Vinhinpress

Joined on May 17, 2015

Comments

Total: 26, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Harold66: What a terrible video ! First of all, you talk like a m4/3 F4 lens is an equivalent F8 lens period, like DOF equivalency is the ONLY criteria which matters. Have you heard about exposure? Which means that to get your "equivalency" the 35mm sensor cameras at equal speed needs to bump the iso by two stops losing some of the IQ advantage in the process. But more importantly, you continue to spread this silly idea that thin DOF is always to be sought . Maybe most people agree for portrait stuff but it is far from being the case from every subject. For wildlife, for instance , there are instances when you want the animal surroundings to be in focus in which case the advantage of using m4/3 lenses extend beyond just weight and size by providing a better result at f 5.6 than the 35mm combination would at F11
And this is from reviewers who claim they like the m4/3rds . they could have fooled me
Harold

It seems you mistaked lens' and sensor's resolving power. With unlimited sensor resolving power, same lens would reproduce same image on different sensors, with same distance to the object.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2020 at 12:10 UTC
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: At 1:40min, the real truth is shown, but not told. The back lens element INCREASED in diameter (and geometric complexity). In other words, the new lenses for a wider mount with a shorter flange distance MUST be more expensive. Such mounts require more corrections happening in a shorter space, therefore more glass surface(s) overall, not less. And the cost of good quality optical glass grows not in a linear fashion, but *exponentially.*

Say, to cover a 45mm diameter with optical glass, the 529π surface area is needed, while 54mm wide diameter requires the 729π surface area. That is nearly 40% more optical glass claimed, with more mass added too.

To compensate the increase, the manufacturers will try to find ways to "overcome issues" (cheat on materials, rely heavily on software for necessary optical corrections, etc.), but one thing is certain: the age of compact FF lenses is GONE.

Large rear element requires even larger intermediate elements, it seems you miss your physics lessons :)

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2019 at 03:20 UTC
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: At 1:40min, the real truth is shown, but not told. The back lens element INCREASED in diameter (and geometric complexity). In other words, the new lenses for a wider mount with a shorter flange distance MUST be more expensive. Such mounts require more corrections happening in a shorter space, therefore more glass surface(s) overall, not less. And the cost of good quality optical glass grows not in a linear fashion, but *exponentially.*

Say, to cover a 45mm diameter with optical glass, the 529π surface area is needed, while 54mm wide diameter requires the 729π surface area. That is nearly 40% more optical glass claimed, with more mass added too.

To compensate the increase, the manufacturers will try to find ways to "overcome issues" (cheat on materials, rely heavily on software for necessary optical corrections, etc.), but one thing is certain: the age of compact FF lenses is GONE.

He could be wrong about inner diameter of EF mount, but right about size of glass elements. With shorter flange, the rear element must be larger, even with same inner mount diameter, and so with others

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2019 at 02:24 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm GFX 100 (580 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vinhinpress: It seems that Fuji's taking same approach of XF lines, affordable cameras bodies, AND expensive lenses.

Fuji lenses truly sharp, I owned and used almost all XF lenses. The problem with Fuji prosumer lenses are lack of microcontrast, smooth render, and 3D pop, images are sharp and flat, just like taken with Nikon 105/2.8 VR micro. In body software corrections could be the reason.

Fuji professional lenses are different story.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2019 at 07:20 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm GFX 100 (580 comments in total)

It seems that Fuji's taking same approach of XF lines, affordable cameras bodies, AND expensive lenses.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2019 at 02:32 UTC as 54th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Daspletosaurus: I'm curious how the IQ compares to an Otus. Assuming both at f1.4, that is.

No one would buy an Oti for sharpness and, of course, AF. This lens would not on par even with Milvus

Link | Posted on May 10, 2019 at 13:20 UTC
In reply to:

martindpr: For me Fuji (crop) is more fun to use than say a Nikon FF. If I were Fuji, I'd build a $670-690 manual focus 35mm F1 lens to closely match the 50mm F1.5 FF as well as try to compete with the 10X more expensive Leica. I think there is a market for such a lens but the Marketing Dept should do its job and do the math. I'd rebrand the xpro2 to xpro3 with a regular Bayer sensor reducing some annoying buttons and features.

Fuji XF lenses are not of Fuji's highest standard, and Fuji use software to correct CA, distortion, vignetting... I'm not sure whether XF lenses are at the same league with Nikon F nano G or not, but they are below Zeiss Milvus and Nikon Z mount S lenses for sure.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2019 at 23:20 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Even in stills, there are many times when manually focusing is preferable. And all too often, it is a frustrating chore. At the very least, manual focusing should always be linear. I want to be able to predict how much the focus will change based on how I move the ring. The way most cameras and lenses are nowadays, it feels like the camera is always second-guessing what I'm trying to do—and always guessing wrong. I hate it and I don't understand why this plague of non-linear focus has persisted for so long.

"I want to be able to predict how much the focus will change based on how I move the ring"

As far as I know, so far only Cine lens could do that

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2019 at 15:04 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Even in stills, there are many times when manually focusing is preferable. And all too often, it is a frustrating chore. At the very least, manual focusing should always be linear. I want to be able to predict how much the focus will change based on how I move the ring. The way most cameras and lenses are nowadays, it feels like the camera is always second-guessing what I'm trying to do—and always guessing wrong. I hate it and I don't understand why this plague of non-linear focus has persisted for so long.

If it's software, then how about lenses from different manufacturers, and lenses with no electronic contact. Here we talk about MF

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2019 at 14:51 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Even in stills, there are many times when manually focusing is preferable. And all too often, it is a frustrating chore. At the very least, manual focusing should always be linear. I want to be able to predict how much the focus will change based on how I move the ring. The way most cameras and lenses are nowadays, it feels like the camera is always second-guessing what I'm trying to do—and always guessing wrong. I hate it and I don't understand why this plague of non-linear focus has persisted for so long.

You would need CINE lens to get that

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2019 at 14:39 UTC

So now, bad AF is also an advantage.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2019 at 14:37 UTC as 95th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

martindpr: For me Fuji (crop) is more fun to use than say a Nikon FF. If I were Fuji, I'd build a $670-690 manual focus 35mm F1 lens to closely match the 50mm F1.5 FF as well as try to compete with the 10X more expensive Leica. I think there is a market for such a lens but the Marketing Dept should do its job and do the math. I'd rebrand the xpro2 to xpro3 with a regular Bayer sensor reducing some annoying buttons and features.

Wow, could fun, envy and expectation get along so well together

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2019 at 23:44 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-S1 review (2020 comments in total)
In reply to:

icexe: Wow. Looks like you'll need to pony up close to $3500 (S1 + 24-105) just to get your feet wet. That's a really big ask, especially for an unproven system. I find it hard to justify spending that much money just to show off my lame (but super sharp and perfectly exposed!) pics on the Internet to people who couldn't care less.

M43 is mature system, with Olympus on still and Pana on video side. If someone want to take a video, Gh5/5s are among best choice, with hundreds of native and adapted lenses, and it's still considered prosumer.

On still side, Pana has lots of work to do with AF (as on their Gh5/5s now) in order to be acknowledged as professional gear (Professional understood as paid job, you get the money and do not miss the moment)

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2019 at 13:24 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-S1 review (2020 comments in total)
In reply to:

icexe: Wow. Looks like you'll need to pony up close to $3500 (S1 + 24-105) just to get your feet wet. That's a really big ask, especially for an unproven system. I find it hard to justify spending that much money just to show off my lame (but super sharp and perfectly exposed!) pics on the Internet to people who couldn't care less.

Funny, what's professional camera, and no professional would buy into unproven systems, like this one

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2019 at 04:37 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-S1 review (2020 comments in total)
In reply to:

Anulu: Great cameras, but just like any aother camera here are some drawbacks also:
-Contrast detect AF Only (bad tracking)
-CDAF causing pulsing bokeh in video (useless)
-Only pricey and slow lenses
-4k60 in S1 is 1,5xcrop
-4k60 in S1R is using line skipping method and 15mins record limit
-You have to pay for 10bit V-Log as extra feature
-180fps 1080p is 1,5xcrop with no AF and Audio
-heavier than heavy dslr's (900g and 1000g)
-Battery time is not good
-Very limited lens selection
-More expensive than any other competition

Not all Leica lenses are of highest optical quality, and one of the main factor causing high production cost is small volume. People with ready money to spare 2300$ for 50/1.4 probably already own a leica M mount 50mm.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2019 at 14:40 UTC

I've just found, that 1100$ for F mount Milvus 50mm f/1.4 zf.2 for my Df is a real bargain.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2019 at 17:36 UTC as 36th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Bobthearch: What he means,
"Since our customers are willing to pay $3000 for a small sensor, why would we need to make cameras with large sensors?"

He might trying to follow apple's milking strategy, if client willing to pay 1000$ for iPhone, why we have to lower the price

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2019 at 14:27 UTC
On article The best lenses for Nikon DSLRs (128 comments in total)

This would, probably, be the highest controversial, ever, post from DP

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2018 at 15:14 UTC as 68th comment
On article Leica APO-Summicron-SL 90mm F2 ASPH sample gallery (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

NemanRa: the lens is very sharp.

however, i'm disappointed with a camera...
when developing raws, it feels that it has a very limited dynamic range...
highlights are almost always blown out. shadow recovery is not that great.
that's certainly the case for the previous SL lens gallery, but it can be seen here, too.
when working with canon ff cameras for example, i've got very pleasurable photos with just few clicks on the sliders. sometimes you don't have to move sliders at all, just change the colour profile...
but with a SL, i just can't get the results i want. maybe i should try other raw editor for leica files...

regards

Highlight and shadow recovery of Nikon are among the best, or best available

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2018 at 00:23 UTC
In reply to:

BobT3218: I shoot m4/3 and love it but hate statements such as, "providing the equivalent of a 100-400mm focal length range". This equivalence thing is misleading marketing hype. 200mm has the same angle of view in any format. Except for variations in flange distances, the size of the image on the sensor and pixel density is much the same. However, because the sensor is smaller, when printed to a similar print format, it gives the illusion of being a larger image. So let's stop talking equivalence and just accept that m4/3 is a smaller format with its own pros and cons.

M4/3 lens manufacturers seem, very often, fancy of mixing the angle of view with reaching power of a lens. 200mm focal length is always 200mm.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2018 at 23:49 UTC
Total: 26, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »