OzarkAggie

Joined on Dec 21, 2012

Comments

Total: 111, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

mosc: With the 45mm and the 18mm, this seems like a great series. I'd love to see a wide/normal hybrid too. Perhaps a 24mm f1.8 or maybe a 28mm if they want to stick with their off-beat focal lengths?

Actually the 28mm lens provides a field of view that's the equivalent view of the average person. It used to be more common, but my G1X is 28 mm wide and the Ricoh GR series uses a 28mm eq lens. So, not so off beat as it seems given the propensity of camera makers to offer 24 mm (wide) in their zooms.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2020 at 23:18 UTC

I still have mine. Looks good too. I used it for landscape and drove around with it wrapped in a towel so it wouldn't get scratched. Makes me smile to think how I babied it. It's like my first love.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2020 at 08:10 UTC as 10th comment
On article The ins and outs of ISO: What is ISO? (589 comments in total)
In reply to:

OzarkAggie: (a bit like turning up the volume on an audio amplifier. This is not true, and this misunderstanding can make it harder to understand what your camera is actually doing. )

( 'Lightening' includes both analog amplification and any subsequent digital processing.)

Well it sounds like it is "a bit like" since it is a part of the process. Just because an algorithm is used to sort the data and process it doesn't negate the signal amplification of the receiver. Without it the data would be less distinct.

No Richard, it is the absolutes that get you. In science there are NO ABSOLUTES so when you say Not True you are in effect saying that anyone who has used the analogy is a liar, or worse - stupid. The article is self contradictory because the Lightening is linked to analog amplification. Further, it isn't really defined.

Personally the most useful information for a photographer is how increases in ISO decrease dynamic range. Maybe more interesting is the fact that in the street photo shot by Dan at 12,800 the dynamic range for the Fuji is essentially flat from 1600 to 12,800 (~8.5) but drops like a rock at 25,600.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20GFX%2050S

Maybe he knew that?

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2020 at 09:20 UTC
On article The ins and outs of ISO: What is ISO? (589 comments in total)
In reply to:

OzarkAggie: (a bit like turning up the volume on an audio amplifier. This is not true, and this misunderstanding can make it harder to understand what your camera is actually doing. )

( 'Lightening' includes both analog amplification and any subsequent digital processing.)

Well it sounds like it is "a bit like" since it is a part of the process. Just because an algorithm is used to sort the data and process it doesn't negate the signal amplification of the receiver. Without it the data would be less distinct.

I'm saying that "analog amplification" is exactly like turning up the volume. That further refinement down the pipeline occurs doesn't make that a "misunderstanding" that makes the process "harder to understand."

And as long as the S/N remains within a certain range increasing the signal offers a better opportunity to sort those preferential frequencies.

Words matter. Don't quibble. The audio example might be incomplete but saying it is NOT TRUE is wrong. At least it gives the wrong impression.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2020 at 03:02 UTC
On article The ins and outs of ISO: What is ISO? (589 comments in total)

(a bit like turning up the volume on an audio amplifier. This is not true, and this misunderstanding can make it harder to understand what your camera is actually doing. )

( 'Lightening' includes both analog amplification and any subsequent digital processing.)

Well it sounds like it is "a bit like" since it is a part of the process. Just because an algorithm is used to sort the data and process it doesn't negate the signal amplification of the receiver. Without it the data would be less distinct.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2020 at 01:38 UTC as 58th comment | 9 replies

From the side by side comparator I'm seeing in both lower corners C-M fringing along the edges with the newer "V" lens that wasn't evident in the "F" image. So I wouldn't count that as an improvement even if sharpness is improved. You might get a better result with micro-contrast and a radial gradient, never mind negating the issue entirely with a vignette.

I'd say save your money and buy or stick with the Model F. Unless there's other more compelling reasons than the new lens.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2020 at 18:07 UTC as 42nd comment | 2 replies

I haven't bought a camera in 18 years unless IR reviewed it. No fan boy BS to distract from the important stuff. Hopefully it will remain a trusted source.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2020 at 19:35 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

cantor: unfortunately, most professional printers only do sRGB and if you post an image on Flickr, or send it to someone else, it will likely be viewed in sRGB too. So what good is it?

Printers use CMYK format. Some Ink sets add additional grays, Cyan and Magenta. Pro grade printers have 16 bit depth.

I kind of doubt you print your own photos.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2019 at 01:11 UTC
In reply to:

Peetz: I'm a Fujifilm user, and previously used Sony APS-C and Nikon DX APS-C. I can't help admiring that Canon is focusing on the strengths of APS-C, namely: smaller, lighter and cheaper.

Nikon's decision to use the same FF Z mount will forever limit their APS-C lenses to have a massive, fat diameter.

I keep giving feedback on Fuji forums that their focus on larger camera bodies, heavier and more expensive lenses, will get to the point where it makes more sense to go to a light-weight FF model.

I haven't gone over to Canon because of the limited range of Canon EF-M lenses. For example, there is no Canon ultrawide M zoom lens that goes as wide as equivalent to 15mm FF. Canon's 11-22 is equivalent to 17mm at the widest end).

If Canon brings out some exciting M lenses, as I get older and need lighter gear, I might be tempted to try Canon M. But my reading of Canon is that it will be a long time, if ever, before Canon reaches a range of APS-C lenses as comprehensive as the Fuji range.

With a 1.6 crop you'll never achieve an effective 15 mm. That would require a 9.375 mm lens and I'm certain you'd want that in a zoom. So why pose an interest in Canon? I shot with a 10-18mm adapted (16 mm wide) and I don't remember ever needing more latitude.

So I find these "if only" postings nothing more than a snobbish attempt to put down Canon. Nobody cares what camera you use, or why.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2019 at 13:55 UTC
In reply to:

SteveAnderson: How does it compare to the efs-10-18mm is my question.

10-18mm was good at 12mp but is terribly soft on my 7Dm2.

I've used the 10-18 on the M, M2, and now the M50 and always tack sharp when shooting RAW and processed in DPP4.

Maybe you need to adjust focus on that 7d.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2019 at 09:00 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS M200 (169 comments in total)

This should drop the price of the M100 to $300, and the Mark II configuration be the outstanding choice for selfies, parties, and street due to its size and feature set. By this time next year I may be tempted.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2019 at 12:02 UTC as 44th comment
On article Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Review (335 comments in total)

I've always liked the 35mm FF focal length. The 22mm (FF eq 35mm) is my favorite on the M50. But I question the Macro function. For full magnification you'd have to be standing on it. IS would have been a better option in low light.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2019 at 17:28 UTC as 54th comment | 1 reply

Who says the Germans lack a sense of humor?

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2019 at 13:14 UTC as 71st comment | 3 replies

CS6 looking better all the time.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2019 at 18:07 UTC as 337th comment

I'm surprised that they couldn't fit a tunnel port viewfinder in the corner. I don't think that's too much to ask especially for $900.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2019 at 19:09 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply

I don't buy the "What are ya doin' there with that big ol' camera little missy??"

Like there's hillbillies in Palm Springs. Beverly Hills...maybe.

Modern architecture is all boxes, rectangles, a few triangles tossed in, and emotionally uninspiring. It should be photographed with a cell phone. It might even look better if it wasn't leveled.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2019 at 14:37 UTC as 79th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

ozturert: Another Canon news, another negative title. Why didn't we see A6400 review title like "excellent AF but horrible jello effect or big 4K crop if you don't want jello people".
Why so positive with any Sony problems but all-negative with Canon and Panasonic?

Snobs. They're everywhere. By Christmas the SL3 will be selling on eBay for $400 or less. Maybe sooner. And people will buy it and shoot jpegs in Auto and be so pleased they might even discover PHOTOGRAPHY.

The horror. All those little people taking pictures.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2019 at 10:42 UTC
In reply to:

khunpapa: Errrrrrr ..

DLO = Dynamic Range Optimizer ????
Lens & Camera talk to each other, so the DR improves.

Second, it's established fact that the shorter FFD, the smaller the lens. The 4/3 alliance had proved that years ago. Their telephotos are also very small (the Pana 35-100/2.8 & 35-100/4-5.6 & Oly 75-300 for example).

So what's in the sleeve that make DPR & Canon 'wow'?

DPR members, please help clearify.

DLO = Digital Lens Optimizer. Completely eliminates distortion and chromatic aberrations. Nothing I've tried does it better.

No effect on Dynamic Range.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2019 at 15:01 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: Some may attribute to printing being outdated but that's not true IMO.
These one hour photo places do a horrible job. I've tried them at Walmart and Meijer and I won't go back because the quality is lacking. I bet Costco is the same way.
I've moved to professional printing centers instead.
Print places such as MPIX and UPI actually calibrate their equipment. Colors are great, sharpness is good. No double image - all of which were problems at the box stores.

I have a Pro 100 that I've been using for a couple years now, but last fall I got a coupon that dropped the price of a new one plus 50 sheets of Pro Luster A3 (13x19) paper for $60 after rebates. Best price on a set of ink cartridges is $95 so I could not pass that up. Of course Canon just wants to sell ink. Printers are basically free.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2019 at 00:02 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: Some may attribute to printing being outdated but that's not true IMO.
These one hour photo places do a horrible job. I've tried them at Walmart and Meijer and I won't go back because the quality is lacking. I bet Costco is the same way.
I've moved to professional printing centers instead.
Print places such as MPIX and UPI actually calibrate their equipment. Colors are great, sharpness is good. No double image - all of which were problems at the box stores.

Actually I've heard the opposite about Costco. Ken Rockwell also credited them with great service and quality. I do my own printing and no Costcos in my area so no personal experience.

Walmart uses the Fuji system, and I don't like the dimpled paper they use. Walgreens uses Kodak and a smooth finish which is better. My bet is that they will continue to offer services because they want people in the store. Paying a fee to shop seems counter intuitive in today's market though some habits die hard.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2019 at 23:21 UTC
Total: 111, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »