Strangest lens you've seen on an EOS body?

[drmoreau]

I'm a lens collector. I have tons of old Vivitars, Olympus, Nikon, Rokinon, Yashica, Soligor, Quantaray and other lenses that I use with adapters on my EOS bodies. In fact most of the work that I do for fun I do manual focus with vintage lenses (I usually do my paid work with AF lenses).

Recently I was watching a program called "Film" on the Framed Network, it's all about film photography and one of the guys on the show has an old medium format camera rigged up with the lens from an old WWII bomber's sighting scope.

I was noticing on eBay that there are tons of "video" or "aux" lenses available for only a couple of dollars and they look vintage but I have no earthly clue what kind of mount those things on them. The best I can tell is some kind of screwmount.

I also once saw an article where I guy took an old motion picture lens from around 1900 and adapted it onto an EOS body and the photos looked amazingly antique with nothing more than dropping them to b&w.

What's the strangest lens you've seen put onto an EOS body and any info on how it was done, results, etc?

 

[table1349]

Don't have any strange lenses on EOS bodies. How about an EOS lens on a Hassey body?

This might be of interest though: ACP - Strange combinations

 

[tirediron]

Don't have any strange lenses on EOS bodies. How about an EOS lens on a Hassey body?

This might be of interest though: ACP - Strange combinations

CRUELTY TO HASSELBLAD!!!!!

 

[hamlet]

Don't have any strange lenses on EOS bodies. How about an EOS lens on a Hassey body?



This might be of interest though: ACP - Strange combinations

CRUELTY TO HASSELBLAD!!!!!

Are those cameras that good?

 

[tirediron]

Don't have any strange lenses on EOS bodies. How about an EOS lens on a Hassey body?



This might be of interest though: ACP - Strange combinations

CRUELTY TO HASSELBLAD!!!!!

Are those cameras that good?

No. They're better.

 

[hamlet]

CRUELTY TO HASSELBLAD!!!!!

Are those cameras that good?

No. They're better.

How well does it handle in low light compared to Nikon's and Canon's best cameras?

 

[pixmedic]

Are those cameras that good?

No. They're better.

How well does it handle in low light compared to Nikon's and Canon's best cameras?

those kinds of cameras arent about low light. they are about image quality. mostly studio cameras.
you can get an 80mp digiback for a hassy that is nothing short of amazetastic...i mean, the back is $50k but...
you know...dizamn.

 

[hamlet]

No. They're better.

How well does it handle in low light compared to Nikon's and Canon's best cameras?

those kinds of cameras arent about low light. they are about image quality. mostly studio cameras.
you can get an 80mp digiback for a hassy that is nothing short of amazetastic...i mean, the back is $50k but...
you know...dizamn.

But with the d800 out now, how is such an expensive camera still justifiable? The difference in price is too great.

 

[table1349]

How well does it handle in low light compared to Nikon's and Canon's best cameras?

those kinds of cameras arent about low light. they are about image quality. mostly studio cameras.
you can get an 80mp digiback for a hassy that is nothing short of amazetastic...i mean, the back is $50k but...
you know...dizamn.

But with the d800 out now, how is such an expensive camera still justifiable? The difference in price is too great.

Comparing apples to diamonds.

 

[pixmedic]

How well does it handle in low light compared to Nikon's and Canon's best cameras?

those kinds of cameras arent about low light. they are about image quality. mostly studio cameras.
you can get an 80mp digiback for a hassy that is nothing short of amazetastic...i mean, the back is $50k but...
you know...dizamn.

But with the d800 out now, how is such an expensive camera still justifiable? The difference in price is too great.

its all relative to how much money you have, and how much you want to spend.
a $100k Porsche and $2mil Bugatti will both get you somewhere really fast, but some people still justify the price difference.
craftmanship plays a part as well. if you have never held a hasselblad, its hard to explain.

the average person wont be able to tell the difference in images between a D600 and a D800...but people buy the D800 anyway and spend twice the money.

 

[hamlet]

those kinds of cameras arent about low light. they are about image quality. mostly studio cameras.
you can get an 80mp digiback for a hassy that is nothing short of amazetastic...i mean, the back is $50k but...
you know...dizamn.

But with the d800 out now, how is such an expensive camera still justifiable? The difference in price is too great.

its all relative to how much money you have, and how much you want to spend.
a $100k Porsche and $2mil Bugatti will both get you somewhere really fast, but some people still justify the price difference.
craftmanship plays a part as well. if you have never held a hasselblad, its hard to explain.

the average person wont be able to tell the difference in images between a D600 and a D800...but people buy the D800 anyway and spend twice the money.

I can see the differences in the cars because i know what goes into making them, i just cant see it in these cameras. Here is a video i found where they do a comparison:

 

[pixmedic]

the D800 feels like a toy compared to a hasselblad.
and the hassy will hold its value better.
if you only compare image quality, and nothing else, then you really arent doing a very good comparison.

 

[hamlet]

the D800 feels like a toy compared to a hasselblad.
and the hassy will hold its value better.
if you only compare image quality, and nothing else, then you really arent doing a very good comparison.

To me there could be something to this, but it also feels like you are rating it highly because of the price. These is an article i read about this some time ago: link

 

[pixmedic]

the D800 feels like a toy compared to a hasselblad.
and the hassy will hold its value better.
if you only compare image quality, and nothing else, then you really arent doing a very good comparison.

To me there could be something to this, but it also feels like you are rating it highly because of the price. These is an article i read about this some time ago: link

you have it backwards. its priced like it is because of its ratings.
part of it might be name....but people still buy BMW, Mercedes, and Porsches even though a ford and a chevy will get you where you need to go too.
performance is about diminishing returns...double the price doesnt always mean double the performance. is 10% improvement worth twice the money? to some people it is, so they pay it. same with cars, boats, cameras...you name it.

i can pretty much guarantee one thing tho...if you really want to get down to pixel peeping at max resolution blown up to huge sizes....the hassy with a digiback will win.
those that feel it is worth the money, pay for it.

 

[D-B-J]

But with the d800 out now, how is such an expensive camera still justifiable? The difference in price is too great.

its all relative to how much money you have, and how much you want to spend.
a $100k Porsche and $2mil Bugatti will both get you somewhere really fast, but some people still justify the price difference.
craftmanship plays a part as well. if you have never held a hasselblad, its hard to explain.

the average person wont be able to tell the difference in images between a D600 and a D800...but people buy the D800 anyway and spend twice the money.

I can see the differences in the cars because i know what goes into making them, i just cant see it in these cameras. Here is a video i found where they do a comparison:

Good video. Definitely informative.