Mike Davis

Lives in United States Dallas, United States
Has a website at http://www.accessz.com
Joined on Jun 12, 2002

Comments

Total: 266, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

With 16,320 x 12,288 pixels on a 9.2mm x 6.93mm sensor, you can actually enjoy all 200.5 MP without diffraction beginning to inhibit a final image resolution of 5 lp/mm after the 125x enlargement factor imposed with a 115cm x 86.7 cm (45.3 x 34.1-in) print, as long as the lens doesn't stop down below f/1.2.

Double the enlargement factor to make twice as large a print, while still shooting at f/1.2 (or stop down to f/2.4 without increasing the enlargment factor) and the final image resolution will drop from 5 lp/mm to 2.5 lp/mm.

If the maximum aperture of the lens is slower than f/1.2, you'll have to make proportionally smaller prints to maintain a given desired final image resolution.

It's unlikely that anyone will equip that tiny 200MP sensor with a lens that offers f-Numbers faster than f/1.2, which would allow inversely higher enlargment factors, without concern for diffraction:

f/0.250
f/0.354
f/0.500
f/0.707
f/1.000
f/1.200

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2022 at 21:36 UTC as 4th comment

Oh yeah! We need more Milky Way shots!

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2020 at 18:28 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

Mike Davis: Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
https://youtu.be/MSFsAQjHJLI

@Dr Mabuse That video is just a static shot of the album cover for a '60s era song by Martha Reeves and the Vandellas, called "Nowhere to Run" - you can probably find it at Tidal HiFi or Spotify or other music streaming services. Meanwhile, here's a different YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRIOKvR2WM

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2019 at 00:36 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): I shot my last roll of film in 2005 after years of using it professionally. I never want to go back to film and consider digital the greatest photographic development in my lifetime. I'll just mention that I have pro-quality color prints (on Kodak paper) from 30 years ago that are now deteriorating despite appropriate handling. I have carefully stored Kodak 35mm and 120 color neg film that is unprintable, along with fading reversal material. Nothing would encourage me to go back to film. It was limited in performance and life expectancy, expensive, a real hassle to process and always time consuming to work with.

You can be a good photographer using either system and that's not the point. It's simply a matter of moving with the times and using the most advanced technology to keep you ahead of the game.

Regarding faded chromes... Ektachrome is less archival than any other Kodak or Fujifilm chrome I've ever shot, but it's wonderfully neutral (except perhaps for its blue cast in the shadows, which is actually a lot more accurate than Provia's red cast). Interestingly, David Muench shot 4x5 Ektachrome for much of his landscape work, with a color darkoom magician named Ted Staidle doing his stuff for several years, in the early '80s, printing Muench's 4x5 Ektachromes to 16x20 three-color B&W reversal internegs (dodged and burned, as necessary), that were then printed in registration on a vacuum easel, for three separate exposures from a dichroic head (to affect independent control of the color channels via contrast masking), onto 16x20 Ilfochrome (Cibacrhrome), that then went to the publishers for offset printing. Examples of Ted Staidle's masterful darkroom work (and David's field work, of course) can be seen in David Muench's book "American Landscape," among others.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2019 at 00:31 UTC

Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
https://youtu.be/MSFsAQjHJLI

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2019 at 04:02 UTC as 11th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

roneybr: Sony A6000?

Is there another camera, still being manufactured and sold, that has been superceded by so many models?

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2019 at 03:45 UTC
In reply to:

LoneTree1: Between impeachment hearings he should photograph circuses so the transition would be seamless between the two jobs.

@Barney Britton In my opinion, a DPR staffer shouldn't have used the word "credible" to describe "allegations." It's bad enough, we members do so much political mudslinging here at DPR.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2019 at 01:27 UTC
In reply to:

ShaiKhulud: Wow, someone has ordered two.

With f/0.95 being only 7/10ths of a stop faster than f/1.2, it's amazing anyone is willing to buy even one of them at this price for any reason other than speculation (for future resale). Me? I'll just bump my ISO from 100 to 170 and suffer the noise. I can buy a lot of cheeseburgers for $8k.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2019 at 12:23 UTC
In reply to:

RSTP14: No EVF, no thanks for me.

But wait... It has an optional EVF! ;-)

https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~TS590x394~articles/9907285861/DSC07413.jpeg

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2019 at 23:39 UTC
On photo Thrust Made Visible in the Jet Thrust challenge (3 comments in total)

LOL! Thanks to your follow-up comment, I just got another rush, looking at your photo again. Seriously! Haha! :-)

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2019 at 23:35 UTC as 1st comment
On photo Thrust Made Visible in the Jet Thrust challenge (3 comments in total)

Very nice! Thanks for posting this.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2019 at 20:24 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
On photo MIG-21 LanceR in the Jet Thrust challenge (18 comments in total)

Another nice one, from his gallery:

https://g4.img-dpreview.com/796C5D07ED0F40A2A267887605547278.jpg

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2019 at 20:22 UTC as 3rd comment
On article DPReview TV: Bring back the custom focus limiter! (178 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Davis: So, after you set your near and far focus limits, how do you communicate the maximum permissible CoC diameter you want it to maintain at those limits of DoF? If it's going to select the focus distance and aperture at which "just enough" DoF is recorded, it should be asking you to specify your choice of max. permissible CoC diameter, just as you would expect with any good DoF calculator. But it doesn't. And whatever CoC diameter they've hard-coded for their DoF calulations can only be accurate for one ratio of enlargement factor to viewing distance to deliver some hard-coded final image resolution requirement, that might be more or less aggressive than you desire.

A friendlier solution than asking for your max. permissible CoC diameter at the near and far limits would be to require specification of your maximum anticipated final image width, your minimum anticipated viewing distance and your desired final image resolution in lp/mm ...

Thanks jonby - the light comes on. Uggh! I had assumed it was intended to automate selective focus and hadn't perceived any value in simply setting the focus limits, but with your post, it's suddenly obvious. :-)

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2019 at 22:52 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Bring back the custom focus limiter! (178 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Davis: So, after you set your near and far focus limits, how do you communicate the maximum permissible CoC diameter you want it to maintain at those limits of DoF? If it's going to select the focus distance and aperture at which "just enough" DoF is recorded, it should be asking you to specify your choice of max. permissible CoC diameter, just as you would expect with any good DoF calculator. But it doesn't. And whatever CoC diameter they've hard-coded for their DoF calulations can only be accurate for one ratio of enlargement factor to viewing distance to deliver some hard-coded final image resolution requirement, that might be more or less aggressive than you desire.

A friendlier solution than asking for your max. permissible CoC diameter at the near and far limits would be to require specification of your maximum anticipated final image width, your minimum anticipated viewing distance and your desired final image resolution in lp/mm ...

... so that it can calculate the maximum permissible CoC diameter on the fly, for use in its DoF calculations that set focus distance and aperture.

As it is, this feature is making assumptions as to how aggressive we want its DoF calculations to be, with no accommodation for user input. That's like using an engraved barrel DoF scale - as if every user always produces prints at an invariant ratio of enlargement factor to viewing distance and as if every user has the same requirement for final image resolution at the near and far limits of DoF, all the time, in every print.

This lack of user-definable agressiveness for DoF calculations is why so many people are often disappointed with results had when they trust engraved DoF scales. When they later examine their enlargements at the intended viewing distance, they're more likely to see too much or too little DoF than to have a Goldilocks moment. Expect that same roll-of-the-dice propensity for disappointment with this feature.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2019 at 03:39 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Bring back the custom focus limiter! (178 comments in total)

So, after you set your near and far focus limits, how do you communicate the maximum permissible CoC diameter you want it to maintain at those limits of DoF? If it's going to select the focus distance and aperture at which "just enough" DoF is recorded, it should be asking you to specify your choice of max. permissible CoC diameter, just as you would expect with any good DoF calculator. But it doesn't. And whatever CoC diameter they've hard-coded for their DoF calulations can only be accurate for one ratio of enlargement factor to viewing distance to deliver some hard-coded final image resolution requirement, that might be more or less aggressive than you desire.

A friendlier solution than asking for your max. permissible CoC diameter at the near and far limits would be to require specification of your maximum anticipated final image width, your minimum anticipated viewing distance and your desired final image resolution in lp/mm ...

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2019 at 03:34 UTC as 32nd comment | 4 replies
On a photo in the Fujifilm GFX 100 sample gallery (DPReview TV) sample gallery (1 comment in total)

Diffraction across the entire frame is obvious in this f/16 shot, too, when pixel peeping. The same final image resolution could have been achieved with a like-sized 50MP sensor at f/16. I wouldn't bother paying extra for 100MP if I couldn't discipline myself to shoot at f/7.9 or smaller f-Numbers with a sensor this size for unresampled 360 ppi prints as large as 100MP will encourage. Smaller prints? Greater anticipated viewing distances? Intentional desire for less resolution in the final image? Go for it - feel free to shoot at f/11, f/16, f/22, f/whatever, proportionately.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2019 at 23:28 UTC as 1st comment
On a photo in the Fujifilm GFX 100 sample gallery (DPReview TV) sample gallery (1 comment in total)

When pixel-peeping, diffraction is pretty obvious everywhere in this image taken at f/16. (I'm not talking about subject motion or lack of DoF.) The math says this camera's 100MP sensor is too small to stop down below f/7.9 if you want to secure 5 lp/mm in a 360 ppi, uncropped, ureseampled print, so IF that was your goal (and it might not be), this capture might as well have been produced with a 50MP sensor at f/16. If instead, your goal is to make prints that are only half as large as 100MP can produce at an unresampled 360 ppi, then the diffraction suffered at f/16 would not inhibit a desired final print resolution of 5 lp/mm. If, on the other hand, you don't care about final image resolution, feel free to pretend diffraction doesn't exist.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2019 at 23:52 UTC as 1st comment

Modifying the Field of Dreams quote:

"If you build it big, they will come."

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2019 at 17:48 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

LoneTree1: People have already been denied entry to European countries based on their social media posts. Be nice if the U.S. was different. But then social media is reviewed by all kinds of organizations, potential job interviewees, etc, the press regularly attacks people for sometimes decades-old media posts.

People fail to understand that tyranny cannot coexist with freedom of speech. Our 1st Ammendment wasn't created to protect innoffenive speech and there's nothing violent about offensive speech, even if it promotes violence (a form of speech I find very offensive.)

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2019 at 14:51 UTC
In reply to:

Brom78: Land of the free my ar*e

Who needs a visa? You can always join a caravan, walk across the border with no ID, claim asylum, get released and join the 97% of refugees who fail to appear for scheduled court hearings. Hundreds of thousands do it every month. What's the point of hassling people who arrive on boats, trains, planes or automobiles? Come one, come all! Hard-working taxpayers will give you lots of free stuff and as a non-citizen, you can vote for the progressive Socialists who fought against immigration enforcement so that your headcount could win them additional seats in Congress. They will teach you to see yourself as a victim and disincentivize personal ambition to keep you dependent on the State while you forfeit personal liberty in exchange for what they've stolen from those who are still law-abiding, productive and self-sufficient.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2019 at 14:18 UTC
Total: 266, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »