reinhard becker

Lives in Germany Suttgart, Germany
Works as a Physician, IT consultant
Has a website at www.fc-user.de/4069
Joined on Dec 18, 2000

Comments

Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15

I was using 6x7 (RB67 and P67) from 92 until 2009, where I bought a 5DII and my film time faded out. I still own these cameras with a lot of lenses, but only using them one time a year or so for pure fun...
The Mamiya 7 was always a „I want one“ piece for me until a friend of mine wanted to sell his set (M7, 43,80,150) and I could test all with the chance to buy in 2004. I used everything for some weeks with the decision not to buy it (the offer was 3000€ in total for all). It is a good camera with great lenses, but for me the P67II was the better choice (especially for macro and portraits, where the Mamiya has their biggest weakness). But I can still understand the glory of the Mamiya if you do landscapes.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2021 at 06:55 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Elisam: L-Mount is quickly becoming my favourite system.

With L-Mount the definition of „native“ is in my opinion different to other labels: I only use 4 Sigma lenses (and one manual TTArtisan Fisheye) for my S1R, and don‘t feel there is something missing. Beeing part of the l-mount alliance I think Sigma is much more than a typical 3rd party manufacturer.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2020 at 06:02 UTC
In reply to:

Photo_AK: Definitely a nice lens, but quite some purple fringing can be seen on some of the images taken in the first round of reviews. Sharp (enough) though and with pleasant bokeh characteristisc.

Oh, anybody managed to see any MTF charts ...?

You can see MTF on german homepage:
https://www.panasonic.com/de/consumer/foto-video/lumix-s-objektive/s-s85e.html

It“s ok, but nothing special. But the price brings it up to a recommendation

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2020 at 18:59 UTC
In reply to:

4sofnature: A M43 lens that's bigger and pricier than a FF Sigma 100-400 DN? Well, Olympus did it again :(

How could you optimize a FF lens for a smaller MFT sensor by loosing the last two elements in the design???

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2020 at 15:21 UTC
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: I don't see the point of this lens when the Panasonic 100-400 exists.

I sold my PL some years ago, because I was never satisfied with the results at the long end. Reliabilty of AF and picture Quality was at least only decent. The switch to the 4/300 was a big jump, but it is no zoom lens...
I‘m not shute about the Oly 100-400, but it is a great addition to the portfolio of lenses

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2020 at 15:18 UTC
In reply to:

ALEX_RAW: Overpriced comparing to 100-400 pana-leica. pana-leica has larger max aperture, better build quality and less weight.

If you are not stuck in m43, look at things like A7 series + sigma 100-400mm combo.

It's surprised that this lens is even heavier than the sigma 100-400mm full frame lens. What's going on, Olympus?

If you compare the Sony 7rIV against MFT, there is no need of further discussion. The camera is of course better, but with MFT I get the 1MX with the 100-400 for less Money than the Sony body alone (for the first time a lens is cheaper in Germany then in the states...). That is a difference you can not deny.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2020 at 15:15 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): DSLR is much better in astronomy than DSLM.

Very disappointing that the only modification is the IR blockfilter and the zoom button.

I forgot: with the Olympus you can also tilt and swivel the dsiplay, so you can see your picture from nearly every angle!

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2019 at 06:55 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): DSLR is much better in astronomy than DSLM.

Very disappointing that the only modification is the IR blockfilter and the zoom button.

From my experience, i can see nearly nothing in the OVF of my 5DIIa and also nearly nothing in live view on the display with the same camera, if connected to the scope (using 925HD or 5“ Apo). But using the much newer Oly E-M1II the EVF/Display shows a lot of faint stars and all Messier objects directly! There is a special setting for boosting exposure for liveview during night shots. I think there should be the same function in other modern DSLM, within the Olympus it‘s perfect for astrophotography!

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2019 at 06:53 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): DSLR is much better in astronomy than DSLM.

Very disappointing that the only modification is the IR blockfilter and the zoom button.

Modern DSLM are much better than DSLR: it is the exact opposite of what photomeeting claims! The optical viewfinder shows nothing from faint objects. With my Olympus E-M1II I can see most of the objects directly in live view. In combination with high magnification the EVF allows perfect focusing using long lenses and telescopes.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2019 at 22:52 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Review (1033 comments in total)
In reply to:

Under The Sun: Looks like a great camera but I bought into m43s for the smaller size so I'm not the target market of this camera. I wish Panasonic would make a gx85 sized camera with the bells and whistles of the G9. I would pay premium for that.

I hoped for the GX9 to do so (I own the GX7), but there is a big gap to the G9:
- no weather sealing
- bad battery life
- no Dual IS 2
- no cable connection for remote trigger
- Display can only tilt
....

So the GX9 is not a small G9, it is a renewed GX7...

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2018 at 08:01 UTC
In reply to:

Mirrorlessy19: D850 : 1015 g
A7riii : less than 625 g
;)

Sony 7RII + Minolta 2,8/300 Apo G + Adapter LA-EA4 = 3,5kg
Only a little bit less for old lens...

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 10:22 UTC
In reply to:

Mirrorlessy19: D850 : 1015 g
A7riii : less than 625 g
;)

The weight argument is important, but I see nearly no advantage for Sony, because the lenses are the same size/weight, sometimes even more.
If you look for weight, look for Fuji or MFT...

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 15:53 UTC
On article The effect of pixel size on noise (145 comments in total)
In reply to:

reinhard becker: I have a general problem by looking at this scenario by using the gathering of light as main argument. My time at university is long ago (physics…), so I have some problems to give a real proof of my thoughts, but let´s talk about this:

In former time of analog photography I could load three different cameras (4x5 inch, medium format 6x6 and 35mm) with the same film, i.e. T-MAX 100 (still available B&W film). In this example, the "sensor" is absolutely identical in each camera, only the size is different.
As result we got 2 options: Different crops by using the same lens on every camera or the same picture scene by using different lenses.

Case 1 is similar to your example, we have crops related to the format, but much more spreaded then today. If we look at the films with microscope (to compare with 100%) the grain and sharpness is identical!
So with the same technology (film or sensor) you will get the same result on pixel size independent from the format you use.

For me the former example is comparable to the actual sensor discussion and so the light has no influence if we talk about identical sensor technology. But this is a unknown factor,because we can only compare the pixel size, but not whats behind. We can assume the same technology , but only the manufacturers knows for sure...

Link | Posted on May 3, 2015 at 13:10 UTC
On article The effect of pixel size on noise (145 comments in total)
In reply to:

reinhard becker: I have a general problem by looking at this scenario by using the gathering of light as main argument. My time at university is long ago (physics…), so I have some problems to give a real proof of my thoughts, but let´s talk about this:

In former time of analog photography I could load three different cameras (4x5 inch, medium format 6x6 and 35mm) with the same film, i.e. T-MAX 100 (still available B&W film). In this example, the "sensor" is absolutely identical in each camera, only the size is different.
As result we got 2 options: Different crops by using the same lens on every camera or the same picture scene by using different lenses.

Case 1 is similar to your example, we have crops related to the format, but much more spreaded then today. If we look at the films with microscope (to compare with 100%) the grain and sharpness is identical!
So with the same technology (film or sensor) you will get the same result on pixel size independent from the format you use.

Case 2 must be seen from the result: If we compare the different negatives, we have to look at the output on 30x40 cm print (as example). If we can assume a perfect lens, the result will be sharper and with less grain the bigger the negative is. But this is not related to the light gathering capabilities of the bigger formats, it´s just a matter of less magnification! The monster 4x5 needs nearly no magnification, the 35mm needs much more. Therefore every pixel from 35mm will be more magnificated then from 4x5 and therefore the picture looks much more grainy!

Link | Posted on May 3, 2015 at 13:08 UTC
On article The effect of pixel size on noise (145 comments in total)

I have a general problem by looking at this scenario by using the gathering of light as main argument. My time at university is long ago (physics…), so I have some problems to give a real proof of my thoughts, but let´s talk about this:

In former time of analog photography I could load three different cameras (4x5 inch, medium format 6x6 and 35mm) with the same film, i.e. T-MAX 100 (still available B&W film). In this example, the "sensor" is absolutely identical in each camera, only the size is different.
As result we got 2 options: Different crops by using the same lens on every camera or the same picture scene by using different lenses.

Case 1 is similar to your example, we have crops related to the format, but much more spreaded then today. If we look at the films with microscope (to compare with 100%) the grain and sharpness is identical!
So with the same technology (film or sensor) you will get the same result on pixel size independent from the format you use.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2015 at 13:07 UTC as 45th comment | 4 replies
Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15