SteB

SteB

Lives in United Kingdom North Shropshire, United Kingdom
Joined on Apr 3, 2007

Comments

Total: 116, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

This is just a general interest question, and no attempt to put the camera down. To me cameras are just tools, each having pros and cons.

My question is does Pentax use Electronic First Curtain (EFC) shutter yet, in this or any other Pentax camera?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 18:51 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

talmy: If it isn't *amazingly* good it won't stand a chance at that price. I'd call this one a disappointment after some of the other Samyang lenses.

Yes, I'm saying that when composing at high speed with active subjects, it is advantageous to use the thinner DOF wide open as a guide.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/9578475@N02/

Often you have very little time, sometimes less than a second, to select a certain type of pose or composition, with a feeding insect, and then the opportunity is lost. Of course in other scenarios you don't need to select the composition, pose or focus so rapidly, but absolute precision is important. If the focus is just a fraction out the photo doesn't work as well.

Whilst the DOF is obviously greater at the taking aperture, say f11, once you are at life-size or above, the DOF is still razor thin at any aperture, just less thin. I've shot with manual stop down lenses on a DSLR, and it is much harder to judge exactly where the focus plane is at the taking aperture. Often I use a sort of zone focus approach, guessing where the true plane of focus is from experience.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 12:03 UTC
In reply to:

talmy: If it isn't *amazingly* good it won't stand a chance at that price. I'd call this one a disappointment after some of the other Samyang lenses.

Auto-stop down is important in macro for 2 main reasons. It is most important when shooting handheld, which will often be with flash, which with full flash, is used to freeze motion.

DSLR viewfinders become dark at smaller typical macro apertures. Plus at 1:1, the effective aperture will be about 2 stops smaller than the indicated nominal aperture.

Also the placement of focus is absolutely crucial for a successful macro image. Not just the point of focus, but the angle of the plane of focus, for maximal coverage of the subject. It's a lot easier to judge where the precise plane of focus is when the lens is wide open.

However, focus peaking as in the EVF or LCD of a mirrorless cam, can be a very useful focusing aid. A lot of macro photography success is about learning where to place to precise pointof focus, and the angle of the plane of focus.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 10:35 UTC
In reply to:

SteB: I'm puzzled at who this lens will appeal to, and what was the thinking of Samyang in creating it. I can see some interest in the VDSLR version, as auto stop down has no advantages with video.

Macro lenses are generally good performers, and there's some very good lenses in this class from Tamron, Sigma and Tokina. These lenses have auto stop down, and AF, which is not as important on a macro lens as auto-stop down. No matter how good the Samyang is optically, it is not going to clearly outperform the others. Generally for single exposure macro photographs the aperture used is well into the diffraction limited zone, and this tends to flatten out any minor IQ differences between lenses. Most macro lenses are already that good that you have to do serious pixel peeping to detect differences in performance.

Usually Samyang lenses have a USP such as price, performance, or maximum aperture, which makes them an attractive option over other choices, but not this one.

"Most macro shooters who really practice it, don't use AF."

Yes, I'm one of them.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/9578475@N02/

I very rarely use AF for macro. However, I am not saying it has not use, simply that manual focus is preferable. Personally I tend to set the magnification, and physically move backwards or forards to get precise focus.

You will notice I highlighted the importance of auto stop down of the aperture, and not AF. This most definitely is useful in macro photography.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 10:27 UTC
In reply to:

talmy: If it isn't *amazingly* good it won't stand a chance at that price. I'd call this one a disappointment after some of the other Samyang lenses.

You're right. The whole problem though, is that the reasonably priced competitors are already superb performers, lighter, have AF, and far more importantly, auto-stop down. Even if this was one of the very best performing macro lenses ever produced, it would still only be a niche product.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 22:44 UTC
In reply to:

SteB: I'm puzzled at who this lens will appeal to, and what was the thinking of Samyang in creating it. I can see some interest in the VDSLR version, as auto stop down has no advantages with video.

Macro lenses are generally good performers, and there's some very good lenses in this class from Tamron, Sigma and Tokina. These lenses have auto stop down, and AF, which is not as important on a macro lens as auto-stop down. No matter how good the Samyang is optically, it is not going to clearly outperform the others. Generally for single exposure macro photographs the aperture used is well into the diffraction limited zone, and this tends to flatten out any minor IQ differences between lenses. Most macro lenses are already that good that you have to do serious pixel peeping to detect differences in performance.

Usually Samyang lenses have a USP such as price, performance, or maximum aperture, which makes them an attractive option over other choices, but not this one.

Samyang could have created a macro lens, which would have been attractive to macro photographers. However, if it was a 100mm lens, the most crowded sector of the market, it needed something else to make an manual aperture lens like this attractive. It needed greater that 1:1 focusing and/or a tripod collar.

I'm baffled at how little manufacturers understand the need of macro photographers.

Samyang would have created great interest from macro photographers with a 150mm-200mm+ macro lens, or a shorter focal length which went to 2:1 or greater.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 22:36 UTC

I'm puzzled at who this lens will appeal to, and what was the thinking of Samyang in creating it. I can see some interest in the VDSLR version, as auto stop down has no advantages with video.

Macro lenses are generally good performers, and there's some very good lenses in this class from Tamron, Sigma and Tokina. These lenses have auto stop down, and AF, which is not as important on a macro lens as auto-stop down. No matter how good the Samyang is optically, it is not going to clearly outperform the others. Generally for single exposure macro photographs the aperture used is well into the diffraction limited zone, and this tends to flatten out any minor IQ differences between lenses. Most macro lenses are already that good that you have to do serious pixel peeping to detect differences in performance.

Usually Samyang lenses have a USP such as price, performance, or maximum aperture, which makes them an attractive option over other choices, but not this one.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 22:27 UTC as 39th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

goblin: Yooo :D :D :D

I recognize these chops ! This is the guy who declared five or six years ago that "Two years from now Olympus will no longer build dslrs, only mirorless cameras", starting a bushfire and prompting official denials from Olympus :)

Listen carefully to everything will happen within the next couple of years, it will happen in the next six :)

You're right. What he actually said is that within a years no Olympus would have an optical viewfinder, because they had an amazing EVF. He got slaughtered for it. But essentially he had told people about the E-M1 before the E-M5 had been released. So it's worth listening to what he says.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2015 at 23:29 UTC

I've been looking around to find more information about this head. The only review I could find is this hands on Thai review. With Google translate some of it is understandable, but as usual there are some eccentric translations of phrases. Best of all there are actual photos, and a photo with it alongside the 410 - although this is lower down and slightly further back. I'd say there are similar dimensions, and interestingly the knobs look about the same diameter. The review seems to say the adjustments are easier and smoother. I think the photos are more useful for gaining an impression, that the Manfrotto product photos.
http://www.2how.com/review/manfrotto-gear-head/

The UK price on the Manfrotto site is quite a bit less than the 410 on there, but more than the average street price of the 410. In other words after it has been on sale for a while, it should be cheaper than the 410.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 9, 2015 at 01:00 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

NancyP: I think that there is a market for a geared head that is lighter than the 410, for the users of mirrorless cameras. I have to say that my tiny Sigma DP2M (8 oz) looks a little silly on top of the Manfrotto 410/Hejnar adapter plus Manfrotto 055 legs.The only geared heads out there are Manfrotto, Arca-Swiss Cube and D series, and the Sunwayfoto knockoff of the Arca D4 (not available in US).

Hi bedbug

I have wondered about the durability myself. Although I think it's a double edged sword. The polymer construction might be better at shock abortion. A lot of people use carbon fibre or wooden tripods. But the shock is transmitted to the tripod via a diecast alloy head.

I've been looking at a lighter geared head. I find even the 410 makes a tripod top heavy for carrying around. Often I end up lugging one around just in case, and hardly use it at times. Yet when I take a lighter ball head out just in case, Murphy's law says I find something interesting, and composing with a ball head at greater than life size always makes you miss a geared head.

This is a lot cheaper than the Swiss Arca D4 or the Sunwayfoto knock of I was looking at, plus I'll hang on to the 410. So it's come just at the right time for me.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 12:49 UTC

Personally I don't find the 200PL QR too limiting because I usually use a focusing rail with a geared head for field macros. So the lens attachment is still something you have a choice over.

My personal bugbear about this new head is that whilst being much lighter than the 410, which I've been using for quite some time now, it isn't any more compact.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 15:03 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

luben solev: At last. This is the first new geared head to come out in over 10 years. I love using my Manfrotto 410 Junior Geared Head, so it's good to see this niche line of heads continue being developed. Shame none of them come with a QR with as good a quality as RRS etc.

Same here. However, I'm not too bothered as I usually use a focusing rail with the geared head so my choice of QR is really what's on top of the focusing rail.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 14:56 UTC

It seems very interesting. Although as others have noted it's not particularly heavy duty as the write up claims. It has the lightest load weight of all the Manfrotto geared heads. I've been using a Manfrotto 410 geared head for macro for quite a few years, and it's very good except for the weight. This weight reduction will be welcome. The other thing is I don't like the quick release plate on 410 and normally use a 200PL adapter on it. It's a polymer body though. Although I suppose it could have advantages when it comes to vibration dampening.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 23:06 UTC as 24th comment

As I've mentioned before, I'm a bit baffled by this 90mm macro lens. I'm sure it will be a good performing lens, but it is a bit big for a 90mm macro, especially for a small mirrorless camera. It looks very much to me like a DSLR lens design adapted to a short back flange distance. It also seems a bit expensive for what it is. I don't see how it would perform any better than a 90mm Tamron or Sigma 105mm. In fact I highly suspect it is based on the 90mm Tamron. The optical layout I saw was very similar to Tamron with a few differences. I suspect the differences are to adapt it to Sony's version of IS from the Tamron variant.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 10:49 UTC as 92nd comment | 1 reply
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1392 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Try switching back and forth between the RAW and the JPG images for the new high resolution mode. The E-M5 MKII looks so much better in JPG mode while the Nikon 810 looks so much better in RAW mode.

This really makes me think that the processing for this high resolution mode is much more important than it is for the lower resolution single exposure modes.

The E-M5 MKII looks very similar to the Nikon 810 in jpg mode. The benefit of the high resolution combined images is very apparent in the jpg images. However, the RAW mode almost looks like the editing software applied way too much noise reduction or just couldn't figure out how to process the massive image.

I am going to reserve judgement on the new high res mode until the full review comes out.

I think that is just because in RAW it is 63mp. If you resampled it to 40mp it would be just as sharp. Also I think those RAW images would take PP and sharpening well. I always make images look very soft out of RAW converters for doing PP. The 63mp RAW images may visually look soft, but all the detail is there. You only have to sharpen and adjust the contrast, and they would look much sharper.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 12:59 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1392 comments in total)
In reply to:

Couscousdelight: The H-res mode is not impressive at all... pretty disapointing.
http://tof.canardpc.com/view/e426f924-0969-4b13-9827-da97dc9afe54.jpg

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-ii/7

Whilst the RAW looks soft at 63mp, I think if you resampled it to the 36mp of the D800, it would look just as sharp. Plus whilst the RAW looks soft, there's plenty of detail there, no moire, and if you applied sharpening, I think it would look pretty impressive. Actually for post-processing a soft unsharpened image is best.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 11:27 UTC
In reply to:

SteB: I think the fact that Nike paid rights to the original image, and they both involved Michael Jordan in a very similar mid-air pose - says that undoubtedly the second image was almost completely inspired by the first.

With a set-up shot like this, the idea is everything. I'm no legal person, and the way legal thinking works at times baffles me. However, in moral and ethical terns, I think the image Nike later shot, was definitely wholly inspired by the idea in the first shot. Therefore as the image has been used as a logo for such a successful line, I think that morally Nike owes a debt to the original photographer.

To me there is far more of a definite link between these 2 images, than there is between many songs that have been legally acknowledged as being the origin of later song ideas.

@NetMage Replicating the exact pose in a peak of action shot would be very difficult. No matter how many times you re-shot it, some part of the pose i.e. the body would likely be in a slightly different position.

I don't doubt that Nike were probably after improving the image for use as a logo. However, clearly this whole idea was based on the original image, which Nike had licensed at first.

If the first shot has just been a reportage type action shot, then the photographer would not have much claim to the idea. But if you look at how it was shot, it was a carefully contrived set up shot, and even the basketball hoop was erected specially for the shot. Michael Jordan was asked to adopt that pose beforehand, and it is not his natural style. In other words the whole shot was carefully conceived, and yet Nike seemed to have appropriated an idea, which was clearly not their's.
http://www.oregonlive.com/playbooks-profits/index.ssf/2015/01/photographer_claims_nikes_jord.html

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2015 at 00:20 UTC
In reply to:

SteB: I think the fact that Nike paid rights to the original image, and they both involved Michael Jordan in a very similar mid-air pose - says that undoubtedly the second image was almost completely inspired by the first.

With a set-up shot like this, the idea is everything. I'm no legal person, and the way legal thinking works at times baffles me. However, in moral and ethical terns, I think the image Nike later shot, was definitely wholly inspired by the idea in the first shot. Therefore as the image has been used as a logo for such a successful line, I think that morally Nike owes a debt to the original photographer.

To me there is far more of a definite link between these 2 images, than there is between many songs that have been legally acknowledged as being the origin of later song ideas.

@Ozyxy Did you actually carefully read the Wikipedia article you linked to? Essentially it supports the point I made. It explains that this style of appropriation usually "recontextualizes" the original. Whereas here the attempt was most clearly to recreate or replicate the original, not to recontextualize it.

You notice in the discussion about copyright and the law, that it all revolves around whether the appropriation is "transformative" i.e. whether it creates an original new work, or whether it's just essentially a copy.

In this instance there is nothing that is transformative. It is of the same person, doing the same thing, and trying to create the same highly unusual pose of that person, that the original photographer directed and asked for. Whilst there are slight differences in pose, it's an action pose which would be impossible to exactly replicate. That it's so similar, and the peak of action is almost identical, demonstrates Nike were trying to replicate the original.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 10:10 UTC

I think the fact that Nike paid rights to the original image, and they both involved Michael Jordan in a very similar mid-air pose - says that undoubtedly the second image was almost completely inspired by the first.

With a set-up shot like this, the idea is everything. I'm no legal person, and the way legal thinking works at times baffles me. However, in moral and ethical terns, I think the image Nike later shot, was definitely wholly inspired by the idea in the first shot. Therefore as the image has been used as a logo for such a successful line, I think that morally Nike owes a debt to the original photographer.

To me there is far more of a definite link between these 2 images, than there is between many songs that have been legally acknowledged as being the origin of later song ideas.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 01:55 UTC as 54th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Sixpm: Just received this lens yesterday, it's amazing money for what it can do, the only thing that bugs me is the amount of distortion that is not corrected. I've used the distortion correction program on the Sony A7II and this removed almost all of it, meaning distortion correction is required during processing in Photoshop.

All that said, the sharpness at full aperture is comparable to Nikon 60mm at f2.8 and f8. The bokeh however is much better than the Nikon at f2.8, it's creamy and can be used as a portrait lens. It will work with A7II as a full frame with small amount of vignette which some may like because it creates drama. It can focus right down to 2:1 with great sharpness when stop down from full aperture.

Overall a very capable lens for the money.

Thanks for the input from experience. Is this distortion at longer focus distances, or is it in the close-up/macro region?

My other question is about the extension. Is it fairly wobble free, and how much does it extend?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2015 at 12:06 UTC
Total: 116, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »