Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Is it really just me?  (Read 1439 times)

mbaginy

  • Guest
Is it really just me?
« on: November 25, 2014, 02:32:02 am »

Is it just me, who is missing some features I enjoyed back in olden (analog) days?  I not speaking of film vs. digital, but details I’ve come to enjoy over the years and can’t seem to find in (most of) today’s catalogs.

I often shoot landscapes and macros.  My basic setup includes a stable tripod with adjustable 3-way head (another tripod with ball head for action shots).  Many images I capture in both landscape and portrait orientation, depending on the purpose of the image.  (I’ve shot for calendars and one customer required portrait aspect only.)  Setting up for the best composition takes time and it’s a joy to rotate the camera 90° when the lens is equipped with a tripod mount.  I shoot so many images in both orientations that I wish every lens had a tripod mount.  In my view, every macro lens (longer than 50, 55 or 60mm) absolutely needs one.  Zeiss build a wonderful 100/2 macro – but no tripod mount!  Which mirrorless camera manufacturer produces a macro lens with tripod mount?  L-brackets are handy, but not as elegant as a tripod mount.

Lens shades seem to be stepchildren of most lens manufacturers.  If a lens is delivered with one at all, it’s usually a poor excuse made of cheap plastic (and often darn expensive!).  Zeiss offer well-made metal lens shades for many (all?) their Canon-mount lenses.  It’s a joy to mount and use them on the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 (only ones I owned).  Fujifilm supply similarly nice metal shades for the 18/2 and 35/1.4 lenses but supply crummy plastic ones with their (not inexpensive) 23/1.4 and 56/1.4 masterpieces.  Why?  For cost reasons, I’m quite sure, but darn, such crap with premium lenses?!!

And why can’t the lens shade be built in?  Less shading coverage, I know – but far improved handling!  No more fiddling with mounting or removing it, no more losing the darn thing outdoors.  And while I’m on this topic, why are so very, very few lens shades equipped with a feature to rotate a polarizing filter with the lens shade mounted?  Thanks to Pentax and Leica (former R model) for some (very few) nicely useable lens shades.  Not perfect but much better than today’s vast majority.  Example: many years ago I mainly used the Nikon 105/4 micro for macros because it had a built-in lens shade – sadly, the 2.8 version(s) didn’t.
I won’t get into Canon’s inability to design a dedicated mirror lockup button on their 5D or their stubbornness in refusing to add a viewfinder blind to that camera.  Nikon offer these in many camera bodies.  By the way, is a mechanical mirror lockup feature impossible to design?

I could go on but don’t want to blow this (venting) out of proportion.  I’m generally pleased with photography today.  I’m currently shooting with my trusty Canon 5D models and Fujifilm X series in parallel and give myself until next summer to decide if the X-System can replace my Canon gear.  My rucksack is simply too heavy when I’m out in the boonies.  But I’m missing nice features I’d become accustomed to over the years and I’d really find a pain to do without.  Mankind has landed on the moon (and returned!!), landed satellites on distant comets, but we can’t design a built-in lens shade to work with a polarizing filter?!  Is it really just me?
Logged

Chairman Bill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3352
    • flickr page
Re: Is it really just me?
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2014, 04:17:11 am »

No, not just you. I feel your pain  :)

David Anderson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 715
    • http://www.twigwater.com
Re: Is it really just me?
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2014, 04:47:07 pm »

The shades on the Nikon 28 1.8, 85 1.8 and 60 macro fall off if you look at them - very poorly executed.
I replaced them with screw in B&W rubber hoods and they work well.
Logged

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1131
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re: Is it really just me?
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2014, 05:12:07 am »

The lovely Zeiss metal lens hood on my 50mm macro is great - except when photographing in an environment with lots of children around. It is like a circular knife blade - plastic would be preferable.

The Canon 70-200 has a great rotating lens mount and also a bomb proof plastic lens hood (mine is over ten years old).  I know its not the lens you are after - but it nicely proves your points.

Jim
Logged

Torbjörn Tapani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 319
Re: Is it really just me?
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2014, 06:11:24 am »

Agree completely on tripod mount. I wonder what options there are for a general purpose rotating tripod mount.

Metal lens hood, not so sure. If you bump it it gets bent. If its built in you have a problem. Replaceable plastic is both more durable and well... replaceable.
Logged

mbaginy

  • Guest
Re: Is it really just me?
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2014, 06:52:22 am »

Jim, I never realized how dangerous the lens shade could be.

I own the Canon 70-200/4 and enjoy it greatly.  Very good image quality and a fine tripod mount.  I also have the 180 macro and 100-400, each with tripod mount.  Fine lenses and a joy to use (also due to the tripod mounts).

My plans to find a lighter weight camera setup may have reached a deadend because of the lacking tripod mounts.  I know that I'd be cursing every time I use a Fujifilm 60 macro (just one example) without tripod mount.  Same holds true for Olympus.  I realize I'll never find my perfect camera and I quite years ago, switching makes just to try something else.  It seems, I'll stick with my Canon 5D bodies and lenses simply because the lack of (for my purposes) really useable alternatives.

My selection of photo gear has greatly changed.  In analog days I would find a lens I liked, then find a body to fit it (preferably with MLU and viewfinder blind).  Today it seems the other way around!  Maybe the best system for me would be an (ancient?) Leica DMR with R8 or R9?  I miss the days of film, they'll never really return.  (And I like aperture rings.)
Logged

mbaginy

  • Guest
Re: Is it really just me?
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2014, 07:02:25 am »

Metal lens hood, not so sure. If you bump it it gets bent. If its built in you have a problem. Replaceable plastic is both more durable and well... replaceable.

I understand what you describe about the possibly damage to a metal lens shade and the less expensive replacement for a plastic one.  For years I had used both Leica 50/2 lenses for my R4 and M6, then M7.  These (metal) lens shades were buit in and I never damaged them to such a degree, that they would no longer slide in or out.  They were scuffed over the years since I actually used my cameras (unlike some Leica photographers).  I had an old Pentax Spotmatic F (my first SLR, bought in 1973) which was really, really well used.  The lens lost it's filter tread element at some time in history and the body had dents and scratches.  But it kept on working fine.  Sadly, I got rid of it when I made the switch to digital.  I fear, that may have been too radical since I've got my eye on film again.
Logged

Ken Bennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1797
    • http://www.kenbennettphoto.com
Re: Is it really just me?
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2014, 09:00:20 am »

Re: lens tripod mounts. For shorter lenses I find an L-bracket for the camera works just fine for switching from horizontal to vertical.

Re: plastic lens hoods. They absorb shock by breaking, rather than transmitting all that shock to the lens. Several years ago I was hit by a soccer ball at a high level NCAA game. Those balls are rock hard and going very fast. I have a photo of a large round object out of focus right before it hits the front of my camera, with the Canon 70-200 and its plastic lens hood. The hood was totally smashed, but the camera and lens were fine, and I had a small cut above my eye where the eyepiece hit. A metal hood would have transmitted all that force to my face :)

I do hope the Fuji X system works out for you. I've been shooting about 80% of my work with the Fujis for the last 18 months, saving the Canons for when I need either very fast action or multiple flash. The weight savings makes a huge difference for my back and neck, and for me the image quality is exactly what I need. (But I'm mostly shooting candid people, which is the major strength of the Fuji system, not landscpes and nature.)
Logged
Equipment: a camera and some lenses. https://www.instagram.com/wakeforestphoto/
Pages: [1]   Go Up