ProfHankD

ProfHankD

Lives in United States Lexington, United States
Works as a Professor
Has a website at http://aggregate.org/hankd/
Joined on Mar 27, 2008
About me:

Plan: to change the way people think about and use cameras by taking advantage of cameras as computing systems; engineering camera systems to provide new abilities and improved quality.

Comments

Total: 405, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

No pun intended, but this is old news. ;-)

Multiple such projects have been discussed before in DPReview forums, and the DIY forum really doesn't provide any better mechanism for giving details of such projects or browsing them -- a well-indexed DIY user article mechanism would make more sense than a DIY forum. DIY instructions are either omitted or posted at other sites -- as I've been doing for years, mostly in the Sony NEX forum. For example, here are two 2012 Instructables, both introduced in the NEX forum, explaining how I made a mount for my NEX-5 to be used as a digital back on an old 4x5 ( http://www.instructables.com/id/Large-Format-Adapter-For-Your-Mirrorless-Camera/ ) and how to make custom lensboards including one that can take SLR lenses ( http://www.instructables.com/id/Custom-Lensboards-For-A-Large-Format-Camera/ ).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2014 at 13:04 UTC as 42nd comment | 1 reply

Several comments:

1. Bad that the default scene area is lit very differently in the shots (somebody turned on/off some lights)....

2. The 5DIII does ok, but keeps underexposing more at higher ISOs. Shadow regions are pure noise in the 5DIII images by 102K. Still, pretty comparable to the A7R at higher ISOs, with the A7S modestly better.

3. The Sony JPEGs are better than the Canon -- less noise and better detail. Not sure when Canon fell behind on this, but there they are.

I really don't care much about this. Photon shot noise, granularity of the light itself, ensures IQ will be lousy at these ISOs even with 100% quantum efficiency. There just are not enough photons to get a reliable sampling of the scene. Put another way, the biggest IQ improvement at these ISOs will come from sophisticated computational methods for reconstructing credible image content replacing "dumb" raw processing. Higher resolution with computational processing should favor the A7R....

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 18:47 UTC as 86th comment
In reply to:

BarnET: "Developed using the company’s unparalleled optical expertise, the EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM features Canon’s powerful optical Image Stabilizer and STM technology to deliver outstanding levels of detail when shooting stills and movies."

What does an AF motor and stabilisation system have to do with optical expertise and outstanding level of details.

Mechanics are something different then optics. Would someone be kind enough to explain this to the canon marketing idiot before he writes a stupid press release again!

Canon's expertise that allows them to copy a Sony lens a mere two years later. ;-) Wow, I'm impressed.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 07:53 UTC
In reply to:

Dave Luttmann: Equivalent to 39mp....same nonsense from Sigma with inflated rez numbers.

The Foveon sensors have luminance info at every pixel, so it starts with a superior monochrome image (although a B&W test chart essentially gives luminance for a Bayer filter at every pixel too -- resolution is color dependent). However, the differencing process used by Foveon to recover the colors is a little dicey, so colors can be weak, noisy, and somewhat wrong.

Still not clear which tech, if either one (actually, I suspect neither), wins overall in the longer term....

Direct link | Posted on Jun 15, 2014 at 08:31 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 First Impressions Review preview (1282 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Quite good IQ against other 1" sensors. When you compare to an APS-C body, this isn't as good at 100 as the A6000 is at 1600... and the A6000 isn't bigger nor more expensive (actually, the FF A7 is smaller than the FZ1000). The FZ1000 lens is fast and long, as the smaller sensor permits....

In sum, it's a very good camera, looks more than equal to the Sony RX10, but I'm not a compact user looking for a DSLR-size-and-shape camera without the IQ benefits. Is that really a big market?

This is a superzoom... good ones have been around forever. For example, my old Sony F828 (which I still sometimes use for NIR). I'm just less impressed now that Sony and others are fitting bigger, better, sensors into mirrorless cameras that can compete on size, price, and ease of use. Heck, even some tiny compacts now have zoom ranges we would have considered superzooms a few years ago. I just see this market shrinking....

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2014 at 12:34 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: FWIW:
I'm not sure about the plastic bags thing because Panasonic suggests "...Do not leave in contact with rubber or plastic bags." noticed after I bought a Pana couple years ago.

BTW:
I put my lenses in plastic bag for years, and they are seems ok so far. May be I should not.

Two issues with plastic:

1. Many plastics, especially softened vinyls used in soft picnic coolers, outgas material that can redeposit on everything -- including all unsealed surfaces inside your lenses. Never use such plastic cases for long-term storage or when heat may accelerate the process.

2. The process the video recommends assumes that the air trapped in the bag has lower humidity than the ambient environment during the temperature change -- that's very often wrong. For example, entering an air-conditioned hotel room with your equipment sealed in a bag full of humid air from outside is not so good. It can still help in that it delays the temperature change a bit, but that's the real key: avoid hitting the dew point by any combination of reducing humidity and smoothing temperature changes.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2014 at 08:39 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 First Impressions Review preview (1282 comments in total)

Quite good IQ against other 1" sensors. When you compare to an APS-C body, this isn't as good at 100 as the A6000 is at 1600... and the A6000 isn't bigger nor more expensive (actually, the FF A7 is smaller than the FZ1000). The FZ1000 lens is fast and long, as the smaller sensor permits....

In sum, it's a very good camera, looks more than equal to the Sony RX10, but I'm not a compact user looking for a DSLR-size-and-shape camera without the IQ benefits. Is that really a big market?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2014 at 15:13 UTC as 225th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

RichRMA: Buy 2, 3 terabyte hard drives for $150. One for images, one for back-up. To heck with the "cloud" and the hackers.

Don't feel bad about "only" 100+ GB... be happy that you could reasonably just not reuse SD cards, thus giving a nice backup. ;-)

I take a lot of photos, and I have a fleet of cameras continuously taking photos under computer control. In sum, 6TB isn't a normal need. That said, wait a couple of years for when everybody is shooting and editing uncompressed 4K video....

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 13:37 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: Buy 2, 3 terabyte hard drives for $150. One for images, one for back-up. To heck with the "cloud" and the hackers.

160GB? My working set is about 6TB. Like I said, a bunch of cheap multi-TB drives is a very good deal. I actually have a Synology 20TB NAS at home (and much scarier stuff at work).

But back to my primary comment above: it is arguably ILLEGAL to use external cloud storage for things like photos of foster kids.I haven't heard of any prosecutions for cloud storage use yet, but be warned....

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 09:12 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: Buy 2, 3 terabyte hard drives for $150. One for images, one for back-up. To heck with the "cloud" and the hackers.

Physically remote backups are a good idea, but cloud storage is not always an answer. For example, photos of foster kids are legally required to NOT be posted on the internet, even at a "private" site... which is arguably what cloud storage is. Cheap multi-TB drives are a pretty good investment....

Of course, Canon's service is nothing new or special (sadly, rather like their cameras of late).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2014 at 11:20 UTC
On Sony a6000 Review preview (714 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: I can't believe that this is rated 3% lower than a Canon 70D, etc., but you'll notice the only non-subjective con is about flash exposure. "Lens range not as developed as rival systems" -- you mean like the EOS-M system? I suppose only about 25 of my 130+ lenses would quickly autofocus on an A6000.... ;-)

This is a disturbingly good camera at a very good price. Take a look at the IQ side-by-side against the full-frame A7. I'd buy one immediately except I have a NEX-7, an A7, and a wife who'd be unhappy if I bought another camera right now.

I don't have or want any f/2.8 or faster zoom I've seen. If I did, the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Lens for Sony Alpha will AF nicely using my LA-EA2/4. BHPhoto lists 40 lens choices in Fuji X mount, but 57 in E and another 7 in FE... and then there's the hundreds in Sony A mount that fast autofocus with any E/FE body using the Sony adapter... including a bunch of f/2.8 zooms. Although I PREFER manual, fixed-focal-length, lenses for everything but ultrawide....

Basically, E/FE can fast AF more lenses than any other mount and takes as many manual lenses as any other mount. Really hard to complain about that. Do you own 130 lenses that you can use with your camera? Did you pay a total of less than $3000 for those 130+ lenses? I do and did. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2014 at 12:14 UTC
On Sony a6000 Review preview (714 comments in total)

I can't believe that this is rated 3% lower than a Canon 70D, etc., but you'll notice the only non-subjective con is about flash exposure. "Lens range not as developed as rival systems" -- you mean like the EOS-M system? I suppose only about 25 of my 130+ lenses would quickly autofocus on an A6000.... ;-)

This is a disturbingly good camera at a very good price. Take a look at the IQ side-by-side against the full-frame A7. I'd buy one immediately except I have a NEX-7, an A7, and a wife who'd be unhappy if I bought another camera right now.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2014 at 11:32 UTC as 153rd comment | 17 replies
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Slow news day? This is two film-only items in a row.... ;-)

At least the IR false color in the previous article makes the foliage red, which I suppose adds to the violent content? Here, as davidrm said below, only image 1 (and the shoes in 14) have that anachronistic flair. In fact, the wet plate processing seems a little sloppy; a newly-processed wet plate shouldn't have yellow splotches -- insufficient fixing? At least I didn't have that problem when I tried homemade emulsions back in the 1970s....

I guess my overall impression of both these stories is sadness that using film, and not using it particularly well, is apparently in itself newsworthy now.

Superior? My darkroom technique was never sloppy, but I was far from the most sophisticated about photochemistry. My dad introduced me to custom emulsions for making plates for offset printing, making nameplates (photos on metal), and circuit-board etching. There were lots of folks doing custom emulsions in the 1970s, and even more who made their own "soups" for processing.

Looking at Keys web site, I will say that DPReview didn't pick the most interesting shots. He has some portraits that have more of an anachronistic feel. Still, there are a lot of photographers doing "old timey" things and this just doesn't feel that newsworthy -- especially for a web site about digital photography.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2014 at 15:02 UTC

Slow news day? This is two film-only items in a row.... ;-)

At least the IR false color in the previous article makes the foliage red, which I suppose adds to the violent content? Here, as davidrm said below, only image 1 (and the shoes in 14) have that anachronistic flair. In fact, the wet plate processing seems a little sloppy; a newly-processed wet plate shouldn't have yellow splotches -- insufficient fixing? At least I didn't have that problem when I tried homemade emulsions back in the 1970s....

I guess my overall impression of both these stories is sadness that using film, and not using it particularly well, is apparently in itself newsworthy now.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2014 at 12:21 UTC as 34th comment | 3 replies
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2979 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Well, the IQ for the studio test scene at lower ISOs is virtually identical to the APS-C Sony A3000, but by ISO 800 there's a clear difference favoring the A3000. Still, not bad. I'd rather go with an A6000, which is about the same price as the RX100M III....

The Canon G1 X Mark II does worse than the RX100M III on low ISO (less sharp, but with halos from oversharpening). It's about the same on higher ISOs as the RX100 III, but looks cleaner because it is a lot less "painterly" (less raw color noise, weaker JPEG smoothing).

"And at ISO 800 on the RX you'll be reaching for ISO 3200 on the a6000/a3000 etc with kit lens."

Not a problem. Using the studio test scene above, 3200 on the A3000 is marginally cleaner than 800 on the RX III.

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2014 at 13:08 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2979 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Well, the IQ for the studio test scene at lower ISOs is virtually identical to the APS-C Sony A3000, but by ISO 800 there's a clear difference favoring the A3000. Still, not bad. I'd rather go with an A6000, which is about the same price as the RX100M III....

The Canon G1 X Mark II does worse than the RX100M III on low ISO (less sharp, but with halos from oversharpening). It's about the same on higher ISOs as the RX100 III, but looks cleaner because it is a lot less "painterly" (less raw color noise, weaker JPEG smoothing).

Well, actually, I have a NEX-5, NEX-7, and A7 with over 130 lenses from 8mm to 500mm... so I think I've got that covered. ;-)

I don't have the 16-50mm, but I don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be. It simply was designed trading raw quality for size, but the corrected JPEGs don't look all that bad. Put another way, I've seen far worse lenses that people say good things about....

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2014 at 12:16 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2979 comments in total)

Well, the IQ for the studio test scene at lower ISOs is virtually identical to the APS-C Sony A3000, but by ISO 800 there's a clear difference favoring the A3000. Still, not bad. I'd rather go with an A6000, which is about the same price as the RX100M III....

The Canon G1 X Mark II does worse than the RX100M III on low ISO (less sharp, but with halos from oversharpening). It's about the same on higher ISOs as the RX100 III, but looks cleaner because it is a lot less "painterly" (less raw color noise, weaker JPEG smoothing).

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2014 at 10:57 UTC as 341st comment | 5 replies
On Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art Lab Test Review preview (545 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Nikon and Sony have higher-resolution sensors (36MP). I think that's more appropriate for testing this type of lens than a 22MP Canon, which it basically outresolves. There are quite a few lenses that do really well at 24MP FF, but this SIgma is one of the few that seems to be ready for 36MP FF and beyond.

Incidentally, undercorrected SA is the standard way to get nice bokeh; it's good to see Sigma getting nice bokeh without the SA most fast 50s deliberately have....

DPReview basically says they can't tell how good the lens is using current Canons because it's sensor limited -- it probably will not be on future Canons, or on a Sony A7R right now. It would be a better test even if nobody would use it on an A7R.

The Sony native lens may well be better than this Sigma. Your argument is essentially that there are enough Canon users suffering Canon's inferior optics so that testing this lens just for them is top priority. That is not an argument I've heard a Canon user give before.... ;-)

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 12:16 UTC
On Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art Lab Test Review preview (545 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Nikon and Sony have higher-resolution sensors (36MP). I think that's more appropriate for testing this type of lens than a 22MP Canon, which it basically outresolves. There are quite a few lenses that do really well at 24MP FF, but this SIgma is one of the few that seems to be ready for 36MP FF and beyond.

Incidentally, undercorrected SA is the standard way to get nice bokeh; it's good to see Sigma getting nice bokeh without the SA most fast 50s deliberately have....

If the product isn't yet available even as a pre-release to the press, what's the rush to review it? There are lots of worthy bits of equipment that are on the market for 6+ months before DPReview takes a first look. If DPReview didn't want to wait, they could simply have added a quick test of the Canon-mount lens on a Sony A7R (which is a combo plenty of people will care about).

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 10:31 UTC
On Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art Lab Test Review preview (545 comments in total)

Nikon and Sony have higher-resolution sensors (36MP). I think that's more appropriate for testing this type of lens than a 22MP Canon, which it basically outresolves. There are quite a few lenses that do really well at 24MP FF, but this SIgma is one of the few that seems to be ready for 36MP FF and beyond.

Incidentally, undercorrected SA is the standard way to get nice bokeh; it's good to see Sigma getting nice bokeh without the SA most fast 50s deliberately have....

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 04:03 UTC as 54th comment | 6 replies
Total: 405, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »