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: 625, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Lensbaby introduces Velvet 56mm f/1.6 article (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

AlexisH: Interesting, but rather expensive. It's good that they provided close focusing besides the soft focus effect.

I agree. A lot of old "fast 50s" lens options that I doubt they could better for normal focus distances, but very little that goes to 1:2 (macro) magnification.

There was a 60mm macro that was sort of like this, but versions of it are quite rare. Still, my old Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 macro is a pretty hard act to follow, and about 1/6 the cost.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 21:38 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: I hate to say it, but this doesn't look as good as my A-mount Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-f/5.6 Macro D Aspherical IF, which cost me less than $20 and works great using an LA-EA2/4 on my NEX-7, A7, and A7II. The colors are better here, but everything else favors that old Sigma, and the Sigma even pulls off quite good sharpness on the NEX-7's 24MP APS-C sensor... which doesn't look so likely for this lens. It would be nice to have some 24MP APS-C (e.g., A6000) shots with this lens to compare... I assume the complete test will check both FF and APS-C?

A-mount lenses on the LA-EA4 do tell the A7II what focal length they are at... just as they do on native A-mount bodies. You only need to manually enter the focal length for unchipped lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 21:28 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: I hate to say it, but this doesn't look as good as my A-mount Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-f/5.6 Macro D Aspherical IF, which cost me less than $20 and works great using an LA-EA2/4 on my NEX-7, A7, and A7II. The colors are better here, but everything else favors that old Sigma, and the Sigma even pulls off quite good sharpness on the NEX-7's 24MP APS-C sensor... which doesn't look so likely for this lens. It would be nice to have some 24MP APS-C (e.g., A6000) shots with this lens to compare... I assume the complete test will check both FF and APS-C?

Petroglyph: This Sony is, the Sigma 28-200mm isn't. Sir Punk was asking how you deal with using the Sigma instead. Incidentally, because Sony A-mount bodies all have IBIS, most A-mount lenses don't have OSS, so this issue generally applies to using most A-mount lenses on Sony E/FE bodies.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 14:49 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: I hate to say it, but this doesn't look as good as my A-mount Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-f/5.6 Macro D Aspherical IF, which cost me less than $20 and works great using an LA-EA2/4 on my NEX-7, A7, and A7II. The colors are better here, but everything else favors that old Sigma, and the Sigma even pulls off quite good sharpness on the NEX-7's 24MP APS-C sensor... which doesn't look so likely for this lens. It would be nice to have some 24MP APS-C (e.g., A6000) shots with this lens to compare... I assume the complete test will check both FF and APS-C?

Sir Punk: 3 answers:
1. Most camera+lens combos don't have IS.
2. Sony's multi-shot anti-blur works quite well when needed.
3. I own an A7II.
The best answer is #3. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 10:48 UTC

I hate to say it, but this doesn't look as good as my A-mount Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-f/5.6 Macro D Aspherical IF, which cost me less than $20 and works great using an LA-EA2/4 on my NEX-7, A7, and A7II. The colors are better here, but everything else favors that old Sigma, and the Sigma even pulls off quite good sharpness on the NEX-7's 24MP APS-C sensor... which doesn't look so likely for this lens. It would be nice to have some 24MP APS-C (e.g., A6000) shots with this lens to compare... I assume the complete test will check both FF and APS-C?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 02:23 UTC as 11th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Bowerbird: To suggest that you can use the app for taking photos of plant growing if fine if you are on gardening leave and don't need to use you mobile phone for ... phoning.

For the record, I own Apple stock. Please do buy iPhones for the sole purpose of having them control timelapse cameras... the more the merrier! ;-) At least leonche64 got my original point.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 17:47 UTC
In reply to:

Bowerbird: To suggest that you can use the app for taking photos of plant growing if fine if you are on gardening leave and don't need to use you mobile phone for ... phoning.

Well, the iPhone has never been that good at phone calls anyway. ;-) Still, it's a very expensive device to leave dedicated to long-term timelapse control. A $40 Android tablet would be a lot easier to justify, but this is for IOS only? There are also dedicated timelapse controllers that are cheaper than this app.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 04:06 UTC
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (785 comments in total)
In reply to:

blue_skies: I don't like commenting here, but I do want to point out, per the many other threads about this,
- that the FW used was 1.10, and not 1.20 (which does fix a number of things),
- that RAW capture was done in 'fast' mode, i.e. fewer bits, either due to bracketing, or continuous shooting mode, and
- that it appears that IBIS was left on (per the EXIF) while using a tripod.

If any or all true, the captured examples are not representative.

A simple question: same sensor in A7 and A7ii? Perhaps, but the results don't seem to indicate this. The sensor topping is different, as sensor reflections are way down (I have both A7 and A7ii).

Also, the video wrt/ focus tracking being poor seems to be a user setting issue. I can make it behave like that and make it go away, by simply changing the settings and/or control the camera movements.

I don't think that this is a bad review, but the camera was not handled by an experienced Sony user - I see a number of 'operator error' mistakes.

Rishi, I'm on your side here. While I don't think any of the issues with the A7II are particularly severe in practice, and perhaps the review does have a bit of the "hunting for bad things to say" feel, I don't think there are any major problems with the review, and I appreciate that you're trying to put more meat in the review body.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 1, 2015 at 12:43 UTC
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (785 comments in total)

Pretty solid review. Of course, for me the real kicker is that, thanks to the IBIS and FF 24MP sensor, this is easily the best body to stick behind almost all legacy lenses: both manual in just about any mount and autofocus in Sony/Minolta A-mount or Canon EF/EF-S. Although adapted Canon lenses AF quite slowly, it is worth noting that AF performance with the LA-EA4 and A-mount lenses is good enough that they are a seriously viable AF alternative to native E/FE lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 1, 2015 at 05:09 UTC as 134th comment
In reply to:

66GTO: 46x62mm doesn't sound very square to me...? Pitty. Like the song says, it's hip to be square. ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 31, 2015 at 02:44 UTC
In reply to:

Pseudo-retro instant film thingy. Not exactly DP for DPReview, but there are a lot of people who like this sort of thing... still, I doubt DPReview is where many of those folks hang out.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 30, 2015 at 19:08 UTC
On Fujifilm X100T Review preview (646 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarkMonckton: DPreview gave the X100s 81% Gold Award.
X100T 81% Silver Award?????

Again, I'm simply saying that folks should read, and carefully consider, the entire review with emphasis on the reported details and measures they care about most... not focus on the inconsistent scoring in the summary.

I know grading is hard, but the too-long introduction to the scoring system doesn't contain anything like a rubric for assigning scores, and the meaning of silver/gold awards is completely unspecified. There is also a huge problem with temporal context -- how do you compare new and older cameras (for upgrading, or for old models still selling against newer models)?

If I were doing this, I think I'd publish a simple but rigid scoring rubric and show results as a ranking among cameras with a user-selectable set of weighted characteristics... an enhanced variation on your quite good "camera feature search." That would take advantage of the ability of WWW publishing to computationally customize the summary for individual user priorities and concerns.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 02:39 UTC
On Fujifilm X100T Review preview (646 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarkMonckton: DPreview gave the X100s 81% Gold Award.
X100T 81% Silver Award?????

Richard Butler: As a professor, I can certainly agree that any grading is subjective in some aspect, but I'd get into deep trouble if I assigned grades as inconsistently and without clear guidelines (the scoring really isn't explained in any detail; no rubrics given). Anyway, like I said, the bodies of the reviews still tend to be very useful and, in fact, they've gotten better over time.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 25, 2015 at 18:32 UTC
On Fujifilm X100T Review preview (646 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarkMonckton: DPreview gave the X100s 81% Gold Award.
X100T 81% Silver Award?????

For fun, compare IQ with the comparably-sized NEX-6... the NEX-6 is better. And the NEX-6 is from 2012 and only got 78% "silver."

There's a lot of random drift in the DPReview ratings. Despite the scores being numeric, it's a highly subjective thing, and there aren't even scoring rules published. I think many people want Fuji's cool retro characteristics to be accompanied by great performance, and that biases subjective judgments too.

I've pretty much reached the conclusion that the summaries, and certainly the final scores & awards, say more about reviewer bias (more politely, "perspective") than about the camera... and I've become ok with that. There's still plenty of useful info in the review bodies.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 25, 2015 at 16:40 UTC
In reply to:

mr.izo: i think main question will be, how does this lense compare to let say sigma 12-24, i guess (which can be pretty good to excellent, when you get good sample).
would be nice to see some test done head to hed, regarding sharpness (specially corners), filed curvature, flare resistance etc.
because price different is huge.

My first ultrawide zoom was the Sigma 10-20mm on my A100. My benchmark now is the Sigma 8-16mm on my NEX-7, and this isn't looking any better (or even as good?) on FF compared to the 8-16 on APS-C, except wide open in the corners. I'd consider the Canon 11-24mm for my A7II, but it's a lot more pricey than the Sigma 12-24mm (which itself is 1.5X pricier than the slightly better 8-16mm).

What I'd really like is a smaller, cheaper FF lens with the field of view and IQ of my APS-C 8-16mm -- it can be slower (even f/5.6 or f/8 wide open) to meet those goals. However, I will admit that this Canon is the most expensive lens I've ever seriously considered buying....

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2015 at 00:38 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Wow. At first I wondered why you had shots at f/16 and smaller -- well past where the diffraction limit should be -- but they actually look quite good. In fact, it looks marginally better than my Sigma 8-16mm on my NEX-7. The only major flaw I see is some PF, which gets better stopped down. If only the price wasn't as scary big as the lens is....

I tend to think of sunbursts as undesirable flare, but I know some people love 'em and they are very pronounced here. BTW, this lens generally seems to handle flare fairly well, with just a few smallish spots, so perhaps Canon deliberately designed to produce those sunburst structures?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 17:39 UTC

Wow. At first I wondered why you had shots at f/16 and smaller -- well past where the diffraction limit should be -- but they actually look quite good. In fact, it looks marginally better than my Sigma 8-16mm on my NEX-7. The only major flaw I see is some PF, which gets better stopped down. If only the price wasn't as scary big as the lens is....

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 15:19 UTC as 66th comment | 2 replies
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review preview (740 comments in total)

Not about to give up my Sonys, but I have to say that maybe it's time for Sony and Pentax to try the fractional-pixel-shift trick too. Should even be doable on the A7II. I'm frankly surprised at how well it does, because my experiences in general have been that it is very difficult to keep a camera that stationary even on a good tripod, but it definitely can work.... I wonder if they use really just move the sensor as indicated or if they are smarter and use the system to try to maintain that fractional pixel shift from reference position despite minor camera motion?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 18, 2015 at 23:13 UTC as 146th comment
In reply to:

maxnimo: Impressive edge to edge sharpness. Most impressive. And I don't get easily impressed.

That is very nice too, but it's more impressive to see this sort of thing at f/2.8, and your shot is only in focus for a tiny central area, so it's not clear if it is at all comparable to the edges (e.g., how bad is CA?). My cheap Minolta AF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 D looks pretty good in the middle at f/5.6 (which is wide open for it at 300mm), and my old 300mm f/4 SMC Takumar looks nice at f/4 once you've corrected the (massive) CA....

Direct link | Posted on Mar 17, 2015 at 11:22 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: Impressive edge to edge sharpness. Most impressive. And I don't get easily impressed.

Agreed. Either CA is being corrected in post or this is an impressively well-corrected lens. The tonality seems a little funny, but that's probably a dynamic range issue with the Samsung sensor, and it isn't all that bad and has nothing to do with the lens.

Not many long lenses designed for mirrorless bodies... we'll see who's next. Pricing can make a huge difference on this too.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 17, 2015 at 02:24 UTC
Total: 625, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »