Erik Magnuson

Erik Magnuson

Lives in United States Cape Canaveral, FL, United States
Has a website at
Joined on Dec 29, 2000
About me:

This is what I'd like to appear on my public 'posters (sic)


Total: 251, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2129 comments in total)
In reply to:

RFC1925: I would summarise the article regarding the difference between MFT and FF like this:

If you want:
1) Shallow DOF = FF is better
2) Deep DOF = MFT and FF are tied (FF can compensate with better ISO performance)
3) Portability = MFT is better

All the above have exceptions of course since there are such a great variety of cameras and lenses in both formats.

FF cannot *always* compensate mainly because most FF lenses don't go past f/22. The question is *for the same size print*, how does f/11 on MFT compare to f/22 on FF in terms of sharpness. And the answer is "about the same."

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 16:46 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2129 comments in total)
In reply to:

joeletx: Thank you for clarifying numerous on going debates for a long time. This confirms my understanding the ISO-FL-FStop-EV relationship; that a FT lens 50mm F/2 at ISO-1000 will have the same image exposure (EV) as a FF lens 100mm F/2 at ISO-1000.

Applying the same thing, a FT lens 300mm F/2.8 at ISO-1000 will have the same image exposure (EV) as a FF lens 600mm F/2.8 at ISO-1000.

A FF lens with 600mm F/2.8 is a huge deal financially and physically comparing to a FT lens with same equivalent for wildlife shooting.

Why ISO-1000? Why not shoot a 600mm f/5.6 at ISO-4000 on FF? (The Tamron 150-600mm is only 1/3 stop off and much cheaper than the Olympus 300mm f/2.8 even if you add the cost of a 5D3 body.)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 16:15 UTC
On Light Field Cameras - Focusing on the Future article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

CraigArnold: 5Mp is enough for many applications. 8x12 prints, online images, photobooks. Keep in mind that slight misfocus decreases effective resolution in so many amateur shots anyway...

Also there seems to be a lot of potential to develop these as a higher resolution camera with a smaller focus range for stills photography.

Yeah I want one for sure.

Megapixels are a size, not a resolution. The article states "[e]dges are soft, colors are desaturated, and there’s a general graininess to the shots". Other articles on light-field technology suggest the effective resolution varies with distance. It will be interesting when someone produces side-by-side images vs. other 5MP outputs to see what the real practical resolution ends up at (including misfocus although camera shake is often worse.)

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2014 at 18:13 UTC
On Found film: Keep a lookout for photographic treasures article (13 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul Janders: Someday in the year 2414 a person will enter an antique store. They will purchase a box of old memory cards from various cameras of the early 2000s.

When the images are processed they will all be found to contain nothing but thousands of pictures of brick walls and out-of-focus Christmas lights. Occasionally, a photo of a cat will be seen.

After years of study no historian will be able to explain the significance or purpose of the photos.

@backayonder, SmartMedia USB card readers are not uncommon - quite a lot of older 6-in-1 type readers handle SM and work with modern computers. It's a bit harder for old cameras with only built-in storage, but I've been able to get Linux drivers for all of the ones I've tried.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2014 at 14:09 UTC
On Found film: Keep a lookout for photographic treasures article (13 comments in total)

Someone who's been doing this for a while now:

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2014 at 15:41 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

bobbarber: Disclaimer: I'm a hypocrite, because I've bought converters for compact cameras before.

Comment: If you're buying converter lenses for your compact or fixed-lens camera, isn't that telling you that you need/should have bought an interchangeable lens camera in the first place?

Check the size/cost of the EOS-M+22mm f/2.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2014 at 15:24 UTC
On MIT algorithm predicts photo popularity article (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: It was very generous of her to compensate all the photographers whose photos were used in this study. Some people think that images online are just there for the taking.

Flickr has a large number of photos with permissive licenses - the photos actually are there for the legal taking for many non-commercial purposes.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 29, 2014 at 17:35 UTC
On Am I missing something here? article (626 comments in total)
In reply to:

joeyv: from another perspective: The V3 is not the best "all-around" camera out there but it already is the best photographic tool for OUTDOOR sports shooting, by far. At a fraction of the size and cost of the D4s or 1d5. Don't be surprised if you find this being used for professional outdoor sporting events or the olympics.
Nikon needs to improve the 1 series' low light IQ, produce more f/1.0-1.2 lenses and make it fully compatible with Nikons' dslr flash system. But clearly, this format has some serious potential. Specially, if it is used in conjunction with dslrs.
This camera wasn't made for "soccer moms". It's made for professional sports photographers.

I *will* be surprised if they use it for anything but a few special cases. Ever shoot from field level in a stadium? The background of all those people or rows seats is horribly distracting; you really want relatively shallow DOF for subject isolation. Even for the Olympics, look at the photos carefully to see what's needed. If the remote operation support is good enough, perhaps as a remote control camera if battery life is not an issue.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2014 at 19:09 UTC
In reply to:

instamatic: To answer Nikon why their mirrorless is not selling in the US: Nikon 1 has a small sensor, while the US consumer expects at least a DX sensor. Why? Probably because many hobbyists are vainly hoping to one day have some success at shooting weddings, or whatever - which for most people never materializes, but still the illusion is there. Regardless of where the hobbyist is on their photography journey, it is universally known that wedding/portrait photography requires a large sensor for shallow and popular depth of field with fast lenses. And where are the fast lenses for mirrorless? Thirdly why in the world the lesser Nikon 1 cameras have flash sync only at 1/60 sec? Why aren't DSLR speedlights compatible?

Nikon's compact cameras are also not up to par. Where is a compact with a 'standard' zoom lens and aperture somewhere between f/1.4 and f/2.5 or similar. Why aren't all Nikon's compact cameras allowing saving RAW files. Where is built in WI-FI?

Where is the D400?

No company's mirrorless are selling well in the US, so Nikon is hardly alone. The lower-end Nikon 1 cameras do not have a physical shutter and the electronic shutter is limited for sync speed.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2014 at 19:28 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7R Review preview (815 comments in total)
In reply to:

TN Args: Canon 6D with Canon 70-200 f4 L IS is no bigger or heavier than an A7 with Sony equivalent lens.

So, compact shmompact.

The A7R+70-200 is about 200g (13%) lighter and ~10mm or so shorter.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2014 at 22:31 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7R Review preview (815 comments in total)
In reply to:

fabio riccardi: I have a question about lenses for full frame mirrorless cameras.
I notice that pretty much all the Sony lenses for these cameras have relatively small maximum aperture. The 55mm normal lens is 1.8, vs the 1.4 we are accustomed to for normal full frames. Similarly for the rest of the line. I guess that bright lenses also mean heavier, larger, lenses, which don't quite make sense on smaller camera bodies.
This kind of defeats the purpose of a full frame sensor, where you can benefit from the shallow depth of field it allows.
On APS sized sensors, brighter lenses can still be fairly compact. Fuji, Panasonic, and Olympus lenses are all much brighter than the new FF mirrorless Sony.
Brighter lenses on APS sensors deliver equivalent DOF and look than the dimmer lenses on FF. At the end what is gained with the full frame is lost with the smaller maximum practical aperture.
What do you guys think?
- Fabio

To be fair, the Zeiss is also T-1.8 while the other brands 1.4's are often darker than spec at T-1.6 or T-1.7. The real difference is much less than the f-numbers imply.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2014 at 20:47 UTC
On CP+ 2014: Hands-on with Sigma DP2 Quattro article (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jon Ragnarsson: I wonder if the is the same lens design as the Sigma 30mm f2.8 lens for NEX. Still no good photos of people holding this thing...

Different lens from the 30mm DN ART: 8 elements in 6 groups vs. 7 elements in 5 groups. Similar design for the back groups but different front groups (larger, more complex on dp lens).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2014 at 19:18 UTC
In reply to:

Brigcam: PENTAX Film Duplicator-

Anyone else make this?

Depends on how much it automates film handling. "Slide duplicator" attachments have been around since the 60's.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2014 at 23:56 UTC
On Using third-party lenses on Sony Cyber-shot a7 / a7R article (503 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zorak: Honestly, I don't understand. I am, by all mesures, a beginner. And I could use with ease my father's Olympus 50mm f1.8, and getting great results with it, be it with focus peaking when subject permits it, or magnification when the conditions are not ideals.

It's a 30€ lense, I'm far from being an expert, but I could get great results most of the time. So honestly, I know the ergonomics could be a bit better, but I don't understand all the mumble rumble about not being able to get focus. Sometimes it takes me a few seconds to be perfectly on focus, but I nail it. Everytime. So, how could you not ?

For the rest, maybe it's for my lack of understanding or technical knowledge, but A mode ? With a manual lense ? What ? Set it to M, auto-iso if you don't have time, set the auto-iso to limits you find acceptable (for me, 3200 iso on the A7), and there you go...

@Zorak "Honestly, I don't understand."

Read the article again. It's not about the quality of the results (except for the old 17mm), it's about the potential usage issues. If you are not in a hurry or shooting mostly static subjects, those issues are mild inconveniences. For more dynamic situations, the ergonomics could be improved.

You also do not understand the differences in focusing a 57mm f/1.2 lens vs. your 1.8. Compared to an old split-image prism or rangefinder, focus peaking is far more dependent on lens contrast so some of these older lenses do not focus as easily with the A7 as with the cameras they were designed for.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2014 at 16:21 UTC
On Using third-party lenses on Sony Cyber-shot a7 / a7R article (503 comments in total)
In reply to:

bobbarber: I don't know what to think. I'm a little surprised about the comments about the difficulty manual focusing. I'm a m43 shooter, but interested in this camera as a FF option. I find manual focus easy on m43 with a viewfinder model (currently the G6 for me), or at least a lot easier than it was with a DSLR. To me, having to move the focus point before magnifying it is a feature, not a bug. Take the example in the text of the difficulty of trying to focus on a model's eye. Imagine how hard it would be if your focus always defaulted to the center of the frame, and then you had to recompose the picture after focusing, with only a centimeter or so of DOF to work with. Having not tried this camera, I'll trust the review. Maybe there is something poor in Sony's viewfinder or ergonomics that I'm not aware of yet.

You are not trying to focus a 9mm f/1.7 or 28mm f/0.6 or 17mm f/1.0 or 25mm f/1.0 lenses. These are the MFT equivalents for DOF and thus focus accuracy. Add in that some of these are older single coated lenses with very low contrast wide open. The article says the issue gets better once stopped down to more MFT like DOF.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2014 at 04:54 UTC
On Sigma announces all-new 50mm F1.4 DG HSM 'Art' lens article (244 comments in total)
In reply to:

eaa: Min. aperture F16?
That is not normal for an FF lens, where F22 or 32 are the norm.
Why a min aperture even below the diffraction limit?
Must be a typo (like the initially wrong weight (85 gr), now corrected to 470 gr.

Normal is typically no more than 8 stops total, i.e. most faster than f/1.4 or better lenses only stop down to f/16.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 23:03 UTC
In reply to:

JEROME NOLAS: What is SONY? A car maker? Thanks God they don't make aircrafts!

The sensor pixel structure is the same, but it's possible the toppings are different (microlenses, color filters, IR filter, how no AA filter is implemented, etc.) The post sensor electronics are different and yes, this impacts raw. It also could simply be an artifact of the testing chain where dcraw is converting the Sony files with higher contrast.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2013 at 15:02 UTC
On DPReview Gear of the Year: Canon Rebel SL1 / EOS 100D article (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

Daniel Lauring: Great for Canon shooters, but unfortunately, Canon's APS-C doesn't perform any better than the best m43 so that is a better choice for someone that wants to pack small...body and lenses. Now if this was a Nikon with a Sony sensor....

@Andy Crowe - then it's a good thing that the SL1 has a display capable of all of those things in addition to an OVF - it's win-win.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2013 at 15:16 UTC
On Canon announces EOS M2 in Japan article (616 comments in total)
In reply to:

happypoppeye: Well, the one major item wrong with the M1 was the autofocus so lets hope Canon got that right this time. Not sure what they (as well as Nikon) are thinking but good job not cannibalizing your low end SLR sales and at least keeping the money from that cannibalization ...let the other companies get the money and cannabilize them instead.

@happypoppeye - you ask a marketing question and then say you are not interested in sales numbers? Way to demean your own post, e.g. "Don't give me facts, give me comforting lies that support my view".

Direct link | Posted on Dec 3, 2013 at 15:35 UTC

Much of the discussion seems to be on Nikon's motive for the change. Did Nikon simply improve the D5300's liveview focus capability (i.e. speed or smoothness) in a way compatible with Nikon OEM lenses? Or did they make an arbitrary change primarily to break Sigma lenses? How much responsibility does Nikon have to support all features of non-Nikon lenses? Should they spend development money testing every feature with every 3rd party lens? Just some lenses? Should they hold back improvements until 3rd parties upgrade all their products?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 16:40 UTC as 27th comment
Total: 251, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »