Weia

Joined on Dec 2, 2011

Comments

Total: 48, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

What's the measure of a pixel? Olympus goes to 300 in 1 millimeter now, which already sounds like the limit.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 22:42 UTC as 8th comment
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (762 comments in total)
In reply to:

YorkM: My first camera was Canon FTb+FD 50mm f1.8 in 1970 whose price was about USD500 (current rate conversion) that time. It was my high school age and my parent bought it for me. Later, I purchased FD135mm f2.5 costed USD300.
I had used it for 15 years without any troubles, thanks to its simple construction. I still keep it for my memory. I had traveled with it from North to South in Japan because I am a railway photographer.

FTb + 2.5/300 was my work horse!

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 21:35 UTC
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (762 comments in total)
In reply to:

OzarkAggie: Canon FTb - wish I kept it.

I bought it because of spotmetering, very useful.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 21:22 UTC
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (762 comments in total)
In reply to:

Patrick Cicalo: Olympus OM-2... eventually followed by an OM-1

I the same order, OM-2 for slides and later an OM-1 body for black and white.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 00:53 UTC
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (762 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: Canon Pellix QL w/58mm F1.2

A Pellix! I hesitated but bought the FTb.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 00:44 UTC
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (762 comments in total)

My first at age 12, 1962: Ilford sporti (6x6 and very cheap)
Years later I used a bit my father's SLR Pentax s1a, with 50mm and 200mm
At age 21 (1971) my own first real camera: Canon FTb and I just could buy one lens, it became f/2.5 135 mm. I had that special tele-mind.
Ten years later: Olympus OM2
Now, since 2007 Olympus E3

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 00:33 UTC as 288th comment
In reply to:

evilmagicnut: As a measure to stem the tide of ever increasing prices can I lobby dpreview to stop coverage on lenses that exceed $2000 msrp?

Those expensive lens are optically the most interesting ones, and although I cannot buy them I would hear much about them!

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2016 at 22:39 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: 5 elements? Hmmm, doesn't sound like a modern lens design. Best for film, I expect.

5 modern elements for f/3.5 is fine.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 20:22 UTC
On article Pinnacle Prime: Olympus ED 25mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (202 comments in total)

Very interesting, those 19 elements. Which problems have they solved with extra elements? I'ld like to know.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 20:13 UTC as 2nd comment

Interesting construction of the macro 65mm!

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 20:01 UTC as 26th comment
In reply to:

Alec: What I would like to clarify is lines per millimeter vs. line PAIRS per millimeter. Because the proper unit in the spatial frequency / lens sharpness context is a line pair per millimeter (a black line and an adjacent white line, whose loss of contrast is evaluated).

I hope this is a simple typo (like "calories" is commonly used whereas it's in fact kilocalories i.e. thousands of calories, but everyone understands). But I'm also not ruling out that we're being duped, and instead of 50 line pairs per millimeter they're actually talking about literally 50 lines, and thus 25 line pairs, per millimeter.

...Which would be a shame (from film days we know sharp lenses' spatial response extends to 100 line pairs per mm and beyond),
... and a sham (akin to the pundits in the early days of digital pledging that 6 or 8 megapixels was "film quality" - whereas Hollywood with real money riding on asset longevity, sticks to film even in the days of 4K).

It will be line pairs, as he is also speaking of 10 & 30, which cannot be lines per mm.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2016 at 19:22 UTC

Interesting. that '1000 times less light than on earth' is something one doesn't realise.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 20:45 UTC as 8th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: If the camera was panned a little more to the left, he would have captured a DOUBLE RAINBOW (also a rare weather spectacle).

You can see the two arcs sandwiching the lightning on the left.

Here is how a FULL DOUBLE RAINBOW looks like:

http://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xfp1/t51.2885-15/s320x320/e15/10561207_686156514850042_1344064799_n.jpg

.

A double rainbow is quite common.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2015 at 07:59 UTC

It's not exactly 'once'!

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2015 at 12:41 UTC as 108th comment

Reminds me of Buster Keaton playing all instruments in an orchestra directed by Buster Keaton. Without computers quite skillful... 3 musicians at a time and 9 dancers. The Playhouse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRo36k1ipkE

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2015 at 17:53 UTC as 33rd comment | 1 reply

"Using a Clauss precision pan-and-tilt head" That thing looks far too unstable for an 800mm.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 07:57 UTC as 44th comment

Distortion of the 7-14 seems to be better corrected than in my old Oly 7-14. Would like to read more about distortion of this beast.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2015 at 09:50 UTC as 19th comment | 2 replies
On article Massive $33,500 2450mm f/8 NASA lens surfaces on eBay (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

Weia: Angle of view on 57x57 mm is 1.33 degrees. Same vertical angle on full frame gives f=1031, on Canon APS/C 636 mm, on Four Thirds 559 mm. Not very special.

Thanks for the link mosc, I get it. And I can make the calculations now.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 22:12 UTC
On article Massive $33,500 2450mm f/8 NASA lens surfaces on eBay (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

Weia: Angle of view on 57x57 mm is 1.33 degrees. Same vertical angle on full frame gives f=1031, on Canon APS/C 636 mm, on Four Thirds 559 mm. Not very special.

Interesting points, although I do not understand it completely. I would love to see an article on diffraction, with many illustrations and tests. On my old Olympus E3 (10 megapixels) with an apo Sigma 150 macro f/11 is OK, but f/13 clearly is worse thanks to diffraction. F/16 gives more depth of field but in fact is worthless.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 12:28 UTC
On article Massive $33,500 2450mm f/8 NASA lens surfaces on eBay (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

Weia: Angle of view on 57x57 mm is 1.33 degrees. Same vertical angle on full frame gives f=1031, on Canon APS/C 636 mm, on Four Thirds 559 mm. Not very special.

70 mm is the width of the film, with (as in Hasselblad) perforations on both sides, leading to 57x57 or 56x56 mm.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 15:08 UTC
Total: 48, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »