John K

Lives in Italy Naples, Italy
Works as a Network Engineer
Has a website at www.johnkimbler.com
Joined on Dec 15, 2001

Comments

Total: 31, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

No thanks. Hand holding the MP-E 65mm at 5x with the lens fully extended is tricky enough sometimes. Shooting with a bazooka?! Nope. Not when I can get this kind of image quality with the MP-E 65mm: https://flic.kr/p/2gSReWY

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2019 at 07:31 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

Thomas Hawk: Disclosure: I have friends who work at Flickr and SmugMug.

I'm more active than 99.9% of the people on Flickr. So here's the thing with the help forum. For the past 12 years or so at just about any point in time you will find a screenshot that pretty much looks exactly like the one in your article. Tons of people complaining about tons of things. Quite frankly sometimes I wonder why Flickr just does't shut the whole help forum down. It's pretty toxic/terrible.

I have used the site every day since the migration -- including uploading hundreds of photos daily and many, many hours of browsing. By and large it is working very well post migration. Sure there have been some isolated issues here and there. Sure a few parts of the site like camera roll/collection mosaics (who really cares?) are not fully functional yet, but 99% of the site is working just fine and totally usable.

People love to complain. They love to feel like victims. I would not read too much into this.

All too true...

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2019 at 22:01 UTC
In reply to:

Thomas Hawk: Disclosure: I have friends who work at Flickr and SmugMug.

I'm more active than 99.9% of the people on Flickr. So here's the thing with the help forum. For the past 12 years or so at just about any point in time you will find a screenshot that pretty much looks exactly like the one in your article. Tons of people complaining about tons of things. Quite frankly sometimes I wonder why Flickr just does't shut the whole help forum down. It's pretty toxic/terrible.

I have used the site every day since the migration -- including uploading hundreds of photos daily and many, many hours of browsing. By and large it is working very well post migration. Sure there have been some isolated issues here and there. Sure a few parts of the site like camera roll/collection mosaics (who really cares?) are not fully functional yet, but 99% of the site is working just fine and totally usable.

People love to complain. They love to feel like victims. I would not read too much into this.

I've got over 3000 images on the site and I haven't had many issues. I see the "Oops, Bad Panda" screen a lot less these days than before Smug Mug took over.

Regards,
Dalantech
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2019 at 08:42 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2499 comments in total)
In reply to:

John K: A digital sensor in a camera is not a single piece of light sensitive silicon like a solar cell. Instead it is composed of millions of light receptors (aka pixels). So if the intensity of the light that a lens is projecting on the image circle does not change, how can changing the physical size of the sensor make any difference? How much light any sensor can record depends on the sensitivity of the individual photo receptors and not on the surface area of the sensor. Me thinks that your logic is fundamentally flawed...

We're going to have to agree to disagree because you're treating a digital sensor like it's a single light sensitive surface, when it's really millions of light sensitive surfaces (pixels) that each sense the light individually...

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2018 at 09:43 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2499 comments in total)
In reply to:

John K: A digital sensor in a camera is not a single piece of light sensitive silicon like a solar cell. Instead it is composed of millions of light receptors (aka pixels). So if the intensity of the light that a lens is projecting on the image circle does not change, how can changing the physical size of the sensor make any difference? How much light any sensor can record depends on the sensitivity of the individual photo receptors and not on the surface area of the sensor. Me thinks that your logic is fundamentally flawed...

Use the 5DS's 50MP sensor as an example. Take a shot at full frame. Then take a shot of the same scene and crop it to an APC-C sized image (you'll still have around 18MP). Then tape the sensor off so that only an APS-C sized area is showing and take a shot. The only difference between the last two frames is that the subject will look larger on the screen compared to the full frame image. It won't be magnified, cropping simply creates an enlargement.

The entire article reads like you're desperate to prove a point, and your logic is heavily flawed. There's no magic in a crop factor sensor -it's just a crop and not unlike cropping in post.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2018 at 23:23 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2499 comments in total)
In reply to:

John K: A digital sensor in a camera is not a single piece of light sensitive silicon like a solar cell. Instead it is composed of millions of light receptors (aka pixels). So if the intensity of the light that a lens is projecting on the image circle does not change, how can changing the physical size of the sensor make any difference? How much light any sensor can record depends on the sensitivity of the individual photo receptors and not on the surface area of the sensor. Me thinks that your logic is fundamentally flawed...

Changing the lenses so that the full frame and crop factor camera have the same field of view isn't reasonable -now you're comparing apples to oranges. A 100mm lens on a full frame camera is still a 100mm lens on a crop factor camera. But put a 200mm lens on the full frame camera to give it the same field of view and those lenses won't have the same magnification at the same subject distance. They also won't have the same light gathering ability because the 200mm lens is sampling a smaller section of the scene (it's field of view is reduced compared to the 100mm lens!), and less light will be coming through the lens because of it.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2018 at 23:22 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2499 comments in total)
In reply to:

John K: A digital sensor in a camera is not a single piece of light sensitive silicon like a solar cell. Instead it is composed of millions of light receptors (aka pixels). So if the intensity of the light that a lens is projecting on the image circle does not change, how can changing the physical size of the sensor make any difference? How much light any sensor can record depends on the sensitivity of the individual photo receptors and not on the surface area of the sensor. Me thinks that your logic is fundamentally flawed...

It's not the number of pixels that's an issue, it's that those pixels ARE the light sensitive areas of the sensor. The entire sensor is not one light gathering device like a solar cell. The total amount of the image circle projected on the sensor is irrelevant -the light hitting each pixel is. By your logic if I taped off a full frame sensor so that only an APC-C portion of it were unmasked then the characteristics of the sensor, or the exposure, would change. But it wouldn't...

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2018 at 23:22 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2499 comments in total)

A digital sensor in a camera is not a single piece of light sensitive silicon like a solar cell. Instead it is composed of millions of light receptors (aka pixels). So if the intensity of the light that a lens is projecting on the image circle does not change, how can changing the physical size of the sensor make any difference? How much light any sensor can record depends on the sensitivity of the individual photo receptors and not on the surface area of the sensor. Me thinks that your logic is fundamentally flawed...

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2018 at 10:16 UTC as 65th comment | 16 replies

This is where the article broke down for me:

"a full frame camera shot at 85mm F5.6 and a Four Thirds camera at 42.5mm F2.8 will have the same angle of view and the same aperture size (15.2mm diameter) and hence will be exposed to the same amount of light if exposed for the same amount of time."

The size of the sensor did not change the aperture of the lens -you used two different lenses in your example to make the field of view equal. With the exact same lens on both cameras both of them will expose the same scene at the same settings. The intensity of the image circle projected on both sensors will be exactly the same, and a digital sensor is not a single piece of light sensitive silicon like a solar cell. In short you're changing the conditions of a test in order to prove your point, and everything that follows is fundamentally flawed...

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2018 at 09:30 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply

"...except if you post them in the DPReview forums where your reputation lives and dies at 100% magnification."

LOL! Try shooting macro when the discipline is not only filled with pixel peeping focus stackers, but they've been trying to convince everyone for over a decade that the only good macro photos are the ones that are razor sharp. It's one of the reasons why I have no interest in focus stacking...

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 06:43 UTC as 74th comment
On article 10 macro photography tips for beginners (52 comments in total)

Excellent article!

I'd add that the light source you choose will dictate the focal length of the lens. If you're going to use natural light then you want a long focal length lens to keep from shadowing the subject. Also you'll probably have your rig on a tripod and the extra working distance will help to keep from scaring off the subject.

If you're using a flash as the primary light source then you want to get it as close to the subject as possible. The closer it is the better the diffusion will be, and the duration of the flash will be as short as possible (easier to freeze motion and get sharper images). Since the flash needs to be close you're better off with a short focal length lens. I shoot active subjects with the EF-S 60mm and the MP-E 65mm macro lenses. IMHO a 100mm lens is a jack of all trades but a master of none. Too much working distance for flash photography, and not enough for natural light...

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2017 at 07:05 UTC as 17th comment
In reply to:

John K: Neat idea!

If you like abstract macro try shooting soap bubbles above 1x. The air gaps end up looking like metal wires: https://flic.kr/p/4a7iMu

Thanks David!

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2017 at 07:26 UTC
In reply to:

John K: Neat idea!

If you like abstract macro try shooting soap bubbles above 1x. The air gaps end up looking like metal wires: https://flic.kr/p/4a7iMu

It's fun -just be prepared to turn your table cloth into a modern art disaster with the food coloring ;)

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 10:10 UTC

Neat idea!

If you like abstract macro try shooting soap bubbles above 1x. The air gaps end up looking like metal wires: https://flic.kr/p/4a7iMu

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 07:06 UTC as 16th comment | 4 replies

Excellent article and some great macro shots!

Gotta be careful when dragging the shutter to expose for the background. Take a look at the antenna at the top of the frame -at 1/30 of a second I was close enough to the ambient exposure to record some movement. Came out looking like a shadow:

https://flic.kr/p/xw8wuK

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 08:45 UTC as 4th comment
On article Canon introduces Macro Twin-Lite MT-26EX-RT (20 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ruy Penalva: Better is the lens illuminated Canon has recently launched like Efs 35 macro.

Those lights on the lens are continuous -can't use them to freeze motion.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 07:56 UTC
On article Canon introduces Macro Twin-Lite MT-26EX-RT (20 comments in total)
In reply to:

bed bug: I just don't get this product. The 24ex flashes are more than powerful enough for macro work; thus high GN hardly seems warranted.

Now if the flashes themselves could be unwired, then I would see some point to them.

The higher guide number makes it easier to freeze motion -really important since it doesn't take much to amplify diffraction. Also I'd never want the flash heads to be wireless (the recycle time would be ridiculously slow).

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 07:53 UTC
In reply to:

Chaitanya S: "Extremely short macro working distance" cannot really be a con, this is a wide angle macro lens and not a 180/200mm macro lens for crying out loud. Only idiots will purchase a short focal length macro lens thinking its going to give them large working distance. This lens is similar to the Canon's MP-E 65mm Macro, a specialist piece of kit not to everyone's taste.

Chaitanya I've seen Kurt's images. He's not shooting at 1x with that wide angle macro lens, and I don't fault him for it. The working distance is too short, and comparing it to the MP-E 65mm isn't fair. I can shoot active subjects with the MPE, and I'm not the only one. Light is a huge problem at 1x and higher mag -there's just never enough of it, and it's actually a bigger problem than depth of field.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 04:23 UTC
In reply to:

racketman: Kurt on a macro forum has been using this for a while. He has some interesting photos but it's a bit of a novelty for macro use and even less practical than the MP-E65 which is my staple lens.
4.7mm working distance at 1:1 is really only suitable for large subjects that are unfazed by close approach like Stag beetles and lizards.
Seeing the insect or flower in its environment does make a nice change but personally I'd rather borrow one than buy one, that's talking as a macro photographer who doesn't need a wide angle lens per se.
Compact cameras with their smaller sensors can get similar environment shots.

I passed on the lens when I read that it had a manual aperture.

I agree with you on Kurt's work, but even he isn't shooting at 1x with that 15mm macro, and I seriously doubt that Thomas Shahan could either unless the subject was dead or comatose. Light is a big enough problem at 1x and higher -even worse when the lens is casting a shadow and the subject is too close to illuminate with a flash.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2016 at 11:13 UTC
In reply to:

Chaitanya S: "Extremely short macro working distance" cannot really be a con, this is a wide angle macro lens and not a 180/200mm macro lens for crying out loud. Only idiots will purchase a short focal length macro lens thinking its going to give them large working distance. This lens is similar to the Canon's MP-E 65mm Macro, a specialist piece of kit not to everyone's taste.

But I can easily shoot at 1x with the MP-E 65mm's 10cm working distance, even active subjects. I don't know of anyone who's even shooting still life at 4.7mm....

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2016 at 11:08 UTC
Total: 31, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »