/p/ - Photography » Thread #3718344

[43 / 11 / ?]

352KiB, 1500x938, Scanner-Nikkor-ED-and-Minolta-Dimage-scanner-Lensese-Robert-OToole-Photography-names.jpg

How does this make you feel /p/?

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 09:22:57 No.3718344 View View Reply Original Report

This guy butchered a bunch of hard to find dedicated high quality film scanners to use the lenses on a digital camera. How do you feel about that?

https://www.closeuphotography.com/minolta-dimage-scan-elite-5400-lens/

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 09:34:21 No.3718347 Report

Quoted By:

Pretty amazing results. Well done.

>hard to find

You just mean expensive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 09:34:40 No.3718348 Report

Quoted By:

His results are pretty sick actually. Godspeed to him.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 09:37:07 No.3718349 Report

Quoted By:

Mfw how many scanners have been scrapped for this
https://www.closeuphotography.com/scanner-lenses

and there is scanner lens adapters on ebay for these people obsessed with taking closes ups of CPUs

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 09:46:02 No.3718355 Report

Quoted By: >>3719228

>Remember all 3 of these lenses cover a much larger area than the D850 sensor.
https://www.closeuphotography.com/nikon-rayfact-vf-lens-test

If only I could modify a cheap folding 120 camera with a lens like that and be able to focus it. Thatd be interesting.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1592340906242.png, 82KiB, 842x792

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 10:11:12 No.3718387 Report

Quoted By: >>3718394 >>3718999

>>3718344
>Canon MP-E 65 macro lens on an APS-C sensor

The total moronity of this test. Dumb total fucks are using dslr lens on a mirrorless body. All it's shortcomings are from wrong flange distance of the lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 10:21:06 No.3718394 Report

Quoted By: >>3718407 >>3718420

>not using microscope objectives like zeptobars.com
>>3718387
I would think that mount adapters correct for that. Still, he runs it at higher pixel density than it was meant for and discards most of the image circle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 11:02:32 No.3718407 Report

Quoted By: >>3718416

>>3718394
>I would think that mount adapters correct for that.
That's not how it works. Adapter is there so lens can be even used at all on that mount. Corners will be softer than centre, centre will exhibit ca that won't be seen on native mount. Whole 'test' is compromised by using wrong mount for the lens. Not much wrong in adapting a lens, it's shortcomings can be overcome when focus stacking, it's just pointless doing a comparisons.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 11:14:06 No.3718416 Report

Quoted By: >>3718427 >>3718472 >>3718999

>>3718407
You’re an idiot. The lens sits at the same flange distance when adapted. Corner issues and other issues are either inherent to that lens, or because of the sensor stack thickness on digital cameras which film doesn’t have.
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-kolari-ultra-thin-sensor-stack-modification/

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 11:18:23 No.3718420 Report

Quoted By:

>>3718394
https://www.closeuphotography.com/seventeen-dollar-plan-4x-objective

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 11:23:41 No.3718426 Report

Quoted By:

>macro lens looks the same

??

lol thought this was some newfangled shit not been done

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 11:24:06 No.3718427 Report

Quoted By: >>3718436

>>3718416
You obviously don't know what flange distance is. It's distance from rear element of the lens to the sensor. It's the reason that you can only adapt lenses of mounts with larger flange distance to mounts with shorter flange distance. When adapted lenses flange distance will be the same as on native mount, but new mounts sensor stack will be adapted for lenses with shorter flange distance. You will get corner softness, vignetting and even ca problems. It's 101 lens adapting, and main reason why smart people don't do it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 11:41:13 No.3718436 Report

Quoted By: >>3718458

>>3718427
>an SLR lens is made for 40mm flange distance
>your MILC has 20mm flange distance
>your adapter is deliberately made exactly 20mm long
>problemsolved.jpg

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO sy12mm.jpg, 178KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 12:14:56 No.3718458 Report

Quoted By: >>3718472 >>3718903 >>3718921

>>3718436
False. Whole lens design is made for specific flange distance. On larger flange distances fore lens will be curved more than on shorter distances. This element will cause distortions and vignetting when lens is adapted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 13:00:16 No.3718472 Report

Quoted By: >>3718511 >>3718921

>>3718458
>Whole lens design is made for specific flange distance.
And an adapter mounts it at this specific distance from the sensor, by acting as a spacer ring. A long distance lens is mounted at a long distance, as intended.
If anything, I would believe the theory that there are differences in glass thickness on the sensor between Canon and Sony or other petty bullshit like that, which the lens is supposed to account for >>3718416

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO da1.jpg, 816KiB, 2893x2283

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 14:24:55 No.3718511 Report

Quoted By: >>3718516 >>3718520 >>3718839 >>3718903 >>3718921

>>3718472
It does no work like that. Lens schematic is changed for different flange distances. It works the other way as well. Adapting lenses has shortcomings, and few advantages as well. Adapted lenses can be sharper in the centre than on native mount, but vignetting and corner softness will be always more promenent.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 14:32:54 No.3718516 Report

Quoted By: >>3718522

>>3718511
It works exactly like that, you’re a retard. Your pic also illustrates why you’re a retard because you’re comparing two different lenses. The bottom lens has the exact same “issue” on a dSLR as it does on mirrorless, as it is mounted at the same distance regardless of the camera it’s used on. Your pic is also allegedly illustrating the difference of exit angle from the rear lens element. They’re saying the MFT has a shallower exit angle with the same size rear lens element because the sensor is smaller, the pic is trying to argue an MFT benefit. Also sensors have micro lenses these days as well.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO adaptedlens.jpg, 649KiB, 2893x2283

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 14:38:48 No.3718520 Report

Quoted By: >>3718921

>>3718511
Pic related

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO west_end5033-XLs.jpg, 159KiB, 1196x2111

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 14:45:59 No.3718522 Report

Quoted By: >>3718524 >>3718688 >>3718921

>>3718516
Acting like spoiled toddler and throwing curses while trying to argue is not helping your argument.

Diagram shows low flange distance mirrorless lens design as opposed of large flange distance dslr design. The important part for our discussion are corners. When you fit dslr lens on mirrorless body light will come at it at an angle it's not optimal for.

If you ever adapted a lens you'd recognise this shortcoming immediately. People modify sensor stacks or use speedboosters to get around it. But it definitely exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 14:48:29 No.3718524 Report

Quoted By: >>3718531

>>3718522
>wahh, this problem that definitely happens with wide angled lenses on mirrorless

Can you explain why wide and ultrawide lenses improved drastically on mirrorless compared to DSLR then?

LOLOLOLOL retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 14:50:40 No.3718526 Report

Quoted By: >>3718540

OP those dimage scanners are like $500 please.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 14:59:35 No.3718531 Report

Quoted By: >>3718539

>>3718524
Those are different lenses you dumbass, not the exact same lens on a dSLR then adapted to mirrorless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 15:05:29 No.3718539 Report

Quoted By: >>3718541

>>3718531
This. Also, you don't want to adapt ultrawide to mirrorless, like ever. It's stupid. Really really stupid. Little native Samyang 12mm will outperform the best ultra wide dslr when adapted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 15:11:15 No.3718540 Report

Quoted By: >>3718542

>>3718526
And he’s also recommending that you buy broken, for-parts-only scanners. He isn’t telling you to go buy all the cream puffs and rip them apart.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 15:11:23 No.3718541 Report

Quoted By:

>>3718539
This might be an exception here
https://www.edmundoptics.com.au/p/14mm-fl-wide-angle-large-format-f-mount-lenses/42595/

Its a machine vision lens, made to cover FF and in Nikon F mount.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 15:12:34 No.3718542 Report

Quoted By:

>>3718540
OP post is super low quality bait to try and rustle film shooters.

>implying all my scans arent done on a frontier kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 19:41:55 No.3718688 Report

Quoted By: >>3718691 >>3718708

>>3718522
I take a 65mm EF mount lens, made for 44mm flange distance.
I mount it on EF-S with 44mm flange distance and a crop sensor, is there a problem with the corners or not and why?
I mount it on EF-M with 18mm flange distance extended to 44mm by a 26mm tube. Same lens, same sensor and subject distance, same crop - is there a problem or not and why?

People modify sensors stacks because, apparently, sensor stacks differ between manufacturers. That much I can believe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 19:46:52 No.3718691 Report

Quoted By:

>>3718688
The kolari ultra thin filter is made to make film lenses not designed to account for a thick stack sharp, especially in the corners. A lot of lenses that are crap in the corners might be good on film in the corners.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 19:52:49 No.3718692 Report

Quoted By:

>>3718344
What do I care about some dude cannibalising broken scanners from 2005 to use their lenses for meme macro photography?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 20:11:09 No.3718708 Report

Quoted By:

>>3718688
Canon gimps their apsc dslr sensors since forever. What bodies are you comparing?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Minolta-DiMAGE-Scan-Elite-5400-S (...).jpg, 208KiB, 1500x938

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 21:37:26 No.3718739 Report

Quoted By: >>3718749 >>3718778 >>3718782 >>3718784 >>3718786

off topic
can i build a laowa probe lens with something like this setup? I don't want to spend 2k on a lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 22:03:08 No.3718749 Report

Quoted By:

>>3718739
Try and post results

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 23:15:39 No.3718778 Report

Quoted By:

>>3718739
Nope. These aren't wide lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 23:25:45 No.3718782 Report

Quoted By:

>>3718739
Are you going to film it going inside your anus?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 493BFE26-3253-4DFF-99F2-66E10408 (...).jpg, 17KiB, 680x441

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 23:27:57 No.3718784 Report

Quoted By:

>>3718739
I don’t think so bro, I was gonna say try a infinite microscope objective mounted way in front of another lens, or a reverse wide angle mounted way in front of another lens but look at pic related, it’s not some random shit slapped together

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 31 Aug 2020 23:30:26 No.3718786 Report

Quoted By:

>>3718739
I will by you one of you can correctly guess my name. You have 3 guesses and 2 hints.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO FourThirds_is_Smaller01.jpg, 167KiB, 600x450

Anonymous Tue 01 Sep 2020 01:09:51 No.3718839 Report

Quoted By:

>>3718511
>In the year two thousand and twenty of our Lord
>Still believing 4/3 FUD

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 09-07-46-046.jpg, 244KiB, 1500x938

Anonymous Tue 01 Sep 2020 02:08:21 No.3718870 Report

Quoted By:

Zoink

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ultron-scene-1-lat-f1-7-far-m9-v (...).jpg, 502KiB, 1239x893

Anonymous Tue 01 Sep 2020 03:39:58 No.3718903 Report

Quoted By: >>3718921 >>3719128

>>3718458
>>3718511
am i missing something to what he is saying or is he just retarded?

The optical path of light from scene to sensor is going to be identical among native lenses and the ones using this type of adapter.

I agree that it may be an easier optical problem to design a lens with a shorter flange distance, but I don't think that is waht you are saying???

also i still dont understand why pic related happens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Sep 2020 04:11:21 No.3718921 Report

Quoted By: >>3718999

>>3718903 >>3718458 >>3718472 >>3718511 >>3718520 >>3718522
guys he's actually correct, just shit at explaining it (or correct for the wrong reasons). i wrote an explanation here in response to another guy >>3718917

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Sep 2020 08:33:27 No.3718999 Report

Quoted By:

>>3718921
Yeah, but he originally insisted that an EF mount 65mm macro cannot work right when adapted to Sony >>3718387
That's not a wide angle lens nor one designed for a film rangefinder.
Others already explained the problem with sensor filters >>3718416 but he just kept ranting about flange distance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Sep 2020 17:01:52 No.3719128 Report

Quoted By:

>>3718903
>i still dont understand why pic related happens.
That's completely different discussion.

The one here is about comparing scan lenses with macro lens faultily adapted to mirrorless body.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Sep 2020 19:18:27 No.3719228 Report

Quoted By:

>>3718355
Creating a lens board to fit on a MF Super Technika or Horseman shouldn't be that hard. And you could focus using a ground glass plate.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

How does this make you feel /p/?