photonius

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jan 5, 2008

Comments

Total: 119, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

pancho_rivera: I owned a Polaroid as a kid. It's cool they're still making products! Maybe this will help make my D850 photos look better!

Hmm, you'd better read up on their history. After the bankruptcy, the business model was primarily licensing the "Polarid" brand name. So, if you pay enough cash, you can stick a Polaroid label on your T-shirt, and sell as Polaroid product. Actually, just in May this year, it was sold to a Polish investor (see dpreview news); they have a major share in The Impossible Project, which has the last Polaroid factory that produces still film. So, a tiny little bit of Polarid is still left.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2017 at 10:42 UTC
In reply to:

photonius: Too bad, a tad expensive. Also, I don't understand why they don't put in GPS in this travel camera, when they put in GPS in their much smaller travel cameras.

I don't like messing around with additional devices. You yourself seem to imply "if it works".

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 09:10 UTC
In reply to:

photonius: wasn't that in Freehand? I recall drawing nice bezier curves in freehand and changing points if necessary

thanks for the info. The windows route - not my favorite.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 22:23 UTC

Nicely done. Yes, there are many ways to go beyond 1:1, as was frequently done in film/manual focus days (see also https://photonius.jimdo.com/macro/). Maybe some of that knowledge got lost in the digital area. I guess the key here is when Meike etc. released the automatic adapter to control a reversed lens about a year (?) ago. Before, only a below/adapter from Novoflex was available, though already for quite a while.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 22:17 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply

how long do these ZINC prints last? years, decades?

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 22:17 UTC as 4th comment

Too bad, a tad expensive. Also, I don't understand why they don't put in GPS in this travel camera, when they put in GPS in their much smaller travel cameras.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 22:14 UTC as 55th comment | 2 replies

Nicely done. Yes, there are many ways to go beyond 1:1, as was frequently done in film/manual focus days (see also https://photonius.jimdo.com/macro/). Maybe some of that knowledge got lost in the digital area. I guess the key here is when Meike etc. released the automatic adapter to control a reversed lens about a year (?) ago. Before, only a below/adapter from Novoflex was available, though already for quite a while.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 22:09 UTC as 19th comment
In reply to:

photonius: wasn't that in Freehand? I recall drawing nice bezier curves in freehand and changing points if necessary

Yes, Freehand was great.
Can you run an older version of MacOsX (10.4 or 10.6) in something like VirtualBox, or do you use Windows?

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2017 at 20:52 UTC
In reply to:

JoaoPedroAB: Even liking and following most of technical discussions, I have a question. Maybe someone can help: why seems to be impossible using regular lenses (Nikons, Canons EF) with mirroless cameras directly? And, for instance, we would have the next Nikon D6 with dozens os lenses already in the market? Thanks in advance.

@Nicolas.

Of course it is possible to make a mirrorless with the same flange distance as a SLR. But then it's actually not a new system. You just can evolve your current camera line with bodies, some of which that have a mirror, some of which don't. It's just an evolution of the current bodies, and I expect this will happen eventually, when electronic viewfinder speeds become fast enough to compete with optical ones.
But then, if you eliminate the mirror box, why not go the extra step for a new system, which also allows you to make smaller bodies, and smaller UWA/WA lenses. All the current lenses can be used with a hollow tube adapter.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2017 at 11:58 UTC
In reply to:

JoaoPedroAB: Even liking and following most of technical discussions, I have a question. Maybe someone can help: why seems to be impossible using regular lenses (Nikons, Canons EF) with mirroless cameras directly? And, for instance, we would have the next Nikon D6 with dozens os lenses already in the market? Thanks in advance.

Well, the point about mirrorless cameras is that without the mirror box, you can make the camera less deep. Instead of a mount flange distance of 46.5mm you could have, for example, 18mm. You can fill this extra space with an 20mm adapter, which is essentially a hollow tube. This is, for example, how all the Canon lenses can be used on the mirrorless Canon EOS-M system. However, people don't seem to like such adapters that much, rather prefer lenses that mount directly. Lenses that mount directly, can then also be made smaller, mostly in the UWA and WA range, because of the shorter mount distance.
You could of course design a camera that keeps the original flange distance 46.5 mm mount. The body would be deeper for no reason, and you could not design the smaller UWA/WA lenses.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2017 at 14:19 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: So I checked the patents and the 50mm lens is around 257mm long, or longer than my 300 f/2.8L IS, now that is simply ludicrous, even Sigma would blush.

Yup, there are so many elements in there, it looks huge.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2017 at 14:11 UTC

wasn't that in Freehand? I recall drawing nice bezier curves in freehand and changing points if necessary

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2017 at 13:45 UTC as 8th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Graham Meale: Interesting that the actual eclipse is a little larger and in a different position on the processed shot. Maybe not just "simply took the shot on the left and pulled the shadows up in post"?

@pocoloco. No, as Henrik Herranen already noted, the moon/sun is doubled in size. The cropping is only a few percent, if any. Thus, it cannot be responsible for the difference.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 10:27 UTC
In reply to:

Graham Meale: Interesting that the actual eclipse is a little larger and in a different position on the processed shot. Maybe not just "simply took the shot on the left and pulled the shadows up in post"?

Yup, like I pointed out below, and others further below. It must be a composite. i.e. at least copy moon/sun, enlarge, paste.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 08:58 UTC
In reply to:

photonius: hmm, somehow not overwhelmed. As pointed out, moon on the right is double the size, can't be explained by cropping. Further, the trees on the mountain range (against the red sky) look rather blurry, sort of like motion blur. Note, I don't claim I could have done it better, it's a nice image. But it's a composite, so who knows what was done to the image, it shouldn't serve as example for DR.

I have read the article, and it very clearly states that the right picture is derived from the left by just adjusting the shadows. This is clearly not possible, because the moon has double the size on the right, this is not just extra "flare" due to adjusting the shadows. So, clearly there have been manipulations that have not been revealed. Most likely a composite, and if a composite, anything could have been done.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 08:56 UTC
In reply to:

Lars V: Is this a test of camera color rendering, or your display quality and viewing conditions? The entire pipeline matters, as long as we all have different displays we will see colors differently.

My comment as well. Display is a huge variable in this as well. On my screen, Canon looked best, most natural.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2017 at 21:42 UTC

hmm, somehow not overwhelmed. As pointed out, moon on the right is double the size, can't be explained by cropping. Further, the trees on the mountain range (against the red sky) look rather blurry, sort of like motion blur. Note, I don't claim I could have done it better, it's a nice image. But it's a composite, so who knows what was done to the image, it shouldn't serve as example for DR.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2017 at 21:31 UTC as 30th comment | 4 replies

Hmm, one trick ponies that will soon collect dust.
One could think they might be collectors items, but I doubt it, the original ones, yes. But I feel these new lenses will not keep their worth. Reminds me of all these special edition collector coins, or collector decorative wall plates (with famous motifs of famous painters), that nobody buys on fleabay.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 19:47 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
On article SainSonic launches 50mm F1.1 lens for APS-C cameras (252 comments in total)

this is nothing new really. Kamlan is the actual manufacturer.
http://www.kamlan.com.cn/ These lenses were also already announced several years ago under the Kodak/Sakar moniker, as some searching will tell you.
Sain Sonic seems to be primarily an electronics shop, I guess they are distributing the lenses now in the US. In Asia you can get these lenses already, here are some samples on a Thai forum: https://pantip.com/topic/35416488

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 13:45 UTC as 23rd comment
In reply to:

zonoskar: Does the MTF look good? http://www.tamron.jp/en/product/lenses/b028.html

Hmm, the one at 400mm does not look so hot. Already at 10lp/mm it drops off.
But the lens is really light for 600mm.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 10:23 UTC
Total: 119, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »