sleibson

Lives in United States Silicon Valley, CA, United States
Works as a Technical Marketing
Has a website at www.hp9825.com
Joined on Apr 20, 2006
About me:

Shooting with Canons for 40 years

Comments

Total: 19, showing: 1 – 19
In reply to:

Jonathan Brady: I honestly don't believe that Canon PURPOSELY tries to limit 3rd party lenses and accessories from communicating with their cameras. I truly don't. What I do believe is that they don't care AT ALL, if they make it to where they don't. Which is fine. They don't guarantee that 3rd party accessories/lenses will work, the 3rd party companies do - so it's on the Sigma's and Tamron's of the world.
But... I do feel like at least a few people at Canon, Inc are LAUGHING THEIR B***S OFF right now! hahahaha!
Having said that... I'm glad my Sigma 50 Art works with my 5D Mark III :-)

I agree with Jonathan Brady. If Canon started to worry about 3rd-party lens compatibility, then there'd be no end to the engineering mickey mouse needed to ensure all those reverse-engineered interfaces worked. In fact, Canon would have to reverse-engineer the reverse-engineered lens interfaces from Sigma, Tamron, etc. Makes no economic sense for Canon to do that.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2016 at 21:35 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: There was a time when a camera simply measured the actual light coming in through the entirely passive lens, adjusted for the reported aperture setting (trasmitted via a mechanical lever), and made the perfect exposure on a fixed-ISO sensor (called film).

Frankly, the idea that a LENS needs firmware is appalling. So many lines of computer code trying to compensate for manufacturing shortcuts which, once upon a time, were sorted by decent design, gear reductions and the pitch of helical-cut metal.

Brian

I'm not sure how you get autofocus and aperture autoexposure without electronics in the lens. In the all-mechanical days, your fingers did the focus and aperture setting. As it turns out, lots of people like autoexposure and autofocus, so you pretty much need to smarten the lens with electronics. Now, if you want to use those old, all-mechanical lenses you can! Your fancy latest-model dSLR will accept these lenses and your fingers can do the magic like always. I've got a few manual lenses and they work fine. But if you want auto, then electronics are a must.

As for compensating for lens-manufacturing deficiencies that weren't there in the good old days , that's just not the case. Today's lenses need to resolve much better than the old ones to meet the needs of 20+ Mpixel sensors. Old lenses were designed and built to resolve down to the grain size of film. Even Kodachrome, the gold standard for small film grain, did not have the resolving power of today's top image sensors.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2016 at 18:17 UTC

I regret Sigma's problem but this sort of thing has been going at least since Canon adopted the EOS EF mount for it's digital cameras. I once bought a Sigma lens that only worked on Canon EOS film cameras by mistake. That's when I learned that the 3rd-party vendors had to reverse engineer the Canon EF (and later EF-S) mount. Canon knows the shape of the electro-optical envelope of its EOS mounts and the camera-lens communications protocol and is able to update lens technology with things like multiple IS generations, ultrasonic focus motors, and STM's focus-by-wire. The other vendors can't. They don't know where the edges of the mount's envelope are. As a result, the only non-Canon lenses I buy these days are full-manual lenses with no electronics at all. Yes, I miss out on some really fine 3rd-party glass. I can live with that.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2016 at 02:02 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

sleibson: Yow! $175 for a filter. I've bought entire lenses that are less expensive.

Hey Ken Philips. Here are my lenses that cost less than $175:

Canon 50mm f1.8 Mark1
Canon 28mm f2.8 pancake
Canon 40mm f2.8 pancake
Canon 55-250 zoom

None of these lenses are dogs.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 23:25 UTC

Yow! $175 for a filter. I've bought entire lenses that are less expensive.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 19:32 UTC as 43rd comment | 10 replies
On article Framing fashion with Dixie Dixon (46 comments in total)
In reply to:

ZJ24: 30 comments on a the presentation of a 20 year old with a successful commercial business, marquee clients and a lot to offer, 1500 comments on a new Sony APS-C camera - gear gear gear.

Oh my gosh. She's not shooting Sony! :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 03:28 UTC
On article Framing fashion with Dixie Dixon (46 comments in total)

Definitely worth watching. Obviously a very talented photographer who knows what she's doing in multiple dimensions. The work speaks for itself but Dixon's obviously an expressive speaker as well.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2016 at 15:08 UTC as 5th comment
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

Provia_fan: Still a lot of disinformed comments here. What I seem to see here is a lot of people who are scared of the.medium because they would actually have to know what they are doing because the scattergun approach they are used with digital is not there.
And no, digitally applying a Super8 effect doesn't cut it. There are a variety of films with different characteristics and developing processes will add even more to these variables.
Most of you are also not aware of the popularity of the medium
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_8_film

"Amateur usage of Super 8 has been largely replaced by video, but the format is often used by professionals in music videos, TV commercials, and special sequences for television and feature film projects, as well as by many visual artists. For a professional cinematographer, Super 8 is another tool to use alongside larger formats. Some seek to imitate the look of old home movies, or create a stylishly grainy look. Many independent filmmakers such as Derek Jarman, Dave Markey, Sean Pecknold, Jem Cohen, Damon Packard, Sam Raimi, Jesse Richards, Harmony Korine, Teod Richter, Jörg Buttgereit, Nathan Schiff and Guy Maddin have made extensive use of 8 mm film. Oliver Stone, for example, has used it several times in his more recent films, such as The Doors, Natural Born Killers, Nixon, U Turn, and JFK where his director of photography Robert Richardson employed it to evoke a period or to give a different look to scenes. The PBS series Globe Trekker uses approximately five minutes of Super 8 footage per episode. [15] In the UK, broadcasters such as the BBC still occasionally make use of Super 8 in both drama and documentary contexts, usually for creative effect. A recent example of particular note was the 2005 BBC2 documentary series, Define Normal, which was shot largely on Super 8, with only interviews and special timelapse photography utilising more conventional digital formats.[16] Most recently, John Mellencamp's 2011 documentary film, It's About You, was shot entirely in Super-8."

Bring it on Kodak!

Calling naysayers "scared" is way off base. Some of us have a lot of experience with Super8 film (and Super8 sound) and found the medium wanting in many ways. The frame size of Super8 film is tiny. The sound capabilities of Super8 were monaural and acoustically poor. For me, there are no advantages to Super8 over digital. If you like the film "look," more power to you. Knock yourself out. But I suggest you'll get a lot better image quality from 16mm film.

As for the comparisons with vinyl that hipsters love, I find that a flawed argument as well. It takes no skill to plop an LP on a turntable and set a needle. It takes a lot of skill to cut and paste film using a film editor. And if you're going to edit the digitized film, then you only want the look (or the privilege of saying you shoot film) and none of the hassle of "really" editing film.

Commercial films are still shot on film. The studios still have the editing machines and infrastructure for film. I ditched mine long ago.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 03:09 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)

This idea is DOA. You get inferior visual quality compared to HD or 4K. It costs a lot more. You need to send the film cartridge to someone for processing (try taking it to the corner drugstore). And who owns a Super8 projector any more?

What am I missing?

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 23:30 UTC as 174th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

brendon1000: Sigh. One more case in point to avoid third party lenses for cameras.

Canon has changed the focusing systems in its dSLRs many times in the past decade and a half: 9-point sensor, 19-point sensor, 60% phase coverage in the image sensor on the SL1, and full phase coverage on the 70D, just to name some I'm familiar with. They also have at least three lens-focusing drive systems: micromotor, USM, STM. Every time Canon engineers come up with a new sensor or focus-drive, they're likely to discover a new way to drive the lens-focusing interface using the full internally documented spec. It takes a lot of reverse engineering for a 3rd-party lens manufacturer to figure this out. That they do is a wonder. That they sometimes get caught in a corner case they didn't figure out is not a surprise. The most well-known case is Canon's change from film to digital EOS bodies that left Sigma lenses generating error codes in the new digital bodies. Some lenses could be re-chipped. Some could not. As a result, I'm only buying Canon lenses these days. Been caught before.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 14:03 UTC
On article Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 (352 comments in total)

I saw this camera last week in the Canon booth at NAB. I also watched a 15-min 4K film made with this camera. It was a chase film with lots of Parkour running and jumping through an urban landscape. The filmmaker waxed enthusiastic about the camera's DR and hand-holdability. The filmmakers also bolted this camera to a drone and flew above the actors running across rooftops. They got a bit more than 10 minutes of flight time. It's a relatively big drone, much bigger than you use to fly a GoPro.

I also handled a pre-production version of the camera. I'm accustomed to dSLRs and my G12. This is a big camera by comparison but my cameras don't shoot 4K video, they shoot HD. This camera feels pretty big in my hands, but again I'm not used to hand-holding cinema or pro-video cameras. It's certainly smaller than the Canon C300. I felt that the lens didn't turn as smoothly as I'd like, but that could be chalked up to the pre-production status of the sample I held. Also, manual zoom only.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 00:30 UTC as 84th comment | 1 reply
On article Starstruck: Adam Woodworth's nighttime photography (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

TLD: Beautiful images. It really makes you want to go out and try yourself. Unfortunately, I doubt it's as easy as Adam makes it appear.

Thanks for the link! A great article with good technical details.

Link | Posted on Dec 25, 2014 at 15:51 UTC
On article Pentax launches K-S1 Sweets Collection (231 comments in total)

Ooooh, these are so purty. Kidding aside, there's method to Pentax's madness here. A marketing maxim is not to give a prospect a "yes/no" choice but a "which one do you like best" choice. It works every single day for cars. It will work for cameras. It won't work for the majority of DPR readers, who worry bout how many angelic shadows can dance on the darkened head of a pixel, but it will work for the much larger audience concerned with "Teal is my favorite color! I'm a San Jose Sharks fan." This is the same audience that will never augment the camera with a second lens. The kit lens is fine, thank you very much.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 23:45 UTC as 97th comment | 1 reply
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II: A professional's opinion (502 comments in total)

I was happy to see this review because it has the ring of truth to it. This pro photographer brings her biases to her review, just like any reviewer. She is a full-frame shooter. She has a color preference. She knows what she likes and what she doesn't like. I found her review of the 7DII very credible based on that. She noted the fast AF and the fast burst speed. She noted controls she didn't like. She also noted how she sets the camera up for her work. In all, this is as informative a working review of a camera as you can hope to get and I appreciate the even-handed, easy-to-read tone.

And no, Canon didn't pay me to write this.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 22:11 UTC as 125th comment | 3 replies
On article Beyond the ordinary: Tim Dodd's Everyday Astronaut (102 comments in total)

Have Spacesuit Will Travel.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2014 at 03:57 UTC as 24th comment
On article Kodak reborn: A look at JK Imaging's 2014 lineup (199 comments in total)

Looks like they're planning to compete is several established, currently successful markets like Micro Four Thirds mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras and GoPro competitors. More power to them. I hope these products deliver on their promise and on the name Kodak. Pricing and marketing will largely determine the success of these products. I suspect they won't be bought by people spending a lot of time studying their specs.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2014 at 15:19 UTC as 45th comment
On photo ICBM in the NUKES challenge (5 comments in total)
In reply to:

itchhh: Great photo! This looks like a Minuteman III.... How did you come to get this photo especially in Tucson AZ?

Yes, that's the Titan Museum. The missile inside is a training missile that was never flyable. It took a special deal with the USSR to arrange to make a museum from this missile silo. All of the other Titan silos were filled in as part of an arms-limitation treaty. The missile port must always be partially opened to allow for satellite inspection. Also, this silo was used in the Star Trek movie Star Trek: First Contact. The Titan missile doubled as Zephram Cochran's first human-built, warp-capable spacecraft.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2012 at 02:51 UTC

Many thanks to the author of this fine book. It's an inspiration on many levels and will help many photographers get better images, even if their safari takes them only to their back yard.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2011 at 16:28 UTC as 179th comment
In reply to:

W5JCK: A PDF is NOT an eBook. An eBook is in a format that is readable on electronic reader devices like the Kindle, Sony Readers, Nook, et cetera. For example, a format like MOBI or ePub. A PDF is just a crappy, bloated, antiquated format developed a generation ago by Adobe to allow the secure transfer of documents designed to be printed.

Funny, I depend on downloading and using the information in PDFs nearly every day. Also, I've paid for a few eBooks in PDF format so it's a shame to find out they don't really exist. In other words, it's the content not the container that's important to me. PDF containers seem to work fine for nearly everyone in the world except perhaps for the late Steve Jobs and the author of this comment.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2011 at 16:12 UTC
Total: 19, showing: 1 – 19