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

Neuroanatomist: 2499 Euro ..... thanks for screwing with us customers in Europe.

2199 € is the official price.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 14, 2014 at 07:35 UTC
In reply to:

webrunner5: I would just rather stick to my 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 extender. About the same money and a lot more useful all around. Just walk a little closer. I don't regard this lens as a Birder anyways. Still too short unless on a crop camera.

Why would you use an 1.4 extender with your 70-200? Just walk a little closer.
Actually, why would you use buy a telezoom at all? Just walk a little closer!
If you are incapable of seeing why people want the perhaps most awaited Canon new lens in the last 10 years, that is your loss. I am not buying this lens either, but I see no need to belittle its worth to those who awaited it for so long. After all, according to Canon's MTF's, it will be great even as a 640mm f/8 with the Canon 1.4x teleconverter.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 10:27 UTC

Go Roger, our hero!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2014 at 20:38 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

mazzy80: The 2nd pictures is easy the best from a (composition) photography point of view IMHO.
The 1st make little sense in an astronomy competition...

Agree with the second one being absolutely wonderful. As someone who have shot four total eclipses, I have the utmost respect for the calculations required to get that perfect composition from the shooting distance required for that photo. That's just grand!

As for the first one; it have been really nice without the excessive HDR processing.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 20:09 UTC
On Olympus Capture software now available for E-M1 owners article (34 comments in total)
In reply to:

cjnielsen_nz: I deliberately did *not* check the box that offers to add me to the mailing list for 'tips' however moments after beginning the download I received an email with 'Congratulations! You’re signed up to receive the latest news, promotions and tips from Olympus'

F you Olympus! NOT happy.

You know nothing, Jon Snow... I mean ptox.

Your rant would be OK if the message was sent one time to one person. This is, however, seldom if never the case.

I was there when the first green card lottery spam mail spanned over Usenet in 1994. Many people argued: "You are all wussies. How hard is it to skip one single message in every newsgroup?" I'm certain words "childish tantrums" were mentioned. Then other unscrupulous people decided they could also send "just one" message to each of the 20,000 newsgroups. After a few months, when over 90% of messages suddenly were spam, defenders finally understood their mistake and stopped yapping about freedom of speech. And why not: their voices couldn't be heard over the spam!

What I learned then: There is absolutely NO reason for unsolicitated mail, even less from "respectable" companies because e-mail spam filters which are so essential nowadays that they more often than not are hidden from us, are less likely to eat them.

End of line.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 19:52 UTC
On Olympus Capture software now available for E-M1 owners article (34 comments in total)
In reply to:

cjnielsen_nz: I deliberately did *not* check the box that offers to add me to the mailing list for 'tips' however moments after beginning the download I received an email with 'Congratulations! You’re signed up to receive the latest news, promotions and tips from Olympus'

F you Olympus! NOT happy.

Thorgrem:
That's the excuse of every spammer ever, from the very first Usenet green card lottery.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 13:37 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (328 comments in total)
In reply to:

Landscapephoto99: Light capture on m43 at f2.8 is NOT comparable to a FF f5.6. If that reasoning were correct, all of the f2.8 APS-C lenses would really be f4.0 lenses. An f2.8 is an f2.8 on any format in terms of light gathering. DoF, and size, is the only difference.

Ah, yet another one who doesn't understand equivalence.

Yes, f/2.8 on m43 gathers four times the light INTENSITY (light per square millimeter) as a full frame f/5.6 lens. This much is true. But, the full-frame sensor is four times LARGER than the m43 sensor, so the TOTAL LIGHT gathered by these equivalent systems are the same. As are DoF, noise (FF ISO 400 is typically (not always) about as noisy as ISO 100 on m43 given they are the same generation sensors), exposure time, diffraction limit over the image area, and everything else. That's what equivalence means.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 22, 2014 at 07:38 UTC
On Size matters: Hands-on with Canon PowerShot G7 X article (175 comments in total)

The new G7X sure is closer in size to the S120 than the G1X.

G7X vs G1X Mark II:
http://j.mp/1ubUF5K
G1X Mark II weighs almost double that of G7 X and is significantly bigger in every way.

G7X vs S120:
http://j.mp/1ubUYxy
G7X weighs 40% more than S120. Its width and height is very similar, but it's a whole centimeter deeper. Try changing camera direction to see for yourself.

The G7X might be too big for me, as I currently own an S110 for my pocket camera needs. But the potential IQ benefit from the larger sensor and two stops faster tele aperture is tempting. In low light I consider the S110 a fixed focal length camera, but with the G7X it would be possible to zoom a bit even at less than perfect light. Also, the G7X wouldn't be diffraction limited at full tele + full aperture (S110's f/26 equivalent in the long end is nothing to write home about).

All in all, this camera has a respectably small form factor for what it is: a camera with a 1" sensor and an f/1.8-2.8 4x zoom lens.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 18, 2014 at 07:49 UTC as 24th comment | 1 reply
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

erotavlas: we all know everyone who uses this lens will still end up tweaking their photo's to death in Lightroom and Photoshop making whatever benefits this lens offers with respect to colour, clarity, sharpness, contrast etc kind of pointless.

Let's repeat it once more:
Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration is not something easily overcome with Lightroom or Photoshop. Being apochromatic means this lens doesn't have LoCA, or has so little of it that it doesn't matter. To those with enough money or with enough payed assignments that would benefit from this, this alone will make this lens worth it. Also, another thing not easily corrected or cretated in post, bokeh, looks sublime.

This lens is way past anything I could pay for. Still, I can appreciate it for what it is: a unique precision instrument with great artistic potential. I feel no need to belittle it just because I cannot afford it.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 10:23 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Zeiss specs look excellent, although it's around 0.8% distortion so saying how minimal distortion is makes little sense. All the optical qualities look very good, and the CA issues are much more important -- APOs do things postprocessing can't fix for other lenses. I'll also admit that my Samyang's "close focus" behavior drives me nuts, and extensions tubes cause a huge degradation in IQ for that IF lens design. Then again, for 1/18 the price....

Fair enough, Prof.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 11:36 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Zeiss specs look excellent, although it's around 0.8% distortion so saying how minimal distortion is makes little sense. All the optical qualities look very good, and the CA issues are much more important -- APOs do things postprocessing can't fix for other lenses. I'll also admit that my Samyang's "close focus" behavior drives me nuts, and extensions tubes cause a huge degradation in IQ for that IF lens design. Then again, for 1/18 the price....

All together now: "Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration is a distortion!" Zeiss clearly are talking about _all_ kinds of distortions in the image, not just geometrical distortion.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 11:28 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: Are 85's really known for problematic distortion?

wlad: There are no automatic, non-lossy checkboxes for longitudinal chromatic aberration, like there are for lateral chromatic aberration. This is because LoCA depends on the distance to subject, not where it is in the image. See my first link for the 85/1.2 for details.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 09:22 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: Are 85's really known for problematic distortion?

naftade: Chromatic aberration IS a type distortion. This is not just me being a wiseass, as in its press release Zeiss talks about all kinds of distortions, i.e. any and all issues causing non-desired results in an image. This lens being apochromatic, it is a big selling point of this lens that it doesn't have longitudinal chromatic aberration.

Not only Zeiss, but also Wikipedia uses the same terminology under "Chromatic aberration":
"In optics, chromatic aberration (CA, also called achromatism or chromatic distortion) is a type of DISTORTION in which there is a failure of a lens to focus all colors to the same convergence point." [emphasis mine]

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 09:20 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: No distortion?
But I prefer my skinny models to look a bit pudgy.. :(

They are not talking about geometrical distortion which is trivial. The main distortion missing from the lens is Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration, which cannot be autocorrected in the same way as geometrical distortion or lateral chromatic aberration can.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 09:10 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photoman: Wait till Sigma release their 85/1.4 lens. 1/4 price and better quality, like their 50/1.4 ART lens.

Sigma's 50/1.4 Art isn't apochromatic, the Otus 55/1.4 is. There is a real benefit in having a lens that doesn't have longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA, bokeh fringing, purple fringing, or whatever you like to call it).

As a proud owner of the Sigma, it is a fantastic lens, and as my fourth 50 mm lens, finally "good enough" for me. Still, I would very much like to have it without LoCa. See section "Bokeh Fringing" from the link below:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/876-sigma50f14art?start=1

Also Sigma's bokeh isn't particularly smooth.

So no, Sigma 50/1.4 Art is not better than the Zeiss 55/1.4 Otus. Depending on the buyer, it may be better value, and AF is of course very useful. But purely optically, it is not the better lens.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 09:08 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

BarnET: The Otus lenses are made in pixelpeeper heaven.

That said current Nikon 85mm lenses are very very good
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-mounted-on-Nikon-D800E__814

Yes the Otus will be better. But is it worth 8 times more while losing autofocus? My guess not for many people.

It's not a 50mm which were pretty soft in f-mount on the d800e.

The Nikkor has one of the worst Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration I've ever seen in a fast lens. It's outright ugly wide open. See section "Bokeh Fringing" of the following review:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/717-nikkorafs8518ff?start=1

The point with the Otus is that it is apochromatic, i.e. it doesn't have LoCA. Not much, not little, not at all. (At least if we are to believe Zeiss, and with this price I _am_ pretty sure they wouldn't dare to lie.) So, you won't be correcting "purple fringing" in post. Or any other aberrations, for that matter.

Admitted, the Otus is way beyond my league - as it is for most of you. But I can still appreciate an obviously wonderful piece of glass, where you actally _get_ something exceptional for the exorbitant price. And, also, I _would_ appreciate if my Sigma 50/1.4 Art was apochromatic like the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 is.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 06:32 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: Are 85's really known for problematic distortion?

Yes, they are.

Longitudinal chromatic aberration is a problem with almost all fast glass. The apochromatic Otus lenses are a very rare exception.

For example: see end of page, section "Bokeh Fringing / Longitudinal Chromatic Aberrations (LoCA)", of the following review of Canon's 85/1.2 II:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/502-canon_85f12ff?start=1
or Canon's 85/1.8:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/419-canon_85_18_5d?start=1

The new Otus shouldn't have the purple/green fringing presented in that section.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 06:11 UTC
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: I am confused.
Why would Nokia introduce new Lumias now, half a year after its phone division sales to Microsoft has been finalized? Or is it Microsoft who has released a new mobile phone under the label "Nokia Lumia"? Or something else that I don't understand?
(Just in case it looks like it:) I'm not trying to be a wiseass; this is an honest question.

Ok, now that I've made a Google search for other sources (using "Lumia" as the searchword, then clicking "News"), the first hits say "Microsoft unveils Lumia 830 & 730 'selfie' phone" (India Times), "Microsoft announces Lumia 830, 735 and 730 smartphones" (The Guardian), "Meet Nokia Lumia 730: Microsoft's 5MP selfie phone" (Firstpost), and "Microsoft's Lumia 830 mixes old Nokia designs with a new PureView camera" (The Verge).

To me it appears you are pretty much alone in not reporting the Lumia 830 as a Microsoft phone announced by Microsoft. My confusion is gone, but you might want to reconsider how to represent similar news in the future. After all, there still is a pretty large company called Nokia left, and it has not introduced a new phone yesterday.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2014 at 09:15 UTC

I am confused.
Why would Nokia introduce new Lumias now, half a year after its phone division sales to Microsoft has been finalized? Or is it Microsoft who has released a new mobile phone under the label "Nokia Lumia"? Or something else that I don't understand?
(Just in case it looks like it:) I'm not trying to be a wiseass; this is an honest question.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2014 at 05:43 UTC as 17th comment | 4 replies

How we have been spoiled with excellent 50/1.4 devices lately! First the incomprehensibly priced but wonderful Otus, then the sublime Sigma (which I used last weekend to shoot my brother's candle-light wedding), and now this. There really is no shortage of 50 millimeter lenses today!

PS. Ever since Samyang's 14/2.8 which surprised us all a few years ago this company's been on a roll, much like Sigma.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 04:53 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply
Total: 107, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »