TheEulerID

Joined on Mar 6, 2014

Comments

Total: 172, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Apple is on a one-company mission to devalue words, of which the most egregious example is the description of a superficially trained shop/store technician as an Apple "genius".

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2019 at 15:05 UTC as 80th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Peter.K: Great little street cam and the 16-80mm makes this camera a great little carry around for a very reasonable price.

"Great little";

I'll pass on the great assessment, but one thing is for sure; it's most certainly not "little" and I doubt it's credentials as a street camera.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2019 at 01:01 UTC
In reply to:

Mike99999: This lens defies the laws of physics. E-mount is too narrow for this aperture.

Is that an ironic comment, or do you actually believe it?

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2019 at 13:16 UTC
In reply to:

pentaust: Sony FE mounts on current A7 / A9 models weren't designed strong enough for using long lenses (even if users hold the system from holding the lens mostly). We've seen FE mounts damaged by 70-200 / 100-400 lenses. That's why Sony mention the weight of the lenses was a design concern. Until new Sony models come out with reinforced mounts on camera side, expect mount damage to happen with those two new long lenses used on current Sony camera models.

@blackcoffee17 Bumping can happen with any lens. As for picking up a 600mm f4 camera setup by the body only, not a wise thing to do, but it's not going to break a lens mount.

There's the slightest evidence from anybody that this is anything more than an imagined problem on the camera models such a lens is going to be used with. The OP has referenced the Angry Photographer as a source, and that is an immediate red flag. That guy is a buffoon who claims he knows more than Einstein or Newton. He states that photons don't exist, gives talks at "free energy conferences" full of clowns who believe in zero-point energy (albeit under his real name). He's a fully paid up member of the cult of cult of Tesla along with all the electric universe nonsense.

Let's just see one bit of evidence that this has been a real issue. The 400mm f2.8 has been around for quite a while now. If that was breaking/deforming mounts, it would surely have come to light by now.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2019 at 11:13 UTC
In reply to:

pentaust: Sony FE mounts on current A7 / A9 models weren't designed strong enough for using long lenses (even if users hold the system from holding the lens mostly). We've seen FE mounts damaged by 70-200 / 100-400 lenses. That's why Sony mention the weight of the lenses was a design concern. Until new Sony models come out with reinforced mounts on camera side, expect mount damage to happen with those two new long lenses used on current Sony camera models.

That's ridiculous. Firstly, anybody supporting a 600mm F/4 lens using the body alone must have the strength of Hercules. The leverage of a 3 Kg lens, whilst no real problem for a lens body, is pretty near impossible for the average person to hold for any length of time. That's why there's a tripod mount on the lens. When the lens supported, either by hand, or by the tripod mount, it's actually the lens supporting the body, not the other way round.

This stuff about the lens mount being too weak is simply BS.

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2019 at 16:19 UTC
On article Canon EOS RP review (1693 comments in total)
In reply to:

xpop: For a first owner without Canon history there is almost no lenses available, I own one and I must buy old EF lenses, lol

The OP clearly means old as in an older design not developed as native for the RF mount and therefore not optimised for it.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2019 at 16:10 UTC
In reply to:

007peter: ** Finally **. This is what every Soccer Mom wants. A Simple but (Reliable) AF that is capable of capturing a child-on-the-move. It is SAD that its take engineer SO LONG to make this into a reality. Most consumer JUST WANT a reliable AF camera that can be use to take picture of their children the move. Sadly, most walk-away disappointed by their dslr and mirrorless alike.

I suspect you mean fusion reactors, as we've had the fission ones for over 70 years.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2019 at 17:45 UTC
In reply to:

007peter: ** Finally **. This is what every Soccer Mom wants. A Simple but (Reliable) AF that is capable of capturing a child-on-the-move. It is SAD that its take engineer SO LONG to make this into a reality. Most consumer JUST WANT a reliable AF camera that can be use to take picture of their children the move. Sadly, most walk-away disappointed by their dslr and mirrorless alike.

Simple to use manifestly does not mean simple to develop and engineer. I find the condescending attitude to the engineers who have developed what is, by any standards, a massive breakthrough in camera intelligence difficult to understand.

It's a truism of artificial intelligence that what people find easy to do, computers do not and vice-versa. What a person can do naturally in following and individual and understanding the context is an extremely difficult thing to design into a camera. It's akin to some of the things required for a self-driving car, but squeezed into a tiny camera body and with only one sensor. In time, we can expect much more to be done, and this is just a step, but a very large one.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2019 at 11:19 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: I assume Canon is preparing to move its EOS M market to EOS R. Such that they only need to develop R lenses, even for existing M customers.

Clearly is is possible for an adapter to extend the effective mount distance as that's what teleconverters do. Combining that with a "speedboost" type function for putting R-Mount lenses on EOS-M strikes me as eminently possible.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2018 at 15:42 UTC
In reply to:

tvstaff: With about a $90K investment in Canon glass and 1DXMKII bodies, this makes me nervous. I really need to know that my f/2.8 big whites will be mounted on bodies without degrading adapters. I can't believe Canon will throw their best customers, under the bus. No way!!!

As this only affects EOS-M, then why would you be nervous? As for adapters degrading images, that simply isn't an issue for the EOS-R mount bodies. The adapter is, optically speaking, just a hollow tube making up the difference lens registration distance with the DSLR. It makes zero difference to the IQ as the lens sits the same distance from the sensor as ever it did on a DSLR.

The one issue that might be of concern is AF performance on older lenses as mirrorless makes more demands and future, dedicated R-mount lenses are likely to out-perform DSLR lenses in that respect.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2018 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

nk4002r: Interesting rumors and fantastic idea. Too bad that a multi-aspect ratio sensor will not be compatible with most E-mount (and FE) lenses. Most lenses feature a 3:2 rear baffle shading - built right into the back of the lens. The G-Master line, the Sony Zeiss lenses, come to think of it, the exception seems to be the APSC 10-18 and Zeiss 24mm that don't have a rear shading. Most likely this was built in to reduce unwanted reflections. On a larger sensor that fits this multi aspect into the image circle, the rear baffle would cause vignetting or reduced resolution around the edges.

I very much doubt that the baffling is that tight that a difference of less than 2mm in width at 16:9 will make much difference. After all, the image circle has to be somewhat larger than required to allow IBIS to work without unacceptable vignetting. So I doubt very much that baffling is much of an issue.

I suppose it's possible that the IBIS might be somewhat compromised on the full-width 16:9 mode on E-Mount, but time time tell.

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2018 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

Desertbilly: I've had my R for a week:
- It's a solid, mid-range camera. I'll use it for travel.
- I took it birding yesterday, hoping to be pleasantly surprised. I wasn't. The AF can't keep up with ducks and geese landing on a pond; at least not in my hands.
- I like the new mode dial, and the two-dial FV controls.
- I like the lens control ring; I have it set to aperture.
- I like the MFn bar when it works, but activating it is finicky. I think I've figured it out: Set my right thumb just underneath the bottom edge, and roll the thumb up very gently until it starts the 1-second activation. I have it set to AF mode.
- The low light AF is very impressive. I can take pictures outside at night in light too low to see, and they turn out well.
- I got the control ring EF adaptor and it works fine.
- There is IBIS for video; I don't know why that isn't being publicized.
- Moving the focus point with the upper right corner of the screen works well.
- Using the same battery is nice.

The term IBIS is used for stabilisation that moves the sensor to compensate for inadvertent camera movement. What the EOS-R has for video is not IBIS, but digital image stabilisation (which can also be done in post). It involves an even larger crop and reports are that it is nothing like as effective as a mechanical IBIS system and that it also produces unwanted artefacts. DPReview have already covered this as part of its video review.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2018 at 10:42 UTC
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: The name of this website should be changed to www.UNGRATEFUL.com and Mr. Butler promoted to ingrate-in-chief. These guys worked their tails off for years to create this camera and all the lot of you can do is complain about their work.
A group of really smart engineers used all their education and experience to put together the best camera they could on the budget they were given; it is only fair to wait and see what real photographers—not reviewers—can produce with the camera before you trash the efforts of professionals whose lifes’ work is creating tools for you to express yourself.

Canon is a commercial company seeking to make profits from selling products to customers. Just why criticisms of products should be seen as being "ungrateful" to employees of that company completely escapes me. These aren't charity workers. They have a job to do, and that's to engineer products which are attractive in the market place by meeting customer needs and wants at a competitive price. The place for "gratefulness" is within the company, not with those whose job it is to review products for us, the customers.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2018 at 10:37 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): "Neither Sony E nor Nikon Z-mount lenses will ever be an option for use on the EOS R or later cameras, for example."

That was by design.

Carl

It would mean cutting themselves off from whatever enhancements that Canon might have made, or will make for EOS-R lens protocols. Whether that is significant or not, who knows.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2018 at 11:54 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): "Neither Sony E nor Nikon Z-mount lenses will ever be an option for use on the EOS R or later cameras, for example."

That was by design.

Carl

I've no doubt that when EF lenses are mounted the camera drives them using native EF lens protocols. It's what I'd do - put the logic in the camera, rather than translate EF to EF-R within the adapter.

When a native EF-R lens is mounted, then the camera would use EF-R protocols which might, or might not, be similar to those for EF lenses.

It's very different to what Metabones adaptors have to do when mounting EF lenses on Sony E-Mount. The adapter has to do a lot more work in terms of protocol conversions as the Sony A-mount cameras will not have native EF protocol support. Of course, Sony could implement that feature, but they've deliberately left that to adapter manufactures as, no doubt, Canon would have seen Sony producing EF-mount adapters with camera protocol support as a declaration of war.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2018 at 11:28 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): "Neither Sony E nor Nikon Z-mount lenses will ever be an option for use on the EOS R or later cameras, for example."

That was by design.

Carl

I think the idea that R-mount lenses could be adapted to E-mount is fanciful given that there's only 2mm to play with and the former has a much wider throat. 2mm is almost certainly not enough for the bayonet mount, let alone anything else.

The DSLR to mirrorless adapter route is a one-off. We are not going to have mirrorless to mirrorless mount adapters any more than DSLR to DSLR mount adapters.

Of course, Sigma and the like will be able toi offer what is essentially the same lens on E, R & Z mount with a swap to the lens base and protocols. That's once they've reverse-engineered what Nikon and Canon have done which might be far from easy (especially if the protocol has been encrypted).

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2018 at 09:35 UTC
On article The Nikon Z system: What we think, where it should go (921 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark K: I cannot hide my belief that there must be a Z9 on horizon, with much deeper buffer, lightning fast AF, dual cards for wildlife and sport events

You mean like a Sony A9? To do that requires super-fast sensor read rates, which means an FF stacked sensor design. As it's been done, we know it's possible, but it's a bit of a steep learning curve and it does need access to that sensor technology (unless come genius comes up with a revolutionary alternative to what Sony did with the bonded DRAM layer).

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2018 at 15:03 UTC
On article The Nikon Z system: What we think, where it should go (921 comments in total)
In reply to:

Turbguy1: Wow, what a bunch of negative comments concerning Nikon, Canon, Sony, and others!

People, even a pinhole camera made from a Quaker Oats box can produce great art...

For some purposes MILC AF is already better than DSLRs. Take portraits with eye detection for instance. An MILC has potential access to all the data all the time, and it's that rich source of data that's being exploited. In addition, on-sensor AF is a closed-loop and, and when properly implemented, doesn't have problems of back/front focus that can happen with separate AF modules.

However, to get the best out of it requires dedicated lenses designed for the purpose, and it's particularly demanding with long focal lengths. Multiple actuators with linear motors and designs which minimise the mass of moving parts are required. Adapting DSLR lenses isn't going to be optimal. However, done right, the results are superb - the hugely expensive Sony 400mm f2.8 being an example when married to the A9.

Of course, DSLRs can be used in liveview mode where, in effect, their operational mode is the same as an MILC camera, but then it's not really being a DSLR...

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2018 at 15:00 UTC
On article The Nikon Z system: What we think, where it should go (921 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marcel: Wonder how the sensor is protected against sunlight (burn spots) when it shines through a mounted lens without a lens cover.

It doesn't matter. Digital sensors are not like film. Film is thin, it's not bonded to a heat-sink at the substrate will warp if it's heated and it's coated with substances that are inherently chemically unstable. Silicon sensors are very robust and can stand much higher temperatures.

It is also entirely unlike a burning glass. As I pointed out, camera lenses simply can't focus light into a spot. The optical geometry is completely different.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2018 at 23:18 UTC
On article The Nikon Z system: What we think, where it should go (921 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marcel: Wonder how the sensor is protected against sunlight (burn spots) when it shines through a mounted lens without a lens cover.

Sensors don't get burnt up as lenses aren't burning glasses. The don't focus the light onto a single spot, and as there's 864 sq mm that the light's spread over, the power density is not high enough to cause damage, especially as there's a heat sink.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2018 at 17:46 UTC
Total: 172, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »