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: 653, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Samsung NX1 Review preview (1237 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: My feeling is that this camera won't have much of an impact on anything but specification comparisons on a chart.
As far as video goes the Sony A7S release has overshadowed the GH4 for serious compact video work. Pros want lens adaptability and a good frame size to suit the image circle of most lenses out there.
APS-C sits in an uncomfortable middle ground where there are lots of lenses for M43, HEAPS of lenses for full frame, and very few lenses for APS-C.
Sure, it's very close to Super35 size but why would anyone serious enough to use those kinds of lenses look at this over the A7S that can also use every full frame lens ever made to their maximum capability??
While Samsung have created a very good product in it's own right, it ends up being a bit of a black sheep that many people wish was a dark horse.
Just my 2c.

Peiasdf: Sony certainly has a long history of making great sensors and has captured a large fraction of the sensor market, but there are many other players, http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/p/image-sensor-companies-list.html . I'm very impressed by Sony sensors and also own a little fleet of Sony cameras from F828 to A7II.

Samsung is still developing their sensor tech; I expect that Samsung is taking a loss on the BSI APS-C sensor, and maybe that was true for their smaller sensors too? My read is that Samsung isn't trying to be the world's supplier of sensors, but I think they would like to be the world's #1 supplier of cameras (arguably are already, thanks to their cell phones), and they are willing to invest more in that goal than other companies can afford. We'll see how that goes for them....

I wouldn't trade my Sony E/FE cameras for this Samsung, and I use a lot of Canon PowerShots for CHDK, but my cell phone has been a Samsung for a while.... ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 08:36 UTC
On Samsung NX1 Review preview (1237 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: My feeling is that this camera won't have much of an impact on anything but specification comparisons on a chart.
As far as video goes the Sony A7S release has overshadowed the GH4 for serious compact video work. Pros want lens adaptability and a good frame size to suit the image circle of most lenses out there.
APS-C sits in an uncomfortable middle ground where there are lots of lenses for M43, HEAPS of lenses for full frame, and very few lenses for APS-C.
Sure, it's very close to Super35 size but why would anyone serious enough to use those kinds of lenses look at this over the A7S that can also use every full frame lens ever made to their maximum capability??
While Samsung have created a very good product in it's own right, it ends up being a bit of a black sheep that many people wish was a dark horse.
Just my 2c.

Samsung is huge -- around $200B total income vs. around $75B for Sony. This is proof Samsung can do everything for high-end cameras (mostly in-house), and that they want to. They already dominate the low end camera market (i.e., "cell phones"). If they really want it, they probably will dominate the entire camera market within a few years.

Sony still has some pluses against Samsung -- e.g., FF sensors. However, BSI on a sensor as large as APS-C is arguably even more of a technological tour de force. Let's hope this ends-up fostering healthy competition rather than killing everybody but Samsung.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 01:43 UTC
In reply to:

Mister Roboto: Yuck it is ugly!

No, no! The Hasselblad has TWO screws in the FRONT that this second-class rip-off lacks, instead hiding a mere single screw in an existing hole on the side, failing to fully celebrate just how much of a kludge the Hassle-Bad version was. ;-) There's also the missing "H" logo....

Honestly, I think this is a fine product and probably more useful than those half-cases people go nuts over. The price is pretty reasonable considering the machining and finishing needed. Still, no, I don't want one. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 01:01 UTC
On Out of place. challenge (3 comments in total)

Hmm. Why so many chairs/sofas?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 01:54 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

maxnimo: Would this camera be good enough to film a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster?
Just curious.

These high-priced Canons always make me see RED. Scarlet-X is around $14K in a usable configuration delivering 4K raw. Canon has long had a good reputation in high-end video, which is why I think their clunky DSLR video was taken seriously, but they really seem to gouge a bit on the pricing. Actually, Canon also charges plenty for cinema lenses... and yes, Scarlets often use Canon lenses, and so can Sony E/FE-mount cameras.

In sum, I don't think Canon sells a lot of these things, nor do they expect to. They price the high-end stuff so they don't lose money on it even with minimal sales and the reputation helps them sell lesser models in quantity... such as the 5DII and, now, probably the XC10.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 01:37 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)

This has nothing to do with the 5DII or any large-sensor interchangeable lens camera. Well, I suppose it does have a 5DII-ish OVF hump even though it doesn't have a viewfinder. ;-)

Honestly, I think the whole convergence idea is right, but this Canon isn't much of a step in that direction. What you have here is a $2500 compact superzoom with 4K support (like so many soon-to-ship cameras) and a slightly tweaked body shape that looks like a circa 2001 Sony DSC-F707. As for the idea of being able to capture full-res images really fast (which this doesn't) to capture the precise moment, well, that's a big deal and I think it's important, but:

1. Casio has had a bunch of cameras that can do 40FPS bursts at full resolution.

2. I ran a challenge in February for "Still Image Captured In A Video Mode" and got a total of 13 entries.

I believe in still/video convergence, and am doing research toward that, but the XC10 is not a compelling step in that direction.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 17:40 UTC as 255th comment
On Lensbaby introduces Velvet 56mm f/1.6 article (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

wailsound: I can't see why people have a problem with this?
I love this sort of lens. My favourite lenses are older considered less sharp glass.
Something about how they were designed and made back then, they had extra magic.
I think people have this idea that the latest tech and megapixel loaded sharp glass gear is the be all and end all.
I'd love to get my hands on one maybe after getting a Hasselblad MF Film camera...I can hear the gasps.

RichRMA: You're right about the ultrafast X-ray lenses, although they will work for macro on DSLRs, as discussed in http://www.instructables.com/id/Using-Ultra-Fast-Lenses-on-DSLR-Cameras/ However, what you really would want would be the Minolta 85/2.8 Varisoft, which has directly variable SA correction. It sells used for about the same as this new, non-adjustable SA, lens. There is also the Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 with Softfocus, which sells new for about the same as this lens.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 08:03 UTC
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.

Looking in more depth at their WWW site photos, I'm thinking this just has too much SA (glow) and internal vignetting and/or curvature of field (swirly bokeh) to be useful in most circumstances. Both should get better upon stopping down, but their examples don't show much of that. It does look to be better corrected for macro, which is a good thing. Still, overall, IQ is more like http://www.instructables.com/id/Using-Ultra-Fast-Lenses-on-DSLR-Cameras/ than fast 50s or good-bokeh macros (like the close-focus double Gauss designs I mentioned above).

In sum, I don't think the macro ability is enough to justify the price. The $100 price premium for clear vs. black anodizing also makes me doubt the pricing on both. Oh well.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 03:18 UTC
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 (809 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 (809 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 139th 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 (656 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
Total: 653, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »