Richard Schumer

Richard Schumer

Joined on May 30, 2012

Comments

Total: 105, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: True, Voigtlander is one of the oldest names in photography, but as you (presumably) know Cosina, maker of current Voigtlander has no connection with the Voigtlander company.

Reminds me of when Kyocera celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Contax, a name they had purchased. They had banners and posters with a crest, lapel pins, the whole deal. Another case where a name was used to convey a legacy which did not exist.

Given that most people have never heard of Voigtlander until recently, I wonder what was wrong with "Cosina"?

"Cosina Voigtländer refers to photographic products manufactured by Cosina under the Voigtländer name since 1999. Cosina leases rights to the Voigtländer name from Ringfoto. Cosina Voigtländer products have included 35mm film SLR and rangefinder camera bodies, and lenses for the M39 lens mount (Leica screw mount), M42 lens mount, Leica M mount, and other lens mounts.

Ringphoto Voigtländer in Germany also produces some budget-priced items under the Voigtländer name, unrelated to Cosina."

(Wikipedia)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosina_Voigtl%C3%A4nder

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2015 at 20:08 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: Reading the discussion so far, it appears to me many people have never used a rangefinder. My first serious camera (~1957 Minolta II) had a superimposed rf and even to my young eyes, it was dim, small, and uncertain to focus. Because of this, I traded for a newish Aries (w/Nikkor f:2.0 lens!) with an M-3 style bright finder. It was better but not yet good enough. I traded that for an SLR (Contax-D) and have never used a rangefinder again.

Some people, I believe, perceive the world in a way that invites the superimposition focus method, and others, like me, do not.

The point is: before you criticize this camera, whose range/viewfinder probably adds a couple of thousand dollars to its price, use one from a rental shop or a friendly, trusting dealer. You may love it or hate it. But it will be an informed emotion.

How is it that Cosina (who makes Voigtlander products) can sell a 50mm M-mount f:1.1 for one-tenth of the price of a similar-spec Leica lens (f:/0.95)?https://cameraquest.com/voigt_5011.htm

How does their pricing affect Leica"s?

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 15:01 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: Reading the discussion so far, it appears to me many people have never used a rangefinder. My first serious camera (~1957 Minolta II) had a superimposed rf and even to my young eyes, it was dim, small, and uncertain to focus. Because of this, I traded for a newish Aries (w/Nikkor f:2.0 lens!) with an M-3 style bright finder. It was better but not yet good enough. I traded that for an SLR (Contax-D) and have never used a rangefinder again.

Some people, I believe, perceive the world in a way that invites the superimposition focus method, and others, like me, do not.

The point is: before you criticize this camera, whose range/viewfinder probably adds a couple of thousand dollars to its price, use one from a rental shop or a friendly, trusting dealer. You may love it or hate it. But it will be an informed emotion.

@Rstyga. I disagree about the cost of the RF on Leicas. My estimate was based on research on the web, where the consensus estimate was $2500. Understand, Leica's optical and mechanical standards for the RFs are doubtless similar to their (overpriced) lenses.

We can disagree in a pleasant manner.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 02:17 UTC

Reading the discussion so far, it appears to me many people have never used a rangefinder. My first serious camera (~1957 Minolta II) had a superimposed rf and even to my young eyes, it was dim, small, and uncertain to focus. Because of this, I traded for a newish Aries (w/Nikkor f:2.0 lens!) with an M-3 style bright finder. It was better but not yet good enough. I traded that for an SLR (Contax-D) and have never used a rangefinder again.

Some people, I believe, perceive the world in a way that invites the superimposition focus method, and others, like me, do not.

The point is: before you criticize this camera, whose range/viewfinder probably adds a couple of thousand dollars to its price, use one from a rental shop or a friendly, trusting dealer. You may love it or hate it. But it will be an informed emotion.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 15:27 UTC as 30th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: The problem with pouring on exposure without clipping the highlights is just that. It's great when you have your D800 on a tripod, mirror locked up, and are meticulously focusing your Zeiss lens. You are crafting the perfect image.

In practice, when doing anything where time is not unlimited, setting the camera to just touch the right without going over will result in the exposure going over, and clipping. At least that's been my experience. Better to expose less and if unavoidable, pull up noisy shadows than try to recover highlights that don't exist.

Of course, I grew up with film, where 400 ASA was fast so I don't use incredibly high ISOs since they're too noisy.

@ RichRMA -- You're right; digital changes it all, though. Now my goal is to capture as much information (data) as possible and bring out what I choose in PP rather than to limit myself to the traditional 8 EVs film could capture with rolloffs at the top and bottom.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 20:07 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: The problem with pouring on exposure without clipping the highlights is just that. It's great when you have your D800 on a tripod, mirror locked up, and are meticulously focusing your Zeiss lens. You are crafting the perfect image.

In practice, when doing anything where time is not unlimited, setting the camera to just touch the right without going over will result in the exposure going over, and clipping. At least that's been my experience. Better to expose less and if unavoidable, pull up noisy shadows than try to recover highlights that don't exist.

Of course, I grew up with film, where 400 ASA was fast so I don't use incredibly high ISOs since they're too noisy.

"Of course, I grew up with film, where 400 ASA was fast so I don't use incredibly high ISOs since they're too noisy."

I grew up on film, too. After reading A. Adam's Zone system, I used its technique for exposing for shadows and developing for highlights, and found "Pushing" did not affect Zone 1, the deepest shadows. Using 135 film, it was not usually practical to change development times for the highlights so I used an incident light meter and changed the hardness of the printing paper for highlight adjustment.

The analogue to this in the digital world means I have to find where Zone 7 or 8 is on the sensor thru some tests and then set my incident meter to a "speed" that will not oversaturate the sensor; I expect to adjust the shadows in PP. Perhaps I will have to mask the shadows and run heavy noise reduction on them; if so, so be it.

Just thinking aloud.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 18:56 UTC
On Lensbaby introduces Velvet 56mm f/1.6 article (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klarth: "The Most Hipster Portrait Lens Ever Made"

Much more hipster, I guess, than using a pair of pantyhose or crushed cellophane over the front of a lens to get the same "softness."

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 23:30 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: It appears to me that Mr. Maeda identifies the intended buyers of this line of cameras to be photojournalists , not advanced amateurs. For PJs to require similar pixel-level quality to APS sized sensors indicates to me PJs want to be able to crop severely and that is more important than dynamic range.

To an artist, the opposite might be true, but artists are not their intended target.

@Lassoni: Canon makes several FF DSLRs. I'm not intimate with their lines, but the 1Dx seems for studio photogs, and 5DMk3 for advanced amateurs....

Perhaps we're seeing fragmentation of a mature market?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 14:30 UTC

It appears to me that Mr. Maeda identifies the intended buyers of this line of cameras to be photojournalists , not advanced amateurs. For PJs to require similar pixel-level quality to APS sized sensors indicates to me PJs want to be able to crop severely and that is more important than dynamic range.

To an artist, the opposite might be true, but artists are not their intended target.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 02:27 UTC as 102nd comment | 3 replies
On Making 'Art': We go inside Sigma's lens factory article (192 comments in total)
In reply to:

Suave: "The elements are held in place initially by friction, inside their TSC trays, before the TSC is heated at the edges and sealed to lock the elements into place. This type of construction replaces the much more involved traditional method where glass elements were held in place by metal bezels screwed tightly into the barrel."

So replacing front or rear element now requires replacent of the entire assembly at god knows how much the cost.

IIRC this construction was first used circa 1975 by Canon and nearly all major high-volume lensmakers have adapted it to their lines by now.

No news here, except that the most expensive Sigma line is so constructed.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 10, 2015 at 00:32 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: AF is for wimps. :-) My Pentax film camera didn't have no newfangled AF, and it worked just fine. :-)

Barry:

Memories are vague. I used a second body I borrowed from my dad, an Asahi H1, perhaps, or s3v? with a 135mm F;3.5, too. It was good for panning as action went by or to catch a quick passing maneuver. I got my own Pentax in 1966 at the factory.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2015 at 18:52 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: AF is for wimps. :-) My Pentax film camera didn't have no newfangled AF, and it worked just fine. :-)

Barry: I had to reach back to remember how I dealt with motorsport. This was pre-Pentax and microprism days; I used a Contax-D (actually one rebranded as "Hexacon") and a 400mm f:6.3 lens with a 2x extender, all mounted on a hacked wooden crutch with a long cable release through to the handgrip so I could hold/shoot with my right hand and focus with the left. There was only one choice in film -- Tri-X pushed to 1600.

I used to pick my shots (tops of hills, long straightaways, at the apex of curves) and focus on a spot and wait for the car to hit it.

I dunno how pros do it today. I quit freelancing when I realized it would mean little profit and lots of work. Being lazy, I became a disk jockey.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2015 at 18:40 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: AF is for wimps. :-) My Pentax film camera didn't have no newfangled AF, and it worked just fine. :-)

Prairie Pal: I believe my *ist DS and K10D both beep when focus is manually achieved in addition to visual peaking.

I turn focus peaking off most of the time, but sometimes it's a Godsend.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2015 at 18:31 UTC
In reply to:

Aur: "The other thing is heat. Because the sensor is always on, it generates heat. So with current technology we believe the time is not right for us to make a large sensor mirrorless camera. "

I wonder what this means for the longevity of a full frame mirrorless. They hint they ran into heat problems obviously, I know a Sony mirrorless can actually physically shut down in a hot climate when you've been shooting for a long time, especially with video, and Nikon has some patents to try to cool down the sensor. The camera will simply shut down to try to protect the sensor from the heat.

Not good for longevity, but I doubt that's the issue for Pentax. It's probably that more heat = more noise.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2015 at 16:15 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: AF is for wimps. :-) My Pentax film camera didn't have no newfangled AF, and it worked just fine. :-)

I need to beat on a dead horse here: I spent a couple of weeks training myself to focus quickly using a microprism spot on my first Pentax, a Spotmatic. I got good enough to sell quite a lot of racing pictures to magazines like Road & Track and Autosport back in the '60s.

The other day, I was shooting performers at a street festival with a medium tele while standing next to a young person with a DSLR, who spent his time diddling with focus-points or whatever, not getting any shots at all, as the action was quick and diverse and he couldn't keep up.

While only about half of my dozens of shots were in tack-sharp focus, he missed it all!

I believe, even today, a well-trained focus hand and eye is far superior to any autofocus scheme, though I have not tried (or needed) tracking AF on Canon or Nikon.

I hope this new FF Pentax allows changeable focus screens like my K10D so I can have a nice microprism spot. And an off switch for the AF, of course.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2015 at 16:08 UTC

Having been a Pentax user since 1966, I have found their sales division to be weak In the USA (and probably everywhere) during those early years. Pentax (then Asahi) used Honeywell to import and market their cameras, as they had an existing widespread network of camera dealers.

When Pentax decided to market using their own divisions, their lack of wholesale experience nearly did them in in the US. It was reported (and I believe) Pentax's distributors and salespeople were hard to deal with from the POV of camera stores. Perhaps they didn't match the Big Two's promotional outreach or didn't provide as much national or co-op advertising allowances; perhaps their financing or other requirements were out of line with the competition, but for whatever reason, camera stores abandoned the brand while it was still a good seller.

Now, perhaps Ricoh will have the distribution infrastructure to get Pentax back into sellers' hands. But given Ricoh's poor record in that regard, perhaps not.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2015 at 15:47 UTC as 66th comment

The lead has been buried: This is NOT a 36 x 24 mm FF sensor, but 32.8 x 24.6 mm, with the same 43 mm image circle. This is in a 4:3 format.

Also, the FF chip has an electronic shutter which can sample twice per frame and use the data to reduce noise, according to the chipmaker's website http://www.imveurope.com/press-releases/product_details.php?product_id=1880

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2015 at 14:53 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Make is simple, yes, but not simpler than that.
Where is ISO control? At least film Leica camera had a simple ISO wheel on the back. If sensitivity control is not simple and intuitive as shutter speed selection, all this brushed aluminium is a waste.

Of course, on that film Leica, the wheel on the back was a reminder, not a control.

It might be nice to have ISO control readily at hand, but if a decent auto-sensitivity function is used, I can live without it.

When a firmware update provided auto-ISO setting on my Pentax *ist DS, I learned to love it. On more modern cameras like my Oly PM2 I set the acceptable range and forget sensitivities therefrom in most cases.

One recent example: I was shooting an active teen at dusk. I wanted to use f:2.8 to isolate her from the background while having enough depth-of-field to have her whole face sharp, not just her eyes. As she was active, I needed 1/120 sec. to freeze her quick expressions.

As the light faded, the camera automatically adjusted sensitivity to provide the exposure pair I chose between a range of ISO 200-1600, which I cannot distinguish among in 11x14 prints or the web.

I could not have done this as well manually.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 20:33 UTC
In reply to:

JhvaElohimMeth: I know, it's not important, but it's SO ugly!

Granted, it doesn't look as bling as a gold-plated Nikon Df. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8641626030/price-released-for-brikk-s-24k-gold-nikon-df

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I will buy it when it comes out if the price is, as guessed, ~$2200.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 20:02 UTC
In reply to:

neo_nights: Is it me or does it have more of a Medium Format look?

It'd be nice to see if Pentax could make a small camera (for fullframe standards of course) like they did with the K5.

If you assume a 3-inch LCD screen and then compare the rear view shot with that of the K-3 in DPR's review, you will find, like me, that the overall sizes of the cameras are very similar.

I think ppl are letting the truly tiny lens fool their eyes into thinking the body is genormous.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 19:55 UTC
Total: 105, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »