[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: mirrorlens.jpg (256 KB, 1214x1500)
256 KB
256 KB JPG
do they deserve the hate?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:10:31 00:50:27
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1214
Image Height1500
>>
File: s-l400.jpg (14 KB, 400x268)
14 KB
14 KB JPG
Got myself a Minolta 250mm F5.6 and it is perfectly usable, sure if you pixel peep it will look like shaite, but it in many situations it doesn't matter. That lens is also extremely compact for what it does so it is a compromise i am willing to live with.
>>
>>4315166
I just picked up the RF Rokker 500mm f8.
So far its pretty cool.
>>
File: IMG_7519-1716109302390.jpg (1.07 MB, 5472x3648)
1.07 MB
1.07 MB JPG
>>4315155
They're aight I guess, I have an Olympus 500mm f8 that I acquired for a reasonable price.

Only gripe is that it's very finicky to focus even with the long throw focusing ring, we're talking about .5 millimeters margin of error. My copy has pretty bad balsam separation but there's some good sharpness especially for a catadioptric.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2024:05:19 17:01:14
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width5472
Image Height3648
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4315155
what are these lenses good at? besides being cheap? I don't think they have a purpose
>>
File: 254_Mak-Cass__72463.jpg (345 KB, 1280x853)
345 KB
345 KB JPG
>>4315502
being able to scale up to stupid sizes for telescopes

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>4315502
Their purpose is having a supertele length in a "compact" size, IQ be damned
>>
File: 120120-F-DW547-024[1].jpg (287 KB, 1800x1113)
287 KB
287 KB JPG
>1500mm f3
>sub 1ft resolution from 160 miles

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width891
Image Height551
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2012:01:20 13:04:32
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1800
Image Height1113
>>
Nikon made one in the pre-AI days called a 500/5 that was actually very good.
>>
>>4315155
What the hell is that in the center of the front element?
>>
>>4319635
Secondary mirror.
>>
File: canvas.png (454 KB, 606x412)
454 KB
454 KB PNG
>>4319671
dslr fags be like:
>mirror? We already have a mirror.
>what about second mirror?
>>
File: 7h24f748p4m94.png (454 KB, 606x412)
454 KB
454 KB PNG
>>4323335
problem?
>>
>>4323335
What about SLR fags, zoomer?
>>
>>4323342
no one cares about millennial hipsters, go watch harry potter you fuck
>>
>>4323345
>every single-lens reflex camera is digital to me because i'm 11
Suck my hairy pooter, fag.
>>
>>4323349
>hipster
>digital
>>
>>4323351
>be such a zoomer that you have literally never typed slr before, just dslr
>call people hipsters because they pointed out how you're a gay virgin
>>
>>4323354
>t. hipster
>>
>>4323357
>too dumb to realise dslrs are slrs and you can just say slr instead of needlessly specifying a particular type of slr
Because you're an idiot and a zoomer.
>>
>>4323362
>t. hipster
>>
File: _DSC5991.jpg (667 KB, 1949x2118)
667 KB
667 KB JPG
Got this little guy today, excellent condition in its box with all accessories for £150. I got it more as a collector's piece (being the only AF mirror lens made) as I already have a faster 500 with IS but if it has reasonable image quality it might actually see some use being so much smaller and lighter.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelDSC-RX100M4
Camera SoftwareDSC-RX100M4 v2.00
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2024:06:11 20:53:29
White Point Chromaticity0.3
Exposure Time1/50 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating5000
Brightness-1.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length16.39 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1949
Image Height2118
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>4323362
What about SLT's???????
sczhequemaute
>>
>>4324111
I've owned a number of mirror lenses and have never liked the image quality. Hoping you post a comparison between the two.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.