jhinkey

jhinkey

Lives in United States Seattle, WA, United States
Works as a Aerospace Engineering Consultant
Has a website at www.hinkey.zenfolio.com
Joined on Dec 27, 2005

Comments

Total: 208, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

MarkByland: It's because a majority of people don't trust the EVF in mirrorless cameras. It really is that simple. I hate the things. I appreciate the 1:1 visual analog connection to my subjects. It is some thing I depend upon for my photo making. It's not about the "quality" of the image so much as it is about the connection of the photographer with the subject. The EVF is horrible technology and I don't care what "advancements" or "innovations" Company $ (S) or Company F can come up with, it's still a major disconnect and, quite literally, a converted electronic view of the past.

Wow - that is one close-minded statement regarding EVFs. I'm glad you have your pulse on how the "majority" of people feel about EVFs.

If you are a sport shooter that needs fast frame rates, fast subject tracking, and can live with adequate focusing accuracy then OVFs are fine and EVFs may not be the right tool.

If you need to see accurate focus with fast lenses, accurate DOF, live histograms, level indicators, etc. then EVFs are the cat's meow.

The latest EVFs are really quite good and getting significantly better with every mirrorless camera generation.

Though I love the OVF of my D800 I sometimes curse it because it only shows me ~f/2.8 DOF, is pretty useless for focusing a f/1.2 optic, and the AF system wants to back/front focus depending on the lens I'm using . . . . OVFs are not the be-all, end-all of viewfinders technology - they are just the most familiar to people.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2014 at 19:56 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: What are those dimensions they are listing on their web page - length x diameter?

8.5mm - 239×179mm
12mm - 182×136mm
25mm - 125×93mm

I hope not . . .

I think those numbers I quoted above might be the horizontal x vertical subject size at MFD.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2014 at 19:00 UTC

What are those dimensions they are listing on their web page - length x diameter?

8.5mm - 239×179mm
12mm - 182×136mm
25mm - 125×93mm

I hope not . . .

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2014 at 18:56 UTC as 29th comment | 2 replies

8.5mm sounds perfect as long as:
- It's not huge (diameter is OK, but super long is not).
- It has great central sharpness wide open and decent corners
- It's sharp corner to corner stopped down a bit.
- It's chipped
- Has very nice mechanicals (aperture and focus rings)
- Can have a hood put on it
- Can take filters

Yeah, yeah, I want everything . . . .

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2014 at 17:05 UTC as 38th comment | 3 replies

How about someone (I mean you Nikon, but Tamron too) build an excellent 28-105 or 24-105 instead of a likely IQ compromised 28-300 10x zoom. And no the 24-85AFS VR nor the 24-120/4AFS VR don't count as excellent.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2014 at 16:00 UTC as 10th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

jhinkey: Great, but how about a compact 50/2.8 to go along with that compact A7R? The A7(r) are very attractive cameras, but when you stick a 50/1.8 Zeiss on them the body/lens combination loses it's compactness that the A7R brings.

Sometimes you need an excellent f/1.8 lens and you have to pay the price in size and weight, but for many situations f/2.8 works just as well and with the high ISO DR of today's sensors there is not that much of a price to pay.

This is the reason I have a 50/1.8G AND a 45/2.8 AI-P for my D800 - the 50G is great for low light, but it's not very compact while the 45/2.8P is super compact and gives me very very good performance and f/2.8 DOF is fine. The 45/2.8P lives on the D800 because it makes it far more portable.

I use the 20/1.7 Pany on my GX7 (roughly equivalent to my 45/2.8P on FX) because the combo is so small and the 20/1.7 is a very very good lens.

I guess there's no money to be made in compact f/2.8 (or f/4) primes for FX these days . . .

A compact 20/2.8 & 100/4 would also be great to have with this system - that would be quite the trio and would cover a lot of situations.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2014 at 18:43 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: Great, but how about a compact 50/2.8 to go along with that compact A7R? The A7(r) are very attractive cameras, but when you stick a 50/1.8 Zeiss on them the body/lens combination loses it's compactness that the A7R brings.

Sometimes you need an excellent f/1.8 lens and you have to pay the price in size and weight, but for many situations f/2.8 works just as well and with the high ISO DR of today's sensors there is not that much of a price to pay.

This is the reason I have a 50/1.8G AND a 45/2.8 AI-P for my D800 - the 50G is great for low light, but it's not very compact while the 45/2.8P is super compact and gives me very very good performance and f/2.8 DOF is fine. The 45/2.8P lives on the D800 because it makes it far more portable.

I use the 20/1.7 Pany on my GX7 (roughly equivalent to my 45/2.8P on FX) because the combo is so small and the 20/1.7 is a very very good lens.

I guess there's no money to be made in compact f/2.8 (or f/4) primes for FX these days . . .

Yes, 35mm is not a 50mm. A 35/2.8 is a good start, but an equally compact (and high IQ) 50/2.8 would be fantastic for this system.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2014 at 18:41 UTC

Great, but how about a compact 50/2.8 to go along with that compact A7R? The A7(r) are very attractive cameras, but when you stick a 50/1.8 Zeiss on them the body/lens combination loses it's compactness that the A7R brings.

Sometimes you need an excellent f/1.8 lens and you have to pay the price in size and weight, but for many situations f/2.8 works just as well and with the high ISO DR of today's sensors there is not that much of a price to pay.

This is the reason I have a 50/1.8G AND a 45/2.8 AI-P for my D800 - the 50G is great for low light, but it's not very compact while the 45/2.8P is super compact and gives me very very good performance and f/2.8 DOF is fine. The 45/2.8P lives on the D800 because it makes it far more portable.

I use the 20/1.7 Pany on my GX7 (roughly equivalent to my 45/2.8P on FX) because the combo is so small and the 20/1.7 is a very very good lens.

I guess there's no money to be made in compact f/2.8 (or f/4) primes for FX these days . . .

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2014 at 17:04 UTC as 69th comment | 7 replies

Glad to see continued innovation from Fuji. Between their camera bodies, lenses, and sensors they seem to be building quite the system. If I had to choose just a single system to shoot with these days it would be Fuji.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2014 at 17:03 UTC as 32nd comment | 2 replies
On Sony Alpha 7 Review preview (1600 comments in total)
In reply to:

jhinkey: Looking forward to the Nikon equivalent to the A7 - hopefully it won't have the A7's flaws.
For whatever manufacturer that puts out a compact FX mirrorless body I think one of the missing links are compact primes.
I'm not talking about a compact 50/1.8, but rather a set of compact primes something like 85/2.8, 50/2.8, 20/4, etc. that are very very good wide open. Though there are many times f/1.8 comes in handy, most of the time f/2.8 or f/4 works just fine, especially with the high ISO performance of today's FX sensors.
I realize that you can't have a compact tele because of the physics or compact f/2.8 ultra-wide angle primes due to telecentricity issues, but a set of compact wide angle to short tele primes would really make FX mirrorless much more portable.

Yep, you are unfortunately probably right that I'll have to wait for a long time. Hopefully Sony introduction of the A7(r) will force the issue with Nikon (and likely Canon as well).

In the mean time I'm enjoying my D800 + FX glass (both modern AF and legacy MF glass) and my m43 system (GX7+ some great glass + adapted glass).

I'd love to just have a compact mirroless FX body with some compact f/2.8-ish primes able to use all my F-mount glass . . . .

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2014 at 19:18 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7 Review preview (1600 comments in total)

Looking forward to the Nikon equivalent to the A7 - hopefully it won't have the A7's flaws.
For whatever manufacturer that puts out a compact FX mirrorless body I think one of the missing links are compact primes.
I'm not talking about a compact 50/1.8, but rather a set of compact primes something like 85/2.8, 50/2.8, 20/4, etc. that are very very good wide open. Though there are many times f/1.8 comes in handy, most of the time f/2.8 or f/4 works just fine, especially with the high ISO performance of today's FX sensors.
I realize that you can't have a compact tele because of the physics or compact f/2.8 ultra-wide angle primes due to telecentricity issues, but a set of compact wide angle to short tele primes would really make FX mirrorless much more portable.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2014 at 19:09 UTC as 196th comment | 8 replies
On Sony Alpha 7 Review preview (1600 comments in total)
In reply to:

rfsIII: The thing that's puzzling to me is that everyone writes about how this camera can use "legacy" glass like all over America the cupboards are bursting with mint condition Leica and Zeiss lenses just waiting to be used. The only "legacy" lenses I see out in the wild are manual focus junk from Sears and Spiratone. Am I missing something?

Very much so.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2014 at 02:59 UTC
On Using third-party lenses on Sony Cyber-shot a7 / a7R article (490 comments in total)
In reply to:

Juraj Lacko: Well now you guys will learn OVF is better for MF

You think all OVFs are better for MF just because one manufacturer (Sony in this case) has some implementation issues with their EVF-based manual focus assist?
My m43 gear is far better for manual focusing than my D800 is because Pany (in this case) implemented manual focusing assistance quite well in my GH2 and GX7.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2014 at 20:20 UTC
On Fujifilm teases upcoming SLR-style X system camera article (921 comments in total)

I don't get all the "retro" comments. Almost every digital camera in production today has some form of previous film camera design component to it. Why is that? - Because the ergonomics worked. Middle placed hump for the EVF allows for good hand-holding with longer/heavier glass and is better for left-eyed folks.
Top control dials allow quick assessment of basics important settings and adjustments w/o having to hold down two buttons or dive into a menu - this works for some, perhaps not for others though. Heck, even a left-side placed EVF (like my GX7) is a throw back to rangefinder designs and some find it better for shooting for their particular way.
Who cares if it's a "retro" design as long as the ergonomics work well and the all-important innards are top knotch in performance!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2014 at 16:43 UTC as 149th comment | 5 replies
On Mount St. Helens images found decades later article (27 comments in total)

This news is a few weeks old at least, but it's still cool and glad it made it to DPR.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2014 at 16:15 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

Peter Gregg: What a difference a day makes. The new images are representative of what I expect - and was hoping for - from this lens. It is pro level and the results certainly look like it. It seems on par in quality with the 85L II by eyeballing these images. Having both lenses in hand would confirm it, or show the deficiencies. The advantage of the 4/3 system is equal light as full frame with a little deeper range in depth of field. For most folks this is an advantage making full frame a disadvantage because of the razor thin depth of field. For most purposes this is a big plus, except for those that are looking for an ultra thin range in their DOF envelope.

There is such a thing as too LITTLE DOF for portraits - especially up close at times when you want more than just the tip of the eyelashes in focus . . .

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2014 at 17:04 UTC
In reply to:

Zeisschen: wait: "It's an ultra-fast portrait prime"

Why is there still no single portrait shot from this lens? I can mostly see pictures from houses at daylight with focus close to infinity and aperture stopped down. Any of them could be made with a kit-zoom lens. Pictures that could need some subject isolation (horse, buddha statue) are not even taken at F1.2. The horse statue shot has infinite DOF, it could be taken with any point and shoot or smartphone. The only F1.2 "portrait shot" I see is the guitar player statue , but impossible to see any details on that surface, I can't even spot the focus point.
To me all those samples look like a kid running around taking snaps with the camera on automatic-mode. This is a f**** expensive 1600$ ultra-fast portrait lens, remember? I guess I better look elsewhere...

No no - the non-round out of focus lights are due to mechanical vignetting/cut off of the light cone through the lens by some internal feature in front of the aperture, not by light reflection.
This is completely different from the natural vignetting that a fast lens has.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2014 at 17:02 UTC
In reply to:

Just another Canon shooter: The lens looks very good, and the samples are very appropriate for such a lens; good job dpreview. The images however look bad at 100%, too much aliasing and a "digital look". This has nothing to do with the lens, of course.

Yes, I agree. The RW2 files that are available on the web from other sites allows one to adjust sharpening, etc. to one's taste and the images come out even better.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2014 at 16:57 UTC
In reply to:

KrisAK: Here's an honest and somewhat goofy question, so everyone please take a deep breath...

Given the amount of in-camera correction that I understand is normal (and in fact one of the benefits of) m43 cameras, then isn't there a point of diminishing returns when it comes to stellar optical quality and the associated astronomical price?

The converse, I suppose, would be it's always best to start with the best image possible. But at some point do expensive improvements to the optics become, I don't know, redundant to downstream processing? (I said it was a goofy question.)

Even at a $600 difference you may still have a valid argument. How much is AF and excellent OIS worth to some people?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2014 at 16:55 UTC
In reply to:

Ian Leach: I realise this lens is not exactly aimed at landscape photographers but it wouldn’t hurt putting in one f8 shot with far and distant content. It is nice to see if a lens can achieve sharpness at the edges with reasonable depth of field if called upon to do so.

I'm with you Ian - there are some other shots on the web that are more landscape-like and this lens seems to do extremely well way out into the corners - something many fast lenses fall down on.
I shoot a lot of landscapes, some of them in very low light, so f/1.2 with excellent coma/astigmatism characteristics (like this lens seems to have) coupled with excellent sharpness stopped down seems like a winner technically. The price is a bit hard to swallow all at once for me - sometimes you have to pay for quality!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2014 at 16:53 UTC
Total: 208, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »