Jump to content

Nikkor

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,443

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Nikkor

  1. Nikkor
    This is strange, I have placed an isco ultra star optic in front of a pentax 67 105 2.4 and a mamiya rz 110 2.8 and there is only very little vignetting, I thought an iscorama would show no vignetting at all. When you are talking about condenser optics, you mean you have a focal reducer inside and project on a smaller area than 70mm?
  2. Nikkor
    It's like the good old 35mm cinema adapters, the image is projected on groundglass which is then captured by the camera. The results are very good, great job Richard! But the zero light loss intrigues me :O
  3. Nikkor
    You can't match it because of the relationship between projected real image hight and subject distance or subject size. The larger the sensor the bigger it gets, the more effective dof becomes. Look at your PMs :lol:
  4. Nikkor
    If the evidence were right in front of you (which it is) you wouldn't see it. I can't do the thinking for you. I take two pictures, one with a 28 @ 2.8 another with a 60 @5.6. Depth of field is the same if you follow the formula, but the rendering is different obviously different (the jpg compression isn't doing any favor). But then you have no problem to forget the different apertures,bla bla, get all condescendent, and don't understand that if you really think that the difference is only due to 28mm being different than 30, you could just do the test for yourself, with your camera, and a zoom lens and see the difference (if you have to matching primes it will be clearer because zoom lenses aren't really that great on both ends). You don't want to look at the pictures, the video (when medium format is compared to fullframe) or to the first ones comparing FF to M43, or you don't think the difference is important. Good for you.
  5. Nikkor
    Thanks a lot!
  6. Nikkor
    That's the nice thing about larger formats, you get your subject easily into focus (and sharply) and still can have a nice background blur (no need to go as crazy as on the sample down below). See how the focus pushes in on a pentax 165 2.8 (on full frame it would be similar to what you get with a 85 1.4) If you were using a 85 1.2-1.4 the focus would be more gradual. This is what makes you go crazy because you only have a sharp nose, or one sharp eye,etc... when using the 85 1.2 Which is what Richs video shows but with a touch lower aperture. Oh, and you can also take pictures of grown man like this one:
  7. Nikkor
    PM, I typed it backwards ^^. (personal message about that bh lens). I want the contax 80 f2 but the camera is too expensive and the mount is too big to adapt it to a mamiya 645 :(
  8. Nikkor
    Wow, that's a really clean image you are getting from that ground glass. Amazing. I will have to wait for a speedbooster to use my pentax 165 2.8 on video. You got an MP, did you see it? :D Btw, is the Noritar any good compared to the contax (which isn't stellar either and is only for 645)?
  9. Nikkor
    You are wrong. I wouldn't care if I were wrong, fuck the EGO. But you are simply wrong. I always thought this was bullshit until I got into it and understood why. Since nobody pays me for this I'm not going to write a paper for you because it would take me a lot of time. You don't want to believe me, I don't care. You don't need to be precise to do the comparsion, the difference isn't going to change with 2mm. But you can try it on your own with a zoom lens (I sold my zoomlenses). And remember, the two images were shot at different apertures, half along your post you seem to have forgotten it. Richs comparsion shots are between APSc and fullframe, so the difference will be even lower, anyway, the lens he uses is so bad wide open that you can't tell much, so I see a difference in them but you can't really point it out.
  10. Nikkor
    Me too, but only when I'm going for the movie look. Thanks for taking your time to measure the beast :D
  11. Nikkor
    I attached 2 pictures above, "I made a little test for fun. Two images matched, 28 1.4 @ 2.8 cropped to m43 vs 60mm f2.8 @ 5.6 fullframe." Dof on both is the same, they are both taken from the same point and at different apertures, if you take a dof calculator it will tell you that both are the same.
  12. Nikkor
    You haven't even looked at the images I posted which show the difference. A difference, btw, who doesn't have to bother you if you don't intent to watch the footage on a big screen. I'll erase the tip to the facts, it is my gift to you.
  13. Nikkor
    Oh man, once you've figure it out will you come back and tell us about it?
  14. Nikkor
    70mm, but horizontally :p
  15. Nikkor
    Second one (both were carfully focused at the same spot)
  16. Nikkor
    I made a little test for fun. Two images matched, 28 1.4 @ 2.8 cropped to m43 vs 60mm f2.8 @ 5.6 fullframe.
  17. Nikkor
    Nice finding, I saw one on ebay the last time I searched for anamorphics and it was pretty cheap. Btw,what diameter diameters do the front and back elements have? [edit] Now that I have looked at you footage (which is very nice btw) I've seen some cheap diopters errors (funkeh displaced and aberrated bokeh) but it's still very pleasant. Show us some sunlit vegetation with it ;) that's the definitive test.
  18. Nikkor
    You do understand that the important thing is the percieved image as a whole, do you? What people on photography forums try to tell pixel peepers when they say they should look at a print ;) I haven't read the procedure DXO mark uses but I can imagine they measure based on the total image, not per pixel basis...
  19. Nikkor
    Andrew, the fstop tells you how much light you get per surface area. If you have a bigger surface you will gather more light. It's pretty easy to understand. So if you had a 1 pixel camera, the fullframe one would gather 4 times the light the m43 one gathers, so it has a 2 stop advantage. If both sensors are from the same generation (most sensors are sony now and they seem to perform about the same) the fullframe one will have two stops advantage in signal to noise ratio, as they both have the same noise in readout, but the bigger one has a 4 times stronger signal. This hasn't anything to do with fullframe look.
  20. Nikkor
    You said "missing a shot" and I said streetvideographer just as an example for something where you can actually loose a shot, of course it's a pain when shooting with new lenses.
  21. Nikkor
    Yes, but the d7100 body isn't great either. I also have a d300,d3 and d800, and you won't find any body that competes with the d300/d700/d3 bodies (big and perfect placed buttons) even the d800 is worse in that aspect. But honestly, at the end of the year the d810 and probably the d7200 are going to be announced, Personally I wouldn't pay the premium price for the actual bodies now.
  22. Nikkor
    Because you might not be a street videographer ;) but yes, it's terrible. Anyway, it's a nikon and there are so many lenses with aperture ring (most of my lenses do) so it has never a real bummer for me when using the d7000.
  23. Nikkor
    But the g6+speed booster is more expensive than a d5200 or maybe even more than a d5300.
  24. Nikkor
    The d7000 is terrible at video, it's like the cheap canons, tons of moiré and bad resolution. (I own the d7000 personally)
  25. Nikkor
    But the d7100 does not have 60p and it's going to be replaced at the end of the year (rumours). The d7100 is smaller than the d300, personally I hate the small body so... If you already have the glass it's better to stay on the nikon system unless you have a good reason. Btw,the computer seems kinda expensive. I paid 800€ 4 years ago for a i7 2600k, 16gb and a 560ti... (hdd,power,etc...)
×
×
  • Create New...