This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
p.15 #1Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
One little typo... ;>
Would be an impressive beast.....
Edited on May 22, 2010 at 07:25 PM · View previous versions
Would be an impressive beast.....
Edited on May 22, 2010 at 07:25 PM · View previous versions
May 22, 2010 at 07:20 PM
p.15 #2Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Pity are us - not!
P.S. coffee's on me, next time.
P.S. coffee's on me, next time.
May 22, 2010 at 07:24 PM
p.15 #3Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
You're on.
Edit - BTW you're making me want an 80/4 more and more..
Edit - BTW you're making me want an 80/4 more and more..
May 22, 2010 at 07:26 PM
p.15 #4Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
And now for some more pictures
-Jim
120 f4 on 5D
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4633576566_a269c88ffe_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4057/4633571822_3398fe14ea_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4008/4632970159_752a2bfd40_b.jpg
-Jim
120 f4 on 5D
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4633576566_a269c88ffe_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4057/4633571822_3398fe14ea_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4008/4632970159_752a2bfd40_b.jpg
May 23, 2010 at 04:23 PM
p.15 #5Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Conner999 wrote:
One little typo... ;>
Would be an impressive beast.....
Didn't Leica actually do a 90/1 for the military? IIRC something along those lines shows up on eBay on occasion.
One little typo... ;>
Would be an impressive beast.....
Didn't Leica actually do a 90/1 for the military? IIRC something along those lines shows up on eBay on occasion.
May 23, 2010 at 04:27 PM
p.15 #6Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Well, maybe Conner999 has a "Leica 90 mm f/1.0 Elcan-R - Extremely rare", ref http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/leica/list-of-leica-cameras-and-lenses.html
If that's the case, then I'll buy you two coffees, R. As long as you bring it along for me to have a look.
If that's the case, then I'll buy you two coffees, R. As long as you bring it along for me to have a look.
May 23, 2010 at 06:06 PM
p.15 #7Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
I can finally contribute to this thread .. all taken with 80/1.9. mostly wide open 
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4633807509_2b66b126ac_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4020/4634406152_ac95f3b189_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/4634407074_8b61cf7753_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3393/4634407734_06d2311cdf_o.jpg
and a random test shot while waiting around
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/4633808575_f7eea474f3_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4633807509_2b66b126ac_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4020/4634406152_ac95f3b189_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/4634407074_8b61cf7753_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3393/4634407734_06d2311cdf_o.jpg
and a random test shot while waiting around
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/4633808575_f7eea474f3_o.jpg
May 23, 2010 at 09:25 PM
p.15 #9Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
To handle (with gloves of course ;> a 90/1.0, two coffees (XLarge of course), sound about right.
I actually do think I remember seeing pics OF that lens somewhere on the web.
On a side note, a number of years ago the wife almost took a job offer from Elcan - had short-livid versions of factory-second/part-bin Noctiluxes dancing in my head; but N.S. was the end-game and the house prices in Midland were/are nuts.
jcolwell wrote:
Well, maybe Conner999 has a "Leica 90 mm f/1.0 Elcan-R - Extremely rare", ref http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/leica/list-of-leica-cameras-and-lenses.html
If that's the case, then I'll buy you two coffees, R. As long as you bring it along for me to have a look.
a 90/1.0, two coffees (XLarge of course), sound about right. I actually do think I remember seeing pics OF that lens somewhere on the web.
On a side note, a number of years ago the wife almost took a job offer from Elcan - had short-livid versions of factory-second/part-bin Noctiluxes dancing in my head; but N.S. was the end-game and the house prices in Midland were/are nuts.
jcolwell wrote:
Well, maybe Conner999 has a "Leica 90 mm f/1.0 Elcan-R - Extremely rare", ref http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/leica/list-of-leica-cameras-and-lenses.html
If that's the case, then I'll buy you two coffees, R. As long as you bring it along for me to have a look.
May 24, 2010 at 10:07 AM
p.15 #10Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
After months of following this thread, I finally picked up a Mamiya too, since I was looking for a macro lens that would go to 1:1, most likely a MF as well, and came across a nice looking Macro Sekor 60mm f2.8 in m42 mount. The good review here on FM by jcolwell didn't hurt my decision, either. Here's one of the first shots I took with it on an AFconfirm adapter and my 1D2, of my pup looking up at me, taken at f2.8.
http://www.pbase.com/dajavu/image/124927841/original.jpg
And more of a macro, of some wet snow we got over this past weekend on the branches of a tree in my yard, I think shot at f8... have to practice more on recording the settings!
http://www.pbase.com/dajavu/image/124927838/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/dajavu/image/124927841/original.jpg
And more of a macro, of some wet snow we got over this past weekend on the branches of a tree in my yard, I think shot at f8... have to practice more on recording the settings!
http://www.pbase.com/dajavu/image/124927838/original.jpg
May 25, 2010 at 06:36 PM
p.15 #11Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Love the first shot.And the bokeh circles in #2 are interesting.
-Jim
-Jim
May 25, 2010 at 07:08 PM
p.15 #12Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Jim Schemel wrote:
Love the first shot.And the bokeh circles in #2 are interesting.
-Jim
Thanks Jim! Your examples posted helped a lot in my decision to try this lens out, and I'm not disappointed yet...
I wasn't sure if I'd like the bokeh or not, with the fact that the diaphragm blade edges show when set to wide open, but so far I don't mind it. On some other shots, closer subjects and farther backgrounds, everything in the bg seems to melt together nicely and only if there are any highlights back there do the funky circles appear, but at least they seem pretty soft, and not too intrusive. Here's another showing what I mean, my entry to the weekly assignment, I think shot at f4 or 5.6...:
http://www.pbase.com/dajavu/image/124897308/original.jpg
Love the first shot.And the bokeh circles in #2 are interesting.
-Jim
Thanks Jim! Your examples posted helped a lot in my decision to try this lens out, and I'm not disappointed yet...
I wasn't sure if I'd like the bokeh or not, with the fact that the diaphragm blade edges show when set to wide open, but so far I don't mind it. On some other shots, closer subjects and farther backgrounds, everything in the bg seems to melt together nicely and only if there are any highlights back there do the funky circles appear, but at least they seem pretty soft, and not too intrusive. Here's another showing what I mean, my entry to the weekly assignment, I think shot at f4 or 5.6...
:http://www.pbase.com/dajavu/image/124897308/original.jpg
May 25, 2010 at 08:12 PM
p.15 #13Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Glad i could help.Although i do not have the 60, but i do love the 120f4
-Jim
-Jim
May 25, 2010 at 08:18 PM
p.15 #14Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
And I was thinking about it too, after seeing some of your results, but along with wanting a macro, I also wanted to fill the gap between 50mm and 70mm that I had, otherwise it's hard to convince the wife why I need another lens in a range I already have. 
David
David
May 25, 2010 at 08:21 PM
p.15 #15Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Hi,
I'm following this thread with much interest! I've got a 645 pro with the 35/55/80 and the 120 macro. A couple of weeks ago i ordered the adaptor from photodiox and trying (yes, trying, due to the ashclouds from iceland, it seems that nikon in the Netherlands is out of supply....) to buy a nikon D300s/D700.
I'm trying to find out if i need the full frame or use the DX. Maybe some of you can help me. I assume that that my 35 mm wide-angle will become less of a wide angle due to the cropfactor on the D300. But what happens to the 120 mm macro lens, how about the minimum focus distance and the depth of field on an D300.
Is there a convincing reason for a full frame?
It would be a big dissappointment if i find out (too late of course) that i should have bought the FX instead of a DX to get the most out of my mamiya lenses...
I hope that someone can give me some helpfull tips....
Erik
The Netherlands
I'm following this thread with much interest! I've got a 645 pro with the 35/55/80 and the 120 macro. A couple of weeks ago i ordered the adaptor from photodiox and trying (yes, trying, due to the ashclouds from iceland, it seems that nikon in the Netherlands is out of supply....) to buy a nikon D300s/D700.
I'm trying to find out if i need the full frame or use the DX. Maybe some of you can help me. I assume that that my 35 mm wide-angle will become less of a wide angle due to the cropfactor on the D300. But what happens to the 120 mm macro lens, how about the minimum focus distance and the depth of field on an D300.
Is there a convincing reason for a full frame?
It would be a big dissappointment if i find out (too late of course) that i should have bought the FX instead of a DX to get the most out of my mamiya lenses...
I hope that someone can give me some helpfull tips....
Erik
The Netherlands
May 28, 2010 at 03:42 AM
p.15 #16Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
I would highly recommend going Full Frame.As you mentioned your 35mm will become a 56mm!! on a crop body.FF just rocks.IMO your lenses will do much better with the D700.
-Jim
-Jim
May 28, 2010 at 05:53 AM
p.15 #17Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Hi Erik. Welcome to FM.
You're right about the AOV effect for a 645 lens on a full frame vs. crop factor DSLR. I'll use the M645 55/2.8 as an example; otherwise, there are too many "35"s in the discussion. Your C55/2.8 on a FF DSLR will have the same AOV as a 35mm format 55mm lens on the same FF DSLR. The C55/2.8 on a 1.5x CF DSLR will have about the same AOV as a 85mm lens on a FF DSLR. OTOH, the C55/2.8 is a wide angle lens on your 645 Pro body, with a horizontal AOV equivalent to a focal length of a 35mm on a FF DSLR. Oops, there's another '35'.
The MFD for your A 120/4 Macro at 1:1 magnification will not change, but the framing will change, as it will have a horizontal AOV of 17 degrees on a FF DSLR (14 on 1.6x CF), as opposed to 26 degrees on your 645 Pro body.
Jim
You're right about the AOV effect for a 645 lens on a full frame vs. crop factor DSLR. I'll use the M645 55/2.8 as an example; otherwise, there are too many "35"s in the discussion. Your C55/2.8 on a FF DSLR will have the same AOV as a 35mm format 55mm lens on the same FF DSLR. The C55/2.8 on a 1.5x CF DSLR will have about the same AOV as a 85mm lens on a FF DSLR. OTOH, the C55/2.8 is a wide angle lens on your 645 Pro body, with a horizontal AOV equivalent to a focal length of a 35mm on a FF DSLR. Oops, there's another '35'.
The MFD for your A 120/4 Macro at 1:1 magnification will not change, but the framing will change, as it will have a horizontal AOV of 17 degrees on a FF DSLR (14 on 1.6x CF), as opposed to 26 degrees on your 645 Pro body.
Jim
May 28, 2010 at 06:33 AM
p.15 #18Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Jim S. is using the effective FL conversion from a FF camera to a 1.6x crop camera. Coming from 645 platform the crop factor is going SEEM even more extreme than the 1.6x crop factor from FX to DX
60x45 645
36x24 FX
24x16 DX
I'd HIGHLY recommend going FF ... but, before that, I'd get the adapter and use your 645 glass on a rented / borrowed DX body (even if it's not the D300s). It will only take a few shots at 35mm to see/feel the difference coming from 645. Actually, you can use any 35mm lens on the DX body and see what you get for your cropped images.
I'm pretty certain you'll be disappointed with the angle of view on the wide end of things (compared to the field of view you're used to on the 645), but you'll love the IQ & convenience, the TONAL VALUES the 645 glass provides on digital is VERY NICE.
Expect that you'll augment your 645 glass with 35mm glass on the wide end, but I'd still HIGHLY recommend going Full Frame. NOTE: The larger pixels of the 700 vs. 300s will let you take better advantage of your 645 glass, particularly as you stop down without showing effects of diffraction.
FF definitely !!
NOTE: You can ALWAYS crop in post, no reason to go DX unless you find the smaller pixels / higher pixel density to you liking.
Edited on May 28, 2010 at 06:49 AM · View previous versions
60x45 645
36x24 FX
24x16 DX
I'd HIGHLY recommend going FF ... but, before that, I'd get the adapter and use your 645 glass on a rented / borrowed DX body (even if it's not the D300s). It will only take a few shots at 35mm to see/feel the difference coming from 645. Actually, you can use any 35mm lens on the DX body and see what you get for your cropped images.
I'm pretty certain you'll be disappointed with the angle of view on the wide end of things (compared to the field of view you're used to on the 645), but you'll love the IQ & convenience, the TONAL VALUES the 645 glass provides on digital is VERY NICE.
Expect that you'll augment your 645 glass with 35mm glass on the wide end, but I'd still HIGHLY recommend going Full Frame. NOTE: The larger pixels of the 700 vs. 300s will let you take better advantage of your 645 glass, particularly as you stop down without showing effects of diffraction.
FF definitely !!
NOTE: You can ALWAYS crop in post, no reason to go DX unless you find the smaller pixels / higher pixel density to you liking.
Edited on May 28, 2010 at 06:49 AM · View previous versions
May 28, 2010 at 06:44 AM
p.15 #19Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
Hi,
Thanx to both the Jim's!
I agree, FF rocks, but there are some things i can't figure out:
- Is the dynamic range on a FF noticably better than on the DX?
- When using the mamiya lenses (losing something on the wide-angel side, gain something with the longer ones) on a DX, it will use the center part of the lens. Will this result in pictures having less distortion on the edges?
- Since they are both 12mp, i assume that the quality of the pixel on the FF will be 'better', less noise. But, my pictures wll be 30x30 (cm), maybe 40 cm on the long side, will this difference be visible?
I would be nice if our reseller would lend me both the camara's and let me play with it for the weekend
Erik
Thanx to both the Jim's!
I agree, FF rocks, but there are some things i can't figure out:
- Is the dynamic range on a FF noticably better than on the DX?
- When using the mamiya lenses (losing something on the wide-angel side, gain something with the longer ones) on a DX, it will use the center part of the lens. Will this result in pictures having less distortion on the edges?
- Since they are both 12mp, i assume that the quality of the pixel on the FF will be 'better', less noise. But, my pictures wll be 30x30 (cm), maybe 40 cm on the long side, will this difference be visible?
I would be nice if our reseller would lend me both the camara's and let me play with it for the weekend
Erik
May 28, 2010 at 06:48 AM
p.15 #20Mamiya(MF) on Digital Thread
It seems the pro-FX arguments are outnumbering the DX arguments.
Erik
Erik
May 28, 2010 at 07:24 AM