joejack951

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

Comments

Total: 213, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
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
In reply to:

Leify: I read every post on here. It seems the price is the biggest complaint. Welcome to 2014 people. Inflation is not going away. China has decreased exports of all precious metals last year. Why should you care? Because 90% of the world's rare earth metals come from China. What does this mean to the rest of us? Price of metals go up and that gives China the upper hand in supply. This is a solid metal lens people. That paired with some superbly polished German Leica glass with new silent stepping motor and not 7, but 9 smooth aperture blades. Be glad Leica isn't sucking you dry for this one. Their M mount glass will run you 2500 to 10k alone. That being said, I love metal lenses. I own a Konica AR Hexanon 50mm f1.7 manufactured around 1970. It cost me $25 on EBay. AR to MFT adapter was $20. It's one of my favorite lenses. With adapter, it's around the same weight, height and width as my Oly 75mm f1.8. The focusing ring is smooth and precise. Filter thread is 55mm. I just can't imagine going wider to 67mm. Yes, that's the drawback to getting an f stop of 1.2. The wider the lens the more light gets in. Thats fine. I think I'll hold on to my Hexanon and pass on the zee Leica. My E-m5 can handle higher ISO and low noise. Plus I don't need OIS. I have IBIS. If I need auto focus, I can pull out my 45mm f1.8 no problem. Altogether, less than $1600. I'll just save my money for an E-M1.

peevee1, check out these three datasheets for optical glass and carbon fiber filled nylon and polycarbonate:

http://www.schott.com/advanced_optics/us/abbe_datasheets/schott_datasheet_all_us.pdf

http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=9e8b61428dd94173a55cf9023f709d8d&ckck=1

http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=0d3f660de69341bb91d6aa544e4b4db4

It appears to me that these composites are close to a perfect match (10-14 m/mK) for optical glass. Certainly far closer than any metal could come to matching optical glass. Not all plastics are created equal.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2014 at 16:00 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.

First off, it's Panasonic's claim, not mine. Maybe they actually use the focusing group to hold focus with a moving camera. Second, parkmcgraw has claimed that out-of-focus images don't result from moving the camera closer or further from the subject which he claims is a "trivial mm scale." That is the comment to which I was responding.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2014 at 13:41 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".

Again, get over yourself. People talk about lenses yielding a "3D rendering" all the time on these forums.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2014 at 02:02 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.

2. "beautiful soft focus" likely refers to "bokeh." Go look at images from any high quality portrait prime. Very sharp where it matters with very soft looking out of focus regions.

3. Get over yourself. You clearly know what they mean.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2014 at 02:01 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.

With DOF measured in millimeters, it is easy to lock focus on an eye then end up focused on the ear or nose due to accidentally moving the camera before the shutter is released. Do you have much experience with ultra-fast lenses?

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2014 at 01:59 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

"inner focus system", known as "IF" in Nikon-speak, just means that the lens does not extend when focusing (it uses a rear focusing group internal to the lens vs. a front focusing group.

And as noted already, those are Panasonic's words, likely translated from Japanese.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2014 at 01:56 UTC
On article Fujifilm announces XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS wideangle zoom (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

jhinkey: It's lenses like this one that really makes me think twice about having both a FX and m43 system - If I only had one system Fuji would be it.

In equivalent terms, the Nikon 16-35/4 is also a full stop faster as it covers a full frame sensor. If you don't like the size of the faster lens that's fine, but don't act like you are getting something equivalent but with less size going with Fuji.

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2013 at 19:37 UTC
In reply to:

Keytsa: What's the fastest ultra telephoto lens on market, regardless of mount, and still acceptable in price? This one is F5...

Ok, Canon has a non-stabilized 70-200/2.8 that when mounted on an APS-C DSLR yields a 320mm field of view. Selling right now at B&H for $1300. Nikon's 80-200/2.8 AF-D is even cheaper but doesn't have a built-in focus motor.

Both companies also have 300mm f/4 lenses for under $1500, and Canon's is stabilized to boot.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2013 at 16:40 UTC
In reply to:

Keytsa: What's the fastest ultra telephoto lens on market, regardless of mount, and still acceptable in price? This one is F5...

Define "acceptable in price" and also specify the focal length. As lenses get longer focal lengths, max f-stops get smaller. Nikon built what I believe to be the fastest/longest telephoto in existence with their 300mm f/2 lens (manual focus). Canon built a 200mm f/1.8 at one point with AF as well. Going by physical aperture diameter, the 600mm f/4 lenses (150mm apertures) made by both Canon and Nikon are the top lenses in that category.

Note that this new lens from Tamron is only f/5 at 150mm (30mm physical aperture). By 600mm (and likely far sooner) it's f/6.3, or 95mm aperture diameter (pretty big for the price).

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2013 at 15:20 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: This is very "Apple": they did this with their iOS device interface, where first the depracated one of the pins that used to carry analogue audio, giving it a new digital function, and then a couple of years later, when they binned the interface altogether for the new, sleeker "lightning" connector.

A number of third-party add-on companies got badly burned: one, in particular (Blue, who make microphones) had just brought out a high quality stereo mic for the iPhone, complete with free matching recording app. Within weeks, the mic was made obsolete by the change in pin assignment. So Blue continued to work on a Digital mic instead - and just as that was ready, Apple switched to Lightning. Blue have (understandably) gone away in a huff, and have pulled any attempt to produce a mic for iOS, and have stopped developing the app.

The losers are the Users. And Apple, because some of those users will have switched to Android to avoid this kind of crap. Another reason I will stick to Olympus.

Yes, there is a massive difference. Nikon changed something that might require users to spend up to $40 (for a new battery) to fix. Olympus's change might have cost some users $1000's.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2013 at 16:26 UTC
In reply to:

Team Yeti: If true, then the dinosaur is taking another step towards extinction, unless they hurry up and evolve.

I understand not wanting to be liable for 3rd-party equipment mixed with OEM. But really that responsibility is taken on by the end-user. If I put a no-name battery in my camera and it makes the magic smoke, well, that's MY fault. A risk you take.

Nikon user here for many years, but my last experience with them (D7000) soured me. Sold off all my Nikon gear and don't plan on going back. My humble opinion: mirrorless will make dSLRs nearly obsolete, save maybe for certain pro users (sports, etc.). We are seeing it happen right before our very eyes. Technology is moving very quickly -- anyone remember Zip Drives? LOL

When Nikon receives that camera back with a warranty claim with the end user denying ever using a third party battery, how is the dispute settled?

And what does mirrorless have to do with this? You do realize that Nikon makes mirrorless as well as DSLR cameras.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2013 at 19:20 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: This is very "Apple": they did this with their iOS device interface, where first the depracated one of the pins that used to carry analogue audio, giving it a new digital function, and then a couple of years later, when they binned the interface altogether for the new, sleeker "lightning" connector.

A number of third-party add-on companies got badly burned: one, in particular (Blue, who make microphones) had just brought out a high quality stereo mic for the iPhone, complete with free matching recording app. Within weeks, the mic was made obsolete by the change in pin assignment. So Blue continued to work on a Digital mic instead - and just as that was ready, Apple switched to Lightning. Blue have (understandably) gone away in a huff, and have pulled any attempt to produce a mic for iOS, and have stopped developing the app.

The losers are the Users. And Apple, because some of those users will have switched to Android to avoid this kind of crap. Another reason I will stick to Olympus.

Because Olympus never ditches anything [cough] 4/3's mount [cough].

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2013 at 19:18 UTC
On article Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R real-world samples gallery (125 comments in total)
In reply to:

evandijken: But that price...!!

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art Series is the same price and a full stop faster on a full frame camera. I haven't seen a comparison, but unless this Fuji is THE sharpest lens available at this focal length, it's probably not as sharp as the Sigma. Yet again, full frame is the place to go if you want DOF control.

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2013 at 19:39 UTC
In reply to:

reginalddwight: Bestowing the GM1 the title of Gear of the Year before getting an opportunity to test a production sample? Hmmm.....

My assumption was based on the comment I quoted. It sure seemed to hint at not reviewing these "gear of the year" items. Perhaps there's a different explanation for the inclusion of that comment though.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2013 at 20:56 UTC
In reply to:

reginalddwight: Bestowing the GM1 the title of Gear of the Year before getting an opportunity to test a production sample? Hmmm.....

From the the first lines of the page you had to click through to get to this article: "A lot of equipment passes through our Seattle and London offices, everything from high-end cameras to inexpensive accessories. A lot of it gets reviewed, but we can't cover everything."

I don't think they intend to review this camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2013 at 13:57 UTC
In reply to:

Ken Johnes: 500 $ for a silly firmware upgrade? and the target audiance for this camera have been waiting eagerly for this AF upgrade .
wow, greed and trying to milk it´s customers with incremental upgrade are gonna hurt the big dogs here, both of em, look at what nikon is trying to do.

i think nikon and canon are competing with each other on how to sell less for more, while other companies are making innovative products at a fair price , no wonder these greedy top dogs have to make up for their loss with such silly act..

Ken, have you considered that the firmware/hardware for the dual-pixel AF system wasn't ready but the rest of the camera was, so the decision was made to release it without that feature? I'm sure users of the C100 prefer to have had use of their camera for the past year or more without dual-pixel AF rather than wait until now to get it both it and the camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2013 at 14:03 UTC
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1391 comments in total)
In reply to:

AngryCorgi: It's a shame that it shall be obscenely overpriced. :(

Overpriced compared to what other retro styled full frame DSLR? Also, compare prices of Nikon full frame DSLRs to Canon. Nikon is cheaper across the board.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2013 at 01:30 UTC
On article Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' (551 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hwirt: A camera like this would have been ideal at the start of the digital age and would have eased the transition by looking and feeling familiar, but now I don't see the logic. Other than looking cool in a nostalgic way it would likely be a step or several steps backward in ergonomics and functionality. If nostalgia is what you want there are plenty of beautiful film cameras available on the used market. Perhaps there are some who would like this but at best it will be a niche product.

At the "start of the digital age" Nikon had the F5 and F6 which look an awful lot like their DSLRs of that period and today. This is a throwback camera, like many other cameras on the market today.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2013 at 23:13 UTC
In reply to:

HeyItsJoel: I'll never understand why Nikon insist on starting their kit lenses at 18mm when the ideal length to start is @ 16mm (~24mm fov).

24mm equivalent may be an ideal wide angle focal length, and if so, ideally you'd then have some range above and below in order to tweak composition around the focal length. Hence the existence of wide angle zooms like the 10-24. A lens starting at 16mm would only provide just a bit more wide angle than an 18mm lens while not really allowing that ideal focal length to be utilized to its fullest. IMO of course.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2013 at 16:06 UTC
Total: 213, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »