Henrik Herranen

Henrik Herranen

Lives in Finland Tampere, Finland
Works as a Digital Signal Processing Software Engineer, MSc
Joined on Oct 6, 2005
About me:

Plan: To baldly shoot what everyone has shot before.


Total: 87, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

mumintroll: This is the future for sure. But not right now. It needs at least 10 years to get to the real usage.

Yes, it's going to supersede traditional photography. Just like 3D obsoleted the old 2D movies and television sets in the mid-1950's.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 05:06 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1999 comments in total)
In reply to:

lightpainterx: If light is not limited but bag capacity and muscle is, then it makes sense that the best 85mm equivalent lens by far is the Nikon 1 32mm f1.2.
I agree with Rob above completely. The effect on the depth of field and noise of the potential options is decisive as is weight. Sometimes a greater depth of field is MORE beneficial than the increase in noise...

Why not Canon Powershot S120? It's even smaller and it can do 85 mm equivalent.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 18:35 UTC

The cloud model lets the service provider spy on user data and steal it, or revoke said service without notice. Also it lets intelligence agencies easy access to any sensitive information through the service provider. All of this has always been known. It was and is inevitable.

If you use cloud services, you accept that whenever any computer between you and your cloud service provider breaks, there is no service. You also accept that you don't have privacy. Yes, a cloud system might be convenient much of the time, but you don't own yourself nor your data anymore.

End of line.

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2014 at 22:52 UTC as 81st comment | 2 replies
On Canon announces 16-35mm F4L and 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 lenses article (367 comments in total)

MTF for the EF-S 10-18:

Are my eyes deceiving me or does the MTF look seriously impressive for a 300$ lens?

And although it was posted earlier, here's a reposted 16-35/4 IS link:

Direct link | Posted on May 13, 2014 at 05:14 UTC as 86th comment | 3 replies

Again, please, c'mon guys:
Why isn't the sensor size in the list of "Key features"? Without sensor size the f-number doesn't tell, well, much anything. As camera enthusiasts you surely know this, so why isn't sensor size anywhere in this photography oriented site's article?

Example: a 1/2.3" sensor with an f/2.2 lens still collects slightly more light over the sensor area than a 1/3" sensor with an f/1.8 lens, and has a potential for slightly better low-light performance. Leaving sensor size out of the equation is quite misleading.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2014 at 11:54 UTC as 10th comment | 7 replies
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (657 comments in total)

Page 3 concerning the LCD:
"Outdoor visibility was very good."

Page 11 concerning the LCD:
"The display has average outdoor visibility (meaning not great)"

This appears a bit contradictory to me.

Other than that, interesting review.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 22:01 UTC as 157th comment | 1 reply
On Leica T (Typ 701) First Impressions Review preview (2298 comments in total)

TL;DR version:
Leica lies.

Direct link | Posted on May 3, 2014 at 07:13 UTC as 226th comment
On Sony SLT-A77 II First Impressions Review preview (629 comments in total)

I know I sound like a broken record, but how is sensor size not worthy to be on the list of "Key specifications"? Isn't that pretty much the #1 specification of a camera without a fixed lens, even much more important than the number of megapixels?

Really, please, don't assume everyone remembers the sensor size of every camera series of every manufacturer. Yes, some of the nerds know (almost) all of them by heart, but not everyone, not by a long shot..

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2014 at 18:08 UTC as 76th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

forpetessake: With 5.62x crop factor the lens is equivalent to f/17.4-35.2 -- probably enough to shoot from 3ft with a flash, but useless for anything else. There is a reason smart phones have fixed lenses with f/2 or so, because even f/2 (FF equivalent f/11) is only good in daylight or with flash.

No, Ahmet, it is you who doesn't get it. The real aperture tells the image brightness on the sensor (photons per square millimeter), while the effective aperture tells the amount of total collected light (photons per whole sensor).

Equivalent aperture is a figure that often has a very high correlation with low-light noise. At the end of the day, light is quantized (each photon counts), and the total amount of photons you receive set a hard limit to image quality.

Even further, equivalent aperture tells the diffraction limit of the system (over the whole image, not over a pixel). An f/36 equivalent aperture is incapable of providing an even remotely sharp image (repeat: forget the pixels, this is over the whole image).

Summary: yes, f/2.8 is f/2.8 is f/2.8, but that number doesn't tell the whole truth when comparing different size sensors.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 29, 2014 at 21:31 UTC

Please, DPReview:

Of all web sites YOU should remember that a list that is called "Key Photographic/Video Specifications" but without sensor size is missing, well, for the lack of a better term, one of the MOST key specifications. (This goes just as well for mobile phones, P&S and mirrorless cameras, as DSLRs.)

To continue, the focal length (both real as well as equivalent) for a fixed lens would IMHO also fall under the umbrella of key specifications.

Then again, I've yet to see someone choose an optical system because of the number of lens elements. I don't think that is key to anything.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2014 at 19:49 UTC as 12th comment | 4 replies
On Fujifilm announces 1.4x teleconverter for X100/X100S article (130 comments in total)
In reply to:

h2k: I think in the news text you should mention what type of cameras the X100 and X100S are, like, prime-lens APS-C compact, or whatever it is.

Everyone, even those really interested in cameras, cannot be expected to remember the specs of every camera. I try, and still I sometimes wonder things like "hmmh, I remember the X100 was a bit special, but what was it now?"

On another note, I would have very much liked if they told in this article what the effect this extra lens has on maximum aperture / t-stop. With between-lens-and-body adapters this is pretty much a known (because such a tele extender just spreads the light (already collected by the lens) to a larger area), but the same simple formulas don't apply for front conversion elements.

(From an earlier DPreview article it seems that the extender has no effect in the f/2 max aperture. That is far from self-evident, so I think it would have been good to mention in this article, too.)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2014 at 12:45 UTC
On Never lose your lens cap again with HACkxTACK article (165 comments in total)

Nice idea, except I would never purposefully put magnets near my cameras. The left pocket it shall be.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 15, 2014 at 21:10 UTC as 108th comment
In reply to:

beenthere: I'd take 16-150 with slightly better optical performance if asked. Who honestly wants to carry this behemoth (or the equally massive Nikon 18-300) around all day?

The 16-300 is lighter and smaller than Canon's EF24-105 f/4L which I've carried all around the world on an FF body for almost ten years. I don't see where your "behemoth" hyperbole comes from.

If you want a 16-300 for APS-C, then this is it. There are no alternatives. If you want it smaller and don't care about the range, buy another lens.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2014 at 21:56 UTC

Finally a 50 mm lens I'd like to own!

I sold Canon's 50/1.8 to my sister. Wasn't really unhappy with it, but exchanged it for Canon's 50/1.4.

Canon's 50/1.4 is the only lens I've ever broken - the brittle focus motor went. Got it fixed, then sold it.

I couldn't get four copies of Canon's 50/1.2L to focus, so I never bought it.

Sigma's old 50/1.4 focused nicely for me, and the bokeh was really smooth, but wide open it was sharp in only the center 20-30% of the image, so although I don't require absolute sharpness right to the corners wide open, I felt I had no composition freedom at all. So, finally, I gave it to a good friend who has put it to good use.

So, I've now been for almost two years without a 50 mm prime.

But that state of affairs may not last for long anymore. This new Sigma might just be the one I have wanted for years. Just please make it focus! (Although with the new docking system, I think it will.)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2014 at 18:52 UTC as 18th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

jnd: The maximum magnification of 0.34x seems to be strangely low given that minimum focusing distance is at only 0.39m or the other way around. There must be serious focus breathing, since usually lenses towards 300mm can focus at over 1 meter for similar magnification.

It's an almost 20x zoom. Of course it breathes heavily.

In real life 0.34x is an exceptionally high maximum magnification for a non-macro lens.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2014 at 18:42 UTC
In reply to:

Scottelly: I wonder if this lens will work on a Nikon 1 V2 with Nikon's FT1 mount adapter. THAT would be cool. Add the Nikon 6.7-13mm VR lens, and you'd have a great two-lens kit. The 1" 2.7x crop would make this lens equivalent to a 43.2-810mm f3.5-5.6, and the photos might be pretty sharp, since it would only be the central area of the frame that would be captured.

The lens is a 16-300 mm f/3.5-6.4, and on the Nikon 1 it would be equivalent to a 43-810 mm f/9-17. So at the long end it would be on the border of diffraction limited even at wide open.

Your idea that it "might be pretty sharp" is just wishful thinking. Small sensors are very demanding of the optics. The "810 mm f/17" picture will be, quite frankly, unusably mushy, even if this Tamron would happen to be the best superzoom ever.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2014 at 18:40 UTC

Is this the first time Nikon (or Canon, for that matter) have produced a zoom lens that is slower than f/5.6? Will this have an effect on the "not focusing with slower than f/5.6 lenses" policy? Nikon cameras limited to f/5.6 AF should not even try to focus with this lens at longer focal lengths, but I very much doubt that this happens.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2014 at 07:09 UTC as 30th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Via Lactea: this lens might be great for astrophotography! Samyang 14mm, 24, 35 and 85mm f1,4 are great astro-performers due to low coma and astigmatism. Fuji XE2 with this lens... hmm :-)

qweryasdf: A hard infinity stop is bad. It means that in some conditions (manufacturing tolerances happen to match unfortunately, using the lens in cold temperature, etc) the lens couldn't be focusing to infinity at all.

I'v had the misfortune of being able to test a friend's Tokina zoom lens that had a hard infinity stop. The lens couldn't be focused to infinity at all in temperatures below 5°C, not with AF, and not with MF. The hard stop kicked in at 5-10 meters. At -20°C the lens was ridiculously far from getting to infinity.

In these days where Live View can be used to check for the "infinity of today's weather", there is no real need for a hard infinity stop.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2014 at 11:19 UTC
On Oppo Find 7 features QHD display and 50MP images post (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

peterwr: "With a 13MP *1/3.06-inch* Sony Exmor CMOS sensor..."

FFS. When are camera manufacturers going to start quoting sensor sizes in millimetres? This 1/x.x business is needlessly confusing. OK, so maybe that's the point - big numbers sound more impressive to the inexperienced, even if they have a 1 over them - but still, millimetres (or even millimeters) would make imaging chips a lot easier to compare. It would make it easier to estimate the 35mm equivalent focal length of the lenses, too.

C'mon DPReview - how about you start doing it unilaterally? You're influential enough that maybe you could change industry policy.

Shadowww: The image was very confusing until I saw the error in it. The yellow line is supposedly "Sigma 24-70 f/2", but the line goes from 70 to 200 mm along the f/2.8 line. The legend for the purple line says generic 70-200 f/2.8, but the line itself goes from 24 to 70 mm along the f/2 line.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2014 at 14:26 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M10 Review preview (322 comments in total)

Ohm Sweet Ohm.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 18, 2014 at 18:10 UTC as 74th comment | 3 replies
Total: 87, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »