sleibson

Lives in United States Silicon Valley, 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 45 years.

Comments

Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Adamant: Can someone link to an example of medium-telephoto (135mm) tilt-shift architectural photography? I keep seeing people say these are useful for such things, but I am having a genuinely hard time envisioning it. I promise I'm not being combative here. I really don't think I can understand without an example or two.

I get why tilt-shift is useful for architectural work at shorter distances and I get why it would be useful for product/macro type work. But the medium-tele architectural stuff escapes me.

These lenses are also useful for non-macro product photography (think pizza slices, circuit boards, and computer motherboards) where the flat object lies more perpendicular to the sensor plane and you want more depth of field to get the whole object in focus. I have used the 80mm Hartblei SuperRotator for this to good effect.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2017 at 01:47 UTC
On article Canon EOS Rebel SL2 sample gallery (229 comments in total)
In reply to:

George Veltchev: almost an hour after the release of this article we have ' 0 ' comments !!! ... damn I was refuted when claiming that Canon 6D Mark II is the most boring camera for this year ...

It's not the camera that's boring. I'm sorry to say it's the snapshots. These images largely do not push the SL2 to any extent, even if they are absolutely typical of the kinds of images 99% of the SL2 owners will eventually take.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 13:31 UTC
On article Hands-on with Canon EOS Rebel SL2 / EOS 200D (235 comments in total)

I use my tiny and light SL1 as my main dSLR 80% of the time, relegating my tank-like 60D to especially challenging situations. The SL2 will undoubtedly replace my SL1 as soon as the SL1 hiccups, dies, or ceases to exceed my shooting skills (which it still does by a wide margin). Certainly I'd like a 19-point focusing system so that I could ignore 18 points instead of the eight I already ignore (or 51 points so I could ignore 50). The "fastest AF in the world" is a win. The full-sensor, live-view, dual-pixel AF is a win. The bendy touch screen is a win. The image sensor is a win. The 1080p60 HD video is a win. The DIGIC 7 processor is a win. The minimal size increase is a win. (And yes, I'm sure the pixel-peepers will deem this new Canon body "crap." That's sort of a win too. I can't wait until they fill up Canon's refurb stock with "crap" SL2 bodies. Please. Please.)

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 05:14 UTC as 54th comment
On article Video: Removing a stuck lens filter... with a band saw (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

Entropy512: I haven't gotten through the entire video yet, but this is from the category of "I'm an electrical engineer, not a mechanical engineer, and I know that's a HORRIBLE design" with regards to that "filter wrench".

Since the filter wrench is threaded, torquing it in the same direction needed to remove the lens will result in (exactly as happened here) the wrench coming out.

A proper filter wrench needs to grip the filter from the outside.

That's because the tool Adam has purchased is not a filter wrench but a thread reformer. It's designed to put a filter ring back into round through gentle pressure after you pound a flat into it. I've watched demos of this particular wrench on YouTube. Adam Savage is truly a genius in the shop, proven time and again, but this time he tried the wrong tool--and it didn't work.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 02:45 UTC

Airplanes. Flying. Wow.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2017 at 22:59 UTC as 105th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (392 comments in total)

An Imperial Mark 27 127 roll film plastic camera.

http://static.messynessychic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/camera12-930x642.jpg

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 01:27 UTC as 44th comment

Sentence the van driver to community service... on the salt-flat repair team.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 12:49 UTC as 56th comment | 3 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: the Olympus C-2100UZ (128 comments in total)

The UZ was my second digital camera but first serious one. I had been a Canon film SLR user for decades (since the FTb) but could wait no longer for Canon to go digital. The Oly UZ was a terrific camera and took great images with the sole problem of very bad shutter lag so capturing things like sports shots was hard. This camera gave me the experience needed to help me pass by Canon's first digital SLRs. They all had shutter lag until the 20D, which handled like a film SLR. I immediately bought the 20D and retired the UZ. I still have my UZ.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 15:36 UTC as 58th comment

The omission of Corel Paintshop Pro tells me a lot about this article.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 13:18 UTC as 127th comment | 2 replies
On article Corel PaintShop Pro X9 arrives with improved workflow (48 comments in total)

I have used Paintshop Pro for 20 years and liked it. I'm using X7 right now. I've always found its user interface much easier to understand than Adobe's. Truly, I do not use the tool to a great extent. I find two clicks, the Smart Photo Fix and high-pass sharpen, will usually (but not always) get me 95% of the way there and usually don't bother with the other 5%. When I need extra help, saturation and curves adjustments are easy too. Price is right, usually less than $50 if you wait a few months after intro. The big downside: the advertising nag screens have been getting progressively more troublesome and Corel seems determined to hide the way to turn this off. They change the procedure for ridding yourself of these advertising screens with each new version so you have to wait for someone to figure it out. Meanwhile, its really, really irritating. That said, Paintshop Pro is an essential product for me in my daily work flow.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 03:11 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

DamianFI: Who leaves important gear, worth $10K mind you, out of their site in a foreign country they know is rife with thieves?

Guy's a nincompoop.

Cameras left at the office take no photos. Organized thieves practice long and hard at their trade. This loss is no reflection on the photographer. We're all prey in this sort of situation. Sounds a lot like Barcelona, where street crime is rampant and "gone in 10 seconds" is common. Google it. you'll find 100 street scams all carefully worked out and documented.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2016 at 14:19 UTC
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 11th comment | 2 replies
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 (359 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 (359 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
Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »