Vitruvius

Vitruvius

Joined on Aug 12, 2011

Comments

Total: 238, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Looks like this is even better than the Canon 400mm f5.6 L USM at the same 400mm f5.6

AND it is a zoom that goes all the way from 150 to 600 at the same time as having higher IQ.

http://camahoy.com/

Wow, and only $1069

AF speed also seems to be much faster than the Sigma 150-500 HSM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZX9oy6a7OE

Love to see this DxO Marked. Glad Sigma and Tamron are forcing Canon and Nikon to get off their ASSets

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2014 at 14:58 UTC as 2nd comment
On Homemade rig captures extreme macro shots of snowflakes article (186 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vitruvius: Very inspiring. Not sure how to "zoom in" a prime lens but will try it some time. I tested the lens reversing idea once and found that the wider the focal length the higher the magnification. So with my 16-50mm reversed at 16mm I got a single letter on a coin full frame (APS-C). And that was with the front of the lens right tight to the camera. Now I am inspired to build a marco tube. Thanks! Awesome. Also proves you don't need the best equipment.

Ahhh! I didn't think about the camera had a zoom lens as well. Thanks for clarifying.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2013 at 00:43 UTC
On Homemade rig captures extreme macro shots of snowflakes article (186 comments in total)

Very inspiring. Not sure how to "zoom in" a prime lens but will try it some time. I tested the lens reversing idea once and found that the wider the focal length the higher the magnification. So with my 16-50mm reversed at 16mm I got a single letter on a coin full frame (APS-C). And that was with the front of the lens right tight to the camera. Now I am inspired to build a marco tube. Thanks! Awesome. Also proves you don't need the best equipment.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2013 at 21:46 UTC as 23rd comment | 2 replies

Same story from Sigma over and over. Must have replaced some of their software staff with optical designers because they sure are good optically for the price.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2013 at 18:34 UTC as 14th comment

Holy Crap! I am actually really impressed with how well the RX1 does against the others at "only" 24 MP against the two with 33% more resolution. Check out the lock of hair. Wow.

Is that a superior lens resolution issue?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2013 at 23:05 UTC as 6th comment
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)

Over 2300 comments and most of them by about 5 people.
"I'm right,... no I'm right,.. No, I'M right"
Starting to look just like Photo.net

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2013 at 21:16 UTC as 169th comment | 2 replies
On Nikon Df combines classic design with modern technology article (313 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vitruvius: It makes perfect sense that the filthy rich purists are more likely to drop big cash on a sexy exclusive camera that the Joneses don't have if it DOESN'T have video (although it has HDMI) or wireless (even though those feature probably cost pennies), but for $2750 this thing dosn't even have 1/8000 shutter speed! I am sure some purist will get their shorts in a knot just because it has live view. Interesting that Nikon decided to fill the void that Hasselblad failed to fill.

My point is 25 years ago NIKON had it and today for $2,750 they actually go backwards.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2013 at 00:24 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)

The Nikon F-801 (N8008) was made in 1988 and had a 1/8000 second shutter, 1/250s flash sync, and 3.3 frames per second (includes moving the film). It is now $40 on ebay.

25 years of development for Nikon and for $2,750 you get 1/4000 shutter, 1/200 flash sync (available at 1/250), and 5.5 FPS.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2013 at 17:58 UTC as 236th comment
On Nikon Df combines classic design with modern technology article (313 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vitruvius: It makes perfect sense that the filthy rich purists are more likely to drop big cash on a sexy exclusive camera that the Joneses don't have if it DOESN'T have video (although it has HDMI) or wireless (even though those feature probably cost pennies), but for $2750 this thing dosn't even have 1/8000 shutter speed! I am sure some purist will get their shorts in a knot just because it has live view. Interesting that Nikon decided to fill the void that Hasselblad failed to fill.

"1/8000 is a relatively new thing" ???
The Nikon F-801 (N8008) was made in 1988 and had a 1/8000 second shutter, 1/250s flash sync, and 3.3 frames per second (includes moving the film). It is now $40 on ebay. I guess 25 years of development for Nikon is "relatively new".

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2013 at 17:50 UTC
On Nikon Df combines classic design with modern technology article (313 comments in total)
In reply to:

km25: I will say it again, when I bouhgt my first Nikon I bought the Nikkormat, because I was un able to aford the F. This is like the Nikkormat cost more money, because it has less. Six monhts from now these cameras are going to be sold for $1500.00, with lens and extras.

"Six months from now these cameras are going to be sold for $1500.00, with lens and extras."

Actually they won't because anyone who can afford to throw this much money away on something so vain won't be desperate to sell it later either. It will sit on their display shelf from day 3 on and stay there.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2013 at 03:23 UTC
On Nikon Df combines classic design with modern technology article (313 comments in total)
In reply to:

oselimg: This so called"retro" trend must be a very effective way of milking the vain and the shallow. Why not make even older looking cameras and put even more absurd prices on them.

I was thinking the same thing. Next will be D-TLR camera so you can buy two of every lens, one for the sensor and one for viewfinder, coupled of course. Just so you can look really cool behind the camera.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2013 at 03:15 UTC
On Nikon Df combines classic design with modern technology article (313 comments in total)

It makes perfect sense that the filthy rich purists are more likely to drop big cash on a sexy exclusive camera that the Joneses don't have if it DOESN'T have video (although it has HDMI) or wireless (even though those feature probably cost pennies), but for $2750 this thing dosn't even have 1/8000 shutter speed! I am sure some purist will get their shorts in a knot just because it has live view. Interesting that Nikon decided to fill the void that Hasselblad failed to fill.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 6, 2013 at 23:04 UTC as 15th comment | 7 replies
On Behind the Shot: Winter Paradise article (41 comments in total)

I am finding it very difficult to set focus acurratly with night shots and large apertures. You can't just turn it to the infinity end because the lenses go past infinity and the foreground becomes out of focus. Of course the camera can't autofocus most of the time. And the the new lenses aren't designed for manual focus work since rotating the ring just 1mm has a big impact on the focal distance. Lots of time consuming test shot trial and error.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 23, 2013 at 21:47 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies
On Sony Alpha A7 / A7R preview (2372 comments in total)

Very nice specs and I'm sure it will perform great. But it is just BUTT ugly. I know that many will like it, but I am definetly NOT one of them. I have the A77 and love Sony but I would never spend that much money on something I thought was ugly JUST for the performance. Like buying a really fast but ugly sports car. A small part of the enjoyment of having something nice is also looking at it. Yech!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2013 at 17:24 UTC as 315th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Vitruvius: I used to shoot film with optical viewfinder and loved it. Then I got the Powershot Pro1 and got used to the electroninc viewfinder. Now I bought new DSLR with optical viewfinder again and I LOVE it! Seeing the scene with my 300 to 600 megapixel eyes is SO much nicer. I don't mind the extra bulk at all anymore now that I know what I was missing. It is simply far more enjoyable shooting now.

The human eye can only view a small area at any given time. We scan the scene with our eyes and our mind combines this information. You will never see 300 - 600 megapixels through a viewfinder but it is available to your eye through an optical viewfinder. It is NOT available through an EVF.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2013 at 01:01 UTC

I used to shoot film with optical viewfinder and loved it. Then I got the Powershot Pro1 and got used to the electroninc viewfinder. Now I bought new DSLR with optical viewfinder again and I LOVE it! Seeing the scene with my 300 to 600 megapixel eyes is SO much nicer. I don't mind the extra bulk at all anymore now that I know what I was missing. It is simply far more enjoyable shooting now.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2013 at 19:52 UTC as 19th comment | 2 replies

A 45mm medium format lens is not 35mm equivalent on "full frame". Perhaps the Leica system is not true medium format. Even so there is 6x4.5 or 6x6, or 6x7 etc.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2013 at 13:04 UTC as 11th comment | 5 replies

If you think you can color balance digitally without loss of image quality you are wrong.

Lots of professional photographers have tested and proved this. The best way to retain the most amout of image data is to set the digital camera WB to daylight and color balance the scene with an actual physical filter. Digital camera sensors are daylight balanced by design from factory.

Do your research.

http://tedfelix.com/Photography/Filters.html

http://photo.net/equipment/filters/digital

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 19:04 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Vitruvius: You still need 2 devices, so how does this solve anything? You still need to carry your smart phone AND this 'camera' without a screen or controls.

You save a bit of money (on rapidly outdated technology) and in exchange you are very limited to who, how, and when you can use it.

What is the point? What was the problem they are trying to solve?

Solved problem of size??? The RX100 II is 225 cubic cm and relatively slim and pocketable. The QX100 is 222 cubic cm, shaped like a cinimon bun, and only 102 grams less.

So save the $250 and only ever be able to use it with your smart phone? Doesn't make sense to me. But if you really need to stand out to be cool, knock yourself out.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 4, 2013 at 18:04 UTC

You still need 2 devices, so how does this solve anything? You still need to carry your smart phone AND this 'camera' without a screen or controls.

You save a bit of money (on rapidly outdated technology) and in exchange you are very limited to who, how, and when you can use it.

What is the point? What was the problem they are trying to solve?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 4, 2013 at 17:32 UTC as 62nd comment | 4 replies
Total: 238, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »