Rod McD

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Jan 15, 2010

Comments

Total: 280, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

It's a pity people with the intellectual, manufacturing and marketing skills to do this can't turn their efforts to actually making decent lenses that either compete with the real thing or offer a few FLs the OEMs don't make.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2016 at 03:43 UTC as 46th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

TFD: While picking up a $100 used MF Russian lens is interesting as a cheap and cheerful toy. The idea of modern and expensive manual focus lenses is just dumb. Regardless if it is an $800 Tokina or a $3000 Zeiss. Tokina knows how to make autofocus lenses selling a MF lens is just a marketing gimmick.

Maybe the next step will be uncoated lens, might as well just go further back in time.

@Krich13 Yes, some independents haven't reverse-engineered AF protocols but we've also seen those that do cutting out the smaller brands. Things have changed since the OEMS developed the ability to upgrade their AF. Maintaining the protocols is as big an ongoing task as reverse engineering them the first time. But that's only one side of the story - the fact is that MF lenses still sell. Some buyers are motivated by economy, others by choice. One only has to look at the price of Voigtlander, Zeiss and Leica. They cost as much or more than OEM AF options, yet some people still prefer them.

I disagree generally that it's inappropriate to use FF lenses on APSC and that APSC users are always better served by their own OEM lenses. It just depends on the OEM options, the specific FF alternatives and your uses. There are some very fine FF lenses that work perfectly well on APSC and there are sometimes advantages to using them. So having the choice is good.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 22:51 UTC
In reply to:

TFD: While picking up a $100 used MF Russian lens is interesting as a cheap and cheerful toy. The idea of modern and expensive manual focus lenses is just dumb. Regardless if it is an $800 Tokina or a $3000 Zeiss. Tokina knows how to make autofocus lenses selling a MF lens is just a marketing gimmick.

Maybe the next step will be uncoated lens, might as well just go further back in time.

@TFD..... MF lenses are far from dumb. Leica, Samyang, Zeiss, Voigtlander and a number of new Chinese optical companies offer a large range of MF lenses and there is very active interest in them. If there were no valid uses for MF, they'd all have gone broke years ago. Both AF and MF have their places and neither completely excels over the other.

My grumble about this new Tokina is why isn't it available in other mounts???

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2016 at 22:44 UTC
On article Cokin launches vintage-styled Riviera Classic tripod (94 comments in total)

I'm 60 and don't ever recall seeing leather covered tripod legs...... That aside the specs are actually quite good in relation to the legs, height and weight. I'm a lot less sure about the head - It looks like it only has two planes of adjustment. How does it work for vertical orientation? - It seems you probably have to rotate the camera on the QR plate and flip the head over to turn the camera onto its side. No thanks - there's a reason no-one makes those any more.....

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2016 at 22:14 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies

For me, the 1" sensor is good, the lament is the lack of a zoom. I'm using an Oly TG4 for sea-kayaking - OK so far but the sensor is tiny and the seals don't inspire confidence. I also have a housing for my Canon G1X, but it makes it the size of a house brick - there's no way it can be stuffed into a life jacket. We need something like a big sensor folded light path, fixed zoom 'tough' camera. With REAL O-rings of course - why don't camera manufacturers use real O-rings instead of dubious molded seals for their battery, card and port doors.....

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 22:58 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Clyde Thomas: Congrats to all. Inspiring collection. The layers and dimensions of #12 are otherworldly. I'm taken aback by the cohesion of so many antagonistic forms. Nothing goes together, yet they mix well, offering courteous space to neighboring conflict. The people on the right, oblivious to the stew that roils around them, unaware of their own contribution to it all. Nicely coordinated with earth and water tonalities. I look away, only to be drawn closer to another form. Now the velvet sofa raking swirls. Now the blinds. Now the globes. Now I am a part of it all, adding my current surroundings to the labyrinth before me.

Now I'll walk my dog.

There are some very nice images in the collection. Sorry - #12 does absolutely nothing for me. I prefer mmcfine's boring and predictable landscapes..... with land in them. Water sometimes too. And even natural light. We're all different.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2016 at 13:13 UTC
In reply to:

JHern: Awesome lens! Too bad it is practically useless on film SLRs.

Hi, that's the same as Canon. Agreed its complicated. Too complicated with a TS lens. Obviously it means having a DSLR as well as a film camera. And with a TS lens I suspect it would mean choosing the aperture before you make all the adjustments for focus and movements because otherwise you'd have to get the film camera body and lens mounted in exactly the same place. And then, if you decided to opt for a different aperture to reset the thickness of the wedge of focus (with tilt), you'd have to do it all again..... Possible, but not really viable.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 21:22 UTC
In reply to:

JHern: Awesome lens! Too bad it is practically useless on film SLRs.

I suspect that because it's an 'E' lens, there is no way of controlling the aperture on Nikon film SLR cameras. It will similarly make it impossible to adapt to some current mirror-less mounts. Like my Fuji :-(. Not that I can afford the lens anyway. Oh well - back to the TS adapter......

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 13:16 UTC

Why have they never added a grip? So simple, so cheap. All the RX100s have been as slippery as a bar of soap.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 11:31 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

dbo: The macro looks very tempting to me.
What I don't get - why is the mfd so far. At that focal length shouldn't we expect something around 20cm?
31cm is even more than with the Sony G.

With figures like that I'd guess that it doesn't go to 1:1. The 90mm Apo Lanthar only went to 1:3. Excellent lenses, but not so high magnifications. (The specs on Voit's site don't give us the maximum magnification.)

My grumble is that it isn't available in any other mirror-less mounts. Why not MFT and Fuji? I could easily see a 65mm fast macro on my APSC Fuji.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 00:23 UTC
On article Fast and light: Nikkor 24mm F1.8G ED lens review (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rod McD: I disagree with your final assessment that "The extra 2/3 stop of light that you get with the Sigma can be a big deal if you shoot landscapes....". The difference between maximum apertures of f1.4 and f1.8 would be irrelevant to most landscapes because they are typically shot well stopped down. Even those enjoying the current craze for shallow DOF WA shots don't usually apply it to landscapes. What's probably more of interest to landscape photographers is the huge difference in weight. For two lenses with very similar performance, I'd take the Nikon's 355g over the Sigma's 665g any day I have to lug it over a mountain range.

@ Chris Williams. Thanks for your response. I'd agree that it must come down to the type of shooting, but I'm just not seeing landscapes at f1.4. Though I've retired, I did shoot landscape semi-professionally for many years. Large and medium format rarely offered lenses faster than f4. We lived successfully with the limitation and still stopped down to get DOF and optimal lens performance. That hasn't changed. Even from digital 35mm today, I rarely ever see landscapes that have been shot at f1.4 unless it's been compelled for night sky exposures. And then the focus is only critical for infinity so DOF isn't an issue.

My guess is that the smaller and lighter Nikon will outsell the faster but heavier Sigma for landscape and travel simply because it's sheer portability will get it to more remote locations.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 23:15 UTC
On article Fast and light: Nikkor 24mm F1.8G ED lens review (159 comments in total)

I disagree with your final assessment that "The extra 2/3 stop of light that you get with the Sigma can be a big deal if you shoot landscapes....". The difference between maximum apertures of f1.4 and f1.8 would be irrelevant to most landscapes because they are typically shot well stopped down. Even those enjoying the current craze for shallow DOF WA shots don't usually apply it to landscapes. What's probably more of interest to landscape photographers is the huge difference in weight. For two lenses with very similar performance, I'd take the Nikon's 355g over the Sigma's 665g any day I have to lug it over a mountain range.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 22:19 UTC as 29th comment | 4 replies
On article Behind the Shot: The Shadow Towers (69 comments in total)

Hi Erez. Thanks. A place well and truly on my bucket list. For me I think the vertical composition works the best. It hasn't quite got the foreground interest of the horizontal one, but what it may lack there is more than made up (for me) by the rendition of the towers.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2016 at 03:28 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply

I have no wish to criticize the M5 or the article - I suspect that the M5 will sell, especially to loyal Canon consumers and those who already have Canon lenses they might use via smart adapters. OTOH, the greater limitation of the M as a system is the sheer lack of glass. The other mirror-less players have steadily been developing a range of excellent native MFT and APSC lenses - that is where Canon have let their mirror-less system down.

I'm quite confident that Canon will enter the mirror-less world seriously soon or later. It might even be in FF. The signal that they are doing so will be when they announce a range of dedicated high end lenses.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2016 at 22:25 UTC as 176th comment | 1 reply

The Contax/Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8 and Sonnar 90/2.8G were wonderfully sharp small light lenses, so this lens has a strong heritage. I really like the Loxia concept but why is this one so heavy? At 600g with the caps on, surely that's over the top for an f2.4 lens? Many RF 90mm lenses and some faster DSLR lenses are significantly lighter. Not as attractive as it could have been for lovers of light weight kit.

And, on the Loxia range, can we please have a 25-28mm in Loxia design too?

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 00:55 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply

Love the traditional design with a real mechanical MF implementation and an aperture ring. It's great to be able to see settings at a glance.

And generally - good to see more WA MF lenses coming out in mirror-less registration. It's a pity only a few of them are optioned in Fuji mount.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 06:56 UTC as 11th comment

Looks like an interesting lens, especially if the IQ is as good as touted. It could have had a wider appeal if they had marketed a version with a mechanical aperture. The electronic aperture will prevent it's use on earlier SLRs/DSLRs and its adaptation to some mirror-less mounts. Maybe they'll offer it later in other mounts.... Pity, but first let''s see some tests and reviews.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2016 at 09:48 UTC as 7th comment
On article Interview: Landscape photography master Charlie Waite (30 comments in total)

Thanks DPR. I've been watching Charlie Waite for long time - one of my favorites. And some great images from other photographers too.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2016 at 12:09 UTC as 28th comment
On article Samyang introduces full-frame 20mm F1.8 ED AS UMC (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

C.A.S.: Another MF wide-angle lens without hyperfocal scale. Absolutely unforgivable.

Yes, I believe Zeiss are trying that with the Batis line for Sony. (I don't think you can adjust the COC though, but I may be wrong - I'm a Fuji user. In any case, for a WA, I'd personally rather have a Loxia with the traditional scale). I'm cautious about electronic distance and DOF scales - the concept suffers from more complexity than an engraved scale on the lens. In the Fuji system, there is a problem that the distance displayed in the EVF from the fly-by-wire data isn't always accurate. It seems to be better with primes than zooms. And if the distance is incorrect, it doesn't matter what the COC is, the calculated DOF will be incorrect anyway. And you also have the weird situation where the COC for the DOF scale in the EVF may be different from the one on the lens (if it has one). Just to add some complexity. On reflection, I still think I'd rather have the scale on the lens.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 12:35 UTC
On photo ghfish_3434 in the Best Wildlife Photo of the Week II challenge (5 comments in total)

Hi,
Great shot, well done. The FL of 240mm seems incredibly short for a tight birding shot. The heron must have been hunting incredibly close to you. Is that actually right? I'm always struggling to get close enough with a 400mm!

Cheers, Rod

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 07:19 UTC as 2nd comment
Total: 280, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »