Klipsen

Joined on Feb 2, 2005

Comments

Total: 80, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article DPReview TV: A look back at APS film (371 comments in total)
In reply to:

mandm: APS was delayed almost 2 years when Fuji backed out of the group of 5, Kodak wanted the film to be the same size as 35mm film with sprockets only along one edge making the image area larger than 35mm; Fuji wanted a smaller film size. Kodak recalled what happened when they came out with 110 and disk film, smaller image area and poorer image quality than 35mm, that's why Kodak demanded the film be the same or larger than 35mm.
Fuji backed out, Fuji knew that Kodak needed Fuji to back the new format for it to succeed and Kodak knew it also, so Kodak gave up and agreed to the smaller APS format film to get Fuji back in.
Why a new format, Patent Rights.
No one made any money on the 35mm format, a new format with a Patent would change that as others would have to pay to make the film, cameras and processing equipment.
The Big 5 were, Kodak, Fuji, Nikon, Canon and Minolta.

No Olympus, no Pentax, no Konica (films) and no Agfa?
Sounds unlikely to me.

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2018 at 20:04 UTC
On article DPReview TV: A look back at APS film (371 comments in total)
In reply to:

David Grandy: APS was a typical Kodak attempt to give less while charging more. Smaller than 35mm it solved the auto ISO problem but shot for shot it was more grainy and more expensive than 35mm, just like 110 versus 126. Had APS been larger than 35mm, and perhaps in an "ideal" 4x5 format, then other major camera manufacturers may have adopted it. As it was it was an inferior product that solved a problem (the user setting the ISO wrong) that photographers with brains didn't have.

Yes, but APS cartridges always had DX coding, 135 cartridges did not always, and even after DX was introduced, it took quite some time for all new cameras to have the contacts necessary to decode them. APS cameras had the contacts by default.

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2018 at 19:59 UTC
On article DPReview TV: A look back at APS film (371 comments in total)

APS did not loose out to digital. Film lost out to digital. In the meantime, Minolta lost out to APS, investing too heavily in a technology based on Kodak's contempt of amateur photographers.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2018 at 15:27 UTC as 57th comment | 4 replies

Actually, there is such a thing as lens compression.
Don't confuse it with the fact that perspective does not change with the focal length.
It may be possible to obtain the same image of a distant subject with the same background blur and all, but then it has been cropped and magnified to an "equivalent focal length" of the tele lens it is supposed to mimic.
The perspective will be exactly the same as well.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2018 at 05:40 UTC as 5th comment

If you cannot make it work - or work properly - just say it never was high on your list of priorities.

By the way: Remember the photographer who photoshopped out a pair of legs behind a poster … and was fired, banned and critisised for altering the truth, even though those feet had no other function in that image except being an eye-turd?
That could also be part of the reason.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2018 at 21:48 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply

A guide number of 60 at 200 mm isn't really powerful. Useful, yes, but not powerful.They simply apply more zoom than on "less powerful" models, like their HVL-F58AM
Although Nikon's naming of their flashes says nothing about their GNs, they have the decency to quote it at 35 mm focal length for all their flashes ... making direct comparison easier.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2018 at 16:04 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF gallery and first impressions (318 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dave Oddie: The Sony 135 STF has a secondary aperture that controls the amount of blur with values ranging from T4.5 to T6.7. So you get to chose how much blur you want.

Does the new Sony 100mm allow you to do the same? I don't know if it does or not but if it does, then I don't get the complaint that there is too much blur. You pick how much you want.

The fact on the 135 you are at T6.7 obviously doesn't matter from a d.o.f point of view as in it being too deep because the lens is still blurring the background for you.

Unless you can't do this on the 100mm or the blur even at smaller apertures is still too strong for some tastes I don't really understand the criticism.

Actually, there are two sets of aperture blades on the 135 mm STF.
The manually controlled aperture is virtually perfectly circular, the electronically controlled aperture becomes polygonal as it closes.
At smaller apertures than T:6.7, the apodised portion of the lens element in question is completely obscured by the aperture blades, so there's no apodising effect, but to optimise the effect, there needs to be a perfectly round aperture, which the 9-blade unit is not, but the 10-blade unit is.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 20:58 UTC
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF gallery and first impressions (318 comments in total)

As the French say: "Qui peut le plus, peut le moins".
By that I mean to say: Why make it a problem that this lens is "almost too smooth"?
There's a simple solution to that: Stop down to f:6.3 and get the boké you want.
There's no way to do it the other way round.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 20:22 UTC as 6th comment
On article Nikon D850 vs Sony a7R III: Which is best? (1095 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nick8: "not quite as other-worldly as D5s and a9s" - is there a Sony a9s?

Perhaps later ... but the "s" indicates plural, and the same goes for the D5s.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 13:31 UTC
On article 10 macro photography tips for beginners (51 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zigmont: Good advice except for "Second of all, forget about tripods." A tripod is essential, in my experience. You simply can not hold the camera steady enough at high magnifications and slow-ish shutter speeds required for some depth of field when shooting macro. Plus, you'll need a tripod to do focus stacking, something the author doesn't even discuss(?). I bring small pieces of reflective cardboard to help block the wind, but basically if there's a lot of wind, forget about macro shooting. Go out early in the morning or late in the afternoon when the wind is down.

I aggree on most ... but perhaps stacking is not a beginners' thing.
Also, use a tripod whenever it's even remotely convenient.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 09:47 UTC
In reply to:

Klipsen: Of course Nikon will eventually make a FF mirrorless. Probably not while the only "serious" competition comes from Sony, but when Canon feel their system has matured enough to be upgraded to FF, Nikon will have no choice.
They also took their good time to introduce FF in the first place, actually being beaten by Canon by years and Sony by months.
Old farts like yours truly will always prefer an OVF, but the smartphone generation couldn't care less - preferring the ability to see exactly what they're shooting with the camera high above their heads or in other "impossible" positions.
Tethered shooting is another situation where there really is no reason to spend excessive amounts of money on prism, mirror and everything else needed for an OVF to work.

Firstly, look through the viewfinder of a Sony A900, then add the Type L focusing screen. Now, that's what I need in terms of viewfinder.
Secondly, my remarks about the smartphone generation (yours, I dare to suppose, considering that you apparently stopped reading and went on the defensive) were not meant any more negatively than calling my own generation old farts - it was used affectionately. If you bothered to read the last two paragraphs you would perhaps realise that I advocate the use of EVF's.
You can't teach old dogs new tricks, they say. I say: Don't become an old dog at a young age.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 14:20 UTC

Of course Nikon will eventually make a FF mirrorless. Probably not while the only "serious" competition comes from Sony, but when Canon feel their system has matured enough to be upgraded to FF, Nikon will have no choice.
They also took their good time to introduce FF in the first place, actually being beaten by Canon by years and Sony by months.
Old farts like yours truly will always prefer an OVF, but the smartphone generation couldn't care less - preferring the ability to see exactly what they're shooting with the camera high above their heads or in other "impossible" positions.
Tethered shooting is another situation where there really is no reason to spend excessive amounts of money on prism, mirror and everything else needed for an OVF to work.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2017 at 20:37 UTC as 9th comment | 3 replies

"Let's see ... well, you either need an 85 mm lens or a 35 mm lens for your specific needs".
I could just toss coins and get the same "help" making dicisions (i.e. no help at all).

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2017 at 20:15 UTC as 56th comment
In reply to:

Rob: Professional sites need to stop mispronouncing bokeh. It has always been "bo-KAY." "Bo-KA" was a mispronunciation by those who were ignorant of the term's origin and somehow it caught on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqipY-wQaxc

It all boils down to the vast majority of English speakers' inability to pronounce the sound written é in French. If a Japanese says Nigh-Kon, he's most likely just aware that it's how Ameriacans pronounce it. In Japanese, Japan is called Nihon (Knee-hon, not Nigh-hon), and the name Nikon was chosen - at least in part - because the Japanese supposedly cannot tell the difference between Nikon and Nihon.
Actually, the Japanese word was originally spelled boke in English translation, but then people thought the e was silent, pronouncing it bowk. Adding an accent, boké, would be the most correct spelling, but English speakers would pronounce it incorrectly no matter what, because the sound of both the o and the e/é do not exist in English.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 19:38 UTC
In reply to:

Unbounded: Already owns the 90 2.8 macro. Can't decide if the STF is really worth it... I'd give the orange "G" a premium.

If the STF is anywhere near the "original" 135 mm STF for A-mount, it may not be exactly "value for money", but it will be exceptionally excellent.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 19:10 UTC

As an old Minoltan I'm intrigued by your article ... but I still have to say that other manufacturers have made similar solutions, albeit within tubular designs, notably Tokina with their AT-X series from the 1980's, among them a 50-250 mm zoom. It has quite impressive image quality at the 50 mm setting, and an even more impressive 1:1.4 macro setting, which is accessed by turning the lens past the MFD at 50 mm and extending the lens while the zoom mechanism is locked. For the time, a magnification ratio of 1:1.4 was rather unusual, most dedicated macros having one of 1:2, requiring an extension tube to reach 1:1.
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/tokina-50-250mm-at-x-review.496888/

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 18:37 UTC as 1st comment

If a poacher sets a trap and an animal falls prey to it ... did the animal commit suicide?

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2017 at 21:43 UTC as 87th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony a9 Full Review: Mirrorless Redefined (2744 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klipsen: Can anyone explain the logic?
Memory Card Slots:
SLOT1: Slot for SD(UHS-I/II compliant) memory card,
SLOT2: Multi slot for Memory Stick Duo/SD(UHS-I compliant) memory card
Why bother with dual card slots, when they're not identical?
I understand that there's a desire to be loyal to one's own technology (MS), but if the price is the loss of UHS-II, then the second slot is useless as a backup for anything that requires the higher speed it provides.

Well, card formats may be different, while performance is identical.
In order to take full advantage of some of the video modes, UHS-II is probably required - or else why bother to include it?
I know it's not going to be a huge problem to most people, but it would be annoying to have bought very fast cards in order to record in the highest quality - and then find that the card slot is limited to less than that, because of the "need" to be compatible with Memory Sticks.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 12:46 UTC
On article Sony a9 Full Review: Mirrorless Redefined (2744 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klipsen: Can anyone explain the logic?
Memory Card Slots:
SLOT1: Slot for SD(UHS-I/II compliant) memory card,
SLOT2: Multi slot for Memory Stick Duo/SD(UHS-I compliant) memory card
Why bother with dual card slots, when they're not identical?
I understand that there's a desire to be loyal to one's own technology (MS), but if the price is the loss of UHS-II, then the second slot is useless as a backup for anything that requires the higher speed it provides.

That makes sense, thank you :-)
Still, that could also be done with a better card slot, and the cost reduction is marginal.
Is it even possible to save raw and jpg to different cards (on this camera)?

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 11:18 UTC
On article Sony a9 Full Review: Mirrorless Redefined (2744 comments in total)
In reply to:

JackM: 200mm is pretty darn short for field sports on Full Frame. They're not storming anything with that.

The 500 mm f/4 is probably 100 % compatible using the proper adapter.
The 300 mm f/2.8 is also compatible, albeit not 100 %.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 19:04 UTC
Total: 80, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »