I DID IT! Holga M-Mount on R-D1

uh, btw "croppy lenses"

uh, btw "croppy lenses"

Did one of you ever made some pictures with such an expensive little nothing like a ‚pinhole’ on R-D1? :rolleyes:
 
Lovely! I think you should give it a clever name (how about a riff on Homer Simpson: "D'oh!-graphy" [digital + Holga])?

As others have noted, however, your only possible gaffe might have been in making the conversion too good; where's the heavy vignetting, the screamingly-obvious soft spots? By Holga-graphy standards, you might have screwed the pooch here. ;)


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
Abbazz said:
Maybe you could mount your Holga lens on a Leica M8, turning it into the most expensive crappy camera of the world :D (sorry, couldn't resist :().
Click to expand...

Years ago I mounted a Holga lens on my D1x, which I believe cost $5500 at the time. So I think that beats the M8 current list price.

But I'm pretty sure someone has mounted one to an even more expensive MF digital back by now, which actually makes more sense. As we've seen, it's just not crappy enough on a DX sized sensor. It's really not even crappy enough on a full 35mm frame. I actually have a whole collection of homemade lenses hacked together from magnifying glasses or random optics in an effort to out-holga the holga....

j
 
ORBITALBOX said:
Is that a Canon lens I see there on your post??? I was going to take my Canon 1.8 apart for this subject because of fungus (they cleaned it but you can still see the imprint). I didn't do it because I just don't have the heart. :D
Click to expand...
Well spotted - it's the 35/2.8 - recently traded for an M-Rokkor 40mm f2 - a much superior optic, though the Canon has nice characteristics.
 
On the subject of pinholes, does anyone know what the optimum hole size is?

Too small and you get too much diffraction, too large and there's too much blur - there must be an optimum :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom