juergen hofinger

Joined on Jun 1, 2011

Comments

Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12

they shouldn't do things by halves. Why restrict it to photographs? Even looking at those buildings could be seen as relevant for copyright. So either

- people should be enforced to wear google glasses and get registered. Whenever you look at a building under copyright you will be automatically charged,

- you can pay for a monthly flat rate since it can be assumed that no one is able to avoid looking at those buildings.

Wouldn't that be great?

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 21:21 UTC as 130th comment | 1 reply
On article Mono a mono: Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) hands-on (710 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): klassisches VEB design ;-)

hm, I think the old Praktika SLRs from VEB Pentacon in Dresden looked a lot better than this rounded brick. Rather Russian origin: Rasped from a solid metal block ;-).

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2015 at 19:00 UTC
In reply to:

nathondetroit: Beautiful. There's obviously some serious X series glass if you want to go that route, but this available X100S kit offers a lot of capability for the enthusiast.

Everyday, there are plenty of budding photographers tearing it up doing 55mm 5.6 portraits with their kit lens. This 50mm 3.5 will definitely be capable of amazing work as well.

Thanks, thought it over now. You're perfectly right. But then why f3.5? f2 in ff equivalent would be about f3 (crop factor of 1.5).

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2014 at 10:24 UTC
In reply to:

Mattersburger: That's a lot of metal & glass to get to an f2 normal.

Sorry, Iwas too late with my last comment. I don't believe that. If the front lens would limit, it would be reproduced in the image resulting in a serious vignetting. The position of the aperture blades is the only one where any cutting cannot be seen in a sharp image (only in the blurred areas).

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2014 at 09:35 UTC
In reply to:

Mattersburger: That's a lot of metal & glass to get to an f2 normal.

f3.5? How do calculate that? The lens is f2.0 23mm, which is roughly f3 35mm full frame equivalent. With converter it should shift to 50 mm full frame equivalent if I get it right. This would mean a factor of about 1,42, resulting in about f2.8 33mm APS-C or f4.4 50mm full frame, respectively.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2014 at 09:10 UTC
In reply to:

nathondetroit: Beautiful. There's obviously some serious X series glass if you want to go that route, but this available X100S kit offers a lot of capability for the enthusiast.

Everyday, there are plenty of budding photographers tearing it up doing 55mm 5.6 portraits with their kit lens. This 50mm 3.5 will definitely be capable of amazing work as well.

I agree. The lens is f2.0 23mm, which is roughly f3 35mm full frame equivalent. With converter it should shift to 50 mm full frame equivalent if I get it right. This would mean a factor of about 1,42, resulting in about f2.8 33mm APS-C or f4.4 50mm full frame, respectively.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2014 at 09:05 UTC
In reply to:

FinDERP: 3D images with a single lens? DAMN YO!

Good point. I simply consider photography as serious if the photographer takes it serious in terms of investing time for taking the pictures and presenting them. Therefore I have to correct myself: You can do "serious" 3D photography with one camera if your objects don't move. You may find those situations less frequently as you might think though (leaves in the wind, people running around …). Those artifacts draw your attention and you soon wish to have a "real" 3D camera. I can hardly wait to see the first 3D sample images from the Samsung.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2013 at 10:45 UTC
In reply to:

FinDERP: 3D images with a single lens? DAMN YO!

For serious 3D photography you need to shoot both views at the same time. Your options are therefore very limited at the moment:

- Compact cameras from Fuji or Panasonic (limited iQ)
- Panasonic 3D lens for mft (resolution and aperture very limited )
- Using two cameras (not very convenient, what I am doing at the moment)

Implementing a shutter in a 3D lens is an interesting concept. A far as I have understood the single lens will be "split" into two smaller ones. The raise in maximum aperture should not be a big deal since you want a wider depth of focus anyway in 3D shots. It is more the small stereo basis together with the equivalent focal length of about 70 mm that makes me frown.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2013 at 09:41 UTC
In reply to:

3dreal: As i said, samsung will show us a 3d-camera. if the lightpath will be cut into two parts. then the angle will be at least 90mm, leading to a 90 x1.5=135mm(rather a bit longer) tele-lens. together with this small base(around 30mm) 3d-depths is not ideal for long distances but for near/mdirange. Its a good start. I can only hope that samsung will offer us a twinning system using the shown box-like camera-design(ALA hasselblad). 60mm base and longer could be achieved.

I don't think so. Not much is known about the lens but I guess splitting of the lightpath is done at aperture level. So not the focal length is changed but the maximum aperture. I guess it is just like two smaller lenses if 3D is switched on. There have to be some additional optical elements (prisms) therefore for angular correction. With a tiny stereo basis, however and an equivalent focal length of about 70 mm the 3D effect will not be very pronounced.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2013 at 09:26 UTC
On article Just posted: Panasonic DMC G3 in-depth review (45 comments in total)
In reply to:

MonkeyHouse: I went to Henrys with the intention buying one of these, and opted for the Canon T3i instead. Within 10-15 minutes, I knew a few things would be a pain for m, all preference-based and subjective:

1. The grip didn't feel comfortable in my hand. Thumb got crampy from the "pinchy" way I had to hold it.

2. I tried adjusting EVH with the dial but no matter what the edges were distorted. Overall, I found looking through an EVF distracting. I'm not AT ALL a DSLR "optical view" snob... like I said, I had every intention of buying the G3 knowing it had EVF.

3. It's smaller to the naked eye, but when a big attraction is "take it places I wouldn't bother to take a DSLR" it's still not small enough.

The auto-fucus was crazy fast, though, and full-time autofocus seemed to work like a charm. It was a plenty good camera, but left me no reason to not get the T3i instead.

sounds familiar to me, but just the other way round. Have been at my dealer to look at the Fuji X100 and came back with a G3. Think it comes down to just two points: 1) does size matter 2) is the G3 small enough. For people who would answer both questions with yes, the Panasonic G3 is an option with a very good overall performance.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2011 at 21:30 UTC
On article Just posted: Panasonic DMC G3 in-depth review (45 comments in total)
In reply to:

juergen hofinger: It's been the first time that I had a closer look at the noise levels of RAW images in this test. My impression is that on one hand noise levels of the G3 are not only comparable to those of entry level DSLRs but also up to more expensive cameras like Canon's D60. On the other hand the same observation holds for older m4/3 cameras like the Olympus E-PL1. The quality difference to the G3 seems just to be the fact that Panasonic reaches this low noise levels at a higher resolution (16 compared to 12 MP).

As a conclusion, when it comes to hardware (sensors) it seems to me that all the discussion about superior image quality is more academic for a wide variety of cameras. Differences seem to be mainly due to different noise reduction algorithms and a question of taste in the consideration of noise reduction vs. image details.

I should confine my statement to ISO values up to 800. At higher ISOs differences between E-PL1, G3 and most of the DSLR league seem to be more apparent (in perfect accordance of what the authors say).

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2011 at 19:43 UTC
On article Just posted: Panasonic DMC G3 in-depth review (45 comments in total)

It's been the first time that I had a closer look at the noise levels of RAW images in this test. My impression is that on one hand noise levels of the G3 are not only comparable to those of entry level DSLRs but also up to more expensive cameras like Canon's D60. On the other hand the same observation holds for older m4/3 cameras like the Olympus E-PL1. The quality difference to the G3 seems just to be the fact that Panasonic reaches this low noise levels at a higher resolution (16 compared to 12 MP).

As a conclusion, when it comes to hardware (sensors) it seems to me that all the discussion about superior image quality is more academic for a wide variety of cameras. Differences seem to be mainly due to different noise reduction algorithms and a question of taste in the consideration of noise reduction vs. image details.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2011 at 19:33 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply
Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12