AlanG

AlanG

Lives in United States Silver Spring, United States
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at www.goldsteinphoto.com
Joined on Mar 3, 2003

Comments

Total: 333, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Impressive.

#6 and #16 have the buildings toppling over.

Like a wild rodeo buck, this lens needs to be tamed by the right user.

Comment edited 5 years after posting.

.

It looks like a great lens but clearly was not tested by an architectural photographer.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 13:18 UTC
In reply to:

Boxbrownie: Looks interesting, but just look at the view of the side of the lenses you will get through the viewfinder!

No, I am free to criticize the design even if it never ships.

And I showed links to images that illustrate the protrusion with various lenses on the M. It is bad enough that the lower right corner gets blocked with some lenses but if the entire right edge is blocked, that will definitely be much worse than on an M and will be a deal breaker for many.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 00:12 UTC
In reply to:

Boxbrownie: Looks interesting, but just look at the view of the side of the lenses you will get through the viewfinder!

Here are images of lenses in the viewfinder of a Leica.

https://www.google.com/search?q=leica+viewfinder+blockage&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=LZb0VIa_EMOpNvHcgqAO&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=2379&bih=1485&dpr=0.67

If the viewfinder is closer to the lens on the Konost than it is on a Leica then the situation will be worse. We won't know how much worse until the camera actually has an optical viewfinder and it is tested. But since the viewfinder is lower, the lens will impinge along the side and not just at the lower corner.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2015 at 16:59 UTC
On Lytro sheds jobs as it shifts focus to video article (506 comments in total)

Lightfield technology is interesting and may be useful if developed for really high end applications where focusing on different planes could be creative. Sort of like a view camera on steroids.

I think they went ahead with their product without ever identifying a market for it. Their very simple camera was way too expensive for how badly it stacked up to cell phones in image quality and usefulness of transmitting and organizing the photos.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 01:15 UTC as 78th comment
In reply to:

Boxbrownie: Looks interesting, but just look at the view of the side of the lenses you will get through the viewfinder!

This viewfinder is lower and closer to the lens than the one on a Leica. So more of the view will be blocked.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 19:54 UTC
On FAA proposes regulations for commercial drone usage article (119 comments in total)
In reply to:

sharkcookie: Any drone owner here that offer their service commercially? I'd love to hear your opinion!

I do but am not prepared to get into long answers right now.
A good place to learn about this is in various RC user groups.

Here is one...

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?s=bd501de8d26112ca2052cf89470be9cc&t=2348850

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2015 at 21:01 UTC
In reply to:

yslee1: Now that I really would like to see. No sense adopting a 500g camera to a drone when you don't need a lot of the weight associated with it (in particular, the LCD).

Yes it is great having smaller bodies but if the lenses have different weights and centers of gravity, you won't be able to switch them without tuning and balancing the gimbal.

As for FPV, I'm sure DJI will incorporate that seemlessly.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 22:55 UTC
In reply to:

yslee1: Now that I really would like to see. No sense adopting a 500g camera to a drone when you don't need a lot of the weight associated with it (in particular, the LCD).

It makes sense to design cameras and lenses specifically for the characteristics of the gimbal mount. If lenses have a similar center of gravity and mass then they could be changed without requiring that the gimbal be re-tuned.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 01:56 UTC

It seems to me the press release and comments could be pretty much the same for this and all other Hassy/Sony cameras from the past and probably for the future too. Why not just say, "Hassy released yet another expensive gussied up Sony" and leave it at that? And we can all just ignore it each time.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 26, 2014 at 15:47 UTC as 31st comment

I'm not going to knock Google as I have been using its Image Search feature to find infringed umages of mine.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 23:21 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

Svetoslav Popov: Wow, what happened to modern ergonomic design? This is not only one ugly body, i bet it hurts in the hands. Great functionality though.

Why would you think it is not ergonomic? It has a larger contoured grip and a bigger protrusion for your thumb. Controls are nicely placed in similar positions as on many DSLRs. A vertical grip is available.

Of course it is a small camera and even with these changes may not fit well in larger hands. (Just a guess.) If that is a problem then one can buy another camera instead.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 20:41 UTC
In reply to:

Dazzer8888: I have an A7, i think the body is a really terrible design, a triumph of retro foolishness over ergonomics...........

I've played with an A7 and A7r a few times but haven't pulled the trigger. I use 5DIII and many lenses now. While the shutter release and front dial of the A7 looks usable, I like the new layout much more. I could certainly see buying this camera but will wait to see what the A9 is all about.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 17:03 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (398 comments in total)
In reply to:

nemark: To David Wentworth:
"a 35 mm equivalent f/1.7. The camera would not allow me shoot at f/1.7 when within a certain distance to a subject. Instead, the aperture would automatically "correct" to f/2.2 or f/2.8, even when in full manual mode."

I suspect that it is the same reason why did East Germany Jena Zeiss do the same thing with some of their lenses (2.8/35mm Flectogon and 3.5/135mm Sonnar at least). And the reason is simple: as you focus closer and closer, your lens moves further from film/sensor surface becoming "a longer focal length, while diameter of the hole ("aperture") that passes light to the sensor remains same. The ammount of light that reaches sensor is reduced. That is also why 2.8 macro lens when set to 1:1, becomes actually f5.6 (in other words, you`ll need for 2EV longer exposure).

Of course if it loses more than a stop of light when focused at 10 times its focal length then it is being mechanically stopped down. Presumably Leica feels it won't be sharp enough otherwise.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 16, 2014 at 15:45 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (398 comments in total)
In reply to:

nemark: To David Wentworth:
"a 35 mm equivalent f/1.7. The camera would not allow me shoot at f/1.7 when within a certain distance to a subject. Instead, the aperture would automatically "correct" to f/2.2 or f/2.8, even when in full manual mode."

I suspect that it is the same reason why did East Germany Jena Zeiss do the same thing with some of their lenses (2.8/35mm Flectogon and 3.5/135mm Sonnar at least). And the reason is simple: as you focus closer and closer, your lens moves further from film/sensor surface becoming "a longer focal length, while diameter of the hole ("aperture") that passes light to the sensor remains same. The ammount of light that reaches sensor is reduced. That is also why 2.8 macro lens when set to 1:1, becomes actually f5.6 (in other words, you`ll need for 2EV longer exposure).

The size of the aperture does not change. But when any lens is focused closer its focal length increases, so its f stop gets smaller. Light falls off at the square of its distance. So by the time a lens is extended to a 1:1 ratio, the falloff will be 2 stops compared to the same lens focused on infinity.

I am not sure if the Leica X lens in question is simply illustrating this fact or is additionally stopping the lens down to improve sharpness at close distances.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2014 at 05:22 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (398 comments in total)
In reply to:

nemark: To David Wentworth:
"a 35 mm equivalent f/1.7. The camera would not allow me shoot at f/1.7 when within a certain distance to a subject. Instead, the aperture would automatically "correct" to f/2.2 or f/2.8, even when in full manual mode."

I suspect that it is the same reason why did East Germany Jena Zeiss do the same thing with some of their lenses (2.8/35mm Flectogon and 3.5/135mm Sonnar at least). And the reason is simple: as you focus closer and closer, your lens moves further from film/sensor surface becoming "a longer focal length, while diameter of the hole ("aperture") that passes light to the sensor remains same. The ammount of light that reaches sensor is reduced. That is also why 2.8 macro lens when set to 1:1, becomes actually f5.6 (in other words, you`ll need for 2EV longer exposure).

Correction in the formula above F stands for focal lengh. So when focused on a closer object, the lens is longer and thus the f stop is smaller.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 20:28 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (398 comments in total)
In reply to:

nemark: To David Wentworth:
"a 35 mm equivalent f/1.7. The camera would not allow me shoot at f/1.7 when within a certain distance to a subject. Instead, the aperture would automatically "correct" to f/2.2 or f/2.8, even when in full manual mode."

I suspect that it is the same reason why did East Germany Jena Zeiss do the same thing with some of their lenses (2.8/35mm Flectogon and 3.5/135mm Sonnar at least). And the reason is simple: as you focus closer and closer, your lens moves further from film/sensor surface becoming "a longer focal length, while diameter of the hole ("aperture") that passes light to the sensor remains same. The ammount of light that reaches sensor is reduced. That is also why 2.8 macro lens when set to 1:1, becomes actually f5.6 (in other words, you`ll need for 2EV longer exposure).

Aperture of all lenses are marked for infinity focus. At all other distances the apertue becomes smaller. The question with this lens is if Leica is also stopping down the lens at the closest settings.

Formula is 1/F=1/O+1/I
F=F stop, O=object distance, I=Image distance (how far lens is from focus plane.)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 14:22 UTC

Lots of people wull miss having this easy target.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 03:37 UTC as 163rd comment
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

Raist3d: You can tell how many people just don't get art or photography by all the negative comments instead of simply accepting this is just another brush and canvas of light, different from digital.

Obviously just because something exists doesn't mean you have to use it or buy it, while still be a valid good option for those who know how to and want to use it. Why else would Lomo bottler if there wasn't a market for it?

Saying this as a guy who does not regularly shoot film.

XMichaelx... you seem to have reached conclusions about me that are pretty off base.

I had about 40 years of film use before I went digital. Starting with a darkroom at the age of 11. I received a BS degree in photography from RIT in 1974. We did beta testing of Cibachrome there in 1971. I have used an extremely wide range of processes over that time including dye transfer, photo silkscreening, cyanotype, litho, C22, C41, R22, R4, E3, E4, E6, traditional b/w, Aero Iinfrared, toning, blah, blah, blah. I owned a custom color printing lab.

Photoshop is a tool like anything else. (I don't use it much myself.) It can be used to create something on its own or just to help get the image to look like how you envisioned it... no different than tools in traditional printing.

I personally find that a modern digital camera and a good raw converter allows me to capture images in some situations that I could not accomplish as well if at all with film.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2014 at 01:55 UTC
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

Raist3d: You can tell how many people just don't get art or photography by all the negative comments instead of simply accepting this is just another brush and canvas of light, different from digital.

Obviously just because something exists doesn't mean you have to use it or buy it, while still be a valid good option for those who know how to and want to use it. Why else would Lomo bottler if there wasn't a market for it?

Saying this as a guy who does not regularly shoot film.

Yes, learning your tools is a part of the procs.es

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2014 at 14:10 UTC
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

Raist3d: You can tell how many people just don't get art or photography by all the negative comments instead of simply accepting this is just another brush and canvas of light, different from digital.

Obviously just because something exists doesn't mean you have to use it or buy it, while still be a valid good option for those who know how to and want to use it. Why else would Lomo bottler if there wasn't a market for it?

Saying this as a guy who does not regularly shoot film.

It's great to have lots of choices available. And I encourage everyone to experiment. But I also encourage people to have something to express with their photography and not depend totally on an effect to make the picture interesting.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2014 at 14:51 UTC
Total: 333, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »