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.

Comments

Total: 132, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Lytro sheds jobs as it shifts focus to video article (506 comments in total)
In reply to:

bogdescu: Might it have dawned on them that merely postponing a decision (where to focus and what f-stop to choose) is not actually something desirable?

jtan: Why would anyone need to refocus a surveillance camera image, and why would you give up resolution for that feature? Better to have a camera at several MP pre-focussed to 3m - infinity if you want to recognize the perpetrator.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2015 at 15:20 UTC
On Lytro sheds jobs as it shifts focus to video article (506 comments in total)

Video of today is 4K / UHD, or in other words around eight megapixels. Lytro images show obvious digital artifacting even at 0.2 (zero point two) megapixels. Reference: pixelated out of focus areas between hand and background in http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/1418225486/IMG_0331-ShallowDOF-520px.jpeg from article http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1418225486/lytro-introduces-focus-spread-feature

This technology doesn't work.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 02:18 UTC as 73rd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

iShootWideOpen: For a nano second I considered saving $1800 and buying the Tamron over the Canon 11-24L. After seeing tests on digital-picture and lens rental I feel better about my move.

Quite so, Der Steppenwolf.

And in any case, I wouldn't directly compare a 15-30/2.8 IS against a 11-24/4. They are vastly different lenses with many non-overlapping applications.

The f/2.8 IS goes hand-held to many places the f/4 doesn't, and on the other hand the 11 mm does things where the 15 mm just isn't cut. Clear as day.

As the IQ of both lenses seems to be excellent even wide open, not to speak stopped down a notch or two, the choice should not be done with fanboy mentality, but based upon required applications.

But, of course, if you need to misread clearly written articles to "feel better about [your] move", so be it. But don't be surprised if we don't buy it.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 20:40 UTC
In reply to:

blakevanderbilt: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/just-the-lenses-tamron-15-30mm-f2-8

If their method of testing out these lenses is reliable, then what they LensRental is saying is that the Tamron 15-30/2,8 is definitely better than the Canon 16-35/4L, but no where is it close to the Nikon. I'll be getting the Nikon 14-24/2,8 Thanks

Yes Blake, it was quite obvious that you didn't read the article.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 20:34 UTC
In reply to:

blakevanderbilt: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/just-the-lenses-tamron-15-30mm-f2-8

If their method of testing out these lenses is reliable, then what they LensRental is saying is that the Tamron 15-30/2,8 is definitely better than the Canon 16-35/4L, but no where is it close to the Nikon. I'll be getting the Nikon 14-24/2,8 Thanks

Except that's not at all what Roger's article says or implies. At 23 mm, Tamron held quite well against Nikon, being even slightly better. At 14 mm (Nikon) vs 15 mm (Tamron), it's Nikon's turn to have a slight edge.

Of course, at 30 mm the Tamron is slightly worse than at shorter focal lengths, but as Nikon cannot even go there, that cannot be counted as a fault in the Tamron / Nikon debate.

All in all, it's pretty much a wash: both are excellent instruments. Except that the Tamron has image stabilization, a much larger focal length range, a significantly lower price, and according to at least Dustin Abbott, incredibly good flare resistance - something very important in an UWA lens. The Nikon is of course wider - and in UWA, every millimeter counts.

Reference:
http://dustinabbott.net/2015/02/breaking-image-tamron-15-30-vc/

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 17:59 UTC
On New samples from the Sigma 24mm F1.4 DG HSM Art lens article (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

ragmanjin: I'd be curious to see how it compares to the equivalent Samyang, they've been getting some good reviews as well.

Der S: You forgot the venerable 14/2.8 from Samyang's FF lens list.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2015 at 07:33 UTC
On CP+ 2015: Canon shows off new EOS 5DS and 5DS R article (123 comments in total)
In reply to:

Francis Sawyer: Canon is so far out in the weeds, it's pathetic.

Still no intervalometers in their cameras (a simple, essentially free feature that every modern camera should have). Their lenses still have shitty servo rings instead of real mechanical focusing action.

They don't even have a reasonable 35mm lens. They have two overpriced boondoggles with IS systems in them. At 35mm? Really?

It's as if no one over there knows anything about photography OR video.

Troll troll troll your boat...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 14:47 UTC
On CP+ 2015: Canon shows off new EOS 5DS and 5DS R article (123 comments in total)
In reply to:

luxor2: "By far the biggest lines at this year's CP+ show in Yokohama are at the Canon booth, and they're made up almost entirely of people eager to see just two cameras - the new EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R."

What is there to see that differs from the previous camera? The logo?

luxor2: Obviously the people in the queue know it. If you don't, I don't think any repeating will help you understand.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 14:46 UTC
On CP+ 2015: Canon shows off new EOS 5DS and 5DS R article (123 comments in total)
In reply to:

steve ohlhaber: The pricing is really getting nuts for canon. Bodies and lenses are crazy. If this shot 4k or at least 1080p 60, then I could justify it.

"This is a high-megapixel still camera. It is not a video camera."

Repeat until understood.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 14:44 UTC
On CP+ 2015: Canon shows off new EOS 5DS and 5DS R article (123 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarkByland: Sort of false representation taking 100 photographs, stitching them together, and presenting them as some thing that would come straight out of camera. Why not do side-by-side 1:1 series taken from a MkIII? Or, wait, a D810? Show us what you've got, not what can be done with major digital processing.

Also, does this 5Ds R come with a free, multiple terabyte, cloud based storage account?

Where did it say that Canon presented the images "as some thing that would come straight out of camera"? That's your assessment, not Canon's.

Along with your mindless "cloud based storage account" boo-hooing, I think you are just trolling.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 14:41 UTC
On Sigma goes wide with 24mm F1.4 DG HSM Art lens article (184 comments in total)

As an owner of the excuisite Sigma 50A, and as someone who has postponed his Canon 24/1.4L II purchase for quite a while in anticipation of this... yes, please!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 06:43 UTC as 50th comment
On Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L article (224 comments in total)
In reply to:

seawild: I am a Canon shooter but shoot the Nikkor 14-24mm with a Novoflex adapter. at f2.8 and almost $1,200 cheaper than this new Canon glass I feel it is the better choice. It is ridiculously wide enough for the landscape and astro photography I use it for. 11mm would simply be overkill. I'm sure we'll see some magic being made with it, looking forward to seeing but it won't be headed for my kit bag any time soon.

Jon: What12-24 lens were you going to adapt? The only 12-24 I know of is the Sigma and it's available in Canon mount.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2015 at 07:04 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: When Canon speaks, everyone cringes.

-

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2015 at 12:31 UTC
In reply to:

Michael S.: What a nonsense putting 50MP on an 36x24mm sensor.
There is no Canon lens that is capable to resolve those tiny pixels.

Michael S. You did not calculate correct.
While it is true the that 7D II pixels width is 4.1µm (22.4mm / 5472pixels = 4.1 µm/pixel), so is the case also for the 5DS (36mm / 8688 pixels = 4.1 µm/pixel).

As for your original claim that no Canon lens is able to resolve that, you are quite simply wrong, particularly near the center that is of most interest to those who are telephoto limited.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2015 at 12:26 UTC
On Canon introduces 11-24mm f/4L USM wide angle zoom article (51 comments in total)
In reply to:

audijam: WTF?!?!?! $3G?!?!?!?! are you @#$@#ing out of your mind? JPY tanked so why can't they make LESS profit on exchange gains.

oh....right....it's Canon.

Bitch bitch bitch moan moan moan blah blah blah.

Canon makes the world's widest rectilinear lens EVER, and makes it a ZOOM no less, then shows MTF charts that suggests it will be SPECTACULAR. Then 90% of the comments here goes bitch bitch bitch moan moan moan blah blah blah wah wah wah.

The trolls have truly taken over this site's comments. I'd be just as happy if the whole feature was removed; it is so badly misused by sad little people who concentrate on vomiting their bad mood on everyone.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 18:12 UTC
On Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L article (224 comments in total)
In reply to:

sharkcookie: 8% wider than the Nikon 12-24, but the Nikon is twice as fast (one stop equals double the light). The Canon is 50% more expensive.

sahrk: There is no FF Nikon zoom wider than 14mm. The difference in horizontal angle of view is 17 degrees, or 17% (100 vs 117 degrees). Your "8% wider" figure is your own invention.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 09:12 UTC
On Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L article (224 comments in total)
In reply to:

DavidNJ100: Expensive...it will be more of a specialty lens like the 17mm F4 TS-E.

The comparison with the 5 year old Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 is interesting, but the Tamron 15-30mm F2.8 VC is more interesting. That lens is $1800 less expensive and very sharp. How much is the extra 4mm in wider focal length, 15° in the diagonal FOV and only 7° in the horizontal FOV worth?

Would Canon have been better off with a new 16-35mm/F2.8 and a 11mm F4 (or F2.8) prime lens? Will photographers shooting 11mm on a full frame (equivalent to 7mm on a Canon APS-C camera) need a zoom to take that shot?

David: How is 117.1° horizontal (11mm) "only 7° wider" than 100.4° horizontal (15mm)? Unlike you, I consider the 17° difference huge.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 09:08 UTC

A macro announcement without any mention of the working distance? That's highly suspicious. My guess would be something between 0 and 2 centimeters at 2X magnification. I'd happy to be wrong, though.

EDIT: Went to the Venus Optics website which claims minimum working distance is 6 cm. Still not much, but better than expected. Fair enough, though I still think working distance is essential to any macro announcement.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2015 at 08:34 UTC as 6th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

AngryCorgi: fresnel = crappy bokeh (see DO "donuts" from Canon lenses)

That's flare, not bokeh.

But yes, it does look similar to the flare blobs of the Canon EF70-300 DO. The bokeh of that lens is quite all right, but these flare blobs and its overall flare resistance are its achilles heel.

Canon's much more expensive 400/4 DOs, either the original or the II, don't really exhibit this behaviour, although the original's contrast doesn't quite match Canon's other pricey superteles.

As for the new Nikon 300, the form factor and weight is going to make it a winner unless it'll be completely crappy, which I don't believe it will be.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 10:39 UTC
On Canon announces five PowerShot compacts article (150 comments in total)

Some corrections:

1) "This F3.4-6.5, 50X optical zoom is equivalent to a whopping 24-1000mm."

1000/24 ~= 42, so at least one of the numbers has to be incorrect.

2) "The first of the two new models is the PowerShot ELPH 170 IS, which has a 20MP CCD, F3.6-7.0 (ouch) 25-300mm lens"

The lens is not 25-300mm. At the very least, an instance of the word "equivalent" is missing.

3) "there's the ELPH 160, which has an F3.2-6.9, 28-224mm lens"

See 2)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2015 at 15:09 UTC as 61st comment
Total: 132, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »