"Voigtlander" 25/.95 Real or Not?

"Voigtlander" 25/.95 Real or Not?

  • Yes, a new innovative lens from Mr. K!

    Votes: 86 81.9%

  • NO WAY! A photoshop fake!

    Votes: 19 18.1%
  • Total voters
    105
  • Poll closed .
Hexar RF

Hexar RF

Keith, there is the Hexar RF R72 or something like that, only 50 or 100 made, but that would use standard M lenses on half frame.

Cosina should make 1/2 frame retrofit kits for full frame film bodies so folks can get more exposures per roll of film.

Keith said:
Whoops ... there goes my math credibility! 😱

Thanks Roger! 😛


kind of obvious actually .. and I have a half frame camera!

Doh!
Click to expand...
 
Light gathered into an area on the sensor determines exposure. Do you know what a saturated pixel is? That was relevent to the discussion at hand, and is what I meant. "Light Gathering Power" as used by a telescope maker is not important to most of the photographers on RFF, and I doubt many people will buy the Nokton for that purpose.

This is much like "do you mean don't eat the blue berries or the blueberries?"

BS-O-Meter... Is that a BS meter or a BS Meter? How am I doing...
 
Last edited:
Makten said:
Please explain how the sensor does affect the light gathering capability of the lens. This is going to be very interesting. 😀
Click to expand...


I have done an experiment.

I have a Nikon D300, EP1, G1, and and Epson RD-1, a Mamiya ZD, a light meter.

When you take a meter, measure the ambient, or use it to measure flash, I have done both; within a bit of latitude, when lenses are sent to the same aperture, ISO on the sensors is set the same, and shutter speed is set the same, the image is exposed the same. While I have not done it with a full sense of rigor, the results hold in practice.

I also shoot a 4x5 with both film and FujiRoid film, and MF format film. I do this in the studio with flash all the time. The ISO of my film and base iso of may sensors is all over the place. I keep the light the same, and only vary the aperture my exposure comes out right as long as I set the F stop to match the ISO ( I have been know to mess up the conversions, but that is a different story )

I'm not going to say equal, because they are not indeed equal, but for all practical purposes, they are the same. If there is enough force of voice out there, I'd be happy to run the experiment with a little more vigor.

Exposure has nothing to do with sensor size/sensitivity ( once calibrated ) is my practical conclusion. I would surely see it in 4X5 film vs APS-c digital, and I don't. ISO is a standard, and more or less, the manufactures calibrate to it.

In addition, maximum or minimum lens aperture made any difference, I would see differences between my F1.2 Nikon and my F5.6 Schnieder, and I found no difference in exposure. When set to the same value.

Of course DOF is a whole different kettle of fish.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Pablito said:
Really? I find it normal.
Click to expand...
Isn't it sad that it's normal?

djonesii said:
Exposure has nothing to do with sensor size/sensitivity ( once calibrated ) is my practical conclusion.
Click to expand...
I've never said anything about exposure. We (at least I) were talking about "light gathering power" of a lens. If the lens sits on a larger sensor, that power is of course larger (if the image circle allows full coverage) since it gathers more light onto the medium, totally. Which means that your image can (with equal sensor technology) have much higher IQ with a larger sensor at the same f-stop as with a smaller sensor.

A four times larger sensor permits a four times (two stops) lower exposure with equal results (again, if the sensor technology is equal). DOF will then also be equal. This means that exposure and ISO-speed is irrelevant for a comparsion if the area is neglected.
Now, the sensor technology of different systems are seldom equal. But that doesn't change the properties of the lens. And as far as I know, this topic is about a lens. 🙂

I hope that BS-meter is turned off by now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No. BS Meter still running full blast. Just because a sensor is physically larger than another one, the exposure does not change. My hand held exposure meter does not fold in the size of the negative or the size of the sensor. Of course, the problem could be that your definition of "Equal" is different from the exposure meter. But you have not explained it adequately, so everyone's BS meters are running full-blast.
 
jsrockit said:
Yeah, how about that lens? Anybody going to buy it?
Click to expand...

Nope, no MFT camera to put it on, but kudos to Mr. K for putting it on the market. Great move for a great company! I'm very happy with my CV lenses and am glad to see they are doing the right things to keep their business going. That way I can buy more rangefinder lenses in the future, and if and when I bite the EVIL bullet I'll also look into CV products.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
No. BS Meter still running full blast. Just because a sensor is physically larger than another one, the exposure does not change.
Click to expand...
I'm still not talking about exposure. Why are you talking about exposure? 😕

Of course, the problem could be that your definition of "Equal" is different from the exposure meter.
Click to expand...
The exposure meter doesn't define equality.

But you have not explained it adequately, so everyone's BS meters are running full-blast.
Click to expand...
Must be because you don't read what I write. Let's take it again:

Equivalence is when the two formats has gathered the same amount of light. This does NOT occur at the same f-stop or the same exposure.

------------------------------

By the way, if I still had my EP-1 I might have thought about buying the lens. I mean, a 50/1.9 equivalent would be quite nice!
 
computer says no.







why was I reading all this anyway?
Makten, write a pm if you wish to continue this, I think you're the only one who still really cares about this discussion. 25mm 0.95 is a 25mm 0.95 no matter what format or how many kiloprotons it eats per mile.
 
I probably should pose this question in another thread, but since we are so far off topic...

I know almost nothing about the MFT format and what little I do know has not convinced me to invest in it. There was a lot of commotion when the Olympus Pen was introduced but from my brief research the results were less than impressive. And I am not keen on trying to focus on a LCD screen.

But I am gathering times have changed... sensors have improved along with focusing systems. And now there is the Sony NEX series that are 'EVIL' as well.

This lens has made me take a sideways look at MFT, but in practice, is MFT really a format that can yield results that will compare favourably with 35mm film... and do EVIL cameras handle intuitively and easily on the street...

A question for Brian... would any of the EVIL cameras be useful for lens hacking with a the appropriate adapter for checking focus and collimation?
 
P. Lynn Miller said:
A question for Brian... would any of the EVIL cameras be useful for lens hacking with a the appropriate adapter for checking focus and collimation?
Click to expand...

I have not done much in the way of hacking lenses for my EP2's yet, but mostly use the hacked lenses for the Leica's on them.

Currently I am looking at hacking a fast wide-angle lens onto the EP2, and have bought a couple of C-Mount and instrument lenses. $10 gets you a Century Optics 13mm F1.5, made for some aerial recon camera. Just arrived this week. It is also much easier to hack the lens from a dead fixed-lens RF onto it: get a focus mount that can get full range, no need to worry about RF coupling.

On focusing with the EVF of the EP2: I have no trouble using the Nikkor 5cm F1.4 at 18" with it, or the Nikkor 8.5cm F2 at 3ft. The EVF is amazing.

The Pool was great. Blast the hot tub to "lobster boil", jump from it to the well-water fed pool. Requires a few glasses of Capri Sun mixed with wine, no respect for the pouch. "Close to the Edge", Yes, top volume. Living on 5 acres in the woods has advantages. And the light gathering power of the 44ft swimming pool is greater than any telescope objective ever made.
 
Last edited:
Is it reasonable to assume that by joining the consortium, that this lens will have an electrical contact so that manual focus magnified view will be enabled just by turning the focus ring, as it does on Oly and Pana micro 4/3 lenses in MF mode?
 
digitalintrigue said:
Is it reasonable to assume that by joining the consortium, that this lens will have an electrical contact so that manual focus magnified view will be enabled just by turning the focus ring, as it does on Oly and Pana micro 4/3 lenses in MF mode?
Click to expand...

I hope that's the case. If so, there will be more chance of OVF + Focus indicator camera in the future. 🙂
 
P. Lynn Miller said:
I shoot plenty of digital but the smallest sensor that I find will deliver an image that is comparable to 35mm film is the DX sized sensor.
Click to expand...

Comparable in what way? I printed files from a Ricoh GRD III and results were impressive, much sharper than 35mm film scans from a Coolscan V.

In terms of focal lengths and field of view only "full frame" matches 35mm film but as soon as you start thinking out of the box a whole world of possibilities open up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom