jtan163

jtan163

Lives in Australia Adelaide, Australia
Joined on Oct 25, 2010
About me:

Just another guy with a camera.

Comments

Total: 641, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Like the general idea, but don't like the metal parts near exposed glass elements.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 15:32 UTC as 4th comment

And a million Nikon fan bois thank their higher power for finally giving them some "hand".

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 12:02 UTC as 72nd comment
On Video Field Test: Tamron SP 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD article (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

nikkornikon: I just Rented the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8VC for 10 days. I was not impressed with it as much as others. Here are the known issues.

While the front of the Tamron is weathered sealed.the back is not. A potential problem of moisture and dirty could easily rendered the Lens useless quickly. When you have the lens off.you can actually see the electronics of this lens. And A mishap of water and dirt could damage the lens.

When the lens was delivered to me...The Lens was on 15mm..but would not focused. Stayed out of focused. Not until I started moving around the lens..manually. Then it snapped into Auto Focus.

Picture Quality? I was not impressed. While yes..it took a good picture with my Nikon D810.mostly centered. the other areas where not as sharp as Granger..others have said. While I did like the VC..and it would helpful on this lens.if you were held holding it.

I would Highly Suggest to others, Rent First. Then decided. And this might be chalked up to...I might of gotten a Bad Copy!

A bad copy is as bad as a bad lense for some markets.
Some markets (Australia, I assume others) it's very hard to exchange, so if you get a bad copy you're more or less stuck with it.

Re weather sealing, I'm pretty sure I can see the electronics on either the 24-70 or 70-200 too. But I don't think it matters.
With weather sealing, I don't expect the lens to be proetect during a changeover. While that would be nice it's kinda unreasonable.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2015 at 02:33 UTC
On Video Field Test: Tamron SP 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD article (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

jtan163: @Barney @Rishi
The Tamron 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 VCs have a problem where AF fine tune (at least on Nikon models) recognises both as the same lens.
I.e. if you make AF fine tune adjustments to the 24-70 they will be applied to the 70-200 (or vice versa).
Are you able to confirm how the 15-30 behaves in this respect?
Tnx

Cheers Barney

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2015 at 02:28 UTC
In reply to:

mosswings: I find it interesting how many non-answers Nikon interviewees offered. Despite what other competitors are doing, Nikon refuses to do any roadmapping or expound more fully on their DX and FX lineups. However, it's pretty clear by the present product lines the intended audience for each.

I do find it annoying that AFFT is not considered a necessary feature for all Nikon DSLRs given the precise focusing requirements of the faster lenses. Reading between the lines, I suspect that why it is not provided on the lower-end DX models is that those cameras are most likely to be used with a slowish kit lens only, and that their higher wide-open DOF will mask a lot of focus error that would not be acceptable for a photographer that is shooting fast primes. This is a bit too simplistic a justification, but it is also true that AFFT is easy to screw up in testing, and Nikon may judge it an undesirable complication for the user and Nikon service. There should be an easier way.

@mosswings - We're talking about CDAF being used to automatically fine tune PDAF for individual lenses so the camera can store the fine tune setting for later use.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 17:35 UTC

It's taken a while and a couple of reads.
But I've worked it out. I finally got a grasp on reading between the Kanji lines.

D300 shooters - people looking for long reach, less than FX sensors, smaller than D4 bodies and fast shooting.

The 1 series is your camera!!!!

I'm sure they'll bring the build quality soon....

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 17:23 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

JJ1983: I don't understand why this isn't available for the Nikon D600 or D610.

EXPEED3 v EXPEED4?
Although I suspect it is just Nikon artificially segmenting their market again.

Given that Nikon is bundling 3 lenses and the D750/D810 with the atomos I think we can safely say we won't be seeing focus peaking in camera until the next iterations.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 17:18 UTC
On Video Field Test: Tamron SP 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD article (84 comments in total)

@Barney @Rishi
The Tamron 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 VCs have a problem where AF fine tune (at least on Nikon models) recognises both as the same lens.
I.e. if you make AF fine tune adjustments to the 24-70 they will be applied to the 70-200 (or vice versa).
Are you able to confirm how the 15-30 behaves in this respect?
Tnx

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 17:13 UTC as 9th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

mosswings: I find it interesting how many non-answers Nikon interviewees offered. Despite what other competitors are doing, Nikon refuses to do any roadmapping or expound more fully on their DX and FX lineups. However, it's pretty clear by the present product lines the intended audience for each.

I do find it annoying that AFFT is not considered a necessary feature for all Nikon DSLRs given the precise focusing requirements of the faster lenses. Reading between the lines, I suspect that why it is not provided on the lower-end DX models is that those cameras are most likely to be used with a slowish kit lens only, and that their higher wide-open DOF will mask a lot of focus error that would not be acceptable for a photographer that is shooting fast primes. This is a bit too simplistic a justification, but it is also true that AFFT is easy to screw up in testing, and Nikon may judge it an undesirable complication for the user and Nikon service. There should be an easier way.

I had a feeling that the EM1 incorporated a CDAF fine tune for PDAF, though I might be wrong - it might have been speculation/discussion from the M43 forum.

Sadly, I think both the DSLR manufacturers and a certain set of DSLR users who seem to resist any change (wifi, flip screens, liver view, digital itself etc etc) and thereby disable radical innovation in DSLRs (from which they'd benefit).

Though to be totally honest I see things like cube cameras, the Sony QX1 and the Oly Open Camera Platform and hackers as the most likely source for this kind of computational approach to photography.

I suspect it will be a few years yet until the software engineers get meaningful input into product direction at japanese camera companies. I suspect(again) that mechanical and optical engineers look at photography too much as being about capturing and manipulating light, rather than data and camera as optical instruments with a helper computer rather than as a computer with a few optical bits.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 16:55 UTC
In reply to:

cgarrard: Nikon 1 System Remarks: "We have two different categories: the D-line and the 1-series, and with these lineups, we believe we’ll meet all the needs of customers"

So if the 1 series sucks for you, just get a DSLR. Nevermind about us listening to consumer and making better products for the 1 series. ;)

Pentax have no mirrorless?
Pentax were doing the Nikon 1 before Nikon was.
I am of course talking about the Q series... oh you said "credible"...

But over an above that Rentohax have the GRs as well.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 09:00 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: More curious about their workflow optimizations.

The D5500 has a touch-screen now. We need to be able to start retouching/processing photos, and publishing them, right from the camera, without having to go through a computer. The CPUs in the cameras should be able to handle these now.

What we need to hear from Nikon is how they're going to allow App developers to create apps for their cameras, to optimize the photography workflow.

It really is the workflow that defines the camera-phone market. Thanks to their ability to process and publish photos right on-the-spot, camera phones have the most optimal workflow that photographers want.

We need the same ability to do so with our D4s, and other dSLRs. I need to be able to quickly select, rotate, crop, brighten, highlight, spot remove, maybe Title with custom fonts, then upload to our newswire CMS, right from the Camera.

Pro photojournalists need to publish their photos QUICKLY, and Nikon needs to get on the ball for that.

"The reason is that my competitors are regular people using their cellphones and Instagram/Twitter. If they get the shot first, what good does it do me?" - it does Nikon quite a bit of good. You can buy a lovely wireless system attachment....

BTW I agree - in this day and age it is not unreasonable to expect some level of programability. At IMO built in useful wireless.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 07:40 UTC
In reply to:

aftab: They mentioned Canon twice (without any disrespect) even when they didn't need to. I liked this openness and honesty.
Answer regarding cross type points was interesting. I wonder what would be the extra cost for, say, doubling the cross type points?

For me the take away points are:
Technology is nearly mature, there will only be incremental upgrades in near future.
Everyone is working under economic constraints, this is more true for Nikon than few others.
Similar to Canon, they believe that OVF is their strength and at the moment they should play by their strength and not invest in mirrorless heavily.

Overall, not an extremely interesting interview, but not boring either.

@Rishi, given that the sidemost line sensors have light on them, I would not have though making say the 3 middle rows of sensors cross type would cost you light?
I'd have thought the beamsplitter would not have to be bigger (ergo, no additional loss of light) as it's beam is already covering the entire area of the AF sensors' outer dimensions.

Can you please clarify/expand?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 07:36 UTC
In reply to:

BeaverTerror: "We don’t consider that we manufacture more FX than DX lenses; we’ll focus on both." "We don’t feel we have more FX than DX products now; we have a full line-up in DX as well."

Stopped taking this interview seriously after the second answer. What a joke.

@jpino - "What's the problem to use full frame (FX) lenses on DX?" some of the light that could be directed on the sensor ends up on the walls of the mirror box. To some extent this is inevitable due to rectangular sensors and round lenses, but FX lenses on DX sensors exacerbate the issue.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 07:30 UTC
In reply to:

Old Cameras: Back spacing handicaps them from making good quality wide angle lenses for DX cameras and not something that can be reasonably or economically overcome. Nikon is clearly steering their customers to see FF as the upgrade path, in my opinion. They only make two lenses for DX wider than 18mm (27mm eq), neither is new and neither is very good, just average. No primes wider than 35mm. So their answers aren't truthful. You're expected to be happy with a variety of super zooms, all starting at 18mm.

Hate to be factually difficult, but Nikon make more than two sub 18mm lenses.
12-24
10-24
17-55
16-85
10.5 - which technically is a prime wider than 35.
I'm not a super discerning user, but I'm happy with the 16-85, though I'd have preferred it was constant ƒ/4 or faster.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 07:24 UTC
In reply to:

mosswings: I find it interesting how many non-answers Nikon interviewees offered. Despite what other competitors are doing, Nikon refuses to do any roadmapping or expound more fully on their DX and FX lineups. However, it's pretty clear by the present product lines the intended audience for each.

I do find it annoying that AFFT is not considered a necessary feature for all Nikon DSLRs given the precise focusing requirements of the faster lenses. Reading between the lines, I suspect that why it is not provided on the lower-end DX models is that those cameras are most likely to be used with a slowish kit lens only, and that their higher wide-open DOF will mask a lot of focus error that would not be acceptable for a photographer that is shooting fast primes. This is a bit too simplistic a justification, but it is also true that AFFT is easy to screw up in testing, and Nikon may judge it an undesirable complication for the user and Nikon service. There should be an easier way.

But the measure and adjustment could be performed at first mount and recorded in non volatile memory against the lens serial number and perhaps run periodically after wards.

A simple prompt could allow the user to skip the calibration.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 07:14 UTC
In reply to:

Thoughts R Us: Nothing wrong with this interview. Typical corporate interview; maybe a bit more revealing than most.

I think some expect these company execs to spill their guts and reveal all of their future plans, along with mea culpas on every perceived flaw of the past.

It's a typical industrial age corporate interview maybe.
Tech companies are quite open about their products and future products (perhaps too much so in the case of the future products) and that does not seem to hurt them.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 07:09 UTC
In reply to:

jtan163: "And that's really the best you can hope for." - Um. No.
The best you can hope for is something like the interviews that Fuji execs and engineers give.

Nikon have great tech, bundled in crippled products.
They really seem to embody the worst of the stereotypes of staid, reserved, secretive, cradle to grave industrial age corporations - they seem to want control, not conversation.

E.g. if you're not gonna make a D400, then just say it. If you are say it.

I don't really care about a D400, personally, but that is a representative example of a class of customers who are frustrated to say the least and angry in some cases because Nikon won't talk to them about the things they want to talk about.

They're not having a substantive an honest conversation.
I don't know why, though I have my (increasingly cynical) suspicions, but they are simply not talking to those customers.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 06:55 UTC
In reply to:

jtan163: "And that's really the best you can hope for." - Um. No.
The best you can hope for is something like the interviews that Fuji execs and engineers give.

Nikon have great tech, bundled in crippled products.
They really seem to embody the worst of the stereotypes of staid, reserved, secretive, cradle to grave industrial age corporations - they seem to want control, not conversation.

Then you'd publish that, we'd moan about it, or applaud it or go "meh" or whatever and you'd report that back, next meeting and the direction might change a based on all the input that Nikon has had, and they'd tell you that.

A real back and forth information age conversation.

Instead we get something akin to "we'll do what we think is best for the customer - but we won't tell you what that is".
Which a long drawn out, reasonably polite way to say "No - we won't give you an idea of how those lines are developing".

I'm sure they think they are protecting their interests in tightly controlling all of the little info they let out, but I am in no way convinced it is true, and I am positive it is not "serving their customers".

Serving their customers would be releasing info (e.g. a "roadmap" ) so that customers who wanted to (i.e. the repeat customers) could make planned buying decisions.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 06:50 UTC
In reply to:

jtan163: "And that's really the best you can hope for." - Um. No.
The best you can hope for is something like the interviews that Fuji execs and engineers give.

Nikon have great tech, bundled in crippled products.
They really seem to embody the worst of the stereotypes of staid, reserved, secretive, cradle to grave industrial age corporations - they seem to want control, not conversation.

That doesn't come accross in the published interview excerpts (I assume it is not the entire on record interview).
Perhaps it might be useful to publish the entire on record transcript?

As an example
Q: "Can you give us a description of your strategy for APS-C vs. Full-frame DSLRs? How do you see those two product lines developing?"
A: "We consider both formats important for us. It just depends on the application on the part of the users, and it also depends on what needs the customer has. But we consider both lines important. As for future product line, we are sorry we cannot answer that question."

In my view a conversation might discsuss what needs Nikon sees their customers as having, which products they see as fitting those needs and perhaps some polite back and forth on the interviewr's views of customers needs - you guys do actually interact with us after all, as well as being customers yourselves.
Followed by yes we have (or don't have) something like that coming up.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 06:41 UTC
In reply to:

StefanW: Of course they can't disclose their roadmap and because of culture aspects and not loosing their face they can't confirm they had done anything wrong in the past and would do it differently if they would start all over again.

Even though I typically expect these kind of political answers that don't say anything I am surprised that most of the answers are even more extreme as they sound like Nikon don't need to do much development in the future because their current products match already everything the customers might demand.

Maybe Nikon meets the customer demand of the Japanese market, but looking at the overall declining sales of Nikon, maybe Nikon should rethink their answers ... actually rather rethink their strategy.

@Adrian Van "In regards, to the Nikon 1 not having wide area appeal in the west, compared to competitors like m43" - I found the 1 series comments about "small and light" interesting too.

My feeling is that Nikon is asking people what they want and people are saying small and light. I think the problem is there are basically two kinds of people. One class will never buy a single use product bigger than a phone.
The others want small and light but value IQ. For the most part that's us here and most of us want more IQ than the 1 series can deliver.
The 1 is too big for the phone people and has insufficient IQ for we of the DPR crowd.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 02:25 UTC
Total: 641, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »