Goodmeme

Joined on Dec 15, 2009

Comments

Total: 301, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

yabokkie: don't know the camera but it got a 24.2mm diagonal sensor (slightly larger than 4/3") and a lens factor of about 1.85x. so a 50/0.7 will do the job as 93/1.3.

so for the lens part, a 85/1.2L on 5D should be able to beat it.

Well its 4 years later, and I just wanted to thank @yabokkie for pointing out the format difference. I appreciate knowing that a similar effect can be had with an 85 f1.2 on full frame sensor so long as you double the iso you could have had with a 50 f0.7 on this camera. Obviously the modern sensor will have better performance than film even if it is pushed much higher, so....thanks. I can't imagine why you got so much grief for trying to point that out.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2018 at 11:56 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Review (1024 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: The m4/3 offers excellent image quality, and sufficient magnification for most enthusiast and professional uses. In fact, in good light, even the smartphone camera suffices for modest magnifications, and you all know that. In the market of dedicated camera systems, though, formats like the FF and APS-C have become a waste of space and weight, and come with under-utilisation of lens design and cost involved in producing them (because of the outdated 3:2 format). We may compare formats to cars – the FF is the V8 petrol guzzler, APS-C is the V6 petrol guzzler, and m4/3 is the 4-cylinder turbo-charged smaller, silent, comfy car. They all accelerate well, but when used in everyday situations, that is, on city and rural roads with speed limits, buying V8 and V6 guzzlers is a waste of money, parking space, petrol & ongoing maintenance. Medium Formats corresponds to buying a truck, or a bulldozer.

@Tom Caldwell. It's not about the detail, it's the format of the sensor being too small and the lenses not being wide enough to compensate. Sports shots just look better with more background blur because there's often so much going on, it's difficult to isolate the subject of the photograph in other ways. You can bend the colours of a raw file to achieve more separation - but the blur combined with 1/1250+ shutter is typically what makes for a baseline good shot. The colour editing turns it from good to great. Otherwise, I don't see the point in anything better than a smartphone which to extend your analogy, is imo the everyday car.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2018 at 11:16 UTC
On article Have Your Say 2017: the winners (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

vadims: So, no Canon products in top-16, huh...

Since everybody here likes "look back" articles (right? right?..), I'm going to look back at the moment when *I* realized that it was time to move away from Canon.

First, two things acted like litmus paper for me: their stubborn denial to implement usable MLU, and that dreaded Print button on my 5Dmk2 that they did not allow users to re-program despite all the outcry. Those two things alone told me everything I needed to know: they wouldn't listen; they are a big corporate monster that would stick to their strategy to do just enough to keep users. I was getting quite some flack here at DPR for mentioning those things repeatedly; like, Canon was undisputed technological leader, what's the big freaking deal? Indeed, not that big a deal for many; though not for me: when you're using your camera with a telescope or a microscope (and I do both), MLU *is* a big deal.

(TBC)

It's interesting to hear your perspective which is different from mine. Note not wrong just different. For myself I'm content with smartphone for small/lightweight. Whenever I want the joy of photography its got to be a metal-bodied fullframe slr every time with a single prime lens (the one I think best for the day), strap over my shoulder, and no bag or anything else getting in the way. It does double duty in home studio. With the centre af point (plus expansion points in Custom mode), I also shoot kids rugby - with a 5d classic and 200 f2.8 - and the results after editing are jaw-dropping if I do say so myself. The combination is small and the af is fast, although in this latter case the af is aided by high contrast, black and white striped shirts and bright morning light :).

I wonder if my experience with the 5D is different from yours because I use fast lenses and the high precision matte focusing screen.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2018 at 07:45 UTC
On article Have Your Say 2017: the winners (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

vadims: So, no Canon products in top-16, huh...

Since everybody here likes "look back" articles (right? right?..), I'm going to look back at the moment when *I* realized that it was time to move away from Canon.

First, two things acted like litmus paper for me: their stubborn denial to implement usable MLU, and that dreaded Print button on my 5Dmk2 that they did not allow users to re-program despite all the outcry. Those two things alone told me everything I needed to know: they wouldn't listen; they are a big corporate monster that would stick to their strategy to do just enough to keep users. I was getting quite some flack here at DPR for mentioning those things repeatedly; like, Canon was undisputed technological leader, what's the big freaking deal? Indeed, not that big a deal for many; though not for me: when you're using your camera with a telescope or a microscope (and I do both), MLU *is* a big deal.

(TBC)

What are you guys on? Canon cameras are reliable and do the job most people need. The lens options are great and the system flashes are good too. Perhaps most importantly, they sell well and Canon are conservative and financially viable for the foreseeable future.

What exactly do you need that you can't get with a 1dx, 5ds or 5d4?!

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2018 at 11:19 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Review (1024 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: The m4/3 offers excellent image quality, and sufficient magnification for most enthusiast and professional uses. In fact, in good light, even the smartphone camera suffices for modest magnifications, and you all know that. In the market of dedicated camera systems, though, formats like the FF and APS-C have become a waste of space and weight, and come with under-utilisation of lens design and cost involved in producing them (because of the outdated 3:2 format). We may compare formats to cars – the FF is the V8 petrol guzzler, APS-C is the V6 petrol guzzler, and m4/3 is the 4-cylinder turbo-charged smaller, silent, comfy car. They all accelerate well, but when used in everyday situations, that is, on city and rural roads with speed limits, buying V8 and V6 guzzlers is a waste of money, parking space, petrol & ongoing maintenance. Medium Formats corresponds to buying a truck, or a bulldozer.

I also dislike this analogy. I'd prefer to have one great photo with outstanding subject isolation (read: pretty painterly background blur) than 20fps missing nothing but the shots are mediocre. No offence to the sample images creator since they are pleasant given the device used.

Regarding power usage, you have it reversed since a mirror uses little power compared to evf/screen.

I really doubt many people would have a problem carrying a 5D and 85 f1.8 over their shoulder.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 17:21 UTC
In reply to:

probert500: Why does auto focus 14mm seem absurd to me. Stop down a bit, set focus, and everything from foreground to back is sharp. Make a mark on the lens and do it again - forever...

@ruhell by that logic -which I agree with based on past experience - we're all better off with own-brand lenses if they must auto focus reliably. If you want to buy Canon cameras in future it is not sensible to support other lens manufacturers for your body type.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 16:55 UTC
In reply to:

tailings: Amusingly, predictably, bafflingly, are all the posts claiming this will never replace traditional glass lenses. The same cry made for digital replacing film.

This is fledgling technology, with awesome potential. I very much look forward to the day when our cameras are kitted with a truly pancake metalens. Quit poo-pooing the present and enjoy the progress as it develops. Your cameras still work today and will continue to work tomorrow regardless whether you ever shoot through a metalens. Let's all hope we do.

I don't know what wet plate is but I bet it sucks compared to my 300 year old paint brush.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 10:41 UTC
In reply to:

mgblack74: My D850 and 105 1.4 has become my "sexiest camera/lens combo" It's a mini 200 f/2 and my go to set up for almost all portraits like these shown here.

Is the 200 f2 a good lens? Yes of course. Can mgblack74 use an 85 or 100 to similar effect? Yes of course.

Many prefer shorter than 200 so they can talk to their subjects during the shoot. They also save a lot of money, weight,size unless they need the angle of view, compression of the 200 and want shallower dof than a 200 f2.8.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2018 at 10:20 UTC
On article Why you should own a 135mm F2 lens (384 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ralf Bauer: "Has anyone ever really needed a 135mm? Used a 135mm as a main go-to lens? Done more than a little good work with a 135mm?"

Some thoughts on 135mm lenses (read the article on Mike Johnstons blog ... and the comments - the article is about the Fuji 90mm F2 lens)

http://www.theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/01/open-mike-ii-the-perfect-lens.html

I enjoyed reading that short, sensible article thanks for sharing! My experience has been the same. I love using an 85 and I usually only use a longer lens for sports or wildlife.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 13:26 UTC
In reply to:

Stigg: charles darwin sailed around the globe for five years and landed in many tropical locations inhabited by species of poisonous amphibians and reptiles , disease-carrying mosquitoes and much potential for harm by humans, aside from the constant threat of drowning at sea.

how ironic it is for forum inhabitants here to reference darwin, a man who had the guts to take considerable risk for what could have been no reward or death.

clearly the unnatural selection that took place during the two most destructive and deadly exercises in world history (WW1, WW2) eliminated far too many who weren't afraid of their own shadows, while far too many of the arrogant milquetoasts who remained reproduced in abundance, thus creating the current dysfunctional mess that the world is in.

It is spurious to suggest ww1 and 2 had such an effect on the gene pool or even meme pool, i.e. culture/ values etc. There's no evidence and there are any number of counterpoints.

I share your distaste for Darwin jokes with regard to the pointless, tragic and somewhat predictable loss of this or any other young man's vulnerable life but many people (including me) sometimes use humour to cope with aspects of mortality. That doesn't mean bravery is absent. Besides that, bemoaning the developments of evolution is hardly sustainable; we have to deal with what we have and are likely to have, for better or worse.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 11:00 UTC
On article Canon patents 400mm F5.6 catadioptric 'mirror' lens (220 comments in total)

5ds plus 200mm f2.8. crop it to 2x equivalent and you have a lightweight 400 5.6 in terms of depth of field. No need for teleconverter and beautiful bokeh. So long as you only need around 10MP you're golden. I do this with a 13MP 5d classic and live with much, much smaller output resolution sometimes. If you want better image quality you're better off with a wider aperture; the magnification these days - imo - is not worthwhile without corresponding wide aperture e.g. 300 /400 f2.8. For greater depth of field shots, you might as well be using a crop sensor (or crop of full frame as described above) unless you're printing billboards....in which case you'll not mind carrying a big white for the better quality.

The exposure adjustment technology could be useful in other lenses, but I'd much prefer to have iso 25, 10,5 expansion options if that were possible with decent quality.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 10:39 UTC as 5th comment
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery updated (345 comments in total)
In reply to:

Och Elo: When I used to shoot with M43, the 2 cheaper lenses in this focal length (Panasonic 42.5 and Oly 45mm) were quite excellent imo. Indeed, I found most of the M43 "cheaper" lenses to be quite good values and good optically and I do think small inexpensive lenses is where the strength of this system lies.

@yohan pamudji . Thanks for commenting, I did not mean to belittle the smaller sensor camera or owner. I have no problem with image quality of 5D or modern m4/3. Or even a modern camera phone, seriously. But a used 5D is obviously cheaper than new micro 4/3 or Sony A7, and provides the shallow depth of field many look for in their portraits for easy, beginner-achievable (and / or painterly background) subject isolation. More importantly for my personal enjoyment is the just-large-enough viewfinder, matte precision focusing screen and usability of the camera where it doesn't get in my way of taking photographs.

I'm pleased other people like their options, but I like SLRs, and I like 35 and 85mm lenses. I've got no love for an expensive 45mm; I'd rather use a 35 f1.4 or 50 1.2 then crop. If I want to go lightweight, I'll take my phone. An slr and a single prime weighs practically nothing and can typically be stowed away in a bag until we get there and I sling it on my shoulder.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2017 at 20:21 UTC
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery updated (345 comments in total)
In reply to:

Och Elo: When I used to shoot with M43, the 2 cheaper lenses in this focal length (Panasonic 42.5 and Oly 45mm) were quite excellent imo. Indeed, I found most of the M43 "cheaper" lenses to be quite good values and good optically and I do think small inexpensive lenses is where the strength of this system lies.

@kiril. No need for an A7; you can just buy a 5D classic and 85 1.8. There's no way I would swap my old 5D and 85 for a m4/3 sensor. Assuming competent raw processing, the image quality for 99% subjects and print sizes will be much better in my opinion from the 5D, and the depth of field will be noticeably shallower as you rightly point out.

But I'm not saying someone can't make use of this. There are some lovely portraits in the gallery, where the photographer has clearly engaged well with the subjects, and the images - especially colours - seem technically good.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2017 at 11:44 UTC
In reply to:

Great Bustard: Well, it was "fair use" for Richard Prince:

https://petapixel.com/2015/05/21/richard-prince-selling-other-peoples-instagram-shots-without-permission-for-100k/

so, I guess this guy wanted some of the action, too, since the courts approve of that kind of thing.

My goodness, that is outrageous. I can't believe he got away with that. To be honest, I'm not confident he would have, if the image of the blue-haired lady etc had gone to court. He had not altered the actual image in that example, and it makes up the vast majority of the actual piece of art. If I were her, I would be getting some lawyers to do it on commission starting Monday, regardless of what she said previously. I wonder if some law professors might do it pro-bono if word got out.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2017 at 20:49 UTC
In reply to:

TTran510: As a former 6D owner, it's very limiting having all the autofocus point in the center. If the 6DII had a 1/8000 shutter speed (or even an electronic shutter) and a wider spread autofocus point system, I would have bought one. Bought the 80D instead because of this, which I am very happy with. Now Canon just need to make a 50mm f/1.4 IS USM so I can have a portrait lens for my crop camera.

I find it ridiculous that the 6D omits 1/8000. But I can't imagine going back to crop sensor and small viewfinder. I use a 5d classic and old 85mm f1.8, and it's probably cheaper to buy those used than the next 50 1.4 or the 50 1.2 L. Just a thought...:)

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 12:33 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III sample gallery (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

sai1: Still no 4k video and the same old video compression. Is this supposed to some sort of running gag from Canon? Like how long can we sell cameras that are still not capable of 4k video?

@sai1 you have a point. I do recall seeing some samples like that and preferring the downscaled version. My point was borne out of the view that 1080p output resolution is more than adequate for most uses. But that premise is based on it being good quality 1080p, whether native or downscaled. I'm not sure what you mean about medical problems.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 12:07 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III sample gallery (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

sai1: Still no 4k video and the same old video compression. Is this supposed to some sort of running gag from Canon? Like how long can we sell cameras that are still not capable of 4k video?

@wasTF. No it's not as simple as that. I use an Epson TW9300 and it has amazing black levels. The colours are accurate and it is bright. Those things are what matter with video and to a great extent, even stills. Resolution is not the same as picture detail from good lighting, and all the articles I've ever seen on the subject of what our eyes can typically discern from normal viewing distances corroborate this. 4k is arguably a marketing device for anyone without an enormous projector screen, and I mean imax viewing angles here. Some -perhaps many - of the experts in the AV community couldn't care less so long as they have access to HDR, wide gamut and 3d sound formats. The resolution itself is not a big deal in my opinion. Yes I can tell the difference on a 30" monitor from a foot away, but who watches content like that?

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 11:55 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III sample gallery (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

sai1: Still no 4k video and the same old video compression. Is this supposed to some sort of running gag from Canon? Like how long can we sell cameras that are still not capable of 4k video?

I have a 120" projection screen at a viewing distance of about 2.5 metres. I can tell you that 4k is pretty much irrelevant to me, and that good quality standard or up-rezzed 1080p is pretty much indistinguishable from it. For home videos 4k is completely overkill and wastes your attention, hard drive /cloud and flash storage. Sure, 4k HDR is a different issue, but that is just post-processing and up-rezzed 1080p HDR would be indistinguishable for most people at sane viewing distances.

For most other uses, ie. smaller tvs the difference is going to be even less noticeable. Only if you're right up next to the monitor or if you just want a specification for the sake of it is it going to matter.

Incidentally I also have 20:10 vision i.e. about twice as much resolution at similar distance compared to the average. If 4k means a lot to you, fine I don't mean to ruin your party. It's just I find it hard to believe this is necessary in a non-professional compact.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 08:29 UTC
On photo Madrid subway in the Your City - Public Transport challenge (6 comments in total)

Brilliant!

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 00:45 UTC as 6th comment

It's an old fashioned white bordered square with a larger border at the bottom to prevent fingerprints. Easily replicated and reinvented or whatever. It's certainly not a polaroid instant film print...case closed to all sane courts...surely?!

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 21:36 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
Total: 301, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »