Jump to content

azmmount

Members
  • Content Count

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About azmmount

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 09/21/1965

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.flickr.com/gp/105127983@N07/981564

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Arizona, USA
  1. Mine does the same. Never noticed it but then again it is never in "A" either.
  2. @bigbadwolf - That second shot is quite striking. May I ask what it is? Mike
  3. You use that? I had thought it was one of those useless fluff features Still can't quite grasp a scenario where I would need to change the functionality of a programmable button quicker than I could do through the menu.
  4. I was looking into old manual macro lenses to adapt to my X-T1 because I was less than enamored with the native Fuji options. The 60mm only did 1:2 and the Zeiss is pretty expensive. My original plan was to wait for the 120mm from Fuji but I found myself missing the macro capability and not liking the extension tube thing too much (too complicated figuring out which tube to use and too restrictive with composition once I picked one or both). So I stumbled across a Super Multi Coated Macro-Takumar 50mm f/4 on the eBay in a condition I was willing to purchase at a price I was willing to pay. As a bonus it came bundled with a complete set of extension tubes, an extra "short" tube, and a bellows (all also in excellent condition - none of which I have used yet though). This lens seemed to be fairly well regarded even though it too was only a 1:2 lens (the first, uncoated version, was 1:1 but there were only 2 on eBay when I looked and both were much more expensive and in much worse condition). I am super impressed with this lens. It is sharp. Contrasty. Has a nice smooth bokeh. Maybe I'm missing something but I just can't understand how a lens that appears to be this good can sell for this cheap (around 100USD - less if you are willing to accept one with less than near perfect condition). Here are a couple of my test shots with it taken over the past week or so. Most (if not all) are handheld at f/4 because I'm stupid like that. Grasshoppers: This one also used a focal reducer/ speed booster: Flowers: This one also used a focal reducer/ speed booster: Portrait: This one also used a focal reducer/ speed booster: The flicker album: https://flic.kr/s/aHskh47Y1y I am interested to see other old macro adapted results. Mike
  5. The press release says FW4 already addresses the issues for the X-T1. I too was curious why it wasn't mentioned.
  6. Lol @ "Against my own better judgement" Thanks! Mike
  7. I'm going to spend some time with this Takumar and see how I feel about the whole manual focus and 1/2x magnification thing. I did get a full set of the extension tunes and a bellows with it - so, I believe I can reach out to 3x if I wanted. At 1/2x it appears I get a subject just under 2 inches wide at the most. That is with the straight adapter - I also have one of the cheap speed booster/focal reducers - I assume I can not get as close using that.
  8. I did not get the preset version of the Helios - it was too expensive for experimentation. I got a 44M-2 - the ad said "MADE IN USSR JUPITER / VALDAI 1990 YEAR HAS A 8-BLADES IRIS." Actually... now that I look at the ad again I guess I did get the preset version - cool The Macro-Takumar preset version was the one that was too expensive. The adapter I go is all black.
  9. I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that for an image to be B&W it must have tones that go from absolute black to absolute white? I have always considered B&W to be no color. Some images, I think, benefit from the lower contrast appearance that comes with not spanning the full dynamic range between black and white.
  10. Thanks, milandro! I received a proper "no flange" adapter yesterday. Much better. I believe the flanged on will work well with the Helios once I get it.
  11. My daughter wanted her picture taken while sitting on this broken tree. For some reason she held her hand out in front of her and gazed ahead to pose. I filled in the blank. X-T1, 56mm f/1.2 (1/6400s f/1.2 -1.33ec iso200) I don't normally do Photoshop manipulations but this one seemed to beg it. Comments/Critiques welcome. Thanks for looking, Mike
  12. The "square piece of metal" is the problem with this adapter. I see now that there are slightly different listings for the M42 adapters. They don't seem to be clearly differentiated on eBay though (at least not to my simple mind). Some say "Pentax M42" but the picture looks the same. I'll have to shoot a message off to some of the sellers to see if it will work or not (if they even know). Thanks, Mike
  13. Hi all, I just picked up a couple of M42 lenses. I decided to grab the EF to Fuji X adapters (a plain one and a focal reducer) and some cheaper M42 to EF adapters for each lens. However, when I put the M42 adapter on the lens I find that I can no longer adjust the aperture This is because the adapter presses on the aperture lever on the back of the lens enough so that you can no longer turn the aperture ring. Is this a common issue with these adapters? Is there anything I should look for when buying an adapter to avoid this in the future? Here is a test shot with the SMC Macro-Takumar 50mm f/4 and straight adapter (taken handheld at f/4 in slight wind <-- that's my excuse): I can see that there will be some getting used to shooting with full manual lenses. The focus peaking and aids never seem to be there when I anticipate them. I realize that when I half press the shutter it all goes away and I'm used to fine tuning focus with the shutter half pressed for some reason. Mike
  14. I'm pretty sure it's just a formula. All they have to do is plug in the new numbers if the focal length or aperture changes. I don't think it would be that much of a nightmare. It seems like an interesting idea to me and a feature that I would probably use if it were there.
×
×
  • Create New...