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

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 29th 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 5th 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 (386 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 (386 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 (386 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 (386 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
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

88SAL: Hats off to lomo with another fun product. Photography can be fun and creative too, purists need tp spend more time shooting what/how they like to shoot and stop shooting down new products. Any new product is a good product as it keeps people excited and involved. Alternate photo techniques are fun and rewarding is you learn to work with it and for it. It does not replace your daily drive just suppliments it. Less hate more love.

Maybe some see it as a company simply taking advantage of people thinking they can just buy something and become an instant artist. No different than scrolling through a bunch of Instagram filters until you find one that really expresses your "personal vision."

Yes, I went to art school.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2014 at 14:42 UTC
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (90 comments in total)

It looks like a nice film for weddings.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 14:07 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

Tal Shachar: film is an environmental disaster, go digital now!

20 rolls of 120 film and six packs of Polaroid per day was by no means atypical of what a commercial photographer would shoot. At 8 6x9 cm frames per roll, that is only 160 exposures. I bracketed exposures and for a long time had to shoot everything on E6 as well as on b/w. I did architectural interiors and exteriors and would over shoot and hold back some film in case the lab messed up. Prior to that, I shot 4x5. Advertising photographers who shoot people would often shoot a lot more.

In any case there are a lot more steps that use energy and are wasteful when shooting film than most people think of. For instance the silver must be recovered from the lab's chemicals.

I also had to carry a lot of film that often ended up never being used. For instance I would bring faster type B transparency film but maybe would not use it and it would expire. I bought 300 rolls of one emulsion batch and had to test it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 06:46 UTC
In reply to:

Tal Shachar: film is an environmental disaster, go digital now!

Here is what is required for film.

Chemicals must be mined, refined and shipped to manufacturer. Making film uses large facilities and energy. The same with the manufacturing of processing chemicals and processing equipment. Film must be packaged and stored.

It must be shipped to a retailer. The film is either picked up by me or shipped by the retailer to me.

When I shot 20 rolls of film and 6 packs of Polaroid in a day there was a lot of trash that had to be recycled or disposed of..

Film needs to be delivered to a lab. The lab uses space, equipment, chemicals, water, electricity and heat.

I need to pick up the film and then either scan it or deliver it to my client.

Trips cause pollution, inefficiency, and wear on the vehicle. Workers have to get to the jobs above. I have not bought a memory card or new pro camera body in several years. I do digital delivery of images. My Rollei 120 film cameras had electronics. I had computers before I owned digital cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 06:00 UTC
In reply to:

misha marinsky4: Ferrania house label films were generally lower quality. They made the Walgreens house brand, IIRC.

I have been reading the comments with amusement. To paraphrase Zone Zero, 'A film camera is like a mortgage, with payments for life.'

With a digital camera, it costs zero to press the shutter release. With a film camera, it costs even if it's a dud. I can't delete the shot for another. I still have to pay for development and a contact sheet. A memory card is quite literally an unlimited supply of 35mm film.

Like the look of film? There's DXO Film Pack, for starters. There's Kentmere, an inexpensive Ilford line. There's Freestyle, which sells inexpensive silver halide products.

With the Pentax MF, bodies have dropped below $10K. It's still not cheap, but Moore's Law applies to them, too. Sometime in the future, MF will compete with 35mm FF. The Mamiya ZD used a Dalsa chip; it was only usable at ISO 100, and they're cheap on eBay.

No one can stop the relentless march of technology.

Well the person who bought your Pentax won't lose much on it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 05:32 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: I'm trying to understand the economics and business plan.

With only $250K they plan to rescue this equipment, modify it to run smaller batches, presumably move it somewhere, lease space, hire the technicians and chemists to make all of this work, fund the materials and chemicals they need and do the testing, packaging and marketing? Thisfilm will

To complete my thought. This film will then have to compete with Fuji's E6 film.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 19:41 UTC

I'm trying to understand the economics and business plan.

With only $250K they plan to rescue this equipment, modify it to run smaller batches, presumably move it somewhere, lease space, hire the technicians and chemists to make all of this work, fund the materials and chemicals they need and do the testing, packaging and marketing? Thisfilm will

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2014 at 19:40 UTC as 53rd comment | 6 replies
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1669 comments in total)

Prior to the release of the 17mm TSE lens, I would have considered that lens unlikely if not impossible. It was a complete surprise to me when they released it (Along with the current version of the exceptionally good 24mm TSE.) And no other company makes a similar lens. The fact that the lens is as good as it still amazes me every time I use it.

Consider a few things Canon did in the past... inexpensive APS DSLRs. Breakthrough with the full frame 1Ds. Fast 1D series cameras. Pioneering IS technology. Original 5D... relatively inexpensive and small full frame. 5DII... live view and its impact on videography. Now they have been making new sensors (APS so far) with PD AF across the entire surface.

So bring it on Canon.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 21:20 UTC as 639th comment
Total: 325, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »