BJL

BJL

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Dec 17, 2002
About me:

Olympus E-520, E-1, 14-54 f/2.8-3.5, 50-200 f/2.8-3.5
Olympus C2040
Canon Elan II/EOS-50, 28-105 f/3.5-4.5
Pentax K1000
Kodak Instamatic
First camera: Kodak Brownie

Stabilization by Manfrotto

Comments

Total: 209, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

TylerQ: I guess some people have no understanding how great film is. Given it's so called limitations, it's a wonder anyone ever took great photographs before the invention of digital sensors.
I remember shooting and not worrying about changing the iso, checking for image quality after each shot, doing a time lapse, 10-20 fps, etc. All those are just gimmicks.
Real photographers knew how to shoot photographs without all the so called "advantages" of digital cameras. You all should try it some time.

I can also happily leave my ISO speed setting at its minimum (as I almost always do in daylight shooting), I have never do time lapses and maybe use burst mode less than once a year, etc., etc.. So in what way do any of those additional options with digital relate to film being great? I do remember hauling several camera bodies on occasions where I wanted several film speeds, or wanted both color and monochrome; that was not so great.

It gets tiresome reading people pretend to be incapable of just using the features that they want on a camera and ignoring the rest, and making a vice out of more choice, and a virtue out of less choice.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 23:01 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: I saw used original 8mp digital Rebel DSLRs selling for $50 with chargers and batteries the other day. You can buy used 4-7mp point and shoots for $20 or less. Film is his-to-ry unless you have a specific need for the particular look it provides.

Isn't Kodak still making moving picture film in 8mm and 16mm format (having sold its _still_ film business) It is according to its website http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Production/index.htm
unless that is out of date.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 22:52 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: I saw used original 8mp digital Rebel DSLRs selling for $50 with chargers and batteries the other day. You can buy used 4-7mp point and shoots for $20 or less. Film is his-to-ry unless you have a specific need for the particular look it provides.

Yes, MF and larger is the obvious prime territory for film. But what does this former maker of cheap store-brand films offer that Fujifilm, the remnants of Kodak, and Ilford do not?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 20:50 UTC
In reply to:

bossnas: To all of the people that claim digital photography is so cheap, did your computer, software and hard-drives for backing up all come free with the camera? If they did, tell me where I too can get them. Thanks.

- My $80 1TB backup drives each holds over 50,000 photos, so less than 1c per image even when I keep two copies on separate drives, internal and external.
- I have a computer anyway for many other purposes, so photography at most requires $50-$100 worth of extra disk space, counted above.
- A great many photographers use free software, like the stuff that comes with every camera or the stuff bundled with many computers. Even those of who buy software pay far less for that than for films and processing: my photographic software expenses have been about $200 over the last few years, comparable to the film and processing costs of about a few hundred photos, but I have instead taken thousands in that time.

So the costs for most digital photographers are far, far less than with film.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 20:47 UTC
On Sony shows off upcoming full-frame lenses at Photokina article (324 comments in total)
In reply to:

marco1974: OK, so now we finally will have a 35/1.4... but it'll be the same size as the 24-240 superzoom! So much for the mirrorless advantage in terms of size and weight.
But oh, wait: we also have the more compact 35/2.8, don't we? But then the DOF and the total light-gathering ability is the same as that of a 23/2 on APS-c (which could obviously be much more compact to begin with). So much for the FF advantage in terms of DOF and ISO.
Mmmh, it seems that in spite of marketing claims, one just can't beat the laws of physics. Bummer.

Low f-stop wide angle lenses can be small because their effective aperture diameters arre still small (focal length divided by aperture ratio). But that is not where shallow DOF is most often sought, and the iron rule remains: shallower DOF at a given angular FOV comes from larger effective aperture diameters, not format size alone. And bigger aperture diameters require bigger, heaver front elements.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2014 at 14:40 UTC
On Rare Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM goes on sale in UK article (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

Omexis: Anyone know who previously owned this lens? and no comments about perverts, CIA, MI5/6 or someone with a inferiority complex.

I've read that Sports Illustrated was a major customer (meaning they bought more than one): the AF is what distinguished this lens from any number of 1200MM or longer alternatives.

The custom lens for photographing falcons in Qatar or whatever was the far larger Zeiss 1700mm f/4 for a Hasselblad F series body; #3 on this list: http://www.wexphotographic.com/blog/top-10-outrageous-lenses

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2014 at 21:17 UTC
On Fujifilm updates X-mount lens roadmap to end of 2015 article (171 comments in total)
In reply to:

photogeek: Too bad most of their lenses have noisy, slow motors and are worthless for fast moving subjects. FWIW, I ended up going with MFT after trying both X-T1 and E-M1 side by side. E-M1 is just much better made and all their lenses (at least all I have tried) have ultrasonic motors. The only real flaw that I could see in Oly lineup is their 17mm f/1.8 lens, which, while not that bad in absolute terms, is not that good either, and worse than their f/2.8 zoom.

When you say "USM", you mean "linear stepper motors" ["LSM"], which seem to be the best type for working with CDAF, whereas USM is the best with SLRs and their PDAF, but is sluggish with CDAF.

Several mirror-less system offer LSM focusing, so I doubt patents are a major barrier, and I loo forward to the X system getting something like LSM AF soon.

P. S. Olympus uses the marketing name MSC (movie and stills compatible), but the underlying technology is linear motors.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 15:21 UTC
On Melt: Portrait of an Iceberg article (45 comments in total)
In reply to:

Teru Kage: Let me begin by saying the following is in no way meant as a criticism on Simon Harsent's fine work.

Having read the background story to these photos, I can appreciate the muted approach that Harsent used to convey his ideas. However, I wonder how many people would have provided as much praise if they saw some of these photos with no frame of context. I posit that if someone posted photos like 2, 5 or 6 onto a critique forum, the majority of comments would be along the lines of "too flat/dull", "needs some punch".

It makes me wonder if we've become victims of an abundance of images. With everyone and their uncle taking and posting photos these days, perhaps our expectation of "good" photography has been set so high that we eagerly place photos into the Snapshot category if they don't grab our attention right off the bat.

In any case, I like that these photos make slow down a moment to think whether I find them average or there's something more to be discovered.

Or maybe our perceptions are being skewed by the pervasiveness of the "digital Velvia effect", where almost every image we see online has been hit with the saturation or clarity sliders, or "auto-Enhance". For example, Google+ applies auto-Enhance to every uploaded photo without even asking or teling you; it takes special intervention to disable that. IPhone has it too, though at least you have to choose to edit and touch the "magic wand" icon to apply it.

Direct link | Posted on May 19, 2014 at 12:27 UTC
On Toshiba unveils UHS-II Class 3 microSD memory cards article (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

BorisAkunin: Can we have normal sized cards first?

Already done:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/07/16/Toshiba-Exceria-Pro-fastest-SD-cards-UHS-II-up-to-240MBs-write

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2014 at 23:51 UTC
On Fujifilm announces 1.4x teleconverter for X100/X100S article (130 comments in total)
In reply to:

wootpile: 1.4... not enough to make sense

Cudos to Fuji for keeping their systems fresh and alive. But.. the jump from 35 to 50mm is marginal and is certainly something within crop range in edit. (a crop your 16 megapixel image to about 11.5 mpix)

I would have liked it to be a 2.4 instead, offering just over 80mm equiv, and wouldn't mind sacrificing apertures to get there.

wootpile, you misunderstand:
- to get the "50mm FOV" by cropping without a TC, you have to use 1/2 the sensor area (dividing both horizontal and vertical pixel count by 1.4) so getting 8MP, whereas with the 1.4x TC, you get that same FOV with no crop of the image from the sensor, so using all 16MP.
- to get a "70mm FOV" without the TC, you have to crop by 2X, to half the width and half the height of the total image from the sensor, or 4MP, whereas with the 1.4xTC only a further 1.4x crop is needed to get that FOV, so 8MP.

Perhaps you are missing the fact that the 1.4X is a linear factor of image enlargement, not a pixel count factor. That is, it increases the focal length by a factor of 1.4.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 18:53 UTC
On Fujifilm announces 1.4x teleconverter for X100/X100S article (130 comments in total)
In reply to:

wootpile: 1.4... not enough to make sense

Cudos to Fuji for keeping their systems fresh and alive. But.. the jump from 35 to 50mm is marginal and is certainly something within crop range in edit. (a crop your 16 megapixel image to about 11.5 mpix)

I would have liked it to be a 2.4 instead, offering just over 80mm equiv, and wouldn't mind sacrificing apertures to get there.

A 1.4x crop halves the pixel count (1.4 linear, so a factor of two in image area.) So from 16MP to 8MP.
The 1.4X TC could also be combined with a further crop, so that for example using both the 1.4X TC and a 1.4X crop gives a combined 2X for a "portraity" 70mm equivalent FOV with 8MP, instead of the 4MP got with just a 2X crop.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 14:57 UTC
On Pentax K-3 Review preview (493 comments in total)
In reply to:

LensBeginner: Cons:
1. never shot jpg
2. ditto
3. that's a problem with lenses, not camera
4. true. But it's a camera, not a videocamera
5. true

...not many cons there, are there? ;-)

And this is why I would be happy if these DPReviews ended at the pros and cons and discussion, leaving each of us potential users to decide how important the props and cons are to us, instead of attempting to reduce all these many aspects to a single number, or a single color of award.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2014 at 16:42 UTC
In reply to:

Manfred Bachmann: again a new akku? slowly i think nikon needs a break!

akku is German slang for battery I think (as in "accumulator").
This uses a new smaller battery along with its new smaller memory card format, microSD.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2014 at 15:47 UTC
On AJA enters cinema camera market with 4K Cion article (28 comments in total)
In reply to:

BJL: Why is the sensor called "APS-C" size, when its output is in the wide-screen 1.89:1 shape of cinema 4K (4096x2160), not the 3:2 of "APS-C", and is likely instead to be something closer to Super 35mm format?

It is strange to describe a digital motion camera's format in terms of a failed still camera film format of different shape (3:2) when there is are well-established motion camera formats like Super 35mm that describe the situation better.

Agreed that "super 35mm" is used loosely when describing video sensors. But it makes more sense to me to indicate roughly the format of a video sensor by comparing to a similar, well-known, widely used motion picture format than to compare to an obscure, failed still film camera format in a quite different shape: this sensor is in the roughly 1.9:1 shape of cine-4K, 4096x2160.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2014 at 00:09 UTC
In reply to:

Joseph S Wisniewski: Wonder how many uFT lenses will cover the 25.3mm Super35 image circle.

Weird. If Panasonic hadn't recently dumped all their JVC Kenwood stock (they were JVC's largest single investor for half a century) I'd say "oh look, a Panasonic subsidiary has joined four thirds".

But right now, it makes no sense.

P. S. Also "Super 35mm" is being used as loosely as "APS-C" these days. The actual sensor seems to have a 23.7mm diagonal for the cine-4K format, which is only 1.2mm more than the 22.5mm diagonal of official 4/3" format (18x13.5mm).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2014 at 22:17 UTC
In reply to:

dark goob: This is just wrong. Super35 is 24.9x16.6.

21x12 is the same thing BlackMagic's Production Camera uses.

For Reference the GH2's multi-aspect sensor is 18.9x10.6mm at 16:9.

The phrase "Super 35mm" is being used with digital video the way "APS-C" is used with digital still cameras: as a rough indication of the size using a hopefully familiar film format, which Super 35mm is for cinema and video professionals.

I do not see many people complaining about using "APS-C" to describe sensor formats as small as Canon's 22.3x14.9mm, when the actual APS-C film format is 25.1x16.7mm, larger than any "APS-C" sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2014 at 22:13 UTC
On AJA enters cinema camera market with 4K Cion article (28 comments in total)
In reply to:

BJL: Why is the sensor called "APS-C" size, when its output is in the wide-screen 1.89:1 shape of cinema 4K (4096x2160), not the 3:2 of "APS-C", and is likely instead to be something closer to Super 35mm format?

It is strange to describe a digital motion camera's format in terms of a failed still camera film format of different shape (3:2) when there is are well-established motion camera formats like Super 35mm that describe the situation better.

APS-C film format was 15.1x16.7, so 3:2. In fact the "C" refers to the "classic" 35mm film frame shape of 3:2.
It was always strange describing digital formats by using the name of a film format that hardly anyone ever knew and is anyway different (bigger).
On the other hand, Super 35mm has a well-established meaning for motion photography, both film and digital; in particular, the customers for such a camera know what Super 35mm means. So why not use motion camera format jargon when describing a motion camera?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2014 at 00:30 UTC
In reply to:

Joseph S Wisniewski: Wonder how many uFT lenses will cover the 25.3mm Super35 image circle.

Weird. If Panasonic hadn't recently dumped all their JVC Kenwood stock (they were JVC's largest single investor for half a century) I'd say "oh look, a Panasonic subsidiary has joined four thirds".

But right now, it makes no sense.

From the press release http://www.jvckenwood.co.jp/en/press/2014/04/press_140407.html

Proposal for new 4K-compatible camera system
1. [Reference Exhibit] 4K mini camera system
... This proposal will provide a new solution to expand the shooting field of the 4K camera system.

2. [Reference Exhibit] Interchangeable 4K compact handheld camera recorder
A “4K compact handheld camera recorder” will be on exhibit, featuring a 4K Super35mm image sensor, and MFT* Mount to flexibly accept a wide range of interchangeable lenses.

Item 2 makes me think that MFT mount is being used mostly as a "universal recipient", through which many lenses can be connected via adaptors.

But the Item 1 comment about "a new solution to expand the shooting field" intrigues me..

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2014 at 23:44 UTC
On AJA enters cinema camera market with 4K Cion article (28 comments in total)

Why is the sensor called "APS-C" size, when its output is in the wide-screen 1.89:1 shape of cinema 4K (4096x2160), not the 3:2 of "APS-C", and is likely instead to be something closer to Super 35mm format?

It is strange to describe a digital motion camera's format in terms of a failed still camera film format of different shape (3:2) when there is are well-established motion camera formats like Super 35mm that describe the situation better.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2014 at 14:46 UTC as 8th comment | 5 replies

The 21x12mm mentioned in the article is a bit smaller than Super35mm, which is 24.9mm wide. So either that is a typo, or JVC is proposing a slightly smaller variant of 35mm cinema format (there are already plenty of variants around!). It is also only a 1.7mm larger image circle diameter than the 22.5mm diagonal of the official 18x13.5mm of official 4/3" format, even if current MFT sensors are a bit smaller than that.
Since many lenses cover a comfortably larger image circle that the format they are for (in particular, longer than normal lenses and zooms at all except their shortest focal lengths), I doubt that vignetting will be much of a problem. Also, mild vignetting in the corners of a video frame could be corrected with "lens correction" firmware.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2014 at 18:41 UTC as 31st comment | 2 replies
Total: 209, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »