Lives in United States Santa Fe, USA, United States
Works as a Retired
Joined on Apr 28, 2005


Total: 47, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Sanpaku: The 150mm f/2.8 will be tempting for hiking/travelling/weight conscious wildlife photographers, especially if Panasonic also make a sharp 2x teleconverter (preferably with integrated tripod mount). Alas, still not DSLR competitive for sports til Olympus or Panasonic does on sensor phase detection focusing.

The 42.5 f/1.2 would have been interesting to me before I discovered how nicely the 75 f/1.8 simplifies portrait backgrounds, if you have enough space.

A Gh3 + the Panny 150 f/2.8 will weigh only a half-pound less than the D600 + the Nikon 300mm f/2.8? I don't think so ... . :-)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2013 at 19:27 UTC

Once more with feeling ...
In response to what seems to be a misunderstanding that has shown up in several posts here (and I see in others on DPR):

An f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens, period. F-values are a measure of the size of the aperture vs.the focal length of the lens. Or: Fstop=focal length/aperture. These are the _only_ two factors determining a given f-number. The size of the sensor that the lens will cover is irrelevant as far as the f-stop is concerned.

So a FF 150mm f/2.8 lens mounted on an m4/3 body via an adapter will have exactly the same maximum f-stop as an m4/3 lens on that body, provided the adapter doesn't change the effective focal length of the FF lens. (Assuming the lenses are correctly spec'd by the makers.)

Actual light transmission is measured in T-stops, of course, which is why pro video shooters use lenses calibrated that way.

If you want more detail, of if you think I'm wrong, Google 'f-stops' or 'f-number' and read the articles.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2013 at 19:17 UTC as 19th comment | 11 replies

90mm f/1.2 and 300mm f/2.8 (35mm focal lengths equivalents) at prices. whatever they will be, far less than their FF equivalents! Although the apparent lack of O.I.S. seems a most strange omission, as it would make using these lenses - esp. the 150 - with an Olympus body the more obvious choice.

A prediction: IF some maker can come up with a m4/3 body that has continuous AF as good as, say the Nikon D7000, AND has GPS capability, either built-in or add-on, m4/3 will replace the DX format systems for many users.
It's only the lack of these two things that has kept me in DX.

Of course, FF and MF shooters will likely stay with these formats for the IQ advantages.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2013 at 18:30 UTC as 20th comment | 4 replies
On 500px expanding into the cloud post (34 comments in total)
In reply to:

BSHolland: I'm a bit confused about 500px Terms of Service, with regards to licensing & sublicensing. (English is not my mother tongue).

500px claim the "right to sublicense". But only "in connection with the Services".
From my understanding, sub licensing is only necessary when it is NOT in connection with the services.

So what's the point in phrasing it like that?

+1 on that. ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 23, 2012 at 23:08 UTC
On 500px expanding into the cloud post (34 comments in total)

Just curious - Why is the site referred to as '500px'? The posted logo is _clearly_ '5' plus the infinity symbol, so why is it not '5infinity'? Is 'px' mathematical shorthand for the infinity symbol?
And where do the two '0's' after the '5' come from?

In short, how do you get from '5infinity' to '500px'?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 23, 2012 at 00:30 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Doug Pardee: Instagram's Kevin Systrom has responded:

"it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language...

"The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question. ..."

"Nothing has changed about the control you have over who can see your photos. If you set your photos to private, Instagram only shares your photos with the people you’ve approved to follow you. ...

"Please stay tuned for updates coming soon."


What's confusing about "without any compensation to you"?
But I think they may have realized they made a mistake, and are looking for a way to back down.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2012 at 00:32 UTC

The DPR analysis of the new terms vs. the old is just incorrect. It overlooks the explicit grant in the new terms to _sell_ your images. As another poster pointed out, the old terms were somewhat ambiguous on this point. Even more importantly, the new terms _remove_ the restriction on to content declared private or non-public. Under the new terms, _even_ content declared 'private' by the OP can be sold by Facebook.
Another nice goodie in their terms of use is this disclaimer: "None of your Content will be subject to any obligation of confidence on the part of Instagram, and Instagram will not be liable for any use or disclosure of any Content you provide."
N.B.: "ANY use". They can sell your photos to a porn site if they choose.
Read the entire terms, and then decide if you want to use them, even if they back off the 'we can sell your stuff w.o. paying you' bit.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2012 at 22:46 UTC as 9th comment

Wonder how long before lawsuits start over some photo of someone's attractive wife/daughter/girlfriend showing up in a come-on for a men's magazine, I'd hope that the person or persons bringing the suits could wring Facebook dry (as in shut the doors) for invasion of privacy, as I'm not sure that any agreement for unlimited use would protect against invasion of privacy of a non-public figure. (If you're a Ms. K. it's different of course.)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2012 at 22:11 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

whyamihere: I'm thoroughly enjoying the public freakout now that the legal language that has represented this service (and others) is being phrased in terms that normal people can understand.

Since it's part of my job to read the complete ToS for many apps and services, none of this is surprising at all to me.

One of these days, you'll all learn to read the agreements instead of hastily clicking the 'I Agree' or 'Ok' button. In this case, any service that offers to relocate your data for ease of access reserves the right to use, change, or delete your data. It's still yours, but you don't have as much control over what happens to it once that data hits their servers without their consent. That's how it works, and that's how it has always worked.

I'm not sure that 'any service' reserves these rights. If you see a post by Malch (sp?) alerting us to this policy, he also says that Yahoo tired this some years ago and then backed off in face of protests. In any case, this is why I don't relocate any data - unless that includes e-mail, which I long ago assumed was fair game - to any on-line service. I would say esp. photos or any writing I care about.
They stay on my computer, with good sw and hw firewall protection. I'd _never_ use an on-line backup service.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2012 at 21:59 UTC
On Remembering the Past: Rte 66 Memorabalia challenge (1 comment in total)

Thanks so much for doing this challenge. Rt.66 has so many memories for me.
The images bring them alive again.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2012 at 01:12 UTC as 1st comment
On Photokina 2012 Roundup article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: YES!! What a blast! With Sony leading the show with the worlds first compact FF, Fuji x-e1, Sigma lenses (so looking forward to the 35 1.4), also Samyang bringing out (finally) a UWA for apsc.

And above all, we have witnessed the birth of history's fugliest camera - The Hassssselblad Luuuuuuuunar!!!!!!

Sorry. I should have said "depressing for DX/APS-C _DSLR_ users ... ."

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 16:21 UTC
On Photokina 2012 Roundup article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

toneil14741: Still waiting on ANY updates on "will there EVER be a Capture NX3 or is it DONE"???

Nikon, not Nik, owns CNX. So the ball is in Nikon's court.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 16:16 UTC
On Photokina 2012 Roundup article (102 comments in total)

Well, if you are a DX/APS-C user, it was one of the most depressing shows ever. Note that the roundup mentions almost no new equipment for that format, and no new DX lenses at all. :-( As Thom Hogan pointed out, this format isn't where camera makers are putting their effort. (The Lunacy aside, of course.)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2012 at 02:33 UTC as 27th comment | 5 replies
On Photokina 2012: Hasselblad Stand Report article (47 comments in total)
In reply to:

maniax: rare woods, crocodile skin .... Even if I wanted to buy this sony copy i would feel bad about the materials they used.

Marxist school system? Please! The Soviet Union was one of the world's greatest polluters.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2012 at 00:17 UTC
On Photokina 2012: Interview - Stephan Schulz of Leica article (221 comments in total)

To make the comparison between the D800 and a MF camera the same as one between a compact and the Canon 1D-X shows he has no experience with a top-tier full-frame DSLR 'at all'.
Please N.B.: I'm not saying that MF doesn't have its advantages, but that the stated comparison is ludicrous. The D800 is may not be as good as the S, but it is hardly so much less capable than a compact is less capable than the Canon. It's like saying that because a Porsche Boxster isn't a Ferrari, it's no better than a go-cart.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2012 at 22:41 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply

Just what I wanted - a c. US $6500 gold NEX-7. How could I not have realized that?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2012 at 02:18 UTC as 65th comment
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G15 preview news story (81 comments in total)

Interesting that so many here don't seem to like the G15. As a Nikon fan and user of their DSLRs, I was looking forward to Nikon's replacement for the P7100. The P7700 was for me and a good number of others a real disappointment. If the P7700 had been announced with the specs of the G15, I'd have my pre-order for it in now. As it is, if the IQ and QC of the G15 are up to expectations, I'll buy it instead.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2012 at 14:49 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply

Wonder what the boys who priced this were smoking? Probably the same as those who did the initial pricing for the Sigma SD1, or who did the licensing agreements for the BetaMax format (remember that?).
If it gets you that far from reality, perhaps I should try it. :)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2012 at 01:57 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies
On DxO Labs announces its ViewPoint for distortion correction news story (52 comments in total)

I think this is a smart move on DxO's part. It gives you much of the unique lens correction capabilities of DxO Pro, but still lets you use your favorite RAW convertor/editor. Should be a good seller.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2012 at 14:16 UTC as 21st comment
On Nikon CoolPix P7700 Preview preview (192 comments in total)
In reply to:

TJGKG: I had the P7000 and while it took OK pictures, the AF was terrible as were the write times. But that was two years ago. Now cameras in this class have fast AF and larger sensors for better low light and higher IQ. This camera is nice but it is no longer competitive in the class.

To be clear, it would take some fast primes and a couple of zooms to come close to the same focal and aperture ranges with a DSLR, or any ILC.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 15:56 UTC
Total: 47, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »