nathanleebush: Am I crazy or is there not more barrel distortion with the adapter? Nobody seems to be talking about that. The aspect ratio is the same, but the image seems to warp more.
Its hard to tell with the samples provided...but I think I might see some distortion but not so much that could not easily be fixed in Photoshop.
Isit13: I've understood the maximum speed for a lens is dependent on the rear element diameter vs the sensor distance?
If so, this means you cannot get any magical low size number mounting a version of this with a f/1.2 Noct Nikkor?
If you take the same amount of light that covers a large area and redirect it so it covers a smaller area, you now have the same amount of lightconcentrated in a smallers space, which makes it brighter.
Its kind of like using a spotlight which uses a lens to adjust the size of the spot...the smaller the spot of light the brighter it become.
All this lens does is add one more element of refraction to the light path, bending it so as to turn a wide cone of light that covers the larger sensor area into a narrow cone of light that just covers the smaller sensor.
This not only concentrates the light making it brighter but also compresses the image so that the part of the image that would lie outside the sensor is now inside.
I think the fact that it compresses the angle of projection and enables the full field of view to be projected onto a smaller sensor is FAR more interesting and usefull than its brighteness boosting function.
Dvlee: Some years ago i worked for a studio that had a room full of vintage gear. There was a kit of old large format lenses that had interchangable rear elements that screwed onto the back of the shutter module. These elements enabled the the same lens to be used for 8x10 and 4x5 with exactly the same field of view. They seemed to work as well on other lenses that shared the same shutter module.
In 2002, when I first learned about the APS-C crop factor, I had opportunity to ask an optical designer if it was possible that such an element could be built into lenses for APS-C to compenste for crop factor so that the lens would have the same field of view on APS-C.
He explained, not only is it possible, it is the same principle that used in zoom lenses.
We all know that to focus a lens, al we are doing is moving the lens in relation to the film/sensor plane. Lookthe rear element of a prime lens and you'll see it move in and out as you turn the focus ring.(Continues in REPLY)
If you look at a zoom lens you'll see the rear element stays still during focusing but moves while zooming in and out. He explained that the rear element(s) in a zoom plays an important role in the spread(coverage) of the cone of light which determines the magnification of the image. The lens elements that actually focus the lens are in front of the rear element(s). So in essence the rear element in a zoom lens is a built in tele/wide angle converter.
There really is no reason why a lens element to do this cannot be designed right into the lens.
So why don't they do this? It's a matter of economics. It's easier to design and manufacture the lenses without having to deal with an added element . Most APS-C cameras are designed to be smaller, lighter and less expensive than full frame lenses and the lenses need to mirror that design philosophy.
But it is possible and it would be better to have it specifically designed for a particular lens and built in than to use an adaptor.
Some years ago i worked for a studio that had a room full of vintage gear. There was a kit of old large format lenses that had interchangable rear elements that screwed onto the back of the shutter module. These elements enabled the the same lens to be used for 8x10 and 4x5 with exactly the same field of view. They seemed to work as well on other lenses that shared the same shutter module.
Suave: A used Galaxy s2 off craigslist was $120, DSLRController was $10, and now I can control not "some" but pretty much any function of my camera.
DSLR Controller has alot of the features I look for .
But even though my new smart phone was a very recent product at the time, out of the box the version of Android it came loaded with was obsolete. Even if I upgraded to the newst possible version the phone would accept, I would have to root the phone for DSLR Controller, something I was not willing to do.
DLR Controller does not have much backward compatibility.
Does it have Live View, touch focus capability like DSLR Controller does?
Deleted pending purge: Retro look, cameras looking the way they don't have to any more, funny colors, cheap(er) copies... but not much of what the end users wish. And while manufacturers should pay more attention to users, it seems their ideas come from the sources which, I think, are quite distant from its buying public. Too large percentage of "new" comes from juggling the old, anyway.In the end, we never get exactly what we want, rather what's a bit closer to what we want, from among what we can choose...
It's like fashion...retro is in. Colors are in. People have grown tired of white/gray/beige/black devices. Maybe it's not what you want but other people do.
There are lots of people who like retro, funny colors. Frankly,I've grown bored with bland white/beige/gray/silver/black colors schemes for devices. But that's me and I'm not you.
I'm sure there's something out there you like. In fact the choices are so overwhelming it's hard to choose just one without feeling like I'm missing out on something . That's life! Always been that way and always will be!
Keep in mind these are devices being shown at the CONSUMER electronics show, not a professional photographers show.
However, I have to disagree that they are not paying attention to what end users want. These devices may not reflect your wants, but they do reflect what other consumers want. These companies are not as stupid as you may think, and they will sell billions of dollars of this junk.
Superka: landscape photographers would laugh at this "technique". Too many limitations. I was trying to make panoramas with panoramic heads. I have Nodal Ninja 5, bought for this! But it just a non-sense! It is slow to setup, slow to shoot, no viewfinder, no long exposures, moving objects always present! Now I have 6x17 panoramic camera which gives me 160 Mpx at one shot! Perfect 160Mpx! And I often shoot hand held!!!! My camera, Gaoersi 617 was made in China and costs 940$+450 for the Fuji SW 90/8 super wide lens.All this stuff, like FF digital, TS-E lenses costs so much, that you can easy buy good scanner (imacon or Nikon) and have beautiful film colors and 13-stop Dynamic range (with Kodak Ektar).
Oh..one more thing...$940 for camera plus $450 for lens comes to $1390. I paid $1299 for a tilt shift lens. I don't include the camera in that cost because I already have the camera which I use a lot for all kinds of photography, not just landscapes. Plus the tilt shift lens gives me the special functionality for which it was designed.
A tilt shift lens is a far more flexible tool than a specialized film camera and does not incur the additional cost of film and processing.
I've used 617s and I shot Technical Pans B&W film which enabled me to make phenominally large and beautiful prints. I have to agree with you that a 617 can deliver beautiful images..but it is old school technology and outside of the scope of interest of DP Review.
Years ago I used the Fuljfilm 617, which was a nice portable alternative to a 5x7camera. But if portability is not an issue than it would be cheaper to buy an old 5x7. The advantage with an actual view camera compared to the 617s is the flexibility of movements that allow the full range of movements controlling focus, field of view and perspective(distortion). Plus you have more room for cropping to reposition the horizontal lines.
But I think the point of the article is about using tilt/shift lens as a DIGITAL alternative to a large format field camera and as an alternative to using a panoramic head.
In the transition from film to digital I first abandoned the darkroom but coninued to shoot 4x5 film and scanning the negs before eventually abandoning film altogether.
Scanning film is so 20th century. So is spotting dust specks, and the expense of film and processing. that more than offsets any savings over a tilt shift.
BSHolland: I'm a bit confused about 500px Terms of Service, with regards to licensing & sublicensing. (English is not my mother tongue).
500px claim the "right to sublicense". But only "in connection with the Services".From my understanding, sub licensing is only necessary when it is NOT in connection with the services.
So what's the point in phrasing it like that?
Even those of us who speak English as our first language are asking that question.
klopus: Since it's a paid photo hosting, marketing and sales site what makes it different from SmugMug or Zenofolio both of which are also targeted to "serious" photography?
The terms of Service make it different.
While the sidebar says ". We will protect the copyright and will not sell your photos without your permission.” the terms of service imply that by the mere act of posting content to 500px, you are giving them that permission. Like most of the other photo display sites, they make it a point to say they are not claiming the copyright, but they are claiming what is essentially unlimited usage with the right to sublicense.
Zenfolio does not do that.
While YOU can sell photos on 500PX, the terms of service imply that 500PX is claiming the right to sell your images through some other portal...say an independent photo stock service?? If you had discovered that 500px had sold your work to a third party, by virtue of the terms of service, you would have no recourse to sue 500PX. Not only do the terms of service feature the standard usage rights grab, it also includes a waiver of your right to sue 500px for any reason whatsoever!
This issue does not address the question of model releases. When we post images of people on instagram and facebook, we do so under the assumption that the images are only being posted for personal usage...sharing with others, and not for commercial usage.
If facebook uses any image of people for promotional purposes, they are doing so without model releases.
The facebook/instagram terms of service do not require that users have model releases from all persons whose likenesses are posted on those services. They cannot absolve themselves of the liability, or transfer the responsibility for releases onto the persons who posted the pictures for non commercial use. The user(photographer) owns the copyright to the image but if the person in the photo has not signed a release neither facebook/Instagram nor the user has the right to assume or grant permission for the use of their likeness for commercial purposes.
Najinsky: Storm meet teacup.
Instagram allows you to share your images with others. That costs money; servers, storage, bandwidth, people. Money doesn't magically appear where needed and has to be raised.
In raising money they want to showcase their product, which incorporates your images and the community surrounding them.
It's really easy.
What's really hard it making wording to describe it to the satisfaction of the litigious hoards and conspiracy theorists. And with good reason, because when a business get granted a right, whether intentionally or by accident, history tells us it may one day suit it to exploit that right to the max.
The fees they would have to pay for images to use in their ads and promotions would be an insignificant amount in proportion to their other operating expenses and earnings.
Other companies that have much smaller earnings and tighter profit margins pay substantial amounts for photography. The photography aspect is just a small portion of their advertising costs.
Look at the numbers for 2011:
Facebook-3.71 billion in sales/revenue 1 billion net income
Canon-45 Billion in net sales 4.8 billion net income (pretax)
Epson-11.7 billion in sales 123 million in net income
When facebook purchased Instagram , Instagram had 13 employees. Its operating expenses are practically nonexistant compared to Canon (197,000 employees), Epson (80,000 employees) and even the parent company facebook, which only employs some 3000 employees.
facebook/Instagram can afford to pay for the photos they use in their ads.
Photomonkey: Kind of fun to watch people get outraged about TOS on a free service. Also fun to see business people try to figure out how to make money with their free service without enraging the users.
They provide the platform but the users provide the actual content that makes the platform interesting to people. Facebook and Instagram do not create their own content, we do it for them.
They sell the information they gather on us to advertisers who use it to advertise to a target demographic. This is a more efficient and cost effective method of advertising.
case in point: On Pinterest I created a board on Mid Century Modern furniture. Almost immediately I start seeing ads for Mid Century Modern Furniture on facebook, Yahoo, just about any site I go to that has ads. The information we provide them is a valuable commodity to advertisers.
So we may not have to pay for those services, but we give them something valuable in exchange. Yahoo, fb and Google have made billions this way, as did TV and radio for many decades before the web. They don't need to claim usage rights to get a fair exchange for the service they provide.
It looks like we got their attention!
But we have yet to see how Instagrams revised terms play out. Will they quell the public uproar? Or will they just try to introduce more ambiguous wording that leaves us scratching our heads?
I'm afraid however the the erosion of user intellectual property rights will be like the rise in gas prices: up a dollar, the public complains, down seventy five sents, the public feels relief, then up a dollar...after a while gas hits $6 a gallon we'll be happy to see the price drop to $5.25!!
Likewise these "social networking" ,or digital image display sites may announce unacceptable terms , then, in response to user complaints, revise them to make it appear that they have backed off, when in fact, they have advanced their encroachment on IP rights.
We have to be diligent about these changes and stand by a Zero Tolerance policy. In fact we should demand they rescind all usage claims other than what is needed to display content as the users intended.
chiumeister: Just watermark everything you post on Instagram and other sites.
Watermarking is like branding your beautiful wife's face so other men won't look at her.
whyamihere: I'm thoroughly enjoying the public freakout now that the legal language that has represented this service (and others) is being phrased in terms that normal people can understand.
Since it's part of my job to read the complete ToS for many apps and services, none of this is surprising at all to me.
One of these days, you'll all learn to read the agreements instead of hastily clicking the 'I Agree' or 'Ok' button. In this case, any service that offers to relocate your data for ease of access reserves the right to use, change, or delete your data. It's still yours, but you don't have as much control over what happens to it once that data hits their servers without their consent. That's how it works, and that's how it has always worked.
Most individuals do not understand copyrights and usage agreement. They don't realize that photographers can grant all kinds of usage agreements from very specifically defined restrictive single use agreements to unlimited agreements that allow the client to publish anywhere with no time limitation.
Even the unlimited usage agreement does not normally grant the client the right to sell or relicense the image to a third party.
The typical ToS agreement goes above and beyond what is required by the service to publish and archive the content. They claim the right to relicense the content but to what end? Why else would they need that right other than to acquire free access to content that they can relicense for profit?
Anyone who has ever had to write a usage contract should be able to understand the terms in ToS contracts..if they would only take the time to read them.
Peter K Burian: It amazes me that a company like this would have the nerve to try this. Granted, 95% of the photos are snapshots but that is not the point.
Good point. The quality of the images does not alter the matter of ownership and copyright. If we allow this to slide, then we are opening the door to more aggregious rights grabs.
Still, I might say that I have seen some very good...and marketable, content posted on other sites that are subject to the same terms.
When pressed for an explaination, many of the services claim they need the right to publish the image in order to achieve the normal operation of the site.
I've been on four sides of the image usage relationship: photo lab printer, copy technician, photo buyer for a publication and as the photographer and copyright holder of the image.
As a printer and copy tech. all I needed was proof of permission to reproduce the image. I did not want to be party to unauthorized reproduction.
As a photo buyer, usage agreements clearly defined how the images would be used, number of imprints and for how long. Payment was made accordingly.
facebook and friends do not need unlimited usage in order to post the content in the manner the user intended. All that is needed is proof the user has permission to use and publish the content. The do not need unlimited usage rights to protect themselves from liability.They just want free access to content they can sell for profit.
frankmv: Never opened an account with Instagram...and now I never will. Further, I've deleted the app from my iPhone. I'll take a much harder look at Flickr and other similar social media (read "sharing") sites. I may just swear off them all...
@ Franka T L...You might want to take another look at filckr's ToS. Saying they do not claim owneship of the copyright is not the same thing as not claiming unrestricted usage of the image.
Many sites make that claim, but effectively claim all the rights that a copyright provides, except exclusivity.
There is another term for what they claim: "unlimited usage" Unlimited usage does not transfer the copyright to the buyer , it just allows them to use it in any way, for as long as they want, including reselling the image.
But even with unlimited usage, the photographer still retains the right to license or sell the image to other parties. The photographer still retains ownership, but allows the other party to relicense or use the image in a manner outside of what is required for the operation of the site.
What these ToS agreements are claiming is unlimited usage, but not ownership of the copyright. But for all intents and purposes, they own the image.