TruePoindexter

TruePoindexter

Lives in United States United States
Works as a Developer
Has a website at http://www.zenfolio.com
Joined on Oct 2, 2008

Comments

Total: 52, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On Sigma announces two 150-600mm F/5-6.3 DG OS HSM zooms article (136 comments in total)
In reply to:

Karl Gnter Wnsch: If the "Sport" version is geared at the professionals which do not care that much about weight, why isn't it at least f/5.6? As f/6.3 they are missing the limit of the focusing systems - and since that is a physical limit the focusing on almost all DSLR will be compromized and not function as advertised and guaranteed by the manufacturers!

Being blunt - you really shouldn't use a lens like this with a TC. It's not designed for it. I mean I can mount my camera to my telescope... that doesn't make it a good idea under most circumstances.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2014 at 00:08 UTC
On Fujifilm announces weather-resistant XF 50-140mm F2.8 article (221 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxnimo: 23 glass elements? Anything over 6 glass elements makes me real nervous. I hope they know what they are doing.

Being blunt though - are you an optical engineer? All modern lenses have more elements than past to get around some of the defects we all hate. Plus new kinds of glass improve transmission. I think what we really should care about is if the lens makes sense to use and performs well enough to justify the price. Counting elements is completely arbitrary.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2014 at 00:07 UTC
On Fujifilm announces weather-resistant XF 50-140mm F2.8 article (221 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxnimo: 23 glass elements? Anything over 6 glass elements makes me real nervous. I hope they know what they are doing.

Why would it make you nervous? I'm not understanding how element count effects a photographer.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2014 at 01:07 UTC
On Sigma announces two 150-600mm F/5-6.3 DG OS HSM zooms article (136 comments in total)
In reply to:

Karl Gnter Wnsch: If the "Sport" version is geared at the professionals which do not care that much about weight, why isn't it at least f/5.6? As f/6.3 they are missing the limit of the focusing systems - and since that is a physical limit the focusing on almost all DSLR will be compromized and not function as advertised and guaranteed by the manufacturers!

Probably because if it were f/5.6 it would need to be another couple of inches in diameter.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2014 at 05:36 UTC
On Nikon D4s unboxing: It's arrived! article (264 comments in total)
In reply to:

h2k: Unboxing? Are you serious?

I had a brief look at the unboxing photos just to check if you really meant "unboxing" or if your unboxing news item was some kind of satire.

No, they seem to be serious. DPR does unboxings now.

Next a tut on how to do selfies with a D4s?

Fun is not allowed. DPR is serious business all the time.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2014 at 21:03 UTC
On Google working on RAW imaging for Android post (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Ma: That would be awesome. Barrel distortion correction for face is just ridiculously bad on some phones. It would be nice if Adobe did a lens profile on the popular smartphones such as galaxy note 3, note 2, s4, s3, etc. That and the extra bit depth would want to me me actually attempt some descent photography.

@Sordid - I think you're expecting too much. Yes the quality is not as good as a large DSLR. Yes the quality is not as good as any mirrorless camera. The quality isn't even as good as most point and shoots. However when exposed properly and viewed at the appropriate size you would be hard pressed too find fault in the final result. Some very talented photographers have shot comparisons between iPhone's and DSLR's and it was near impossible to guess which was which.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 25, 2013 at 07:07 UTC
On Adobe expands Photoshop and Lightroom offer article (628 comments in total)
In reply to:

InTheMist: Don't forget, once you're bought in, they can INCREASE the price at any time and you have no choice but to pay!

No you don't - like all software you have the right to switch to one of the many alternatives. This includes Capture One, DxO, Aperture, and even more. The larger issue with making a switch is getting used to a new workflow. That can be rough. I know it was rough just moving from Adobe Bridge/ACR to Lightroom much less considering moving away from Adobe.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2013 at 20:22 UTC
On Google working on RAW imaging for Android post (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Ma: That would be awesome. Barrel distortion correction for face is just ridiculously bad on some phones. It would be nice if Adobe did a lens profile on the popular smartphones such as galaxy note 3, note 2, s4, s3, etc. That and the extra bit depth would want to me me actually attempt some descent photography.

@Sordid - How are you evaluating the Nokia samples? My assessment is that they are excellent in reasonable lighting just like any small sensor camera. No I can't push the exposure as far as on my D600 but I can't push my GH2 that far either. What are your expectations out of the Nokia?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2013 at 10:08 UTC
On Google working on RAW imaging for Android post (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

Goodmeme: I hope they provide option for Adobe raw which is already open-source AFAIK. Why reinvent the wheel, when a universal wheel has already been designed?

@Plastek - DNG is a fine format. Compression of all RAWs are a function of either the camera taking the image or the converter application.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2013 at 09:56 UTC
On Google working on RAW imaging for Android post (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

AstroStan: Phone camera sensors are so small with shallow the pixel capacities that do not benefit much from raw, except that even a shallow raw allows the user to choose the amount of sharpening, etc. The image file might be "16 bit" but the actual dynamic range of phone images does not need or really use that depth.

However, Google explicitly intends Android to be used beyond phone/tablets so it is only logical to add support for more advanced/capable devices. Aren't there already a few "real" cameras based on Android?

I've said it before - the ability to alter white balance in post is alone worth the move to RAW. Also those pixels when exposed well capture more than you think.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2013 at 09:53 UTC
On Google working on RAW imaging for Android post (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

brecklundin: Given the way Google feels about Adobe...what are the odds they will even use DNG instead my cash is on a new "Google Standard" RAW....beta of course....screw Google. Once they were fine then they got stockholders and stopped being inventive and customer oriented.

I'm not sure what you're saying? Google integrates a version of Flash into Desktop Chrome and Chrome OS. They also have their own PDF reader and offer the option to "print" to PDF through Chrome. Google Drive understands PDF files. Google and Adobe play nice often. They compete sometimes yes but neither are petty.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2013 at 09:49 UTC
On Google working on RAW imaging for Android post (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jogger: What's the point of RAW on a 13+ mp sensor the size of a pinhead? Garbage in, garbage out.

@jogger It's useful because photography is as much art as it is technical mastery.

I own a D600 and a GH2 both of which of course produce technically superior images to anything a smartphone could hope to achieve - but there are places and situations where I want to capture an image and those cameras are not the appropriate tools. They're too conspicuous to use, they're too loud, they're too big, or they're just not with me at the time. My smartphone is with me all the time so anything that lets me capture better images with it is very welcome.

Plus the visual gap at most presentation sizes is not as large as you think. Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe at The Luminous Landscape have done comparisons tests of iPhones, high end compacts, DSLRs, and medium format images all printed at the same sizes. It was almost impossible to tell the difference between the prints much less guess which camera took which image.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 20:20 UTC
On Google working on RAW imaging for Android post (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jogger: What's the point of RAW on a 13+ mp sensor the size of a pinhead? Garbage in, garbage out.

@BlueBomberTurbo Agreed - not to mention that these phone makers do not always have the decades of image processing experience that the photography companies do. They make strange decisions with regards to tone curves and sharpening that given a RAW we could decide.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 20:05 UTC
On Google working on RAW imaging for Android post (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

jkoch2: Android can't handle AVCHD, SFAIK. RAW would choke small processors.

No... AVCHD is CPU/GPU intensive because of how the compression works. It takes a powerful machine to unpack it and play it in real time. RAW files are just the source luminosity values of each pixel and some metadata.

Plus I've been manipulating RAW's from my D600 and GH2 on both my smartphones (HTC Vivid and now Nexus 5) as well as an old Toshiba Thrive tablet. No problems to report with being too much for them to handle.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 19:41 UTC
On Google working on RAW imaging for Android post (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jogger: What's the point of RAW on a 13+ mp sensor the size of a pinhead? Garbage in, garbage out.

The ability to modify white balance alone is worth it.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 19:37 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nikola Vojvodic: So it does support old manual lenses, even pre-ai lenses, which is nice and even looks nice on a retro styled camera, but why didn't nikon implement any new or old manual focusing assist feature (eg. sonys focus peak or split prism)??

While yes the mirror does block the sensor this doesn't prevent this feature from existing in Live View. Its omission is more a case of Nikon not bothering than being unable to.

I imagine the usual MF assist exists where the phase detect sites are active and light up when in focus. A small indicator tries to tell you which direction to focus in but can be confused if the lens you're using rotates the opposite way. It works alright I've found with my AI-S 50mm 1.2 but your mileage may vary.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2013 at 21:14 UTC
On Tamron to develop 150-600mm F5-6.3 ultra-telephoto zoom article (193 comments in total)
In reply to:

dlkeller: If Tamron leaves the VC off this lens as they have their 18-270 PZD for Sony mounts I am through with their company forever! Otherwise, it is definitely on my wish list.

That doesn't make sense - the Sony/Minolta Alpha mount is defined for cameras that have in body stabilization. The camera wouldn't understand this and if the VC system in the lens were on while in body IS was on they would actually introduce blur instead of reduce it. Gordon Laing of CameraLabs did a test comparing Panasonic OIS against Olympus in body IS which you can see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPdy52mR6Io

The only real reason why you would want the VC system in the Alpha mount is for adapting the lens for AF use on NEX cameras which would be really cool given the new A7/A7r.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2013 at 19:52 UTC
In reply to:

TruePoindexter: I've investigated some of the extremely low prices people have been linking for the Canon 24-105 f/4 L and have discovered that these lenses have been pulled from combo packages of Canon 6D and 5DmkIII cameras and as such almost certainly will not be covered under warranty by Canon. Buy these at your own risk.

From legitimate retailers this Sigma 24-105 f/4 lens represents a significant price savings over the Canon/Nikon equivalents and will be a compelling lens if it performs.

Hi pc168 - warranties are almost always non-transferable. Some text from Canon USA's policies:

"Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Canada Inc. (collectively "Canon") warrant to the original end-user purchaser, when delivered in new condition in its original container, that the Product will be free from defects in materials and workmanship under normal use and service for a period of one (1) year from the date of original purchase."

and

"THIS LIMITED WARRANTY SHALL NOT EXTEND TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL PURCHASER OF THE PRODUCT, OR THE PERSON FOR WHOM IT WAS PURCHASED AS A GIFT, AND STATES YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY."

All in all buying in this manor is dealing in a grey area and it will be up to the manufacturer's good graces to honor the warranty or not.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2013 at 21:19 UTC
In reply to:

TruePoindexter: I've investigated some of the extremely low prices people have been linking for the Canon 24-105 f/4 L and have discovered that these lenses have been pulled from combo packages of Canon 6D and 5DmkIII cameras and as such almost certainly will not be covered under warranty by Canon. Buy these at your own risk.

From legitimate retailers this Sigma 24-105 f/4 lens represents a significant price savings over the Canon/Nikon equivalents and will be a compelling lens if it performs.

No - warranty repairs are only ever covered for the original purchaser of the product as intended to be sold. E.G. your lens would be covered if you purchased it alone in a retail box or you purchased the combo Camera/Lens retail box. Buying the lens out of the combo box is not a legitimate purchase in the eyes of the manufacturer and is akin to buying used.

Putting it another way these eBay sellers are effectively lying claiming the lens is new when technically they're not - the second they opened the combo package to separate the camera and lens from each other they can no longer be considered new and both should at least be considered a repackaged product. Either way the warranty is most definitely nullified.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2013 at 19:13 UTC
In reply to:

Francis Carver: This could be the ideal zoom lens for videography. Constant aperture throughout the zoom range is a big plus for film/video zooming shots. Now, for those of us not needing to cover FF 135 -- anyone knows what is the APS-C sensor equivalent of this lens, that is, something with an app. 4 to 4.5x zoom range and constant aperture setting throughout this range?

The Canon 1.6 crop is 38.4 - 168mm and for Sony/Nikon 1.5 crop 36 - 157.5mm give or take a little.

For video work I'm more concerned about the narrow focus ring and if the lens is parfocal (maintains focus distance while zooming). It's easy to work around both issues but I'm curious if they will be present or not.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2013 at 09:56 UTC
Total: 52, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »