J.K.T.

Lives in Finland Finland
Works as a non-photographer
Joined on Feb 14, 2004

Comments

Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15
In reply to:

Ignat Solovey: After thoroughly testing EF-M version (and finding it nice), I really expect full-frame fifty like this to replace my good old 50/2.5 Compact Macro. Not in another year or two, though, I guess...

It should be clearly better than the 50, but unfortunately not as good as the EF-M 28 in the extreme corners. They seem to drop rather steeply (MTF curves are at Canon USA).

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 12:35 UTC
In reply to:

J.K.T.: Where on earth do you put the filter in this? Inside the ring light would seem a logical place, but it sure doesn't look like 49mm diameter if the full diameter of the lens is 69mm.

Otherwise, I can finally put to rest my regrets of not getting the Tokina 35 mm macro. The ring light doesn't matter to me - I just need the wider FoV.

That's what I saw first and compared that to the stated (in the specs) filter dimension of 49mm.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 13:51 UTC
In reply to:

J.K.T.: Where on earth do you put the filter in this? Inside the ring light would seem a logical place, but it sure doesn't look like 49mm diameter if the full diameter of the lens is 69mm.

Otherwise, I can finally put to rest my regrets of not getting the Tokina 35 mm macro. The ring light doesn't matter to me - I just need the wider FoV.

Free hood on non-L!!! That's not exactly common.

Apparently other sources have more detailed information than DPreview.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 13:24 UTC
In reply to:

J.K.T.: Where on earth do you put the filter in this? Inside the ring light would seem a logical place, but it sure doesn't look like 49mm diameter if the full diameter of the lens is 69mm.

Otherwise, I can finally put to rest my regrets of not getting the Tokina 35 mm macro. The ring light doesn't matter to me - I just need the wider FoV.

That should work as well as long as I can keep the LEDs off. I wonder how much the hood costs...

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 09:20 UTC
In reply to:

J.K.T.: Where on earth do you put the filter in this? Inside the ring light would seem a logical place, but it sure doesn't look like 49mm diameter if the full diameter of the lens is 69mm.

Otherwise, I can finally put to rest my regrets of not getting the Tokina 35 mm macro. The ring light doesn't matter to me - I just need the wider FoV.

That would make sense. Just takes a set of electrical contacts for connection. Fortunately I don't mind loosing the ringlight for ND filter.

Unless there are quality issues, this one is a definite go.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 06:54 UTC

Where on earth do you put the filter in this? Inside the ring light would seem a logical place, but it sure doesn't look like 49mm diameter if the full diameter of the lens is 69mm.

Otherwise, I can finally put to rest my regrets of not getting the Tokina 35 mm macro. The ring light doesn't matter to me - I just need the wider FoV.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 06:40 UTC as 46th comment | 13 replies
In reply to:

Richard_CC: They could be kept in a visitor center for a few days and given a copy of Death in Yellowstone by Lee Whittlesey to read, perhaps only allowed out when they have passed a test to prove they read it all.

Its a fascinating tale of human idiocy, how over the years 300 people have got them selves killed, gone up to pat a Bison on the nose, used an umbrella to get a bear cub down from a tree so they could play with it (mamma bear took their head off with one blow) and jumped into a hot spring to try to save their dog. Boiling alive has killed far more people than the wildlife has.

Maybe the state Governor could award a "Wyoming Medal for outstanding stupidity" at a very public award ceremony.

I'd give them the benefit of doubt - they might belong to the minority that does learn... ;-)

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 14:31 UTC
In reply to:

Richard_CC: They could be kept in a visitor center for a few days and given a copy of Death in Yellowstone by Lee Whittlesey to read, perhaps only allowed out when they have passed a test to prove they read it all.

Its a fascinating tale of human idiocy, how over the years 300 people have got them selves killed, gone up to pat a Bison on the nose, used an umbrella to get a bear cub down from a tree so they could play with it (mamma bear took their head off with one blow) and jumped into a hot spring to try to save their dog. Boiling alive has killed far more people than the wildlife has.

Maybe the state Governor could award a "Wyoming Medal for outstanding stupidity" at a very public award ceremony.

In principle I wouldn't punish anyone too harshly for an attempt to remove oneself from gene pool if no other harm was done. Destroying or harming something else in the attempt is another matter entirely.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 10:49 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1633 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: D.O.A.

D.O.A. pretty much sums it up - for me. "Remote control: Yes (Via smartphone or wireless remote)" counts as total failure. If it doesn't work from PC, it doesn't work.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 06:12 UTC

Canon has phase detection AF on CMOS and this has contrast detect? This is where it belonged.

I don't really mind dropping the OVF, but the EVF should have been there. An add-on is very unlikely to be robust enough. The OVF isn't necessary as it excels in speed and manual focus and neither are priorities for this camera anyway. I don't carry reading glasses when walking and without them the screen is rather hopeless.

Removing manual dials is a really bad idea too. I still love the interface of ancient Minolta DiMAGE A1 - the EVF shoved real-time approximation of the result and a histogram as well and I had both speed and aperture on dials. Similar done with current technology should be quite interesting.

This one I'll pass.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 08:05 UTC as 51st comment | 1 reply
On article Tamron to develop 150-600mm F5-6.3 ultra-telephoto zoom (193 comments in total)
In reply to:

SushiEater: It will focus on Canon crop bodies even at F6.3 by telling the camera that it is F5.6

In that case I need to start saving. :)

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2013 at 08:15 UTC
On article Tamron to develop 150-600mm F5-6.3 ultra-telephoto zoom (193 comments in total)

As someone shooting with Canon crop bodies I really would have appreciated f/5.6 at tele end - even at the price of somewhat shorter max length. Otherwise...

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2013 at 07:17 UTC as 74th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: The EF lens adapter cost $200 more than the Pentax K-mount-K-01 adapter and doesn't even have IS. No flash ? The K-01 works with 25 million K-mount lenses made since the mid 70's and Canon DSLRs don't even work with their own FD mount lenses from the mid 80's without an adapter.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/193175-maybe-k-01-not-crazy.html#post2032269

FD adapter would be nice, but to offer anything new it would have to include aperture control. Canon could do that, but won't. Even if they did, I couldn't afford theirs. :) I doubt others will bother to solve the electronic <-> mechanical problem it poses.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2012 at 06:49 UTC

I simply can't figure out what is the point of having both this and 150/2.8 OS.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2012 at 07:43 UTC as 5th comment | 2 replies
On article Macro photography: Understanding magnification (126 comments in total)
In reply to:

OneGuy: A widely available parameter on a given camera is the 'minimum focusing distance.' Knowing the sensor size, can I calculate the (optical) magnification just from this parameter? Or do I have to use a ruler at that distance to get the object size?

I checked (quickly) DPR specs on Oly PM1 and did not find the optical magnification ratio (proportion) there -- only 'Live View Magnification." Is this the same thing? If not, what would be the benefit of including the optical magnification on the DPR spec sheet?

You'll need the ruler too. If you knew the focal length and the minimum distance, you could calculate the magnification. Unfortunately the given focal lengths are for infinity focus. The focal length at minimum focus can be (and usually is) different.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2011 at 08:29 UTC
Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15