Richard Schumer

Joined on May 30, 2012

Comments

Total: 211, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (663 comments in total)
In reply to:

sneakyracer: 4/3 sensor is dated imho. They date back to when larger sensors were really expensive. Enthusiasts demand better performance nowadays at the $1000+ pricepoint. All TV/Monitors today are 16:9 as well so the 4/3 format is a bit awkward except for more traditional applications like print (magazines). In very small form factors the 4/3" format is nice but on larger cameras it makes little sense except maybe for the smaller lenses and increased affordability (if any). That does not mean that the OM-D cameras are bad cameras. On the contrary they are excellent just that there are better options for most folks available today.

2:3 and widescreen video formats (9:16, 9:20, etc.) limit one's options if one uses various compositional techniques -- rule of thirds, golden ratio, extended corner angles, and several square root proportions, for examples. But then. so does a square format. Some artists have found 4:5 ideal (traditional photo paper sizes are very close to this) but 4:3 is OK to my taste.

Note: I once owned a Minolta 35, a Leica lookalike from the early 1950s, which shot 24 x 30 mm frames on 35mm film -- exactly 4:5.

Since then, I've had to compensate in my mind for the unneeded width of a 2:3.

Just my opinion.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 00:16 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Photokina's greatest hits (45 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: OMG! A blessing AND a curse! My go-to camera system is a classic! My go-to system is a throwback!

Yes, I still use my Pentax K10 for more serious work (I have an Oly EP-M2 for carrying around). The CCD is a little noisy in the shadows over ISO 800, but no moreso than the Oly's CMOS. Till the K70 is tested officially, it will stay as it still serves me well.

Pentax may not have the most modern optics anymore, but my hat's off to them for their wonderful cameras.

@bobb -- We have similar ways of dealing with older tech: When shooting in poor light, I use the popup flash on the K10, when possible, as fill to bring the shadows up instead of pulling them up in PP.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 19:13 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Photokina's greatest hits (45 comments in total)

OMG! A blessing AND a curse! My go-to camera system is a classic! My go-to system is a throwback!

Yes, I still use my Pentax K10 for more serious work (I have an Oly EP-M2 for carrying around). The CCD is a little noisy in the shadows over ISO 800, but no moreso than the Oly's CMOS. Till the K70 is tested officially, it will stay as it still serves me well.

Pentax may not have the most modern optics anymore, but my hat's off to them for their wonderful cameras.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 15:45 UTC as 15th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

cosinaphile: although this is a fascinating camera , i wonder if going with a higher mp count of 80 or 100 would have future proofed it a bit .... or i could be wrong and 50 mp is more than anyone one will ever need at the risk of being a bill gates like fool

Mebbe I'm missing something, but my Pentax k10d (10MP) gives 50-70MB till files.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 01:35 UTC
In reply to:

pkvman13: They claim their medium format bodies are great for architecture and yet none of them (Mamiya/Phase One, Pentax, Hassy, nor Fuji) make a shift lens. The only MF solutions are the shift adapter from Hassy (thanks but no thanks) or the big slow digital back based MF cameras. I would love one of these new generation compact MF cameras to come out with a 24mm equiv shift lens!

Shift lenses are overrated, IMO. I had one and its limitations were many. It was on a Nikon F system, and Nikon had no way to couple the diaphragm to the camera, meaning stop-down manually for exposure. But more important was the limited movements available, probably because the lens mount interfered with greater distances off-axis. I had a Bush 6 x 9 Press camera which had much more articulation. The most important drawback for me was the lens' image circle had to emcompass the movements, which meant a 35mm lens had to cover the same field of view as a 25mm or wider to work at its extremes.

I compromised by using a much wider lens and making sure it was perfectly vertical on a tripod and cropping in PP.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 18:15 UTC
In reply to:

JeffUlti: There is a lot of space between the sensor mark and the back of the camera.
Does anyone know why a camera would need such space?
What are the limitations that require such spacing? thanks in advance!

@Akpinxit -- Yeah, heat reduction. Perhaps a nice heat sink, too. Heat seems to the the main culprit behind noise nowadays.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 18:09 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: although this is a fascinating camera , i wonder if going with a higher mp count of 80 or 100 would have future proofed it a bit .... or i could be wrong and 50 mp is more than anyone one will ever need at the risk of being a bill gates like fool

Some years ago when stock photo agencies were moving from film to digital, many required minimum 50MP images. I got this from a stock pro I trust. He scanned his medium-format film on a drum scanner to get the required sizes IIRC. 50MP seems still to be the magic figure.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

Autriche78: So why do I as an X-series shooter since the X-E1 suddenly feel like I've been royally screwed?

Am I the only one?

@ Autriche78 --Fuji is an enormous corporation, with tentacles everywhere; it hardly needs to bleed R&D funds from its point-and-shoot and x-trans divisions. Just saying.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 03:26 UTC
On article YI enters the mirrorless race with the M1 (56 comments in total)
In reply to:

r1975: No external mic input = no sale (even if it does 4K)

@ar T rn --Last year I bought a (refurbished) Oly E-PM2 body for $199 from Amazon.

So $330 would seem a little high to me, unless there's a huge change in the yuan/dollar ratio.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 17:18 UTC

An apology: My post below, while I stand by it, is inappropriate in the camera announcement forum. Here it sounds like a troll; I did not mean it to be. Truthfully, I like this iteration of the Canon M; if I were not already invested in m43 and Pentax, I might look into buying one.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 16:02 UTC as 33rd comment
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: I will never understand business decisions and US political campaigns, I guess. Recently the press has been saying that the sales of Canon's M-series and Nikon's J-series have been so poor the makers are moving to discontinue the lines, while political sentiment in the US is so negative for both candidates it appears the electorate wants different ones.

Yet here, Canon, like both Trump and Clinton, seems to be doubling down on a losing hand. Is there some trend I'm missing?

@Justme -- It is possible I read the US press, which may have a different viewpoint. Thanks for a possible explanation. There are a LOT of people in China, SE Asia and India....

Of course, the link you provided speculates that Canon MAY pass Olympus this year because Olympus has not cut prices.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 15:28 UTC

I will never understand business decisions and US political campaigns, I guess. Recently the press has been saying that the sales of Canon's M-series and Nikon's J-series have been so poor the makers are moving to discontinue the lines, while political sentiment in the US is so negative for both candidates it appears the electorate wants different ones.

Yet here, Canon, like both Trump and Clinton, seems to be doubling down on a losing hand. Is there some trend I'm missing?

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 15:13 UTC as 35th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

DamianFI: Images look awful for 2016 and that kind of money. imo.

<satire>I was jsut thinking along the same lines; these guys are taking the easy way -- marketing lenses which produce instagram-like effects on DSLRs and mirrorless ILCs when a better way to go would be to design a lens which, when added to a phone, produces an effect like having taken it with a FF DSLR. </satire>

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 12:38 UTC
In reply to:

Franka T.L.: Finally, this one and its contemporary peer, the Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58/2.0 were the premiere standard lens of its age and they work real great as a portrait on APS-C, not so great on FF though. Wonder if new coating of todays and advance in all the know how and material would made any difference

The Biotar was a double-gauss lens like many others of its focal length and f:stop, just with lackadaisical assembly and polish. The Meyer optic also lacked precision assembly and high-gloss glass, but was hampered by a poorly-corrected design as well.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 12:11 UTC

Damn! I coulda/shoulda bought one of these when it was a $10 option on an Exa body for $99.00 from Willoughby's in NYC via their ad in Popular Photography in 1956. Too bad I bought a Hexacon (Contax D) with the 58mm Biotar instead. Nobody is kick-resurrecting Biotars, which were mediocre, but much better than the Primoplan of the time.

This is a scam/fad which will fade once millenials' kids learn to see on good 4k or better displays. Even the "glow" and "unique bokeh" of these obsolete optics will look dated to them.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 18:05 UTC as 29th comment | 2 replies
On article Zeiss adds super-wide and tele- options to Milvus line (49 comments in total)
In reply to:

PanoMax: Ten years ago Zeiss came up with this nice telephoto lens.

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/3865393209/zeiss1700f4.

These new lenses would be a nice addition to their product line.

Does it come in m43 mount? ;o}

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2016 at 18:29 UTC
In reply to:

DavidsfotosDotCom: Almost Rectilinear or fisheye?

Digital "correction" leaves artefacts elsewhere (noise, sharpness, smoothness.) Optical correction does not.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2016 at 14:52 UTC
In reply to:

DavidsfotosDotCom: Almost Rectilinear or fisheye?

@Toselli: "Who would struggle to design a lens that has a visible barrel distortion so that it wouldn't be rectilinear but not even wide enough to be a fisheye?"

The answer is Leica. (the Q's extreme barrel distortion is fixed in software.) And Olympus (their kit zoom is absurd w/respect to barrel distortion wide in RAW). And nearly every maker is now resorting to software distortion correction in one or more of their zooms.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 16:33 UTC
In reply to:

DavidsfotosDotCom: Almost Rectilinear or fisheye?

@Toselli: There are no truly rectilinear lenses according to the main general definitions of the term. All lenses can only approach true rectilinearity, but in common optical usage the term has lost its strict meaning and now defines lenses which attempt rectiliniarity.

To be strictly rectilinear, a lens assembly would have to exhibit no barrel, pincushion or astigmatism (0.00000...%) distortion anywhere in its image circle -- a physical impossibility.

So I guess both you and DavidsfotosDotCom are right.

Sources: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rectilinear

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/rectilinearity

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rectilinear

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 15:54 UTC
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: Exactly how hard or easy how is it to use manual lenses? Such lenses are usually described as "manual-focus," but aren't they "manual-aperture" as well? Do you lose the benefit of automatic diaphragm operation?

Can someone having experience with manual lenses as used with digital cameras itemize the steps required to meter, focus, and shoot? I have a notion that the sequence of steps must vary with the particular pairing of lens and camera. Am I right about that?

Do troubling "gotchas" lie in wait for people using a manual lens for the first time?

Tangentially, Ken Rockwell is all hell on adapters in his piece, "Lens Adapters: A very bad idea" (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-adapters.htm).

@ Jefftan.

Setting the hyperfocal distance is easy: Just use the far or near f-stop dot on the depth-of-field scale of a MF prime lens which corresponds to the f:stop you will use. Set that dot to the near or far limit of depth-of-field (DOF) you want. It is easier to show than to explain in words!

Alternatively, you can fiddle with the focus point until you find the f-stop which gives you both desired near and far points within DOF.

These are the first three google results for "hyperfocal distance photo":

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

http://digital-photography-school.com/landscape-photography-hyperfocal-distance/

http://www.techradar.com/how-to/photography-video-capture/cameras/how-to-calculate-hyperfocal-distance-free-photography-cheat-sheet-1321007

I hope this helps.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 15:20 UTC
Total: 211, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »