DimensionSeven

DimensionSeven

Lives in Hungary Kaposvár, Hungary
Joined on Jan 13, 2007
About me:

http://dimensionseven.daportfolio.com

Comments

Total: 27, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Vasyl Tsvirkunov: Interesting. B+W 110 has slight brownish cast, I never thought about it being near-IR pollution but it does make some sense. Would be really interesting to see how this one stacks against 110 after color correction.

Yes, I've tried it on an infrared converted camera. It's cutting IR light, but the result was not quite good, somewhat soft and fuzzy. On the other hand, the Lee Big Stopper gives clear and sharp results in infrared as well. I've sold the ND110 in a heartbeat after a comparison.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 13:05 UTC
In reply to:

Vasyl Tsvirkunov: Interesting. B+W 110 has slight brownish cast, I never thought about it being near-IR pollution but it does make some sense. Would be really interesting to see how this one stacks against 110 after color correction.

(actually, the B+W ND110 quite effectively cuts infrared light as well)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 23:20 UTC
In reply to:

Vasyl Tsvirkunov: Interesting. B+W 110 has slight brownish cast, I never thought about it being near-IR pollution but it does make some sense. Would be really interesting to see how this one stacks against 110 after color correction.

No, it doesn't make sense.
Have a look at the spectral sensitivity of the ND110 in a B+W brochure and you have your answer why it has a color cast.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 23:19 UTC

Bulls*** advertising.

Infrared light doesn't have any color. If it reaches the sensor, it only affects the luminance of the picture.

The problem with the red color cast comes from the uneven spectral sensitivity of the filter in the VISIBLE light range. Get those reds filtered out the same as the colder colors and you have a filter that doesn't have any color cast.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 23:13 UTC as 2nd comment | 2 replies

So...Does it have coatings or not?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 11:31 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

Wye Photography: £174 for ONE filter. Are you taking the P!$$?

It's a good price for a 105mm CPL. See how much a B+W or a Helipan costs.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 07:19 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: I seem to remember that polarisers look dreadful on wide angle lenses because the polarisation occurs in weird looking bands across the sky.

Supply and demand I suppose....

Yep, only idiots photograph wide open, empty skies with a polarizer. Smart people know what to use this filter for. ;)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 09:21 UTC

It's nice to see it with a slim mount and the price is right as well. Wish it wasn't altering the tones though.
Any word about coatings?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 09:19 UTC as 23rd comment
On Canon announces 16-35mm F4L and 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 lenses article (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

DimensionSeven: I wonder whether the 16-35f/4 IS will be good for infrared.
The 17-40 is, but it lacks sharpness in visible light, esp. in the corners. The 16-35 f/2.8 is a better performer in visible light but has a nasty hotspot in infrared.

No, I'm a Nikon DX shooter currently, but I'm temped to go fullframe not the Nikon but the Canon way.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2014 at 15:32 UTC
On Canon announces 16-35mm F4L and 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 lenses article (368 comments in total)

I wonder whether the 16-35f/4 IS will be good for infrared.
The 17-40 is, but it lacks sharpness in visible light, esp. in the corners. The 16-35 f/2.8 is a better performer in visible light but has a nasty hotspot in infrared.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2014 at 21:20 UTC as 6th comment | 3 replies
On 1024mm_DSCF1804 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (3 comments in total)

Looks impressively uniquely resolving stopped down! But the details seem to be washed out - is this due to diffraction or postprocessing? :o

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2014 at 07:02 UTC as 1st comment
On 1024mm_DSCF1804 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (3 comments in total)
In reply to:

spochana: Seem to have a lot of distortion. Any in-camera's correction?

I don't see any obvious distortion besides the perspectivic distortion... :o

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2014 at 07:01 UTC
On 1024mm_DSCF1820 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (8 comments in total)

Pretty good imo for a direct, shoot-into-the-sun shot like this.
But why iso 400? :o

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2014 at 06:58 UTC as 1st comment
On Hands-on with the Nikon D3300 and 35mm F1.8G lens article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

DimensionSeven: I have 1 questions that neither the press release nor this hands on preview answer regarding the new kit lens:

Does the front element rotate while focusing and zooming?

Thank you, DpReview!

Wow thanks! Looks like a worthy entry level kit lens upgrade then. Looks smaller, lighter and takes CPLs at least. Hope it's sharper as well, might get one then.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2014 at 12:36 UTC
On Hands-on with the Nikon D3300 and 35mm F1.8G lens article (141 comments in total)

I have 1 questions that neither the press release nor this hands on preview answer regarding the new kit lens:

Does the front element rotate while focusing and zooming?

Thank you, DpReview!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2014 at 10:17 UTC as 25th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

shaunly: looks like a real winner here. Good job Sony. The 7R seems great for landscape photographer like myself looking to save weight when we go backpacking. With a few right lenses, I may just sell the D800.

Can't wait for the test results!

I can't see your point. There's no wide angle lens for this system yet. The Sony 16-35f/2.8 is over 900gramms, and you'll be needing an adapter too.
A D800 and a 16-35VR would give you more IQ for about the same weight, A D600/610 would be even lighter overall...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2013 at 11:30 UTC

Any chance for sample shots on an infrared converted body?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2013 at 13:35 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

Kodachrome200: the people who keep saying good technique at the point of capture is always the best practice are totaly right and yet completely wrong in the point they are trying to make. Graduated filters are a great example. the argument will run that darkening the sky at the point of capture will give you a cleaner exposure. but... the fact is the best sensored cameras out there have wonderful dynamic range. so what you do is you set up on a tripod you shoot at base iso. if the sky is really bright you might under expose a little bit and you can always take another shot where you expose for the sky so you know you get all the data. this is using good technique at the point of capture. its also keeping in mind what you can do at post capture. it will also allow you to apply your effect in alot more exact way. we have all scene photos where the graduated filter has hit things that were not intended. you have way more control to prevent these things from happening in a way you cant with filters

Blending multiple exposures (esp.with longer exposure times) has it's own backdraws and problems as well. I personally prefer to get the exposure done right in the camera, so that I see the (near) final image on the LCD right in the field.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 10:03 UTC
In reply to:

Hoefie: If I have a 77mm lens, what filter should I get: M, L or XL ?
As there is an overlap on all sizes; is the size really the only difference between the four ranges ?

Instead of buying the Cokin Zpro (L) size holder, I'd go for the Lee holder. MUCH better, wider and flexible.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 09:19 UTC
In reply to:

ZAnton: Cokin is a virtual company. I am looking for a place where I can buy their PRO filters (in Germany) for 3 years, and still can not find anything. Neither amazon, nor ebay or any other more or less big shop has their products. Their internet page has not functioned for years (is it now?).
So dpreview, please delete these news, so that other people would save their time by reading it and searching these phantom filters.

http://versandhaus-foto-mueller.de/
Bought my Z-pros from them this spring. Good price and cheap shipping.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 07:58 UTC
Total: 27, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »