sh10453

sh10453

Lives in United States Michigan, United States
Works as a Electrical & Computer Engineer
Joined on May 2, 2010
About me:

My large collection of Canon FD lenses is back to life. Thanks to mirrorless cameras and adapters. I particularly love the FD 35-105mm w/macro, f/3.5, which is well known for its clarity and sharpness, and the FD 50mm, 1.2, L.

Comments

Total: 816, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Barney, Barney, Barneyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ...
What happened to balanced journalism?
I got the humor part, but this article won't be complete or balanced without listing the 10 reasons NOT to buy the iPhone as well.
OK, forgiven. Just follow up with another article, with the 10 reasons NOT to ... :)
Have a great Seattle day.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2016 at 11:20 UTC as 132nd comment | 3 replies
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,
"I can tell you it's not hard with a lens this wide: use a hyperfocal distance"
What does that mean?

Wide angle, very wide angle, and ultra wide angle lenses have a very wide depth of field (DOF).
So the comment meant that it's easy to get your object in focus when using a lens this wide even if your focus setting wasn't set to the distance between your lens and the subject.
In other words, such ultra wide angle lenses are forgiving when it comes to focusing, although it depends on your selection of aperture.

Understanding "Hyper Focal Distance" helps a great deal as well. Try to read about it.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 13:46 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).

Generally speaking, you have to set the aperture manually on manual focus lenses, but there are some manual focus lenses with automatic aperture control.

On a manual focus lens, you set your aperture in advance. The aperture you select depends on what you want to accomplish (DOF, or fast shutter, etc.).

For focus, if you are shooting still subjects, then you have plenty of time to focus manually. However, if you are shooting fast-moving objects (birds, sports, etc.), then you'd want to estimate the distance in advance, or simply set it to infinity if the objects are far from you (like 25 meters or more, roughly).

One more important thing, I highly recommend that you search and read about "hyper focal distance", which can help you a great deal when shooting fast-moving objects with a manual focus lens.
It is not hard to shoot with such lenses, but, like almost anything else in life, it takes some practice.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 13:20 UTC
On article Interview: Landscape photography master Charlie Waite (29 comments in total)

I confess that I never heard of Charlie Waite before this article.
A very interesting story of how a little lie got Charlie into a new lifetime career!
Good advice on don't try to be a jack of all trades.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 12:34 UTC as 8th comment
On article Canon announces new flagship EOS C700 cinema camera (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: I wish that DPR would make a subscription of just a $1.00 per year for membership, and that only the home page can be viewed by non-members!
If you want to read articles, pay the annual dues!

At just a $1 a year, we'd get rid of a large percentage of trolls, if not most of them.

It's sad to see some "supposedly" grownup people write and behave worse than 4th grade children with their useless bashing of one manufacturer or the other.

CanonKen,
I agree.
Then let all visitors read the articles, but only paid subscribers can write comments :-)

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2016 at 03:13 UTC
On article Canon announces new flagship EOS C700 cinema camera (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: I wish that DPR would make a subscription of just a $1.00 per year for membership, and that only the home page can be viewed by non-members!
If you want to read articles, pay the annual dues!

At just a $1 a year, we'd get rid of a large percentage of trolls, if not most of them.

It's sad to see some "supposedly" grownup people write and behave worse than 4th grade children with their useless bashing of one manufacturer or the other.

I'd be happy to pay $10 a year if that takes the trolls out!

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2016 at 00:47 UTC
In reply to:

scastle: Nowhere in the above blurb does it say that it uses Fujifilm Instax Mini film. The word "film" is in fact used once, but I had to reread it to realize that it wasn't a slip. Uh, I thought this site was Digital Photography Review? What's digital about this?

Go to its kickstarter page and you will see it say

"Uses Fujifilm Instax Mini: Widely-available, pocked-sized and ideal for keeping in your wallet, putting on your wall, or giving to your friends."

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2016 at 18:29 UTC
In reply to:

chile7236: What US carriers carry Huawei? Love my nexus 6p...wpuldng2mind adding another down the road.

Honor 8 was released on August 26. Reviews are extremely favorable.
It's being sold by NewEgg for $399, unlocked. Mine is on order.
I have been with T-Mobile since 2005 after I left Verizon with bad experience.
AT&T is unreasonably too expensive.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2016 at 01:49 UTC
On article Canon announces new flagship EOS C700 cinema camera (169 comments in total)

I wish that DPR would make a subscription of just a $1.00 per year for membership, and that only the home page can be viewed by non-members!
If you want to read articles, pay the annual dues!

At just a $1 a year, we'd get rid of a large percentage of trolls, if not most of them.

It's sad to see some "supposedly" grownup people write and behave worse than 4th grade children with their useless bashing of one manufacturer or the other.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2016 at 01:23 UTC as 4th comment | 11 replies

Never underestimate the gorilla.

Canon isn't just in the camera business.
Cameras are not even their big business.

Canon is in the businesses of radiology products, other medical equipment, electronic control systems, optron products, manufacturing / industrial products, machine vision, optoelectrnics, motion control, lithography products, and more.

I'm sure Canon cannot survive, or know how to do business without the advice on how to do their business from trolls on various photography web sites who can't afford even Canon's entry level Rebel cameras.

As one of my professors back in graduate school used to say (or repeat the good old saying):
*** IF YOU CAN'T RUN WITH THE BIG DOGS, STAY ON YOUR PORCH. ***

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2016 at 02:01 UTC as 6th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

calmins: I own a FE90,the minimum aperture is F22,it is not good enough for some Dof,like shooting beatles,and Minimum aperture of FE50 MACRO is F16,will it have the same issue like my fe90?

So far I am happy with the results using macro tubes with my regular Canon EF-L lenses on a FF Canon DSLR.
On my mirrorless Sony I use Canon FD, L, manual focus lenses, with macro tubes for closeup work.
I also use the legendary Canon FD 35-105mm on the Sony, which has a built-in macro feature, I love this lens so much that I had purchased 3 copies of it in the late 1990s, and I still have them. This lens is a gem, worth every penny of its price.
I rarely carry my 100mm and 50mm macro lenses.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 14:50 UTC
In reply to:

tinetz: On a side note, I like that it somehow looks like a larger version of the (in)famously designed Pentax K-01 ;-)
https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/articles/8417299899/images/camera-inhand-001.jpeg

The styling reminds me of one of Panasonic's early days point & shoot cameras.
I think around the year 2000, but I'm too lazy right now to search for the model number.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 14:27 UTC
In reply to:

Autriche78: This delay highlights one issue, which is the insane degree of inter-dependence that ensues from single-source manufacturing. When ONE facility going offline for whatever reasons can cause these kinds of disruptions across a large sector of ANY industry ( Fuji is raising their prices as a result the same event, supposedly ) , that should be a warning to us that globalization isn't all it's cracked up to be. I hope for all our sakes that pharmaceutical companies that produce life-saving medications don't have similar reliance on single production facilities. And if they do, that they have more brains than to situate them someplace where earthquakes and natural disasters are a frequent occurrence.

This reminds me a bit of a different problem, beach erosion, and of the folks who keep building houses as close as possible to the oceanfront and then complain because they can't get homeowner's insurance.

@Autriche
A perfect example (of relying on a single source) is the dispute between VW and a couple of its suppliers (ended a couple of days ago), which caused major problems, and even the shutdown of some assembly plants globally.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 14:24 UTC

It seems to me that this micro-adjustment feature, as it is now, would be most beneficial in lab applications (microscope imagery), where the adjustment in micrometers makes a difference, and can only be noticeable under the microscope, and that would be its "real world" application.
It's a "MICRO" adjustment, not an inch adjustment for crying out loud!!

Future development could implement multiple layers focused at plus/minus x micrometers, for example, or maybe even a plus/minus a millimeter.

Taking this opportunity to brag about mirrorless, or to bash one brand or the other is simply childish, immature, and adds no value to the discussion.

Thumbs up to DPR for going after claimed new features, but I think using microscopic photography would've been a better approach in this particular case.

Thanks Richard, and thanks Carey for volunteering your eye and being such a great model :-).

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 14:11 UTC as 22nd comment

If I was to hang my camera collection on a wall, I'd rather use Plexiglas housing to keep dust and fingerprints away.
As far as this bracket is concerned, I think one can easily find a flat, L-shaped metal bracket at hardware stores for about $2 or less, plus $0.20 for the screw, and not 3-D printed, so no worry about layer separation.
A $21 is too ambitious a price.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 15:18 UTC as 10th comment
On article Updated: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV real-world sample gallery (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: Great effort for a window of opportunity of just a couple of days.

The models should've dressed in beach clothings. Taking the young lady to a sandy beach in high heels is a bit of torture :-)

Technically speaking, wouldn't it be more appropriate here to process the images using Canon's own software?

Thanks Carey .. appreciate the reply. I can understand the work flow issue.
Looking forward to see the DPR in DPP.
Keep up the good work!

Yes, she may have managed well with these shoes, but they both "do not match" the environment. :-)
Besides, swim-wear would've been far more attractive on the beach.
I hope by now they got all the sand out of their shoes!!
A beautiful model, though.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 20:29 UTC
On article Updated: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV real-world sample gallery (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: Great effort for a window of opportunity of just a couple of days.

The models should've dressed in beach clothings. Taking the young lady to a sandy beach in high heels is a bit of torture :-)

Technically speaking, wouldn't it be more appropriate here to process the images using Canon's own software?

Yes, and it's "... a very early beta build ..."
That makes it hard, if possible at all, to judge the images.
Personally I do not use Adobe's Camera Raw at all, and I'm not a fan of it.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 15:51 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Good catch.
Without tests like this, manufacturers may miss such "defects" or glitches, and, therefore, no fix or improvement in a next generation.

Strange that some folks are acting like the roof of their house has collapsed over their heads!
Hopefully, this test will become one of the standard tests in camera reviews.

Question: Is this effect due to hardware (ADC, processor & RAM buffer combination) inability to keep up with the sudden changes in the view?
In other words, is it due to the processing engine being not fast enough?

Would Canon be able to fix (reduce) this effect in a firmware update, which I doubt?

I know that the output devices (storage cards) may not be fast enough to cope with the sudden changes, but a large enough RAM buffer would probably reduce the negative effect significantly if the issue is due to the speed of the storage device, although it may not be enough to eliminate it.

Thanks again Zdman,
" The full well capacity of the tiny pixels wouldn't be large enough for that type of precision." ... Good point.
I didn't think of it, but obviously I thought of the added cost, complexity, and the additional negative impact on the rolling shutter issue.

On the other hand, for the RS issue, it seems to me that the processing engine might be the main culprit.

The 1D X Mark II, which uses the dual DIGIC 6 engine, at twice the frame rate, doesn't suffer much from the RS issue.
Perhaps the DIGIC 6 (used as single) is getting a bit too old to handle such power.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 15:03 UTC
On article Canon EOS 5D IV: What you need to know (185 comments in total)

Thanks Barney,
Slide 10, the last line says Mark II. Obviously a typo.

Do I get a cookie now? :-)

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 13:11 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply
On article Updated: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV real-world sample gallery (485 comments in total)

Great effort for a window of opportunity of just a couple of days.

The models should've dressed in beach clothings. Taking the young lady to a sandy beach in high heels is a bit of torture :-)

Technically speaking, wouldn't it be more appropriate here to process the images using Canon's own software?

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 11:38 UTC as 97th comment | 4 replies
Total: 816, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »