LJ - Eljot

LJ - Eljot

Lives in Berlin
Joined on Oct 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 296, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Finally! Without the ‘accentuated red line’ I would have absolutly no clue that they are intended for photo-quality printing.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 16:18 UTC as 11th comment
On article CP+ 2016: Things we found that had been cut in half (136 comments in total)
In reply to:

Onur Otlu: "..and features a new XA (extreme aspherical) element which has been rendered even more aspherical in this lens by being cut in half."

This was my favourite of them all - along with "ugly bokeh".

Thanks for the humor, and Rishi was right - you've *got* to keep this going!

I thought a spherical lens would inavitably have spherical abarration. Thats why it is called spherical aberration. The focal lenght of an spherical lens depends on the distants from the center of the lens. And all the other abberations, coma, astigmatism, curvature of field, distortion are inherrant for spherical lenses. The best you can get with a single lens is the combination of a two aspherical surfaces like the design of the Visby lenses.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 08:36 UTC
On article CP+ 2016: Things we found that had been cut in half (136 comments in total)
In reply to:

Onur Otlu: "..and features a new XA (extreme aspherical) element which has been rendered even more aspherical in this lens by being cut in half."

This was my favourite of them all - along with "ugly bokeh".

Thanks for the humor, and Rishi was right - you've *got* to keep this going!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_lenses It it said that two of them are pretty good. Very low spherical abberation and low distortion almost to the edge. But I think you can not correct chromathic abberation with just one lens.

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 22:38 UTC
On article CP+ 2016: Things we found that had been cut in half (136 comments in total)
In reply to:

kineticdg: I have to say I'm a little disappointed in this post. Haven't we said for years that it's not the camera that matters, it's the photographer? Couldn't you find a single photographer who was cut in half for this show? Oh well, maybe next year.

That would be a thing for Gunther von Hagens. Or did he do that allready?

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 22:19 UTC
In reply to:

MikeF4Black: "Leather effect cover". Classy.

Fox leather was not available, I guess. But on the other hand: It's Asia, isn't it?

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 20:46 UTC
In reply to:

noirdesir: I wonder whether the popularity of the so-far released Art lenses and the professed desire for Art lenses covering lens types well-covered by first-party lenses is based more on their great IQ or them being cheaper alternatives to first-party lenses that mostly are very good already.

Most Art lenses released so far provide a very high-quality version where none existed from Nikon and Canon (50 mm f/1.4, 24 & 35 mm f/1.4 to some degree) or provide lens types that didn't exist before (18-35 mm f/1.8, 24-35 mm f/2, 20 mm f/1.4, 50-100 mm f/1.8).

But the lenses most people seem to be asking for are 24-70 mm f/2.8, 70-200 mm f/2.8 and 85 mm f/1.4 where the first-party lenses are mostly pretty good already and the biggest complaint is usually their hight price. Art versions of those would be of the type: similar or somewhat better while noticeably cheaper.

For me the 24-70 and campareble lenses are completely stupid. I use focal length around 70mm or corresponding lengths on other formats. So have to switch at 70mm is very annoying. The Olympus 12-60mm 2.8-4.0 is the lens that suits me best at the moment. Unfortunatly it is not that fast. I once had the Nikon 35-105mm. That was a good range. It had a good macro mode. You had to press a botton to unlock the zoom ring to switch it in macro mode. Unfortunatly it was not that fast (3.5-4.5) and was not very sharp either. I would love to see that in 2.8 and sharp. 50-135mm would also be an interessting range, but not for APS-C.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 21:27 UTC
In reply to:

ThePhilips: It look to me that somebody tried to shoot at 800mm eq FL hand-held. Pretty brave.

And the old Zuiko Digital 70-300mm is really not a very good lens.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 13:01 UTC
In reply to:

Sylwiusz: 30mm f1.4 - the first Sigma aimed at enthusiast mirrorless users. We are waiting for more small, EVIL-dedicated lenses with parameters good enough for most of photography-lovers :-) I'd love to see 75mm f2.0, 13mm f2.8. Any other suggestions?

Well, it depends if you refer to APS-C or mft. On mft the 60mm is allright and a 75mm 1.8 exists. Very good and a bit expensive.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 11:14 UTC
In reply to:

Sylwiusz: 30mm f1.4 - the first Sigma aimed at enthusiast mirrorless users. We are waiting for more small, EVIL-dedicated lenses with parameters good enough for most of photography-lovers :-) I'd love to see 75mm f2.0, 13mm f2.8. Any other suggestions?

The 60mm F2.8 DN is absolutly stellar and costs next to nothing. (Ok, 180€ is not really nothing, but still very reasonable.) And it's best perfomance is at 2.8. If this 30mm is nearly as good at 2.8 and half as good at 1.4 it would be a must buy.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 10:13 UTC
In reply to:

Jonathan F/2: The question is to get the 30mm 1.4 Art for M43 or E mount?

If you have a E-mount camera I would not recommend to buy the m4/3 version.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 10:07 UTC
In reply to:

Alex Kooistra: Sigma is making some nice lenses the last couple of years.
A 50-100 1.8 would also be nice om MFT by the way.....

The 35-100mm f/2.0 weighs 1,650g. The 300mm F/4 only 1270g. This one weighs 1490g. A m4/3 version would be slightly heavier. So, why not? The 35-100mm needs an update becouse AF is not up to todays standards. And the Sigma is also much cheaper.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 09:57 UTC
In reply to:

Johannes Zander: I want the Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 in m43 mount. Will that happen?

The 35-100mm 2.0 for 4/3 is also a Behemoth and I would use it on a small and tiny m4/3 camera like the E-M1. I use the 50-200mm with the E-M1 and I am quite content. Yes, it is big, but it works. And I even use the rediculous combination 50-200mm + EC-14 + mmf-1 + camera. Looks stupid, but works.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 09:50 UTC

What is that texture at most the photos? I think it spoils a bit these otherwise excellent photographs.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 10:03 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

GKN: The winning photo is of weeds ....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/77018637/should-a-moneyshot-of-tekapo-lupins-have-won-an-international-competition

Having seen the lupins in the McKenzie country many times before, those colours aren't far off normal, though some opening up of the shadows

Wow! That completely ruined it.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2016 at 19:57 UTC
In reply to:

BarnET: Some interesting
Some beautiful
one is the worst image i've ever seen winning in any competition.
Carole Drake image N5

You are absolutly right. I my opinion it laks any composition.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2016 at 17:17 UTC
In reply to:

BarnET: Some interesting
Some beautiful
one is the worst image i've ever seen winning in any competition.
Carole Drake image N5

But at least it is really a garden.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2016 at 15:42 UTC
On article The long, difficult road to Pentax full-frame (617 comments in total)
In reply to:

helltormentor: My camera is the D610. When I got my Zeiss 135mm APO, I realized that the combo is awfully front heavy and I thought about upgrading to a D810. With the price of K-1, I seriously feel robbed by Nikon if I go for the D810. Although I cannot switch, I hope the K-1 succeeds. At least it reflects how much a high end full frame should cost.

36MP are by far not enough to make full use of the resolution the 135mm APO delivers. I did some test with Zeiss lenses for the Contax RTS and the Pentax Q10 with lead me to the conclution that 500MP on 24mmx36mm would still be no nonsense. And that old glass looks indeed very old compared to modern lenses like 135mm APO.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 17:44 UTC
On article Worth the wait? A look inside the Pentax K-1 (649 comments in total)
In reply to:

Amnon G: The screen mechanism looks to me like a disaster waiting to happen. small legs in slots that can get dirt, get crooked, etc., a cable ribbon that's pretty exposed.

Why is this better than tried-and-true hinge system or the 180 degree flippable screens?

All in all it's good to see more competition brewing!

So does the screen of the Olympus PEN E-PL7. But Russell Evans allready pointed out, that that is not a good solution for DSLRs with pentaprism viewfinders. And not only DSLRs. And also these screens are not tilt in portrait oriantation.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 08:28 UTC
On article Worth the wait? A look inside the Pentax K-1 (649 comments in total)
In reply to:

papillon_65: That's a camera you could use to knock a fence post in, good effort Pentax, disappointed you didn't include an "awkward child" or "obese shopper" filter though, maybe next time.

My comment was an answer to papillion who stated that a swiss army knife would be better for opening bottles than a camera body would be. I think it makes really sense. And yes, I am and was aware that your statemant was a joke. I got it.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 22:40 UTC
On article Worth the wait? A look inside the Pentax K-1 (649 comments in total)
In reply to:

gskolenda: I would like to see all the newer Camera platforms that are plus 30 MP, have USB 3.0 instead of USB 2.0 These files are large and take time to move them.

It's not like USB 3.0 is new.

Only with 645Z so far. And now also with the K-1. My experience is from thetherd shooting with other brands. (Olympus, Nikon)

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 22:36 UTC
Total: 296, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »