Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,915   Posts: 1,556,363   Online: 1047
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 51
  1. #31
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by guitstik View Post
    Why oh why? I have never understood the desire to modify something like a lens when bodies are so cheap and plentiful.
    Simply to wed the lens with the capabilities of the body. Why not?

    I have a similar inability to understand why people don't experiment more in this sort of way. Long live experimental photography!
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  2. #32
    dhosten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    77
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    Simply to wed the lens with the capabilities of the body. Why not?

    I have a similar inability to understand why people don't experiment more in this sort of way. Long live experimental photography!
    I think you are confusing photography with machining. Experimental photography is about new ways of taking photographs. This is not a new way, because both body and lens existed previous to any hacking and were capable in their own way. What this is, is a desire by someone fascinated with taking things apart and putting them back together in new ways, trying to find a validation for an exercise in machining. And if it is considered experimental photography for a Pentax lens to be used on a Nikon body, then anyone with a lens adapter who mounts XYZ lens to some 2/3 digicam is also performing experimental photography.. which of course they are not. It can hardly be experimental when everyone and their cat is doing something extremely similar.

  3. #33
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by dhosten View Post
    I think you are confusing photography with machining.
    Not at all.

    Experimental photography is about new ways of taking photographs.
    Yes, it is. And if we all used the same tools to do it....

    The history of photography is one nutty experiment after another. People asking, what if I do this or that.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  4. #34
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,678
    I agree with dhosten.
    It's not like adapting the lens changes the result in any way. It's still a 35mm SLR lens on a 35mm SLR, making an identical image on 35mm film either way. The picture will be the same. I don't think that's experimental photography- it's just equipment modification. The result is no different than when I put a screw-mount Takumar on a K-mount Pentax using the adapter Pentax sells. If I used the adapter on a K-mount Ricoh it wouldn't be experimental photography either, any more than if I put the lens on a screw-mount Ricoh. Or Fujica.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  5. #35
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    My point is that whatever this person is doing is bringing new capabilities / experiences. It's certainly not going to yield an 'identical' photograph: different bodies and lenses have different capabilities. If nothing else, the experience of doing this will affect how the gear is used.

    If you don't realize that there's value in such endeavours, then there's nothing I can do for you, sorry. I and friends have done a lot of mods that completely changed our way of taking photographs.... MF lenses on smaller bodies, smaller lenses on LF bodies, wrong-sized film fed into various cameras, deliberately cross-developed nonsense, pinhole this and that, cheap plastic lenses on expensive cameras, crazy adapters, duct tape on a can, you name it. Not only is it fun but it is experimental... if I knew a priori what I were going to get, or how it would affect my shooting, I probably wouldn't be interested in it in the first place. That's what experimentation is. I didn't know what I would get when I put an rz 110/2.8 on an rb, or when I dremeled out the innards of an rb back to get a larger image. Surprise! I got a lot out of it. I could go on and on....

    People who think it's silly to attach A to B are entitled to that opinion, but they should simply shake their heads and go away and use their own cameras to take their own images! It's not about what you think should or shouldn't be done. Just go on and do your own thing! Sheeze, this idea that somebody's logic should dictate what somebody else does, creatively...

    As for the definition of 'experimental photography', that seems like a very good topic for another thread. No reason to turn this into a debate over something I said, off the cuff! This thread isn't about my opinion or yours. I'd be very happy to discuss experimentalism elsewhere...
    Last edited by keithwms; 01-02-2012 at 02:02 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  6. #36
    declark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    So. Cal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    243
    Images
    79
    To paraphrase Jerry McGuire... "You had me at adapter...".

    Keith thanks for defending the creativity of modding a lens, but to be honest, I don't even consider it that creative.

    As much as I like to machine things, I'd much rather spend 8 bucks for an adapter and preserve the value of the lens.

  7. #37
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Well then, show us how it works out!
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    148
    There is no reason why you can't take off the rear flange of the lens and replace it with a Nikon flange, making the appropriate adjustments of course. I don't see why this is such a big deal to people. I would suggest a 1.4 Pentax-M lens. Cheap as chips.

  9. #39
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,330
    Images
    148
    It's an interesting idea but it throws up some conundrums.

    First why not use a Takumar lens with a far more ergo-dynamic Pentax body, the F3 is an awful beast of a camera.

    If you want a lens with more bokeh (a term only used in the US) then wasn't there a Russian Nikon copy, I seem to remember on sale in the late 80's early 90's, my Helios lens in the 70's was a superb performer very sharp etc.

    Go look for a Russsian Nikon mount standard lens.

    Ian

  10. #40
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    My point is that whatever this person is doing is bringing new capabilities / experiences. It's certainly not going to yield an 'identical' photograph: different bodies and lenses have different capabilities.
    What? It's the lens projecting an image through a 24x36mm opening onto film. There's a shutter in between. How will that change the image?

    If nothing else, the experience of doing this will affect how the gear is used.
    True that.

    If you don't realize that there's value in such endeavours, then there's nothing I can do for you, sorry. I and friends have done a lot of mods that completely changed our way of taking photographs.... MF lenses on smaller bodies, smaller lenses on LF bodies, wrong-sized film fed into various cameras, deliberately cross-developed nonsense, pinhole this and that, cheap plastic lenses on expensive cameras, crazy adapters, duct tape on a can, you name it. Not only is it fun but it is experimental... if I knew a priori what I were going to get, or how it would affect my shooting, I probably wouldn't be interested in it in the first place. That's what experimentation is. I didn't know what I would get when I put an rz 110/2.8 on an rb, or when I dremeled out the innards of an rb back to get a larger image. Surprise! I got a lot out of it. I could go on and on....

    My criticism is specific to this idea. Please don't expand what I said to every modification. I didn't say that, nor mean to imply it.
    I think it's great for people to play around with different ways to create an image. I think it's fun to use medium format lenses on 35mm bodies, especially the ad hoc "toilet plunger tilt-shift" sort of stuff. I have enjoyed using 35mm format macro lenses on MF cameras. All good fun. The examples you give don't equate to the idea I criticized- as you say, "if I knew a priori, ... I probably wouldn't be interested in it in the first place". Right! I can tell you that if successful, the most that will be achieved is the same as fitting the lens to any of several common and inexpensive bodies, which will take it without modification, many of which will retain full function.


    People who think it's silly to attach A to B are entitled to that opinion, but they should simply shake their heads and go away and use their own cameras to take their own images! It's not about what you think should or shouldn't be done. Just go on and do your own thing! Sheeze, this idea that somebody's logic should dictate what somebody else does, creatively...
    Look at the thread title-there's a question mark. A solicitation of opinions, I'd call that. I don't think the idea is silly-I think it's unproductive, limits function once adapted and is needlessly destructive given the rationale for doing it. I was a machinist for many years, and am very familiar with the value and outright fun of doing modifications and building specialized stuff.

    As for the definition of 'experimental photography', that seems like a very good topic for another thread. No reason to turn this into a debate over something I said, off the cuff! This thread isn't about my opinion or yours. I'd be very happy to discuss experimentalism elsewhere...
    Okay.
    Last edited by lxdude; 01-02-2012 at 09:43 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin