Arkienkeli

Lives in Finland Finland
Joined on Jul 4, 2007

Comments

Total: 230, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

rfsIII: Of course this couple shrewdly avoided Fuji, Pentax, and Sigma cameras, because they would be forced to admit that Nikon, Canon, and Sony are second rate junk...Junk which is purchased only by gullible amateurs whose judgement is overwhelmed by the torrent of nonsense gushing from the internet.

Yeah, the professional's favourites, Fuji, Pentax, and Sigma...

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2018 at 07:38 UTC

Excel can do nice things... I designed our utility room and kitchen floor tiling layout with the random number generator, two shades of brown tiles, the floor getting lighter from 95% dark to 80% light along the centreline. Simple compared to this, but still useful and nobody I have talked to had realised how easy it was.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 18:17 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

Arkienkeli: I have to ask the same question I did when the Canon 200-400 version came out: why not just make a 180-560mm f/4-5.6 Zoom? Is it because variable maximum aperture lens does not sound professional enough? This is also variable aperture, but with a clumsy teleconverter but in.

@ breschdlingsgsaelz and SteB: This zoom does have f/4 at 400mm, so why would a 180-560 f/4-5.6 not also have f/4 at 400mm? So why would you loose a stop at 400mm? Now it is certainly lost when turning the TC on, with properly designed full zoom it would not be lost, like it is not lost now.

What I am saying is that with that much optics (180-400mm zoom PLUS 1.4X TC) it would certainly be possible to simply build a 180-560 variable aperture zoom, maybe even f/2.8-5.6 version, as theoretically 180mm could be f/2.4 with that size front element.

My question has not been answered yet. I hope people who actually know something about optics would explain, that is, somebody who knows more than a 40 year professional who has the 200-400mm version, like me.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 17:05 UTC

I have to ask the same question I did when the Canon 200-400 version came out: why not just make a 180-560mm f/4-5.6 Zoom? Is it because variable maximum aperture lens does not sound professional enough? This is also variable aperture, but with a clumsy teleconverter but in.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 11:59 UTC as 61st comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

digilt: With an numerical aperture of 0.2 and efficiency of 20%, the T-stop is 5.59. Like most new inventions, it will get better.

Modern, complicated lenses with a dozen well coated elements or more can have transmittance values somewhere around 97% or so. Even then the digital camera contrast bottleneck at the moment is not the sensor anymore (about 15 stops at best), but the lenses, the best of which can produce about 14 stops worth of contrast before the internal reflections cut in, most good lenses a few stops less. So the bar is set high and it will take quite some time before this new metalens (metal lens, meatless or what ever the spell corrector suggests ???) is going to be anywhere useful in normal photography applications.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 21:10 UTC
In reply to:

digilt: With an numerical aperture of 0.2 and efficiency of 20%, the T-stop is 5.59. Like most new inventions, it will get better.

Most likely the lost light is just spread round and makes the contrast lousy. That will be a huge problem when trying to make this invention to work in real life.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 11:13 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Rephrased:

There is more to making a photographic lens than being able to focus all colors to the same point. And the article do not say anything about those. You need to:

* focus a sharp image within an image circle.
* be able to focus, i.e. making a sharp image not only for distant objects.
* have a good contrast and sharpness
* have a distortion free image (not 100% necessary)
* have a flat image plane

So - there is probably things to do yet.

Very true. Contrast, I bet, is a big problem with these. Even the glued-together fresnel type elements used in some Canon and Nikkor compact telephotos tend to spread the light more than conventional smooth lens optics. In that regard this looks much. much worse.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 11:09 UTC
On article Why you should own a 135mm F2 lens (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

captura: Cameralabs reports this about the Samyang lens:
"The biggest let-down of this lens is it’s manual focus only. And this is more critical than a wide or standard lens because the larger magnifications when shooting with a 135mm lens makes the depth of field shallower and thus focus harder to nail. If you’re similar to me at manual focusing you have to cope with the risk of having around 40-70% of your shots with less than optimal focus/sharpness – unless you work from a tripod. This certainly is a killer for many photographers who need to nail their shot with only one try – and fast. They should absolutely avoid this lens and look for an alternative with autofocus, there’s no denying it. "

Yes, of course I was using full matte screen on my F1... Easy.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 12:45 UTC
On article Why you should own a 135mm F2 lens (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

captura: Cameralabs reports this about the Samyang lens:
"The biggest let-down of this lens is it’s manual focus only. And this is more critical than a wide or standard lens because the larger magnifications when shooting with a 135mm lens makes the depth of field shallower and thus focus harder to nail. If you’re similar to me at manual focusing you have to cope with the risk of having around 40-70% of your shots with less than optimal focus/sharpness – unless you work from a tripod. This certainly is a killer for many photographers who need to nail their shot with only one try – and fast. They should absolutely avoid this lens and look for an alternative with autofocus, there’s no denying it. "

I had a Canon 135 f/2 lens in the early eighties, and of course it was manual focus only. Mostly used to shoot ice hockey... Had to nail the focus every time, but at that time we actually still could focus manually...

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 06:35 UTC
On article Why you should own a 135mm F2 lens (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

kadardr: I am Nikonite. My alternative is the Nikon 180mm f/2.8 AF. Very good lens and with AF. Great for headshots. Using that I say I do not want a 135mm f2 manual only.

Nikkor 135mm f/2 DC is autofocus (with Nikon pro bodies with focus motor)... And the fore/aft bokeh can be controlled with the DC ring. It seems this lens seems to be mostly forgotten, even though it is a great portrait tool.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 06:33 UTC

With modern huge capacity cards (maybe 2 of them...), this gadget would be needed, like, once in every two weeks...

I just spent a month in Nepal, and did not change the card once. Over 3000 frames, 20 MPix RAWs.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 19:12 UTC as 46th comment
In reply to:

Akpinxit: 4K ? :)

Only if you are able to crank 25/30 shots per second. Better start practicing your thumb for those longer takes...

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 15:12 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: It's still a mirrorless, which means it's just a toy camera.

If you go to any press photo event, you will see that ZERO professional photojournalists use mirrorless cameras - they all use dSLRs. That says all you need to know about how useful mirrorless cameras are.

And mirrorless camera sales have stagnated after growing from zero. People figured out that dSLRs are better than mirrorless. If you're a professional photographer, you use a dSLR. If you are not, a cell-phone camera is perfectly fine. There's just no room in the market for mirrorless cameras. No one wants them.

During the last 5 years of professional photojournalism (now retired) I started using mirrorless cameras more and more (Fujifilm X-Pro1 to X-T2) because they were so much lighter, quieter and inconspicuous. Work tools provided by the company were Nikon D4 and D800e with all the Nikkors I could ask for. Still I made numerous reportage trips (Middle East, Burma, Tibet, Central Europe) using my own Fujis, just because I was more comfortable with them, both physically (weight and size) and mentally (harmless tourist...).

All pictures here except the bears at night series were shot with mirrorless cameras: https://www.flickr.com/photos/112698197@N08/albums

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 09:31 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV review (585 comments in total)
In reply to:

NYCman530: Still pondering whether to upgrade from my Sony RX10 lll. I compared them on the graph, and the Mark IV had a significant edge in ergonomics, focusing, and performance. Raw was identical. The Mark IV had a teensy edge in JPEGS for some reason, and a tiny edge in viewfinder/screen(probably due to the touchscreen) and a teeny advantage in low light, perhaps due to focusing? I take a lot of zoo photos, so I suppose it will depend upon how fast moving the animals will be that I want to shoot in the future. Obviously, for birding the difference is obvious. Just disappointed that a built in ND filter wasn't part of the upgrade.

@durask: Mark III does not have a delay, you can shoot several pictures per second just by pressing the shutter repeatedly. Just turn the preview off.

Or simply choose continuous shooting from the menu. Card space is practically free now.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 06:38 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV review (585 comments in total)
In reply to:

AdrianPocea: While I feel a strong itch to buy this camera, for me, as a working photographer, is a no. 80 percent of what most photographers do for money involves people, portraits, faces. Blured backgrounds, separation of subjects. Impossible with this one, unless you are 30 feet away and zoomed in. Portraits from close with this one by look like an Iphone( actually better with Iphone X).

If you have the itch, consider this: you get a fast camera with narrow angle telephoto with large aperture for about $2000. How much does a 200-400 f/4 or a 600mm f/4 alone cost? If you are a working photographer you already must have FF or at least APS-C system with fast portrait lenses, you are certainly not planning to replace your whole system with this?

It would work, by the way, if a pro could have just one camera and lens.

I was a working pro, now retired, and have been using the mark III for almost a year now, my extensive Fujifilm X-T2 kit sitting unused. Just came back from Nepal (3 week trek) where RX10III was my only camera, and boy, was the lens nice to have!

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 06:32 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV review (585 comments in total)
In reply to:

JPnyc: pretty good score considering all these cons >>> but i'd still get a fairly similar Mk1 and save a whopping $1,200

The lens is TOTALLY different, and MUCH better. So they are not "fairly similar" in real life, and the optical quality of the new lens is the main defining feature of this camera, and version III.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 06:25 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV review (585 comments in total)
In reply to:

HP1999: comparing the RX-10 ii, iii and iv. It almost seems the Mark ii is perfectly suitable if the zoom range is to the user

The lens in III and IV versions is optically considerably better than in the previous versions. That is the main strength of mark III and IV, so forget the first two iterations of this camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 06:23 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV review (585 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: I read online recently (Sony RX10 Flickr group) that the Sony RX10 IV shoots between f7-f12 majority of the time instead of f2.4-f4. Can anyone who currently owns this camera verify or deny this claim?

"More for me 2:36am, 3 November 2017
ATG says do not be fooled.
Many companies have lied when posting their camera models /or lenses.

This camera is really 24-600mm @ F7.20 to F12.0.
Most of the time this overpriced behave at F12.0 wide open."

@Ebrahim Saadawi:

For once a sensible and informed answer to the "equivalency" madness. Thank You!

I have the previous model, an amazing camera already.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 06:17 UTC
In reply to:

Lichtbild: At the end of the day this is small-sensor compact with a 25x zoom lens for $1600. Now the sensor is not as small as small sensors used to be. And the zoom lens is big and heavy to evade at least some of the compromises that are inherent in such lenses.

Don't get me wrong, this is the perfect camera for some people, which I believe will be few. The price alone makes for a very select audience I think.

Personally I'm with those who say for that money rather buy a DSLR. APS-C cameras get very competitive at that price point, think of a D7200 kit for example. In my experience, having 600mm equiv. is a complete waste most of the time. The circumstances where this will get useful results are just too slim, it's either camera shake or atmospheric haze. But that's a finding most will only get to after using this camera for a good while.

But as I said, rich soccer moms will be delighted to have this camera around.

I used to be a "35mm and 100mm primes only" type shooter, but after using a RX10Mk3 on a few trips I was surprised how often I actually used the longest focal lengths available. These cameras actually work very well as long as there is decent amount of light available. Even in the dark it is vastly better than any digital camera just 10 years ago, not to mention pushed Fuji 400...

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 19:35 UTC
In reply to:

whawha: Good question ;) these bridge cameras are butt ugly, bulky and stupidly expensive. I would imagine that the sort of person who would have been interested in something like this a few years ago will be using an iPhone to take pictures of their holidays, friends, pets or children nowadays. Who else would buy something like this? For the same money, if you are actually interested in photography, you can buy a proper camera.

Well, I am a 40 year veteran of press and weekly newsmagazine photography, and I am going to take RX10Mk3 to Nepal for 3 months with me as the only camera. It is light and compact (!!!???) compared to any full frame setup with same reach, and the IQ is quite amazing actually. One stop solution for travel/landscape photography. iPhone with 600mm f/4 reach?

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 19:27 UTC
Total: 230, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »