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: 211, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows article (1396 comments in total)

Amazing how many comments there are from people who quite clearly have not read any of the rumored specs (and many of the rumored specs are quite firm).
- It's huge
- It has no LCD
- It's bigger than the A7 so it's not for me
- It's mirrorless why is it so big?
- It's the same as the D800
- It's the same as the D600
- etc.
- etc.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2013 at 19:16 UTC as 370th comment | 7 replies

Excellent.
Just goes to show how creative the human mind can be using a boring digital still camera.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2013 at 18:09 UTC as 38th comment
On Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' article (552 comments in total)
In reply to:

Digital Suicide: DPR has to have it in the office. They publish "hands on" of every camera along with announcement.

"no one involved with writing this story has been briefed" is the same as saying we have it here at DPR, but I've not personally been briefed on the camera.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2013 at 15:44 UTC
On Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' article (552 comments in total)

Stop quoting the $3K price!
That rumor along with the associated specifications have been debunked by NR. They are still standing by the original rumored specifications which make way more sense.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2013 at 15:40 UTC as 94th comment | 1 reply
On Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' article (552 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nukunukoo: Nikon Rumors has rescinded all reported specifications, including pricing. The video above is in truth a new set of Nikon binoculars, great for the Scottish landscape. The images are so clear that it leaves a perfect picture in your mind...

"Pure Photography"

=)

No, NR has NOT rescinded ALL reported specifications. Just the one that called it the D4H and listed it for $3K. The initial reported specifications he still stands by.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2013 at 15:30 UTC
On Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' article (552 comments in total)
In reply to:

gerard boulanger: Well, I hope future users of the Nikon DF will be happier than the guy on the video. At first when I heard the click sound, I thought he was loading a bullet in a pistol to end his life right there

Those two clicks immediately reminded me of an aperture ring click (first one) and the click of an on-body dial (second).
The shutter sound also was reminiscent of a FX shutter actuating in a small FX metal body.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2013 at 03:30 UTC
On Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' article (552 comments in total)

If I want video I pull out my GH-2 - waaay better than my D800.

I want a simple design digital FX camera that works really well with my MF glass (some of which have absolutely no peers in today's AFS Nikkors and do excellent on FX sensors) that is more compact than today's DSLRs.

I don't want a direct copy of an FM2 or FE2, or F3/HP, etc. because this is the digital age. I want the in-use and ergonomic spirit of those cameras with inclusion of modern digital technology - best of both worlds per se.

We'll see in a couple weeks if Nikon has done the above. Will it replace a D800, D610 or D3s/X, or a D4? No way, but it likely was not intended for such a use anyways.

Oh, and don't tell me that inclusion of video costs nothing - because that's totally not true.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2013 at 03:27 UTC as 126th comment
On Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' article (552 comments in total)
In reply to:

vFunct: It would be genius of Nikon if they actually did come up with a cheap FF digital camera with manual controls.

One thing about cameras like the FM2 is that they were SUPER cheap.

A digital version of a Nikon FM2 needs to be super cheap as well. I would hope Nikon targets a sub $1000 price for this. (Maybe they can make more money selling the lenses instead.)

Also, we don't need video at all. SLR cameras are exactly the WORST type of body for video, because they have their grips close to their center of gravity, providing a quick, responsive axis of rotation - you can flick the camera instantly to get a shot.

The negative side effect of this is that it introduces instability - dSLR videography is known for it's excessively violent shakiness, and no professional shoots dSLR video without some sort of shoulder mount or stabilization system, ever.

A beginner would likely not know this and how to stabilize, thus making video a pointless lost cause for a beginners SLR.

Super cheap?
The FM2 had a list price of $364 in 1982 - that's $889 in 2013 $. In 1988 it was $525 ($1,045 in 2013 $). In 1995 it was $745 ($1143 in 2013 $).

Why does it have to be the same relative price as an FM2?
If the rumored configuration is true you'd get a much more capable camera that has:
- Variable ISO
- 16MP (about what you can really get out of a slide)
- Autofocus
- Variable white balance (no color filters!)
- No film costs
- High ISO that beats any film
- Instant image review
- OVF/EVF combo that's likely a way better system
- F-mount that can use hundreds of discontinued and existing lenses (and some alt lenses)
- Roughly the same size as FM2, F3, FM3A, etc. (smaller than current DSLR)

So the thing better cost more than an FM2 in today's $$ - it's a heck of a lot of capability that an FM2 never had hopefully in a similarly designed size.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2013 at 03:15 UTC
In reply to:

rubank: The MTF charts doesn´t look very promising. No better than the Nikkor 24-120/4 - and that is not the best lens.

+1 That's the first thing I noticed. For all it's size and weight the wide open performance does not look all that good . . .

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2013 at 16:00 UTC
In reply to:

bossa: The night shot on the official samples page doesn't show point sources for the street lights. They are all triangles and sheared. There's also lots of blue fringing around lots of the lights (purple fringing).

Looking at the portraits the lens doesn't seem as contrasty or sharp at f/2 as one would like. My DA*55 seems better.

I'll take a look at one when they are available though as I love my 35/1.4 G despite what people say about it.

I see the same thing in the night shot - not impressed - for the price I was expecting much better wide open performance.
The wide open portrait shots also don't look all that sharp either - look at the eyelashes.
Good grief - another Nikon lens that few people were wanting an update on. Plenty of other lenses that far more people would be willing to buy if Nikon would update them.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2013 at 16:11 UTC
In reply to:

technotic: Any good for D800 in terms of IQ I wonder.

Well, the MTF charts don't look spectacular - not any better than 24-85AFS VR or the 24-120/4 AFS VR, two lenses that are mediocre at 36MP. I had hoped for better from Sigma for such a large/heavy lens. Perhaps it becomes spectacular when stopped down to f/5.6 . . . .

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24-105mm-f4-dg-os-hsm-art

I'm still wanting a replacement for the 28-105/3.5-4.5AF-D that would have much improved IQ, but the same usefulness (i.e., the pseudo-macro capability and semi-wide to short-tele focal lengths).
I had great hopes for the 24-85AFS VR, but that lens left me very disappointed since it was really no better than it's 24-85AFS non-VR predecessor.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2013 at 17:56 UTC
On Nikon D610 preview (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: I'm willing to bet that even though there might eventually be some quality issue with this camera, it will NOT BE "oil spots on the sensor."

I don't think Nikon wants to relive that nightmare.

You can assume they thoroughly tested and checked the new shutter mechanism from their vendor.

This is probably the one issue the D610 will never have.

First space shuttle crash due to cold temps and faulty O-ring/seal design of solid rocket booster. Second space shuttle crash due to defective application of main tank foam insulation resulting in a large piece of foam breaking off and impacting a wing leading edge. Both can be traced back to human failure.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 15:21 UTC
On Zeiss announces 'no compromise' Otus 55mm F1.4 article (488 comments in total)
In reply to:

D200_4me: Autofocus would be nice....it's 2013 :-)

Ah, I see now that it IS an internal focus design, however I think they are implying that all the elements after the 4th one move together, which is still a large mass of glass to move quickly.

The focusing scale looks to be more symbolic than accurate to me . . .

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2013 at 14:40 UTC
On Zeiss announces 'no compromise' Otus 55mm F1.4 article (488 comments in total)
In reply to:

D200_4me: Autofocus would be nice....it's 2013 :-)

What limits the ability to AF accurately with fast lenses wide open are the optical aberrations - i.e., they are not sharp enough wide open - even more so off center.
If this design really is super sharp wide open across the image it will be much easier for focus confirmation dots, split screens, live view, etc. to achieve accurate focus.
And if they had made it AF capable it would have to move as an entire group which is really slow. Otherwise they would have had to go with an internal focusing design which would have compromised the optics.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2013 at 14:34 UTC
On Nikon Coolpix P7800 real-world samples article (80 comments in total)

I wish Nikon or one of the m43 companies would come out with a fixed zoom lens body using the Nikon 1" or DX sensor or m43 sensor with a 24-80 or so equivalent lens. Faster would be better, but at some point it can't be made compact or the lens IQ suffers.

If Nikon made a P7800 with a 1" sensor and a fixed 24-75 (or so) equivalent zoom lens that had very very good sharpness I'd be a buyer for sure as I like the features, layout and ergonomics of the P7800 very much.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2013 at 19:33 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
On Nikon Coolpix P7800 real-world samples article (80 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gesture: Utterly amazing. You can get many a 4/3rds camera from Olympus or Panasonic, even a DSLR, for less than the Nikon 7800 or Canon G16. Instead, why doesn't Canon advance the G1X and let Nikon come up with something similar.

You can get a DX DSLR BODY for the price of a P7800, but when you throw a lens or two in to get the equivalent focal length coverage you are at $1K or so. The DSLR system is also much bulkier in total. You'd have to buy a much older model DSLR and used glass to approach the P7800 new price.
Wait a year and the P7800 will be a bit cheaper I'm sure.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2013 at 19:30 UTC
On Nikon Coolpix P7800 real-world samples article (80 comments in total)

If only Nikon had made it a 24-XX FX equivalent I'd be sold . . . perhaps the next iteration they will. In the mean time I'll keep using my LX7, which is fine, but it does not have an EVF nor an articulated screen.

I do have m43 gear (GH-2 and G5) which becomes more bulky and expensive once you add equivalent lenses to them.

Perhaps I'll pick one up in a year or so when the price comes down.
Still waiting for a replacement of my dear old CP8400 - the P7800 came close except for being 28mm on the wide end . . .

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2013 at 19:22 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
On Roger Cicala investigates accuracy of lens adapters article (48 comments in total)

Knowledge is power for those able to handle it. Yes, most people would not even know these issues were going on, but it is something to be aware of so that if you do have some off-axis sharpness issues you can perhaps know where to start looking.

I only had wished that he had taken more detailed data - like which direction the IQ problems are in the frame, decentering versus focal plan mis-alignment, etc.

Good stuff to know.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 30, 2013 at 16:57 UTC as 20th comment
On Nikon 1 AW1 preview (587 comments in total)
In reply to:

jhinkey: At first glance this seems silly, but upon thinking what I use an AW camera for it makes some sense. My current AW camera is a Panasonic TS3 which has already failed me on vacation one time (after using it twice) and was replaced under warranty (second vacation it worked fine). In general it makes just OK pictures and the battery life sucks, especially if using video at all. Nikon equivalent is no better.

So having a large-ish sensored Nikon system that I can take kayaking, snorkeling, canoeing, swimming, etc. and not have to worry about it seems great. Just not sure of the cost - especially since the lenses are not stabilized which seems like a real requirement when bobbing up and down in the surf or in a kayak or . . . .

As an accomplished D800 user I know all about RAW.
As far as increasing shutter speed, that's hard to do without running the ISO way up on such a small sensor so that the results become, well, less than tolerable.

And yes I was part of that world before auto sensor/lens stabilization and one of the cures was fast glass, which none of these AW compacts have (even f/2.8 is not so fast), along with a flash, otherwise the picture was just not attempted.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2013 at 23:26 UTC
On Nikon 1 AW1 preview (587 comments in total)

At first glance this seems silly, but upon thinking what I use an AW camera for it makes some sense. My current AW camera is a Panasonic TS3 which has already failed me on vacation one time (after using it twice) and was replaced under warranty (second vacation it worked fine). In general it makes just OK pictures and the battery life sucks, especially if using video at all. Nikon equivalent is no better.

So having a large-ish sensored Nikon system that I can take kayaking, snorkeling, canoeing, swimming, etc. and not have to worry about it seems great. Just not sure of the cost - especially since the lenses are not stabilized which seems like a real requirement when bobbing up and down in the surf or in a kayak or . . . .

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2013 at 21:43 UTC as 69th comment | 10 replies
Total: 211, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »