Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
yeah, ditto that. i've got Takumar lenses my mum bought in the '60s when she went to Japan for a Uni trip. the 50/1.8 is sharper than my niftyfifty, focus ring is smooth, aperture works good. It all depends on how well you take care of them. One thing with the Takumars is that their coating had some sort of UV-reactive coating that makes the lens look yellow after a few years in the dark, apparently a few days in sunlight is enough to fix them.
.
But then, they don't make em like they used to. Apertures, IS, AF motors will wear out eventually. But how many would 'wear out' and how many would 'wear out of spec' (but still otherwise work)?
And think about the upgradeability. if i'd had a 50/1.8 v1 since EF was launched 30ish years ago, and it broke (like the motor fused over and focussing stuck), i wouldn't bother repairing it, i'd probably spend less on a new niftyfifty v2. The cost of repairing all but the most valuable lenses would make it cheaper to buy a new one, once you take labour into account (i've spent a few years in the electronics repair industry).
.
As for the round sensor, think about the days of film when it all started. how do you make a round negative in a strip without wasting any film? maybe alternating triangles could fit, hexagons could fit but still waste a bit. And most frames are squared (ok, we could make round frames more easily in bulk nowadays), go back hundreds of years to paintings and most were square/rectangle because round corners were harder for carpenters to make.
.
But then, nowadays it wouldn't be so hard, just expensive. I seem to recall reading about a camera with a sensor, which was basically a 3:2 overlayed over a 2:3 portrait and 1:1 (so it kinda looked like a fat + sign. but then, that would have to be cut down from a square sensor, so why not just put in the square sensor and disable pixels on the edge outside the image circle...
Reply With Quote