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

Sdaniella: 2008 Canon ExpSim LV already available across the board APSC/APSH/FF EOS dSLRs
like prosumer Canon FF EOS 5DMkII w/1080p FHD Manual Capable M-Movie mode
True ExpSim LV = getting perfect exposures First-Time-Right (=never need to review for retakes; zero-chimpcentric)

2008 Sony prosumer FF dSLR ... A900 ... no Exposure Simulation Live Preview*
*unsaveable "no-storable-pic" exposure simulation live preview "mode"; to capture pic, one must turn mode off, then take a 2nd shot ... "chimping"-centric

ditto: 2009 Sony budget FF dSLR A850 no LV whatsoever ...

O_o

Do you have an equally uplifting message for people who value "ExpSim LV" less than some of the features the Sony *did* have?

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 12:26 UTC
In reply to:

AndroC: This regular column always worries me in that it seems to focus on how much greater our current cameras are than ones released in the very close past. Here's an example this week of a camera that is still truly excellent. I get the impression that all DPR readers are professional sports photographers wanting highly performant AF and insane frame rates to nail the photo for the newspaper. But for landscape and still life photographers such as myself, the A900 and A850 are still beautiful and wonderful cameras, in no way obsolete. Luminance noise is observed at medium high ISO, but can be carefully removed in Photoshop et al, so it is not really a big problem. I use two A850's daily currently still and I am compelled to say I simply adore them. I am not saying they are the BEST CAMERA EVER that people are seeking, but for landscape, with good Minolta glass, they make luminous results of great beauty, with a warmth Minolta users know that's missing in many of the newer whizzo cameras.

Agreed, if you can carry an A850/A900 and a tripod, you can still swing it with the big ones.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 12:20 UTC
In reply to:

rfsIII: Everyone is complaining about the noise from this camera at higher ISOs, but maybe there's life left in the old girl yet. Has anyone tried processing the raws with a current version of Lightroom? It has a pretty powerful noise reduction algo.

I routinely used my A850 at up to ISO 1600 using Lightroom to process (and sometimes push) the RAWs. I think the problems were overplayed back then, but comparing it to my Pentax K-1, there is just no comparison beyond base ISO.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 12:19 UTC
In reply to:

maxmarra: I had a chance to play with this camera back in 2008. focus system was pretty rubbish (in comparison to my 40D) but FF sensor was Epic though U must be crazy to choose this over 5D

Not crazy at all.
A850 has in body stabilisation and a mirror that does not clash with old M42 lenses the same way the 5D's does. I had rented a 5D for a while and made the A850 decision without any regret.

Some people need superior AF performance and others are needlessly obsessed with it. Coming from a Pentax ist DS, the AF was good enough for me :D

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 12:16 UTC
In reply to:

ZOIP: Still own one and use it for professional work sometimes, the appeal lies in three areas, the viewfinder and ergonomics are excellent but most importantly the colour/tonal rendition is just beautiful, as close to medium format neg film as we ever got with digital in my opinion.

Yep anything over 400 is a bit noisy but it can be cleaned up well enough, but in use I found 400iso really was 400, where as Canons I had at the time overstated their ISO so 400 on the Canons was really only about 250 ISO so the Sony disadvantage compared to the Canons was not really as great as it might at first appear.

The Canons in particular used a less dense red filters which helped high ISO performance but traded off colour quality, especially for ruddy skin tones, Sony chose to go with stronger filtering that traded off high ISO performance but liberated fabulous colour subtlety for the time and even for today.

The noise was largely a result of the red channel being far less exposed at a sensor level, but at low ISO it was fine.

I developed a whole system around shooting the A900 through a red/magenta filter with appropriate RAW processing, this equalised the cross channel exposure at the sensor level and liberated the most glorious colour, clarity and tonality I have ever achieved. Though effectively you are shooting at about 32 ISO.

Anyhow I still love mine and have never regretted the purchase.

Very interesting! Can you say what type of filter you used exactly?

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 12:13 UTC

I went for the A850, but hopefully you'll allow my to chime in, considering how similar these cameras are.
I initially had many gripes about the A850 mainly to do with the user interface, but as time went by, we got along better and better. In the end, the K-1, its liveview focusing together with scandalously good ISO performance and my stash of Pentax lenses made me move it to backup camera.
Here's what flickr thinks are my most interesting images with the A850
https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=22070130%40N07&sort=interestingness-desc&view_all=1&text=a850

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 12:11 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

RubberDials: "Micro Four Thirds persisted with the Four Thirds type sensor but by abandoning the mirror box (and the telecentric design philosophy) was able to fully deliver on the size benefits that had originally been promised."

Micro Four Thirds has not abandoned a telecentric lens design philosophy. All digital lenses are as necessarily telecentric as possible.

"Look at me, I am a native speaker, what I say is correct by default, hurr durr" :D

I can assure you that this is not a language issue on my part. I also didn't say that "as possible" is in itself meaningless (in fact I myself pointed out the constraints that you have now mentioned), but rather that this qualifier makes the combined statement meaningless.

"necessarily as telecentric as possible "

What do you mean by "necessarily", anyway? No dictionary definition of the word necessary, please :D

Your statement is meaningless, or maybe you like "trivial" better? What you are basically saying is that the lens is "necessarily" as good a compromise as possible from a range of sharp, colour-neutral, flare-resistant, cheap, weatherproof, parfocal, compact aaaaand telecentric. Does that strike you as meaningful? Not me.

Maybe it would be more constructive if we would simply agree that telecentricity is just one of the many important design considerations for digital lenses.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 12:06 UTC
In reply to:

RubberDials: "Micro Four Thirds persisted with the Four Thirds type sensor but by abandoning the mirror box (and the telecentric design philosophy) was able to fully deliver on the size benefits that had originally been promised."

Micro Four Thirds has not abandoned a telecentric lens design philosophy. All digital lenses are as necessarily telecentric as possible.

I realised that you didn't type correctly. The problem: It means nothing even when "corrected".

Your phrasing, thought to the end, implies that there is only one way of telecentricity, the "possible" one. That is not correct. If you look into scientific imaging and machine vision, we have lenses that offer extreme telecentricity, much more than any Olympus consumer lens. There is such a thing as a degree or a level of telecentricity.

Basically, "as possible" in this context is just a qualifier that makes your whole statement meaningless. Manufacturers need to trade off the desire for telecentricity against a host of different requirements. The logic of your statement could be applied like this: "Any digital lens is necessarily as sharp as possible."

BTW, there are reasons why you might want to add some degree of telecentricity to a lens, even if your imager is film, so your phrasing of "recording medium with a non-contiguous and angled array" is both ornate and misleading.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 00:23 UTC
In reply to:

RubberDials: "Micro Four Thirds persisted with the Four Thirds type sensor but by abandoning the mirror box (and the telecentric design philosophy) was able to fully deliver on the size benefits that had originally been promised."

Micro Four Thirds has not abandoned a telecentric lens design philosophy. All digital lenses are as necessarily telecentric as possible.

"All digital lenses are as necessarily telecentric as possible."

You do realise this sentence means nothing?
Any proofs for your other claim? Like Olympus advertising the µ4/3 lenses as telecentric?

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 20:20 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: Why was telecentric lens design abandoned with MFT? Was it because sensors had evolved by that point with much shallower pixel wells, microlenses etc. such that it was no longer needed, was it because the distortions induced by non-telecentric lenses could be cleaned up in software, or was it because the mirrorless design somehow made it unnecessary?

The smaller flange focal distance certainly does not make telecentric design any less necessary.

In my opinion it is a combination: a bit of better microlenses & wells + a bit of software correction + mainly the need to offer a size advantage.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 02:00 UTC
In reply to:

upptick: So, the main reason I believe there is a God is because humans are able to devise machines and instruments that are far, FAR more complicated than what would be needed for mere survival --- Darwin would say that there is simply no selective / competitive pressure and therefore no survival advantage to create anything nearly as complicated as this Sony lens. Yet, here it is. What an exquisite beauty!

Evolution is not about "merely surviving". Evolution is the continuous change of species. The "better" individuals of each species have a better chance of survival and passing on their "better" genes. This means that effectively each species competes with others. A certain level that is "merely surviving" at one point would mean "becoming extinct" a thousand or a million years later because the competition has gotten better. Therefore continuous change, adaptation and improvement, an eternal trade-off between specialisation and flexibility is at the very heart of evolution.
Now, we can discuss how or why our conscious perpetual developments from taming fire to the moon landings mirror the unconscious perpetual developments by evolution, but I don't think we need to invoke any creator for that either.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 17:03 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Hands-on with new Voigtländer E-mount primes (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

Becksvart: That macro looks interesting and I for one wouldn't use it for portraits.

I wonder if people will target it with the same comment as the Samyang macro : 'auto aperture is a boon for macro photographers', which is a statement with some merit.

The 40 1,2 too, of course we want f/1,2 : )

Philipreeve's tests will be interesting to read too since he will likely compare it to both (other) modern FE lenses and much cheaper legacy options.

Background sharpness? When doing macro, my background is never "sharp", so I do not understand your question.

Focus shift during stopping down has been a non-issue with any lens I have used for macro stuff. I've heard that one of the bright Samyang lenses shows a lot of it, never heard a macro lens exhibiting this issue. What (macro?) lens are you using that this is a problem?

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 19:39 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Hands-on with new Voigtländer E-mount primes (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

Becksvart: That macro looks interesting and I for one wouldn't use it for portraits.

I wonder if people will target it with the same comment as the Samyang macro : 'auto aperture is a boon for macro photographers', which is a statement with some merit.

The 40 1,2 too, of course we want f/1,2 : )

Philipreeve's tests will be interesting to read too since he will likely compare it to both (other) modern FE lenses and much cheaper legacy options.

I disagree, Magnar. In my experience, seeing the real DOF in the viewfinder is not an advantage for macro focusing. It is far easier to see the focus plane if it is narrow. Brightness is not the real concern, it is that you cannot judge the plane of focus on a small screen or small viewfinder adequately. You'll need to zoom in on the screen. And when you do that, the zoomed in wide open view will be easier to focus than the zoomed in stopped down view.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 14:26 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Hands-on with new Voigtländer E-mount primes (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

chetan crasta: Aren't all these lenses lacking autofocus? Why isn't such an important point mentioned here?

You mean like in the very first sentence?
"Voigtländer announced three new manual focus lenses at this year's CP+ show"

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 14:16 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (1093 comments in total)

"Let's take a look at how the SL compares with the Sony a7R II, the only other full frame mirrorless camera out there currently."

Well, as far as I know: A7, A7S, A7R, A7 II, A7S II, A7R II

Also might be worth pointing out that all Mark2 Sonys offer stabilised lenses as well.

Choosing the 24MP A7 II for comparison would probably have helped to close the speed difference between Sony and Leica. Comparing it to the Mark I (no IBIS) would illustrate the price differential.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 15:58 UTC as 183rd comment | 13 replies
On article Yongnuo YN 85mm F1.8 lens now available (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

TerrificShot Photography: At this price, this is not a surprise. A while ago, I ordered the Yongnuo 35 mn lens because it was the only cheap alternative to the Canon 35mn. I was simply disappointed by the same issue as this new lens : blurry corners, noisy autofocus

--------
Best,
Herve
http://www.terrificshot.com/blog

If you don't believe that compromises have value, you are wrong. Basically everything in life is a compromise. Your Sigma lens is a compromise. When Sigma designed it, they weighed the pros and cons of each of their decision and settled for the best compromise. And when you picked the lens, you weighed pros and cons (hopefully) and made your decision. The skill is to find the right compromise. Posts like yours show a misunderstanding of logic and reality.

Your argument that "if photographers were compromisers, they would all shoot with a cellphone" is just fallacious. Choosing the right compromise is NOT the same thing as choosing the bad option.

Where has our society gone wrong if people expect a thing to only have advantages? Where have we gone wrong if the right compromise is deemed a failure?

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 15:43 UTC
On article Sigma Announces 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM lens (154 comments in total)
In reply to:

EXX: Why Sigma does not make a Sony A-mount and Pentax K-mount version of this (and some other recent ART lenses) is beyond me.

The flange focal distance of Sony A-mount and Pentax K-mount are shorter than the Nikon F-mount, so it is just a question of extending the lens size a little bit, together with the appropriate bayonet for the specific mount. No change in optical lens design required.

For Sony A-mount users, this lens would be a great modern alternative to the old Minolta AF 100-400mm F4.5-6.7 APO.

MShot - I am not familiar with the µ43 world, but an adapter like the Metabones or MC11 could be a great solution.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 05:48 UTC
On article Sigma Announces 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM lens (154 comments in total)
In reply to:

EXX: Why Sigma does not make a Sony A-mount and Pentax K-mount version of this (and some other recent ART lenses) is beyond me.

The flange focal distance of Sony A-mount and Pentax K-mount are shorter than the Nikon F-mount, so it is just a question of extending the lens size a little bit, together with the appropriate bayonet for the specific mount. No change in optical lens design required.

For Sony A-mount users, this lens would be a great modern alternative to the old Minolta AF 100-400mm F4.5-6.7 APO.

Market share alone is only part of the equation. Cost of adaptation is another one. If it were just market share, Sigma would produce no Sigma-mount lenses. The other part of the equation is competition. There is a lot of competition on Canon and Nikon mounts, but Sigma would be the only third-party manufacturer of modern AF lenses for Pentax, so would have a higher proportion of that market share.
Obviously they have counted their beans and decided against supporting the fastest-growing dSLR company...

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 13:37 UTC
On article Sigma Announces 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM lens (154 comments in total)
In reply to:

EXX: Why Sigma does not make a Sony A-mount and Pentax K-mount version of this (and some other recent ART lenses) is beyond me.

The flange focal distance of Sony A-mount and Pentax K-mount are shorter than the Nikon F-mount, so it is just a question of extending the lens size a little bit, together with the appropriate bayonet for the specific mount. No change in optical lens design required.

For Sony A-mount users, this lens would be a great modern alternative to the old Minolta AF 100-400mm F4.5-6.7 APO.

Pentax KAF4 would be a good idea and should be easy-ish do to as it is an electronic-only mount, but only IF they have reverse-engineered the KAF4 protocol. This is a full-frame lens, so would be a neat compact solution for K-1 owners. Would also work well on the whole range of recent Pentax APS-C bodies. Very disappointing.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 11:45 UTC
On article Yongnuo YN 85mm F1.8 lens now available (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

TerrificShot Photography: At this price, this is not a surprise. A while ago, I ordered the Yongnuo 35 mn lens because it was the only cheap alternative to the Canon 35mn. I was simply disappointed by the same issue as this new lens : blurry corners, noisy autofocus

--------
Best,
Herve
http://www.terrificshot.com/blog

Mark, I think you've made up your mind. Never mind that most reports of the 35mm's performance indicate that it is good value for money. No, it is not a "great lens full stop", and there is sample variation, but it seems good value for money. If that is "crappy" to you, then so be it.

If you can't tell the difference between a duck and a seagull, maybe you shouldn't do lens reviews...

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 11:38 UTC
Total: 165, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »