digiart

Lives in Portugal Aveiro, Portugal
Works as a webdesigner
Has a website at -
Joined on Feb 13, 2006
About me:

Amateur photographer
Equipment:

Cameras:
-------------
Nikon D50
Panasonic Lumix FZ-20
Nikon Coolpix 4300
Pentax MZ-50

Lenses:
-----------
Nikon 50 f1.8 D
Tamron 11-17 Di - II
Tamron 70-300 Di - II
Sigma 18-50 f3.5 - f5.6
Sigma 55-200 f4 - f5.6
Sigma 28-200 f/3.5-5.6
Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 DL
Pentax FA 50 f/1.7

Comments

Total: 169, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

digiart: Hard to believe moving the camera to underneath the screen can be done without significant sacrifice to both camera and screen image quality!

This is quite a different challenge! The image sensor inside a phone is pretty much identical to the sensor inside a compact digital camera. Here, the sensor is to be placed BEHIND the display.A much bigger impact on image quality! Time will tell if it can be done successfully.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2018 at 15:09 UTC

Hard to believe moving the camera to underneath the screen can be done without significant sacrifice to both camera and screen image quality!

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2018 at 20:16 UTC as 8th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

mick232: If it is so good at creating cash, why do they sell it instead of using it on their own? Or is it creating cash for Kodak but not for the buyer?

Because this way those Kodak boys don't have to pay the electricity bill and they get cash up front. You take the risk, they take the money. That's why I labelled it FOOLS GOLD ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 23:49 UTC

Fools gold :-)

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 18:35 UTC as 54th comment | 1 reply

Fools gold :-)

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 18:24 UTC as 60th comment | 1 reply

So sad.
R.I.P.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2017 at 19:11 UTC as 106th comment

@Rishi. Thank you for a very informative article!
But can you please elaborate a little about your statement:
"Oh and think this image is too dark? Wait till you view it on a HDR display, which is another can of worms altogether the stills industry should be discussing." - Thanks!

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 14:34 UTC as 113th comment

"We made a pause on medium format a few years ago just because of our production bandwidth,”.
Right... Because there are so many medium format cameras launched that you can't keep up ;)

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 11:16 UTC as 66th comment
In reply to:

KaiZenDon: Lens Rental and Roger is such an asset to the photographic community, a wholehearted thanks.
This is actually a very useful test, because us photographers simply hv no way to test filters. I also see a dilemma here, if we cant see the difference between filters, why do we bother buying expensive ones?!
Can we have a test of ND filters next (including variable ND) ?! ND filters are massively expensive. Last time I brought a very cheap variable ND with me too shoot waterfalls, probably had some colour cast, though easily fixed in post.

@RCicala, Great news!

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 18:54 UTC
In reply to:

KaiZenDon: Lens Rental and Roger is such an asset to the photographic community, a wholehearted thanks.
This is actually a very useful test, because us photographers simply hv no way to test filters. I also see a dilemma here, if we cant see the difference between filters, why do we bother buying expensive ones?!
Can we have a test of ND filters next (including variable ND) ?! ND filters are massively expensive. Last time I brought a very cheap variable ND with me too shoot waterfalls, probably had some colour cast, though easily fixed in post.

@RCicala, what about the impact on sharpness from the different CP filters, specially at long focals? Surely they don't all use the same quality grade glass?

Sorry, I don't want to sound "ungrateful", and you admit that your test is far from complete, but maybe add a sharpness/resolution test to your CP group test? I think we then may have a more conclusive answer about the quality of CP filters. Thanks.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 13:47 UTC
In reply to:

Toselli: This is a very stupid assumption, you don't choose a polarizer only for its ability to polarize light, but also for not adding artifacts to your image. The most obvious problems are reflections, lower contrast and lower resolution. As an example I have a cheap polarizer, that when I put on my 200/2.8 is unusable because there is a sort of duplication of the image, making it worthless. But hey, it still is 99.9% effective at polarizing light!

Quality of the coatings are a big part of the cost. Another is the quality of the glass itself. There are several "grades" of optical glass quality. The glass plates can be very flat but still affect image quality if they are of inferior quality.

As I and others have commented, CP filters do affect image sharpness. For the test to be complete, the filters should also be tested for sharpness and from a wider range of prices (20$-200$).

https://www.dpreview.com/news/7996049918/lens-rentals-test-shows-all-circular-polarizing-filters-work-great-price-doesn-t-matter?comment=4998615539

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 13:35 UTC
In reply to:

digiart: Great public service by Roger Cigala, but unfortunately one crucial test was not performed - the effect of the CP on image sharpness!

I suspect that quality of glass has a big effect on sharpness. I have a "good quality" Hoya HC Multicoated that cost me good money many years ago and I can see clearly that image sharpness is affected by the CP at 200mm or 300mm and probably at shorter focal lengths too at lesser degree. It would be interesting to do a CP sharpness test of cheap and expensive CP filters! I think differences in quality could be more apparent.

@AiryDiscus, I didn't skim, I did READ the whole thing. Perhaps YOU don't understand that glass quality is just not only about the glass being "flat". Glass can be perfectly flat and not be optically good, due to impurities or tiny bubbles, for example.

If you're going to criticise someone, maybe educate yourself on the subject beforehand?

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 10:00 UTC
In reply to:

obsolescence: Apparently, there are more exhaustive tests that could be done. LensTip has done two evaluations with extensive testing of many CPL filters, one in 2009 and one in 2015.

https://www.lenstip.com/139.25-article-Polarizing_filters_test_2015_Results_and_summary.html

https://www.lenstip.com/115.1-article-Polarizing_filters_test.html

Thanks, had read them before. The tests procedure did not test the effect of the filters on image sharpness.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 19:32 UTC

Great public service by Roger Cigala, but unfortunately one crucial test was not performed - the effect of the CP on image sharpness!

I suspect that quality of glass has a big effect on sharpness. I have a "good quality" Hoya HC Multicoated that cost me good money many years ago and I can see clearly that image sharpness is affected by the CP at 200mm or 300mm and probably at shorter focal lengths too at lesser degree. It would be interesting to do a CP sharpness test of cheap and expensive CP filters! I think differences in quality could be more apparent.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 18:52 UTC as 44th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

digiart: I like Polaroids, got a few from my childhood on the family album. The camera looks really cool, but it's a bit bulky. I think they should have gone with a revamped SX-70, which is foldable and more practical to carry. The film is also a bit expensive. But hey, maybe with volume it could get cheaper!

Yes, it's always about cost. Revamped was perhaps the wrong term. The SX-70 was a much more advanced camera. But it shouldn't be too hard to make it foldable at a reasonable price.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 18:36 UTC

I like Polaroids, got a few from my childhood on the family album. The camera looks really cool, but it's a bit bulky. I think they should have gone with a revamped SX-70, which is foldable and more practical to carry. The film is also a bit expensive. But hey, maybe with volume it could get cheaper!

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 16:10 UTC as 46th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

cshyde: I'm going to kill and eat an animal tonight in celebration of this settlement.

I hope it's a turkey :)

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 20:07 UTC

I bet the only ones who made any real money where the lawyers!
Only in America...

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 20:04 UTC as 82nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Sdaniella: why not have a triple filter wheel (3 color + 1 blank non-filter) of R+G+B used on an achromatic (B+W) Sensor?

given medium format is so slow-poke static subject shooting, taking triple exposures is not so bad, like pixel-shift shooting, multi-shot NR shooting, and HDR shooting, all have limitations with "moving subjects"

having no bayer array, means every pixel does a rapid color light "tour-of -duty" during capture, and less complicated than pixel shifting sensor rigs

combine all three "color" data capture into a "color" output pic

Doh... I meant high-speed photography of course.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 19:40 UTC
In reply to:

Sdaniella: why not have a triple filter wheel (3 color + 1 blank non-filter) of R+G+B used on an achromatic (B+W) Sensor?

given medium format is so slow-poke static subject shooting, taking triple exposures is not so bad, like pixel-shift shooting, multi-shot NR shooting, and HDR shooting, all have limitations with "moving subjects"

having no bayer array, means every pixel does a rapid color light "tour-of -duty" during capture, and less complicated than pixel shifting sensor rigs

combine all three "color" data capture into a "color" output pic

"why not have a triple filter wheel..."? - Not a good solution, with such a big sensor it would be bulky and it would be very slow. It would be impossible to do slow-motion capture, which is one type of studio photography theses cameras are used for. I wonder why a 3 sensor approach is not used, like in the pro camcorders? Size? Cost?

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 18:08 UTC
Total: 169, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »