Rod McD

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Jan 15, 2010

Comments

Total: 310, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

That tripod support look incredibly light for the mass on top of it (to me, at least). Anyone else notice it? - It looks like it would be very prone to flex or vibration. I really don't now why manufacturers keep making tripod supports ever taller..... There was a time when they used to make them neat and close-fitting to the lens and they never had the flex and vibration problems you sometimes get today.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 05:51 UTC as 17th comment | 4 replies
On article Hands-on with new Fujifilm X and GF lenses (122 comments in total)

There's much to like about the Fuji 80mm, but I'm dismayed by its mass. At 750g it's heavier than some FF 1:1 lenses. It will be a very front-heavy lens on Fuji's small camera bodies, some of which are half its weight. And it will weigh 900g with either of the TCs that Fuji are touting that it's compatible with. Worse, having designed a heavyweight, the real disappointment is the lack of a tripod collar. They should have offered a removable collar like the Canon's. No doubt sacrificed by a bean counter somewhere in the accounting department.

I'll be interested to see what its working distance is compared to the pre-existing 60mm macro at 1:2 and at 1:1 on extension tubes. The new 80mm is an IF lens where the old 60mm is external focus.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2017 at 05:20 UTC as 7th comment

Offer a Loxia 25/2 and I'll show some interest.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 09:43 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

Rod McD: I have a great ILC system, but still use the old Canon G1X Mk 1 as a 'grab & go' / 'light travel' camera. It's been bullet proof. Not everyone wants a system, so this is an interesting release when other companies are languishing in the large sensor, fixed zoom market. The Nikon DLs never emerged. The LX100 is 3 years old and the LX200 is nowhere in sight. Fuji only offer the fixed prime X100F.

I think people should accept the camera for what it is tended to achieve, not complain about what it isn't designed to do. Yes the lens is slow, though probably very capable for many uses. People are complaining that it's not pocketable but a faster or longer zoom lens would have been much bigger on APSC. It's smaller and lighter than an APSC ILC with an interchangeable zoom. I suspect that it would make a nice travel camera. The larger sensor and built in EVF are welcome. And the sealing is something you don't get on every ILC that costs more. Let's be objective and see the IQ.

True, the G1X III was, I think, not leaked or particularly expected now. So, you may be right, but people have been predicting an LX200 for over a year.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 20:40 UTC

I have a great ILC system, but still use the old Canon G1X Mk 1 as a 'grab & go' / 'light travel' camera. It's been bullet proof. Not everyone wants a system, so this is an interesting release when other companies are languishing in the large sensor, fixed zoom market. The Nikon DLs never emerged. The LX100 is 3 years old and the LX200 is nowhere in sight. Fuji only offer the fixed prime X100F.

I think people should accept the camera for what it is tended to achieve, not complain about what it isn't designed to do. Yes the lens is slow, though probably very capable for many uses. People are complaining that it's not pocketable but a faster or longer zoom lens would have been much bigger on APSC. It's smaller and lighter than an APSC ILC with an interchangeable zoom. I suspect that it would make a nice travel camera. The larger sensor and built in EVF are welcome. And the sealing is something you don't get on every ILC that costs more. Let's be objective and see the IQ.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 00:27 UTC as 39th comment | 2 replies
On article Nikon's official D850 lens recommendation list (310 comments in total)

Er, no 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm? Or any of their macros, which are usually the sharpest pick of the lot? Surely that's where 90% of photography gets done??

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 22:29 UTC as 94th comment

Focal reducers definitely have their place in adapting down to near sensor sizes, but I can't see this model selling. I thought the Q had passed into history. No new bodies, no new lenses. And whatever the equivalence of Nikon FF lenses on the tiny sensor, the whole galumphing front heavy beastie would defeat the purpose of the Q anyway. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 04:56 UTC as 40th comment | 4 replies

Interesting, but is the new 40/2 just another cosmetic upgrade with the same (very good) glass or has it actually been improved in its optics as well?

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2017 at 13:25 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Rod McD: Thanks for the link. LR's tech articles are always a worthy read. I'd be interested to see an extension of the study to test the impact of CPLs on IQ, as they did with clear filters. I've never had any doubts that my polarizers have been polarizing.... I can see the effect. However, given all the debate (religion?) regarding clear and UV filters and the potential impact they may have on IQ, one would speculate that a CPL (which is a more complex structure) would have more.

Appreciated. Thank you.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 13:37 UTC
In reply to:

Rod McD: Thanks for the link. LR's tech articles are always a worthy read. I'd be interested to see an extension of the study to test the impact of CPLs on IQ, as they did with clear filters. I've never had any doubts that my polarizers have been polarizing.... I can see the effect. However, given all the debate (religion?) regarding clear and UV filters and the potential impact they may have on IQ, one would speculate that a CPL (which is a more complex structure) would have more.

Surely surface flatness is only part of the story? As I understand it, there's a metal foil and adhesives in the CPL sandwich. How about actually evaluating the impact on images from a few benchmark lenses of different FL, with and without a CPL? Or are we to simply take as read the view that clear filters may or may not have an impact on IQ, but all CPLs are just fine?

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 08:10 UTC

Thanks for the link. LR's tech articles are always a worthy read. I'd be interested to see an extension of the study to test the impact of CPLs on IQ, as they did with clear filters. I've never had any doubts that my polarizers have been polarizing.... I can see the effect. However, given all the debate (religion?) regarding clear and UV filters and the potential impact they may have on IQ, one would speculate that a CPL (which is a more complex structure) would have more.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 23:19 UTC as 30th comment | 5 replies
On photo common kingfisher in the Your Best Photo of the Week challenge (4 comments in total)

Good shot! Cheers, Rod

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2017 at 07:36 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

neverendinglight: The new 80mm Macro lens seems a little disappointing (especially when compared to existing 60mm Macro and 90mm F2 and Sony 90mm) but...

...Let's talk about the 200mm F2 WR OIS! That's a lens to get stoked about! Will it be less than $1700 though?

Hmmm...... There is no 200/2 available from any manufacturer under a list price of US $5600. Why would the Fuji be any different? Fortunately for my dreaming and my wallet, it's far too short for my interests anyway.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 23:08 UTC
In reply to:

Rod McD: We've waited a long tome to see this lens. I'm very confident that it will have excellent optics and I'm glad to see that it has a limiter switch on the barrel alongside the OIS switch. It looks substantial but we don't know the weight - the full specs aren't out. I'm betting that it's heavier than the 90/2 (540g) and if people start using it with TCs or extension tubes, it may well be a very front heavy rig without it's own tripod collar. More so on the smaller Fuji bodies. We also don't know if its IF, and if so whether it allows decent working distances at higher magnifications. I look forward to hands on reports.

IF designs have some advantages but they aren't all good. An IF lens doesn't focus by extension, but the downside is that the focal length reduces as you increase magnification, which makes working distances shorter at high magnifications anyway.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 22:52 UTC
In reply to:

Rod McD: We've waited a long tome to see this lens. I'm very confident that it will have excellent optics and I'm glad to see that it has a limiter switch on the barrel alongside the OIS switch. It looks substantial but we don't know the weight - the full specs aren't out. I'm betting that it's heavier than the 90/2 (540g) and if people start using it with TCs or extension tubes, it may well be a very front heavy rig without it's own tripod collar. More so on the smaller Fuji bodies. We also don't know if its IF, and if so whether it allows decent working distances at higher magnifications. I look forward to hands on reports.

Thx. If that 750g is confirmed, the 80mm Macro is a VERY substantial lens for the Fuji system. It would have made a tripod collar all the more useful. Imagine mounting a 750g lens on a 150g TC = 900g total weight on a camera like the XE3 or XT20 that weigh under 400g. And then attach the whole rig to a tripod via the camera's base plate socket. Perhaps not a wise move....

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 07:42 UTC

We've waited a long tome to see this lens. I'm very confident that it will have excellent optics and I'm glad to see that it has a limiter switch on the barrel alongside the OIS switch. It looks substantial but we don't know the weight - the full specs aren't out. I'm betting that it's heavier than the 90/2 (540g) and if people start using it with TCs or extension tubes, it may well be a very front heavy rig without it's own tripod collar. More so on the smaller Fuji bodies. We also don't know if its IF, and if so whether it allows decent working distances at higher magnifications. I look forward to hands on reports.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 07:05 UTC as 35th comment | 5 replies

I don't know how well this lens will sell because of the short FL and limited magnification. Ironically they discontinued the 90, 125 & 180mm Apo Lanthars a few years back, and now the demand for them is strong enough to send the prices sky-high, at least for the longer two. Hint to Cosina : All you need to do to create some good business is re-issue the 125mm and 180mm Apo Lanthars. Just do it - relaunch a fixed production run of the same lenses unchanged in any way. There is nothing currently available from anyone that exactly fills their niche.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2017 at 13:08 UTC as 41st comment | 2 replies

Macro lenses are trending bigger..... and at 625g this is another one. Manufacturers seem to be forgetting that many people use macro lenses in the field. One might have to carry them for many days in a rucksack and every ounce counts. Put it on an extension tube of say 30mm to get to 1:1, and it will be a very front heavy combo.

By comparison, my Fuji 60/2.4 macro also goes to 1:2 but weighs only 215g and takes a 39mm filter. Not apo, but excellent optics nevertheless. My Voigtlander 90/3.5 Apo Macro (vII) is also far smaller - it weighs 321g and takes a 39mm filter, but only goes to 1:3. Sure I understand the difference between f2 and f3.5, but f2 isn't important for macro. It's also a pity that CV ditched rubber focusing grips. I don't prefer slippery metal lenses. I'll think I'll pass.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 07:27 UTC as 29th comment
On article Domke F-803 and F-5XB review (73 comments in total)

Bags that offer low level protection, won't stand up and have little room for accessories....... Not for me.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 06:38 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

Rod McD: I've never understood bag manufacturer's thinking when it comes to tough cases. The first problem with photographer back packs is that the manufacturers don't seem to 'get' how much additional but essential non-photographic gear you also need to carry in back country. The second problem is that they're on your back......

Then there's the hard cases..... The key problem with Pelican and similar brief-case-styled side-hinged hard cases is that you have to put them down to open them. Like backpacks, they're good for transport, but neither are any good to access and work out of when they're hanging off your shoulder and you need to open them to change lenses, add filters, hook up flashes, etc.

I'd like to see more choice in light weight, gasket-sealed, top-loading hard cases that can be opened while hanging on the straps off your shoulder. There are a just a few, like those from Underwater Kinetics but they all tend to be quite small boxes.

@ gtvone...... I use an Underwater Kinetics 609 Dry Box most of the time outdoors. It measures roughly 9LX6WX6D". It's a top opener. The strap attachments are on the ends on the centerline at the top, so it hangs on the shoulder like a small soft case and allows you to work from it with the lid open. It'll take a small DSLR or mirror-less and about three primes of moderate size, or a couple of zooms, and a few small accessories like batteries, etc. You can buy them empty or with pluck foam. I bought mine empty and put in my own dividers (with epoxy) and lined it with closed cell foam. For a pic see my post at https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53619768. (The problem with this is that it's inflexible if you buy different gear.) I actually bought a second one and fitted it to take my XT1, 16/1.4, 23/1.4 and 60/2.4 macro - my landscape and nature kit. It comes hiking, kayaking, sailing, etc. Fantastic, but limited to small kits. There's nothing else like it available

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2017 at 14:04 UTC
Total: 310, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »