|
it's interesting to look at the original 50s/60s/70s vintage mounts in terms of how closely they approximated the "modern" solution (focal plane shutter, bayonet mount of roughly 42mm diameter, aperture controlled by a feeler lever and ideally camera forces the aperture closed as opposed to the spring closing the aperture, lens-driven autofocus). Pentax started with a screwmount, but successfully modified it with auto aperture using the modern feeler arm method. Then they moved to a bayonet but patched in "backwards compatibility" albeit with the loss of aperture control. Later successfully incorporated body-driven autofocus and then lens-driven autofocus Nikon started with a bayonet mount but completely whiffed it on the metering, the pre-AI rabbit ears are janky as gently caress. Successfully incorporated body-driven autofocus and then lens-driven autofocus but with a fair amount of caveats on compatibility Canon did a breech lock but nailed the metering. But completely failed at incorporating autofocus apart from some of the hilarious "transitional" lenses. Eventually dumped the whole system and went electronic everything (which nailed the modern design perfectly). Pentax 6x7 nailed it, particularly the "body closes the aperture" bit. But no autofocus ever. Pentax 645 was P6x7 but was developed further for autofocus. olympus pretty much nailed it apart from some unconventional ergonomics, but never got around to introducing autofocus except in one specific body. Minolta MD pretty much nailed it but later was more or less abandoned in favor of the Maxxum mount to make a clean start, much like EOS
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Quoted for truth. Especially the regretful bit. Only a few left that I want and then I’ll be done. or not
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:it's interesting to look at the original 50s/60s/70s vintage mounts in terms of how closely they approximated the "modern" solution (focal plane shutter, bayonet mount of roughly 42mm diameter, aperture controlled by a feeler lever and ideally camera forces the aperture closed as opposed to the spring closing the aperture, lens-driven autofocus). Oh man, do I ever despise the FD collar setup. WTF??
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Oh man, do I ever despise the FD collar setup. WTF?? I think they are nominally supposed to be more precise to center (both side to side on the mount and in z-depth re focal plane distance) and they can be tighter even with fairly loose tolerances since it's almost a "compression fit". there's definitely some manufacturability considerations they were chasing, I think but yeah everyone else just kept tolerances tighter Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Sep 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
Yeah, the FD breechlock is theoretically more precise and repeatable because the mating surfaces never rotate against each other. If you were attaching and detaching bayonet lenses hundreds of times a day for years, you could conceivably wear the mounts down (especially if one is plastic) and end up with a slightly wobbly fit. You can also make the actual mating parts fit more closely because they don't have to move and thus don't need as much tolerance. In reality everyone seem to have solved the problem just fine for bayonet mounts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
Canon do have an EF Cinema Lock version and offer mount conversion as a service. Ultra-tight tolerances still seem to matter for certain video situations. https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/services/upgrades/eos-pl-ef-lock-lens-mount-replacement/
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Yeah, the FD breechlock is theoretically more precise and repeatable because the mating surfaces never rotate against each other. If you were attaching and detaching bayonet lenses hundreds of times a day for years, you could conceivably wear the mounts down (especially if one is plastic) and end up with a slightly wobbly fit. You can also make the actual mating parts fit more closely because they don't have to move and thus don't need as much tolerance. Couldn’t the locking ring eventually wear though, causing a loose fit? There’s gotta be some wear somewhere!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 21:02
|
|
|
Big Canon FD’s free ride here is over. I’m dropping truthbombs now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
If they're concerned about lenses wearing out why don't they take a look at zoom barrels sliding out when pointing downwards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:In reality everyone seem to have solved the problem just fine for bayonet mounts. also I'm pretty sure the bayonet itself is replaceable on a lot of lenses, like if you were a pro who was changing lenses hundreds of times a year and you did wear them out, you could probably just send it back to Canon/Nikon and have them change it
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 03:10
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Ultra-tight tolerances still seem to matter for certain video situations. That makes sense. In cinema use, there's a guy called the focus puller whose only job is to manually adjust the focus throughout the scene, and he does it by reading distances off the lens focus scale. If the lens mount is a fraction of a millimeter off, the distance scale won't be accurate to the scene. Doesn't matter when you're focusing through the lens, but if you're relying on that scale to keep the actors' eyes sharp... On that note, this is a really interesting video about cinema lenses. It looks at first like just some dumb clickbait gearhead but the guy he's interviewing is extremely smart and knowledgeable and I learned a ton about just why those lenses are worth $25,000 or whatever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1n2DR6H7mk I think my favorite part is that they add a separate tiny zoom group linked to the focus group so that the image doesn't change size when you focus it (6:10) Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 07:25
|
|
|
Glad I’m not into cine/video stuff because the last thing I need is to fall down a weapons grade gear-centric rabbit hole like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
I’d probably end up like the camera conspiracies guy, only without the covid denial stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 23:33
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Glad I’m not into cine/video stuff because the last thing I need is to fall down a weapons grade gear-centric rabbit hole like that. Is there a thread for videography stuff on SA? President Beep posted:Glad I’m not into cine/video stuff because the last thing I need is to fall down a weapons grade gear-centric rabbit hole like that. also, what  I thought that channel was all tongue in cheek shitposting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
I thought so too, then I checked out his healthy living through quackery channel and it became clear that he wasn’t joking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 00:05
|
|
|
I just looked up the price of an OEM Sony FE 12-24 f/4 and choked on my drink. Then I looked up the price on the same in f/2.8 and thank god I already put the drink down. I think my dream of owning all first party lenses is D E A D. Thank god the 24-105 f4 is a killer deal on amazing glass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 00:19
|
|
|
TTerrible posted:Is there a thread for videography stuff on SA? There’s a very slow moving thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3144982
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
President Beep posted:I thought so too, then I checked out his healthy living through quackery channel and it became clear that he wasn’t joking. He's got a video about photographers all wearing glasses because they irradiated their head looking through viewfinders and destroyed their eyes. The whole thing has this uncanny valley thing where it kind of seems like he's joking and you hope he is but you come away with an "uh, no, he believes this." Dude is funny, but loving crazy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I just looked up the price of an OEM Sony FE 12-24 f/4 and choked on my drink. Yup. I’ve owned one (1) actual sony lens—the 28-70 kit thingy. Got rid of it eventually. Shooting 3rd party/adapted stuff now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 01:33
|
|
|
xzzy posted:He's got a video about photographers all wearing glasses because they irradiated their head looking through viewfinders and destroyed their eyes. The whole thing has this uncanny valley thing where it kind of seems like he's joking and you hope he is but you come away with an "uh, no, he believes this." It's how Harris Savides died (brain cancer due to constantly looking through thoriated glass) and Gordon Willis lost his eyesight (also constantly looking through thoriated glass). The link between the two is that they loved shooting with Bausch and Lomb Super Baltars, which are notoriously radioactive. powderific posted:There’s a very slow moving thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3144982 Yeah, I kinda wish the Filmy Filmmakers subforum still existed. Things seemed to move faster there. VoodooXT fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Sep 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
Anyone ever buy a body at bargain grade from KEH? If so, was it beat to hell?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
Hi Dorkroom posters, I need help finding a camera and the internet articles and reviews are melting my brain. I can’t seem to settle on a DSLR that does decent video. The museum I work for recently got a grant that I need to use for a DSLR soon. We’ve been making videos on our cell phones and my old Sony a6000 but they just don’t quite cut it anymore. If we want to survive and look good we need a better dedicated camera. The budget is about $2,000-$2,500 to buy a camera, lenses, memory card and tripod. What we plan to use it for is to make small in house video documentaries about the art we have, virtual tours, art education etc… It is also going to be used to take pictures of art that needs to be documented and stored later. I read some articles from google that point me towards a Nikon D5700 or some Canon 80d. But honestly have no clue what I’m looking at anymore. I have another budget for lighting and mics and have some that will work for now but just need a decent camera kit to get started. TLDR; I need a DSLR camera and kit that does good video. Open to anything was looking at the Nikon D5700 but I’m clueless now Budget: $2,000-$2,500 I need a higher resolution video and better frame rate in low light hoping for 4k but with this budget can settle for 1080p I have a separate budget for lighting and mics but open to suggestions on that too. Will be using it to film people, interviews, paintings and sculptures It will also be used to take pictures and document art as well. My current setup consists of iPhones, androids and a Sony a6000 we also have an older Nikon DSLR but I don’t know the model Thanks guys
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
Why a dslr and not a mirrorless camera? What focal lengths will you need? Are you going to be using autofocus when shooting video? What about stabilization, are you going to be shooting hand held for virtual tours?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
As a nikon fan, none of the DSLRs do good video. Great stills but crap video. The Z series is another story though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
I'll throw out a decent 4k option in your budget: $1100 - Canon M6 MkII w/ kit 15-45mm STM lens and EVF $250 - EF-M 22mm F/2 pancake $125 - EF 50mm F/1.8 STM $40 - 3rd party EF -> EF-M adapter needed for the above. Pricing from B&H. That brings you to $1500 before tax and leaves you with $500 for additional lenses since I am not sure what focal lengths would be useful. I assume a gimbal stabilizer would also come in very handy for any handheld shots. Worth noting that all the lenses above are STM and should be able to do completely silent autofocus if you're planning on doing a camera-mounted microphone. I assume you can get fairly similar bodies from Sony and Fuji, but I don't know their lens systems well enough to know if there's similar options in the price range or which bodies can do uncropped 4k.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
See thanks for pointing out that I may not need to get a DSLR. Mainly need a good camera with more focus on video. I have no idea what I'm stepping into in terms of specs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I'll throw out a decent 4k option in your budget: Awesome this is leaning already towards what I want to get. Thank you! Might even just buy that setup so I don't have to think about it anymore
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
If you're looking at Canon and APS-C the Sigma 18-35/1.8 is a fantastic lens for video if you don't need OIS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
Heated Gaming Moment posted:Anyone ever buy a body at bargain grade from KEH? If so, was it beat to hell? E: Perhaps I am wrong. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Sep 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:I have not, but I have heard from at least independent people that KEH is ultra-conservative in their evaluations, where bargain = a couple of meaningless scratches that do not impact function in any way. And KEH accepts returns, so there is little risk. KEH was bought out by a private equity group back in 2013 and hasn't been the same since. They're basically honest and their warranty is excellent, but their inspections are neither as conservative nor as thorough as they once were.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 02:28
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:KEH was bought out by a private equity group back in 2013 and hasn't been the same since. They're basically honest and their warranty is excellent, but their inspections are neither as conservative nor as thorough as they once were. I guess I stand corrected.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 04:00
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:KEH was bought out by a private equity group back in 2013 and hasn't been the same since. They're basically honest and their warranty is excellent, but their inspections are neither as conservative nor as thorough as they once were. Ew. Thanks for the heads up. Edit: how about Adorama? What are the best used gear sites these days? I have national camera local in Minneapolis and I like them a lot, but their inventory doesn’t turn over very fast. Brrrmph fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Sep 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 16:56
|
|
|
Conservative grading would add more nice stock to the lowest level of gear, but even a well meaning company would be selling some funky stuff in the bottom category unless they simply refused to buy/sell bad looking but functional gear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 17:17
|
|
|
I've bought used things from Adorama without a problem. KEH's new ownership definitely eased up on the ratings, but for the record I haven't been disappointed by the couple OM lenses I've gotten from them since they sold to the PE group. One was BGN grade and only had a couple cosmetic scuffs on the focusing ring. I'm sure it depends a bit on what you're looking for, but their stock is pretty enormous and I think as long as you stick to BGN grade or better you'll be alright.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
Adorama is pretty good, though I've only bought a couple things from them. But they tend to rate stuff worse than it actually is, so as long as you buy their top two grades it's probably going to be perfect. My only complaint is I wish they could take the time to give one or two sentences specifically describing the piece of gear. Like if the barrel has some wear marks, just tell me where/what they are instead of putting them in the E category and leaving it at that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
Fools Infinite posted:Conservative grading would add more nice stock to the lowest level of gear, but even a well meaning company would be selling some funky stuff in the bottom category unless they simply refused to buy/sell bad looking but functional gear. Yes, but there's a lot less overall testing in their inventory, too, so once in a while something genuinely broken sneaks through. You can't expect a dealer to do a top-to-bottom test of every function for everything, naturally, but they used to be better about it. These days I'm convinced it's all but strictly cosmetic grading. For example, in late 2013, a friend of mine got an "EX" Mamiya lens from KEH that only fired on one shutter speed no matter what the setting was. It looked "EX", but clearly hadn't been tested at all. A couple years ago I bought an "EX+" Hasselblad magazine that jammed, every time, on exposure 6, and required a half-wind/unmount/wind-again maneuver to keep going. To their credit, in both cases they were quite cheerful about taking the returns and either sending replacements or refunds. The transitional period 2013-2015 or so was rough, but they've gotten a fair bit better since. I should emphasize that they're not bad; they're just "another retailer" instead of "first choice, go here and forget about it".
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I'll throw out a decent 4k option in your budget: Is EF-M gonna even continue being a thing? Seems like maybe not a great time to get into the mount, even if the camera is a reasonable choice otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
It's a dead-end mount but there are rumors of Canon coming out with a new M camera so it's not DEAD dead, just "not gonna be using this glass in 10 years" level of dead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
Yea, I wouldn't advise anyone spend huge chunks of money on EF-M glass, but for what the OP suggested I think the amount burned on EF-M glass is minimal. Even if the next round of EF-M bodies (rumored to be a new M50 and a prosumer M7) is the last you'll still be able to buy new replacement bodies for quite some time to come.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
What advantage does the m6 ii offer over a6400 or x-t30 (or whatever m43 is in the same price range)? A small bump in resolution that the kit lens won't make use of?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 21:39
|
|