HB1969

Lives in somewhere on earth (mostly)
Joined on Jul 27, 2012

Comments

Total: 402, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

mdmarqphoto: I was really looking forward to the Instax square format...but not so much now. I would really like an analog only version. I guess I may have to wait for a 3rd party to make something. Maybe a TLR using the square format, for that retro 6x6 feel?

I think fujifilm is ok with that...you still have to buy instax film packs

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2017 at 08:55 UTC
In reply to:

HB1969: I wonder if you can use the SQ10 as a printer

Yes I guessed that you could do that via the microSD card but it seems a bit fiddly to eject the card, insert in computer, format filenames to SQ10 compatible, download files, eject from computer and put back in SQ10 then print :(
I was wondering if it had some wireless connection like the SP1 and -2. It doesn't look like it does unfortunately. Maybe in the next model.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2017 at 08:52 UTC

I wonder if you can use the SQ10 as a printer

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 06:47 UTC as 27th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

batmatty: I was really hoping this would be analog, not digital. That is part of the charm with the Fuji Instax series!

The SQ10 is digital/analogue hybrid but I think there's an SQ on the way as well that is analogue only...at least that's the rumour

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 06:40 UTC

DPR, do you get the feeling that the moron-o-meter is reading off the scale today?

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2017 at 13:34 UTC as 101st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Noah Placebo: A lot of train tracks are closed down. You can take photos on the whole riviera stretch between Nice and Genoa now, because there are no trains moving there anymore.

Closed tracks are normally overgrown with weeds (I live near a closed track). That track doesn't look closed.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2017 at 13:30 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S vs Pentax 645Z vs Hasselblad X1D (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Osa25: I would've like to see the Sigma DPQ series thrown in here in the comparison for good measure....

Perhaps they'll have the camera's long enough to do a studio scene comparison

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2017 at 00:58 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S vs Pentax 645Z vs Hasselblad X1D (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Playright: Interesting that there is no mention of image stabilisation, I think all three systems have it, or the movable LCDs of the Fuji and Pentax! Also the Pentax is 3 years older than the other two, so still holding its own at this level shows its pedigree!

I'm not sure but I think that fuji and hasselblad are using the same sensor as the pentax. Any difference in IQ comes down to the little modifications that each manufacturer has requested eg microlens design.
It will be interesting to see the next gen of each of these camera's now that Sony has announced they're making BSI 100mp 44x33 sensors.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2017 at 00:57 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S vs Pentax 645Z vs Hasselblad X1D (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Reop: Why not mencioned Leica S?

Not quite GEONYC. Pentax 645Z was the only 44x33 camera under $10000. Then both Hasselblad and Fuji release cameras with the same sensor size in a similar price range so now we have a new CLASS of camera. One that is within reach of more people and cheaper than the Canon 1Ds was 15years ago. That's what the big deal is about.
Leicas camera with similar sized sensor is twice the price and other hasselblad cameras have larger sensors and significantly more expensive.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2017 at 00:40 UTC
In reply to:

stratplaya: That reminds me, has the proper pronunciation of GIF been resolved? It's creator says it's a soft G as in "JIF", but many others say it's a hard G.

I've always thought that it's pronounced GIF (jif) because it's G.I.F. that has become the acronym GIF.
my 2c

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 21:50 UTC
In reply to:

rawmaz: It seems at me that in this situation fuji is the best:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_gfx50s&attr13_1=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&attr171_0=off&attr171_1=off&attr171_2=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=full&widget=480&x=-0.0441888943&y=0.340519

and perhaps this one too:
at first I thought the highlights were from overhead flourescent lights and the difference was from the lights flickering but it's the same at all iso's. The GFX is the only one that doesn't clip the highlights. Sony comes second.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_gfx50s&attr13_1=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_2=nikon_d810&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr171_0=off&attr171_1=off&attr171_2=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=480&x=-0.11683594039587811&y=-0.9946794978153866

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 14:39 UTC
In reply to:

Rod McD: Surely all of the arguments raised here comparing FF & MF can just as well be cited between any two formats? 1" upgrading to MFT, MFT to APSC, APSC to FF and FF to MF as you see them in print here. Despite all these points, the IQ certainly looks great in online images and the early reviews seem to be dripping with enthusiasm.

To think that the systems are competition rather complementary options would be a mistake. MF will never offer the lens range or lens speed of smaller formats and it's likely to remain costly. OTOH lovers of resolution - landscape, architecture and fashion enthusiasts might just find it just ticks their boxes. Personally, I can't afford it anyway, so I've no vested interest here......

Exactly Rod. I agree with most of the points that Rishi made in the article on current 44x33 cameras vs FF but I don't think he emphasised your point enough. There may be people that buy these camera's so that they can brag how big their sensor is, but the actual target audience are people who need high dynamic range, high resolution and great low light performance in the one package (not spread over several cameras) but not concerned about subject separation. That's a specific subset of people. Smaller formats are appropriate for everyone else.

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

Tom_A: I am still puzzled about the hoopla about aperture equivalence.
F2 is f2, a handheld meter will not ask you about the camera format.
Yes there is a kind of equivalence for depth of field but not exposition. I still don't understand any real use for "light gathering capability".
The way I see it, if you shoot both a "small MF" camera like this one and a full frame camera at f2 or higher, then the larger sensor size and resolution will play a role. In my own perception and just like with "real" mf film camera it is the subtlety of for example skin rendering that gets better, more importantly than resolution.

Hello DPR staff
So glad you posted that image of "equivalent focal length and f-number". I finally have a decent image to prove a point ;)
My suggestion to help break misconceptions is that you add the shutter speed and the distance to subject on the image with the geisha doll. That way people will see that the overall exposure is the same (because you had to use a faster shutter speed in the f/2.8 shot); the field of view and compression/perspective is the same (because the distance to subject is the same between FF 70mm shot and APSC-45mm shot); and the affect on DOF is dependent on "equivalent" f-number which is a multiple of the crop factor.
PS I know that you mention all these factors in the text but it might be better with the image itself.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 22:31 UTC
In reply to:

hetedik: Dear Preview,

I don’t know what to think.
I have been following DPR for over 10 years, mainly for the professional and neutral advices. But now, I am loosing it.

You have created a “Most popular” tag. At the moment, comments with 17 likes are there, but my interpretation with 22 likes not. In the meantime, the 2 guys, who argue with me, have gotten the golden badges, like many others, who support your article. I don’t care about being most popular, but I do care about fair forum and discussion.

I don’t know your backgrounds, but please don’t be a Digital Propaganda Review, don’t destroy your reputation, you have built up through many years.

All the best

Actually, this has happened to me too (about 1 or 2 months ago). I had a comment that accumulated 20 likes which should have put it at 2nd place of top comments but it didn't show up in the "most popular" tab. It was a flippant comment and not worth making a fuss over. I just put it down to a glitch in the software that selects the most liked comments.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 21:58 UTC
In reply to:

Igor_Sorkin: What is the difference between this adapter and Much cheaper version?!

Sorry, didn't explain that bit.
Two bits of info. The focal length is not the physical size of the lens but the distance to the focal point (where all the light "rays" converge). This is determined by the configuration of lens elements. A focal reducer just adds more lens elements to change were the focal point is. In this case it shortens the distance to the focal point.
Secondly, as you correctly pointed out, f/number is a ratio of Focal length to entrance pupil diameter. The size of the entrance pupil remains the same (36mm), the focal length is reduced by 0.726x. So FL=50*0.726=36mm, therefore f/number= 36/36=1.
This makes sense because focal reducers consentrate the image circle into a smaller area thus more light/photons per mm^2.
I don't know what other word I could have used other than light gathering.
Metabones was the first to develope a focal reducer (they called it a Speedbooster). If you google Speedbooster white paper, it's all in there.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 01:51 UTC
In reply to:

Igor_Sorkin: Compatibility?

That's on a lens by lens basis. If the rear element extends back beyond the mount, it might touch the focal reducer element. I don't think there's an actual list for lens compatability.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 21:43 UTC
In reply to:

Igor_Sorkin: What is the difference between this adapter and Much cheaper version?!

the caveat is that you loose all electronic control of the lens...It's manual only when used on a fuji-x body

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 21:37 UTC
In reply to:

Igor_Sorkin: What is the difference between this adapter and Much cheaper version?!

I'm not sure if you're trolling but I'll bite. With any focal reducer you essentially double your lens collection in the mount combo of the focal reducer. A 50mm 1.4 lens for Nikon with a standard nik-fujix adapter has an FF feild of view of 75mm f/1.4 (light gathering) and f/2.1 (DOF). When you use it with, in this case, a Lens Turbo II, you have a 54.45mm FF focal length equivalent, f/1.01 (light gathering) and f/1.52 (DOF). And this occurs with every Nikon lens you own and use on a Fujix camera
That is, if you want the lens to behave as a short telephoto, use a standard adapter. If you that same lens to behave as a standard lens, use it with a focal reducer.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 21:34 UTC

I really need to read the headline more carefully. For a minute I thought it said that Olympus were ending MICRO Four Thirds system...and after announcing they're working on 8K

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 03:46 UTC as 73rd comment | 3 replies
On article Capturing the unseen: Sam Forencich's Invisible Oregon (46 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pitchertaker: First two images (w/streaking comet) are quite appealing and would make nice images for either a wall needing something extra or for use as postcards one could sell at the local pharmacy-convenience store or market.

It's more likely that they are satelite trails not comets

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 03:41 UTC
Total: 402, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »