it is to be able to precisely frame images with a zoom lens AND use tilt!
I was grateful the Mirex adapters existed. And while it pains me that it's allowed, I'm also happy that Kipon "borrowed" the design for its own (because 95% of my photography is on a Kipon Tilt-Shift adapter).
It's finicky to use these, especially in winter with gloves and cold temperatures, but it works.
The ONE big thing I wish they could have designed into these adapters is axis tilt. Because of space limitations, Mirex/Kipon are forced to use what is in effect a "base tilt". I tilt and swing a lot, and I don't necessarily want the enlarged foreground that you automatically get when you have to base tilt and then lean the camera back to get back to the desired composition. It works... but axis tilt would be awesome.
Some day I will try a Cambo Actus, which implements an axis-like tilt on the front standard quite nicely from what I can see. In the meantime, I'm going to see what I can do with a shift lens that is currently in the mail. I'll tilt down on the Kipon adapter, and then instead of tilting the camera back to recompose, I'll shift up. I haven't had good luck with this lens previously, but I'm going to try again.
rdeloe wrote:
Some day I will try a Cambo Actus, which implements an axis-like tilt on the front standard quite nicely from what I can see.
I have an Actus and its ability to recreate (or substantially recreate) the effect of a true axis-tilt depends very much on the lens that is used and the location of its optical center.
Although the Actus tilt's center of rotation is located forward of the lensboard mounting surface, it's still a crapshoot as to how close the optical center of the lens is positioned relative to it.
That said, it's still likely to be quite an improvement over the typical t/s adapter, because with most of them, the center of rotation is located behind the lens.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Something a bit odd is going on along the ragged border between sky and roof to the left of the light bulbs. Do you see it? (Possibly just a sharpened edge that was OOF?)
it's actually two roof layers, it looks like that in real life (sadly) haha.
stempsons wrote:
it's actually two roof layers, it looks like that in real life (sadly) haha.
Yeah, but I think he was referring specifically to the fact that the line between the two seems much crisper between these two red marks (sorry for stealing your image). Looks like it just got hit with the sharpening brush perhaps? It is kind of curious.
Lee Saxon wrote:
Yeah, but I think he was referring specifically to the fact that the line between the two seems much crisper between these two red marks (sorry for stealing your image). Looks like it just got hit with the sharpening brush perhaps? It is kind of curious.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Something perplexes me about the attempts to adapt FF lenses to the GFX.
If the primary reason for getting the GFX (at least for the great majority of those who might be interested) is its potential to produce incrementally better image quality than that already produced by excellent FF cameras, why would folks accept any image quality degradation from lenses not designed for the larger format?
I suppose I can understand that if you already have some FF lens you like it could be interesting to try it out as an adjunct to your primary miniMF lenses. But beyond that, if you want a particular kind of coverage for miniMF and you spent the money for the body, wouldn't you also want lenses designed to take advantage of the image quality potential of the format?
Actually the Fujifilm GFX is nothing short dirt cheap for what it is.
And the image quality divide to full frame is right now pretty small. Already there is a Nikon D850 which has an ISO 64 45 Megapixel backlit sensor that matches the GFX performance not completely, but pretty closely. If all you care about is image quality, the D850 is the more rational choice.
On the other hand with the Fujifilm GFX we finally get a Fujifilm mirrorless with all the Fujifilm quality, but plus a large, easy to hold body, a larger than even full frame sensor, and if you want it also a wonderful tilting viewfinder.
So why not experiment ? For example all the creative possibilities such as tilt/shift adapters with cheap medium format lenses from film ages past are at your fingertips.
Also plenty of full frame lenses manage a 55mm diameter image circle very well. After all its not really that much bigger than the 43.3mm diameter image circle of full frame.
I would like to add that Fujifilm G will soon be the cheap entry into medium format. In 5 years the 50S will be something around 2k€ on the used market, like a Nikon D4 is now. At least at that point everyone who wants one will have one.
The new GFX firmware will have a 35mm crop will solve the image circle coverage issues.
I can now use my 35mm Zeiss Milvus glass without heavy vignette. Looking forward to buying into Fuji MF later in the year.
Sauseschritt wrote:
So why not experiment ? For example all the creative possibilities such as tilt/shift adapters with cheap medium format lenses from film ages past are at your fingertips.
I noticed you are replying to my post. When you ask your questions and refer to “you/your,” are you literally asking for my response in the context of my decisions, or are your questions rhetorical?
worldexclus1ve wrote:
The new GFX firmware will have a 35mm crop will solve the image circle coverage issues.
I can now use my 35mm Zeiss Milvus glass without heavy vignette. Looking forward to buying into Fuji MF later in the year.
This does the same thing you would do if cropping manually but it might help some in framing the subject matter. In the case of zooms where vignetting is variable depending on the focal length, it may crop too much. My presumption being since you can't actually crop a RAW, you will be left with cropping the RAW manually anyway.
worldexclus1ve wrote:
The new GFX firmware will have a 35mm crop will solve the image circle coverage issues.
I can now use my 35mm Zeiss Milvus glass without heavy vignette. Looking forward to buying into Fuji MF later in the year.
If you have the miniMF camera for use with other lenses that give you full coverage, I suppose the crop mode to compensate for lenses that don't have full coverage makes sense. However, you'll have lower pixel resolution from the cropped miniMF that you would if you put the lens on a high MP full frame body.
gdanmitchell wrote:
If you have the miniMF camera for use with other lenses that give you full coverage, I suppose the crop mode to compensate for lenses that don't have full coverage makes sense. However, you'll have lower pixel resolution from the cropped miniMF that you would if you put the lens on a high MP full frame body.
Some Milvus lenses have a larger image circle than others. 35mm crop is better on FF lenses that have heavy vignette.
If it's manageable, you're right, shooting it at 50MP and then cropping it a bit will give better results.
This just opens of more options to swap lenses between my coming X-H1 to the GFX.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I noticed you are replying to my post. When you ask your questions and refer to “you/your,” are you literally asking for my response in the context of my decisions, or are your questions rhetorical?
Dan
Since you are not really qualified to discuss the GFX 50s or any other 44x33 format camera, maybe he is using the universal you.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I noticed you are replying to my post. When you ask your questions and refer to “you/your,” are you literally asking for my response in the context of my decisions, or are your questions rhetorical?
Dan
Hu !
I dont really get the hostility in this thread ... I was merely stating for what I would want the GFX.
