Tom K.

Tom K.

Lives in United States Tulsa, United States
Joined on Mar 6, 2002
About me:

Retired aerospace engineer

Feb 2000 - Canon A50 (Sold Aug 2000)
July 2000 - Canon S100 (great early pocket camera)
Oct 2000 - Olympus C-2100UZ (a classic)
Nov 2003 - Minolta A1 (CCD died 8-2006)
May 2005 - Panasonic FZ5 (given to wife after I got FZ30)
Sep 2005 - Panasonic FZ30 (great camera in its day, seems dog slow now)
Jan 2006 - Fuji F10 (don't like it-overrated)
Apr 2006 - Kodak CD33 (2 from eBay for grandkids to use)
July 2006 - Nikon 4500 (from eBay for digiscoping-disappointed)
Aug 2006 - Panasonic FX07 (lost)
Sep 2006 - Minolta A2 (from eBay to replace A1)
Aug 2007 - Kodak P880 (from eBay on a whim)
Apr 2009 - Panasonic ZS3 travel zoom
Dec 2009 - Panasonic GH1 with 14-140 lens (finally a decent EVF)
Sep 2012 - Panasonic FZ200 (lightweight, wanted more zoom reach)
Apr 2013 - Panasonic ZS19 (replaced ZS3 when zoom function got intermittent)
Feb 2014 - Panasonic GF1 (bought cheap to have a dedicated body for the Samyang 7.5mm fisheye)
Jun 2014 - Panasonic ZS40 (replaced ZS19 which lacked EVF)
Dec 2014 - Panasonic FZ1000 (4K video, beautiful EVF)
Mar 2015 - Panasonic ZS50 (replaced ZS40 due to improved EVF)
Nov 2017 - Olympus OM-D E-M10 body with 45mm f2 lens
Jun 2018 - Panasonic ZS200 (replaced ZS50 - improved EVF, sensor)


Total: 179, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

blse59: If it was so good, why hadn't it been on any camera since the EOS 3?

That's a damn good question. Why was such a useful and easy-to-use feature abandoned?

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2021 at 14:26 UTC

Friend of mine had a Canon film SLR with eye control on it and for just the few frames that I tried it out, I thought it was FANTASTIC. It is shocking to me that a feature that is so obviously great hasn't been a standard feature on cameras since. All the existing methods for manually moving the focus point around frankly seem primitive, clumsy and stupid, fit only for static scenes. And for static scenes, a shutter half-press and recompose seems the easiest.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2021 at 14:25 UTC as 78th comment | 1 reply

From the article it says, "...and if you're digitizing a negative, you use a computer to invert and process it." This is the same as saying, "...and then a miracle occurs."

There are already dozens of ways to hold film and take a digital picture of it. There are no good ways to EASILY get a high quality conversion of color negatives.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2020 at 17:40 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply

I had a digital frame similar to this for my Mom nearly 20 years ago called a Ceiva that had about the same functionality, except it used a land line phone connection. I would upload pics to the website and they would be downloaded by the frame at 2:00am or so the next morning. 640x480 resolution but that was good enough for the time.

For myself these days I have a 32" 1080p Samsung TV that runs a slideshow 24/7 using a Western Digital media player and a USB stick with thousands of my pics. Most TVs now have the capability to run their own slideshow except the rate is much too fast - the "slow" rate on this TV is only 10 seconds per picture. I want 30 seconds or more.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2020 at 10:33 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies

Here's the real question - why are there dozens, if not perhaps hundreds, of different battery shapes? Why didn't the photo industry agree on about three battery packages (small, medium and large) twenty years ago? It's ridiculous.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2020 at 12:37 UTC as 17th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Shiranai: "It's impressive how Luminar 4.2 is able to deal with not only the objects in the scene, but the reflection as well..."
Yeah, by adding a totally different cloud pattern than what the reflection should be.

The clouds in the sky also look completely wrong for that scene. The clouds look close, except they disappear behind a ridge that is apparently many miles away.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2020 at 16:19 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: When the price of an older, utilitarian product or class of products is increasing it's usually a sign that the utility of that product has been subsumed by contagious nostalgia. That's a clue for individuals to reevaluate the motivations behind their desire and consider alternate ways/products to satisfy the purported want. In other words, practice mindful buying.

Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2020 at 22:02 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Scan film negatives with the Nikon ES-2 (279 comments in total)
In reply to:

garyphx: My father shot slides of my sister and I growing up. He started this in 1955. After he died in 2008 I looked at about 3000 slides and selected 120 to digitize. I tried a slide scanner but that was very tedious. I set the project aside. Late 2018 I bought a Z6, macro and the ES2 adapter. in short I had terrible results. The Z6 could not manual or auto focus to save its life. SOLD! I then tried a D7500, 40mm macro and the ES2 adapter. What a difference from the Z6. Near perfect results every time with just auto focus. I took the RAW files into Photoshop, made some small adjustments and then made 3x5 prints with a Canon dye-sub printer. The result was like taking film to a drug store for developing and getting prints 60 years ago.
The D7500 plus the 40mm macro and the ES2 adapter cost me a total of $1100. If you have slides and you want to digitize them, I highly recommend the arrangement I used (D7500, 40mm macro and ES2 adapter).

@garyphx: "...and then made 3x5 prints with a Canon dye-sub printer."

Prints? What are these "prints" you speak of?

My friend's Mom absolutely refused to look at pictures on a computer or tablet screen. If you wanted her to see something you had to print it out. She said, "It's not a picture if it's not printed."

I'm the opposite - if I can't see it on a screen it's dead to me (and I'm 62). I have boxes full of prints and their negatives all sorted by date and am in the process of scanning the negs. I don't even touch the prints, I just put the negatives on a light table to sort them and then scan. Eventually the files will go onto a TV I have dedicated for picture slideshows, or a smaller digital frame. Wretched little 3x5 prints stay in the box.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2020 at 00:29 UTC
On article Nikon ES-2 film adapter sample gallery (91 comments in total)

Isn't this the same sample gallery that accompanied the video? Why post them twice?

I still don't see any information from dpreview about what it takes to convert color negatives to proper positives. Camera scanning of negatives is quick on the front end, but how much time and effort does it take to post process? If you have to touch every image and futz around with it for who knows how long, are you actually saving any time over a flatbed or dedicated negative scanner that does all the work for you?

How about some actual comparisons with the same negatives - camera +processing vs Epson flatbed vs Plustek 8200. Fully describe the amount and time and effort each method takes per frame, and show images for comparison. I've never seen it done.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2020 at 15:20 UTC as 43rd comment | 3 replies
On article DPReview TV: Scan film negatives with the Nikon ES-2 (279 comments in total)

As with virtually all threads/posts/articles about scanning with a camera, it focuses primarily on the hardware part of it, which is relatively trivial. It isn't that hard to get a macro lens, some negative holders and a light source, and make a DIY setup.

But then they completely gloss over the remaining 90% of the task, which is getting a positive image - "You will need to do some post processing." Unless you have the Nikon bodies that do it for you, there is apparently no simple way to get a positive image from color negatives due to the orange mask inherent in color film.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2020 at 15:53 UTC as 88th comment | 1 reply

"medium format cardboard camera that features a unique liquid-filled lens"

And there were problems with it? I'm shocked. Shocked!

Well, not that shocked.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2020 at 19:16 UTC as 37th comment

There are books available called "Paris, Then and Now" on Amazon that have historical photos such as these, with a more current photo on the facing page. There are two different editions, 2003 and 2016 that differ slightly in photo selection and layout. There are similar books for other cities.

My wife and I went to Paris in 2002 and coincidentally took pictures of many of the places shown in the books. It was interesting to print and add our versions.

Since the locations are identified, a person could create a similar project with this new resource, and Google Street View.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2020 at 17:07 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply

I've had a Samsung 32" 1080P TV mounted on my living room wall for the past 6 years, running a slideshow of thousands of pictures 24/7. I use an old Western Digital media player to run the slideshow because virtually all TVs I tested at the time had slideshow intervals that were faaar too short - most "long" display times were ten seconds or so. I have the WD set for 30 seconds, which is shorter than I'd like but it's my wife's preference.

It's 16x9 but I can crop most pictures to fit that ratio and they look fine. The ones that don't look good at 16x9 (or portrait orientation), I leave uncropped. So there's black space on the sides, big deal.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2020 at 17:15 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

decentred: Of partial relevance, I've uploaded an image showing a comparison between a scan of the same 35mm transarency on an Epson 4990 Perfection flatbed (a predecessor to the V600) and a Reflecta DigitDia 6000 35mm transparency scanner. The comparison is heavily cropped, and enlarged to greater than 1:1 magnification. Scans were done at max resolution: 12800 dpi (cough) for the Epson, and 5000 dpi for the Reflecta. No prizes for guessing which is which, but I think the Epson held up well, considering the price difference:

I don't see a significant difference (emphasis on "significant") in the images, and as you noted they are enlarged beyond pixel peeping size. Considering that the Reflecta is about 10x the cost it does look like the Epson holds up well in imaging.

What I wonder about is the workflow - mainly, is the expensive scanner significantly faster (emphasis on "significantly")? Probably the biggest drawback to scanning is the sheer amount of time that it takes. Also, does it work as well or better on color negatives?

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2019 at 22:04 UTC
In reply to:

DejayRezme: Thanks, I hate it.
It's probably a weird, useless and impolite thing to say, but most of these invoke actual dislike in me (The first one is great of course)
Not sure why. Most of them could be from the "man in air at distance" category. There is no motion, they feel staged and the people artificial and isolated. Like the humans have become a prop. Like you take a nice landscape and then photoshop some contorted guy with a logo in there. Artifacts.
Something like "men doing what they shouldn't be doing in places where they don't belong, but please admire their incredible perseverance". Maybe they remind me too much of motivational posters.

They are obviously great photos and finalists so I must be pretty alone, but I looked through the gallery twice now and I hated almost all of them. Which is fascinating because I enjoy most photos I see.

Agreed. A lot of these are really nice landscape photos, ruined by some jackass on a bike or skateboard.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2019 at 16:36 UTC
In reply to:

Jeff Greenberg: ===
These images very likely are stock photos licensed by Apple.
The stock photographers who shot them had the "vision", not Apple.

Isn't that what Apple has always done?

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2019 at 03:55 UTC

"Pentax users loose more third-party support as Sigma re-directs production capacity towards lenses for mirrorless systems"

Loose? LOOSE??? Idiots.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2019 at 17:18 UTC as 107th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

cardboardbox: Carey, do you find the 35mm equivalent focal length on the 22mm f/2 to ever be limiting for landscape shots? Or do you find it sufficient to capture most scenes?

Stitching is always an option to achieve a wide shot, particularly on static landscapes.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2019 at 16:04 UTC
In reply to:

Jason: Attention haters: Real film scanners are expensive and slow. This is cheap and fast. There is room for both.

I have an Epson flatbed scanner for "serious" negatives. I have a cheap Wolverine scanner for a quick preview. It's kind of like this:

Wolverine scan: JPEGs of everything (adequate for snapshots)
Epson flatbed scan: RAWs of important shots

I can run a roll of 35mm through the Wolverine in less than five minutes with decent results. I'm guessing the results from this Kodak gadget are similar.

Edit--All that said, $40 seems at least $20 too much for this.

Cheap - fast - good

Pick any two.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2019 at 13:50 UTC
In reply to:

wesleywest: Can a photographer please explain why, in the photo of the astronaut in this article, you can see the front of his suit? He is standing with his back to the sun, meaning his front is fully in shadow. The sun is the only light source. There is no atmosphere to create diffuse reflections. And we are told the reason there is not a single star visible in any Apollo moon photos is because of the high aperture values used to shoot. So why do we see every little detail in the shadow?

Watch this at 1.5x or 2x speed - the guy talks waaay too slow.

For what it's worth, I could tell that it was a digitally created scene immediately. But it does correctly illustrate how lighting works.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2019 at 20:32 UTC
Total: 179, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »