Joseph S Wisniewski

Joseph S Wisniewski

Lives in United States Detroit, MI, United States
Works as a Speech and sensor scientist
Has a website at http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joined on Jul 12, 2002
About me:

I've been in love with photography for over 40 years.

My favorite form of photography is macro, and much of my gear is of my own design.

I've done professional photography on and off for over 20 years.
Taught 8 years at Midwest Photography Workshops.
Designed 3 scientific digital cameras and 6 lenses.

Author of mImage and (coming soon to the App Store and Google Play) ColorForEveryone.

Comments

Total: 549, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On Sony DSC-RX10 preview (725 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Well, huge apologies, NOT! Do you really mean to say that a 1" sensor is NOT 1" at all? The sensor is only 13.8mm x8.8mm. This means that it has an area merely of 12,244 sq. mm. Well in the UK and I am sure elsewhere it is against the Sale of Goods Act and the Trade Descriptions Act to state that the sensor is a 1" sensor.
A 1" sensor has an area of 64,516 sq.mm, and that's more than four times the area of this tinsy nail-clipping bodie sized chip, so the image quality will be absolutely no improvement on what the 7800 Nikon can already do, and Sony are plain daft here, unfortunately. I apologize from my previous post, as I believed a 1" sensor to meet that description.
Surely Sony need to produce the R2, with the same abilities and a genuine APS-C sensor, to dare to charge this kind of money. I had a DSC-828 with a similar sensor but the Zeiss lens (28-200mm) was unusably beset by blue fringing, and I returned it to the store.

That use of the "tube diameter" has been the standard in video cameras for eight decades and has been used in P&S digital cameras (which had their origins in video cameras) for two decades.

No consumer protection organization anywhere in the world has had a problem with it, so what you are "sure" of is completely wrong.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2013 at 12:04 UTC
On Pentax K-3 preview (959 comments in total)

Nice to see my ideas in use...

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40566081

Direct link | Posted on Oct 10, 2013 at 21:21 UTC as 174th comment | 3 replies
On Zeiss announces 'no compromise' Otus 55mm F1.4 article (488 comments in total)

You would think that a company with Zeiss's history would actually have a sense of history.

Back in the early days of 35mm SLRs, all the camera makers tried their hands at 55-58mm f1.4 lenses. It's a focal length that lends itself to better optical design at f1.4 than a "true" 43mm normal. Photographers around the world rejected them, and pushed for a less "flat" normal, something closer to 43mm.

The end result was a "meet you half way" compromise, the 50mm that ruled for decades.

I think Zeiss is about to relearn history, as compromising the focal length to get "uncompromised" optical quality isn't going to work any better now than it did 50 years ago.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2013 at 13:55 UTC as 92nd comment | 3 replies
On Zeiss announces 'no compromise' Otus 55mm F1.4 article (488 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jogger: Most people are missing the long-term picture. Today's FF optics are not even resolving the 36mp of the Nikon D800... in 10 years, we will have 80mp FF DSLRs; there will definitely a need for these types of lens in the long run.

With Otus, Zeiss is setting themselves up to be the premium choice once 36+ mp become the norm (sooner, than later).

Some of today's optics. There are a lot of lenses, today, that resolve at 100mp levels, without the insane prices, compromised focal lengths, hideous styling, or silly names.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2013 at 13:45 UTC
On Nikon 1 AW1 preview (588 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photoexposition: Come on, give me break.
Rebirth of the mythical Nikonos ? Nikonos were slr cameras, designed at the beginning for Commandant Cousteau so he could take pictures under the sea. This Nikon 1 is merely an hybrid with some waterproof features. It's like comparing apples with tomatoes.
Let's cut the marketing crap once and for all.

No, they weren't SLRs at all (except for that psychotic junk pile the Nikonos RS, which used an entirely different lens family).

There, I cut some of your crap. Now, put up or shut up, and tell us what an original, Nikonoos was, if not a "hybrid with some waterproof features".

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2013 at 21:05 UTC
On Did Sigma design the Olympus M.Zuiko 75mm F1.8? article (200 comments in total)

Makes a lot of sense to me. The thing I don't get is why Oly?

75mm is a bit of an odd duck on four thirds, 3.5x the "normal" focal length for four thirds (a 150mm equivalent). The classic portrait lenses are 85, 105, and 135mm, 2x, 2.5x, and 3x normal.

75mm is the portrait lens that everyone wants on APS-C, where it's 2.5x normal, but quite awkward on four thirds.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2013 at 11:16 UTC as 55th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Pheonix: Was a bit expensive, the old model, in the UK, and as a Pentax shooter, unlikely to fit. At £99 its a bit more of an impulse purchase.

Tempted to see how well it works for Dance Photography on location... isolation of head/shoulders from the rest of the scene, when Bounce is not available (dark ceilings etc.

Just need to find out when the UK distro will be getting them in stock!

It would look pretty flat. The "fun" part of ring lights is a distinctive "edged" shape outlining the head when your subject is close to a light colored background. Take away the light background, and the light falls off on the sides of the face just in time to feather off into darkness.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 25, 2013 at 01:51 UTC
In reply to:

KariIceland: For those ripping on the ray flash my question is simply this: do you want QUALITY or a piece of human excrements?

And flashes and lenses cost more than this beside the 50mm 1.8 you are willing to spend 1000$ on a lens, so why do you complain about this price?

Does it matter who does you in the backside hole when it comes to camera gear? Sure looks like it if we read all the negative comments here.

Reading all the stories in this thread, and on dpReview in general, about the Ray Flash being misassembled, or falling apart, I'm not sure you have a good handle on the difference between QUALITY and human whatever.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 25, 2013 at 01:46 UTC
In reply to:

SushiEater: I think it is stupid idea to begin with.
1. Loss of light.
2. Since it uses your flash and power (since there is loss of light you would not be able to take as many flashes) what is the point.
3. For 1/2 the price (and this is expensive version, there are other much cheaper versions) why not get
MRC-232 LED Ring Adjustable Hotshoe Light Video Lighting Lamp 6000K for DSLR
from Ebay?
It uses Sony battery included (cheaper versions use AA just like your flash), allows to use it as video light, adjustable light too.
Some versions can be used as flash or video.

Because LEDs run a constant power, and pictures are produced by energy, power x time. A speed light has about 60 watt-seconds of energy. You have to run a common 10 watt LED ring light for 6 seconds to get 60 watt-seconds.

How many subjects can hold still for 6 seconds? How many photographers can shoot 6 seconds handheld?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 25, 2013 at 01:43 UTC
In reply to:

Potemkin_Photo: Give it 3 months and every Chinese me-too shop will have this for $19.99 with free shipping from Shenzhen. Just wait, you know it's going to happen.

Grock, there are many knockoffs of the original Ray Flash. They came out a few months after it was launched, and perform virtually identically.

The new Ray Flash addresses (we hope) the serious flaws of the old one, by borrowing from some existing fiber-optic products. Give the cloners a chance: we'll be seeing knockoffs in a couple of months.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2013 at 10:27 UTC
In reply to:

Pierre Daigneault: Now what about an aluminium foil plate with a hole cut in it (crumpled to defuse) put onto the front of the lens. Then direct the regular flash at the plate and use the reflected light with the main light as back lighting......
...voila....$0.20.....

The plate surrounds the lens, right?

So, how do you direct a flash at the plate without directing it at the lens?

Are you familiar with "veiling flare"?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2013 at 10:23 UTC
In reply to:

rayflash: Hello,
your information is inaccurate, chinese fake for 20 USD does not function,light loss minus 4-5 EV, compared to the RAY FLASH original.Llight output power of chinese fakes is insufficient for serious shooting.therefore the choice of every customer,what light quality will be use for photo shooting.

new universal adapter for all types of DSLR cameras

Indeed. I've measured two different Chinese ring flashes and they're within half a stop of the Ray Flash. And they all had nearly identical imbalances between top and bottom.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2013 at 10:21 UTC
In reply to:

jackpro: this is another option http://enlightphotopro.com/gear/the-orbis-ringflash/

Depends on how you define "option". The original Rayflash was very uneven, but at least it was hotter on top on a landscape image.

The Orbis is hotter on the bottom. Research "sinister lighting" if you don't understand why that is unflattering.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2013 at 10:15 UTC
In reply to:

photoholiko: Didn't Leica have something like this for their R-System?

Been there, done that. LOL.

This "getting old" stuff sucks.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2013 at 11:18 UTC
In reply to:

electrophoto: Back in the day, nice idea... but today?
Well I simply don't see any potential advantage in this... We have an abundance of great digital bodies - for almost any taste.
The only thing this would bring is an awkward way to control it, even less practical for quick reviewing and I can't see any advantages over even the most basic DSLR with this.

Such as?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 22:46 UTC
In reply to:

leicaman: It could be done with todays technology. It would be great to flip a FF sensor into my Leica M4s.

Ah to have a well-built all metal hockey puck of a digital camera would be wonderful

You can't have FF. The sensor needs to go through the camera's 24x36mm film gate. Sensors have about a 4mm "moat" of support circuitry, contacts, and mechanical framework around the sensor, so the biggest possible back for an ordinary 35mm camera is 1.3x crop, like Leica Modul-R.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 22:45 UTC
In reply to:

Frank Dernie: I have a Leica DMR which works brilliantly on my R8 but results in a heavy camera.

I always thought the digital film idea was wishful thinking. Until all the electronics and battery of a digital SLR can be packaged to fit inside the cylindrical space enclosed by a 135 cassette it will be impossible. Why didn't anybody seem to think of that before throwing away so much money?
Blindingly obvious, from an engineering perspective, I would have thought.

That's not where the story ends.

Eventually, Quest hired Applied Color Science to build some electronics, and ACS got as far as a prototype board stack about twice the volume of an SLR (not a film canister) when Quest couldn't fund it and traded all rights to ACS in exchange for their debt. That, as far as I can tell, is as close to working as Silicon Film ever got.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 22:40 UTC
In reply to:

Frank Dernie: I have a Leica DMR which works brilliantly on my R8 but results in a heavy camera.

I always thought the digital film idea was wishful thinking. Until all the electronics and battery of a digital SLR can be packaged to fit inside the cylindrical space enclosed by a 135 cassette it will be impossible. Why didn't anybody seem to think of that before throwing away so much money?
Blindingly obvious, from an engineering perspective, I would have thought.

It struck me as utterly impossible using 1999 level technology.

I've looked at all sorts of financial info on these guys, and never could find where they'd spent any money on electronics design. They had an IC packaging designer (not much use, unless you can order in large enough quantities to get a sensor maker to implement your package design). They ended up in such debt to Quest Manufacturing, a plastics fabricator, that Quest ended up acquiring the defunct Silicon Film.

You would expect electronics design and tooling to cost about 20-50x what the housing designs cost for a product like this, If your biggest creditor is the guy who molded the insert housing and the spiffy looking reader, the logical conclusion is that there was no electronic design, whatsoever.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 22:18 UTC
In reply to:

Mark: OMG. Given the big moves in Sensor & Battery Technology this simple idea would be a very affordable option today. Brining it back I say. Who owns the patent?

Dominik Schmidt probably did more real work on this stuff than anyone else, and a quick check shows at least one of his patents still in force

Silicon Film didn't pay their maintenance fees, all theirs are dead.

Kodak has some, not sure of the status.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 21:56 UTC
In reply to:

budi0251: Back in the day when we could get date back replacement upgrade for our camera; I suppose it'd still be possible with such data backs, thus having enough room for electronics (with some problem for nose area, photog needs to breath as well)
About electromechanical control/sensor, now that's another engineering problem.

Today?
2nd hand 6MP APS-C sized sensor DSLR can be bought for about 150 bucks, coupled with some basic lens.
If this device wish to compete with that, it should cost less than 100 bucks and still no more easier than that relic DSLR (and worse IQ).

I think that's what killed the Leica Modul-R. The day I first tried it, the unusually thick "digital back" and the limited eye-relief meant my nose was squashed painfully against the back of the camera. Even though the 1.3x crop added eye-relief, it still wasn't enough.

That same day, back in July of 2005, I tried the Nikon D2X. That experience totally convinced me that the whole idea of a modular DSLR was dead. (Although I subsequently tried to revive it. Long story).

An opportunity a few months later to spend a week with the Modul-R reinforced that conclusion. The R9 with a Modul-R was a thoroughly obnoxious camera.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 21:43 UTC
Total: 549, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »