Lives in United States San Diego, CA, United States
Has a website at photos.spencerberus.com
Joined on Jul 20, 2011


Total: 43, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: Anything similar with good quality for Canon FL/FD? I don't mean a basic manual adapter, I have one of them, but one with the optical elements.

FYI, they recently announced an FD to MFT adapter, still not available from B&H but you can order it from the manufacturer: http://www.zyoptics.net/product/zhongyi-lens-turbo-adapters-for-micro-four-thirds-cameras-m43/

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2016 at 21:21 UTC
On article Kodak reborn: A look at JK Imaging's 2014 lineup (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

Parampreet Dhatt: Its sad to see one of the pioneering brands in photography being "resurrected" to market cheap Asian knockoff MILCs.
George Eastman must really be turning in his grave.

I have nothing against these cameras as such, in fact I'm sure they'll make very good, value for money entry-level cameras.
Its just sad to see a brand like Kodak being reduced to this.

This has become all too common, mostly I think because of failed transitions from film to digital. Polaroid, Vivitar, Bell & Howell, Rollei - all are the same, companies that no longer exist, just a name licensed to market poor products.

Hopefully JK Imaging does better with the Kodak name than has been done with these others, but it will take time. These first products look like a foot-in-the-door effort, hopefully we'll see better from them in the future.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2014 at 17:23 UTC
On article Panasonic GX7 First Impressions Review (1200 comments in total)
In reply to:

peevee1: NEX-6 is less than $600 ($648 - $50 gift card and includes plenty of extra accessories on B&H). E-M5, with 5-axis IBIS actually working in video, 9 full-res fps and WEATHER SEALED BODY is about $850. $1000 for this is totally crazy today (of course $1000 for E-P5 is even crazier).

And $1100 with the stupidly dark 14-42 II which is not even that small and does not have powerzoom, compared to NEX-6 with 16-50 PZ for less then $700 (with total package even smaller and lighter)? Even crazier. GX1 fell to its rightful price of $199 in one year of availability, this one will probably hit $299.

So, you're implying this is a better camera than the E-P5, and $100 is too much for the 14-42 II lens.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2013 at 16:49 UTC
In reply to:

ultimitsu: DPR should stop using the term "effective focal length". It is misleading.

It is better to say "has FOV of".

They should start referring to APS-C and FF lenses in terms of their "effective focal length" on m43.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2013 at 16:44 UTC
In reply to:

Artistico: Had Panasonic come out with this before the excellent and sharp-wide-open 45mm f/1.8, this would probably have sold a bit. Now more people will wait and see the test results before buying as this lens simply has to perform really well below 1.8 to be worth buying.

Unlike sentiments expressed in numerous other comments, I do like the name Nocticron. Summicron, Summilux and Noctilux probably all had some people doubting the naming choice when those came out.

Nocticron = late night clock. Roughly.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2013 at 16:32 UTC
In reply to:

ethern1ty: Great lens! Funny to see such stupid comment about m43 and FF. Both systems are great !

45mm f1.2 looks amazing. Ok there is the 50mm f.95 voigtlander, but this one is made by leica made and has AF :)

All Leica did was help design and quality control the lens. They do a bit more than collect a fee, as ignorant people seem to think.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2013 at 16:25 UTC

Not an amateur photographer anymore - s/he just got paid (hopefully).

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2013 at 20:05 UTC as 12th comment
On article Will the next smartphones measure in ultrapixels? (16 comments in total)

This is a case of "just enough info to get people talking, not enough info to tell you anything". Success!

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2013 at 20:27 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

AliRoust: You 'll get killed by vignetting wide open and you won't get the background blur cause a 1.2 is really a 2.8 on m 4/3. I had a real bad experience with the Panasonic leica 50 m 1.4. Plus it looks cheap.

F1.2 on m43 is equivalent to about f/1.8 or f/1.9 on FF in terms of DOF, f-values are not linear with respect to aperture size (i.e., f/1.4 is a full stop faster, or twice the light, of f/2.0, not f/2.8).

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2013 at 00:04 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: People with small sensors seem to suffer from inferiority complex, otherwise how can one explain inability to understanding the simple laws of physics behind the equivalence (http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#1)

The biggest problem with equivalency arguments is that people make the equivalency conversion, but then try to compare the lens to a non-equivalent one with the same numeric values. You can't say '75mm f/1.8 on m43 is equivalent to 150mm f/3.6 on FF" and then complain that the 75mm f/1.8 on m43 doesn't have the same depth of field as a 75mm f/1.8 on FF. Or, you can, but you're just arguing with yourself at that point.

People will believe and regurgitate whatever supports their own ideas and decisions, understanding what they are saying is often optional.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2013 at 23:57 UTC
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: Once more with feeling ...
In response to what seems to be a misunderstanding that has shown up in several posts here (and I see in others on DPR):

An f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens, period. F-values are a measure of the size of the aperture vs.the focal length of the lens. Or: Fstop=focal length/aperture. These are the _only_ two factors determining a given f-number. The size of the sensor that the lens will cover is irrelevant as far as the f-stop is concerned.

So a FF 150mm f/2.8 lens mounted on an m4/3 body via an adapter will have exactly the same maximum f-stop as an m4/3 lens on that body, provided the adapter doesn't change the effective focal length of the FF lens. (Assuming the lenses are correctly spec'd by the makers.)

Actual light transmission is measured in T-stops, of course, which is why pro video shooters use lenses calibrated that way.

If you want more detail, of if you think I'm wrong, Google 'f-stops' or 'f-number' and read the articles.


Look at the post immediately preceding this one - the poster talks about 35mm equivalents as double the f-stop (or half the light). People bring this up all the time.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2013 at 23:36 UTC
On article CP+ 2013: Interview with Olympus' Toshi Terada (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deleted pending purge: The sheer amount of various formats makes one think about why. What really dictates the image formats today? Cinema? Can't be. TV? Which among all the various sizes? Books? Newspapers? Surely not. Almost every paper-reproduced image has to be adapted to any of these formats.
So why don't they all agree that the best photo imaging format would be square? It exploits the lens FOV in the best possible way. It gets rid of side-up camera holding. It produces images easily cropped to all ratios or purposes. It allows internal masking to facilitate framing for every photographer's need...
No go. We get to buy whatever the analog era left behind, as if it's some stone-hewn universal law.
Ditto, mechanical mirrors in digital cameras - obsolete from the first digital camera onward. Ditto, camera shapes; although there is no more film to stretch between the casette and the take-up roll. Ditto, God forbid, an universal lens mount.
Funny, but the whole thing is supposed to cater to camera users...

Our visual field is rectangular, that's why its better than a square. Any square that fills our visual field horizontally will exceed our visual field vertically. If you start with the square and always have to crop, then you end up using less of the lens than if you start with the rectangle.

If we're going for maximum use of area covered by the lens, then the 'best format' would be a circle. Why not advocate for a circular format?

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2013 at 23:22 UTC

Where's the instant photos? Looks like they've left out the only feature that's truly 'Polaroid', guess I'll have to keep printing my Instagram pictures on Post-It notes instead.

And why isn't anyone talking about Sakar's NERF camera? Finally, a camera you can shoot at someone's head: http://www.sakar.com/products/16,cameras/27,nerf-digital-camera

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2013 at 00:17 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply
On article Panasonic introduces ultrathin DMC-XS1 compact camera (11 comments in total)

Looks like a very rough draft of an attempt to marry a smart phone with a more fully-functional camera than most have. They've got the form factor, now it's time to add the smartphone. I would expect a few more rough drafts with incremental additions before they reach this goal, if they ever do.

Or maybe they don't have a goal, in which case, goal achieved!

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2013 at 00:06 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Best Camera of 2012: And the Winner is... (1413 comments in total)
In reply to:

mas54: Again, the 800/E is NOT a successor to the 700. It is an original. Second of all, there is a big difference between most-popular and best. When will this site return to some rational objectivity?

You never get objectivity when you ask people their opinion. Opinions are subjective. This is an opinion poll, nothing else.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2013 at 21:28 UTC
On article Microsoft releases Camera Codec Pack with RAW support (82 comments in total)
In reply to:

HMi: Duh, Oly E-5 missing :-(

You might try them anyway, if their RAW formats aren't any different than other cameras that are listed, the codec pack should decode them. Codecs are really for specific file formats, not cameras, I think they just list the cameras as that makes more sense to end users, but the list may be incomplete.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2012 at 20:03 UTC
In reply to:

tommy leong: something strange about Microsoft lately
Seems like they are doing things with photographers in mind.

Could it be they think they are actually a competitor to Apple ?

Microsoft has had this camera codec pack for years, this is just an update to support additional formats.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2012 at 20:00 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Just now adding support for the Minolta Maxxum 5D, eh?

Just one more reason why I run Linux and other free software (e.g., dcraw)....

Linux doesn't provide native support for decoding RAW formats either. There is free software for Linux to decode most of them, like dcraw, which is also available for Windows. Microsoft is simply providing their own codecs for decoding these file formats as images without additional software packages. There are valid reasons for bashing Microsoft, but this is not one of them.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2012 at 19:34 UTC
In reply to:

Digitall: Dear brains of Microsoft

For when the Universsal DNG support in your products. This request extends to all manufacturers of cameras and photo software. Only very few offer direct support in their products.
Adobe offers them the rights to apply the support DNG, for free!

I was also converted to DNG, The best thing I did to streamline the workflow. I do not like getting hooked on RAW's brand owners. I would shoot directly in DNG, but for now it is not possible for me.
Thank you Adobe

Why are you complaining about this to Microsoft? They have no control over how camera companies choose to format their RAW output, they are just providing the ability to decode those formats as images, and for free. Thank Microsoft, complain to the camera companies.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2012 at 19:31 UTC
Total: 43, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »