LX-D

Joined on Mar 11, 2019

Comments

Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20
In reply to:

marc petzold: The Analogue Film Market is very small, even smaller, for Medium or Large Format.

But way nice, that Enthusiasts are shooting with them. I am settled with analogue 135 Film, means 35mm Format.

A fine sunday, and good light.

What it means is that people keep calling it 35mm but that is only the width of the filmstrip and not what the image format is (which is 24×36) or the name of the film type (which is type 135). One can also shoot 18×24 on the same film (with special Nikon models for the police or the Olympus Pen series), or 24×30, 24×32 and 24×34mm as by some early Nikon rangefinder models.

Confusingly 35mm is a very appropriate focal length for the 24×36 format and 135mm is also a very popular focal length here.

Agfa Rapid was another film format being 35mm but it wasn't type 135. Using '35mm' as denominator thus is incirrect and confusing.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2019 at 17:54 UTC
In reply to:

marc petzold: The Analogue Film Market is very small, even smaller, for Medium or Large Format.

But way nice, that Enthusiasts are shooting with them. I am settled with analogue 135 Film, means 35mm Format.

A fine sunday, and good light.

What it means is that people keep calling it 35mm but that is only the width of the filmstrip and not what the image format is (which is 24×36) or the name of the film type (which is type 135). One can also shoot 18×24 on the same film (with special Nikon models for the police or the Olympus Pen series), or 24×30, 24×32 and 24×34mm as by some early Nikon rangefinder models.

Confusingly 35mm is a very appropriate focal length for the 24×36 format and 135mm is also a very popular focal length here.

Agfa Rapid was another film format being 35mm but it wasn't type 135. Using '35mm' as denominator thus is incirrect and confusing.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2019 at 17:54 UTC
In reply to:

marc petzold: The Analogue Film Market is very small, even smaller, for Medium or Large Format.

But way nice, that Enthusiasts are shooting with them. I am settled with analogue 135 Film, means 35mm Format.

A fine sunday, and good light.

24×36mm frame. 35mm is the focal length of the most appropriate lens for that.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2019 at 12:11 UTC

Nice that E100 is comming back in 120 after its 135 return but please we need iso 200 and iso 400 slide film. My d-slr shoots at iso 1600 and that is ancient already.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2019 at 12:09 UTC as 1st comment
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm XF 16mm F2.8 quick review (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

rbach44: These Fuji primes are looking nice… I wish Nikon would make something similar. Small, handy, perhaps a bit slow, and optically great.

On the subject of the FL: I think 24mm are great. Just wide enough for that wide angle kick without the gimmick of an ultra wide. The internet does not need another image of a huge foreground with pinpoint background or another “imposing castle” shot of some building because the photographer was looking up a degree or two.

As for the Minolta MD45, one has to be aware of sample variations, even with a new copy but especially with a copy nearly 40 years old. Reviews i found were pretty positive but it is to be expected a modern lens will vastly outperform it.

“It’s really sharp. It’s like razor sharp,” Stern says. “And the micro contrasts are amazing.”
https://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/review-rokkor-45mm-f2-razor-sharp-30-manual-lens/

"Unassuming, under-appreciated, but capable of producing solid, exceptional images time and time again."
https://www.casualphotophile.com/2017/07/21/minolta-md-rokkor-x-45mm-f2-lens-review/

http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=2079
https://lensqaworks.com/2018/10/17/review-minolta-md-rokkor-45mm-f2-0/

"he Rokker 45mm is the second sharpest lens I own, right beind the Micro Nikkor. But it is 1 to 2 stops faster, and has a smoother quality...
... A real gem of a lens"
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/45mm-f2-rokkor-md.53742/

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2019 at 14:52 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm XF 16mm F2.8 quick review (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

rbach44: These Fuji primes are looking nice… I wish Nikon would make something similar. Small, handy, perhaps a bit slow, and optically great.

On the subject of the FL: I think 24mm are great. Just wide enough for that wide angle kick without the gimmick of an ultra wide. The internet does not need another image of a huge foreground with pinpoint background or another “imposing castle” shot of some building because the photographer was looking up a degree or two.

"Actually, the Lumix 14/2.5 was one of my favorites...so wide, so compact."
It may be compact, but it isn't very wide. What is wide is a field of view of a 24mm on fullframe and very wide is the field of view of a 20mm on fullframe. A 24mm had a field of view of 53° 8' on the short end, 73° 4' on the long end and 84° 4' diagonally. For a 20mm it is 61° 56', 83° 58' and 94° 30' respectively.

On a (µ)FT camera you'd have to get 12mm and a 10mm respectively. None of the qualifying lenses is compact, let alone a pancake type.

On an aps-c Canon you get a 15mm and on other brands (Sony, Pentax, Nikon, Samsung) a 16mm. The only Canon option, the EF-M 15-45 is acceptable in size. The Pentax DA15 is compact, the Sony E 16-50 nearly is a pancake and the Sony 16mm prime can be considered so but the last two have a performance that is barely good enough for Lomography. (just read the tests on photozone.de/opticallimits.com or lenstip.com the latter is being mild here).

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2019 at 14:40 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm XF 16mm F2.8 quick review (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

rbach44: These Fuji primes are looking nice… I wish Nikon would make something similar. Small, handy, perhaps a bit slow, and optically great.

On the subject of the FL: I think 24mm are great. Just wide enough for that wide angle kick without the gimmick of an ultra wide. The internet does not need another image of a huge foreground with pinpoint background or another “imposing castle” shot of some building because the photographer was looking up a degree or two.

@captura
Pancakes were popular before. One oldie often seen as pancake lens is the 1969 GN-Nikkor 45/2.8 which was designed to be used with certain flashguns (bulbs and electronic) with fixed guide numbers in mind. With the comming of automatic electronic flashguns in 1970-1972 GN-lenses and GN-controlled flash-exposure on camera's like the Canonets became obsolete.

Later 'pancake' lenses were 1981 Minolta MD-Rokkor 45/2.8 and 1992 Carl Zeiss Tessar 45/2.8 that came with the Contax S2.

All these are hardly flat compared to the 1976 smc-Pentax-M 40/2.8. I've had this but i didn't like its field of view so it's 1 (of 4) i traded in. I am especially fond of the field of view of 60mm (film&fullframe) which on an aps-c this 40mm would give.

Your µFT 20/1.7 has the same field of view as that smc-Pentax-M 40/2.8 thus i have no purpose for such a lens. I would get the DA15, and DA70 pancakes for aps-c and for that even 43 ltd. The DA40 is too small to manualfocus, the DA40XS worse.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2019 at 09:30 UTC
In reply to:

KevinWu: My GR3 is in the serial number list, but I don't even bother to send back mine to fix the issue. As Ricoh said, it doesn't affect a bit in daily use of the camera.

I would be surprised if Ricoh 'repairs' that stuff in my country even though it is done everywhere else in the world.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2019 at 14:14 UTC
In reply to:

RolliPoli: Pentax is in free fall and taken Ricoh with it and, oh yes, pulling the earth and even fast cyclists out of solar orbit. :o

This camera has nothing to do with the Pentax brand, Ricoh carries the GR-line from way before they bought Pentax from Hoya.

It is Hoya that nearly destroyed Pentax. Hoya were after all only interested in the medical branch. Owning Tokina also they completely stopped having that brand issuing their lenses in Pentax mount wereas Tamron only kept some non-interesting 'amateur grade' lenses for summer snapshooters. Both brands are exit for me now even if i switch to a brand they do carry lenses for.

I do keep what i have though and that includes 3 AT-X lenses, 2 Adaptall's and a few Hoya filters. As for second hand, i might still purchase but it will be legacy stuff from before those times.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2019 at 14:13 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm XF 16mm F2.8 quick review (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

quintana: I wish they had released the 16-80/4 first. Looks like I have to do my hikes and vacations this year with a bag of primes again :-(

@quintana
I agree the 18-55 is not wide enough and the 16-55 is too heavy. You also mention the 55's are not tele enough. It wouldn't be my choice but there also is an 18-135 and i know you'd say it is not wide enough. I agree there but since zooms perform the worst at both ends and distortion is usually biggest at the wide end combining it with a 16mm is an option. It is more or less the same as i did in the 90s when, instead of getting a 28-70 or 28-80 i got a 35-105/3.5 and 24/2.8.

Still, even a 16-80 will be a bag of compromises, even the Zeiss for the Sony SLT's is and there there isn't even the option for primes. The e-mount 16-70 is even worse. Both do depend on in-camera corrections a lot. Same goes for the Pentax offerings though even the 16-85 that new buyers rave about.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2019 at 09:37 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm XF 16mm F2.8 quick review (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: Great weather sealed lens. Great price. A "must have" lens for Fuji X users.

This lens is almost half the price of my Olympus 12mm f/2.0, which isn't weather sealed. Yes, it is faster, but you pay a lot for the extra speed. I bet Fuji sells tons of this new lens.

@Impulses
The last time i checked on available lenses to go with an µFT camera, there were hardly any primes comparably fast to fullframe and film offerings. That was when the OM-D E-M5 was introduced and the 12-50/_6.3_ costed a fortune. I then decided it was not for me as although it is smaller, the difference with my Pentax d-slr is neglectible, it doesn't have a shutterspeed dial like Fuji's and the lenses do not have aperture rings.

Things have changed, Olympus introduced a 17/1.2 (although pricey) and 17/1.8 Samyang and Olympus a 12/2.0 and a Panasonic a 12/1.4, Meike a 12/2.8, Voigtländer their 17.5 Nokton, Meike a 28 and 35. Olympus, Panasonic and others introduced a whole range of fast primes between 42.5 and 45mm, Samyang a 50, Olympus a 60 macro and a 75, Samyang some 100's and several 3rd parties some 85's.

Fact is, however compared to the aps-c Fuji's and the fullframe Sony's the difference in camerasize is neglectible and for those one can choose compact lenses too.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2019 at 09:22 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm XF 16mm F2.8 quick review (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: Great weather sealed lens. Great price. A "must have" lens for Fuji X users.

This lens is almost half the price of my Olympus 12mm f/2.0, which isn't weather sealed. Yes, it is faster, but you pay a lot for the extra speed. I bet Fuji sells tons of this new lens.

@quintana
Sure if you have the 16/1.4 the 16/2.8 is redundant, superfluous. However for hiking it might be a good, maybe even better choice, the 1.4 being a larger. The difference probably isn't enough to trade in the 1.4 even get both but with the choice from the beginning, it would have been different.

And yet 1.4 is even small compared to the offerings of Samyang, Rokinon, CaNikon and others.

I didn't know a 16-80 was comming but, with 72mm it's beyond my -too big- point. A 16/2.8 makes sense next to the 18-135 and 18-55/2.8-4.0 but not to a 16-80, 16-55 or 16-50. There an additonal 14mm does make more sense.

I have been orientating on getting a Fuji and which lenses i'd need to go with it. For me the 16/1.4 is unneccisarily fast and i considered the 14/2.8 too wide but since the camera crops from 1.5× to 1.7× on video, the 14/2.8 fits in perfectly, unfortunately it is not a WR lens and still costs nearly the same as the 16/1.4 which is due to its greater field of view.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2019 at 09:21 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm XF 16mm F2.8 quick review (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

FuhTeng: Nice little video. I appreciate the work on it. Maybe a longer f/2 or f/2.8 lens to complete the WR group for Fuji users? 75 or 85 maybe? What a nice set of primes.

I miss a 135mm prime as the 90mm is too short and the 200 is too long and too pricey. I'd also like a 70mm and a 40-45mm f/2.0. The ideal aps-c prime set for me is 16-23-43-70 but since the Fuji's crop from 1.5 to 1.7 for video it would become 14-20-40-60. Fuji has no 20, 40, 43 or 70mm. Pentax does not crop and has a compact 15mm, a larger 14mm, a 40, 43 and 70mm but fails in the 23mm range as their 24mm's have gone out of production long ago (the 2.0 not performing good outside the very centre and bad on aps-c borders, the 2.8 having no af) and their 21mm is too wide and very slow.

Canikon and Sony also do not have any decent aps-c primes in these ranges and fullfill only on fullframe with legacy glass (for Sony thus A-mount).

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2019 at 08:08 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm XF 16mm F2.8 quick review (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

Andrew Schwartz: I'm just switching from Pentax and still love their 15mm f4, but will be glad to trade it for a weather sealed variant. Since cracking the EVF on a cliff-face in Taiwan, I'm moving to much smaller equipment, so will also trade the better f1.4 optics for weight and size.

That Pentax 15/4 is wonderfully compact too.
It can be adapted to Fuji (you'd need an adapter that can close the aperture though) and unfortunately Pentax to Fuji adapters are less common and more expensive than adapters for other mounts (Like Canon EF and Nikon) or to Sony.
Big has been much more popular untill mirrorless came.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2019 at 07:27 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm XF 16mm F2.8 quick review (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

rbach44: These Fuji primes are looking nice… I wish Nikon would make something similar. Small, handy, perhaps a bit slow, and optically great.

On the subject of the FL: I think 24mm are great. Just wide enough for that wide angle kick without the gimmick of an ultra wide. The internet does not need another image of a huge foreground with pinpoint background or another “imposing castle” shot of some building because the photographer was looking up a degree or two.

@ captura
That 24/1,7 has equivalent field of view as 48mm on fullframe or 34mm on aps-c. That certainly isn't a wideangle, it is a 'standard' (range 40-60) lens, neather wide nor tele, just as here they say 'neither meat nor fish'.

The 14/2.5 has equivalent field of view as a 28 on fullframe or an 18mm on aps-c. That is in a whole different leaque as this Fuji aps-c 16mm f/2.8 or the aps-c Fuji 14mm f/2.8 that it is now being compared with. For comparison with an µFT Olympus or Panasonic you's need choose a 12mm there.

For me i have absolutely no purpose for a 28mm, aps-c 18mm or µFT 14mm.
I's accept the Pentax or Zeiss 28/2.0 but only for storage in my glass case and you'd still have to pay me for that. For that Panasonic 14/2.5 i wouldn't accept it even for that.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2019 at 07:23 UTC
In reply to:

the Mtn Man: This seems like a common sense ruling. The photographer intended the image to send one message, but the RNC used it along with text and icongraphy to send the exact opposite. Very clever. There's also the fact that the photographer published the image to a platform (Facebook and Twitter) where it is impossible to control who uses it and for what purpose. Unless she's prepared to go after every single person who reposted the image, regardless of their intent, then she really has no cause to go after the RNC. It's like failing to enforce a copyright. You can't ignore everybody who violates it and then arbitrarily sue one party.

@shortcord
Thanks for the info. That the 1st amendment does not present copyright protection is logical. Fact is however in the reactions above, including to my earlier posts, the 1st amendment was used as a reason to be exempt from copyright law. The argument is, that because the image was published, according to the first amendment, RNC (and others) were free to use it for their purposes. That argument is not a valid.

Whether this use by RNC conforms to the fair use grounds, the local court says yes and i say no and while my vote as little legal status, appeal to the federal high court and them strictly following law, should decide in favour of the artist.
Fact is however, in the last decades they often decided in favour of large companies where they shouldn't have. This is mostly when Republican prosecutors or judges were involved. Most striking example for the last were the procedures against Microsoft. The American court unfortunately is quite political.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2019 at 16:43 UTC
In reply to:

LX-D: Mrs Peterman writes "This decision gives any political party (or PAC) the freedom to use artistic or creative photos of political candidates for political criticism under the auspices of fair use."
Unfortunately by not appealing this decision will become legislatory opening up this use without compensation or permission for the creator of the image by political parties and critikasters with political agendas.

It is clear a single person is not able to bear the costs of such an appeal, especially if the appeal will be handled by the same judge who will at that moment not be unprejudiced and thus resulting in a confirmation of the earlier 'judgement'.

Clearly she should be supported here and the best would be by a professional association but maybe crowdfunding can step in. If this doesn't happen, it is clear in the end big money wins, being big corporations and political organisations.

The line between fair use and infringement may be small but it is there.
Cropping the image or turning it from color to grayscale has nothing to do with free speach nor with freedom of press (bringing news) or any other first amendement issue but just mutilation of the original work, infringement.

When RNC just added the text it is still infringement. If they use the image, e.g. with original text, and add a comment to it, outside the image, to bring it as news or to parody it, it is fair use. Now i'm not a lawyer but If the same is done for political or commercial gain, it generally isn't fair use anymore, but this may be interpreted differently from state to state or nation to nation.

If they immitated the image, in an image of their own, it is fair use too.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2019 at 12:34 UTC
In reply to:

the Mtn Man: This seems like a common sense ruling. The photographer intended the image to send one message, but the RNC used it along with text and icongraphy to send the exact opposite. Very clever. There's also the fact that the photographer published the image to a platform (Facebook and Twitter) where it is impossible to control who uses it and for what purpose. Unless she's prepared to go after every single person who reposted the image, regardless of their intent, then she really has no cause to go after the RNC. It's like failing to enforce a copyright. You can't ignore everybody who violates it and then arbitrarily sue one party.

Secondly
Now i don't know about Twitter but Facebook does take ownership of the image so Facebook could have used that image, either inside Facebook itself or to sell its use to RNC. It again shows how dangerous these platforms are, yet also they are highly powerfull.

Mrs Petermann however clearly states the image posted on social media is a different one.

As for failing to enforce copyright, this does not apply, fistly because the image posted on social media is a different one but secondly, she could also is free to grant usage to people or organisations she sympathizes with. The last is however something she best does giving explicit permission. Many images have been posted on the internet with a licence to use it for personal, non-commercial or non-political use.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2019 at 12:57 UTC
In reply to:

the Mtn Man: This seems like a common sense ruling. The photographer intended the image to send one message, but the RNC used it along with text and icongraphy to send the exact opposite. Very clever. There's also the fact that the photographer published the image to a platform (Facebook and Twitter) where it is impossible to control who uses it and for what purpose. Unless she's prepared to go after every single person who reposted the image, regardless of their intent, then she really has no cause to go after the RNC. It's like failing to enforce a copyright. You can't ignore everybody who violates it and then arbitrarily sue one party.

First
Now it may have been clever of RNC to use this photograph this way but that does not allow copyright infringement. If Mrs Peterman just sold the right to use her image to Rob Quist, she could also have sold that to RNC but she does have the freedom not to if she personally doesn't agree with the political positions of the RNC.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2019 at 12:57 UTC

Mrs Peterman writes "This decision gives any political party (or PAC) the freedom to use artistic or creative photos of political candidates for political criticism under the auspices of fair use."
Unfortunately by not appealing this decision will become legislatory opening up this use without compensation or permission for the creator of the image by political parties and critikasters with political agendas.

It is clear a single person is not able to bear the costs of such an appeal, especially if the appeal will be handled by the same judge who will at that moment not be unprejudiced and thus resulting in a confirmation of the earlier 'judgement'.

Clearly she should be supported here and the best would be by a professional association but maybe crowdfunding can step in. If this doesn't happen, it is clear in the end big money wins, being big corporations and political organisations.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2019 at 12:42 UTC as 26th comment | 3 replies
Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20