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

p5freak: One day Leica will introduce a digital M without LCD, and advertise it as back to photography how it once was in the film days. And they will charge 10k for it.

There is a film showing Selgado working and he does a lot of chimping

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 14:44 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: I'm sure this will be a useful tool for some. But b/w film handles bright highlights by increasing density and digital will clip highlight detail (that possibly could be burned in when printing from film.) So it is not the same methodology as shooting negative film.

Additionally by using this camera in place of one with a color sensor, one loses the ability to adjust the brightness of individual colors in post before converting to grayscale. That may have a greater impact on some pictures than some possible technical gains resulting from eliminating the color filter array.

Colored filters over a lens on a monochrome camera do not allow one to adjust for individual colors. Working from a color image, one can even simultaneously brighten or darken complementary colors.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 03:22 UTC

I'm sure this will be a useful tool for some. But b/w film handles bright highlights by increasing density and digital will clip highlight detail (that possibly could be burned in when printing from film.) So it is not the same methodology as shooting negative film.

Additionally by using this camera in place of one with a color sensor, one loses the ability to adjust the brightness of individual colors in post before converting to grayscale. That may have a greater impact on some pictures than some possible technical gains resulting from eliminating the color filter array.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2015 at 22:15 UTC as 61st comment | 3 replies
On Yongnuo creates near-clone of Canon EF 35mm f/2 article (167 comments in total)
In reply to:

AlanG: The AF in my Canon 16-35mm can't be repaired due to the part being discontinued. So here's hoping that Yongnuo's clone AF parts can fix my lens.

Yes not as good as many prime lenses but with DXO correction it was very useful for me.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 26, 2015 at 19:12 UTC
On Yongnuo creates near-clone of Canon EF 35mm f/2 article (167 comments in total)
In reply to:

AlanG: The AF in my Canon 16-35mm can't be repaired due to the part being discontinued. So here's hoping that Yongnuo's clone AF parts can fix my lens.

FWIW, Canon's CPS told me "The lens has reached the end of its service life." I wrote to several repair companies and they all told me the part was not available. So I have a manual focusing 16-35 now. My lesson from this is to always sell a lens not long after it has been discontinued and replace it with the new model.

When the 16-35 series II came out, I tested it and did not like that it made strong star patterns from point lights such as candelabra bulbs that are common in homes that I photograph. So I stuck with the series 1. (I mostly use TSE lenses though.)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 26, 2015 at 14:03 UTC
On Yongnuo creates near-clone of Canon EF 35mm f/2 article (167 comments in total)

The AF in my Canon 16-35mm can't be repaired due to the part being discontinued. So here's hoping that Yongnuo's clone AF parts can fix my lens.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 22:18 UTC as 12th comment | 12 replies
On Yongnuo creates near-clone of Canon EF 35mm f/2 article (167 comments in total)

Keep in mind that Canon and Nikon started out copying Leica and Zeiss cameras and lenses. Maybe some of these Chinese companies will be the major innovators in the future. DJI is certainly doing that with multirotors.

Many lenses use fairly well established traditional designs.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 22:26 UTC as 37th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

jkoch2: Everyone dreams of flying, and bird's-eye shots are dreamy. Even caterpillars flee existence as worms, and endure weeks entombed in fuzz, in order to fly, if only for days or weeks at the end of their lives. Landlubbers who grimace and say "not me" don't convince anyone.

That said, drones do raise concern. No, not spying on neighbors. That is the last reason an enthusiast would give a hoot about.

It's cost. The prices and features are tempting, but how many flights do they actually last? Does $1,259 multiply into a five-figure expense afteer tallying the crashes, tree hang-ups, or other breakage?

Next comes access and safety. How long will viewers care for flyovers of vacant public wilderness? The temptation is always the same iconic landmarks or cities. This problem will lead to lots of buzz, literally, figuratively, financially, and legally.

I don't think they are very expensive.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 21:20 UTC
In reply to:

fpvnoob: "This is the only affordable way to get a non-fisheye lens on a drone"

Complete rubbish, it takes a couple of seconds to DE-FISHEYE go pro footage.
Welcome to the internet, where the blind lead the blind.

On the related matter, I am so glad I held off not buying the Inspire1!

Yes a DJI S900 with gimble would be a good option with an M4/3 or APS mirrorless although that is not a wide enough view for some things. (And changing lenses on a gimble mounted camera is tricky.)

But by the time you put together everything you need to match the Phantom 3 (copter, radio, gimble, camera, lens, charger, batteries, Lightbridge system) you'll be at around $7000+ with a much larger, heavier, more complex platform.

This won't be as nimble in flight either but would be great for stills and I have been considering one for that but the bulk concerns me more than the cost.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 18:57 UTC
In reply to:

Shaun Bell: Kind of makes the Inspire look silly lol. At least this new quad doesn't have retractable arms that only function are to look cool. Cool product even if I can't stand the company.

I can't say I know but the the DJI site illustrates the sonar and camera sensors on the P3:

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3/feature

I think the ground facing stuff is cool especially for indoor work, many people even turn off their GPS and fly in Atti mode for smoother tracking in some situations. And when I fly FPV through goggles I need to have the Intelligent Orientation Control off as I see from the copter's point of view. And orientation can also get confusing flying while looking at a screen if the camera is not pointed forward and you are using one of the "Intelligent" modes. It gets tricky going from flying while looking at the screen to flying line of sight unless you practice a lot. There is much more of a learning curve than many think. I'm on my fifth machine and still learning.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 18:38 UTC
In reply to:

KevinG: If I understood the info correctly and that's a big if, it looks like you will have to plugin your iPad/phone/android device into the controller. That's good in some respects because it eliminates a wifi connection but for my use it would be a minus as I have my friend operate the camera while I fly the thing (Vision 2+). As a side none, after trying to construct something to shield the screens form the washing out effect of sunlight we ended up by having my buddy put a large black garbage bag over him and the iPad. Not the best for mobility but it sure keeps the sun out and since the flights are typically only a few minutes he says it does;t get uncomfortable but Summer has not yes reached us(never mind Spring) time will tell.

According to the DJI web site, twin controllers is not an option for the P3. You need the Inspire for that.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 16:42 UTC
In reply to:

Shaun Bell: Kind of makes the Inspire look silly lol. At least this new quad doesn't have retractable arms that only function are to look cool. Cool product even if I can't stand the company.

This is what is on the DJI site:

"Fly indoors, low to the ground, and in GPS-free areas with Vision Positioning technology. Visual and ultrasonic sensors scan
the ground beneath your Phantom 3 for patterns, enabling it to identify its position and move accurately."

So it has sonar and visual sensors. (As does the AR Drone 2 that came out a few years ago.)

The Inspire can be flown with dual controls - one for the pilot and one for the camera person.

The price of the Inspire is very low for anyone in business. The price of the P3 is a steal. (My Futaba radio and GoPro alone cost almost as much and then I paid $100+ for Aero-Sim training software.)

The time and cost for me to build a machine, test it, and get started was very high just 2 years ago. This is plug and play and much better and much much less expensive.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

fpvnoob: "This is the only affordable way to get a non-fisheye lens on a drone"

Complete rubbish, it takes a couple of seconds to DE-FISHEYE go pro footage.
Welcome to the internet, where the blind lead the blind.

On the related matter, I am so glad I held off not buying the Inspire1!

De-fishing is easy as part of normal editing. And I also de-fish still shots.

GoPros have a medium and narrow field of view in addition to the ultrawide one. I've been flying one for a couple of years and generally prefer the "distorted" view to the de-fished view in ultrawide fov. I use the medium and narrow views more than the ultrawide and de-fish them typically. The view from the P3 looks to be about the same as GoPro's medium view. I don't think there is a narrow view on the P3.

If you fly close to buildings and homes using an ultrawide rectilinear lens, any motion of the craft causes the shape of the building to stretch at the edges in strange ways.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 15:48 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: BTW, at least according to one source, the previous DJI Phantom 2 is what crashed on the White House lawn.

From Gizmodo...

...According to The New York Times, the perpetrator was National Geospatial Intelligence Agency employee who'd been drinking and droning at a nearby apartment. Which, hey, it happens.

Our tipsy pilot decided to just sort of whistle and walk away after the incident, "despite fearing that the drone had flown over the White House. After friends told him about news reports on the drone Monday morning, he decided to contact the authorities," The New York Times reported.

The whole thing is particularly ironic considering that the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is tasked with collecting and analyzing intelligence for the Department of Defense among other US agencies. The sorts of intelligence one might gather using, say, drones, for instance.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 18:52 UTC
In reply to:

MustyMarie: Would it NOT be smart for DJI to also offer multiple lens, as a 20mm equiv is not suitable for many types of video, I mean in the professional non law/military/snoop on neighbors sense.

And I dont mean an add-on but a whole diff lens, add-ons not being so good unless very pricey.

And for utility purposes, seems 4k is overkill so it seems this is intended for video purposes - maybe I am missing something of its generally usefulness w/o multiple or zoom lens possibilities.

A great 'TOY' though.

With 4K video you can zoom in or crop using your editing software and still end up with 1080. Flying and shooting tight shots with a single pilot/cameraman can be tricky. Any interchangeable lenses would have to not throw off the weight and balance or gimble won't work correctly.

That said, a version intended for still photography using a 1" sensor and zoom lens would be great for my needs.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 18:49 UTC
In reply to:

Shaun Bell: Kind of makes the Inspire look silly lol. At least this new quad doesn't have retractable arms that only function are to look cool. Cool product even if I can't stand the company.

Don't the arms/landing gear of the Inspire retract so that the lens is free of obstructions and the camera can independently pan in any direction?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 18:44 UTC
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
Total: 349, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »