RRJackson

RRJackson

Lives in United States Bradenton, United States
Joined on Apr 27, 2008

Comments

Total: 90, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L article (222 comments in total)
In reply to:

Karen Casebeer: My question is why this new lens doesn't have image stabilization?

Because it's a wide-angle lens.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2015 at 16:26 UTC
On Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L article (222 comments in total)
In reply to:

MPA1: Only f4? Who wants a lens that slow? I think the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is still better.

Really? Does f/4 really seem that slow to you? Because I'd buy an f/5.6 prime if the optics were free of distortion and chromatic aberration. I'd really prefer a slower lens that performs to the current crop of faster optics with a long list of design compromises.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2015 at 11:04 UTC
On Go wide! Hands-on with Canon's 11-24mm F4 L article (222 comments in total)

It will be interesting to see how much this distorts. Finding distortion-free wide-angle lenses is next to impossible. The best one I have any experience with is the Zeiss 21mm f/4.5 C Biogon T* ZM lens. It's the widest essentially distortion-free lens out there and Zeiss just discontinued it because of poor sales.

Of course, there's not a single digital camera that could really make use of it...in color, at least. It worked fine on the Leica M Monochrom.

I'd jump through all kinds of hoops, including changing platforms, for a lens as good as the Zeiss that could be used with a digital camera. We'll see soon.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2015 at 11:02 UTC as 31st comment
On Canon EOS-1D C sees $4000 price drop in North America article (249 comments in total)

Now it's only twice as expensive as it should be.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 1, 2015 at 00:22 UTC as 42nd comment
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1405 comments in total)
In reply to:

RRJackson: I shouldn't say anything, but you can work with whatever lens you can mount.

If you've got a prime that doesn't distort too much or suffer from really bad fringing you can make due with it for a lot of situation, almost no matter what the focal length. As long as you don't need 7 feet for the minimum focus distance.

If you have a 90mm f/2.8 Macro and it's your only lens you'll learn to make it sing for you, even if the angle of view seems a little tight.

Or the opposite; people walk around with an iPhone with a lens that has the same effective angle of view of a 30mm lens on a 135-based camera and most people never give it a second thought. That's what they have and they use it.

Well, I've never owned a large format camera, but I've owned a few medium format cameras. I know people who've used medium format lenses on 35mm cameras and I even used to use a Zeiss 120mm macro lens intended for medium format on a 35mm motion picture camera that was obviously running a frame size very similar to APS-C. Still, 135-based sensors seem like a very good compromise now, for many of the same reasons 35mm film ended up being such a good balance between negative size and print quality. My own personal feeling is that it's a good place to be for most photography enthusiasts, but obviously costs are an issue for many. Not to mention ease of use and portability.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2015 at 05:21 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1405 comments in total)
In reply to:

stern: I think that APS-C is the digital age's version of the film-era's "small format" (SLR format; German: Kleinbild). Small format is currently marketed as digital "full frame". But those cameras are just too HUGE compared to our old 35mm SLRs. Conclusion: "FF" is mainly a marketing gag that gets less exciting as smaller sensors (APS-C, 4/3, MFT) keep improving their IQ. "FF" is and will stay a niche market IMHO; just like "medium format" has been in the bygone film-days, and will stay a niche product in the future (ironically, medium format comes with a larger sensor than the ill-named "full format"; however fantastic the medium format Pentax 645 D might be - BTW anybody here who's going to buy Pentax' medium format IQ-beast?).

I'd buy the Pentax if I could afford it. I had a Pentax 67 II and a Pentax 645NII back in the day.

Eventually very large sensors will stop being so impossible to build inexpensively. I actually really look forward to a day when a digital 6x9 is possible. One day there will be a digital camera similar to the old Fuji GSW690III and I'll be really excited for the day when I can start complaining about its price!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2015 at 22:47 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1405 comments in total)
In reply to:

RRJackson: I shouldn't say anything, but you can work with whatever lens you can mount.

If you've got a prime that doesn't distort too much or suffer from really bad fringing you can make due with it for a lot of situation, almost no matter what the focal length. As long as you don't need 7 feet for the minimum focus distance.

If you have a 90mm f/2.8 Macro and it's your only lens you'll learn to make it sing for you, even if the angle of view seems a little tight.

Or the opposite; people walk around with an iPhone with a lens that has the same effective angle of view of a 30mm lens on a 135-based camera and most people never give it a second thought. That's what they have and they use it.

Well, my point (however poorly made) was that you should get a lens that meets a few criteria (including that its image circle will cover a 24mm x 36mm circle) and take some photos. If you can afford a more capable camera later that's great.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2015 at 22:41 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1405 comments in total)

I shouldn't say anything, but you can work with whatever lens you can mount.

If you've got a prime that doesn't distort too much or suffer from really bad fringing you can make due with it for a lot of situation, almost no matter what the focal length. As long as you don't need 7 feet for the minimum focus distance.

If you have a 90mm f/2.8 Macro and it's your only lens you'll learn to make it sing for you, even if the angle of view seems a little tight.

Or the opposite; people walk around with an iPhone with a lens that has the same effective angle of view of a 30mm lens on a 135-based camera and most people never give it a second thought. That's what they have and they use it.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 22:29 UTC as 116th comment | 4 replies

This fast response is a very welcome change in Nikon's policy. It's nice to see them quickly acknowledge the issue, understand the appropriate fix and offer it to consumers quickly. Nice to see a big company learn from its past mistakes.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 05:53 UTC as 28th comment | 5 replies
On Canon announces EOS C100 Mark II article (279 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: lol.
too many folks confuse needs differ between Cinematography and regular videography
e.g. the look of AF, wobbly like Pany GH4/GH3, no AF in 4k (GH4), or fast AF in sports (dSLRs, EOS 7DMkII), or smooth-n-slow pull focus as in Cine (EOS 70D) or fast smooth 'no wobble' AF in Cine/videography (EOS 70D), etc

e.g.
Autofocus Comparison - Canon EOS 70D vs Panasonic GH4
EunJae Im
http://vimeo.com/96882002
"Yes, I think both are working well. I just try AF Mode (49-Area & Custom Multi) on GH4 and it was bit more faster then 1-Area (center). BTW, AF is almost useless at 4K mode." - EunJae Im

Pany's AF in both GH4/GH3 is 'wobbly', unfit for serious Cine, but fine for regular videographers/handicamers where Cine-centric smooth speed-customizable focus pull matters, as would be the case for EOS Cine C-series users, or even 70D Cine users with smooth 'no wobble' Touch AF or AF racking

I don't think you could really do it with speed settings. Right now remote lens control units use a knob because the operator really has to do a lot of the pulls to coincide with dialogue and actors don't do things at the same speed every time. You might be able to preset focus points and use a remote knob to do the pulls, though.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2014 at 12:26 UTC
On Canon announces EOS C100 Mark II article (279 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: lol.
too many folks confuse needs differ between Cinematography and regular videography
e.g. the look of AF, wobbly like Pany GH4/GH3, no AF in 4k (GH4), or fast AF in sports (dSLRs, EOS 7DMkII), or smooth-n-slow pull focus as in Cine (EOS 70D) or fast smooth 'no wobble' AF in Cine/videography (EOS 70D), etc

e.g.
Autofocus Comparison - Canon EOS 70D vs Panasonic GH4
EunJae Im
http://vimeo.com/96882002
"Yes, I think both are working well. I just try AF Mode (49-Area & Custom Multi) on GH4 and it was bit more faster then 1-Area (center). BTW, AF is almost useless at 4K mode." - EunJae Im

Pany's AF in both GH4/GH3 is 'wobbly', unfit for serious Cine, but fine for regular videographers/handicamers where Cine-centric smooth speed-customizable focus pull matters, as would be the case for EOS Cine C-series users, or even 70D Cine users with smooth 'no wobble' Touch AF or AF racking

Smooth and accurate is great, but continuously varying the speed of the pull is half the craft and you can't do that with autofocus. I don't doubt that it will all happen eventually, but nobody has refined the interface to make it usable enough yet. About as close as it gets are remote lens control systems that allow an operator to pull focus without being in contact with the camera. Most of those are still pretty expensive. The only one I've tried is the C-Motion and it's still about $20,000.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2014 at 00:48 UTC
On Canon announces EOS C100 Mark II article (279 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: lol.
too many folks confuse needs differ between Cinematography and regular videography
e.g. the look of AF, wobbly like Pany GH4/GH3, no AF in 4k (GH4), or fast AF in sports (dSLRs, EOS 7DMkII), or smooth-n-slow pull focus as in Cine (EOS 70D) or fast smooth 'no wobble' AF in Cine/videography (EOS 70D), etc

e.g.
Autofocus Comparison - Canon EOS 70D vs Panasonic GH4
EunJae Im
http://vimeo.com/96882002
"Yes, I think both are working well. I just try AF Mode (49-Area & Custom Multi) on GH4 and it was bit more faster then 1-Area (center). BTW, AF is almost useless at 4K mode." - EunJae Im

Pany's AF in both GH4/GH3 is 'wobbly', unfit for serious Cine, but fine for regular videographers/handicamers where Cine-centric smooth speed-customizable focus pull matters, as would be the case for EOS Cine C-series users, or even 70D Cine users with smooth 'no wobble' Touch AF or AF racking

Cinematographers don't use AF because you don't pull focus for cinema like you do for stills. A single shot will have several points of focus that need to be hit smoothly and at speeds that work with the overall shot. It's not like shooting stills where you just have to select a point of focus and hit that once to get your shot.

No "serious Cine" lenses have autofocus motors. Or aperture clicks. Zeiss Master Primes, for example. Per lens cost is from around $24,000 to over $30,000 each. No autofocus motors. Zeiss make autofocus lenses for still photography, but not for, "Serious Cinema." That isn't going to change anytime soon.

Canon's own line of Cinema lenses are about $5000 each and manual focus only. There's a reason for this. Professionals don't use autofocus.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2014 at 23:01 UTC
On Canon announces EOS C100 Mark II article (279 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: lol.
too many folks confuse needs differ between Cinematography and regular videography
e.g. the look of AF, wobbly like Pany GH4/GH3, no AF in 4k (GH4), or fast AF in sports (dSLRs, EOS 7DMkII), or smooth-n-slow pull focus as in Cine (EOS 70D) or fast smooth 'no wobble' AF in Cine/videography (EOS 70D), etc

e.g.
Autofocus Comparison - Canon EOS 70D vs Panasonic GH4
EunJae Im
http://vimeo.com/96882002
"Yes, I think both are working well. I just try AF Mode (49-Area & Custom Multi) on GH4 and it was bit more faster then 1-Area (center). BTW, AF is almost useless at 4K mode." - EunJae Im

Pany's AF in both GH4/GH3 is 'wobbly', unfit for serious Cine, but fine for regular videographers/handicamers where Cine-centric smooth speed-customizable focus pull matters, as would be the case for EOS Cine C-series users, or even 70D Cine users with smooth 'no wobble' Touch AF or AF racking

You realize nobody doing, "Serious Cine" uses autofocus, right? Nobody.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2014 at 00:47 UTC

The hippest polarizing filters, although admittedly not a subtle effect, are the Cokin Polacolor filters. I love the Cokin red/blue Polacolor. Used right it gives that kind of funky offset printing effect that characterizes so many vintage postcards.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/r_jackson/14541448979/

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 12:07 UTC as 12th comment
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1658 comments in total)
In reply to:

Caerolle: They finally figured out a pronunciation of 'N-i-k-o-n' that everyone can agree to.

"We are the Knights Who Say, 'Nee-Kon!"

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 20:27 UTC
On Samsung NX1 First Impressions Review preview (1430 comments in total)
In reply to:

mike geier: what about lenses?

The primes are an excellent cost/quality combo, IMO. The 30mm f/2 was the first one and it's still one of my favorite lenses. The 45mm f/1.8 is extremely nice and very affordable. If your pockets are a little deeper the 85mm f/1.4 is one of the best of its kind, with less fringing than most of the competition and extremely fast focusing. The 60mm f/2.8 Macro is also extremely nice.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 01:49 UTC
On Nikon announces AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED article (73 comments in total)
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: Finally, a replacement for my Sigma 20 1.8 I use for events. And at a reasonable price. At least they got something right for Photokina.

They even beat the Sigma's minimum focus distance, and I like that Sigma.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2014 at 10:34 UTC

Do people really buy a Leica based on how fast it will shoot? I mean, it's cool to have the larger buffer, but I thought Leicas were more about the Decisive Moment than Spray and Pray.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2014 at 16:37 UTC as 22nd comment
In reply to:

Mike FL: How about Rolex releases a special edition by removing the Rolex logo. How is that sound?

People still wear watches?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2014 at 16:32 UTC
On Nikon D4s First Impressions Review preview (1042 comments in total)
In reply to:

RRJackson: Here's something I don't understand at all. Metering on modern cameras can break the frame down into thousands of segments for complex metering calculations...but nobody can seem to make a metering system that prevents highlight clipping. No way at all to reduce the exposure if the highlights are clipping? Really? In 2014 we can't make that happen? The system can analyze 91,000 segments of the frame, but can't tell if one of them is clipping?

Back on my old OM-4T there were spot-metering selections to expose for shadows or expose for highlights, but it was just exposure compensation. It overexposed by 2 stops based on the thing you put the spot meter on or underexposed by 2 2/3 stops for the shadow compensation.

Most of the digital camera metering options seem to work in similar fashion. Canon's "Highlight Protection" doesn't prevent blown highlights. It just seems to involve some exposure compensation.

This really seems like the kind of thing that processing should be able to handle. If one of those 91,000 segments of metering is blown out then you pull that exposure back. I'm not saying it always has to be engaged, but I'd like the option.

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2014 at 14:04 UTC
Total: 90, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »