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


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) - 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)

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

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


Total: 83, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous2345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

fenceSitter: F2.8 on an m43 camera doesn't sound like "large aperture" to me, as far as Bokeh is concerned. If I'm not mistaken, it will be the same as with a F5.6 lens on a Nikon D700.

Comparing to FF is not odd or flawed.
If the prices stay as announced, the FT f/2.8 lens is more expensive than a "FF" f/4.0 (or f/5.6) lens that has better (or the same) DOF control due to the larger (or same) physical aperture diameter.
Just because primes generally offer more DOF control does not invalidate that people also want DOF control from their zooms - or else we would all run around with f/11+ zooms...

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2012 at 23:47 UTC
In reply to:

Jens_G: Meh. That 12-35/2.8 is basically equivalent to the Nex kit lens. It has the same physical aperture as a f/3.5 on APS.

Actually, the physical aperture (=diameter) of 12/2.8 on FT and 16/3.6 on APS-C are the same. The F-number is different, though (obviously).

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2012 at 23:42 UTC
In reply to:

Claudio Pinchi: I really don't understand all these complaints about DOF of M43. I recently bought a GH2 and (among others) the Leica Summilux 25 f1,4 and I can honestly say that DOF and bokeh are absolutely first quality, also compared to the same lens on my 5D (Canon ef 50 f1,4). Seems that many people ignore that DOF is influenced not only from aperture but also distance from subject. I will not buy these new lenses probably... but honestly who can say a 24-70 f2,8 is not an interesting lens? Kit lens in m43 is really poor in quality. People that look for more image quality (at the expense of portability) will surely buy this zoom. What make IMHO m43 still a little lower step to DSLR is the small choice of high level lens. If I look to the shots of my GH2 compared with ones took with DSLR with APS sensor and standard lens... i can say... NO GAME! The small m43 lens make more simple to reach high optical quality.

P.S: i beg your pardon for my poor english ;-)

This is not a 24-70/2.8 lens. This is a 12-35/2.8 lens, that behaves like a 24-70/5.6 would on "FF".

And of course position influences DOF, but for a correct comparison you need to maintain the position and hence perspective - otherwise you are not comparing the same things.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2012 at 23:39 UTC
In reply to:

Sabatia: This is exactly one of the directions Pana needs to go to have a fuller system. If the lenses are as fast as 2.8, sharp, and with high color resolution, that would be almost perfect. Having sold all my Canon gear this fall, the two lenses I miss most are the 17-55 EFS 2.8 and the 70-200 f4 L, which between them probably took 75% of my favorite shots over the last dozen years. I suspect that I am not alone in terms of 30/40/50/7D shooters in loving these lenses. So Yeah! Now get them done, glitch-free, and into the stores. And if the 35-100 is f4, but smaller and lighter than the Canon f4, I will be still be very happy.

Canon's comparable lenses at 2.8 cost $1,000 and over $2,000 or $1,400 for the 70-200 f4 IS. I think if Pana can get these out at $1k to $1,200 they will be winners.

PS: While the aperture size on m4/3 will cause loss of a little depth of field compared to crop cameras and more to FF, the brightness is not similarly affected.

12/2.8 on fourthirds is equivalent to 24/5.6 on "FF": Same DOF, same number of photons per second.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2012 at 23:37 UTC
On article Lightroom 4 Review (460 comments in total)

Wow, RGB curves, finally! Highlight recovery with (seemingly) much less colour skewing! Geotagging with track import! I might have to abandon XP after all this time.
PS: Good review, thanks.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2012 at 20:59 UTC as 168th comment
On article Digital lo-fi photography - Part 1 (130 comments in total)
In reply to:

jjmiphoto: This is too much iOS love, you left out Paper Camera, an awesome Android app that makes lots of awesome looking images.

Hi Simon,
JJ and odoketa pointed out the very strong focus on iOS. JJ merely suggested one Android app.
I think a more specific reply from dpreview could have explained why you looked at 10 iOS apps and 1 Android app - surely you had a good reason for that imbalance. Is it market share? I don't know, I don't have a "smart"phone. Maybe titling this "an overview of lo-fi iPhone apps" would have created fewer false hopes.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2011 at 21:50 UTC
On article SLR Magic announces 23mm F1.7 for Sony NEX's E-mount (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: "The world's fastest interchangeable camera lens with APS-C coverage in this focal length"

Pretty easy when you use a non-standard focal length like 23mm! :) However, there are multiple 24mm f1.4 lenses out there. I'd almost suspect it is really a 24mm that they labeled as 23mm for marketing purposes.

Francis, you might want to check the Rodenstock first, before getting all haha:
That monster is an ultrawide lens for the 645 format and could probably sink an iceberg.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2011 at 18:15 UTC
On article Ricoh to make 16MP APS-C GXR zoom module (136 comments in total)
In reply to:

Magnus W: The GXR is such a great concept! A camera with a swappable camera. Wonder why no one thought of this before.

Some people have a broken sarcasm detector.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2011 at 21:14 UTC
In reply to:

obeythebeagle: Looks suspiciously like the classic Leitz 50mm M-series Summicron.

No, the "standard" cropped 645 format does not let in more light and DOF is not more shallow than "FF". Uncropped 645 comes close to FF, but is much more expensive, much more bulky and much slower. If shallow DOF and capturing as many photons as possible per time is what you are interested in, then nothing beats FF in bang for the buck.
This is not due to physics, but due to the available lenses for 645 - that's why FF wins out.

I'm lucky in that I have several cameras with different sensor formats, so I can pick the most suited system to whatever I do.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2011 at 20:41 UTC
In reply to:

obeythebeagle: Looks suspiciously like the classic Leitz 50mm M-series Summicron.

A 24/2.8 on the D700 is easily available and lets in more photons per second for the same angle of view. This equates to more shallow DOF, too. Minimum focus distance of Nikon's 24/2.8 is worse, at 12".
However, the Sigma 24/1.8 comes to mind - but that will be a bit larger. Given the ease of operation of the AF/AE lens on the D700 compared to the all manual "SLR Magic" lens, this might be the better compromise.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2011 at 20:13 UTC
On article Lytro announces Light Field Camera (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

deletedGregR1: ok, so in that physical size and with a constant f/2, the lens is obviously a really wide-angle piece. and with a wide angle, even at f/2, nearly everything is in focus anyways. just look at their sample pics - HUGE depth of field, especially evident in the golfer pic. i wouldn't be surprised if they cheaped out and simply shot an image at f/8 and then "defocus" in software. hmm, i smell something only slightly more legit than a scam.

Greg: it is "280mm equivalent" but not "f/2 equivalent" - simply f/2.
If we go with the front element of 35mm diameter and f/2, we get a focal length of 70mm. Meaning a crop factor of 4 to reach "280mm equivalent". The 70/2 lens will thus behave like a 280/8 on FF would. Not too bad. I do however think that this overestimates the sensor size. If you look at zoom lenses ending at about 300mm equivalent, you will notice that they are actually slower than focal length divided by front element diameter. The crop factor will therefore probably be larger than 4.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2011 at 22:03 UTC
On article Just Posted: Samsung NX200 hands-on preview (130 comments in total)

Mistake in preview:
In the "Compared to the Samsung NX100" the small product shots are identical for NX100 and NX200.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2011 at 15:06 UTC as 21st comment

> for all intensive purposes

This should be "for/to all intents and purposes".

Also, the link at the top is to the proper test of waterproof cameras but the text says "Click here to read our group test of travel zoom compact cameras" - which probably was carried over from a previous test.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2011 at 15:57 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply
On article Samyang announces 24mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC lens (73 comments in total)
In reply to:

Humboldt Jim: Putting a 4/3 mount on this lens seems a bit silly. Why a big, heavy, complex and expensive "normal" lens on a 4/3 camera? An f 1.4 24 mm lens for 4/3 can be simpler, lighter, less expensive and perform just as well.


Buying an SLR version and an adapter probably makes more sense for owners of mirrorless cameras. Resale value, flexibility.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2011 at 10:57 UTC
In reply to:

2manyCameraz: The Pentax brand is in no danger. Only Sony had the EGO problems big enough to nix the multigenerational brand power Minolta & Konica carried. I imagine it all started in the mailroom of Minolta, where Sony's future president vowed to destroy them... and there was also a beautiful receptionist, whose heart belonged to another.

Exx: Ricoh also only buys the camera division, Pentax medical and other parts still belong to Hoya.
(Not sure what arrangement Konica-Minolta had - maybe Sony really had to change the name.)

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2011 at 22:17 UTC
In reply to:

Derek Bach: My understanding was Hoya have been manufcturing Pentax lenses for some time - how will this change? Also, Pentax have been using Sony image sensors in most recent cameras as have Ricoh whats left?

This is incorrect. Hoya provides glass to all major lens and filter makers, they do not "manufacture lenses", though.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2011 at 17:03 UTC

Both companies have a thing for unusual concepts in cameras and user interfaces, but usually with the photographer as the first priority. Probably a good pairing - not sure how the finances will pan out - but we'll see...

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2011 at 10:05 UTC as 118th comment

I've never seen a sensor looking so lost behind a mount...

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2011 at 17:58 UTC as 105th comment
On article Pentax announces four additional Q mount lenses (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

Raphael Mabo: I believe this will attract lovers of Lomo, taken lomography into the digital world.

I'd rather put a toy lens onto a Nex or 4/3 for less money with the option to get SLR-like quality with the same camera when I want.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2011 at 16:26 UTC
On article Pentax announces four additional Q mount lenses (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

kadarpik: so far we have seen excellent results from pentax small glass (Limited pancake), AF motor, Flash sync to 1/2000, ND filter, not bad lens at all. Leaf shutter has it's advantages as well. Of course DOF is large but you can PP your images today.

> Of course DOF is large but you can PP your images today.

DOF is DOF, any artificial blurring looks terrible. YMMV

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2011 at 16:24 UTC
Total: 83, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous2345Next ›Last »