tkbslc

tkbslc

Lives in United States Salt Lake City, UT, United States
Joined on May 30, 2008

Comments

Total: 2648, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

garyknrd: Art lens? Hummm wonder where they got that from.

I'm going to guess it from the definitions of the words "art" and "lens". Given that it is a lens that one might use to create art, it kind of makes sense.

Direct link | Posted on May 3, 2015 at 06:48 UTC

I think they spelled "Minotaur" wrong.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 06:28 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

tkbslc: Three hundred and fifty bucks?!?!?!

Ironically you can get actual Russian Vintage lens for about 1/10 of that. Industar 69 28mm f2.8 pancake in M39 mount.

Review: http://www.onemorelens.com/2011/07/industar-69-28mm-f28.html

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 04:33 UTC

Three hundred and fifty bucks?!?!?!

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 19:51 UTC as 24th comment | 3 replies

Hey, a portrait prime for FF E-Mount! What do you know?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 25, 2015 at 06:49 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Deardorff: 5 inches for macro work. What is the magnification factor? Close isn't necessarily 'macro'.

1:1 is a ratio of subject to sensor size. If you change the sensor size, the ratio HAS to change. That's basic math.

The number of pixels on subject is irrelevant for magnification specification. 1:1 on a 12MP 5D and a 50MP 5DS is the same.

Cropping is also irrelevant. I can crop an image from any sensor size.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2015 at 04:17 UTC
In reply to:

drsonic: Would a Voigtlander Nokton 42.5mm f/0.95 give similar look on m43?

They are definitely softer at f1.0 than f2.0, but real world is always more forgiving than MTF charts.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 02:36 UTC
In reply to:

drsonic: Would a Voigtlander Nokton 42.5mm f/0.95 give similar look on m43?

These appear to be shot on FF, so the Nokton 25mm would be closer. In terms of DOF, you'd be pretty close to these, but the Nokton lenses are designed to be sharp and won't have the hazy effect.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 02:23 UTC
In reply to:

Androole: It's not something I'd personally be in the market for, but at least it's not a one-tricky pony. It's got the soft-focus look (which actually comes across pretty well in these samples), but does manage to sharpen up a bit by f2.8 (and at f8 seems decent), and it's interesting in that it's got 1:2 macro close-focus capabilities as well.

According to the MTF charts on ephotozine, the soft focus is gone at f4 and it sharpens up nicely. You'd be there for macro anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 02:17 UTC
In reply to:

Deardorff: 5 inches for macro work. What is the magnification factor? Close isn't necessarily 'macro'.

1:2 according to the specs. Not sure what format that is on, though. 1:2 on FF is 1:1 on m4/3.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 02:13 UTC
In reply to:

tom1234567: I spend most of my time trying to get best IQ
I would not want to go backward,

Out of focus photos does nothing for me whatsoever
I just don't understand why anyone would pay that much for a lens to produce
Out of focus shots. You can make a far better job if PP it

saying soft focus is not art is about as silly as saying sharp focus is art.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 02:11 UTC
In reply to:

ryan2007: Neat affect, but why does this thing cost $500. I may have missed it but I assume this is a manual focus lens too and if so (again) thats a lot of money for a MF lens. I'd rather have a real system lens than a toy lens.

I like the effect, but I agree about price. $500 buys a pretty good "real" lens. Hard for most of to justify for an effect lens that will see limited use.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 20:55 UTC
In reply to:

tom1234567: I spend most of my time trying to get best IQ
I would not want to go backward,

Out of focus photos does nothing for me whatsoever
I just don't understand why anyone would pay that much for a lens to produce
Out of focus shots. You can make a far better job if PP it

Out of focus and soft focus are vastly different.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 20:53 UTC
In reply to:

ravduc: Just rub a bit of Vaseline on an old filter and save yourself 500 dollars.

Got any samples of that?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 20:53 UTC

I'm probably not going to buy one. But it is nice to have at least one company out there making different products. You want a regular fast 50? Take your pick of at least a 100.

If you think you can recreate these images with a vaseline coated filter, try it and post some samples. Somehow I doubt it will compare.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 20:52 UTC as 51st comment
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)

Well I didn't agree with this article, but either way 690 comments and counting means it was a win for the author and the site. Lots of traffic for sure.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 04:54 UTC as 51st comment | 1 reply

This is too funny.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 04:30 UTC as 65th comment
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

ozturert: This is Canon, so it must be bad :)
Typical DPR user :)

It's not the "ultimate still camera" any more than an fz1000 is the ultimate video camera.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 15:17 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)

I disagree with the premise that this is a device that is designed to stills and video equally well. It is a video camera designed to do decent stills. Just like the FZ1000 and RX10 are stills cameras designed to do very good video. Canon just took that concept and tilted the meter over to the video side, where Sony and Panasonic are over toward stills.

It's obvious it has Sony and Panasonic beat on the pro video specs. However for stills, this Canon has a slow lens, terrible controls and no viewfinder. (And no that add on doesn't count or every camera in the world has a viewfinder because I can buy a hoodman on ebay.) The controls are bonkers for a still camera. It looks like half of the controls are over on the left side. Very few quick access controls for the right thumb and only one dial.

It's no more "converged" than most quality camera from the past 5+ years that shoot excellent stills and good video features. Just a stab at adding stills to a video camera.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 04:18 UTC as 158th comment | 1 reply

I'm speechless!!

(and not in a good way)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 01:29 UTC as 18th comment
Total: 2648, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »