Richard Schumer

Joined on May 30, 2012

Comments

Total: 271, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

"Oooh! Goes with my lipstick!"

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 20:16 UTC as 88th comment | 1 reply
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (193 comments in total)

I am so bored with the discussions of equivalence! The low-light portraits of children were taken at, for example, f:1.2 @1/200 at ISO 200. To get "true" real-world equivalence, a FF would have to use a 90mm f:2.4 (if there were such a beast, and there is not) at an ISO of 800 in order to use the same shutter speed, or, at a typical FF base ISO of 100, to use a shutter speed of 1/25th at f:2.4. At the higher ISO, the noise difference becomes marginal, and at the FF base ISO, the odds of getting equal sharpness decrease dramatically even with stabilization.

So cut it out, please. Pixel-peeping has its limits, and theory and practice diverge.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 06:28 UTC as 6th comment | 2 replies

Just the thing to take great photos of a Rat Rod https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Typical_Rat_Rod.jpg/800px-Typical_Rat_Rod.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_rod

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 16:07 UTC as 71st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

cgarrard: "Unprecedented: never done or known before"

A secret always gets people's interest level up. But if they are mad, its just because they haven't been told yet and don't feel special. :)

Based on the photos of what looks like an old Electro-35, it appears to be a digital camera without the need for a battery; There is a lever exactly like the Electro-35's which, when worked, operates a generator, which allows the electronics to operate.

Now that's unprecedented!

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2017 at 04:00 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: Just because this makes no sense to me doesn't mean it makes no sense to someone else, but I have basic questions which have no answers. In no particular order:

Why "copy" a Leica SL? This is a pro product, not one with wide appeal, and with few novice-friendly features.

What's in it for Leica? Are they about to change their business model and become more like Porsche Design? How much will their involvement raise the price of this product?

Will the New Zenit lenses be autofocus? If not, they will be behind the rest of the world. If they are, will they work on the Leica SL?

Who owns Zenit? Is there a source of skilled labor or will they use specially-trained locals like companies do in Vietnam and in Thailand? If the latter, is Russian labor as cheap? or as good?

This just doesn't sound do-able to me. Will someone enlighten me pls.

@cdembrey: I probably should have written it differently; I didn't mean only skilled as in well-educated, I mean skilled in the minuscule, repetitive work of polishing and assembling optics; I don't think there's a valid substitute for experience or special training, though, and that was my main thought -- though I might take your answer to be "yes." to my question (not statement.)

BTW what is the minimum wage per month/year in Russia's cities? Seriously, I'd like to know. You can quote in Roubles, and I will convert, or in US Dollars.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 01:56 UTC

Just because this makes no sense to me doesn't mean it makes no sense to someone else, but I have basic questions which have no answers. In no particular order:

Why "copy" a Leica SL? This is a pro product, not one with wide appeal, and with few novice-friendly features.

What's in it for Leica? Are they about to change their business model and become more like Porsche Design? How much will their involvement raise the price of this product?

Will the New Zenit lenses be autofocus? If not, they will be behind the rest of the world. If they are, will they work on the Leica SL?

Who owns Zenit? Is there a source of skilled labor or will they use specially-trained locals like companies do in Vietnam and in Thailand? If the latter, is Russian labor as cheap? or as good?

This just doesn't sound do-able to me. Will someone enlighten me pls.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 20:00 UTC as 72nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: I actually had a Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f:2.0 lens I bought new circa 1958 mounted on a Pentacon body. The camera was an eye-opener (the first permanent pentaprism SLR) but the lens sucked so bad with low contrast, fuzzy images and a stiff focusing helicoid that I used an Aries fixed-lens rangefinder equipped with a 50mm f:2.0 Nikkor lens instead and relegated the Pentacon to telephoto optics..

That someone is going to spend two kilobucks on a resurrected version strikes me as absurd as southern-states' farmers voting for a Damn Yankee...oh wait, they did. Viva 21st century!

@padam -- Here's a shot taken some time ago with a Pentas *ist DS with that 50mm f:1.4 lens *wide open*.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/3619136.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJV52EBNSZBZ2WBBA&Expires=1503701404&x-amz-security-token=FQoDYXdzEDcaDGk9DUA2yzfQW9mUjiK3A6yvgG60qmGFvWW%2FDWjQfKICXRmf4k5vaUHU6bry8%2Bt9432NpNLuYOuFI%2Fs33m98IpVUtri43gWYgFq5Zk9vSu5XIIp9pFz6o4CHkTtELdoW64M9Onz5komDAhPIsNMy1UKDI1bmYKrBMv%2FRBuxJS4oyk147A5vRB0PBxXJ5Y%2BEYooM7T%2B5tVwfdpT0hNY17H50oxkteTh1CEsHIk9op%2F9jEpRMIcA0K75loeczJA5Ow9u91Oc%2BemaDwaLpYkOrY4P8pFXtzJtw8%2F%2F0nfqqGz05ykqrdZA69oRsyC%2BxTOPE3D4JT6QmYpwoVVsS5RAEQUeKf6YBQ8Sr2hlI7r8LeVA7I4G%2FcL%2FyRmnNB2xor6l8a8XKYiVbVp0D58i0%2BdjLutE2%2FBgrYtwIQzGCsQzxJ90Yf8wz2IsbQjOB6gC0%2F6SDafiwWBxp56eObncPsU4F%2Bi3VsVAyQonUBAENc7Gcy9joOrIfflEZkscHYTlUboQfoIrPqw8oLVOkv9W%2FY8iRM8iejwQCHYpjtVpsNbI9P3G2SV7o3AZFJHy1k2aqmFcj1Nwwm2wmrLlSoCAgZ2Tf%2Bn6a%2BzeJVH4Ao7LKCzQU%3D&Signature=XVOwFNbC5HTY0bLPZexEFoVzrn4%3D

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 21:54 UTC
On article Ricoh launches Pentax K-1 Limited Silver Edition (175 comments in total)
In reply to:

Magnar W: Interesting that silver now is something special. When I started buying slr cameras, you had to pay extra for black camera bodies. :-)

"The great genius of American industry is to make things cheaper and charge more for them"
--Henry Ford.

When (tetraethyl) lead was introduced in gasoline, companies charged a nickel more per gallon for it; in the 70s, the same companies charged a nickel to take it out.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 21:36 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: I actually had a Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f:2.0 lens I bought new circa 1958 mounted on a Pentacon body. The camera was an eye-opener (the first permanent pentaprism SLR) but the lens sucked so bad with low contrast, fuzzy images and a stiff focusing helicoid that I used an Aries fixed-lens rangefinder equipped with a 50mm f:2.0 Nikkor lens instead and relegated the Pentacon to telephoto optics..

That someone is going to spend two kilobucks on a resurrected version strikes me as absurd as southern-states' farmers voting for a Damn Yankee...oh wait, they did. Viva 21st century!

@padam -- Nice photos! Pan-plus gives great tonality, too. My short use of the lens, as I said, was primarily wide open and with Tri-X developed in Microdol or Ethol UFG,, a very different scenario. When I acquired a Pentax Spotmatic in 1965, I swapped the Biotar (M42 screw) for the Takumar f:1.4 "radioactive" and found it veiled wide open; but by f:2 it was superb and I never missed the Zeiss glass. BTW, I have stuck with Pentax, using their DSLRs with a 50mm f:1.4 K-mount I got in 1972 or thereabouts which is at least as battered and scratched as your Biotar, and it is a wonder at f:4 and smaller. Its focus helical is still butter-smooth after 45 years of constant use.

Based on your results, I agree an old Biotar is a good addition for a reasonable price, if a Takumar, Nikon or Canon is unavailable. But two thousand for a replica?

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 20:18 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: I actually had a Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f:2.0 lens I bought new circa 1958 mounted on a Pentacon body. The camera was an eye-opener (the first permanent pentaprism SLR) but the lens sucked so bad with low contrast, fuzzy images and a stiff focusing helicoid that I used an Aries fixed-lens rangefinder equipped with a 50mm f:2.0 Nikkor lens instead and relegated the Pentacon to telephoto optics..

That someone is going to spend two kilobucks on a resurrected version strikes me as absurd as southern-states' farmers voting for a Damn Yankee...oh wait, they did. Viva 21st century!

@ padam -- Our mileage varies. Looking back, those were the days of "available light" photography with the introduction of Tri-X film, so my experience with that lens was mostly wide open, IIRC. But my Aries definitely had better sharpness and could be printed on one contrast-grade softer B+W paper than the Biotar. Mebbe I got a bad copy, but it soured me on the brand.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 15:43 UTC

I actually had a Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f:2.0 lens I bought new circa 1958 mounted on a Pentacon body. The camera was an eye-opener (the first permanent pentaprism SLR) but the lens sucked so bad with low contrast, fuzzy images and a stiff focusing helicoid that I used an Aries fixed-lens rangefinder equipped with a 50mm f:2.0 Nikkor lens instead and relegated the Pentacon to telephoto optics..

That someone is going to spend two kilobucks on a resurrected version strikes me as absurd as southern-states' farmers voting for a Damn Yankee...oh wait, they did. Viva 21st century!

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2017 at 21:07 UTC as 11th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: Is a kickstarter-like funding drive in Roubles involved? Cause when I enhanced the photo above in GiMP, it appears the lens is a 35mm (visible on the rim) of obviously retrofocus design; the camera body has a distinct mirror-box bulge which a mirrorless camera doesn't need (with the exception of the Pentax K01) and do I see a rapid film wind lever stuck behind the shutter release?

To paraphrase Shakespeare, "Something is rotten in the State of Russia" as they didn't even make a wood or plastic mockup, using, instead a modified picture of an old film Zenit.

My $0.02.

@Cameracist What? Is DPR part of the anti-Russia/Trump Fake News conspiracy?

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 23:16 UTC

Is a kickstarter-like funding drive in Roubles involved? Cause when I enhanced the photo above in GiMP, it appears the lens is a 35mm (visible on the rim) of obviously retrofocus design; the camera body has a distinct mirror-box bulge which a mirrorless camera doesn't need (with the exception of the Pentax K01) and do I see a rapid film wind lever stuck behind the shutter release?

To paraphrase Shakespeare, "Something is rotten in the State of Russia" as they didn't even make a wood or plastic mockup, using, instead a modified picture of an old film Zenit.

My $0.02.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 23:03 UTC as 95th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: The first rule of compsition I learned was that if a picture of a person hasn't enough "headroom," it makes the person seem too tall. I was about ten years old. Some years later, shooting sports, I "discovered" diagonal lines gave a picture a sense of movement or dynamism.

As I matured, I learned psychology (the biological kind) and that opened the door to the "rule of thirds," or the Golden Ratio, in which the eye and brain explore spaces in particular ways or patterns. In this way I learned to control where the viewer would look into the frame -- simply place the object or detail I wanted to illustrate at a point the eye would naturally want to go to.

Continued...

Part Two:

The missing element in all this is being able to see one's image as others would see it. The photographer knows and remembers his relationship with the subject; the viewer has no such notions. This entails gaining self-knowledge and an objective viewpoint (as opposed to an egoistic one) which is akin to seeing oneself as others see us.

The article's point, as I see it, is for us to understand and manage what the viewer sees first and what he ignores by understanding ourselves and our relationship with others. This has always been the goal of artists, I think.

I have been practicing photographer for more than sixty years now, and I am still improving. But perhaps that's just because I am a slow learner -- at least compared to Henri.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 02:09 UTC

(Posted in Error)

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 02:06 UTC as 66th comment

The first rule of compsition I learned was that if a picture of a person hasn't enough "headroom," it makes the person seem too tall. I was about ten years old. Some years later, shooting sports, I "discovered" diagonal lines gave a picture a sense of movement or dynamism.

As I matured, I learned psychology (the biological kind) and that opened the door to the "rule of thirds," or the Golden Ratio, in which the eye and brain explore spaces in particular ways or patterns. In this way I learned to control where the viewer would look into the frame -- simply place the object or detail I wanted to illustrate at a point the eye would naturally want to go to.

Continued...

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 02:05 UTC as 67th comment | 5 replies

Those elements are now even more aspherical than before. ;o}

Too bad, though.

Say, does anyone know the refractive index of Super Glue?

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2017 at 05:14 UTC as 129th comment

Bah! This "news" is by and for the legal departments; expect big patent battles or cross-brand patent exchanges in future. Curved sensors are great in theory.

The problem is that, in theory, theory and practice should be the same. In practice, they are not.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 22:05 UTC as 44th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

tonyC1994: Richard, thanks for the review! In next DPR interview with Canon executives, can your coworker ask what's the logic behind this DR issue?

It's likely Canon's sensor design and fab teams aren't up to the technological challenges presented by Sony's teams; I doubt Canon is so cynical as to try to cheat past and prospective customers.

A parallel would be AMD computer chip design and fab: AMD led Intel in performance until their leader left for Apple, for which he designed great chips, and retook the lead after he returned a year or two ago. BTW, he's gone again, recruited by Tesla.

Canon, IMO, should steal away some Sony hotshot. Otherwise, they're probably SOL.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 03:44 UTC
In reply to:

Majauskasson: Wise words from Charlie Howse. I know many people who own expensive cameras and their pictures are junk. They can't operate a good camera any more than they can a drive Formula 1. But most people can drive a Chevy. For most people a simple smart phone or basic point and shoot are good enough. Their pictures will still be mediocre and not memorable but at least they'll be viewable.

Well, I think you're over your head with the comment about Formula-1. I have driven a Ralt Formula 1 chassis from circa 1975 (with a hot rotary motor) and it is quite as easy to drive as any Honda or Chevy. Its steering is light and accurate, its brake pedal is easy to push, its clutch is gradual and soft; the sense of speed disappears as the car is only a few cm off the pavement and, finally, the G-forces are barely felt, what with the grippy seat, 5-point harness and little room to be tossed about in the cabin. The only giveaway is the rapid narrowing of one's field of vision as speed increases dramatically. It is quite easy to become competent in one.

One does not operate a Cambo 4x5 without lots of technical expertise, however.

Your main point is quite right, though: it's just as hard to be fast in a F1 car as it is to make great photos with any camera.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2017 at 22:26 UTC
Total: 271, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »