joejack951

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 22, 2010

Comments

Total: 212, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

beavertown: 900 buck for this cheap crap???

digifan, your 150mm mFT lens only gets you to 300mm equivalent. The Nikon lens gets you to 450mm equivalent. Pretty big difference. Considering equivalent apertures, the mFT lens at f/4-5.6 is slower at all focal lengths than this Nikon lens.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2014 at 13:46 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: I really don't see the point of these lenses. If you don't care much about IQ, just get a superzoom compact. If you want some IQ and are willing to pay for it, Sony RX10 is much better buy.... way smaller with way faster lens. I think this is for people that wants a DSLR but don't care to learn how to use a DSLR.

Peiasdf: The Sony only does 200mm equivalent. This lens does 450mm equivalent. Comparing equivalent full frame apertures, the Sony is f/7.6 at best and this new Nikon is f/9.5 at worst (f/5.3 at best). If you cropped the Sony to 450mm equivalent, you'd be at f/17.

Does that help you understand this lens better?

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2014 at 13:44 UTC
On article Zeiss announces Compact Zoom CZ.2 15-30mm T2.9 lens (57 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frank_BR: OK, I agree this Zeiss lens is probably as good as the Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 that costs less than $2k. But why does Zeiss have a fixation with the number 9?

T2.9 T1.9 € 44,999 US$ 59,900 € 17,900 US$ 23,900 ...

"T2.9" is the t-stop of the lens, as opposed to the f-stop. T-stop is the light transmission. f-stop is aperture divided by focal length. These are (more than likely_ f/2.8 lenses with a light transmission equivalent to shooting at f/2.9.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2014 at 17:45 UTC
In reply to:

rhlpetrus: One more reason for anyone looking for a compact system to go for m43, congrats to the users of the system (and to future ones).

Ulric,the new Sony 35mm f/2.8 is almost exactly the same size, around the same price, but is about a half stop faster (though slightly different focal length).

The Canon 22mm f/2 EOS-M lens is smaller, lighter, far cheaper and about the same speed (though again slightly different focal length).

I'd say this new lens has a lot of competition from larger formats.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2014 at 20:55 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Not super expensive but 20 f/1.7 is likely a way better deal. If this is f/1.4 or f/1.2 then that's different.

How come m4/3 isn't making fast and super-fast normal wide? The smaller sensor size should make it easier than Fuji.

"If you really want much more shallow DOF, you have to go full frame and then you have to deal with quite bigger lenses."

This lens doesn't appear to offer much over the already-expensive Sony 35mm f/2.8. It's slower, about the same price, and seems to be about the same size. Where's that small sensor advantage again?

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2014 at 15:16 UTC
On article Nikon D4s First Impressions Review (1027 comments in total)
In reply to:

jhendrix: Anyone have an example of ISO 204,800? Does it look like pointillism?

Try Google Image search. I found a bunch of images. It's pretty by 204800 (on the D4, not sure about the S) but usable for a small image. I'll take noise over motion blur any day (and have my D3S set to use auto-ISO up to max ISO).

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2014 at 20:59 UTC
On article Nikon announces flagship D4s professional DSLR (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

thx1138: Pixels wars are over, ISO wars have begun. Now if only we could get a real ISO 50, with L ISO 25.

Ok, so the shutter opens once. How long does an ISO 6 exposure take on a Kodak DSLR when you otherwise would have needed ISO 100 and f/16 for a 1/100" exposure? A true ISO 6 should only take 1/3 second.

I don't disagree that the ISO 50 available on DSLR's today is fake. But while Kodak's ISO 6 may yield results that look almost just like a real ISO 6, it's not a real ISO 6 and it's nothing you can't accomplish with any other DSLR and some PP software.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2014 at 18:26 UTC
On article Nikon announces flagship D4s professional DSLR (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

thx1138: Pixels wars are over, ISO wars have begun. Now if only we could get a real ISO 50, with L ISO 25.

Right, multiple sampling of the sensor meaning a bunch of shorter exposure times taken over a significantly longer exposure time than a true ISO 6 would need (due to limitations in frames per second). True base ISO was 160, not 6, which puts it at a higher base ISO than any recent Nikon or Canon DSLR, and barely lower than any Nikon or Canon DSLR ever produced. A real ISO 6 would allow for a single long exposure. Kodak did nothing of the sort. They did all the processing in camera which could be considered novel but it's nothing to can't be done in PS with any camera, giving you more control over the final result.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2014 at 16:18 UTC
On article Nikon announces flagship D4s professional DSLR (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

thx1138: Pixels wars are over, ISO wars have begun. Now if only we could get a real ISO 50, with L ISO 25.

Read up on Kodak's ISO 6 and you will see how fake it is. You can easily replicate that setting using a newer DSLR by taking multiple shots at base ISO. Read here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51471311

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2014 at 14:39 UTC
In reply to:

bluevellet: The 300mm is bulky and kinda slow for a prime.

But that 7-14 f2.8 zoom is sweet. Finally an alternative to the slower panny 7-14.

D200_4me, Have you seen the new Sony DSC-H400? 1550mm in the palm of your hand! What are all these interchangeable lens makers thinking?

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 14:15 UTC
In reply to:

Revenant: Interesting that the S32, which is supposed to make photography easy for all family members, has a slower lens, a smaller sensor, and no physical image stabilisation at all. The manufacturers do so much cost-cutting with these "family-friendly" models, that they're almost useless for their intended purpose.

So true! I hear five to ten year olds complaining all the time about noise in their low light images.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2014 at 16:36 UTC
In reply to:

rrccad: 1K USD sounds overkill for a CWD macro such as a 50mm 1:1 is.

macro's aren't rocket science and this seems to be you paying for the name on the lens versus the lens to a gross degree.

no one makes a bad macro and most sub 100mm are far cheaper - heck most 100mm macros are cheaper than this. and probably just as good or better especially from a functionality and usability point of view.

The Zeiss 50mm f/2 MP full frame lens is almost $1300, manual focus only, and only goes to 1:2. It's supposedly a remarkable lens but that's a hefty price tag when you can get a Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Micro with AF that does 1:1 for $550.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2014 at 21:25 UTC
In reply to:

Lux Painter: The 25mmf1.8 sounds like an awesome lens and was long overdue. And based on Olympus reputation of building great lenses it should have a stellar performance.

But the price tag of $400 (twice the price of a full frame 50mmf1.8 lens) must be a sick joke!

Maybe Olympus is trying to ruin their m43 biz completely.

Dolan Halbrook posted: " What you and other posters seem to be missing about the "nifty fifties" is that virtually all of them are very old lens designs where the tooling and production costs have largely been amortized."

Dolan, the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G is the most expensive 50/1.8 made by Canikon. It was introduced in 2011. It's still half the price of the new Olympus 25/1.8.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2014 at 14:03 UTC
On article Phase One announces IQ250 50MP CMOS medium format back (184 comments in total)
In reply to:

RichRMA: Medium format cameras are like astronomical CCD cameras; the price never seems to have fallen over the years like consumer camera prices have.

The combination of AF performance, high ISO performance, fast aperture lens selection, portability, and affordability are what will likely coninue to keep medium format a tiny portion of the pro digital camera market. Just like smaller formats frequently lose to full frame in most of the areas listed above (aside from portability and sometimes affordability) so does medium format though the gap is even wider. Medium format simply hasn't had the development money spent on it that full frame has. Stopped down base ISO performance is the only area in which it has an advantage.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2014 at 05:48 UTC
On article Fujifilm teases upcoming SLR-style X system camera (896 comments in total)
In reply to:

edur: FINALLY!!!

This is the way a camera should be controlled.

Shutterspeed, aperture ... and ISO.

The three primary parameters of exposure.

Why did it take this long for camera makers to ditch PASM, and place ISO alongside shutter speed and aperture? This is much simpler and straight forward.

Thank you Fujifilm!
This will be my next camera.

With a properly implemented auto-ISO feature (see Nikon DSLRs) ISO is a rarely adjusted setting. Why give it so much space?

And for the record, ISO has nothing to do with exposure.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2014 at 05:00 UTC
In reply to:

LaFonte: I like the perspective warp a lot. It is pretty smart.
But then again, I am definitely not going to pay a subscription fee for any software.
And it isn't even a subscription, it is RENTAL.
The biggest reason for me s not to give them or any other company approval that this is the way to sell software, because then soon, everything else will be a RENTAL, Lightroom? Windows? MS office?
Once the dollar signs appear in their eyes, the companies will not stop.

MS Office is available as a subscription: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/buy/

I have no details on the service works. I only know of it because I just bought a new workstation and saw it as an option (one I chose to ignore and will stick with my Office 2003!).

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2014 at 16:22 UTC
In reply to:

parkmcgraw: 1 of 4

Are the lens reviews published by dpReview purposefully attempting to dumb down the readers, habitually 60% correct, or are the writers at dpReview simply and habitually working beyond their subject matter comfort zone and or technical level of proficiency?

This article being another disappointing report and or supplied text that arbitrarily disrespects industry established verbiage, thus convoluting the subject matter of optics and photography, apparently encouraged and or escaping past a management accustom to low performance standards (a.k.a. more apt at providing excuses for mediocrity and ultimately bad behavior).

1] "... portraits with rich stereoscopic effect ..."

No monocular system, forming a singular imaging upon a single focal plane, such that any given point on the focal plane sees an identical image (aperture), does not produce "stereoscopic effect" but rather the "perception of depth".

He might not be a moron but he isn't paying attention to the description of what he is reading.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2014 at 16:18 UTC
In reply to:

parkmcgraw: 2 of 4

2] "... uniformed descriptiveness from center to edges ... beautiful soft focus ..."

This claim is a contradiction. The process of soft focus, less an area specific aperture mask, affecting the entire field of view of the imager, including the principle axis. Hence, no lens that has a soft central field can also claim to have "uniformed descriptiveness" more professionally and less pretentiously addressed as "uniform image quality" for the entire "field of view" (FOV), or focal plane.

3] "... shallow depth of field ... unique to the large aperture lens ..."

Is not a correct statement as "shallow depth of field" is a product of "lens or optical speed" (f ratio, i.e. solid angle), apparent or real and not just the diameter of the aperture. The optical speed, thus depth of field of a system being a ratio of "lens aperture diameter" and "lens focal length", e.g. Large Aperture, short focal length, shallow depth of field; Large Aperture, long focal length, deep depth of field.

Park, calm down. Read my words, "beautiful soft focus" likely refers to "bokeh."

Did I say bokeh is soft focus or vice versa? No. I know the difference, and for the sake of correctness I'll add that bokeh refers to the quality of the out of focus image, not the image itself.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2014 at 16:17 UTC
In reply to:

parkmcgraw: 3 of 4

4] " ... slight handshake ... images ... out-of-focus ... POWER O.I.S. (Optical Image Stabilizer) ... effectively compensates ... easy to capture ... low-lit situations"

Rubbish, focus (minus atmospheric turbulence and high approach rates) is typically a longitudinal function between the subject and focal plane. The emphasis of O.l.S. is for compensating orthogonal motion of the focal plane, and not longitudinal motion.

Changes in longitudinal distance to the subject, due to orthogonal translations being a very small cosine theta value on the order of mm or less, minus imaging in the extreme near field (e.g. macro).

Shake induced errors, or blurring of the image, regardless of lens design and speed, being controlled by exposure time relative to the velocity (motion) of the image across the focal plane, and not the trivial mm scale longitudinal translations induced from orthogonal (linear or circular) motion about the optical axis separating the camera from the subject.

Since you asked, I have a 35/1.4, 85/1.4, and 105/2.8 Micro lens all of which can yield DOF measured in millimeters. If you think that moving closer or further from the subject can't affect focus, then all of your experience has not taught you much about fast lenses and/or close focus.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2014 at 16:13 UTC
In reply to:

parkmcgraw: 4 of 4

5] "... superior inner focus system, ... excellent resolution and contrast from close-up to infinity. "

The correct terminology, as appose to "inner focus" is "near field", the inverse term being "far field". The verbiage "inner focus" already assigned to describing the optical region just forward of the image plane, and does not refer to the object distance, near or far field.

In the future, the process for selecting optical (lens or imaging) reviewers and or responsible editors at dpReview, doing well to question the potential candidate if they have actually made a lens, camera body or worked in a professional optical facility for two decades or more.

Until then, I kindly suggest that the individual(s) leading dpReview acquire competent subject matter experts/mentors for the dpReview writing staff, sending the "undisciplined, make stuff up on the fly" chalk board or consumer only candidates down the road.

Park McGraw

Yes, Nikon says "internal" instead of "inner". You are acting like it's a translation mistake when it's likely just marketing changing words so that they aren't copying another competitor's language. Care to share the huge difference in meaning between "internal" and "inner"?

I'm pretentious? That's rich. If English is your second language, I applaud your ability to write it. It's far better than my Japanese or any other language besides English for that matter. However, your punctuation, grammar, and sentence structure are far from perfect so I'd lay off on the criticizing of others for far less obvious mistakes, if they are even mistakes at all.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2014 at 16:09 UTC
Total: 212, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »