PIX 2015
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: 348, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »

The short answer to the article's title is: No.
If Canon had introduced this with an EVF, set of excellent lenses, a couple of different models some with advanced features, then yes I would take them seriously.
As it is they have to compete with Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Olympus, etc. who have a distinct upper hand in both bodies and lenses.
Can they catch up - sure if they really want to.

And to answer the whole "don't want to cannibalize sales of their own products" question - if cannibalization of your products are going to happen, who better to cannibalize them other than yourself?

I have a Nikon D800 + lenses and I've stopped buying Nikon gear because the m43 gear is that good. I would have loved to buy a Nikon mirrorless system (APS-C, FX, etc.), but Nikon is sitting on the sidelines (The Nikon 1 system doesn't count as it's a half-hearted attempt at best).

Cannibalize your own products or someone else will.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 16:17 UTC as 234th comment | 3 replies
On Olympus 8mm F1.8 'pro' fisheye in development article (29 comments in total)
In reply to:

SeeRoy: The Samyang 7.5 2.8 is an excellent and relatively inexpensive lens. Other than the underwater potential why chose this almost certain to be far more expensive option? For AF? On a fisheye?
Edit. Gottit; it's a "PRO" lens (or should that be "lense"...)

The fisheye's available for m43 are not that great - they are very good for sure, but not that great. They have flare/ghosting issues, CA issues, sensor reflection issues, are kind of slow at f/3.5, and they don't make very nice sun stars. Plus I don't think they will stand up to future 16MP+ sensors that will demand even better lens sharpness.
Though this f/1.8 is certainly welcome, it appears to be on the large side. The tradeoff of this is weather-resistant construction, f/1.8, and hopefully excellent IQ.

More and more Pany and Oly are convincing me to relegate my FX gear to being specialist tools and m43 to my workhorse kit.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 16:02 UTC
On Olympus 8mm F1.8 'pro' fisheye in development article (29 comments in total)
In reply to:

ogl: Is there any sense to make f1.8 for fish-eye?

You bet there is. Even on my D800 I routinely use my fisheye wide open and I wish I could shorten my exposure time or lower my ISO.
Fisheye lenses are not a gimmicky lens - in the right hands they produce excellent non-gimmicky results.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 15:56 UTC
On Manfrotto launches Off Road camera gear article (57 comments in total)
In reply to:

Expat Nomad: Oh, bags have to carry other items.. glad someone figured that out. +1, Manfrotto.

+1 Yep, looks like my LowePro 200

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 03:07 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: Just make a dedicated fisheye please Sony . . . .

The only hyperfocal shooting I've found reliable with my Nikon 16/3.5 is to find the location on the focus distance scale that gives best infinity focus. I personally find hyperfocal distance calculations to be in-accurate for high MP FX sensors.
Anything closer than infinity I find that I really need to get the focus right or it can be really off. Thus accurate AF (as in what a mirrorless camera can do) or manual focusing is best.
On my m43 system I find AF valuable with the 8/3.5 Pany as I can assure that at least whatever the AF box is on will be in focus. Unfortunately it has not focus scale and I've found that just about all other fishey lenses have very different locations on the scale where infinity focus is best - hence being pretty far off in hyperfocal distances.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 22:55 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: Just make a dedicated fisheye please Sony . . . .

I do mount my superb 16/3.5 AI Nikkor, but that's with a ~1inch thick adapter. I'd rather have a native solution that is made for the FE mount. I use AF with my fisheyes all the time, but I get better accuracy with manual focusing - let's not bring up the myth of not needing to focus a fisheye . . . .

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 22:06 UTC

Just make a dedicated fisheye please Sony . . . .

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 21:40 UTC as 103rd comment | 7 replies
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1471 comments in total)

If you need very low DOF, high ISO quality, or use of lenses that just don't exist in smaller formats then FX is potentially for you. If not, APS-C or m43 can be all you will ever need. People just need to be realistic about what they want to do and what the appropriate equipment is to achieve that.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 00:10 UTC as 293rd comment | 2 replies
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1471 comments in total)

The fact of the matter is that there are quite intelligent and competent photographers out there that just do not need the things that FX format has to offer. Formats like m43 and APS-C do them just fine.

Others, like me, choose to use multiple camera formats (FX and m43 in my specific case) to take advantage of each formats strengths in certain situations that apply to me.

Troubles happen when people limit their thinking and decision processes to simplistic rules and opinions spread across the net.

Pretty decent article.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 19:28 UTC as 383rd comment
In reply to:

quiquae: The million dollar question is, will this 300/4 Fresnel lens be more like Canon's 400/4DO Mk I or Mk II? Mk I suffered all sorts of optical issues from the Fresnel element; Mk II seems to have solved most of them. Did Nikon get Fresnel right on the first try? If so, I'd be very jealous--I'm a Canon shooter and Canon's 300/4 is getting rather long in the tooth.

Well, look for yourself here:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/img/img_pffrare_2.jpg
and that's after fixing in NX-D.

This could be a problem for us night time photographers.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 03:37 UTC
On Canon announces five PowerShot compacts article (150 comments in total)

Will I buy a compact camera like these from any company - nope, will my wife now that she has a decent smartphone - nope, will my two 11 yo daughters ever by a compact camera - nope. Not sure of the business case for these anymore, but I suppose someone is buying them still . . .

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2015 at 21:04 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply

Well, I hope there are more advantages to this than just getting increased resolution. There are only a handful of native m43 lenses that can handle 40MP of true resolution. Hopefully there are some dynamic range advantages that come along with this.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 7, 2014 at 20:50 UTC as 19th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: The (blatant lack of) quality of those images is extremely detrimental for the backing solicitation.

...and it just adds to the perplexity on why this would be needed in supplement to very fast shutter-speeds + standard flashes + advanced triggering.

Matt Kane should have stayed with Triggerrap.

As soon as my ADA triggers arrive I can show him, with glorious image quality, why this is a very probable "fail".

"By PhotoKhan (8 hours ago)

The (blatant lack of) quality of those images is extremely detrimental for the backing solicitation."

Really? Anyone who does very high speed flash (where you need ~1 microsec flash durations) sees this as very exciting - the image quality is just fine. I've used systems that had one small Xenon flash lamp that then needed a condenser lens to spread the light out that had a the shortest duration being 1 microsecond and cost several thousand $$.

This has many uses in its current form and with some tweaking could have even more.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 17:17 UTC
In reply to:

NTONE: Yeah I'd be interested to see the spec too: colour and duration. But the speed it can do is amazing!

See my follow-up post below.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 06:12 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: Having used industrial/scientific high speed flash lamps in the past, the questions are:
- What's the light output curve look like and how is the flash duration specified/calculated
- Does it have the ability to have a longer duration flash with more total output?
- What's the "jitter" in trigger vs. when the flash actually occurs
- What's the light spectrum - full or is more heavily in the blue

Very cool indeed if it has decent specs.

The rest of their response:

Yes, you will get more total light with a longer pulse. In fact it's almost linear. i.e. 5us is about 10 times as much total light as 500ns.
So far we've fired these LEDs several thousand times. There's no reason we can't fire them many thousands more. We'll be doing a proper burning-in test once we've finished photography with the prototype and no longer need it for that.

We could theoretically have a version with larger reflectors to better collimate the beam. We're currently using 28 degree ones, which were a good balance between size and angle. I'd say a better option would be a fresnel in front of it. This is something we'll be testing with a view to perhaps selling these as attachments.

We won't officially support replacing the LEDs (for safety reasons) but it is relatively simple. They're not soldered in.

Best regards,

Matt

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 06:11 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: Having used industrial/scientific high speed flash lamps in the past, the questions are:
- What's the light output curve look like and how is the flash duration specified/calculated
- Does it have the ability to have a longer duration flash with more total output?
- What's the "jitter" in trigger vs. when the flash actually occurs
- What's the light spectrum - full or is more heavily in the blue

Very cool indeed if it has decent specs.

From an email to them:
The light pulse profile is close to square. At the moment we're seeing a rise time of about 200ns, but that's more than we were getting with the earlier prototypes, which means it's almost certainly down to parasitic capacitance in the wiring of the LEDs. This means we should be able to get that a lot better.
I wrote an update which includes a frequency spectrum graph here:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/vela/vela-one-the-worlds-first-high-speed-led-flash/posts

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 06:10 UTC

Having used industrial/scientific high speed flash lamps in the past, the questions are:
- What's the light output curve look like and how is the flash duration specified/calculated
- Does it have the ability to have a longer duration flash with more total output?
- What's the "jitter" in trigger vs. when the flash actually occurs
- What's the light spectrum - full or is more heavily in the blue

Very cool indeed if it has decent specs.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 1, 2014 at 23:36 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
On Not dead yet: Sony announces three A-mount lenses article (120 comments in total)

I suspect that the A mount will live on for those who need the benefits of fast AF while those who don't go to the A7 series of bodies.

I would think Nikon would follow a similar route - keep DSLR bodies, especially at the high end going while they introduce mirrorless. Thus their customers can choose which works better for them. Plus these A mount lenses can be adapted successfully to the E mount.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 26, 2014 at 19:55 UTC as 26th comment
In reply to:

munro harrap: Waiting for a Nikon 36MP full-frame? Well, you might be. Suppose rumours are true that they too are working on a mirrorless theme as are Canon?
Imagine being able to have full-frame coverage using all the Nikkor lenses you cannot use on the A7 series WITH AF, and with no loss of coverage because Nikon will keep the same style and leave the space for the mirror empty (save perhaps for a removable filter to protect the sensor and the electronics as Sigma DSLRs used to have).

Daft on the face of it? Not really because as soon as you get beyond about the 35mm lens you need and then get provided with too long lenses, each of which has to compensate for the loss of the mirror box on the A7 by adding an extra bit of its own. As this applies to most lenses the kit is larger and heavier, as the sole advantage of the A7 series body is its narrowness. But that happens once only.

I pray Nikon keep the mirrorbox on theirs and then we wont have to replace all our already too expensive lenses

abortabort - very funny. Staring at a rear mounted LCD is no substitute for a good EVF.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 22, 2014 at 00:06 UTC
In reply to:

Wilight: I'm curious about the shutter sound and if this one has electronic shutter (silent) like the A7s.

It seems it's tough to dampen the sound in such a small dense body - kind of like my film cameras back in the day - a pretty loud clack. My D800 is much less noisy, but it has a much larger body with the shutter buried inside to dampen the noise.
The A7 family shutter nose is one major downside in some situations for sure - hopefully EFCS will help out a lot.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 22, 2014 at 00:05 UTC
Total: 348, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »