Jump to content

Phil Rudin

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Phil Rudin

  1. Olympus is about to announce a new 35 mm f3.5 macro that goes to life size (1:1). For those who are not up to speed with Olympus digital that would be a 70 mm macro that shoots 2:1 in 35 mm equivlence. Thats a 34 degree AOV all the way to twice life size with no tubes or diopters attached. The 8mp E-500 entry SLR will also be coming with it. http://www2.olympus.dk/consumer/6739_EM-3535.htm Phil
  2. These issues of DOF are common to all cameras and do not releated only to digital. Film cameras do the same thing. A M/F 6 x 7 film camera has a film area Appox. four times larger than 35 mm. If you use a 45 MM lens on the 6 X 7 camera you get the same Angle of view as a 22.5 mm lens on 35 mm film. Since we all know that a 22.5 lens would have greater DOF than a 45 mm lens at the same aperture, the larger (6 x 7) format has less DOF. This is one of the reasons you don't see many U/W med/format systems. The same thing applies to digital sensors. A 100mm lens on a 35 mm full frame sensor at life size (1:1) creates appox. the same size image as a 50 mm lens on a sensor which has a X2 crop factor compaired to 35 mm, because that sensor is one fourth as large. The diffrence is that the 50 mm lens only has to be at 1:2 to give the same size image as the 100 mm lens on 35 mm. Given that the photo is taken while both lenses are a F-22, the 1:1 lens is going to have less DOF than the 1:2 lens. Just as a 1:1 extension tube has less DOF than a 1:2 tube. Life size or 1:1 remains constant for all format sizes. If you take life-size (1:1) photo on the 6X7 film the object is the same size in life as on the film. If you then cut a 35mm size piece of film from the 6X7 the image is still life size and a 1.6 (Canon) or 1.5 (Nikon) or 2X (Olympus) crop from that is still life size. Phil
  3. Hi Trever, Also appears that this camera can be shifted from AF to manual focus, which would be great for macro. Phil
  4. Hi Greg, I have attached the Oly web page which has the c-7070 and the new SP line. http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/...tal_cseries.asp http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9623 Phil
  5. Hi Scott, My view is that lots of people get published that are not "pro" photographers (some in this fourm) and lots of people have "pro" level equipment that do not get paid for their work. The digital market is changing much faster than the film camera market ever did. What is important is that you have equipment adequate to allow your skills to continuously grow. Ask yourself if your current Nikon lenses will meet your U/W needs with a X 1.5 sensor. If you are going to need all new lenses then start from the ground up. If not, look to what you like from Nikon. Will your current ports and strobes work with the housing you intend to purchase? These are questions that in my mind are more important than numbers of mega-pixels. Seapix.com may be asking for 8 mp images rather than 6 mp at some point but the quality of Doug Perrine's images taken with a 6 mp camera will continue to sell well into the future just as his film images have. Time in the water with your equipment will ultimately determine the worth of your images. Phil
  6. Hi Alex, What amount of light is lost with the filter, compaired to same shot without the filter? In your other thread regarding these filters you refer to seawater. I understand the filter color not working in "green" water, but is there any reason it would not work in clear spring water? Phil
  7. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong, but the way the lens mounts to the camera does not change between your 35 mm Canon film lenses and this lens. The diffrence is that the lens is designed for the X 1.6 sensor size of many of the Canon digital cameras. I would expect that the lens would mount to your Canon film camera but it produces a diffrent size image circle which will not cover the 35 mm film or a 35 mm full frame sensor. Making the lens/sensor full frame for the X 1.6 sensor size it was designed for. Regarding cost, the angle of view releates most closely to a 100 mm in in the 35 mm format. Because of this I think, right or wrong that equipment makers fell these lenses should be priced closer to the 100 mm macro cost than to the 50 mm 1:2 macro cost. Any thoughts? Phil
  8. Bob, I don't object to the use of the term full frame for the fine Canon 1Ds and 1Ds mk2 cameras or for the new 5D, thats what they are, full frame. But the Olympus E-1 and E-300 cameras are also full frame. The backs being produced for 645 are very close to full frame, see Wetpixel home page for the one with the X 1.1 lens factor. All I have been saying is that about 3000 readers have come to this thread to learn more about photography and they many want to know the diffrence between what full frame means and what a 35 mm full frame sensor is. Phil Rudin
  9. My thoughts on your question are that the new 60 mm is as close as you can get to a 100 mm macro for 35 mm. Nearly the same angle of view and what appears to be life-size for the x 1.6 sensor. The 35 mm, 100 mm macro endsup having the angle of view of a 160 mm film lens and the 50 mm ends up at an 80 mm angle of view and is a 1:2 lens without the extension tube. Can't help but think that a lens designed for the x 1.6 sensor would also give advanced performance over the older film lenses. Phil
  10. Bob, I know the common use of the term full frame is understood by most to mean 35 mm full frame. But if you will keep an open mind and go to this Kodak link you will see several full frame sensors made by Kodak and sold by Kodak as "full frame" sensors that are not the same size as 35 mm. Since Kodak makes them and Kodak sells them I feel Kodak would know what full frame means. To say that the 35 mm size is the only size just because it is the most common size is in fact wrong. Phil http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/ccd...amilyMain.jhtml
  11. Life size, (1:1) is life size on any media be it APS-C sensor size or 8"x10" view camera and full frame is full frame when the size of the sensor or film is the size for which the lens was designed. Regarding 4:1 magnification of the subject this is a bit misleading as well. when you go from 2:1 to 1:1 the area increase is four times not two times. The subject area is twice as wide and twice as tall, that adds up to four times the area of the 2:1 inage. If you go from 1:1 to 1:2 the image is twice as tall and twice as wide, which is four times as large. If you have a 5 MP camera and want the image to be twice as big that would be twice as wide and twice as tall or 20 MP. If you look at a 1:2 framer for a Nikonos compaired to a 1:1 the 1:1 is twice as tall and twice as wide, 1:2 same 1:3 three times as tall as 1:1 and three times as wide. These rules don't change between film and digital and they don't change between format sizes. Phil
  12. The Seacam dome would be beyond great and you could throw in a 180 enlarged finder at the same time. My guess is that the dome will be a 170 mm Athena glass on the Oly mount with the removable extension tube for the zoom lens. The FF 8 mm fisheye coming in Jan 06 is a 180 lens and projected at around 153 degrees under the dome without the tube and focus to 2 mm from the dome. For a $1000.00 housing the viewfinder is not half bad. you can see my post regarding this housing in the E-300 post in this forum. Phil
  13. Regarding the industry use of the term full frame the industry also uses the term life size or 1:1 in regard to 35 mm as well, I have no argument regarding this other than to say it is in fact misleading. It was not my intent to suggest that all digital specific lenses are better than all film lenses. I just wanted to point out that the evidence is becoming stronger that lenses designed for a digital sensor type appear to be gain ground over lenses designed for film. Which leads to the question will 35 mm film lenses need to be replaced by 35 mm digital lenses for the 35 mm chip to achieve max image quality? The Frink tests can be found a seacamusa.com in the Tech Notes section. Regarding corner sharpness, all things being equal should I expect that when my Olympus 7 to 14 mm zoom (14 to 28 mm 35 equiv.) dome port arrives in the next month or so that I should expect it to be the sharpest lens of all in the corners because it has the smallest SLR sensor and therefore the greatest DOF?
  14. Like the issue of life size (i.e. 1:1) full frame has nothing to do with 35 mm. Any lens that was designed for the sensor being used makes the sensor a full frame sensor. A 645 lens used with a 645 sensor is full frame. Canon has four EF-S lenses, 60 mm macro, 10-22, 17-85, 18-55. These lenses are designes for the so called 1.6 sensor and don't work on the 1.3 sensor or the 35mm sensor. That makes the 1.6 sensor full frame for those lenses. Nikon has six DX lenses that don't work on 35 mm, these lenses make the 1.5 sensor full frame. Olympus has nine digital only lenses and four more on the way. They only work on the 4/3 sensor and no 35 mm lens is even made that will fit the lens mount. That makes the Oly lens sensor combo clearly full frame. I admit that most camera users come from a 35 mm backgroung but that in no way makes 35 mm the standard by which all other formates should be judged. I have a Pentax 6 x7 camera for some types of work where I need a large neg. If I used that as the standared 35 mm would have a X2 crop factor. Regarding 35 mm sensor v 1.6 or 1.5 with like angle of view lenses. Go to Steve Frinks review of the 17 to 40L on a 35 mm sensor and the review of the Nikon 12 to 24mm on the Nikon high end 12+ MP sensor. Results show the smaller sensor giving the better image. I beleave this is because the 17 to 40 was designed for a film camera and the 12 to 24 was designed for the 1.5 chip. If you read the date regarding many of the high end designed for digital lenses you will find that the elements are of a diffrent design from film lenses. Also that the wider the film lens the worst the preformance of the lens in the corners, land or sea. See Steve Frink test of 16 to 35L mm v 17 to 40L on 35 mm full frame. Phil
  15. If this is the case then Canon should step up and call the lens what it is a 1:1.6 macro. Phil
  16. It is sad, I have a Contax N-1 (35 mm) and the glass is wonderful. Go to Pentax and look at the smcp-FA 645 120 mm F4. This is a macro lens that shots life size, 1:1 in 645. Life size image on 645 film or sensor. E-ray does the same thing on film over 12 inches wide. Image is still life size. My Oly E-1 shots life size, 1:1 (the 4/3 chip size or about one- fourth 35 mm size) with an extension tube. In 35 mm that would be called 2:1. Phil
  17. Thanks Herb, I understand your point but only as it regards like sensors of diffrent sizes. The first FF sensor was the 6MP Contax and the images at 400 were worst than my 5 mp Oly E-1 at 800 which has a chip about one fourth the size of the Contax chip. Phil
  18. Herb I don't get how a sensor that is twice as large gives you twice as much light, I.E. 100 to 200 iso. If I use 100 film in a 35 mm camera with the lens set to say F8 at 250 I will get the same exposer as using a 6 x 7 camera with 100 film and F8 at 250th. The 6 x 7 film is four times larger than the 35 mm but it dosen't increse the exposure at all. am I missing somthing? Phil
  19. Regarding 1:1, it has nothing to do with 35 mm, it means life size. If you use a 6 x 7 camera with a 1:1 lens at life size then the image is the size of the film (i.e 6 x7) not the size of 35 mm. An 8" x 10" neg at 1:1 would be an image 8" x 10". An image on the Olympus 4/3 format is the size of the sencer at 1:1. The Oly 50 mm macro is a 1:2 lens but produces an image which is life size for 35 MM because the chip has what you would call a 2x crop factor. The image also has twice the DOF because it is a 50 and not a 100 mm. Phil Rudin
  20. All I know about this bird is that they had to stop building an addition to the airport becaues of these birds being within the construction area. Phil
  21. While your on the subject of lenses and sensor size, can anyone tell me if the new Canon EF-S 60 mm macro shots life size (1:1) or an image the size of 35 mm at 1:1? Phil Rudin
  22. Keep the faith Todd this owl can be had from a closer distance. Contax N1, 70-300 at F4, Velvia 50, rated at 40 iso, full frame scan. Phil Rudin
  23. Hi Alex, The Oly PT-E01 housing for the E-300 is small conpaired to most SLR housings and as you can see the small camera is a snug fit in the housing. The macro port is also very small and ideal for a ring flash, (will be looking into the new ATHENA ring flash) which is being adapted for this housing. The metal ring on the front of the housing allows the ports to screw in and has a very firm feel. Five mounting holes on the bottom of the housing have allowed me to mount ULCS arms to the bottom tray with four screws. The wrist support strap comes with the housing and has been mounted to the right arm for added support. Each port comes with front and rear caps as well as a focus or zoom gear. The gears are hinged and install in seconds on the lens. You will see that both halfs of the housing have o-rings, allowing for added security from flood. The optical viewer on the rear of the housing allows a full view of the image and viewfinder info. although I prefer to view camera settings on the LCD when needed. AF to manual is handled by depressing the shutter half way when set in the AF/manual setting. I can't comment on how well this works as the bright F2 macro lens has not failed me in AF yet. All controls are accessible and intuitive. At around $1000.00 (street) for the housing and $375.00 for the macro and 14 to 54/ 11 to 22 optical glass and aluminum ports, this rig is a bargain compaired to many. http://www.sfups.com/dsp_gallery.cfm?featu...20&member_id=69 Regards Phil Rudin
  24. I have used a dual sync cord on my Nikonos RS for thirteen years, so I don't care about a second socket on the housing. As for the ports, I am sure that the Ike ports work well but I prefer the alum. and glass ports and the mounting ring of the Oly housing even though the cost is greater. Phil
  25. Hi Eddy, The web address is mike-dive.de. I read about his business in the consumer digicam forum and he is also making a Nikonos socket to replace the Oly socket which comes with the housing. This will be ready in a few weeks. No way to do TTL with the Inon strobes at this time, because they are to slow. Regards Phil http://www.sfups.com/dsp_gallery.cfm?featu...20&member_id=69
  • Create New...