Entropius

Lives in United States Tucson, AZ, United States
Works as a Physics PhD Candidate
Joined on Jul 17, 2006

Comments

Total: 202, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

probert500: The bokeh boys have ruined lens design. Imagine the ART line if it was around f 2.8 and half the size. These are pigs - bokeh shmokeh I say.

The laws of optics say: fast, sharp, lightweight. Pick any two.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2018 at 12:54 UTC
In reply to:

Entropius: Nothing wrong with talking about Sony a bunch when they're the ones changing things up -- and I say that as a very happy Nikon user. My D500 is an amazing camera -- getting usable shots at five-digit ISO's and tracking focus uncannily well.

But Nikon has just been making incremental improvements for a decade now -- no bad thing as they have figured out how to make excellent stills cameras by now, but it means there's not much exciting to write about. "Here's the new camera -- it's like the old one, but with a bit better dynamic range and low-light performance, a few more pixels, and tracks focus a bit better".

The one actually remarkable product they've made lately is the 300/4 PF, but for some reason people get more excited about cameras than lenses.

@AZheaven I have no idea why people were negative about the D7500. Everyone seems to like change for change's sake in this business which doesn't really make sense. Nikon is like the Toyota of cameras: they've been making the same thing without many changes for years, but they got it right the first time, so why change?

Link | Posted on May 20, 2018 at 13:40 UTC

Nothing wrong with talking about Sony a bunch when they're the ones changing things up -- and I say that as a very happy Nikon user. My D500 is an amazing camera -- getting usable shots at five-digit ISO's and tracking focus uncannily well.

But Nikon has just been making incremental improvements for a decade now -- no bad thing as they have figured out how to make excellent stills cameras by now, but it means there's not much exciting to write about. "Here's the new camera -- it's like the old one, but with a bit better dynamic range and low-light performance, a few more pixels, and tracks focus a bit better".

The one actually remarkable product they've made lately is the 300/4 PF, but for some reason people get more excited about cameras than lenses.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 16:51 UTC as 48th comment | 2 replies

Meanwhile Darktable runs fine on my computer.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2018 at 15:31 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

desertsp: Just another way for them to get their hooks into future customers...(joking)

No, it's true -- that's why they're doing it.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2018 at 15:26 UTC
In reply to:

Mustafa: I don’t want to read any more about this wretched monkey, even if he’s standing for President.

If this monkey were running for President I would vote for it over the current occupant of said office.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 13:30 UTC
In reply to:

PhozoKozmos: far too many digital camera shooters, whether they had extensive film camera experience or not, have been too easily taken in with unrealistic look of high contrast look of film era look

worse when looking to unnatural exaggerated over-blackened shadows in bright sunny daylight shooting using slide film (positive transparencies)

so for digital, too many are mimicking the unrealistic look of color film (kodachrome, ektachrome, fujichromes)

whilst colorful higher vibrance/vividness saturation has universal appeal for certain types of scenes in digital, the unreal fakeness of non-existent black sunshadows have made too many digital shooters embrace improper exposure choices (resorting to unnecessary excessive gain where none is needed) as well as improper post-processing of a colored scene; this results in very confused b&w digital shooting, where exposures are all non-optimal for any post-processing

mfrs play a big part in NOT addressing more realistic in-camera visual RAW feedback

Is your shift key stuck?

Yes, it's true -- the sky lights stuff even when other stuff is in the way of the sun. We know how that works.

Go to Arizona, or anywhere out West without a hazy white sky. Take a picture. Examine the contrast difference between shadows and highlights. It's huge.

Notice how you go blind looking at the sun but not at the nice blue mountain sky? One is -- to use a technical term -- a metric crapload brighter than the other.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2018 at 17:13 UTC
In reply to:

Cornu: If you convert an analog signal to digital, you will have to limit the highest frequencies to < fs/2. This is true for audio in the time domain and for photography in the space domain. As Leica doesn't have a low-pass filter, it will exhibit moire, no matter if it is monochrom or color. At a resolution of 36MP in monochrom, chances are that your lens was the low-pass filter. "Zero moire" is incorrect, sadly...

There are two sorts of aliasing that show up; one involves the aliasing of frequencies above the Nyquist cutoff back below it, which is generally much less offensive to the eye and manifests itself as artificial texture appearing on top of surfaces that are generally already very strongly textured. That's the sort of monochrome aliasing.

The other sort has to do with the ambiguity between high-frequency (but below the strict Nyquist cutoff of an unBayered sensor at equivalent spatial resolution) luminance detail and low-frequency chrominance detail; the demosaicing algorithm can't tell the difference between the two and sometimes renders this luminance detail as chroma information. This luma -> chroma ambiguity is the more offensive sort of aliasing that people usually call "moire".

I have an ordinary Bayer camera with no lowpass filter, though, and the only subject I shoot that frequently exhibits enough of this to bug me is robin feathers.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2018 at 05:03 UTC
In reply to:

Cornu: On another item - if you want to get an idea of what a monochrome digital camera can achieve, try one of the "LEICA"-branded Huawei mobiles. The P10 for example can produce fantastic b&w photos which can put some ILCs to shame.

I like to think of smartphones as fullframe SLR's with a lens stuck at 28mm f/11 ISO 1600 (or whatever the equivalent settings are).

Can you take brilliant pictures with a D750 at 28mm f/11 ISO 1600? Much of the time? Very, very much so.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2018 at 04:59 UTC
In reply to:

PhozoKozmos: far too many digital camera shooters, whether they had extensive film camera experience or not, have been too easily taken in with unrealistic look of high contrast look of film era look

worse when looking to unnatural exaggerated over-blackened shadows in bright sunny daylight shooting using slide film (positive transparencies)

so for digital, too many are mimicking the unrealistic look of color film (kodachrome, ektachrome, fujichromes)

whilst colorful higher vibrance/vividness saturation has universal appeal for certain types of scenes in digital, the unreal fakeness of non-existent black sunshadows have made too many digital shooters embrace improper exposure choices (resorting to unnecessary excessive gain where none is needed) as well as improper post-processing of a colored scene; this results in very confused b&w digital shooting, where exposures are all non-optimal for any post-processing

mfrs play a big part in NOT addressing more realistic in-camera visual RAW feedback

Shadows too black on sunlit days?

The shadows in an Arizona midday scene are something stupid like seven stops darker than sunlit things. I can't think of any workflow that will produce much other than "overblackened shadows" without a) a modern sensor at low ISO, and b) a lot of extra gain thrown at the shadows.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2018 at 04:57 UTC

Wait, the Sigma 18-35/1.8 (T2.0, whatever) with a 1-stop speedbooster? That sounds insane -- a f/1.3 (T1.4) zoom?

I use this lens on DX and it's very, very good.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2018 at 14:36 UTC as 54th comment
On article Have Your Say 2017: the winners (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

FrankZayas: Is it just me, or are camera prices getting out of hand?

Prices for the absolute high end, yeah.

But I went to the Smithsonian Museum of National History a few years ago. There they have a wildlife photography exhibit with five foot tall prints of stunning shots, with full EXIF. A lot of them were shot with D300's.

You can get a used D7200 for under $500, which blows the D300 out of the water in sensor quality and matches it in most everything else.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2018 at 02:08 UTC

We already have primitive metalenses, where "metalens" means "lens with features whose sizes are comparable to the wavelength of light and which uses fancy phase interference properties to focus light in a way that can't be explained with ray optics."

I have one here: the Nikon 300/4 PF.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 07:11 UTC as 31st comment
In reply to:

Akgbkd: Can i know, which camera was used to capture these shots

The EXIF says a Panasonic GH5.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2018 at 15:41 UTC
In reply to:

newmikey: Reading some of the replies, I'm reminded again and again of how correct the developer team were to resist releasing a Windows port. Pearls before swine, no more no less.

"Free Lightroom alternative Darktable is now available on Windows" is also such a misleading title just as Gimp is not a "Photoshop alternative". Darktable is darktable, no more, no less. It runs best in its native Linux mode, not when patched to account for a terrible OS architecture such as Window.

You either use it as a raw converter on individual raw files (by right-clicking on the raw file and selecting 'open with darktable') or use it to convert whole directories or even as DAM application.

What counts to me is less about how it converts wrong exposures, off-colors or other photographer-errors but more about what it does to correctly exposed raws. I've been using dt for many years now and like its UI and the thinking behind it. I can fully understand there are people who think differently: don't use it!

Thanks for your information! I currently use Picasa (since it's actually *fast*) on Windows for DAM and Lightroom for processing. But I'm quite impressed with RT's image quality; I have yet to really dive into what DT is capable of. But I'm glad to hear that digiKam does a good job of DAM; that's something I'm missing on Linux.

My laptop (Dell XPS 13) is Linux-only, so it'd be very nice to have a good raw converter there.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 01:21 UTC
In reply to:

newmikey: Reading some of the replies, I'm reminded again and again of how correct the developer team were to resist releasing a Windows port. Pearls before swine, no more no less.

"Free Lightroom alternative Darktable is now available on Windows" is also such a misleading title just as Gimp is not a "Photoshop alternative". Darktable is darktable, no more, no less. It runs best in its native Linux mode, not when patched to account for a terrible OS architecture such as Window.

You either use it as a raw converter on individual raw files (by right-clicking on the raw file and selecting 'open with darktable') or use it to convert whole directories or even as DAM application.

What counts to me is less about how it converts wrong exposures, off-colors or other photographer-errors but more about what it does to correctly exposed raws. I've been using dt for many years now and like its UI and the thinking behind it. I can fully understand there are people who think differently: don't use it!

It seems like it has a bunch of excellent features (in addition to Linux support, which is what I mostly care about) -- in particular, the wavelet-coefficient equalizer and filter seems like an incredibly powerful tool.

Given that Adobe is determined to make Lightroom suck, I'm in the market for an alternative, and it's between DT and RawTherapee...

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2017 at 23:27 UTC
On article Canon patents 400mm F5.6 catadioptric 'mirror' lens (220 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gil Aegerter: I've owned a couple of the old Nikkor 500mm mirror lenses -- bought the first one in 1986, the only new Nikkor I've ever owned. Image quality could be good in the right conditions, but the basic problem I found was one of steadiness. These lenses are very light for their focal length, and hence very susceptible to shake. I found I had to shoot from a very rigid tripod or put it on a monopod so I could act as an absorber. Maybe newer bodies with stabilization could solve that. https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/nikkorcreflex500mm

I dunno why Nikon (what I shoot) and Canon can't figure out that in-body IS is a fantastic thing.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2017 at 15:49 UTC
On article Canon patents 400mm F5.6 catadioptric 'mirror' lens (220 comments in total)

Why on earth would you want to decrease the amount of light coming in a lens like this without increasing depth of field? No wildlife photographer says "Gee, if I only had less light, I could make a picture out of this!"

As someone who has used long lenses for a while, my 80-400/5.6 stays at f/5.6 and my 300/4 stays at f/4 except in rare circumstances where I need more dof...

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2017 at 15:47 UTC as 24th comment | 1 reply
On article UPDATED: Sony a7R III is still a star eater (462 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheEnthusiast: Good grief. What percentage of photographers shoot single-pixel stars? About 0.01% or is that too high? On the other hand, pointing out this near-catastrophic shortcoming might actually scare off the 3% who think it could matter to them. Somebody needs to get a life.

I'm quite happy shooting Nikon DX. But if I ever go fullframe it will be to do night landscapes better, and this sort of nonsense would be a complete dealbreaker.

Raw should mean raw. If I want to smudge stuff I can do the math myself.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2017 at 22:43 UTC
In reply to:

Jefftan: those shot don't seem any different than my A6500 and 10-18mm (or EF-S 10-18 if one like Canon)
Only difference is F4 vs F1.8 and APS-C vs full frame

huge difference in weight and price
worth it or not you be the judge

i said not worth it, I don't need thin DOF (look ugly to me)

F1.8 only use to me is for low light can use 2 stop lower ISO (tolerate the thin DOF)

If it's really damn dark, you might care about those extra two stops.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 13:34 UTC
Total: 202, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »