The Start of a New Hobby?

Last week I decided that my oldest son Dillon should have something to do this summer and we decided that we should put together our own bike.  Just for the experience and see how hard it would be.  So I picked up an ugly burgundy colored frame with the Orions brand, which i heard was a cheap brand, and a bunch of other bike parts so that we could get started.  The picture below shows the original frame:

Bike frame with yellow rear wheel -- NEX-5 & Olympus OM 24mm f2.8.

Orions is the brand -- NEX-5 & OM 24mm f2.8.

Dillon and I took out the rusted chain, and I removed the paint on the frame.  The frame is made of steel by the way.  The paint removal took almost two days, since I didn't use any tools or chemicals other than a blade.
Once the paint was removed and the frame polished, I sprayed a coat of primer on, and then glossy black paint, follow by a clear coat which makes the paint shiny.

The rear wheel came with a flip-flop hub with both a fixie cog and a single speed freewheel installed.  Unfortunately, I could not get the front wheel in the same yellow color as the rear. Instead, the front wheel is red. But, they don't look too bad together with a black frame.  This is one of the problems buying parts used. Parts don't always come in matching sets.  The crankset, which was originally used on a 10 speed, is used only with the inner chainring.  It would have been nice to get a single speed crankset, but one costs about $60 new, which does not even include the bottom bracket.

Chain, brakes and some misc. stuff came from Mountain Equipment Co-Op.  Today, we finished up the handlebar tapes, and the bike looks pretty good.  I have been riding it to work for the last few days and really enjoy it.  It took far less time than we anticipated.  We are planning to do another for Dillon, as I am keeping this one :)

Finished. Note the ugly crankset -- NEX-5 & OM 35mm f2.  

Why I Want to Try the 1D Mark III Again?

Going to school -- 1D Mark III & EF 135mm f2 @ f2.2, ISO 400. Click for larger.

My original plan, back in 2009, was to buy a 1D III, which was to be my only Canon body for any serious shooting, and a smaller carry everywhere camera (Panasonic G1), plus an IR camera, and I would be set for the next few years.  The 1.3X crop view of the 1D III is close enough to full frame that I was willing to compromise.  Alas, the AF fiasco of the 1D III threw everything off-course, and consequently I went through so many camera bodies in such a short time.

Looking back at the images taken with the 1D III ignites the love side of it in me.  The clarity and noise free (<= ISO 400) images that the T2i, T3i, 7D, 60D, G1, NEX-5 etc, can not match, and it's lighter than the 1D IIn.  So, I am trying this again: 1D III, NEX-5 (and G1), IR 20D and I think I should be good for a couple of years, barring any really good EVIL camera that comes out with compelling features that I must have.  I hope that the 1D III that I am going to get will not give me any problems.  As for full frame, perhaps a used 5D II or a 1Ds II in a couple of years.

Change of Plan

Making phone calls -- NEX-5 & OM 35mm f2. Click for larger.

I have decided not to do any more lens comparisons for the next little while.  I find it extremely boring and tedious. My apologies. If I do decide to do it again, it would be once in a while.

Another change of plan, is the camera upgrades.  I have wanted a 5D II for over a year now, and it looks like the price is not coming down.  I have decided to upgrade my 1D IIn to a 1D III instead.  Looking back at the files I have with the original 1D III I had, I am very happy with the image quality, especially high ISO images.  ISO 3200 looks fantastic and that's probably the highest I would need for most shootings.  I would have kept the 1D III if it were not for the auto focus issues.  I am now looking for one that has a sub-mirror fixed in the factory, or Blue-Dot version of the camera.  Hopefully by the end of the week, I will have a 1D III again.  

Self Portrait

Self Portrait - NEX-5 & Olympus OM 24mm f2.8. Click for larger.

Despite the fact that there is fungus growing in the rear elements, this OM 24mm f2.8 is great. Small in size but not in performance.  Very happy with it, although I would still like to have the fungus cleaned if I could get it done cheaply.

The Fabulous OM 35mm f2

Seeds -- NEX-5 & Olympus OM 35mm f2 @ f2. Click to enlarge.

Adam and I swap our 35mm f2 lenses this week.  My Pentax SMC 35mm f2 for his OM 35mm f2.  Both lenses are in great shape with original articles.  I didn't use the SMC 35mm f2 much, other than at the time when I got it.  It a pretty good lens, even on full frame (used it on my 1Ds), but I always seemed to be using the Leica-R35mm f2.  I also bought a fungus-growing OM 24mm f2.8 from him at the same time, which I briefly used in Niagara Falls yesterday and today, and it sure looked impressive, even with some fungus on the rear elements.  But, that's for later.

When I saw that Adam was looking for swapping his OM 35mm f2 for an Takumar 35mm f2, I wanted to try the OM.  Olympus, like Pentax, made nice, beautifully small and optically excellent lenses.  I had a 100mm f2.8 before, it was sharp as heck.  I wanted to try their wide angle lens.  I am not disappointed with both the 35mm f2 and 24mm f2.8.  Both lenses work fabulously.  I especially like the 35mm.  It's very sharp at f2.  Will update this lens when I use it more.

Falls View Casino - NEX-5 & OM 35mm f2 @ f8.

Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm f1.2 vs Canon FD 55mm f1.2 SSC -- Part I

Today we have the Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm f1.2 and Canon FD 55mm f1.2 SSC.  Both lenses are from about the same era so that they should compare well with each other.  As with the last round, one of the lenses is slightly longer than the other, which help to tell the pictures apart, but just in case, I took a picture of the lens that I was going to take pictures with, so that I know for sure which lens took what pictures.

Again, the pictures are straight out of the camera in jpeg format.  No processing performed.

Bokeh -- NEX-5 & Canon FD 55mm f1.2 @ f1.2. Click for larger.

Bokeh -- NEX-5 & Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm f1.2 @ f1.2. Click for larger.

The f1.2 lenses are super-premium line of lenses for most companies.  It's a show piece of their lens engineering capabilities, so it makes sense that the lenses are built well, and optically excellent.  If you look at Canon, for example, with its EF 50mm f1.4 and EF 50mm f1.2L, you will know what I mean.  The price difference is $450 vs $1885 CND as of June 29, 2011 at Henry's.

Both lenses exhibit quite a bit of CA wide open, although the Minolta shows a bit less.  In truth, taking pictures in the sunny day light at f1.2 is asking for trouble, unless neutral density filters are used.  Well, I didn't use any.  I figured that it's for comparison, both lens would over expose for the same amount anyway.

Center Sharpness compared. Click to see larger.

Both lenses are acceptable wide open, but the Canon is quite a bit sharper with better definition than the Minolta at f1.2.  The sample above, the light changed a bit between lens change and the Canon is a bit more overexposed than the Minolta.  By f4, both lenses are extremely sharp.

Full frame for the crop above.

The edge, if you can call that on the crop sensor, is also VERY good, even at f1.2.  I am sure would be quite a bit worse on full frame.  There is almost no difference between the two at the far edge.

Edge compared at f1.2.

One interesting thing about the comparison is that the colour stands out between the images from the two lenses.  The Canon is quite a bit cooler in colour and the Minolta is warmer. I personally like the Canon colour better, but I am sure some will prefer the Minolta.

A rose by any other name -- NEX-5 & Canon FD 55mm f1.2 @ f1.2

Pink Rose - NEX-5 & Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm f1.2 @ f1.2

There is very little to choose between the two lenses.  Both lenses produce very nice pictures. The advantage goes to the Minolta MC Rokkor if you intend to convert the lens to EF mount.  The Minolta is very easy to do and completely reversible.  I did it with a Jim Buchanan conversion kit.  The Minolta is currently in EOS mount.  The FD lens, on the other hand, need major surgery in order to have it converted to EOS mount.  If you are handy and have tools, you should check out this site.  It in Chinese, but have very good pictures that shows what needs to be done.

Next time, we will look at the low light use of the two lenses, and see how they compare.

An Intermission

Honda Motocycle -- NEX-5 & Pentax-M 40mm f2.8 Pancake.

I was planning to do a comparison  between the Canon FD 55mm f1.2 SSC and the Minolta MC Rokkor 55mm f1.2 today, but I was not able to get out during lunch.  Hopefully tomorrow will be better in terms of timing, so that I can shoot some pictures with the two lenses.  I really want to get some low light shots since these are very fast lenses and I am sure many would like to see them perform side by side in this regard.  But, we have a long holiday weekend this week in Canada, and I plan to take it easy so the lens battle will have to continue next week.

Yummy Pancakes: Carl Zeiss Tessar 45mm f2.8 vs Pentax 40mm f2.8

Today we see two pancakes compared: Contax Carl Zeiss 45mm f2.8 Tessar, and the Pentax 40mm f2.8.  Both lenses are really small thin lenses with similar optical design.  The Zeiss is 5mm longer than the Pentax, which turns out to be perfect, as I don't have to take know of which lens took which picutre.  The Pentax pictures are always wider when taken from the same spot.

All pictures were taken with RAW + JPEG, and all the pictures you see here are jpeg straight out of the camera, without any further processing, just to make sure they are processed identically in-camera.  The Sony jpeg engine is absolutely horrible.

Size comparision: Left - Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.4; middle - Zeiss 45mm f2.8; right - Pentax 40mm f2.8.

So, which one wins?

Both are winners.  The Pentax is a hair sharper than the Zeiss wide open in the center, but the Zeiss seems to have a nicer bokeh, and a tiny bit better at the corners.

Pentax 40mm f2.8 @ f2.8

Carl Zeiss 45mm f2.8 @ f2.8

If you care about edge sharpness, you won't be disappointed with either lens.  It would be like splitting hair to tell the difference, although I would say the Zeiss is ever so slightly better.  It's amazingly good on the far corners wide open, one of the traits of a Tessar design.

Far corner 100% crop -- Pentax wide open @ f2.8

Far corner 100% crop -- Carl Zeiss wide open @ f2.8

I think both lenses cost about the same, but I am still a bit surprised how good the little Pentax pancake is.  Both are worth owning.

bokeh -- Carl Zeiss 45mm f2.8 @ f2.8

bokeh -- Pentax 40mm f2.8 @ f2.8

Note that I didn't post any pictures with apertures smaller than f2.8.  Stopping down the lens improved the sharpness a little, but not as much as you would expect.  Both are very sharp from wide open.  The only draw back is the rather smaller maximum aperture of f2.8.  But hey, you want small size, you have to pay for that with less light coming through the lens.

Let the Battles Begin

Red Bicycle -- NEX-5 & Minolta MC Tele Rokkor 200mm f3.5. Click to see larger.

Something I have often thought about, and meaning to do for a while, but never seems to bring myself to do it.  I am referring to comparing lenses of similar focal lengths.  I know it's a lot of work and really boring to do anything like this; partly that's what puts me off, as I don't really like to do that any more, as I used to do.  But, since I have many lenses of same or similar focal lengths, it really would be nice for others to see the differences, if any, of some of these lenses.

I am not going to shoot walls and test charts and dissect every aspect of the lenses in comparison.  I will shoot the same scene with two different lenses at a time, and possible provide a 100% crop for each.  No tripod will be used, so it will be very unscientific.  Please take the results with a spoonful of salt.

The plan is to do a comparison each day of the week, but it may not happen, depending on circumstances.  This week will be all standard lenses.  Tomorrow will be the battle of the pancakes: Pentax-M 40mm f2.8 vs. Contax Carl Zeiss Tessar 45mm f2.8.  The results may surprise you.

The Pentax-Q

CN Tower from Lakeshore & Cherry St. -- NEX-5 & Leica-R Summicron 35mm f2. Click for larger.

So the rumor has been right, Pentax has introduced a point & shoot sensor interchangeable lens, except that name is Q and not NC-1.  Pentax has always been a little different, but I think this time they have gone a little too far.  When a camera gets too small, it becomes difficult to handle and thus affect the shooting pleasure.  The very small and noisy sensor is the biggest issue for me.  I am all for reasonably small camera/lenses, but not at the expense of image quality.  But, I don't think Pentax targets people like me with this system.

This camera is perfect for the very young people who wants something different than everyone else.  Image quality is secondary.  Cool factor comes first.  Just look at the lenses that got introduced.  Three out of the five lenses are "fun" lenses.  Personally, I think it will sell well to the targeted demographic group, if it lowers the price.  As it is, the camera costs more than entry level M4/3, NEX, and DSLRs.  Even at $500, this camera is still way too expensive.  But, what do I know?  They must have market researched the heck out of this before setting the price.

I am, however, looking forward to their APS-C sensor EVIL camera, to be introduced later this year.  Just hope that it will be unique and have some innovative features, instead of a me-too product.