Richard Schumer

Richard Schumer

Joined on May 30, 2012

Comments

Total: 147, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Yanko Kitanov: A) This camera has some impressive dynamic range
B) The suckers at Pentax marketing should have been fired long time ago...do it now - the choice of images to display is simply terrible. Not terrible like they are not artistic, but terrible like you loose huge part of the possible income from prospective customers repulsed by the choice of images. And if you are not sure about this check the 200 negative comments and several forum threads provoked by these images...

@Yanko: "The suckers at Pentax marketing should have been fired (a) long time ago."

Yep. Pentax's fault has always been marketing. In its heyday, Pentax outsourced wholesale distribution to Heiland and then Honeywell in the USA and to other firms in Europe; when Asahi took over this function internally, dealers fled, leading to lost sales and falling market share.

Maybe Ricoh is better in this regard, or, perhaps online sales will moot the point.

Neither Walmart nor Best Buy will ever sell Pentaxes, I believe.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2016 at 02:04 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Kwon: Would you buy this if Panasonic makes this same camera in China for half of the cost of it? I don't think I would, but I still want anyone of the Leica cameras...

@onlooker. Re: shutter speed. Yes, top speed was probably 1000. So were most cameras of the time. I never had one. I saved and saved for it, but the price kept going up until it became the Leica CL, and was permanently out of my reach.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2015 at 14:31 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Kwon: Would you buy this if Panasonic makes this same camera in China for half of the cost of it? I don't think I would, but I still want anyone of the Leica cameras...

Analogue: Minolta made for Leica a camera labeled the CL. It has since beciome a very rare and expensive collector's item. Made by Minolta in Japan.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2015 at 05:49 UTC
In reply to:

SirSeth: What kind of garbage is this? It's as daft as sending journalists out with iPhones and firing all the staff photographers.

It's already happening on the small-market level, which usually indicates what will be mainstream in short order. Right now, I see small local tv stations have handed out cell phones and selfie sticks to field reporters in order to save the cost of camera and audio techs.

If a poorly-educated audience will buy/watch such inane "content", why pay for expertise?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 21:13 UTC
On article RX aeternus? Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 II review (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

LightForAll: From a Panasonic FZ1K owner, and pro daily newspaper photojournalist:
Sony pro-features are that 1000fps ability, built-in ND filter, higher shutter speeds, headphone jack and f/2.8 throughout, but the limitation to 200mm really hurts. The only thing I can imagine is that Panasonic will also raise their bar. I need the reach that Sony currently doesn't provide optically.

Still awaiting Nikon to do something, and what I'd LOVE (in a perfect world) is a full frame sensor camera such as the D4S-equivalent, to have removable prism to allow an optional EVF finder. Can that happen at all?

"removable prism to allow an optional EVF finder"

Ouch! Reminds me of my only Nikon, a used F with a photomic removable prism. Its loose latch and sharp corners which hurt my fingers made me go back to Pentax some forty years ago.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2015 at 19:12 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: First! Way to go Pentax! Looks good, I like the dials. Tempting, as I have 3 nice SMC-M primes left over from my film days.

JackM wrote: "I like manual metering." I do too, sometimes. But most times, in dynamic terms, not.

I like my M-series lenses a lot better when I use them on my Olympus m43 bodies than on my K10d.

A-series lenses work perfectly on my K10d, and, presumably, this model, too.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 23, 2015 at 19:44 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: First! Way to go Pentax! Looks good, I like the dials. Tempting, as I have 3 nice SMC-M primes left over from my film days.

M-primes probably will have to be used in manual metering mode, just like previous crop-sensor models. A-series glass will work fine in all modes.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 23, 2015 at 19:11 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: @Brittany Hillen:
> Sans an adapter

I read "Sans" is archaic and used by foreign speakers more than native speakers. It is French for without. Also in this thread, I see this word causes quite some confusion.

My question: Did you use this word for a reason, came it natural for you, or thinking about it now, would you use 'without' instead?

Are you a native speaker, US or UK?

I ask because I am curious to learn about the language. My native language is German.

@ Joseph W. --
"Celtic" has absolutely nothing to do with English. You're confusing Celtic with Germanic."

It's possible. As I said, I'm not a professor, I'm didact.

"As far as that uncalled-for and insulting "four-letter, one-syllable words like 'rock,' 'hand', and 'meat.'" comment,

I did not mean any slight with my definition of four-letter etc., merely my admiration for poetry in general in English and Shakespeare in particular. The short words give English its particular rhythm, which, as a native, I find as beautiful as I find Italian melodic.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2015 at 22:00 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: @Brittany Hillen:
> Sans an adapter

I read "Sans" is archaic and used by foreign speakers more than native speakers. It is French for without. Also in this thread, I see this word causes quite some confusion.

My question: Did you use this word for a reason, came it natural for you, or thinking about it now, would you use 'without' instead?

Are you a native speaker, US or UK?

I ask because I am curious to learn about the language. My native language is German.

@vadims -- If you are asking my opinion, I try to use the core English as much as possible, so I would use without or less. I don't like sans for exactly the reason you say: Does the phrase follow English or French rules?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2015 at 13:10 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: @Brittany Hillen:
> Sans an adapter

I read "Sans" is archaic and used by foreign speakers more than native speakers. It is French for without. Also in this thread, I see this word causes quite some confusion.

My question: Did you use this word for a reason, came it natural for you, or thinking about it now, would you use 'without' instead?

Are you a native speaker, US or UK?

I ask because I am curious to learn about the language. My native language is German.

Oh, my! On further reflection, I omitted the technical aspect of English, which, like German, I believe, welds word-concepts together, like hypocrite, from Greek hypo, less, and French critique, criticism, or, in original celtic, the word "without" itself, made of "with" and "out."

If I think of any more, I promise, I will keep it to myself -- but you did ask....

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2015 at 01:19 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: @Brittany Hillen:
> Sans an adapter

I read "Sans" is archaic and used by foreign speakers more than native speakers. It is French for without. Also in this thread, I see this word causes quite some confusion.

My question: Did you use this word for a reason, came it natural for you, or thinking about it now, would you use 'without' instead?

Are you a native speaker, US or UK?

I ask because I am curious to learn about the language. My native language is German.

I have spent 20 years as a professional writer in American English; I am not a university professor, but I know common usage.

English's core vocabulary is from celtic, and consists of, typically, four-letter, one-syllable words like "rock," "hand", and "meat." Over time as explorations brought foreign terms, they were added to the language as new concepts or as shades of different meaning. When meanings overlap, either or both are considered correct.

Usually, substituting a word adapted from another language *where a true English equivalent exists* is considered pretentious, but quite correct.

For example, in World War One, soldiers suffered from "shell shock," a condition clearly expressed in short, celtic words. By World War Two, however, the condition was called "Battle Fatigue" from the French, probably to hide its true meaning; now it is called "Post-traumatic Stress Disorder," so Americans can pretend the former two have been cured.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2015 at 00:36 UTC
On article Sony brings uncompressed Raw to a7S II, a7R II and... (562 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: Sounds good - finally! But *what* is for 1st Generation buyers, the A7, A7R and A7S?! We'd love to have also a Firmware Upgrade with 14-bit native RAW compressed/uncompressed Mode selectable via Menu! Thanks, Sony.

Mom! They all got uncompressed RAW and I didn't! Mom!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2015 at 18:30 UTC
In reply to:

RedDog Steve: I understand that AF and stabilization are advanced concepts, but they couldn't even offer auto aperture control like so many lenses from the '70s that this is patterned after ?
Rumours were that this was to be a "pancake" ... not.

Not worth it for several steps backward in technology.

Auto aperture isn't necessary for m43 as the viewing image will be amplified to be as bright as possible whatever the aperture. This means fulltime depth-of-field preview, too.

No stabi and no AF are common in third-party lenses nowadays, sir.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2015 at 17:56 UTC
On article Meet Milvus: Hands-on with Zeiss's Milvus lenses (254 comments in total)
In reply to:

W4YNE 1: As with most Zeiss lenses very impressive and I am tempted, my only worry with manual focussing is if in the future my eyesight begins to deteriorate what I will perceve as being in focus will not be?

Nice images with the new Milvus and older Zeiss lenses.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/21232734422/in/photostream/

My eyes are 72 years old. My vision is not dim. Most DSLRs and my Oly EVF have adjustable diopter viewfinders which allow older eyes to focus on the typical 3-foot (1 meter) vf focus distance.

I use a microprism aftermarket focusing screen on my Pentax K10d which resembles the stock screens on film Pentaxes of my youth.

A few dozens (or hundreds) of hours of practice manually focusing with one of these screens on a DSLR with a prism rather than mirrors will pay off with better results than AF in most cases.

Of course, I already possess the skills and don't have to muck around learning them!

So, to answer your question, no. You will not mistake what is out of focus for what is in focus. At worst, you will not be able to tell the difference, but that will be something that crops up in real life just as often if you develop an eye disease.

Otherwise, don't expect poorer vision as you age, except for the inability to focus close without aids.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 11, 2015 at 19:25 UTC
In reply to:

photoaddict: Makes me wonder if the lens can resolve all the details with so many pixels? I recall that the lens does have a limit to how much it can resolve details.

Look at google maps sometime and zoom in. They appear to be resolving <1 foot from a satellite! And this is what the NSA and NSC declassifies -- their own resulutions are thought to be an order of magnitude higher.

So, yes, very high resolution optics are possible.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 8, 2015 at 02:26 UTC
On article A lot to like: Real-world Leica Q gallery posted (349 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: I am very disappointed with the IQ of the images posted in the gallery. I dl'd the DNG files, converted them to tiffs and messed around with one (the fisherperson) according to my preferences. The shadows can be pulled up quite a lot, and there's much information in the highlights, too, but the shadows are noisy with chrominance artifacts. Overall noise at ISO 800 seems like my old Pentax 10d -- not up to current standards, IMHO based on my Olympus E-PM2 at the same ISO.

But, there is objectionable IMO vignetting at f:2.2, made worse by my usual processing. See the conversion in my gallery -- js_ISO800_f_2.2_L1010969
(I do not know how to post the photo in this forum -- sorry. If someone would like to enlighten me....)

AND -- if one looks at the waterline, there appears to be a huge amount of barrel distortion, as well, considering how high up in the frame the horizon is here.

@DStudio -- Pentax's skin tones are the absolute best, IMO; to me, they are the equivalent of Fuji Reala film in that respect. Its color shadow noise, though, like the Leica's, is hateful to my eyes.

Oly's colors are quite nice, too, but due to the nature of the camera, I don't shoot many people with it (I don't trust auto-focus for portraits yet).

Having owned a couple of Leica film cameras over the years, I like to keep up with what they are doing now that they are hugely profitable again. They seem to be made of teams competing with each other without an overall corporate focus.

But what do I know?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 3, 2015 at 12:08 UTC
On article A lot to like: Real-world Leica Q gallery posted (349 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: I am very disappointed with the IQ of the images posted in the gallery. I dl'd the DNG files, converted them to tiffs and messed around with one (the fisherperson) according to my preferences. The shadows can be pulled up quite a lot, and there's much information in the highlights, too, but the shadows are noisy with chrominance artifacts. Overall noise at ISO 800 seems like my old Pentax 10d -- not up to current standards, IMHO based on my Olympus E-PM2 at the same ISO.

But, there is objectionable IMO vignetting at f:2.2, made worse by my usual processing. See the conversion in my gallery -- js_ISO800_f_2.2_L1010969
(I do not know how to post the photo in this forum -- sorry. If someone would like to enlighten me....)

AND -- if one looks at the waterline, there appears to be a huge amount of barrel distortion, as well, considering how high up in the frame the horizon is here.

@NanBL

Perhaps. I'll think about what you say. But perhaps 'doctored' gives the wrong connotation. Perhaps I should have used modified, interpolated, corrected or another more accurate or neutral term.

But, the bottom line is that the Field of View of the camera as a system is not that of a 28mm lens but somewhat less wide-angle, possibly even 35mm otherwise those unexposed wide corners would be visible, as would the barrel distortion.

My Oly software is set up to do the same thing with some of their lenses (OK, maybe all of them!) so I know it is not unusual. It is just not to my preference. That's why I use no preset for it in GiMP and correct, if needed, manually.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 1, 2015 at 22:50 UTC
On article A lot to like: Real-world Leica Q gallery posted (349 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: I am very disappointed with the IQ of the images posted in the gallery. I dl'd the DNG files, converted them to tiffs and messed around with one (the fisherperson) according to my preferences. The shadows can be pulled up quite a lot, and there's much information in the highlights, too, but the shadows are noisy with chrominance artifacts. Overall noise at ISO 800 seems like my old Pentax 10d -- not up to current standards, IMHO based on my Olympus E-PM2 at the same ISO.

But, there is objectionable IMO vignetting at f:2.2, made worse by my usual processing. See the conversion in my gallery -- js_ISO800_f_2.2_L1010969
(I do not know how to post the photo in this forum -- sorry. If someone would like to enlighten me....)

AND -- if one looks at the waterline, there appears to be a huge amount of barrel distortion, as well, considering how high up in the frame the horizon is here.

@NarrBL

Yes, we seem to agree that simple-to-operate cameras which appeal to casual shooters have a market; those shooters probably skip retaining RAW files at all. If the JPG engine that come with the camera makes pictures which look good to them, that's all they need to know or to do.

OTOH, I have been shooting pro and amateur for a long, long time. I have a look I like and know how to get it from either film or, now, digital. I need undoctored RAW files for that.

At least the M-series which makes undoctored RAW files (I presume,) costs no more than the Q.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 1, 2015 at 21:47 UTC
On article BSI Boss? Sony Alpha 7R II added to studio scene (535 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: Diminishing Returns? On the page showing normalized RAWS http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7rii&attr13_1=sony_a7r&attr13_2=nikon_d750&attr13_3=sony_a7s&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=51200&attr16_3=51200&attr171_0=off&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.11559854897218864&y=0.5520997634069401
the tests were at 25,600 and 51k ISO equiv. I sit in a white room in the middle of the night in front of a 350-nit 23-inch monitor and four feet (1.3m) from a 800-lumen lamp with shade. There is no other light. ISO 25,600 exposure is f:2.8 @1/250 according to my Luna-pro light meter.

What difference does being able to shoot one stop higher in such near-darkness? Why would I need even this much speed? Except, of course for night-sky photos.

@darngooddesign--
H'mm. Excuse me, I am not being obtuse intentionally, but illumination from one computer monitor and one 23-watt CFL does not make for an action-packed environment. I could barely see well enough to walk,...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 1, 2015 at 17:10 UTC
On article BSI Boss? Sony Alpha 7R II added to studio scene (535 comments in total)

Diminishing Returns? On the page showing normalized RAWS http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7rii&attr13_1=sony_a7r&attr13_2=nikon_d750&attr13_3=sony_a7s&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=51200&attr16_3=51200&attr171_0=off&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.11559854897218864&y=0.5520997634069401
the tests were at 25,600 and 51k ISO equiv. I sit in a white room in the middle of the night in front of a 350-nit 23-inch monitor and four feet (1.3m) from a 800-lumen lamp with shade. There is no other light. ISO 25,600 exposure is f:2.8 @1/250 according to my Luna-pro light meter.

What difference does being able to shoot one stop higher in such near-darkness? Why would I need even this much speed? Except, of course for night-sky photos.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 1, 2015 at 12:40 UTC as 96th comment | 3 replies
Total: 147, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »