Lens Mounts No Longer Matter

[Telecaster]

When making still photographs I enjoy looking through the lens of a DSLR for reassurance (even when using live view to reduce camera shake during the exposure) and wonder how anyone can prefer the uncertainty that comes with relying on the EVF of a non DSLR still camera.

I don't understand this at all. With an EVF camera you're still looking through the lens…but you're doing so with an electronic rather than mirror/prism based finder.

I use rangefinder cameras a lot and have always been fine with separate non-lens-based VFs too. In some respects, like being able to see slightly outside the lens' coverage, I prefer them.

-Dave-

[Jeff Griffin]

This article brought back  memories of the late 1970's early 1980's ( cannot remember the date ) when I bought a Tamron zoom lens with an Adaptall mount for the Olympus OM system.
It served me extremely well over the OM10, OM40 & OM4 Ti models. 

I suppose the mounts these days are far more technologically advanced to account for autofocus etc.  ?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Some handle AF, on Canon lenses. There are also adapaters for Yashica/Contax and rumors about a Nikon adapter.

Best regards
Erik

This article brought back  memories of the late 1970's early 1980's ( cannot remember the date ) when I bought a Tamron zoom lens with an Adaptall mount for the Olympus OM system.
It served me extremely well over the OM10, OM40 & OM4 Ti models. 

I suppose the mounts these days are far more technologically advanced to account for autofocus etc.  ?

[image66]

Ken Rockwell has said, amongst other things, that a Sigma 85/1.4 needs to be opened at least a stop more to achieve similar DoF and brightness as a Nikon or Canon oem lens, contrary to any measurement you might care to make.

He is therefore either an idiot, or a completely cynical click farmer, as Andrew suggests.

Or both, of course.

Or he is diplomatic in stating the Sigma has been deceptive in their specifications again. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Or his lens or camera may be setting the wrong aperture. Or...

DxO mark measure optical transmission  and they have come up T=1.6 on the Sigma 85/1.4 and bot Nikon 85/1.4 lenses.

I don't think Ken Rockwell is stupid, but he is extremely noisy.

Best regards
Erik

Or he is diplomatic in stating the Sigma has been deceptive in their specifications again. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't think Ken Rockwell shoots test charts.

Another point is that I don't agree folks showing corner crops on images focused at center are doing us no service at all. Many of the subjects we are shooting are flat. Architecture is often flat. A landscape shot at infinity is flat.

It is quite true that many subjects are three dimensional, so it is essentially impossible to have same focus across the image.

But, field curvature is not the only problem in corners. You can have astigmatism and chromatic aberrations, too. Than of course coma can be an issue.

I guess that reference is made to this image (Sony on top and Canon at the bottom, both linked from the Ken Rockwell site).


Full image:


I have gotten my 16-35/4 on past Friday. So long I have seen it performs decently across the field, but weather has been bad so I have just a few handheld shots outdoors. 

Best regards
Erik

People who show us close crops of the corners from pictures that were focused in the center are doing us no service at all.

Ken Rockwell's pictures show us that EITHER the adapter is soft at the edges OR that it's making the field less flat, OR some combination of the two. If you don't take pictures of test charts pasted to walls, it's simply not an interesting test at all. I can't blame him, because this is what everyone does, because they're not actually interested in giving away, or discovering, information, they're interested in click-farming.