Has the Noflexar 35/3.5 fever broken?

[Andrea B.]

[OFF TOPIC]

DSLRs are not on the way out, BTW.

There are still too many things that cannot be done with mirrorless. (Ask me, I've tried. And tried.)

Peaking and EVFs are, at best, a mixed blessing for UV work. (Ask me again. I've tried and tried and tried with that A7R which I now officially hate.)

 

What we are currently seeing is that ALL camera sales are down. No surprise. Everybody has the digicam they want now whether it is mirrorless or dSLR. And everybody else is simply using their cell cam. (Me too.)

 

I want a digital Rolleiflex. :D :D :D

[OFF TOPIC/]

[igoriginal]

UV photography occupies a somewhat lonely little corner of the photographic arts arena because, generally speaking, it is very geeky/techie and not very pretty and not particularly easy. (Those factors naturally make UV photography appealing to me and some of you all here!) Thus many people try UV photography for a while but become soon bored with it. They then sell off some of the excess UV gear they have collected. So you see these market fluctuations in UV-capable lenses over the years.

 

 

The Noflexar price went up a bit during the early years of the UVIR boards on Fotozones because it was (and still is) a very versatile, useful lens which was often talked about there. Those UVIR boards have had no activity for a few years. And in general there seems to currently be a downward slope in UV photograpy interest so I'm not surprised that the Noflexar price has dropped on Ebay.

 

Yes, of course, there is a lot to be said for "web chatter." It tends to generate excitement and drive popular sentiment (hype), regardless of whether or not there is concrete substantiation behind the pumping of the item.

 

The same thing happened with the El-Nikkor 63mm F/3.5 enlarging lens, not too long ago. A few people threw out a wild claim that this was "the best" enlarging lens for UV photography, and it caught on like a wildfire. Turns out, years down the line (after this lens was formally tested against other El-Nikkor lenses), that was not the best enlarging lens for UV photography. In fact, it isn't even the most UV-transmissive among the El-Nikkor line-up. Turns out, the El-Nikkor 80mm F/5.6 has the deepest UV transmission as well as the minimal level of focus-shift, thus easily outperforming the much-hyped El-Nikkor 63mm F/3.5.

 

(Now, I hope that by me mentioning this, we do not suddenly see a price hike in the El-Nikkor 80. Haha.)

 

There may be some contribution to the pricing of UV-capable lenses from the various other factors mentioned above, but our observations here at UVP tend to support the factor based on fluctuating interest in UV photography.

 

On a personal note, I still love the Noflexar for its all-in-one-ness. Shoot wide, near, close (or closer) all with one nifty rock-solid little lens. Other lenses may be sharper, other lenses may have better correction, but the Noflexar can be summed up in one word: useful. I think I'm currently down to 3. One native F-mount, one native M42 Pentax screw-mount and one converted from an ?-mount to an F-mount.

 

Useful, of course. This part, I am not downplaying. But I believe that the original point of Bill De Jager's post was that the crazy price-gouging phenomenon seems to now be in decline, probably in part because many more useful lenses are being discovered - and for a fraction of the cost.

 

Also, I am not discounting the overall fluctuating trend in UV-photography interest. However, I should point out that we've seen other short-term downtrends in UV-photography interest, and yet the Noflexar generally remained highly inflated even through those waning periods of interest. Thus, my proposal that UV-photography interest is not the biggest factor for this recent downtrend in price, but rather a growing number of alternate lens selections for more reasonable prices.

[igoriginal]

[OFF TOPIC]

DSLRs are not on the way out, BTW.

There are still too many things that cannot be done with mirrorless. (Ask me, I've tried. And tried.)

Peaking and EVFs are, at best, a mixed blessing for UV work. (Ask me again. I've tried and tried and tried with that A7R which I now officially hate.)

 

What we are currently seeing is that ALL camera sales are down. No surprise. Everybody has the digicam they want now whether it is mirrorless or dSLR. And everybody else is simply using their cell cam. (Me too.)

 

I want a digital Rolleiflex. :D :D :D

[OFF TOPIC/]

 

 

I never asserted that the mirror itself will become completely extinct, within the greater scope of photography (which includes continued fan-following of film bodies and film processing). When I said - "go the way of the dinosaur" - I meant that it will eventually become part of a minority/niche, just as film will never become extinct but it is now an outlier with far less market support, compared to the mainstream support it used to enjoy.

 

However, within the greater part of the digital world, my observation (and prediction) is that it is indeed standing on its last leg as far as mainstream use. Wait another decade, and you will see this come to pass. (Again, it is an assertion of mine, but I could also very well be proven wrong. Or perhaps yet another type of technology will eventually appear, that will make both - the optical viewfinder and the EVF tech irrelevant.)

 

You say that "there are still too many things that cannot be done with mirrorless", but what I have learned about newly-emerging technology is to never assume what its ultimate potential is, based on the limited hindsight of today.

 

Or, to quote a retired friend of mine (Stanley Beck), who has been in the photography business (as well as an electronics major) for the greater part of his entire life:

 

"As a child, I was always fascinated with Dick Tracy’s [fictional at the time] two-way radio wrist watch. As a young adult, teaching electronics in the early 1960’s, I declared that such a device was impossible because the size of vacuum tubes were too big to fit into a watch.

 

Several errors on my part. First, I was thinking only in the refinement of existing technology, and not considering the introduction of new technology; Second, I assumed that technological advancement progressed at a linear rate. Wrong. It accelerates at an exponential rate. I am no longer inclined to use the term 'never.'

 

What I've learned about technology: Never assume what can or cannot be done with the newer-emerging technology, based on the limitations of today, because hindsight is 20/20."

 

Overall, my assertion is that as EVF tech only continues to evolve, there will eventually come a time to no longer hold on to that noisy, vibrating, flapping, additional part within a digital body (which inevitably only holds it back from its greater potential).

 

Now, will the mirror completely disappear from the entire camera world? Well, of course not. Sentimentality and nostalgia also plays a role in enthusiast market trends, however niche areas that they are. After all, some people are also still photographing with wooden box cameras, using wet plates, pulling curtains over their heads, and also exploding phosphorous flashes. Not because there aren't better ways to photograph, but because they want to do it that way, irrespective of whatever else is around to make their photography more efficient or productive.

 

It's the same reason that some people still purchase, restore, and collect antique cars, even though their functionality is largely inefficient and obsolete based on what is available today.

 

At any rate, yeah, I am definitely veering off-subject, of course. Time for me to clear the floor for the Noflexar 35mm F/3.5 topic, for anyone who wants to jump in. :)

[Andrea B.]

I'm just waiting for camera eyes to be available. I look in a certain direction, blink, hold still and bingo I have a photo recorded in my removable brain box cam !!!!! :D :D :D Wouldn't that be cool? Yes it would!

 

But meanwhile what am I to do with my hated a7R? It just did not work out. I don't know whether to convert it and resell it. Or try to sell it as a converted cam. I will probably try the a7RII which makes 14-bit photos. (14??)

 

The US is odd --we will not go too far with that statement, ha-ha-- in that when I'm out traveling about in national parks I rarely see mirrorless cams. Everyone at the touristy stops in the Parks is using a cell-cam or a little dSLR or a compact thingie. In Yellowstone during a 4 day trip I saw exactly ONE official mirrorless cam. Go figure. Of course, strictly speaking, little compact consumer cams (of which I own a few) are officially mirrorless, but the interchangeable lens mirrorless were simply gone missing. This was about 9 months ago. Things may have changed since then. My Euro friends all observe many mirrorless cams -- and shoot some themselves -- the Fujis being most popular. (And I would LOVE to have a Fuji X mirrorless of some kind meself.)

 

I have to add: At the Nat Park touristy stops there was more than one person shooting their iPad at the pretty sights!!!!! Made me shudder to think about the strapless iPad tumbling down the rocks into a deep canyon river below!!!!!

[igoriginal]

I'm just waiting for camera eyes to be available. I look in a certain direction, blink, hold still and bingo I have a photo recorded in my removable brain box cam !!!!! :D :D :D Wouldn't that be cool? Yes it would!

 

Until you see something you DID NOT want to see, but it is too late for you to intercept your "brain buffer" image-writing process.

 

Ahhhhhh! Get it out of my head! GET ... IT ... OUT ... NOW!!! :D :D

 

But meanwhile what am I to do with my hated a7R? It just did not work out. I don't know whether to convert it and resell it. Or try to sell it as a converted cam. I will probably try the a7RII which makes 14-bit photos. (14??)

 

If you do not mind me asking, what in particular did you find frustrating or counter-productive about the a7RII? I wish to gain some insight from your hands-on experiences, since I have also considered mirrorless Full-Frame.

[igoriginal]

The US is odd --we will not go too far with that statement, ha-ha-- in that when I'm out traveling about in national parks I rarely see mirrorless cams. Everyone at the touristy stops in the Parks is using a cell-cam or a little dSLR or a compact thingie. In Yellowstone during a 4 day trip I saw exactly ONE official mirrorless cam. Go figure. Of course, strictly speaking, little compact consumer cams (of which I own a few) are officially mirrorless, but the interchangeable lens mirrorless were simply gone missing. This was about 9 months ago. Things may have changed since then. My Euro friends all observe many mirrorless cams -- and shoot some themselves -- the Fujis being most popular. (And I would LOVE to have a Fuji X mirrorless of some kind meself.)

 

I have to add: At the Nat Park touristy stops there was more than one person shooting their iPad at the pretty sights!!!!! Made me shudder to think about the strapless iPad tumbling down the rocks into a deep canyon river below!!!!!

 

There's no accounting for misinformed (or dare I say, ignorant) tastes, when it comes to photographic device selection. Hah!

 

But, seriously. Yes, world-wide markets are funny creatures, and so is public sentiment, in general. Humanity tends to follow a "keeping up with the Jones's" herd mentality, when it comes to "the latest and greatest" gimmick or fad, whether the reverence in the technology is proportionately warranted or not.

 

It is true, that the mirrorless interchangeable bodies (unlike the non-removable/fixed-lens, small-sensored, grainy, "crapola boxes" as I call them) have not caught on as well, because it takes a photographically-trained and/or well-informed individual (one who understands the actual physical advantages of a larger sensor and interchangeable-lens capability) to see the potential advantages of mating interchangeable-lens bodies with mirrorless technology.

 

Thus, from this viewpoint, of course, the mirrorless interchangeable-lens body has seen flat-lining sales in recent years, especially since DSLR's (with conventional viewfinders) have also seen declining sales. All because we now live in an era of the "run and gun" snapshot-phone (born of the whole trend towards lazy and complacent "instant gratification"). In which case, many consumers remain blissfully unaware of the fact that a smaller sensor (as well as limited shutter speeds and small apertures) provide for only so much photographic manipulation.

 

This is not to say that I am completely vilifying all use of camera phones. Of course, camera phones (and "crapola boxes") are useful within their stated limitations. (In fact, any imaging device is useful within its stated limitations). But, there is a vast difference between a well-informed photographer who is thoroughly educated on the physical differences between their camera phone and larger-sensored camera body, versus someone who fallaciously believes that "camera phones can do anything a dedicated camera can do."

[Andrea B.]

It is the a7R, the first model.

• A7R is difficult to focus in UV with or without the EVF, with or without the focus peaking. Live View on the a7R is not as good as on my D600, D750 or D810 (which is especially good).
  

• The files do not process all that well. They are prone to noise in spite of the excellent sensor. And because of the compressed, lossy 11-bit files, a LOT of artifacts happen in most UV photos - primarily banding. And especially in UV photos with wide dynamic range (black to white). Lossy compression is inexcusable for a raw file. Bad Sony, bad.
  

• Menus and ergonomics are too fiddly-widgety. And I learn systems easily so it's not all on me. Those Sony menus are a mess.
  

• By the time you add an adapter and a helicoid to some lenses, the small rectangular body becomes very unbalanced placing a lot of stress on the mount. The UV-Nikkor with its P-11 macro extension is unusable on the a7R without a beanbag under it. (It is not easy to retrofit such lenses with a lens collar.)
  

The a7RII has improved raw files. So given the FFD of Sony cams, it is possible I might try Sony one more time just because of its FFD.

[Bill De Jager]

I'm just waiting for camera eyes to be available. I look in a certain direction, blink, hold still and bingo I have a photo recorded in my removable brain box cam !!!!! :D :D :D Wouldn't that be cool? Yes it would!

 

One word: malware.... in the brain. :o

[igoriginal]

A7R is difficult to focus in UV with or without the EVF, with or without the focus peaking. Live View on the a7R is not as good as on my D600, D750 or D810 (which is especially good).

 

Really? That's odd. I would expect EVF technology (as well as overall resolution of both, the EVF and the LCD screen) on a supposedly "premium" mirrorless camera body to be exceptional. Considering that I still use full-spectrum-modified entry-level and mid-level mirrorless cameras (such as the Panasonic G3 and G5, for instance), and yet the UV workflow on these cameras has been an absolutely pleasurable, highly productive, and rewarding experience for me, completely free of frustration or feelings of handicap.

 

So, what you are saying is that for all its pomp and supposed level of sophistication, Sony's "flagship" mirrorless camera (in terms of EVF resolution and gain) is sub-standard? That is shocking news. :o

 

You would think that they would spare no expense, nor technology, in the design of their very-first FF mirrorless body, in order to make a big splash in the camera world.

 

I am frankly puzzled to hear this.

 

 

The files do not process all that well. They are prone to noise in spite of the excellent sensor. And because of the compressed, lossy 11-bit files, a LOT of artifacts happen in most UV photos - primarily banding. And especially in UV photos with wide dynamic range (black to white). Lossy compression is inexcusable for a raw file. Bad Sony, bad.

 

WHAT??? They also deliberately handicapped their sensor's full potential, and even handicapped their processing algorithms? Say it ain't so! Wow.

 

I am glad I am hearing this from you, before doing an uninformed and compulsive purchase.

 

I am hoping that Sony considers releasing a firmware upgrade to try to correct for some of these issues, if that be the case.

 

NOTE: Of course, I am no die-hard Sony fan. But I am still surprised to hear such criticisms, nonetheless. I'm more of a Pentax fan. And the few full-spectrum Pentax bodies I own - being APS-C sensor bodies - perform delightfully well for UV work. Including the Pentax K-01 mirrorless APS-C body that I have gotten full-spectrum converted.

 

The Pentax K-01 is a downsized, stripped-down, economically-minded mirrorless version of the much-touted K-5 DSLR. It has no EVF, nor an EVF add-on capability. It has no viewfinder at all. Just an LCD screen. But, by adding an attachable loop-based viewfinder accessory to the LCD display of my Pentax K-01 mirrorless body (an accessory often used by DSLR cinematographers), I have essentially turned the LCD panel into a very large and bright EVF that I can keep my eyes against at all times. And I love it. K-5 image quality, at a downsized bargain.

[igoriginal]

One word: malware.... in the brain. :o

 

Many people already behave like malware, regardless of the encroachment of such potentially frightening technology. Just sayin' :D

[Andy Perrin]

Regarding Sony compressing their RAW files, this came out in Sep 2015 (note the year):

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6144418951/what-difference-does-it-make-sony-uncompressed-raw

 

Apparently they did release that firmware upgrade last year. I have no idea how or if this affects my NEX-7 at all. It may be too old to be applicable.

[Andrea B.]

Unfortunately Sony did not care to offer the 14-bit raw firmware update for the a7R that was provided for newer models. Thus Sony put themselves on my permanent Bad Sony list.

 

Raw Digger analyzed some of the problems with Sony posterization.

http://www.rawdigger...ation-detection

 

The problem I've seen with some of my a7R files is due to the white balancing trickery we all like to perform on our UV files. The lossy compression simply cannot handle that hard hit to the raw colors.

 

*******

 

Focus peaking often does not work at all in a dark UV photo.

[Andy Perrin]

Andrea, I wonder if this affects the NEX-7's RAW also. My focus peaking always seems to have worked better than yours. Could it be that they hadn't started compressing the RAWs in the days of the NEX-7, and that is why?

[Andrea B.]

Andy, I don't know about RAWs in the NEX-7. I have very limited Sony experience, having only used the a7R.

 

About the focus peaking -- remember that I do a lot of close work in UV. There is not always enough contrast in UV-absorbing flowers to ensure focus peaking will work. Sometimes focus peaking does not even appear no matter what colour I set it to be. So having a superb Live View is a necessity -- along with a good UV torch. And that puts me back in Nikonville.

 

I don't want to sound like a big Sony diss-nut, so I want to make it clear about having only used the one Sony body. I picked the a7R because it had slightly better IQ (at the time) and was much less expensive (at the time). There's no way to know ahead of time how the quirks of UV photography are going to play out with a particular camera. The a7R didn't work out. In the end, that is OK because I learned a lot from using it. As mentioned, I'm still open to trying out another Sony -- maybe the a7RII -- because of the short FFD.

 

I think this thread veered way off the Noflexar topic !! :D

[Andy Perrin]

Is the A7RII the one that got all the press recently for being able to film in moonlight?

 

(And yes, we left Noflexars behind long ago, but...that's what happens in conversations? Sometimes I think forums try too hard to jam human conversations into artificial forum categories.)

[Andrea B.]

I've never minded too much when the threads wander. That's usually when lots of good stuff gets discussed because one person's observations spark questions in another's mind and a good conversation ensues.

 

It was the a7S model for the moonlight film:

http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/en_uk/blog/watch-this-film-shot-entirely-by-moonlight

[Bill De Jager]

Andy, I don't know about RAWs in the NEX-7. I have very limited Sony experience, having only used the a7R.

 

About the focus peaking -- remember that I do a lot of close work in UV. There is not always enough contrast in UV-absorbing flowers to ensure focus peaking will work. Sometimes focus peaking does not even appear no matter what colour I set it to be. So having a superb Live View is a necessity -- along with a good UV torch. And that puts me back in Nikonville.

 

I don't want to sound like a big Sony diss-nut, so I want to make it clear about having only used the one Sony body. I picked the a7R because it had slightly better IQ (at the time) and was much less expensive (at the time). There's no way to know ahead of time how the quirks of UV photography are going to play out with a particular camera. The a7R didn't work out. In the end, that is OK because I learned a lot from using it. As mentioned, I'm still open to trying out another Sony -- maybe the a7RII -- because of the short FFD.

 

So my broadband Sony A6000 may not be as useful as I had hoped. Too bad since the short register distance would be a godsend for using a wide variety of lenses. At this point (after several years that are just a blur) I don't recall having used it to date except for test shots. I'll have to see what it produces in serious use.

 

I think this thread veered way off the Noflexar topic !!

 

I'm glad it did, even if the results are concerning to me.

[Andrea B.]

Oh my, I didn't want to upset everyone who has or uses a Sony.

 

My concerns about the a7R (specifically) for the particular subjects I shoot in UV may not have anything at all to do with your A6000 and the subjects you will shoot in UV. Several folks here (and elsewhere) have made excellent use of their particular Sony models and made some superb UV photographs. So please just wait & see.

And, btw, I hope to see you getting into some good photography projects, UV or otherwise, now that you will be having more time. :D

[Alex H]

Bill, look at the pictures you took and as yourself - are they missing anything? do you see any problems that are caused by the sensor? Besides, A6000 is much newer than A7R.

[Bill De Jager]

Thanks, Andrea and Alex. When I try using the Sony seriously I'll see how the raw files behave. One could hope for firmware updates that offer more file options. However, the Sony cameras require these updates to be done while the camera is hooked up directly to a computer, and the updating process roots the computer :o . I'm not allowing this on any of my machines.

 

At this point I'm just trying to recuperate from my second hamstring injury in two months. After that the priority will be getting up to speed for the total solar eclipse in August 2017. I'll be using an equatorial mount for one setup and that will require some sustained practice beforehand. Everything I plan do to will need to be well rehearsed as there will be no do-overs for the slightly over two minutes of totality.

[Andrea B.]

What does that mean "roots the computer" ??

[Andy Perrin]

Takes root privileges, so it can do whatever it wants.

[Andrea B.]

I don't think I've seen that happen?

[Bill De Jager]

I don't think I've seen that happen?

 

Link

 

The updater uses a kernel extension which has root privileges. This could also serve as a vector for a malicious rootkit. Sony has already had at least one major external hack of their internal systems.

[Andrea B.]

But how does the updater get the root password?