Lives in United Kingdom Bath, United Kingdom
Works as a Mechanical Engineer
Joined on Nov 23, 2003
About me:


thanks for stopping by!
If you want to see what I'm up to, send me a message :)

My 'plan':
Talk Pentax into a digital Electro-Spotmatic! (This needs some work...)


Older Signatures:

'LBA knows no bounds, and seeks no justification...' (Jim King, 2005) - Photography, Tech and Geek stuff :}

'Why is everyone answering rhetorical questions?' (Me, 2005)

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)

'I only trust those photos I have faked myself.' (Me, 2007)

--=! Condemning proprietary batteries since 1976 !=--

'I don't want them to believe me, I just want them to think.'
Marshall McLuhan


Total: 71, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

toughluck: In terms of DOF, it's a 50/9 equivalent, so good luck trying to get meaningful defocusing. It should have been f/1.2 or f/0.9 for the size -- while it would still have poor defocusing control, it would have been much better.

Also: Why is the lens and the bodies so huge? Sony just released RX1 which, lens included, is thinner than this lens is long. Not to mention huge N1 bodies.

> So 50mm F/4.5 in terms of angle of view and depth of field. BUT NO that does not mean light transmission changes, it's still the same intensity of light regardless of crop.

Intensity of light doesn't really matter, because it ignores the area over which this intensity is applied.
Better way to look at it:
This lens lets through to the sensor as many photons per unit of time as a 50/4.5 would on 24x36. These lenses would be equivalent and their images would be indistinguishable.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2012 at 14:19 UTC
In reply to:

jaycob: First off let me just say that I am no expert in photography so please excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject.
My question about this camera is; Why would Sony develop such an great camera at a premium price yet slap a fixed lens on it? You would think that if they were to put a full frame sensor in any kind of camera they would want to open the doors to additional lenses.
Am I missing something? Please educate me.

I think it's testing the water for a future FF "NEX deluxe" (I call dibs on the name NEXluxe :D )

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 20:57 UTC
In reply to:

liquidsquid: Sheesh, if you separated the body from the glass, and made separate purchases, many of you who don't want to shell out $2800 would be singing a different tune.

How much good glass out there goes for over $1K? How many FF bodies go over $1K?

Not that I am going to get one any time soon.

You are right. If this was a camera with interchangeable lenses, many here would be prepared to pay more than 2800USD. But it's not. And I think that's why several people are a bit unhappy.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 20:55 UTC
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: So Pentax finally dropped the ball and introduced in-lens stabilisation. Oh dear, I can still hear fanboys explaining how much better it is to have sensor IS vs. lens IS.

I'm sure my sarcasm meter must be broken, but just in case you are serious:
1) Pentax has had IBIS in their APS-C cameras for years
2) This SR lens is for their medium format camera
I think there is not a single other stabilised MF system and if there is, it's not from Sony.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2012 at 15:42 UTC
On article Lightroom Photo Import (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gregm61: Last thing I'm gonna waste my time doing is importing all my photos "into" Lightroom so it can see them. If a program can't just "see" the dang photo where I have it in my computer (like Photoshop can), I have no use for it as a catalog system.

I tried Lightroom 4 while waiting for the CS6 update. Since getting CS6, Lightroom has just sat on my desktop, and I doubt it gets used again.

First: LR uses a cache for the previews as well. So I am not sure where you are going with this.

Second: I don't want my RAW processor to keep track of my images. With RSE I could simply move or rename the folders and it would always have the settings to the files. I have never run into this "choosing" problem. Third: I don't want my RAW converter to be a file utility. I am disappointed at how bad a file utility LR is. It's gotten better, admittedly, and maybe 4 is decent, but I cannot run it (yet?).

Fourth: That is the one advantage to LR's catalogue system that _I_ like. It would be difficult to shoehorn a browser architecture like RSE's into allowing this.

Fifth: I want to be able to right-click a RAW file and edit it in my then-opening converter.

The benefits LR brings to the rest of my workflow outweigh my catalogue criticism, but it's obvious that the we have different ideas of how we want to manage our files. I'm sure yours is right for you and I am happy with mine.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2012 at 21:26 UTC
On article Lightroom Photo Import (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gregm61: Last thing I'm gonna waste my time doing is importing all my photos "into" Lightroom so it can see them. If a program can't just "see" the dang photo where I have it in my computer (like Photoshop can), I have no use for it as a catalog system.

I tried Lightroom 4 while waiting for the CS6 update. Since getting CS6, Lightroom has just sat on my desktop, and I doubt it gets used again.

Absolutely. I find that extremely annoying. I much preferred RawShooter's approach - sad that they did not carry that over when Adobe bought and killed it.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2012 at 16:01 UTC
In reply to:

MrTaikitso: Actually, running a top end DSLR or mirrorless on Android would make a lot more sense. Huge potential for customisation by the open source community, and potentially, an end to interfaces that some don't like. IE, user could customise the interface using Android 'skins'. Low end phones like this don't need this, but pros love to customise their toys.

I completely agree with you (toys and tools, I would say ;) ) - but at the same time, I think it's not realistic: I just don't think manufacturers are ready to embrace open-source user-interfaces, let alone open-source functions.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 17:49 UTC
On article Compositional Rules (120 comments in total)

The rule of thirds is just a simple way to do a rough golden ratio, with the benefit of being able to map the whole frame in one go, whereas golden ratio will give different intersections, depending on which side you start from.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2012 at 23:08 UTC as 30th comment
In reply to:

EasyClick: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt NASA supposed to have technology decades ahead of what's available on the market? They're the guys inventing the science and breakthrough technology...By the same reasoning they should have a photo sensor that would only be available today on the market. I understand the article but I just thought otherwise... Maybe someone should send an iPhone to Mars??

This is the real world, not Hollywood.
An iphone would not make it past the moon before radiation kills it.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2012 at 15:46 UTC
In reply to:

Scott Eaton: I'm not by any means a NASA engineer, but I am an Engineer on the IT side of things. I realize we're working with extreme data management constraints and 2004 technology curves.

My issue is why we're using a bayer based sensor when we want the most discrete data to come from our hardware. Why waste data pathing with all that interpolated nonsese just because somebody is more familiar with Kodak. We're taking pictures of other worlds, not snaphots of your kids.

Here's to hoping Kodak is out of business so they are forced to use better hardware the next time around.

I guess using three 0.7MP sensors, one for each colour would be better than using one 2MP sensor, but the alignment problems during the rough entry of the spacecraft might have been problematic.
I hope you were not suggesting a Foveon chip as a way to discrete data :)

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2012 at 15:45 UTC
On article Evolution of an image (123 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Schillings: Really nice shot. I find the image a little too HDR-ish. I think the foreground is too bright, and there are no distinctive shadows so maybe up the blacks.

No Bossa, it is clear to see that the foreground shadow brightness was increased a lot, robbing it of natural depth. And yes, it is a 3-shot HDR image, as stated underneath each picture.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2012 at 12:54 UTC
On article Evolution of an image (123 comments in total)
In reply to:

JensR: ISO 400, f22, from a tripod.

Danke Carsten! But f/22 seems a bit extreme. Why did you not use tilt? At f/22 you are losing resolution and extending the exposure time needlessly, introducing extra noise because of the increased ISO. f/11 and a slight tilt at ISO 100 seems like the better option?

Emmanuel - the question was not just why Carsten used a tripod. The exposure-merging alone would explain that. The question was primarily why Carsten went for ISO 400 despite using a tripod.

Mark: While we are at it, might we want to ask the f/64 group about the Scheimpflug effect and camera movements?

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2012 at 00:22 UTC
On article Evolution of an image (123 comments in total)

ISO 400, f22, from a tripod.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2012 at 18:09 UTC as 60th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

Heather Protz: Seems quite big.

> Come on, it's a 150mm f/1.8 lens.

It is not a 150/1.8 lens. It is a 75/1.8 lens.
It has the same FOV, DOF and captures the same number of photons per time as a 150/3.6 lens would on "full frame".

Link | Posted on May 24, 2012 at 17:34 UTC
On article Pentax K-01 studio test shots published (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

duartix: WTF?
Did I just see a 1EV advantage over the all mighty K-5? in RAW???
Pinch me!!!

Sorry, must have misread your request ;)

Link | Posted on May 3, 2012 at 02:05 UTC
On article Canon acknowledges 'light leak' in the EOS 5D Mark III (257 comments in total)
In reply to:


I detect a sarcasm leak here.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2012 at 22:19 UTC
In reply to:

RCicala: OK, let me condense this:
We are establishing a monopoly in order to serve you better.


Osam, how do you get from "repairing broken parts" to "sharing an operating system"?

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2012 at 22:22 UTC
On article Just posted: Our Samsung NX200 in-depth review (175 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wenger: You made a mistake in the lens selection, the 16mm is F/2.4 not F/2.8.

I'm pretty sure that they did mean full-time manual focus. This type of motor allows full time manual override of the autofocus.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2012 at 23:22 UTC
In reply to:

bradleyg5: Yawn, wake me up with they hit F/0.8. f0.95 is not terribly impressive when you only have to produce an image circle 1/4th the size of fullframe. sure the intensity of light is high, but the total amount of light passed through the lens is not worthy of that price tag.

> Cropping, however, doesn't reduce DOF

So very very wrong.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 19:21 UTC
On article Tamron releases image-stabilized 24-70mm F2.8 zoom (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dan: Lens makers, I want something with more range! How come the Fuji X10 can have a 28-112mm F2-2.8 while larger sensor shooters are stuck with lenses like this 24-70 that only zooms less than 3X? Is it because it will be too big? I would LOVE to have a 24-120mm F2.8 with VR. A lot of people liked the 28-105mm F2.8, and with today's technology, I would think that more could be done. With more cameras supporting in-camera lens distortion correction, I'm excited about the future of lenses.

The light densities (photons per area and time) of all f/2 lenses are the same - but I never said anything else.
But an f/2 lens on "full frame" will cover roughly twice the area than f/2 on APS-C with that same photon density, so it captures twice the number of photons per picture and unit of time.

Hence, your 400/2.8 and 14/2.8 example is just not what we are discussing. As they both project onto the same sensor, they of course project the same number of photons per time and image _as_well_as_ same number of photons per area and time.

Your reasoning that focal length is the only thing different is incomplete. It is quite clear that the aperture diameter (in mm) is different as well. Which brings us back to my original point.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2012 at 19:52 UTC
Total: 71, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »