Ednaz

Ednaz

Lives in United States United States
Works as a just another photo hack
Has a website at www.onemountainphoto.com
Joined on Feb 4, 2004

Comments

Total: 76, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

nunatak: a nice lens, but there's something about the bokeh profile i find unsettling.

yep. I went back and looked at several shots several times, couldn't figure out exactly what it was. My first reaction was, look, you can see fresnel artifacts.

Direct link | Posted on May 13, 2015 at 16:51 UTC

I've worked with one on a travel shoot. Was surprised at how useful it really was. You can place highlights in a scene, or light from angles and directions that would be hard to do even with mono lights. Not $550 worth of useful for me, but I'd no question borrow or rent one for travel shoots.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 13:41 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

Ednaz: I've seen this on almost every Nikon owned, not at f16, but when shooting macro and working at effective apertures of f32 or higher. Not as dense as what's shown, but visible in that specific situation - macro, highly stopped down.

I suspect that there's a "tolerance" level for the spots...

Suave, the problem is not on the sensor, it's somewhere in the system of glass over top of the sensor.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 12:34 UTC
In reply to:

Ednaz: I've seen this on almost every Nikon owned, not at f16, but when shooting macro and working at effective apertures of f32 or higher. Not as dense as what's shown, but visible in that specific situation - macro, highly stopped down.

I suspect that there's a "tolerance" level for the spots...

Dear JRkiny - I teach photo workshops, and know very, very well how to clean a sensor. Dust spots don't look at all like that. The closest you get are welded-dust spots (do you know what that is?) but to anyone with real world experience, not the same. BTW, Nikon USA said the same thing - so I had them clean the sensor, shot a couple of reference images with the camera, sent them back, and got a new d800e body. (but they wouldn't change out the other bodies, and the new body, out of the box, had the same thing, just in different places.) Yeah, so it's probably that I don't know how to clean the sensor.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 22:53 UTC

I've seen this on almost every Nikon owned, not at f16, but when shooting macro and working at effective apertures of f32 or higher. Not as dense as what's shown, but visible in that specific situation - macro, highly stopped down.

I suspect that there's a "tolerance" level for the spots...

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 17:20 UTC as 44th comment | 12 replies
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

JaimeA: What is the weight of this lens?
Here is another Fuji lens without stabilization. There are many occasions when the lens has to be stopped down for additional depth of field.

I think you should check out the depth of field numbers for this focal length on this camera. At f2, focus point at 6 feet, you're in focus 4.5 to 6.5 feet. At 10 feet, from 6.75 to 19 feet. At f4, 6 foot DOF is 4-14 feet; 10 foot DOF is 5-185 feet. Should be easily hand-held at shutter speeds down to 1/30 or slightly under. Stabilization adds weight and bulk that's not very useful on wide angle lenses, which is why you don't see it much.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 11:56 UTC

When a natural disaster takes everything physical away from you, all you have left are memories. This is brilliant - it's giving people richer contact with their memories. Bravo.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 15, 2015 at 13:58 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

Ednaz: Dunno why you wouldn't just pick up a used 50mm or 85mm f1.2 or f1.4 used lens from Canon (the older mount lenses are very much like this, except less depth of field and softer bokeh) or the Nikon 50mm 1.2. They'll be manual focus, just like the Lensbaby, but f1.2. The f1.4 lenses would also work just as well.

Even in film days, the soft effects were often done in post processing. I used to have a whole stack of different fabrics and films mounted in frames that I used when making prints. Doing the shoot sharp and managing the softening after was a much more reliable and flexible approach.

Funny assertion that not many photographers did their own printing. That was true about commercial photographers who didn't have creative control of their work, and that's also true today. Outside of amateurs, or those who demand creative control, all post is done by someone else. I'm not spouting off from opinion, but from experience. I did a lot of shoots, in negative, transparency, and mostly in B&W (because at that time, fashion wasn't so much in color.) For Gordon, where do you think the Tiffen soft darkening filter came from? Worked great if you shot for it, and negative film was so forgiving you could. As a film era photographer... I use ambience metering with digital (and don't have to do all the insane ETR thinking as a result) and in that era, "digital dull" white balancing wasn't of concern. A lot of conclusions about photography come from people with only digital experience. White balancing is for dull people.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 22:27 UTC

Dunno why you wouldn't just pick up a used 50mm or 85mm f1.2 or f1.4 used lens from Canon (the older mount lenses are very much like this, except less depth of field and softer bokeh) or the Nikon 50mm 1.2. They'll be manual focus, just like the Lensbaby, but f1.2. The f1.4 lenses would also work just as well.

Even in film days, the soft effects were often done in post processing. I used to have a whole stack of different fabrics and films mounted in frames that I used when making prints. Doing the shoot sharp and managing the softening after was a much more reliable and flexible approach.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 12:17 UTC as 18th comment | 4 replies

Too much Kool-Aid on the tables at Nikon's headquarters and engineering locations. To be fair, they're no doubt hamstrung by the financial results of the overall company - I've spent my life working with companies to try to overcome those limits. But you can't figure out how to break out, until you acknowledge you're boxed in.

Even accounting for the Japanese cultural elements in the interview, it's clear that people in Nikon are flailing. Read the Fuji interview to see a great example of both Japanese cultural behaviors and a lack of Kool-Aid in the corporate cafeteria.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 22:46 UTC as 133rd comment
On Fujifilm X100T Review preview (656 comments in total)
In reply to:

nicolaru: Hi FogdeanDurn.
It is a 23mm F2. 23 X 1.5 = 34.5mm

I'm surprised at how many people seem to think that out of focus backgrounds are the only reason for a fast aperture. Hard to imagine how that must limit their photographic thinking.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 25, 2015 at 16:35 UTC
On Fujifilm X100T Review preview (656 comments in total)

Very, very smart of Fuji to focus on user interface and experience enhancements. Today, most APS-C and full frame cameras (I'd even throw in m4/3) produce great image files with vanishingly small differences between brands. If you could get a shot technically with one camera brand, you could get it with any. But that assumes that the user interface doesn't get in the way at minimum.

But if it can help you maximize the quality of a capture and composition (manual focus tools, hybrid finder, function buttons for focus point location, for example) suddenly there IS a meaningful difference between cameras with equal technical chops. Now the camera is helping me use my seeing skills, instead of arguing with them. Very, very smart, Fuji.

I am a little sad about staying at 16mp, though. I think 16mp is generally completely sufficient, but with a fixed lens camera, particularly a mild wide angle lens, there will be situations where you're cropping.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 25, 2015 at 12:26 UTC as 106th comment
On Making 'Art': We go inside Sigma's lens factory article (192 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ednaz: I LOVE this kind of story. I know not everyone is as obsessed with purposeless curiosity as I am. (Took me well into my teens before I stopped disassembling things just because.). I think it's a good reminder of the incredibly complex engineering and manufacturing processes required to make modern lenses. 90% of what we'd declare a defect in modern lenses would be well within manufacturing tolerances for lenses 20 years ago.

Most things like toys I got back together very successfully, sometimes in completely new forms. I merged a fire truck, formula race car, and a steam shovel into an alarming looking rolling toy once. I hope it paid off for you as it has for me. In film camera days I made a nice side income buying broken cameras for a fraction of their functioning market value - mostly Bronica, Hasselblad, Rollei, and various similar brands where a mechanical failure was rare and fluke-y. I then fixed them, usually just a slipped cog or broken spring, cleaned them up inside, and sold them at a sliver less than market value. Can't do that with current cameras and lenses. The precision in anything assembled in the last 10 years puts that older mechanical stuff to shame, as you can see in the pictures.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 9, 2015 at 19:35 UTC
On Making 'Art': We go inside Sigma's lens factory article (192 comments in total)

I LOVE this kind of story. I know not everyone is as obsessed with purposeless curiosity as I am. (Took me well into my teens before I stopped disassembling things just because.). I think it's a good reminder of the incredibly complex engineering and manufacturing processes required to make modern lenses. 90% of what we'd declare a defect in modern lenses would be well within manufacturing tolerances for lenses 20 years ago.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 9, 2015 at 14:22 UTC as 61st comment | 3 replies

Reading the interview, its very clear why they've done as well as they have. They're honest with themselves. Companies that drink too much of their own Kool-Aid can fool themselves into thinking they've nailed a design or feature set, and mistake customer acceptance for customer enthusiasm. I love how focused he is on the things they need to be better at. Gives me confidence in the system.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2015 at 15:46 UTC as 61st comment
On CP+ 2015: Canon shows 11-24mm in cross-section article (63 comments in total)

WANT. Not the real lens, just the cutaway. Absolutely lovely.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 14:26 UTC as 14th comment

I started to play with mirrorless back when the first m4/3 cameras came out. Pretty much thought of it as a toy. The lenses were all slow, the lens range was awful, the digital noise was bad much over 400. My Nikon bodies and lenses were safe - fast primes, fast (2.8) zooms, speedy focus acquisition and tracking. Any serious shoot I took them; the mirrorless was my going to the store or messing around camera.

Today, I shoot less than a third of what I shoot with the Nikon gear. My m4/3 two body kit has fast primes - 24mm, 40mm, 85mm equivalents - and fast enough zooms (f2.8, except for super wide at f4). My Fuji kit has grown - fast primes, really low noise. My Nikon kit - no new lenses for a couple years since I've got the fast primes I need, and fast zooms I need. The Nikons come out when 36mp matters, and when I know a lot of shots will be ISO 6400 and higher.

Neither the m4/3 kits or the Fuji kits would have happened if Nikon had been out with small bodies and fast primes.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 17:20 UTC as 207th comment
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1915 comments in total)

I think it's funny that the "not so good for" comments are for things that no one cared much about two years ago. Tells you that there's still some innovation going on in old mirrored camera forms.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2014 at 13:30 UTC as 399th comment
In reply to:

Ednaz: Size and weight matter in a lot of ways. As much as I love my Nikon D800E bodies and Nikkor lenses, I can pack a three zoom, two prime, and two body m4/3 kit in the same space as one D800E and two zooms. I have my Fuji kit because it slots in nicely between the two options - better noise performance than the m4/3, but still light weight, quiet, and small compared to the DSLR kit. XPro1 and four fast primes in the space of a D800E and two zooms that cover the same focal length range, but the Fuji lenses are across the board wider aperture, for more light gathering. (I know f1.2 translates to something like f2 in DOF... but f1.2 in terms of light gathering is f1.2.)

I'd like a few more pixels so I'm not stressing an image so much when printing 20x30, and I'd like a more functionally good XP rangefinder, and an ultra wide prime would basically fill out my complete wish list for Fuji beyond what they have now. They're doing great stuff, and own a range of my work.

@daniel, the difference is similarly large. The f2 12mm Olympus lens... I could probably fit four of them in the Nikkor 24mm case, and two in the Fuji 14mm case. The 43mm f1.2 is much smaller than the 56mm f1.2 by Fuji and way way smaller than an 85mm f1.4. The gx7 body is way smaller than my xpro, , although the Gh4 is close to the size of the xt1. Which is why I don't have one. For real fun put the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 next to the Nikkor 24-70. I can store the 12-35 in the Nikkor lens hood. And it's about half to 2/3 the size of Fuji 18-55, the closest zoom equivalent.

I'm not near my gear cabinet now so the above is working from memory, but I can stick a m43 3 fast prime and body kit in the same size camera bag compartment that would take two Fuji primes. Have done.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 22:25 UTC
In reply to:

Ednaz: Size and weight matter in a lot of ways. As much as I love my Nikon D800E bodies and Nikkor lenses, I can pack a three zoom, two prime, and two body m4/3 kit in the same space as one D800E and two zooms. I have my Fuji kit because it slots in nicely between the two options - better noise performance than the m4/3, but still light weight, quiet, and small compared to the DSLR kit. XPro1 and four fast primes in the space of a D800E and two zooms that cover the same focal length range, but the Fuji lenses are across the board wider aperture, for more light gathering. (I know f1.2 translates to something like f2 in DOF... but f1.2 in terms of light gathering is f1.2.)

I'd like a few more pixels so I'm not stressing an image so much when printing 20x30, and I'd like a more functionally good XP rangefinder, and an ultra wide prime would basically fill out my complete wish list for Fuji beyond what they have now. They're doing great stuff, and own a range of my work.

So let's check that out, focusing on fast aperture:

D800, 24, 35, 85,105 = 121 oz
D800, 14-24, 24-70 = 99 oz
Xpro1, 14, 23, 35, 56 = 56 oz

The Fuji kit is all f1.4 or 1.2, as is the Nikon kit other than the 105mm.

And in terms of space, when my newbie photographer friends ask me about what camera system to buy into, I let them pack a bag with each of my three systems (m4/3, Fuji, Nikon.) The primes only take up the same space as zooms if you stack them on top of each other, and they weigh more. To get any Nikon kit down in weight and size you have to be happy with f4.

A couple of pounds doesn't sound like a lot until you've got it on a shoulder for 16 hours, with water bottles, protein bars, spare batteries, ND filters, a flash.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 13:49 UTC
Total: 76, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »