CamerAgX

April 26, 2017

Tamron’s Adaptall interchangeable lens mount

Filed under: Gear, Tamron Lenses — Tags: , , , , — xtalfu @ 12:00 am

Two Tamron “Custom  Mount Adapters” and a Tamron Adaptall lens in the middle. The lens can receive Adaptall and Adaptall 2 mount adapters.

Lenses with interchangeable mounts were developed primarily to solve the inventory management problems of the photo equipment retailers of the late 50s.

After Asahi launched their “Pentax” single lens reflex camera with interchangeable lenses in 1957, German and Japanese camera makers jumped on the band wagon and started releasing their own lines of SLR bodies and lenses.

They formed two camps – vendors like Mamiya, Petri, Ricoh, Fujica, Chinon, Yashica followed the example of Asahi and Practika and adopted the 42mm “universal” screw mount – with the promise of inter compatibility between brands. On the other hand, Canon, Exacta, Leica, Minolta, Miranda, Nikon, Topcon and a few others brands each decided to develop their own proprietary bayonet mount.

Those were the early days of the SLR, and the pace of progress was fast. Manufacturers had to revise their lens mounts every few years, in order to support new features such as the automatic diaphragm, full aperture metering and various exposure automatism implementations.

Imagine the nightmare for a retailer – having to stock expensive lenses for each variant of each of those mounts.

There was an opportunity for an inventive manufacturer to produce a line of universal lenses designed to be fitted with the lens mount adapter needed by the customer at the last minute, in the store, when he was ready to buy. The retailer could serve almost any customer need with only one copy of each universal lens, and one lens mount adapter per camera brand.

Tamron Adaptall lens and the Adaptall 2 lens mount – pairing or unpairing the two parts is not easy – it’s not something you want to have to do in the middle of a photoshoot.

Of course, the photographer buying one of those “universal” lenses could also play Lego himself – and use his lens with camera bodies of different manufacturers (if he happened to be transitioning from one camera brand to another one, for instance).

Tamron is widely credited for being the first to market such a solution in the late 50s (with their T mount lenses), but Soligor and Vivitar also adopted the T mount and developed their own lines of lenses.

In order to keep up with the increasing complexity of the lens mounts, they regularly launched new lines of adapters and matching lenses : Tamron with the Adaptamatic (in 1969), Adaptall (in 1973) and the Adaptall 2 (in 1979), Soligor and Vivitar with the T4 and the TX system.

Two Tamron “custom mount adapters” on the camera body side – left: Pentax KA (with the electrical contacts); right: the Fujica AX Bayonet

The progressive generalization of automatic cameras with multiple auto-exposure modes made the lens mounts much more complex and delicate. The growing use of electronics and the autofocus revolution of the mid 80s presented technical challenges of increasing difficulty that could not be overcome at a reasonable cost. And the concentration of the autofocus SLR market into a handful of players (Canon, Minolta, Nikon and Pentax) made inventory management easier for the retailers. As a result, the interchangeable lens mount system was gradually abandoned by its manufacturers in the 90s.

Today, does it make sense for a photographer using manual focus SLRs to buy interchangeable mount lenses ?

  • Canon and Nikon users should not be too concerned: their cameras were often used by professional photographers who had to invest in a large set of good lenses to stay competitive. Today, Canon FD and Nikon F lenses are abundant (and therefore comparatively cheap) on the second hand market, in any focal length.
  • but photographers using cameras of other manufacturers are not that lucky: the original buyers of those cameras were primarily amateurs, and the 50mm standard and the 135mm tele-objective seem to be the only lenses that they bought 40 years ago. They are the only ones easy to find on the second hand market today. When an OEM wide angle or a short tele-objective lens shows up on eBay, its  price rapidly reaches insane levels.
  • For those photographers using cameras from second or third tier manufacturers, Tamron or Vivitar lenses are an interesting alternative: the interchangeable lens mounts are still easy to find and cheap (some of them New Old Stock), and the lenses are more abundant and not as expensive as most OEM lenses.
  • Zoom lenses from the 70s and early eighties generally have a bad reputation, and those with interchangeable lens mounts are not better than the rest. But some prime lenses from Tamron are very well regarded, and constitute interesting purchases on their own merit (the Tamron 90mm f/2.5 Macro lens in particular)
  • Users of digital mirrorless cameras have an extra option – some vendors propose direct Adaptall to mirrorless adapters (for the most common mirrorless mounts: Sony, Fujifilm and Micro 4/3). Since mirrorless cameras don’t need to control the aperture of the lens to operate in some of their automatic modes, the adapter does not need to provide any linkage between the camera’s mount and the lens. It can be extremely simple – and cheap.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-mount

http://www.adaptall-2.com

http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/Adaptall/TamronAdaptallInfo.html

http://mattsclassiccameras.com/lenses/adaptall-2-system/

and specifically for the Fujica X bayonet (manual focus SLR bodies: ST-X and AX-1, AX-3, AX-5): tamron adaptall 2

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/t-mounts-t-t-2-t-4-tx.245015/


View of the Atlanta skyline – Fujica AX-5 – Tamron 28mm f/2.5 lens. Kodak Ektar.

April 15, 2017

Scanning 35mm film – is high-res scanning worth its cost?

Most photo labs propose scans in 3 resolutions: 1000×1500, 2000×3000, 4500×6700. The scans  are saved as jPEGs, with some labs also offering to save 4500 x6700 scans as TIFF files.

In theory, those resolutions correspond to an image of 1.5 Million points (1.5 MP), 6 MP, and 30  MP respectively. In general,

  • 1000x 1500 scans – when available – are virtually free (they’re included in the processing costs by some labs such as thedarkroom.com )
  • 2000 x 3000 scans cost roughly $5 for a full roll (in addition to the processing costs), or .50 per individual image scanned
  • 4400 x 6700 scans cost roughly $11 to $12 per full roll (in addition to the processing costs), or 3.00 per individual scan
  • 4400 x 6700 (TIFF) are the most expensive at $21 per full roll (oldschoolphotolab.com)

Storage constitutes an indirect cost – which doesn’t hurt until you run out of disk space, and have to upgrade your PC, your home NAS  or you online backup plan. But if storing 36 images at 1.5 Mbytes will not break your storage budget, 36 high res TIFF images represent almost 3 Gbytes. The exact size of a JPEG file is difficult to predict (JPEG is a lossy compression format), but in general, the file size of each type of scan falls within those brackets:

  • 1000x 1500 – JPEG -1.5 to 2 Mbytes
  • 2000 x 3000 – JPEG – 3 to 4 Mbytes
  • 4492 x 6776 -JPEG – 12 to 16 Mbytes
  • 4492 x 6776 (TIFF) – 80 MBytes / image

Scan_2000x3000_Piedmont

Atlanta Piedmont Park – Shot with Canon A-1 – Canon FD 35-105 f/3.5 – Fujicolor 400. Scanned at a resolution of  2000 x 3000 – the pictures of this roll are not really better than when scanned at 1000 x 1500 – probably a limitation of the lens (a 35-105 zoom of the seventies)

The tests

I wanted to have a few pictures I had taken a long time ago scanned, and I asked the lab to scan some images in 2000 x 3000, and some in 4400 x 6700. The pictures had been taken with a Minolta 7xi and the famous Angenieux 28-70 f/2.6-2.8 zoom, on Fuji Reala film (the 100 ISO “professional” color film Fujifilm were selling at that time). The pictures had originally been enlarged on photographic paper, and I expected the scans to be good.

I also had a series of images taken recently with a zoom from the early seventies, that had been scanned by the lab at 1000 x1500, that I asked the lab to rescan at 2000 x 3000.

Once the jPEGs were ready, I downloaded them in iPhone and iPad photo galleries, in Photoshop and Lightroom on a laptop, and on WordPress, in order to compare the perceived quality. A reminder of the resolution of a few devices compared to print.

  • iPhone 5 S Retina photo gallery : 1136x 640 (720,000 points) at 326ppi
  • 9.7 in iPad Retina Photo gallery:  2048 x 1536 (3,000,000 points)  at 266 ppi
  • Print 8 x 10: 2400 x 3000 points or 7.2 million points at 300ppi
  • the pictures of this blog are generally saved for the “Large” format proposed by WordPress, at 1024 x 680, corresponding to 600,000 points.

Paris – The Seine – scanned at 2000 x 3000. Minolta 7xi – Angenieux Zoom 28-70 – Fuji Reala film (1992). No visible difference in quality with the 4492 x 6700 scan (look at the details of the Eiffel tower compared to the glass house of the Grand Palais in the image below)

Conclusion

  • Scan at 1000×1500 or 2000×3000 ?
    • on an iPhone, on a 4×6 print, or in a blog supporting 1024 x 680 images (such as this one), there is no visible difference between 1500 x 1000 and 3000 x 2000 scans.
    • For all larger screen or print formats (9.7′ iPad Retina, laptop, 8×11 print, blogs offering to view images at native resolution)  the difference between a scan at 1.5 Million points and a scan at 7 Million points is very visible, unless the original is very poor (low lens resolution, very grainy film, subject slightly out of focus, operator shake at slow shutter speeds). It’s even more visible if you crop the image, even slightly.
  • Scan at 2000×3000 or 4400×6700 ?
    • on an iPhone, iPad 9.7′ Retina or on a 8×11 print – the difference is not really visible.
    • Above that (13 x 20 prints, for instance), the theoretical difference in resolution does not  necessarily translate into a difference in print quality: a 13 x 20 print  represents 24 million points at 300 ppi and the 6 million of points of a 2000×3000 scan should theoretically be overwhelmed, but practically the resolution of the film and of the lens play their part, as the technical limitations of the photographer (focus, shake) do. Large prints are often framed and hung on a wall, and you don’t look at a picture on a wall the same way you look at a 8 x 10 print you hold in your hand. And all technical considerations taken apart, with some subjects, images scanned at 2000×3000 may look as good as images taken at 4492×6770 – it depends on the contrast and quantity of fine details in the subject.

Scanning at 2000×3000 is a good compromise for 35mm film, and my choice when I have film processed. It works fine with any support I use day to day (iDevice, laptop, 8 x 11 prints), is not too expensive and generally produces a visible difference with the 1000×1500 scans.

If I wanted to print a really great picture, an image compelling from an artistic point of view and almost perfect technically (fine grain film, sharp lens, subject in focus, no shake), I would have it scanned at the 4492 x6776 resolution, and saved as TIFF. It would give me no guarantee that the print would be great (there are so many variables), but it would give me the best chances of success.


Scan_4492x6770_Paris-22

Paris – Scan 4492 x 6770 – Shot from the Pont Neuf -Minolta 7xi – Angenieux zoom 28-70 F/2.6 – Fuji Reala (July 1992)

April 5, 2017

Canon A-1 or Fujica AX-5?

Filed under: Canon cameras, Fujica Cameras, Gear — Tags: , , , — xtalfu @ 7:03 pm

cameras-2-19

Launched in 1978, the  A-1 – the top of Canon’s  A line of cameras, (also composed of the AE-1, AE-1 Program, AV-1, AT-1 and AL-1), was the first single lens reflex camera to offer  three auto exposure modes (Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority and Program) in addition to the Manual mode. The A-1 accepts all Canon FD lenses and (stopped down) can also work with older FL  lenses. A feature loaded and intimidating camera with a very “muscular” design,  it was in fact well thought and easy to use. It sold in the millions.

The AX-5 was the top of Fujica’s new line of bayonet mount 35mm film cameras, launched in 1979 to replace the ST605, ST705 and AZ-1 screw mount cameras. Coming one year after the Canon A-1, the AX-5 offers almost the same feature set, but in a smaller and much more restrained package.

cameragx--5898

Fujica AX-5 (with Tamron 28mm f/2.5 lens).

The AX-5 accepted all Fujica’s newly launched “X-Fujinon” bayonet lenses but could only access the Shutter Priority and Program auto exposure modes when paired with  X-Fujinon “DM” lenses (which have the “A” position on the aperture ring). Lesser camera models (the AX-3 and the STX-1) were usually bundled with “FM” lenses, deprived of the “A” setting.

Back then: how did the two cameras compare?

  • cost and availability
    • the  “A” line of SLRs from Canon was a best seller (probably more than 10 million units were sold), the A-1 representing approximately 1/4th of the total volume. The cameras were widely distributed and competition between retailers played its role: the prices were very similar from one store to the other one, and moderate when compared to the AX-5.
    • Fuji’s retailer network was narrower than  Canon’s, and the AX-5 was the least successful model of Fujica’s “X” line. Retailers did not seem particularly interested in stocking or promoting it, and as a result it was significantly more expensive than the Canon A-1.

Canon A-1 vs Fujica AX-5 – the Canon is bulky and looks “professional”. The Fujica’s design is a bit toned down.

  •  size, weight, features and ergonomics
    • The AX-5 was available with a black or a silver finish, and is smaller and lighter than the A-1. It looks almost “feminine” next to the black-only and larger A-1, with its removable hand grip and its multitude of switches and levers.
    • The feature set of the two cameras is largely identical, with the Fujica only missing access to low shutter speeds (slowest is 2 sec, as opposed to 30 sec for A-1)
    • But the Fujica has far fewer switches and buttons and seems simpler to use. The implementation of the Fujica’s shutter speed and auto mode selection is inspired by the Canon’s, but marginally different:
      • in both cameras, the shutter speed knob has been replaced with a control wheel and the selected shutter speed is shown on a disk, visible through a small window on the top plate.
      • With the A-1, the aperture ring of the lens has to be set on the “A” position to operate in any of the automatic exposure modes (Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority and Program). There is a toggle switch on the front plate of the camera to chose between the Aperture Priority or the Shutter Priority and Program modes. When the photographer switches to Aperture Priority, the desired aperture is selected by rotating the control wheel, and displayed through the same small window on the top plate.
      • To operate in Aperture Priority mode with the AX-5, one has to set the aperture ring of the lens on the desired value, and select the Auto Exposure position with the control wheel. To operate with Shutter Priority or Program modes, one has to set the lens on the  “A” position, select the shutter speed (Shutter Priority) or a full Auto Exposure mode (understand Program) with the control wheel. .
    • On the AX-5, there are two positions on the control wheel for the Auto Exposure command: AE – the camera adjusts the exposure until to the last second, and AEL (auto-exposure lock): the camera will keep the exposure setting determined by the photographer as long as the shutter release button stays half pressed. Very convenient. The Canon A-1 has an exposure lock button on the left of the lens mount to the same effect.
    • The commands of the AX-5 don’t feel as solid as the Canon’s (and the Fujica’s control wheel is too small and protected by a tiny push button lock – not  pleasant to use).

a battle scared Canon A-1 in program mode (lens aperture ring on “A”, mode selector on “Tv”, control wheel on “P”

  • Viewfinder
    • Canon: numeric LEDs – easy to read even in the dark
    • Fujica – strange barrel distortion when wearing glasses – noticeable but not really penalizing when shooting pictures. speed and aperture scales and LEDs intertwined on the left of viewfinder – legible but a bit confusing at the beginning.
viewfinder

Canon A-1 – viewfinder (source MIR)

Fujica viewfinder (source: the Fujica brochure – 1979)

  • Shutter and metering system
    • horizontal cloth – comparable – 1/1000 sec synchro at 1/60e. A-1 goes to 30sec, Fujica up to 2sec only.
  • Lens selection:
    • Canon – uses Canon FD lenses (or FL stopped down). Canon’s catalog of FD lenses was very wide and had something for all types of photographers – from amateurs looking for zooms, up to pros looking for the lens that will make “the” picture that will differentiate them from their competitors. Naturally, compatible lenses of all levels of quality were also available.
    • Fujica X – Fuji’s catalog of lenses included 20 different models, primarily primes lenses from 17mm to 400 mm, and three zooms. The AX-5 could also use screw mount “universal” lenses with an adapter; most of the big vendors of third party lenses (Tamron, Makinon, Soligor, TOU, Komine…) manufactured lenses for the “X” mount, but if the scarcity of lenses today is any indication, anything other than the standard 50mm and the 135mm tele-objective sold in extremely low volumes.
cameragx--5900

Fujica AX-5 – here in Program mode (AE set on the aperture ring of the lens, AE set on the shutter speed control wheel). Note the little shiny button on the left of the control wheel. It has to be pressed to leave the automatic modes.)

Now

  • reliability
    • Canon: built more solidly than the rest of the “A” series, – not only on the outside, but also inside (people who have opened both can testify that the A-1 contains more metallic components than its lesser brothers). The textile shutter may require some TLC (the cameras are almost 40 years old now)
    • Fujica : reliability was questionable back then, with an electro-mecanic shutter release that did not age well at all  (capacitor issues after a few years). Today, unless you’re only looking for a paper weight, only buy a camera tested by the seller, with fresh batteries. The batteries are of a very common type, and “not having a battery to test” is not a valid excuse.
  •  scarcity
    • Canon A-1 – relatively easy to find – they were produced in huge numbers and have been reliable – there are still plenty of them waiting for you.
    • Fujica AX-5 – difficult to find in good condition, in particular in the US. More abundant in Germany and central Europe, sometimes under a retailer’s label such as Porst (the AX-5 is the same camera as Porst’s CR-7). Because the market is so small,  prices for models tested and in working order can go up to  $150.
  • battery
    • Both cameras use the same 6v battery- still widely available today in alkaline, silver oxide and lithium variants. Silver Oxide is probably the best compromise.
    • None of the cameras works without a battery – no shutter release, no film advance – lots of people must have believed that their camera was broken when it was just asking for a new battery.
  • Lens selection
    • Canon: Abundant offer of great lenses at reasonable prices (Canon FD). Equally abundant offer of third party lenses, including in very exclusive brands like Angenieux.
    • Fujica: The AX-5 was launched in parallel to a new line of lenses, and none were really successful on the marketplace. Today, it is difficult to find anything which is not a 50mm or a 135mm lens. When you can find them, original Fujica X-Fujinon lenses with the renown EBC coating are expensive. Wide angle lenses or fast zooms are even more scarce and reach Leica R or Contax price levels.

Conclusion:

  • For an active film  photographer, it’s a no brainer – Canon A-1 cameras are abundant, lenses are easy to find and relatively cheap, and the A-1 is not inferior to the AX-5 in any significant way. The A-1 is the most satisfying pick in Canon’s “A” line, and the best choice in today’s comparison.
  • Fuji is a respected brand in the photography business (their medium format cameras and their current digital offerings have a cult like following). But Fuji’s aura does not extend to the Fujica AX cameras, who have lived an obscure life. For the collector of anything Fuji, the AX-5 is an interesting challenge: finding one that works is not super easy, and buying lenses is outright difficult. For an active photographer, the Fujica AX-5 has good sides: the camera is perfectly usable, it is light and compact, and presents simple and logical commands – but it does not feel as solid as the A-1, and looks more like a souped-up mid level SLR than a true enthusiast or pro camera. And in any case, because of the scarcity of X-Fujinon lenses,  – the real good ones have even become an object of speculation – none of the Fujica “X” cameras can be considered a reasonable choice for an active film photographer.

The Canon A-1 has a serious fan club, photographers who consider it the best film camera ever built. A few examples:

http://lewiscollard.com/cameras/canon-a-1/

https://www.casualphotophile.com/2015/04/20/canon-a-1-camera-review/


Rooftop terrace – Atlanta skyline – Fujica AX-5 – Tamron 28mm f/2.5 – Kodak Ektar

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.