Vlad S

Lives in United States San Francisco, CA, United States
Works as a Scientist
Joined on May 11, 2010

Comments

Total: 415, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

EcoR1: Hmm. So this lens has a dedicated aperture ring, but it wont work with Olympus-bodies. Why can't Olympus and Panasonic standardize this behavior for m4/3-system? How is potential buyer suppose to know this?

@EcoR1 the aperture behavior is standardized: it is set on the body. It's the aperture ring that's nonstandard. None of the Olympus lenses have it, and most Panasonic lenses don't have it either.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 22:36 UTC
In reply to:

gsergei: A thumb down for this lens at $1300us. Guessing it will cost @1700cad. I will continue using my Oly 12/2 and FT 11-22/2.8-3.5 on the EM-1. Panasonic people keep shooting themselves in the wallet by providing an aperture ring incompatible with the Olympus bodies. No, thanks.

@rialcnis: the standard way to operate the aperture on the MFT system is with the dials on the camera body. Most likely the aperture ring on this lens is not mechanically coupled, but instead sends signals through some unused mount contacts to the body, and the body reacts to these signals instead of a dial. If this communication is not a part of the MFT specification, then the Oly may not want to , or be able to update their cameras to respond to them. Or may be it will do so later!

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 20:25 UTC
In reply to:

gsergei: A thumb down for this lens at $1300us. Guessing it will cost @1700cad. I will continue using my Oly 12/2 and FT 11-22/2.8-3.5 on the EM-1. Panasonic people keep shooting themselves in the wallet by providing an aperture ring incompatible with the Olympus bodies. No, thanks.

I don't recall any Olympus lenses having an aperture ring. It may be that Oly bodies simply do not support that function.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 18:38 UTC
In reply to:

zunivolo: I don't care how much you m4/3 users curse equivalence but the Fuji 16 f1.4 is just very slightly bigger, only 40g heavier and costs 300$ less (even without rebates) while offering a one stop advantage for DOF and low light. How is this exciting, except maybe for video shooters?
Happy for you guys if you think it's a good addition. For me, not worth it.

Yeah, but then you'd have to commit to the Fuji system. I like Fuji in theory, but in practice, if you buy more than that one lens, Fuji is still more expensive, and larger in size.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 18:33 UTC
In reply to:

disraeli demon: I'm sure Panasonic know their market but instead of this I really wish we could have some good, sharp, reasonably- priced f2.8 14mm, 12mm and 10mm lenses with clutch focus.

2.0, please. Given the Rokinon competition, there's no reason to limit oneself to 2.8.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 18:27 UTC
In reply to:

BostonC: I like the camera. Now it's in the comparison tool, some details have surprised me, e.g. the new jpeg engine doesn't render curved edges well, check out the orange arcs in the center, the smooth lines become crude jagsaw: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=panasonic_dmcgx85&attr13_1=oly_em1&attr13_2=panasonic_dmcgx7&attr13_3=oly_em10ii&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&attr171_0=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.4853585906670828&y=-0.8094956308903521

@BostonC the penalty for the smoother RAW conversion is a loss of sharpness, which negates the removal of the AA filter. I suspect that in-camera you can reduce the sharpness setting to achieve exactly same or at least a very similar result. I recall the Panasonic cameras allow to create custom presets with adjusted image parameters.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 01:04 UTC
In reply to:

BostonC: I like the camera. Now it's in the comparison tool, some details have surprised me, e.g. the new jpeg engine doesn't render curved edges well, check out the orange arcs in the center, the smooth lines become crude jagsaw: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=panasonic_dmcgx85&attr13_1=oly_em1&attr13_2=panasonic_dmcgx7&attr13_3=oly_em10ii&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&attr171_0=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.4853585906670828&y=-0.8094956308903521

Yep, that's what aliasing looks like in person!

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 22:35 UTC
In reply to:

J A C S: The photo is too bluish, which impacts the image much more than the real or the imaginary Orton layer effect. The weird sky color transition from blue to pinkish to greenish (?) is the second thing that grabs attention.

It's the "blue hour", if you color-balance it to neutral you will loose the unique feeling that this particular time of day has.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2016 at 20:24 UTC

1.2 kg just the bag weight? That sounds excessive.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2016 at 01:39 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

Coliban: While, when i first heard this, i was upset, i like to think a moment about "new" or unconventional ideals, before i run out and shout how "embarrassing" or "the most idiotic idea i ever heard" this is. I tried to remember, how often i look at the display of my D800E after a shot and i remembered: nearly not a single time. And i though about my analogue time and how photographers managed, 10,20,100 years ago to shoot a single picture without looking immediately to a (not existing) display? How could Bresson or Adams or other people handle this, how could they take photos at all? No, we really don't necessarily need a display, today the automatic handles things like exposure nearly automatically, much more better than we did with our light meters in ancient days. No, people can avoid this camera, their right, but please don't lough about techniques, other can cope with. If i don't understand a thing, like "das Wesentliche", i wouldn't make fun of such things, *that* is embarrassing...

@Coliban I think sneering comes from two aspects of this announcement:
1, that Leica upcharges for a device that is less functional and has fewer parts.
2, that the existence of the screen does not prevent you from practicing the technique you are writing about. There's absolutely nothing that you can do with this camera, and couldn't do with an earlier model. It's about bragging – that's all there is to it.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2016 at 15:56 UTC
In reply to:

gbvalli: Leica is fooling !

TNiB, just get yourself a 512MB memory card. That'll make you think a lot before taking the next shot.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2016 at 01:52 UTC
In reply to:

Coliban: While, when i first heard this, i was upset, i like to think a moment about "new" or unconventional ideals, before i run out and shout how "embarrassing" or "the most idiotic idea i ever heard" this is. I tried to remember, how often i look at the display of my D800E after a shot and i remembered: nearly not a single time. And i though about my analogue time and how photographers managed, 10,20,100 years ago to shoot a single picture without looking immediately to a (not existing) display? How could Bresson or Adams or other people handle this, how could they take photos at all? No, we really don't necessarily need a display, today the automatic handles things like exposure nearly automatically, much more better than we did with our light meters in ancient days. No, people can avoid this camera, their right, but please don't lough about techniques, other can cope with. If i don't understand a thing, like "das Wesentliche", i wouldn't make fun of such things, *that* is embarrassing...

Although some of the most impressive works of art and science were produced with nothing more than a quill, ink, and paper, it doesn't mean that there is no advantage to modern methods of creating and recording information.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2016 at 01:43 UTC
In reply to:

FantasticMrFox: Is that the company that pays the photographer who did all the work in creating the image 20% while keeping 80% of the profits?

No sympathy, sorry.

I suppose the OP was trying to point out, that invoking "the detriment of the 200,000 contributors who rely on us to earn a living" sounds disingenuous, given Getty's own treatment of their contributors.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2016 at 00:42 UTC

More money for fewer features. Brilliant! May be they could also return to the screw mount, or uncouple the exposure metering from the shutter...

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2016 at 00:34 UTC as 84th comment | 1 reply

Next thing you'll know, they'll start making catadioptric lenses with Bakelite bodies and charge a thousand bucks for the doughnut bokeh.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 22:01 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

Vlad S: I am really confused by the FL/aperture captions. There has got to be a mistake in the captions from 5:01 through 5:06. Was it the 150mm f2.8, or the 75mm f1.8 lens?

That was a pretty bad choice – the equivalent FL sometimes overlaps with the actual FL of an existing lens, and that is quite confusing. They should have labeled the shots exactly as the lenses are marked.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 02:53 UTC

I am really confused by the FL/aperture captions. There has got to be a mistake in the captions from 5:01 through 5:06. Was it the 150mm f2.8, or the 75mm f1.8 lens?

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2016 at 23:28 UTC as 68th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: While its a pleasure to not read more about Sony, I have to wonder what the point of these teardowns is. If you want to do your own IR conversion, you probably have the skills and knowledge already.

The Lens Rentals teardowns are different because Roger not only takes it apart, he tells you what it means in terms of potential reliability which is information everybody can use.

you can buy spares online and fix your broken camera – that's what the point is.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2016 at 19:43 UTC
On article Quick Look: Parallelism in Landscape Photography (111 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clark666: I like oil paintings of landscapes. When I see oil painting landscapes in an art museum, the same scene photographed appears to be flat and still. For example the oil paintings of Yosemite Valley in California exhibited in the De Young Museum and the Crocker Art Gallery appear to be real, the water and shading are appealing while the nearby photos of the same scenes are flat and don't convey the appearance of motion and flowing water.

Does the painter see something that the camera doesn't? Would focus stacking make the photos as good as the paintings?

There are many differences between a painting and a photograph, and one of the more salient is the difference in projection. Because we can turn our head around, we see the world in the spherical projection. To paint it on a flat surface we typically convert it to a rectilinear or a cylindrical projection, but we have the freedom to adjust things to make them look closer to our perception. A camera can't do that – most lenses use a rectilinear projection, and they can't adjust just that one rock, or that one waterfall to make it look less distorted, or more 3D.

What we see with our eyes undergoes a lot of interpretation in our brain before we put it on canvas. The camera can't interpret anything for you.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2016 at 01:07 UTC
In reply to:

Osvaldo Cristo: Seventeen hours? Good luck to guess the correct exposure at the natural environment.

Although it is obviously demanding more work, I think it is safer to go to multi shot and postprocessing them conveniently.

The original E–M5 was the first to introduce the "Live bulb" mode – you can check the current result by half-pressing the shutter without stopping the exposure.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2016 at 20:31 UTC
Total: 415, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »