JensR

Lives in United Kingdom Bath, United Kingdom
Works as a Mechanical Engineer
Joined on Nov 23, 2003
About me:

Hi,

thanks for stopping by!
If you want to see what I'm up to, send me a message :)

My 'plan':
Talk Pentax into a digital Electro-Spotmatic! (This needs some work...)

-------------

Older Signatures:

'LBA knows no bounds, and seeks no justification...' (Jim King, 2005)
http://www.jr-worldwi.de/photo/index.html - Photography, Tech and Geek stuff :}

'Why is everyone answering rhetorical questions?' (Me, 2005)

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)

'I only trust those photos I have faked myself.' (Me, 2007)
http://www.jensroesner.de/

--=! Condemning proprietary batteries since 1976 !=--

'I don't want them to believe me, I just want them to think.'
Marshall McLuhan

Comments

Total: 216, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Clint009: Here is a first ----------- review.

Sony E 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 review https://www.cameralabs.com/sony-e-18-135mm-f3-5-5-6-review/

Promising :)

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 23:10 UTC
In reply to:

JensR: Very interesting for many users of APS-C E-mount.
But no hood? Sony website says:
"
What's In The Box
Hood (model): ALC-SH153
Lens front cap: ALC-F55S
Lens rear cap: ALC-R1EM
"
From https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/camera-lenses/sel18135/specifications
I used the original Sigma 18-125 for many years on APS-C and it is a really useful range of focal lengths. But I feel that the many elements of these lenses mean they benefit from lens hoods.

Good news plus more and more people here have said that it is listed as included, which is of course even better news :)

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 23:06 UTC

What a great person, both on a human level and professional technical skill. Her magic was done before digital archives or AI sorting through photos, creating both an aesthetic to the magazine while honouring the art of those who produced the images.

I always check both columns of photo news on dpreview, because sometimes the true gems are in the small column.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2018 at 15:46 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

paul simon king: So you can get any image in High IQ for free - will anyone ever need to pay an actual photographer ever again?

With photoshop it must be possible to use stock wedding photographs of any couple and photoshop the faces/places etc, as it must be possible to photoshop the interior of busy working factories, machinery etc. to look like the clients'; or to get 'close-enough' for product shoots; same with sports, surely there are already enough shots of people kicking running, jumping, shooting' and skiing etc?

Sure, Stock photographers may end up out of business from Upsplash but combined with photoshop I can see that it could cause the demise of income for every photographer, and after all a riot is a riot, a politician is a politician, a celebrity is a celebrity, so the same could be done for journo's shots, [does it matter which riot/politician/celebrity is in the frame], they're all pretty much the same after all?

[for those of a literal bent please understand the above is sarcasm]

Sarcasm or not.
In 10 to 20 years, computers will be able to generate 3D versions of 99% of all photos quickly enough for wide-spread use, then modify the camera position, combine whatever product you want to advertise and flatten the whole thing to a 2D still "photo".
The only question is whether video will kill photography before or not.
By the time that you can get a humongous digital picture frame for the same price as a high quality photo print of the same size...

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2018 at 14:59 UTC
In reply to:

mapgraphs: The advice from seasoned pros, the hired talent, has always been "Never do work for free." And, "if you want paying clients, do work for free." It's called advertising. Letting potential clients know you're out there, the kind of work you do and that you're available... a.k.a, a portfolio.

Pro bono, adj.
done or donated without charge; free

Good will, n.
The positive reputation of a business and its likely continued patronage by clients, considered as part of its market value.

a portfolio is a showcase of your best (most relevant to client) work - can be over the full range or within a certain topic area. It is not generally used to describe "free unlimited access to full size negatives/files"

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2018 at 14:45 UTC
On article Film vs Digital: Fashion photography shootout (353 comments in total)

56mm x 70mm gives an 89mm diagonal versus 24x36's 43mm.
Format factor of 2.
Digital image quality has come a long way since we had to ask "Which is better?"
Now we need to ask "How much larger does the film have to be to make for a fun youtube video?" ;)
Or maybe: "How cumbersome a camera do I need to use to slow me down?" :-P

That said, two different good photographers give two different sets of good results. And I am also sure that different cameras influence how they work and therefore the results.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2018 at 14:28 UTC as 65th comment
In reply to:

JensR: Very interesting for many users of APS-C E-mount.
But no hood? Sony website says:
"
What's In The Box
Hood (model): ALC-SH153
Lens front cap: ALC-F55S
Lens rear cap: ALC-R1EM
"
From https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/camera-lenses/sel18135/specifications
I used the original Sigma 18-125 for many years on APS-C and it is a really useful range of focal lengths. But I feel that the many elements of these lenses mean they benefit from lens hoods.

Hi Clint009, let's wait and see what actually shows up in the stores, I remain hopeful!

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2018 at 18:45 UTC
In reply to:

io_bg: How can "Leica" and "budget" co-exist in the same sentence? ;)

Just checked, Bentley floor mats start at 10GBP and for 20 you get some that seem to even fit. Makes sense, I wouldn't want to ruin my Bentley floor mats ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2018 at 15:27 UTC
On article 10 photography books that are banned in Texas prisons (23 comments in total)

So I googled around a bit and the best explanation after reading

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2017/11/27/texas-prisons-ban-freakonomics-big-book-angels-adolf-hitlers-mein-kampf

is that photography books can be heavy and can hide weapons or contraband.
Secondly, it seems that prisons tend to ban anything that shows a map, even if that map could not realistically help inmates to plan a way out.
My third idea is that some photo books contain technical drawings that might look like contraptions inmates might build to escape or create problems within the prison.
Pretty thin reasons I would say and I can't believe that all of the photography books listed would tick one of those three boxes.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2018 at 13:35 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

veroman: dpreview: you're asleep at the wheel! Is anybody proofreading this stuff? The numbers of typos and grammatical errors is astonishing ... not to mention annoying. How do you expect to be taken as serious photography-subject journalists when you post like this? There's no excuse. Good journalism it ain't!

I think it was less that you criticised them, but more how you did it.
What's wrong with:
"Hey dpreview, there are a few typos and some bad grammar, please fix that."

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 21:50 UTC
In reply to:

Dr_Jon: So presumably the question is whether it consumes more or less than $1080 in electricity in two years ($3400-$2320)? I guess less.

BTW I doo wonder if people buying the machines and running them in their own houses are at risk of getting raided by the Drug Enforcement people, as usually the house in the street with the big heat signature if the one growing drugs...

Power consumption
https://shop.bitmain.com/antminer_s9_asic_bitcoin_miner.htm?flag=specifications

When running on full mining, it consumes 1400W - which gives around 25MWh (24*365*1400*2) over the two years.

"The average price people in the U.S. pay for electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour"
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/10/27/141766341/the-price-of-electricity-in-your-state

24*365*1400*2/1000*0.12

That gives us roughly 3000USD of electricity cost over two years. :-O

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 21:02 UTC
In reply to:

veroman: dpreview: you're asleep at the wheel! Is anybody proofreading this stuff? The numbers of typos and grammatical errors is astonishing ... not to mention annoying. How do you expect to be taken as serious photography-subject journalists when you post like this? There's no excuse. Good journalism it ain't!

*harsh *than
But I still agree ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 19:40 UTC

Would have been nice to include the other weather-resistant FF option, the Pentax K-1, even if it is a 2016 camera, but I understand you could extend that to APS-C cameras and it's turtles all the way down...

More pertinently, it would also have been interesting to take a nominally unsealed camera to compare it and see how much better the Sony "seal" is than no seal.

But in any case, it seems to indicate that rubber/silicone sealing is vastly superior to the mechanical, interlocking panels of the Sony.

And yes, I am a Pentax owner, but I also own Sony.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 18:59 UTC as 116th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Xentinus: After 4.5 years, finally an APS-C lens. It is compact (not complaining), but 55mm filter means heavy in camera correction.
BTW, you might want to fix it dear DPR: Focal length 18–1325 mm

Hm, the original Sigma 18-125 had a 62mm filter and apart from mustache distortion at 18mm it was not that bad. But the later OS versions got considerably larger. Mirrorless allows for smaller size than that SLR lens, but I feel you might have a point. We'll see.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

BokehFanatic: Good lens for the line-up, but the price seems ridiculous. Unless it is suddenly much better than the Nikon/Canon equivalents that are much cheaper.

72mm filter vs 55mm - different animals for different purposes.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 18:51 UTC

Very interesting for many users of APS-C E-mount.
But no hood? Sony website says:
"
What's In The Box
Hood (model): ALC-SH153
Lens front cap: ALC-F55S
Lens rear cap: ALC-R1EM
"
From https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/camera-lenses/sel18135/specifications
I used the original Sigma 18-125 for many years on APS-C and it is a really useful range of focal lengths. But I feel that the many elements of these lenses mean they benefit from lens hoods.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 18:46 UTC as 36th comment | 4 replies
On article Teardown: Sony a7R III weather sealing examination (42 comments in total)
In reply to:

Oleg Ivanovskiy: Looks like very weak protection to me. Canon or Nikon do not promote their flagships as "weatherproof", Sony does. With an "*" mark that it's "not 100% guaranteed". To me, if it's "not 100% guaranteed", you better keep your mouth shut about it.

hahaha, I maintain the use of "but" was appropriate.
Also, where did I attack you? Come on, tell us ;)

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 19:10 UTC
In reply to:

retr01976: It's quite strange, but it seems that the technology behind crop sensors has improved beyond that of full frame to the point where the differences between crop and ff are now only a matter of DOF. If FF was improving in parallel, we should technically see FF sensors leaps and bounds ahead of crop. I know my Fuji easily bests my Canon FF cameras in just about every measure sans detail at the very highest of ISOs.

whatever Tommi, there is no way for us to know what type of flawed test you did.
When the photographer pushes images from the very best digital cameras they still reveal weaknesses whether it is highlight detail or more likely shadow noise. If you couldn't tell the difference you didn't take your photography or your printing far enough.
I mean seriously, if you were right you should be able to steal a lot of business from people using digital medium format cameras. Just do the same quality they do with an m4/3 camera and offer a cheaper price because of less gear cost. Very easy business - but only if your assumption is right (which it isn't).

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 17:57 UTC
In reply to:

Carl Sanders: The problem with this is when the operating system gets upgraded then this becomes redundant.

There's a good chance it will work in Windows 11, either directly or with compatibility settings. Maybe even Windows 12. But I agree, some uncertainty remains.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 18:51 UTC
In reply to:

entoman: I've been using LR Classic since the day it was released, and have processed several hundred images with it.

To those who are worried - I can assure you that it is NOT compulsory to store your images on the "cloud", although you can do so if you wish. You can store locally on your computer or on your own external drives.

For your $10 per month subscription (which is NOTHING compared to what you probably spend on cameras and lenses) you not only get the continually updated, faster and much improved LR Classic, you also get Photoshop, Bridge, Spark, Portfolio and Adobe Camera Raw.

Seriously, strongly recommend you switch to LR Classic, rather than LR6 or another brand that may only be around for a short while.

No, I'm not connected in ANY way with Adobe, just in case you're wondering!.

@entoman And what can you do with that software after you stop paying that monthly fee?

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 18:49 UTC
Total: 216, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »