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: 676, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
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 (666 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 (666 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 (666 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 67th comment | 2 replies
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review preview (811 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 168th 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
On Aloha! We go shooting with Samsung's new NX500 article (186 comments in total)

Hmm. Plenty of detail, but not so much dynamic range. Also some strange stuff going on with the grain pattern in some high ISO shots (perhaps very aggressive wavelet removal of a certain spatial frequency range that held most noise?). Still, pretty nice with room for improvement....

Direct link | Posted on Mar 16, 2015 at 19:26 UTC as 37th comment

"The Ultimate WiFi SD Card" -- really? If it's the ultimate, then I guess they're going out of business and will not be making any after this? Get some marketing folks who know English.

For that matter, when will we get full bi-directional transfer? This should have been there from day one, along with full Linux support, etc.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2015 at 00:21 UTC as 17th comment
In reply to:

ProfHankD: I have nothing against front-mounted converters (well, maybe a little), but DOES THE LENS MODIFY THE FOCAL LENGTH IT REPORTS TO THE CAMERA?

If not, these adapters will mess with IBIS in the A7II and any future Sony bodies with IBIS....

Magic, no. Maybe magnets and Hall effect sensors or reed switches?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 10, 2015 at 17:33 UTC

Ok, I'm a little confused. The first and last images seem to be positives, while the portrait seems to be a negative image. They should all be negatives, right? Were the first and last images perhaps paintings deliberately made as negative images for the purpose of making positive copies? If you think about it, it is quite natural that an early photographic process would be intended primarily for copying static 2D subject matter....

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2015 at 12:26 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

ProfHankD: I have nothing against front-mounted converters (well, maybe a little), but DOES THE LENS MODIFY THE FOCAL LENGTH IT REPORTS TO THE CAMERA?

If not, these adapters will mess with IBIS in the A7II and any future Sony bodies with IBIS....

McQuestion: It turns out you're right. I didn't know that worked because the button I assigned to setting the focal length just complains when a native lens is attached, but if you go into the menus and set manual focal length, then it works. Leave it to Sony to make that take two menu entries instead of auto being a focal length on the list with one menu function....

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2015 at 12:05 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: I have nothing against front-mounted converters (well, maybe a little), but DOES THE LENS MODIFY THE FOCAL LENGTH IT REPORTS TO THE CAMERA?

If not, these adapters will mess with IBIS in the A7II and any future Sony bodies with IBIS....

You're right in that small errors in the focal length do not make IBIS fail, they simply make it slightly over/under-estimate the amount of movement. The estimates have to be about 2X off for it to be actively making IQ worse than if IBIS was disabled... which is an option too.

That said, the fisheye converter drops the 28mm to 16mm.

For what it's worth, IBIS is still useful at short focal lengths, but in less common situations and only if you're very steady-handed to begin with (coordinate breathing, etc.). I've done hand-held night photos using it with a 28mm at something like 1-2s.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 13:49 UTC
On CP+ 2015 Sigma Interview article (197 comments in total)
In reply to:

matthew saville: YES, Sigma please give us a 14-24 f/2.8, NOT a 10-20mm f/4! (full-frame)

Although, personally as a lightweight traveler, I'd much rather see a ~16-18mm f/2 that accepts front filters, than a 14-24 2.8 if it's going to weigh anything like the Nikon or Tamron...

I'd love a FF 10-20mm f/5.6, or even f/8, with excellent IQ, reasonably small, and at a good price point.

He was pretty modest about Sigma's role in ultrawide zooms, and I don't know what they'll do in response to Canon's 11-24mm, but I look forward to buying whatever it is. I started with their 10-20mm APS-C, and their 8-16mm APS-C lens in Sony A mount is my current ultrawide workhorse, but I look forward to an FE-mount ultrawide....

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 05:12 UTC

I have nothing against front-mounted converters (well, maybe a little), but DOES THE LENS MODIFY THE FOCAL LENGTH IT REPORTS TO THE CAMERA?

If not, these adapters will mess with IBIS in the A7II and any future Sony bodies with IBIS....

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 13:01 UTC as 6th comment | 11 replies
On Kowa announces pricing for three Micro Four Thirds lens article (149 comments in total)

Well, it's nice to see Kowa getting back into more "consumer" lenses again. The green branding is distinctive without being too odd. Good luck to them.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2015 at 02:11 UTC as 31st comment | 1 reply
Total: 676, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »