The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Shooting with 50's on G1--Share Your Pics!

R

Ranger 9

Guest
The Temple of Emily Jo

And now for something completely different -- not to mention quite a bit blurrier -- using my M-converted Canon 50mm f/0.95 just a couple of hours ago. Shooting with this lens at full aperture is always a gamble, but I love the way it obliterates the negative space in a picture:

 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Another slice of ballet life

And another very thin slice of ballet life at f/0.95 from earlier this afternoon. If you've ever wondered what professional dance runs on, here's the answer: Wheat Thins and adhesive tape!

 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Clumpy Mascara

I have to admit that the Canon 50/0.95 is capable of better than I usually give it a chance to deliver... and to demonstrate, here's a Lightroom pixel-peep for those so inclined:

 

wjlapier

Member
Re: Clumpy Mascara

I have to admit that the Canon 50/0.95 is capable of better than I usually give it a chance to deliver... and to demonstrate, here's a Lightroom pixel-peep for those so inclined:

I've seen plenty of pictures and recently from Stephen who has this lens. It's capable of sharp images at .95. I have it too but not modified yet! But I agree, too often folks who didn't think it could deliver couldn't nail the thin dof. I've used it on the Canon 7 and it's tough, but can be done.

I like the first one alot. Fooled me at first as all I saw was the window before I scrolled down.
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Re: Clumpy Mascara

I like the first one alot. Fooled me at first as all I saw was the window before I scrolled down.
That's the Internet's way of telling you that it's time to buy a bigger monitor...

...and it's probably the Internet's way of telling me that 800 pixels is too much height for the average viewer's screen. That's the trouble with shooting verticals -- if you size them to be sure they'll fit on a small monitor, they look very insignificant on a large one. This one is 460 px:


Is there any consensus on a good compromise vertical size?
 
Last edited:

f6cvalkyrie

Well-known member
Beautiful weather around Brussels, today, so time for a photowalk.
My Nikon 50/1.4 was on the G1 all the time.
I tried my best to play with selective sharpness, and I hope you like :eek:










Have a nice day,
Rafael
 

Jonas

Active member
Re: The Temple of Emily Jo

using my M-converted Canon 50mm f/0.95
That's a nice image to my eyes. Maybe I should hunt for one of those big, bulky but sexy lenses...

800 pixels on the height must be OK. If the image doesn't show up completely one should try kiosk mode (press F11 and see if it helps) or check the resolution or buy a new monitor. In my humble opinion only of course.

EDIT: Sorry for the lame question: I would like to ask about good places to convert these lenses to M-mount, and do they really need to get converted when used with a G1? (I'll check the archives for the later question.)

Cheers, /Jonas
 
Last edited:

wjlapier

Member
Re: Vertical Size

Sod 'em, it's too beautiful an image, may they scroll I say.
I agree. 800 on the long side no matter the orientation. I used to do 900, but that was when I was on a desktop with big monitor.

Keep em big as possible.

Sod'em. I'll have to remember that one!
 

HansenTsang

New member
Went out and played around this morning. I really like the Nikkor 55 mm f2.8. It is so easy to manual focus!
 
Last edited:

Amin

Active member
Mingjai,

I like this photo a lot! Great action and expression on the dogs, and I like that you kept enough DOF to see the expression of the woman in the background.


This was with a Canon FD(n) 50mm f/1.4, at f/5.6 or so. I prefocused and then called the dogs to run across the frozen Minnesota pond.

 

Diane B

New member
Another 50. FD 50 f/1.8 with Cameraquest adaptor and Fd 12mm extension tube. Hard rain since Friday but at a break I went out and shot a bit--cabin fever LOL


Diane
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Re: The Temple of Emily Jo

EDIT: Sorry for the lame question: I would like to ask about good places to convert these lenses to M-mount, and do they really need to get converted when used with a G1? (I'll check the archives for the later question.)
Glad you liked the image. Re the conversion question, it's a little confusing because this lens was sold both in a photo version (which has a rangefinder coupling cam) and a TV version (which doesn't, although apparently some rangefinder-coupled ones got a "TV" placard stuck on them and were sold for TV use; mine is like this.)

If I understand all the ins and outs correctly, both versions of the lens have a special breech mount that is NOT compatible with Leica M, Leica threadmount, or in fact any 35mm cameras except the Canon 7 and 7s, which had a matching external mount around their regular thread mount.

The TV versions were sold with a special rear "cap" which fitted the breech-lock flange and also functioned as a C-mount adapter. TV versions of the lens are often found with this cap/adapter, but check before buying as sometimes they go astray.

The photo version did not come with this cap/adapter -- but (if I understand correctly) if you can find the cap/adapter separately, you can put it on the photo version and then it will work on a C-mount.

Now, one thing I don't know about this option is whether either C-mount version will fit on the C-mount adapters that are available for the G1! These adapters are recessed into the lens mount, and because of that there are usually mechanical limitations on the diameter of lens that will fit. The 50/0.95 is a very fat lens, and I don't know if it will work on any extant C-mount adapter. Maybe someone else here does.

What I do know will work is to have the lens converted to Leica M mount, and then using it on the G1 via an M>µ4/3 adapter. That's how I use mine. There are various places that do the conversion; I'd have to look up the name of the tech who did mine, and I don't know how it compares to others, so I won't make a recommendation right now. Maybe others have some authoritative info.

Generally the process requires removing the Canon breech-lock flange and drilling holes in the lens to mount a Leica-type M bayonet (I supplied a donor screw-to-bayonet adapter to provide the mount for my conversion) so it's NOT totally reversible if you later decide you'd rather put your lens back into Canon 7 trim.

A point to consider: The main reason for having these lenses converted is that the Canon is about the only f/1-class lens that can be used on an M-mount camera and that isn't ridiculously expensive (as opposed to, say, the new Noctilux 50/0.95 at $10,000 a pop.)

However, since the G1 can also accept C-mount lenses, and there seem to be quite a few of these with maximum apertures in the f/1 range, you may also have other ultra-speed options to consider that do NOT require a non-reversible conversion!
 

Jonas

Active member
Re: The Temple of Emily Jo

Glad you liked the image. Re the conversion question, it's a little confusing because this lens (...)
A point to consider: (...) there seem to be quite a few of these with maximum apertures in the f/1 range, you may also have other ultra-speed options to consider that do NOT require a non-reversible conversion!
Hi, thank you for the detailed reply, appreciated!

After having checked some options and details in different forum archives I think I'll try to find a not too expensive Canon 50/0.95 and have it converted. It won't fit the G1 by just screwing it to the C-mount adapter.

Prices seem to vary a bit (from expensive to very expensive) but I'm not in any hurry.

Thanks again, /Jonas
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Now that you've decided to take that route, a good point to keep in mind is that the TV versions (without rangefinder coupling cam) still seem to be somewhat less expensive, since they can't be used on a Leica, Bessa or Epson (unless someone adds a cam, which is touchy.) But they would still convert exactly the same way and would work just fine on a G1. Good luck and good hunting!
 
M

Michael James

Guest
I'm brand new here. Actually I've never even looked at 4/3rds until I saw the recent announcement of the GH1.

How are you all getting those Nikkors on the G1?
 
Top