Old Cameras

Joined on Apr 23, 2014

Comments

Total: 2468, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

rialcnis: Seems to me people dedicated to using film would already have a room. This could be for field work.

I wonder how it would hold up outside,

Not well, as anyone who’s gone camping in windy conditions will tell you.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2021 at 21:33 UTC
In reply to:

BackToNature1: A dedicated amateur astronomer will likely also be the one to find any new massive Planet that might exist in our Solar System. I say within 5 years max. Great catch Pereira.

@Bill
I actually did have the honor of meeting Clyde Tombaugh briefly at the Texas Star Party but he said no such thing, and at the time Pluto was still considered a planet. That was my little attempt at humor and I obviously failed!
As you know, the definition of a planet was changed to account for all of the new celestial bodies recently discovered (recently as in the last 20 years). I personally don’t care what they want to call Pluto, it’s just as awesome as it was before the change in designation. I’m sure with better telescopes that new and ever more distant bodies will be discovered, I find it all fascinating. I remember when New Horizons was launched, it took something like 9 years to reach Pluto, and then finally we got to see the pictures. And if Pluto was demoted (if it is viewed as a demotion), then the former asteroid Ceres was promoted to dwarf planet status since it meets that new definition - and we got to see awesome pictures of it as well!

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2021 at 16:16 UTC
In reply to:

BackToNature1: A dedicated amateur astronomer will likely also be the one to find any new massive Planet that might exist in our Solar System. I say within 5 years max. Great catch Pereira.

@Bill
Pluto is probably a captured object from the scattered disc due to its composition, whereas Neptune formed from the primordial solar system. Makemake, Haumea, Quaoar, Pluto, Eris, Sedna and many others all have a common origin. Orcus and Ixion, for example, are also locked in a 2:3 resonance with Neptune, just like Pluto. They can’t all be planets!!! It’s not fair!
And I once met Clyde Tombaugh at the Texas Star Party in the early 90’s (this is true) and he looked me right in the eye and said: “Between you and me, I found Pluto by accident, and it’s not a real planet”.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2021 at 01:58 UTC
In reply to:

BackToNature1: A dedicated amateur astronomer will likely also be the one to find any new massive Planet that might exist in our Solar System. I say within 5 years max. Great catch Pereira.

Pluto is in resonance with Neptune. It is a trans-Neptunian Object (TNO). There are a whole mess of them and Eris is probably larger than Pluto. So they either had to anoint a whole bunch of new planets or reclassify Pluto and all TNO’s as dwarf planets.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2021 at 01:35 UTC
In reply to:

theBitterFig: Sometimes it's about Journey as much as Destination. Does Digital have film beat? Sure. At least in results.

The process of a top-down viewing method like a TLR or 120 SLR with a waist-level finder, is just different than a digital flip screen or EVF.

Shooting with ISO 5 has got to be a trip. Throw that 1.4 lens wide open and shoot at 1/60th of a second in the daytime. That'd be a wide experience. I could see it being worth the cost of a few rolls of film and developing.

I haven't done it, but the process of making darkroom prints, figuring out the exposure timings, dodging and burning, is just an entirely different kind of artform to Lightroom. Not better or worse necessarily, but just different.

That time you accidentally double-expose, and it looks cool.

Sometimes that film process can be worthwhile for nothing more than the process. If it's not for you, hey, no problem at all. Life would be boring if we all liked the same things.

Kit Lens
I’ve got a darkroom in my backyard, I can print 4x5 negatives right now. There is value in developing a skill, endeavors are not merely results driven. Why ride a bicycle if a car is so much faster? The purpose of climbing a mountain is not to reach the top.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2021 at 22:04 UTC
In reply to:

Sc1920: It's a good thing we've got massive Jupiter out there vacuuming up the debris that might otherwise make it to earth.

Thankfully all the pock marks on the surface of the moon are pretty darn old.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2021 at 19:09 UTC
In reply to:

BackToNature1: A dedicated amateur astronomer will likely also be the one to find any new massive Planet that might exist in our Solar System. I say within 5 years max. Great catch Pereira.

All the big ones are taken but they’re finding minor planet candidates all the time using automated surveys. That’s the main reason why Pluto was demoted to minor planet status, there are so many other objects just like it that have been discovered.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2021 at 18:59 UTC

Curious if they’ll repackage / make over the 20mm f3.5 as well. Currently the 58/1.4, 40/2 and now this 28/2.8 have gotten the treatment. I think the 20/3.5 is a decent lens and very compact.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2021 at 18:01 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Old Cameras: I bought a Nikon 28/2.8 AI-S new from a dealer in 1992 for $170, still works like new. I’m guessing this Voigtlander is no better or only marginally better optically. Their 58/1.4 and 40/2 are expensive and optically mediocre. Style is not a substitute for substance.

It’s a cool lens, this is actually a cosmetic makeover of an existing lens. It’s a very well made all metal traditional lens, nothing wrong with that. But it’s old and (probably) not optically great, just okay. It would be nice if they actually came out with something new instead of dressing up something old in a new suit of clothes.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2021 at 18:16 UTC
In reply to:

Ventura Star: This is probably not a bad optic, although perhaps a touch expensive, considering the materials used in its construction. For a general purpose lens, it lacks the flexibility of the compact 16-50mm zoom. It may be faster with some optical superiority, but why is there no image stabilization? It seems that it's now okay to dispense with this feature in many new fixed focal length Canon and Nikon lenses. You can put stabilization in a cheap compact or a zoom but not something like this, which does seem to lend itself to available light pictures. Not for me I'm afraid.

I’d expect to see this lens sold for less than $200 on sale or as a refurb, then it’s a good deal. It’s built more or less like a kit lens, which also comes with a high list price if bought separately, but nobody pays that. The all-plastic build suggests that NIkon might have enough margin in the design to dump the price and not lose money. Problem is, they won’t sell that many. People talk about wanting a small prime but they usually just attach a zoom.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2021 at 15:39 UTC

I bought a Nikon 28/2.8 AI-S new from a dealer in 1992 for $170, still works like new. I’m guessing this Voigtlander is no better or only marginally better optically. Their 58/1.4 and 40/2 are expensive and optically mediocre. Style is not a substitute for substance.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2021 at 14:45 UTC as 38th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

ModelA1: Before, entry level lenses closed at full aperture at F5.6, then at F6.3, then at F7.1 and now at F8.
I understand that autofocus systems are more and more efficient and that compactness is an important argument, but at F8 it starts to seriously limit the conditions of use and the aesthetic rendering of the background.
I am not convinced by the equation that this new relatively expensive lens tries to solve.

Canon EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 is $2400. This 100-400 f5.6-8 is $650. If it’s “good” at 400mm @ f8, it’s a heck of a deal.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2021 at 00:33 UTC

An interesting, exotic and affordable lens is like a gate way drug - you get them hooked and they’re yours forever.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2021 at 00:28 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

Kona Mike: why is the front lens element so small?

It is a shame they didn't / couldn't reduce the overall lens diameter and make this lens even smaller/lighter.

Urbex
I like that they stuck with a 52mm filter, I hate those smaller non-standard filter sizes.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2021 at 19:51 UTC
In reply to:

Kona Mike: why is the front lens element so small?

It is a shame they didn't / couldn't reduce the overall lens diameter and make this lens even smaller/lighter.

Fascinating optical design with that massive aspheric rear element. Not your old double gauss design, not even close.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2021 at 18:15 UTC
In reply to:

Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni: The 100-400 mm lens looks nice and compact. Now waiting for aps-c body! Hope Canon introduces one soon

DuxX
All zoom lenses that expand in volume when zoomed will pump air, it can’t be effectively filtered no matter how many seals the manufacturer claims they install. You must allow unrestricted airflow in and out of the lens or it will act like a spring. All such lenses draw in dust - whatever is in the air. You need a lens barrel where everything happens internally to prevent this pumping action, and even these lenses are not fully sealed since they need to breathe to account for changes in barometric pressure and altitude changes.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 14:26 UTC
In reply to:

evaeva0705: So many people complaining about plastic mount on a 100g lens. Funny. If you look at the teardown of those F2.8 zoom lenses which easily weight over 1kg, their inner barrels are mostly plastic. The fact is modern AF lens are mostly made out of plastic.

I don't know why suddenly it becomes an issue.

Plastics, like electronics, are much better than they used to be years ago. Electronics are accepted as reliable today without a second thought and the reputation of plastic materials is improving as well. It’s not like it used to be.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 13:03 UTC

Give the people what they want! Awesome to see affordable alternatives for people who don’t have unlimited budgets. Interesting product strategy.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2021 at 12:48 UTC as 56th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Even as a time lapse, this shows it takes a lot longer to build something that to destroy something.

Phillip
I’m curious why you’re so critical of everything having to do with the memorial, and what business is it of yours anyway? I’m starting to think you know absolutely nothing about the subject and you just have an opinion for the sake of having one. Go ask Larry Silverstein why it took so long.
And it always takes a long time to build anything in NYC, you can read about the “pencil towers” with ultra luxury apartments overlooking Central Park and all the litigation that went into clearing the way to build them.
The memorial, btw, also serves as a kind of park and open space sorely lacking in NYC. Manhattan is already ridiculously over-built.
Lighten up.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2021 at 22:55 UTC
In reply to:

Phillip Forsten: How could it be forgotten when the subject is constantly being brought up? Just look at the news sites today.

I'm American and a New Yorker, and as patriotic as they come, and frankly I'm long tired of the subject. I doubt those that died that day would want their loved ones and the public to keep rehashing the event so much and in the manner that it has been. America (and probably most Western countries) has become weak and easily traumatized, and now anything and everything is memorialized beyond reason, like the grossly over the top WTC memorial. It’s not healthy people.

I won’t contradict your point of view but this was a pivotal moment in history. It precipitated a war and we have only just now withdrawn from Afghanistan, 20 years later. So many things changed after 9/11, it’s significance goes well beyond the loss of life at the time. I used to travel to New York and went up to the roof of the WTC on two different occasions. I had a hotel on Front street very near the WTC, I walk between the buildings on my way to the Empire State Building. Later I went back and saw the “bath tub” reconstructed after all the debris had been removed, and again some time later and stood at the memorial. These memorials lose their significance over time as the people who remember pass away, kind of like civil war memorials today - they’re just relics now without connotation. But right now a great many people do remember.
I agree that the site of every tragedy does not require a permanent memorial but 9/11 was hugely significant.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2021 at 21:33 UTC
Total: 2468, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »