Photomonkey

Lives in United States CA, United States
Works as a Photographer
Joined on Oct 28, 2002

Comments

Total: 972, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Photomonkey: Despite all the criticism of IQ on an unreleased lens, this promises to allow a lot of flexibility for APS-C users.
The design is leveraging the compact sensor to produce a small lens that will not be burden to leave on the camera at all times.
IMO the IQ issues will be small as the vast bulk of images appear online, on phones and in small prints.
More joy, less hassle.

It is perfect for most as most are not pixel peepers.
The shortcomings that bother you are of no concern to them. Perfection is not important.
It is not sad that most do not share your preoccupation with gear.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 02:10 UTC
In reply to:

Photomonkey: Despite all the criticism of IQ on an unreleased lens, this promises to allow a lot of flexibility for APS-C users.
The design is leveraging the compact sensor to produce a small lens that will not be burden to leave on the camera at all times.
IMO the IQ issues will be small as the vast bulk of images appear online, on phones and in small prints.
More joy, less hassle.

This lens is about convenience. For it's specs it is compact.
The alternative is a bag of lenses with even more weight, a risk of dust and the tedium of lens changes.
Many photographers will welcome this lens if the popularity of the 16-300 is any indicator.
Not every lens can be measured by the metric of expensive, high speed primes. For most photographers this is a perfect lens.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 19:18 UTC

Despite all the criticism of IQ on an unreleased lens, this promises to allow a lot of flexibility for APS-C users.
The design is leveraging the compact sensor to produce a small lens that will not be burden to leave on the camera at all times.
IMO the IQ issues will be small as the vast bulk of images appear online, on phones and in small prints.
More joy, less hassle.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 14:32 UTC as 68th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

wcowan: Godox make a great flash that is let down by the horrible LiPo batteries. My two Godox flashes had the batteries fail within months of purchase. Since they were bought overseas it was not worth sending them back for replacement. Because of the battery problems which I and many others have had I wouldn't buy another Godox flash.

I have 6 of these flashes and the batteries have been rock solid.
The batteries and the performance of the flashes convinced me to ditch all my AA units.

Rechargeable AA batteries cannot hold a candle to the 860 lithium ion batteries.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 14:12 UTC

I liked the disclaimer at the end that said "Do not attempt".

It had not occurred to me that I might find a neighbor with a 787 that wanted to horse around a bit.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 03:48 UTC as 75th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

TN Args: If Canon are so slow to produce mirrorless camera/lens systems, imagine how slow they will be to adopt sensors that cannot use their existing lenses.

Current lenses try to create a flat field of focus. The researchers made a custom f1.2 lens specifically for their sensor the Canon lens mentioned was the lens they were comparing against. Using a current lens on that sensor would yield very blurred edges
With lenses matched to a curved sensor, the light falloff is also dramatically reduced.

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2017 at 05:20 UTC
In reply to:

I have a dream: That's crazy...
Latest Sony and Nikon have reduced DR (D5 < D4) while Canon, who was always weaker on DR, has improved a lot lately...

It isn't a make or break situation despite the heavy breathing over DR.
Focusing on DR to the extent that is popular implies that it is.

Either it is or it isn't. If it isn't, why are we subjected to thousands of posts implying that it is?

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 16:49 UTC
In reply to:

I have a dream: That's crazy...
Latest Sony and Nikon have reduced DR (D5 < D4) while Canon, who was always weaker on DR, has improved a lot lately...

As others have noted, the DR "limitations" of cameras over 5 years old did not prevent the taking of epic photographs.
Highlight and shadow correction can be done with startling effect by even the most modest of cameras.
I have used only high end FF cameras since the first Canon 1Ds and at no time ever was DR a limiting factor in the production of images for my clients. Ever.

Suggesting it is a make or break issue is BS considering we are talking about lab differences and ignoring the equalizing factors of the field and artistic representation.

I also take issue with the idea that in a sports image someone may say "Well, that is a nice image of Usain Bolt but I think we need to see the detail in the weave of his black shorts a bit better." Really?
Get over to Imaging Resource where they have a superb comparison tool that gives a much closer approximation of real life results and you will see how little the DR debate matters.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 02:55 UTC
In reply to:

DPPMetro: The tradeoffs seem very reasonable for the ones who prioritize that speed and focusing. Basically, this is not a toy for hobbyists, though no doubt a large number of spec-sheet photographers on DPR will buy it so they can take challenging flower photos with it and then will complain.

@DPPMetro, I think you mean cat photos.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2017 at 23:30 UTC
In reply to:

I have a dream: That's crazy...
Latest Sony and Nikon have reduced DR (D5 < D4) while Canon, who was always weaker on DR, has improved a lot lately...

@beatboxa, The DR hit is meaningless. Most people quack on about DR and then have no idea what they might do with it, often citing 6 stop pushes of a crap file.
I have no real love or hate for any camera but there are no images in the world that could only have been made with a file that has 13-14 stops of DR.
The real fact is that DR is a new metric to fuss over and has never made a cat or food photo better.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2017 at 23:27 UTC

Huh, no free lunch.
Who Knew?

Link | Posted on May 30, 2017 at 23:22 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Photomonkey: I proposed this solution back when the GFX was first announced.
I was particularly thinking of using a Canon 17 TS-E.

The aperture problem is not impossible. Sigma could do this easily.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 22:23 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (828 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photomonkey: Far too many are plastic cameras from the 90's.
Let's look at real metal.
Nikkormat, Nikon F, F2,F3,F4.
Minotla SRT-101., Pentax Spotmatic, Fujica ST-701, Topcon Super D
Canon FT or Pellix or Canon A-1. Leicaflex SL2 is not even too expensive. Zeiss Contarex Super.
Even an Exakta VX 1000 is more amusing and fun than this lot of largely white bread gear.
As for film, that is what kept people out of the hobby. Too expensive! Too much learning about exposure!
Digital removed the barrier to those technically indifferent and allowed more people to have fun making images.
Film will be interesting to many raised on digital but the number remaining true devotees will be small.

@KAllen, I think interest is what motivates people over the obstacles of an endeavor. I think of myself as terribly lazy but I have been involved with photography for over 40 years.
This started with an interest in bird photography that transitioned to mastering my darkroom skills and eventually led to a career in photography.
I have met countless people "interested" in photography (nearly everyone it seems) but few actually get busy with it because their interest rarely rise above the casual.
I find this true in every field where the shiny , appealing bits attract interest but the pastime dulls the interest.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 18:34 UTC

I proposed this solution back when the GFX was first announced.
I was particularly thinking of using a Canon 17 TS-E.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 18:10 UTC as 30th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

rfsIII: Cameras have never been the same since they abandoned the M42 screw mount—screws have been serving mankind since 400 BC. Why the sudden need to "improve."

I can only guess you never tried to change lenses quickly at a wedding in the dark.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 15:33 UTC
In reply to:

photenth: Will dpreview now start adding electronic shutter read out times in future camera reviews?

The manufacturers have these specs and have released them in the past.
If they see a marketing advantage to doing so they will hype the spec like any other.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 19:15 UTC
In reply to:

Herkybird: One thing going for the ol' obsolete CCD is none of these problems existed. Good example would be the Nikon D40 with its hybrid electro-mechanical shutter arrangement; reasonably clean up to ISO 1600, TTL flash sync up to 1/500 second and non-TTL sync up to 1/4000 second.

One thing the D40 had was a very low DR which these days is a stake through the heart as far as enthusiasts go.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 13:16 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (828 comments in total)

Far too many are plastic cameras from the 90's.
Let's look at real metal.
Nikkormat, Nikon F, F2,F3,F4.
Minotla SRT-101., Pentax Spotmatic, Fujica ST-701, Topcon Super D
Canon FT or Pellix or Canon A-1. Leicaflex SL2 is not even too expensive. Zeiss Contarex Super.
Even an Exakta VX 1000 is more amusing and fun than this lot of largely white bread gear.
As for film, that is what kept people out of the hobby. Too expensive! Too much learning about exposure!
Digital removed the barrier to those technically indifferent and allowed more people to have fun making images.
Film will be interesting to many raised on digital but the number remaining true devotees will be small.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 16:15 UTC as 325th comment | 4 replies
On article Sony a9: more speed, less dynamic range (666 comments in total)
In reply to:

chshooter: Be it a sports camera or not. People who want to spend big bucks on a flagship camera expect the best technology and quality in every way. Professional cameras are not just meant for sport but have to be reliable powerhouses that handle everything well. Having the camera fall short of the established competition is a dealbreaker. The once famous Sony dynamic range has now dropped below Canon level. Same happened with the a99II which is even worse than its five year old predecessor.

This is an action camera. Since when are we caught by surprise in an action venue and need a 6 stop push?
Moreover, the performance of a massive shadow lift is still very good, just not at A7RII levels.
In real world use the "shortcomings" will never been seen except by pixel peeping hobbyists staring into the shadow areas of their cat photos.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2017 at 13:47 UTC
On article Sony FE 12-24mm F4 G sample gallery (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

ZeneticX: such image quality for an ultra wide f4 zoom with an impressive size, can't complaint much

just wish its a bit lower in price

The price is not far from Sigma's 12-24 lens.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 17:56 UTC
Total: 972, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »