News flash – the 27 mm f/2.8 arrived. It’s definitely bigger than a contact lens, a lot bigger. But it’s a lot smaller than any other lens I’ve ever owned. I could absolutely forget it in a pants pocket. Makes the camera body look big. A very different and nice feel.
And this is the R version, with an aperture ring. I got it from Dodd Camera, and it arrived quickly – even though it seems hard to get from the usual sources.
That lens makes the whole camera pocketable (if you have a pretty big pocket, but still).
This camera system is so much lighter and more compact than my old Nikon D90. Love it as a walking-around camera.
The Meike circular fisheye arrived, and the 35 mm f/1.4. The 35 mm is kind of normally proportioned relative to this camera body, and the fisheye is a tad smaller.
But the fisheye seemed not to work! Optically it worked but the shutter would not fire. Turns out this camera body will by default not fire the shutter if there’s no lens attached, according to its lens connection signals, and manual lenses – or at least this particular manual lens – don’t satisfy the “lens attached” signal. But there’s a setting to allow shooting without a lens, and I turned that on, and now it works. The “shoot without a lens” option also seems to work just fine with an officially detected lens. The fisheye seems fairly sharp and bright all the way out to the edges, a little blur and chromatic aberration out there if I blow up the edge.
I wasn’t sure how to import photos most effectively, so I moved the SD card from the camera to the iMac. Figured I’d copy all the jpg files to a temporary folder and import them into Photos from there. But Photos opened and brought all the new images in automatically. Nice -n- easy.
Very amazing products.
I own a fairly similar camera (although mine is “only” 24x zoom), and I like it. Such cameras have smaller sensors than the high-end cameras, but for fairly basic picture-taking, they are very good. And they are significantly more capable than the pocket-sized point-and-shoots.
Or–you could get her this, which is less of a camera, and more of a telescope that takes pictures. 
I noticed in some of the sample shots from this category of cameras various moon photos. They show a whole lot of craters, and many of the central mountains that some craters have. The crater rims often had numerous details visible. It’s pretty damn impressive.
Customer reviews on Amazon often this into a negative. People complain that it is hard to hold the camera still enough, and shots are blurry (apparently from camera shake and not lens aberrations).
My 2X teleconverter came. It should turn the 135 mm end of the zoom into 270, which in a 35 mm equivalent would be 432 mm. I think this might capture Venus as a crescent.
It’s interesting that the different image formats, and what they do to the angles covered by different focal length lenses, have created an equivalency metric relative to the traditional standard of 35 mm film cameras – just like LED light bulbs and their incandescent equivalent wattages. Here’s a table that calls the inferred value “APS-C Focal length”, when in fact of course the focal length isn’t changing:
Goes to show that, in the photography trade, we probably should have described lenses by their included angles. I am unfortunately trained to think of the focal lengths and what they do on a 35 mm. What do I do now, label them with these pseudo focal lengths? Well, it’s a pleasant enough problem to have…
Do owners of large format cameras also convert their lens lengths into 35mm? Anyway, yeah, it’s a shame that we didn’t always refer to lenses by their angular field of view, but it seems to be too late now. I have a good feel for 35mm equivalents and none for fields of view.
I mean, file that under “no shit” – not to you, but the Amazon reviewers. What the hell do they expect? The very general rule of thumb is you can handhold at a shutterspeed of 1/ (35mm equivalent) focal length. On those superzooms, you are getting absurdly high focal lengths, so you need some pretty damned short shutter speeds or put it on a tripod like a normal photographer would with those constraints.
When I was buying, I used to consult dpreview.com a lot. It looks like that camera came out in 2014.
Perhaps this article will give some direction.
Exactly!
Though, one thing I’m not sure what to do with – they advertise image stabilization, and typically explain that it helps get sharp pictures even with long lenses. Have they oversold this?
I bought my 8 year old (~) grandson a telescope that was highly recommended and rated for children. The outside of the box was covered with what looked like Hubble images.These beautiful things that looked like a unicorn exploding, if you looked at them through this telescope, would be a faint smudge.
Well, I would be pleased with the optical image stabilization if handholding at something noticeably faster than 1/speed worked. But I wouldn’t be very surprised or disappointed if it didn’t.
Come to think, a couple of my new lenses have OIS with a switch. I should try turning it on and off!
More on this. There’s a very nice feature wherein the camera records various useful details including the lens focal length with each shot, and when the Mac operating system imports them into Photos, the information’s there with each photo. Interestingly, the section that lists the equipment with branding lists the focal length the way it appears on the lens (and the literal truth). But the lower section that lists settings lists the focal length as a larger number, obviously the 35 mm format equivalent.
I wondered what it would list for the fisheye, which is manual only, not Fujinon, and has no communication with the camera electronics. It says it’s a 21 mm lens and says 32 mm in the settings area. It says this on photos that came before the 21 mm lens arrived an hour ago. I’m shrugging and guessing this is a meaningless coincidence.
The 50 mm f/1.0 just arrived. When it warms up a little I’m going to take it out of the bag and try it out.
I’ve always been amazed and enchanted by lens design. The thought of reaching f/1.0 is just marvelous. And expensive. I’m scaring myself. I’m going to have to freeze my debit cards into a block of ice.
That said, they make microscope objectives with some very extremely wide apertures. Here’s an article about designing an extreme one:
They achieved a numerical aperture of 0.92. An N.A. of 0.92 is very fast, it’s f/0.2 according to:
https://ibsen.com/wp-content/uploads/NAtoF-1.html
They don’t offer consumer digicam lenses, though. Thank heavens.
Probably. You can tell the camera what kind of manual lens is on it, and it will record that into the metadata, and probably also use it when figuring out what shutter speed/aperture/ISO combinations to use in the various auto modes.