p.6 #1 · Contax N to Canon conversion - initial results
Andi, don't worry. After the CZJ 20/2.8, I realise that there are some not-up-to-par competitors out there, and I am intent on getting a decent lens instead, maybe two. The Leica 19 (2nd edition) is probably wide enough for me, with the 5D, but then I would have a gap from 19 to 35mm, so I would need a 24mm or a 28mm, probably the Leica 28/2.8 (2nd edition). This will take time and money (the former because of the latter :)
p.6 #2 · Contax N to Canon conversion - initial results
carstenw wrote:
Andi, don't worry. After the CZJ 20/2.8, I realise that there are some not-up-to-par competitors out there, and I am intent on getting a decent lens instead, maybe two. The Leica 19 (2nd edition) is probably wide enough for me, with the 5D, but then I would have a gap from 19 to 35mm, so I would need a 24mm or a 28mm, probably the Leica 28/2.8 (2nd edition). This will take time and money (the former because of the latter
I hope to see very good performances from Contax N 17-35mm because me too have the problem to fill the gap between 19 and 35mm. Waiting for some serious tests.
Emanuele
Sep 10, 2006 at 04:03 PM
Andi Dietrich Offline [X]
p.6 #3 · Contax N to Canon conversion - initial results
Emanuele_C wrote:
I think that s the reason for most people beeing here
Sep 10, 2006 at 04:06 PM
Andi Dietrich Offline [X]
p.6 #4 · Contax N to Canon conversion - initial results
p.6 #5 · Contax N to Canon conversion - initial results
carstenw wrote:
High speed is not the only danger! Low speed combined with terrain can also hurt. When I got my first Shimano clip-in pedals, they were set way too tight, but I didn't know that. At the time I was living in Montréal, Québec, Canada, and was biking up and down the mountain (more of a large rock, but in some places, quite steep). At one point, I slowed down to stop, and wanted to put my foot down, but I had forgotten I was clipped in! By the time I remembered, combined with the not-yet properly remembered procedure for getting my foot out (twist it) and the too-tight pedals, I didn't get out in time, and tipped over. Unfortunately I was standing on the edge of the path, and next to the path the land sloped away very, very rapidly. I went over the edge, and rolled and rolled, sideways over the bike, myself and everything. Eventually I stopped somewhere, a little sore, next to a tree. When I got unclipped and looked where I was, I had rolled right between some very large and sharp looking rocks, and a few meters ahead, there was a 5m drop-off. I got back on the path, and decided that I needed to read the manual about the pedals. That night they were properly loosened. ...Show more →
Happened the same to me but in a comic manner: it was the first or the second time I was out with my street bike and I was not completely aware of the disastrous effects of the clip-in pedals when you stop at the semaphore! I leave to your imagination what happened when I stopped at the red signal!!! ROTFLMAO!!! The people in the car nearby didn't know if help me or rolling on the floor for laughs!
Oh my! I'laughing right now thinking at that episode!
On the contrary your experience was terrible and I hope it will never happen to me although I've learned how to use the clips!
p.6 #7 · Contax N to Canon conversion - initial results
Street bikers don't generally have the problem I had, although there are others... I also had the experience you mentioned, but I wasn't going to post it :) I think that was all, though. Just the two times.
p.6 #8 · Contax N to Canon conversion - initial results
bathman wrote:
Lotus, may I ask how you did the conversion with what sharpening applied?
The conversion was done using Canon's raw conversion software at the"standard" setting. The only adjustment I made was to bump the contrast down a bit in PS (I really didn't spent a lot of time setting up the lights so the resulting image was a bit harsh -- it was after all just a "quick" test). The resized overall image and the sample crops were given a simple output sharpening script designed for images intended for viewing on the web (TLR Sharpening Toolkit - it gives minor high pass sharpening so the images look as they should on the web, the sharpening is very subtle and used by itself the images are usually undersharpend by most standards. It also allowed me to take sharpening judgements out of the process and rely on a mechanical pre-set process that can be consistently applied and not overdone)
bathman wrote:
The guy who made these shots has a 5D which is backfocusing. If this would really be the quality tag you can go with everything
Focus issues aside on the comparision images of the park, it is interesting to see how much better the VS 24-85 image looks. The 17-40 and the 24-70 images look flat and less vivid in comparision.
p.6 #9 · Contax N to Canon conversion - initial results
Lotusm50 wrote:
The conversion was done using Canon's raw conversion software at the"standard" setting. The only adjustment I made was to bump the contrast down a bit in PS (I really didn't spent a lot of time setting up the lights so the resulting image was a bit harsh -- it was after all just a "quick" test). The resized overall image and the sample crops were given a simple output sharpening script designed for images intended for viewing on the web (TLR Sharpening Toolkit - it gives minor high pass sharpening so the images look as they should on the web, the sharpening is very subtle and used by itself the images are usually undersharpend by most standards. It also allowed me to take sharpening judgements out of the process and rely on a mechanical pre-set process that can be consistently applied and not overdone)
Focus issues aside on the comparision images of the park, it is interesting to see how much better the VS 24-85 image looks. The 17-40 and the 24-70 images look flat and less vivid in comparision. ...Show more →
Hi!
I agree the color rendition is better and adds a more 3D look at the shot but, at first glance, edge softness (compared to the 17-40) scared me a bit. Then Andi explained that the user has a 5D that backfocuses but you surely understand that at this point some serious testing is needed.
Thankyou also for your broken-bike test shot and I hope you'll be well soon!
Ciao,
Emanuele
Sep 11, 2006 at 06:01 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.6 #10 · Contax N to Canon conversion - initial results
Received my converter. Bought a new 24-85. Fitted it myself very gently - actually not too difficult if you go carefully. However, it doesn't work. Aperture reads 00 and pressing the shutter gives 'Err 1' and the shutter stays open for a while. No image is recorded. Have tried cleaning contacts and everything I can think of. This is an expensive disappointment. It did work for a few minutes with focus confirmation but not autofocus. Programme mode exposed perfectly. It is clear that the colours are richer and the blacks deeper than the Canon L equivalents. But now it isn't working at all. :(
Have tried to contact conurus but no answer yet. I hope he will be able to help me fix it...
p.6 #11 · Contax N to Canon conversion - initial results
Yep, I just sent you an email with some tricks you may try. Of course I will replace your mount if it does not work out, but we don't need more frustration from waiting for the replacement to arrive. I will call you if you would let me know your phone number.
p.6 #12 · Contax N to Canon conversion - initial results
Have faith. I'm sure there is a solution. Mine works perfectly and seemlessly.
Do you have it positioned properly? If you take a picture of the installed mount, and maybe one with just the spacer installed, I can compare them to mine and see if they are consistent.
Sep 11, 2006 at 11:09 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.6 #13 · Contax N to Canon conversion - initial results
After quite a few tests it looks like there may be a fault with the electronics of the converter I was sent. The fault is intermittent which may be why it wasn't spotted before the mount was sent. Bo-ming of Conurus ('cyberstudio') has been extremely responsive in helping me diagnose the problem and has sent me a new circuit.
When I have it working I may test it against my Canon 28-70 L and Contax C/Y 28-85. I may even pit it against my C/Y 25, 28f2, 28f2.8, 35f2.8, 35f1.4, 45, 50f1.7, 85f2.8, 85f1.4, or Canon 70-200f2.8 IS. The old Contax C/Y 28-85 is so amazing that I will be very impressed if the 24-85 can beat it.
One thing I have noticed about the N 24-85 is that unlike most standard zooms, it seems to have very little barrel distortion at the wide end, while giving slightly worse than usual pincushion at 85mm. Can other N users confirm this? I think this is a great design, as I would typically use 85mm for portraits, where a little pincushion can even be an advantage, and is anyway easily fixed. A low distortion 24mm is a great blessing. I rejected the Canon L 24-105 on account of the strong barrel distortion at 24mm.
p.6 #14 · Contax N to Canon conversion - initial results
brainiac wrote:
When I have it working I may test it against my Canon 28-70 L and Contax C/Y 28-85. I may even pit it against my C/Y 25, 28f2, 28f2.8, 35f2.8, 35f1.4, 45, 50f1.7, 85f2.8, 85f1.4, or Canon 70-200f2.8 IS. The old Contax C/Y 28-85 is so amazing that I will be very impressed if the 24-85 can beat it.
The 2 lenses should be pretty close. At 24mm, the 24-85 is as sharp as the 28-85mm is at 28mm with less distortion and less light fall-off. Otherwise they are pretty similar. The 28-85 may be a touch better at 85mm. The 24-85 will probably have better flare resistance.
brainiac wrote:
One thing I have noticed about the N 24-85 is that unlike most standard zooms, it seems to have very little barrel distortion at the wide end, while giving slightly worse than usual pincushion at 85mm. Can other N users confirm this?
The distortion is pretty well controlled at 24mm. The barrel distortion really only becomes evident when you come in close near the lens' minimum focus (which is a pretty severe test. But at that close focus, it will still be sharp coprner to corner.
p.6 #17 · Contax N to Canon conversion - initial results
My VS 24-85 arrived in the mail today and I immediately set to work on the conversion. The process was smooth and simple, no problem at all really. I used a set of "precision screwdrivers" from Canadian Tire, which included the required #0 and #00 phillips drivers and they worked just fine.
The lens functioned perfectly (focus was just as fast as a Canon USM) for a short time, but then I ran into a problem which I've emailed Conurus about. I will wait until we figure it out before I post more, I don't want to needlessly tarnish their reputation on here if it's just something simple that can be fixed easily.
But my first impression is very good, the lens functioned well and focus was very fast. EXIF info on the shots I took was all there in Capture One. Build quality of the lens is good, a little more plasticky than the Canon 24-70L but sturdy and very attractive.
p.6 #18 · Contax N to Canon conversion - initial results
Before I ship every unit, I test it on two different lenses and two different camera bodies. It appears that some defects still slipped through and arrive at our customers. Our apologies for that and of course I will replace the defective unit. I suspect that it is some epoxy glue coming off. When I get the defective unit back I will be able to figure out what went wrong.
p.6 #20 · Contax N to Canon conversion - initial results
Given that the defect is not an isolated incident, I will have to pull this product off the market. I would issue a refund to all affected customers. My apologies to customers who have bought from us. I hope you could send the defective unit back to us it would help identify what went wrong.
I leave to your imagination what happened when I stopped at the red signal!!! ROTFLMAO!!! The people in the car nearby didn't know if help me or rolling on the floor for laughs!