Emanuel

themartist, thanks for the tips and corrective feedback...just out of curiosity do you disagree with what i've written?  I also like to engage in conversation despite having expertise or tons of experience, it helps me shape my opinion and build my knowledge, i've learned a lot from shooting on my own but a ton more by posting and reading here.  So I will continue to chime in respectfully, and hope to hear feedback on my commentary directly.

What I early said in this wild forum:
 
 
But what I didin't explain too is that if let it fall and break it would be the worse situation, just have it near (getting old and disaggregating) is near the same, but slower. Once you get some inside of you it's forever. Really risky isn't it?
So if I continue to argue here, it's because I'm afraid that a guy reading your last positive posts finds the wrong reassuring sentences he would be looking for and gets less carefully being less informated.

The viewfinder info is just a part of the article, as an example. It's not the only subject of this, so it's not "an entirely different topic". It's full of infos about Takumar. So read full text before answering "Mr Saadwi the physician"…

On a serious note.  Iscorama's, iscorama 36, 43's centavisions and 54's made between 1960-1989 are rated at the highest radioactivity of all lenses ever produced.  Dangerous levels thought to lead to impotence in men.  According to a bloke at my local fire station he is recommending owners send all iscorama lenses manufactured between these dates to the Dog Schidt Optiks radioactivity decommissioning outpost where they will be carefully disposed of.

Check this:
http://petapixel.com/2012/10/11/a-look-at-the-radioactivity-of-old-manual-lenses/
 
It says:
"If you want to learn more about the health effects of this radiation, check out this article by the Health Physics Society. Based on that data, Matthew Miller writes"


[...] Or to put it another way, in that year. Not completely trivial, but not something people normally stress about. And .
This puts the “6hrs/day for a month†usage at about the same as getting a chest X-rayusing the lens six hours a day for a year would be the same as taking three round-trip flights from one US coast to the otherthat’d be really heavy usageThe articles indicate that , particularly if you happen to have thorium in an eyepiece [...] So you might decide to spend a little less time holding the camera right to your eye than you might otherwise.
exposure to the eye might be a greater concern than overall dosageAssuming (based on the reading) that looking through the viewfinder is very roughly an order of magnitude greater exposure than the general usage, .
looking through the viewfinder for an hour is about 1µSv — equivalent to getting an arm x-ray

Andrew, our body receives a natural telluric daily dose of 0,5 μSv per day. If you add to this natural one, the industrial, medical, cosmical etc it makes approximately 2,4 mSv/year (people get unequally 1,5 to 6,0 mSv/year in France - official numbers! Check it: http://www2.cndp.fr/themadoc/radioactivite/radioactiviteimp.htm ).
 
What the specialised guys told me yesterday is that even if it doesn't stay around your neck or on your chest for hours, (or under your bed), it's still dangerous because of lost dusts. One of the main risks is to let it fall and break it for example. Vacuum cleaner wouldn't help you there…
Once ingerated (accidentally of course), Radium 226 is known to stay on bones and in liver for life!
 
Maybe you think that if all this was true it would be a more widely reported issue? I agree, but you need to know that the famous firemen department where I was yesterday has just added my Mamiya in their "hot" database. Think about it. I've sent them some other links cause they asked me for. I don't know why it's not much more a reported issue… but it should be!
I had enough of contradictory forums that's why I took a train to get personnaly a real specialist. We made 3 different test and they were all very bad (results are in my top post). Takumar f1.4 is known to be worse than Mamiya, so what I say comes from pros, not from this rich but unreliable world wide web. Anyway, each one is free.
 
If it can help, my clean checked "vintage russian lenses" are:
- Helios 44m;
- Tair 11A;
- Jupiter 9 ;
- Mir 24M.
My Sankor 16D is clean too. (And modern lenses aren't concerned.)
Take care of 70's russian lenses.

Pilots and hostess have cancer increase. Radiologists are really protected and supervised). You Andy take plane maybe 5 times a year and go to the dentist (for x-rays) maybe once a couple of years, for 30 seconds. You can't compare! Aluminium won't help, just concrete or lead. Radioactive lenses is a very UNDERESTIMATED problem, espescially on photo forums. I know what told the geiger and the officers. I think we talk about health here, not bokeh.
 

'>

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses

Hi!
It's one of my first posts here but not the funniest I guess…
I'm not especially talking about a magic C-lens in particular here but about a very underestimated question: radioactive lenses!
One of my friends is a fireman captain and introduced me yesterday to one of his colleagues specialized in technological risks and chemical dangers (at Poissy, France : they're known to have very great equipments.) We made 3 different tests on all my Russian lenses which are all OK excepted the Mamiya Sekor 55mm f1.4 (M42).
Here are the results:
From 5 to 10 µSV per hour (by direct touch), and 1720 shocks per second.
Element involved is Thorium 232.
They told I really shouldn't keep it. Work with it more than one hour is dangerous. It must be gifted to specialized services and absolutely not be destroyed! Or thrashed! The most dangerous exposure isn't even radiations but dusts to inhalate or ingerate (when a lens gets old it disaggregates - it's something you can't always clearly see).
I'm lucky cause until today I kept it in my basement.
So, say it please to your friends and all potential Mamiya/Takumar users that you know via websites etc, it's a strong matter of health.

As someone who actually tested this in person. The a7s was only slightly worse than the Canon 6d I had on hand. While that's not amazing, it's far from a deal breaker. Sony reps said that the firmware was in the very early stages and that the rolling shutter would be better than the 5d mark III by the time it was released. They pointed specifically at 12mb sensor versus the 5d mark III's much larger sensor and total read times. 

FimBrute quote is hilarious : ) I had a good laugh. Time to update my signature straight away... LOL ;-)

I noticed also RS when playing with the camera. The video makes the A7s look unusable. But just for your info, attached to this A7s was a 70-200mm lens and it was fully zoomed in on the video above. So who is doing a pan like this at 200mm? I don't. Yes for sports it is the wrong camera, but for filming under controlled situations to do a real estate video for example, this is the perfect camera. I have no idea how the rs will look at a GH4 at 200mm. Maybe it will not be that extrem but it will be there for sure!

On the other side when I compared the noise level between the A7s and the Gh4 there was a difference like night and day between both cameras :D

At the same time, there are people like me who have defended you among the inner circle, you well know it :-)

aside where the automatic shutter speed is effectively a problem, here you have the most recent 4K RAW Nikon (for 190 euros) posted on vimeo:
 
https://vimeo.com/67656132
 
 
 

I bought myself a new V1 based on this this thread.  After a few days I decided to keep it, not for its 4K raw capability, which is too limiting to be practical in my mind, but for its burst shooting capability as a street camera.  At 10fps, I can keep shooting stills for 3.4 seconds, long enough to capture an interesting scene, and fast enough not to miss the critical moment.  I shot 1800 pictures in a couple of hours, and the battery still showed as full.  I was able to pick many keepers out of this session, improving my success rate by many folds.  Moreover, it's completely silent, and the AF is always spot on.  For this purpose, it's quite a unique camera, even better than the like of 1Dx or D1s.  I'm happy that I stumbled on this gem.