Lives in United States United States
Joined on Dec 30, 2010


Total: 149, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article This $31 lens will turn any room into a camera obscura (55 comments in total)
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: What a funny fatal coincidence: Once the room is dark enough, in most cases, the outside world will be dark as well, the lens will project nothing from outside in.

Power: I travel more than monthly in my job, worldwide, and every hotel I ever stay in has blackout curtains. It is not a problem.

Homes, yes: many will not have them ... however the homeowner interested in this lens can solve that problem herself.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 13:09 UTC
On article This $31 lens will turn any room into a camera obscura (55 comments in total)

It would be major cool if they could figure out how to put a prism in the lens to right the image. My first reaction to the sample image was, vertigo city!

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 13:07 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

Autriche78: I'm sorry for the people who lost money, and I'm even sorrier that we're moving towards/already in a world where distrust towards all others is becoming a necessary first reaction. This goes far beyond camera theft - these kinds of incidents just reinforce the world view that you will almost certainly be taken advantage of if you give anyone at all the smallest opportunity to do so.

When you actually think about it instead of saying, "Well, duh, of course!" - it's pretty sad that an automatic response toward another human being should be one of distrust and suspicion. It certainly makes the rather harsher punishments meted out for theft, fraud and corruption in other parts of the world a little more defensible when one considers the larger implications of dishonesty on the social fabric.

This isn't new. Distrust of others and their motives is as old as life itself, for every species.

If anything the rules humans have hammered out over our history have gradually made us far safer, on balance, than in previous times.

It is a fact of life going back to our very beginnings that you must look out for your own interests. The simplest embodiment of this philosophy: "Trust but verify."

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 13:04 UTC
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: It's pure random what phase of the wing cycling will start with hence will be displayed.

Math nerd: There's an equation for that ...

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 01:23 UTC

Very, very nice.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 17:52 UTC as 81st comment
In reply to:

makofoto: Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha


Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 18:44 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Camera manufacturers should get it in their minds that firmware updates ARE NOT RECEIVED WELL by those who own these models.

Every firmware update renders the user to a tedious download, tethered connection, and the risk of having the camera magically transform into a brick.


This user appreciates that manufacturers update their firmware. It is a process, yes, but it yields improvements.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 12:58 UTC
In reply to:

CallumG: I'm beginning to get real sick of Nikon. They go and update the D500 with some further AF-P support, and yet completely ignore the D7100/D7200. I can't understand it anymore. It's complete insanity in fact.

D7100 and D7200 are available for sale, new, on today. They may have been supplanted by the D7500 but to my eyes they are not discontinued.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 12:57 UTC
In reply to:

ZeBebito: I like the graphic design, but this is a weird way to celebrate 100 years of great history. Why not an iconic camera instead of all this paraphernalia?

I don't know anything more than you do ... but the year is not over yet.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 23:29 UTC
In reply to:

Retzius: According to the Nikon website, the only cameras that are fully compatible with this lens are DX cameras...

Hugo, Nikon seems to have changed the wording since I posted my comment earlier today. The notes look completely different from before.

I was careful before to choose the lens that said New! and saw the "available for pre-order" wording at the top of its page.

At any rate, I'm glad to see the update.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 18:20 UTC
In reply to:

Retzius: According to the Nikon website, the only cameras that are fully compatible with this lens are DX cameras...

Look near the bottom of the Overview section on the lens information page on Retzius is right: the only fully-compatible bodies are all DX.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 13:51 UTC

Why a 43mm filter on one lens but 46mm on the other? I'd like to see third parties at least have their own internal standard for thread-mount sizes. As a long-time Nikon shooter I always appreciated that a huge amount of their glass <=135mm was all 52mm. Others didn't seem to be as consistent.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 00:11 UTC as 34th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

BadScience: Whilst this is a complete scam it does raise some points which have been addressed in the comments:

I'd like to see a depth of field scale in the viewfinder that updates as the aperture and focus is varied (maybe some cameras do this?) One of the great things about old manual focus lenses was the ability to hyperfocus very quickly at a given f-stop (and to stop down to check depth of field). It removes the need to err on the side of caution - how many "tutorials" have DPR printed on landscape photography where the photographer uses F16 or F22 when F5.6 or F8 would have been more than adequate for depth of field and provided an image less affected by diffraction.

Such a feature is easy to implement. The camera knows the focus distance and knows the aperture.

Others have bashed me for this, but ...

When photographing landscapes or other motionless subjects I frequently just shoot, then review with magnification, then adjust aperature if not enough of my subject is acceptably in focus. This is part of the magic of digital photography: I'm freed of the tedium and expense of dealing with depth of field that I had to work with using film.

Before you say I'm lazy: remember that depth of field scales were invented to fix exactly the same problem. They just were the only option in a day where the difference between taking the picture and seeing the result was not measured in seconds but in hours or days. Had the option to instantly review been available with film, I wonder how many photographers would have argued that depth of field scales were better.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2017 at 16:29 UTC
In reply to:

Aaron801: I can't really see why anyone would pay that much for the privilege of using a slow lens like this when they could do the same thing with a very inexpensive manual focus lens (or really any lens of the same focal length). Still, at least the photos that they're using to advertise the thing are cool...

Because they don't know how to use duct tape to fix their manual-focus lens at its hyperfocal distance.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2017 at 16:04 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: Interesting idea in many ways.

@BJN, I think you just coined the next photography buzz-phrase: "hyperfocal optics."

But isn't it just another way to say "fixed-focus lens?"

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2017 at 16:01 UTC
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: Why photograph the sun? photograph landscape. Lightings conditions will be unique. Were do I have to be to see the eclipse anyway? And what when its cloudy? Do I get a refund?

Dante, you should be in Barrow, Alaska. That way you see the eclipse all night long because it doesn't ever set this time of year.

And the snow is really pretty there so you will get some awesome landscapes too.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2017 at 03:22 UTC

I'm amazed that it actually lasted that many actuations while being fired at its maximum speed continuously. Think of the heat build-up alone, that any even heavy-use photographer would never subject the camera to.

I work for an industrial electronics equipment manufacturer and our tests don't just run the device flat-out until failure. They attempt to recreate at least some real-world scenarios.

Canon's test suite is likely something like: 50-frame burst at 10fps, wait ten seconds, repeat, 50 ten-frame bursts, etc. this at least gives the shutter mechanism some time to cool down during the tests.

So ... I'm impressed.

I wonder if Canon honored his warranty claim? What he did was obviously abuse.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 18:48 UTC as 47th comment | 1 reply

Very interesting. Not sure how excited I am at the prospect of banging a precision mechanism into my palm to release the filter ... a release lever in v2 would be nice.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2017 at 23:57 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Snapper2013: Que the why is an article featuring film era cameras and film being featured on a digital photography website crowd. That said, great article in my opinion! :-)

Snapper, since we are so far off-topic already ... not really.

If you say "Queue up the band!" you really are telling the band to form a line and wait for something. "Strike up the band" means to have them start playing. Two entirely different things.

Both forms of the word "queue" have a meaning of waiting. A queue is a line of people who are waiting ("queued [up]") for some purpose. The line waits; the people in the line are waiting.

What you were trying to say really does require the word "cue," which as I implied above means that it is time for someone to spring into action. Thus: Cue the "Why is ... crowd" really means, "send that crowd into action!" So you could actually say, "That queue of people all queued up waiting for their cue? Consider it given! Send them on!"

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 00:45 UTC
In reply to:

Snapper2013: Que the why is an article featuring film era cameras and film being featured on a digital photography website crowd. That said, great article in my opinion! :-)

If you really want the proper English sentence, it is:

Cue the "Why is an article featuring film-era cameras and film being featured on a digital photography web site?" crowd!

Cue: let the actress know it is time for her entrance.
Que: not a proper English word; it is a misspelling of "cue."
Queue: British English term for a line of people.

Perhaps what everyone here can take from this protracted discussion is:
1. Proofread before hitting "post" so you minimize the chance of being misconstrued.
2. Allow a liberal and forgiving interpretation of whatever you read.
3. Don't assume the negative.
4. When in doubt, ask for clarification.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 23:13 UTC
Total: 149, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »