Lee Jay

Lives in United States CO, United States
Works as a Electrical Engineer / Wind Energy Research
Joined on Oct 17, 2003

Comments

Total: 757, showing: 201 – 220
« First‹ Previous910111213Next ›Last »
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1592 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: It's okay to be wrong Richard, and you are.

My first purchase was a 10D. That led me to a 20D for its many in-body improvements. My basic two lenses were a 17-40L and a 28-135IS but I also had two others, the 50/1.8 and 75-300IS. However, I loved wide-angle, and none of these count, and the 75-300IS wasn't long enough or fast enough. So I bought a Sigma 15mm fisheye for the crop cameras and traded up to the 50/1.4. The fish on crop is like a 19mm rectilinear on full-frame which is sort-of wide. Note than none of these are crop-lenses, but all are usable on a crop-only system.

I then sold my 10D and bought a 5D, and I sold my 28-135IS and bought a 24-105L. Then I had really, really wide (full-frame fisheye on full-frame), wide (17-40L on full-frame), and walkaround (17-40L on crop, 24-105 on full-frame). I got rid of the 50/1.4 for an 85/1.8, and sold the 75-300IS for a 70-200/2.8 + TCs, all through a nice, continuous path, each step leading to the next.

So, it's no myth.

No, every lens did the function for which I purchased it, I just smoothly upgraded the quality and expanded the range over time.

That process is often called an "upgrade path", which is a path I followed, from crop to full-frame, retaining my crop camera and all capabilities along the way.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 20:25 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1592 comments in total)

It's okay to be wrong Richard, and you are.

My first purchase was a 10D. That led me to a 20D for its many in-body improvements. My basic two lenses were a 17-40L and a 28-135IS but I also had two others, the 50/1.8 and 75-300IS. However, I loved wide-angle, and none of these count, and the 75-300IS wasn't long enough or fast enough. So I bought a Sigma 15mm fisheye for the crop cameras and traded up to the 50/1.4. The fish on crop is like a 19mm rectilinear on full-frame which is sort-of wide. Note than none of these are crop-lenses, but all are usable on a crop-only system.

I then sold my 10D and bought a 5D, and I sold my 28-135IS and bought a 24-105L. Then I had really, really wide (full-frame fisheye on full-frame), wide (17-40L on full-frame), and walkaround (17-40L on crop, 24-105 on full-frame). I got rid of the 50/1.4 for an 85/1.8, and sold the 75-300IS for a 70-200/2.8 + TCs, all through a nice, continuous path, each step leading to the next.

So, it's no myth.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 19:56 UTC as 229th comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

RichRMA: What good are these things with such short transmission ranges?

500 meters? In practice, it's more like 4,000 meters but regardless do you know what this tiny thing would look like at 500m? A dot, if you're lucky.

In practice you're going to keep a little thing like this within about 200m.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 15:04 UTC
On article Enthusiast compact camera roundup (185 comments in total)

Weird...my top two aren't even listed, and they're from Canon.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2014 at 04:07 UTC as 52nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

DVT80111: About time Canon but I won't cancel my Tamron 150-600 order.

400mm is no quite long enough for birds.

Based on the MTF charts, the Canon looks to be sharper with a 1.4x than the Tamron is bare at 600mm.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 06:19 UTC
On article Video: Capturing nature with the Canon EOS 7D Mark II (209 comments in total)

Couple minor errors, but a good video and obviously a good bit of effort and time.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 01:49 UTC as 102nd comment | 1 reply

I'm hoping for a compact APS film camera with a 38-65 equivalent f/7.1-13.5 lens and no flash.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 14:14 UTC as 735th comment | 1 reply
On article Post-Photokina polls - Tell us what you think (198 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: 8.5% Don't know anything about photography apparently according to the poll.

Those people may be the ones that realize the poll itself is stupid because it doesn't specify what you are shooting. Some of the best and most difficult photography I've ever seen is done with sensors of around 1/4" - planetary astrophotography, with real focal lengths around 10m (10,000mm).

Other things are better done with larger sensors, but MF isn't too great for sports and wildlife because the cameras and lenses are just not built for that purpose.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2014 at 16:37 UTC
On article DynaOptics wants to bring zoom lenses to smartphones (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: I'm having a hard time understanding how this could not produce lots of astigmatism, coma, CA and so on. Also, it would seem that aperture would be constant leading to either a very narrow zoom range, some crazy fast f-stops at the wide end, or some crazy slow f-stops at the long end.

Many aberrations are not correctable in software, and corrections of many sorts cause an increase in noise or a decrease in acuity. It's not a magic bullet for everything. Mostly it's good for a small amount of vignetting, moderate geometric distortion, and lateral (not axial) CA.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2014 at 20:13 UTC
On article DynaOptics wants to bring zoom lenses to smartphones (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: I'm having a hard time understanding how this could not produce lots of astigmatism, coma, CA and so on. Also, it would seem that aperture would be constant leading to either a very narrow zoom range, some crazy fast f-stops at the wide end, or some crazy slow f-stops at the long end.

It probably would, as it would almost certainly mean horrible aberrations.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2014 at 19:59 UTC
On article DynaOptics wants to bring zoom lenses to smartphones (44 comments in total)

I'm having a hard time understanding how this could not produce lots of astigmatism, coma, CA and so on. Also, it would seem that aperture would be constant leading to either a very narrow zoom range, some crazy fast f-stops at the wide end, or some crazy slow f-stops at the long end.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2014 at 19:26 UTC as 12th comment | 13 replies
On article GoPro announces Hero4 lineup (113 comments in total)

The Debut Hero is twice the cost of a Möbius, doesn't have interchangeable lenses, and is about as aerodynamic as a brick. Hmmmm...which to choose for a fast R/C airplane...I think I'll get two Möbius cameras, a medium focal length for the plane and a long focal length for my hat so I can make my own flight videos from two angles.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2014 at 06:43 UTC as 27th comment

#4 isn't a particularly good shot of Horsehead and Flame. I routinely see better ones on Cloudy Nights and in other places. It's not bad, but it's not special either.

Here's one I just found that I like:

http://www.astrobin.com/full/28275/0/

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 14:57 UTC as 19th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

lcf80: Almost every single camera provides RAW images using 12 or 14 bits per color, free tools like GIMP and RawTherapee support it. And Photoshop Elements still useless, in 2014? Open your eyes, Adobe.

There would be no difference, as the camera raw plugin will operate in 16 bit ProPhoto for the raw conversion for both applications.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 14:28 UTC
In reply to:

plasnu: He claims that Canon sensors to be the best, but I really want to know what measurements he is looking at.

My point was, who could they have gone to to buy a dual-pixel sensor?

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 13:57 UTC
In reply to:

plasnu: He claims that Canon sensors to be the best, but I really want to know what measurements he is looking at.

Okay, who makes a better dual-pixel sensor than Canon?

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 02:41 UTC
In reply to:

lcf80: Almost every single camera provides RAW images using 12 or 14 bits per color, free tools like GIMP and RawTherapee support it. And Photoshop Elements still useless, in 2014? Open your eyes, Adobe.

I'm a semi-pro with a lot of gear, over a quarter of a million photos under management, and I prefer Elements over CS6, and that's what I use. I do most all of the work in Lightroom meaning the work I do in Elements isn't limited at all by the fact that it's 8 bit.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 00:38 UTC
Total: 757, showing: 201 – 220
« First‹ Previous910111213Next ›Last »