MightyMike

Lives in Canada Brampton, Canada
Works as a Distribution and Logistics
Joined on Nov 11, 2004
About me:

Pentax K-1
Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL
Pentax DAL 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL
Sigma 24mm F1.8 EX DG Macro Aspherical
Sigma UC Zoom 24-50mm F4-5.6
Tamron SP 24-135mm F3.5-5.6 AF Aspherical AD IF Macro Model 190D
Pentax FA 28mm F2.8 AL
2x Magnicon MC 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax FA 28-105mm F3.2-4.5 ED AL
Pentax FA 35mm F2.0 AL
Pentax DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited
SMC Pentax AF Zoom 35-70mm F2.8 for ME F
Pentax F 35-80mm F4-5.6
Pentax F 35-105mm F4-5.6 Macro
Pentax DA 40mm F2.8 XS
Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO EX
Magnicon MC 70-210mm F4.5
Pentax F 70-210mm F4-5.6
Tamron 70-300mm F4-5.6 LD
Pentax FA 77mm F1.8 Limited Silver
Pentax F 80-200mm F4.7-5.8
Pentax F 100mm F2.8 Macro
Sigma APO 100-300mm F4 EX DG
Pentax FA 100-300mm F4.7-5.8
Tamron AF 100-300mm F5-6.3 Model 186D
Sigma APO 500mm F4.5 EX DG
-------------------------------------------------
Rokinon 8mm F3.5 Fish-Eye CS P/KA
Venus (Laowa) 12mm F2.8 D-Dreamer (Zero-Distortion) K/A Mount
Venus (Laowa) 15mm F4.0 1:1 Macro + Shift K-Mount Manual Aperture
Zenit MC MIR-20M 20mm F3.5 M42
Tokina-Special 28mm F2.8 M42
2x Takumar Bayonet 28mm F2.8
SMC Pentax-M 28mm F2.8
2x SMC Pentax-A 28mm F2.8
CPC Macro 28mm F2.8 CCT P/KA
Image Super Coated 28mm F2.8 P/K
Super-Takumar 28mm F3.5 M42
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 28mm F3.5 M42
SMC Pentax-M 28-50mm F3.5-4.5
Elicar Automatic 35mm F2.8 M42
Soligor Auto-Wide 35mm F2.8 M42
Schneider-Kreuznach 35mm F2.8 Edixa-Curtagon M42
3x Super-Takumar 35mm F3.5 M42
2x Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 35m F3.5 M42
Soligor 35mm F3.5 M42
Zeniton 35mm F3.5 M42
SMC Pentax-K 35mm F3.5
Pentax 645-A 35mm F3.5
SMC Pentax-A 35-70mm F4.0
SMC Pentax-M 40-80mm F2.8-4.0
Super-Takumar 50mm F1.4 (8-Element) M42
7x Super-Takumar 50mm F1.4 M42
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50mm F1.4 M42
2x SMC Takumar 50mm F1.4 M42
SMC Pentax-K 50mm F1.4
SMC Pentax-A 50mm F1.4
3x SMC Pentax-M 50mm F1.7
SMC Pentax-A 50mm F1.7
Ricoh Rikonen 50mm F1.7 P/K
Ricoh AF Rikonen 50mm F2.0 P/K with Built in AF Module
Macro-Takumar 50mm F4.0 1:1 M42
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-Takuamr 50mm F4.0 M42
SMC Pentax-M 50mm F4.0
3x Auto-Takumar 55mm F1.8 M42
4x Super-Takumar 55mm F1.8 M42
5x SMC Takumar 55mm F1.8 M42
Fujiphoto Film EBC Fujinon 55mm F1.8 M42
SMC Takumar 55mm F2.0 M42
Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Primoplan 58mm F1.9 M42
2x Helios-44-2 58mm F2.0 M42
Helios-44M 58mm F2.0 M42
Asahi Kogaku Takumar 58mm F2.4 M37
Super Takumar-Zoom 70-150mm F4.5
Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm F3.5 VMC Macro M42
SMC Pentax-A 70-210mm F4.0
Pentax 645-A 75mm F2.8
2x SMC Pentax-M 75-150mm F4.0
Vivitar 75-205mm F3.8 MC Macro Focusing Zoom P/K
Soligor 80-200mm F3.5 C/D M42
Rodenstock Rodagon 80mm F4.0 Enlarging lens
Helios-40-2 85mm F1.5 M42
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 85mm F1.8 M42
Mamiya/Sekor SX 85mm F2.8 M42
2x SMC Pentax-K 85-210mm F4.5
2x Super-Takumar 105mm F2.8 M42
SMC Pentax-K 120mm F2.8
Pentax 645-A Macro 120mm F4.0
Samyang 135mm F2.0 ED UMC
Vivitar Series 1 135mm F2.3 M42
Auto Chinon 135mm F2.8 M42
Opticam Auto 135mm F2.8 M42
Soligor Auto-Tele 135mm F2.8 M42
Takumar 135mm F3.5 Chrome M42
2x Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5 M42
Zeniton 135mm F3.5 T-mount
SMC Pentax-M 135mm F3.5
Pentax 645-A 150mm F3.5
Super-Takumar 150mm F4.0 M42
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 150mm F4.0 M42
Bushnell Automatic 200mm F3.5 M42
2x Super-Takumar 200mm F4.0 M42
SMC Pentax-M 200mm F4.0
2x Pentax 645-A 200mm F4.0
Zeniton 200mm F4.5 T-mount
Tele-Takumar 200mm F5.6 M42
Enna Muchen Tele-Ennalyt 240mm F4.5 M42
Tele-Takumar 300mm F6.3 M42

Raynox HD-6600Pro 52mm 0.66x Wide Angle Adapter
Raynox HD-7000Pro 58mm 0.7x Wide Angle Adapter
Soligor 2x TC M42
Sigma APO 1.4x EX DG
Pentax Rear Converter-A 645 1.4x
Bower K-mount 5x monocular adapter
Lens2Scope 10mm 1:4 EOS monocular adapter

2x Genuine Asahi M42 Ext. Tubes
Kenko PK-A Extension Tubes
Set of PK Extension Tubes

Pentax AF220T Flash
Sunpak Auto 224 D Flash
Vivitar 283 Flash
Vivitar 2800 Flash
Vivitar 3500 Flash
Lenmar SBT36ZD Flash
Metz Mecablitz 58 AF-2 Digital
Gary Fong Lightsphere II Cloud C4
Gary Fong Lightsphere Collapsible Snoot with PowerGrid
2x Metz 60CT-1 Flash System
Opus Safe Sync
Vello 2.4Ghz Radio Trigger
3x Vello 2.4Ghz Receivers

Rollex 20
Argus/Cosina STL
Zenit-E
Pentax S3
2x Pentax SV
3x Pentax Spotmatic SP
2x Pentax Spotmatic SPII
2x Pentax Spotmatic F
Black Pentax ES II
Pentax K1000 (Brown Leather)
2x Pentax K2
Pentax MX
Pentax ME
3x Pentax ME Super
Pentax ME F
Pentax Auto 110 kit, 18/24/50mm F2.8, winder, AF130P, Filters + hoods
Pentax Program Plus
Pentax Program Plus Black
Pentax P30t
Pentax 645
Fuji GSW690III
Pentax A3000
Pentax PZ-10
Pentax MZ-50
Pentax MZ-7

Previously owned cameras

Fuji Finepix 2800......................... 5000 pictures
Black Panasonic DMC-FZ20...20000 pictures
Silver Panasonic DMC-FZ30.... 3000 pictures
Black Panasonic DMC-FZ30...22000 pictures
Pentax K10D...............................33000 pictures
Pentax K20D...............................55000 pictures
Pentax K-7...................................34000 pictures
Pentax K-5 #1...............................5500 pictures
Pentax K-x...................................13000 pictures
Pentax K-5 #2.............................36000 pictures
Pentax K-5IIs..............................14000 pictures
Pentax K-3...................................54500 pictures

Comments

Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

piratejabez: Very interesting. I'm still pretty confused about the actual internal differences between this and standard helicoids, but it looks and sounds fascinating and I'm glad you shared it with us!

Yes i saw the diagram... 4 doublets goes a long way to making a higher quality result.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 01:17 UTC
In reply to:

melgross: More modern lenses use variable cams, and more than one, to move several groups of elements independently during focusing. In addition motors allow for variable movements. This results in excellent close focusing as well as infinity focusing. I’m not sure about whether that’s true for zooming as well.

Vignetting is caused by using a front set of elements that’s really too small, and not curved enough, so it doesn’t properly gather enough light for edges and corners. Stopping down increases the ratio of the front set and the f stop, resulting in less vignetting.

Vignetting is often added to a lens design to minimize aberrations like coma, its easier to correct vignetting in post than it is to fix detail ruined by nasty amounts of coma spread. the vignetting can be done at any element location in the design of the lens by simply making an element small enough to cut off the widest rays of light. Next time you use you ultra-fast prime with its 3+ stops of vignetting wide open, imagine had the designer let all the light at the edges of the frame make it to the film or sensor plane how bad the coma may actually be.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 01:10 UTC
In reply to:

piratejabez: Very interesting. I'm still pretty confused about the actual internal differences between this and standard helicoids, but it looks and sounds fascinating and I'm glad you shared it with us!

Just because in most modern lens designs not every element is moved individually doesn't mean it can't be done. However I suspect in many instances the difference between moving 12 groups of 1 element each and clustering some of them together would be negligible at best. Just because one lens was designed with 12 elements in 12 separate groups doesn't mean another lens with ideally joined elements in groups can't be just as good.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 01:03 UTC

I'd normally say if you don't want your work used for anything serious against your will don't share high quality version of it online, however the definition of serious seems to have entered the web quality space... Yes I'd be upset if someone was using my web quality work as their own or to promote something i didn't consent to... maybe its time to stop sharing your photos online altogether! Really goes to shows the state of the world we're in.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 22:34 UTC as 39th comment | 3 replies
On article Humor: The 'horrifying' truth about radioactive lenses (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

dcolak: Well, the problem is, that radiation is focused on your eye and not the whole body (as in walking in sunshine).

I un-yellow lenses all the time, i deal in old takumars so this becomes necessary, yes UV light if its a broad enough spectrum can fix lens coating discolouration

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 19:13 UTC
On article Humor: The 'horrifying' truth about radioactive lenses (176 comments in total)

I suspect people get more radiation (of a different type) exposure from their cell phones. Thorium Oxide lenses are perfectly safe unless you grind them up and eat them, or do something else really stupid with them.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 19:03 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

Steve in GA: j12tone is his comment below has a good point. I think many of us routinely do things like increasing or decreasing light temperature and contrast, and we routinely lighten shadows, etc.

But, is that photo manipulation? Or, is it just photo enhancement? Or, is there a difference?

If you switch heads and bodies of the people in your photo, that's manipulation. But, where do you draw the line between making your granddaughter look a little better in a photo and completely recreating an image of a non-existant being?

This is getting too deep. I need some coffee.

Our eyes usually see a much broader dynamic range than the camera and the curve is ever changing in order for us to see everything ideally (most of the time), by altering the curves (lifting shadows and fixing highlights) into a form that allows use to see stuff more like how we perceived it in the first place isn't really altering the scene (we aren't lying about the scene we're just making it look more accurate than initially capture by a limited device). In an ideal world you draw the line between art and reproduction, between an honest portrayal and deceit. If its altered in a way that makes it a fake representation own it and make that clear when presented otherwise you're straight up deceitful, dishonest and you're likely trying to buy popularity! All for what? An extra pat on the back? An honest effort is worth a heck of a lot more than faking it!

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 00:27 UTC
In reply to:

MightyMike: I did poorly, 3 out of 10, now reading the comments I can see why, I wasn't looking for meaningless random alterations, stuff that doesn't help the photo, stuff I'd never do to a photo, I was looking for way someone might deliberately alter the image to make it better and ended up imaging things that may never have been altered in the first place or completely drawing a blank when the alteration was pointless. I'm very critical about my photos, I prefer to maintain realism most of the time, I've seen many very poor edits on these forums but i won't call any of the people who poorly edited them bad photographer or poor editors as we all are at different skill levels with different backgrounds and have learned different things. If it was edited and looks good who am i to judge unless its being passed off as a super accurate portrayal. I'll wear my 3/10 gladly as i went into this test with the expectation that the edits were logical and rational. Still feel it was a waste of time.

I'm one of the people who never got the video, I really don't care to retake the test, its not that important, had it been logical and rational edits I'd have probably scored much better. Perhaps a mirror test should be designed by top editors on DPR with edits that are totally more logical, and images that are of far better quality. Can one detect what was edited when there is a legitimate reason to edit the photo. Then ask whether the person taking the test thinks the edit was harmless or very deceitful.

1) Was it edited?
2) Where was it edited?
3) How confident are you?
4) if it was edited here is the original and the edited version, do you think the edit was harmless or deceitful?

Use 20 pictures and make sure there is no pointless editing, allow people to take the test just once (obviously if people have more than one email address they can take it more than once but one would hope most people would be honest)

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 19:26 UTC
In reply to:

joshnl: Only got 4/10. Part of the issue is that it's not clear what they mean by digital manipulation.

I got no video, this has been discussed above, some get it some don't

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 03:08 UTC

I'd just like to add the photos were pretty bad to begin with... most wouldn't make my edit list.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 02:55 UTC as 103rd comment

I did poorly, 3 out of 10, now reading the comments I can see why, I wasn't looking for meaningless random alterations, stuff that doesn't help the photo, stuff I'd never do to a photo, I was looking for way someone might deliberately alter the image to make it better and ended up imaging things that may never have been altered in the first place or completely drawing a blank when the alteration was pointless. I'm very critical about my photos, I prefer to maintain realism most of the time, I've seen many very poor edits on these forums but i won't call any of the people who poorly edited them bad photographer or poor editors as we all are at different skill levels with different backgrounds and have learned different things. If it was edited and looks good who am i to judge unless its being passed off as a super accurate portrayal. I'll wear my 3/10 gladly as i went into this test with the expectation that the edits were logical and rational. Still feel it was a waste of time.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 02:53 UTC as 105th comment | 4 replies

Next we'll see a Sigma 15-500mm F4.0-6.7 Art lens as big as the bigma for your convenience LOL

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 19:51 UTC as 45th comment
On article Nikon D7500: What you need to know (540 comments in total)
In reply to:

Retzius: 12-140? If I read that right that is a 18-200mm equivalent in full frame terms. To be honest that interests me more than the new camera although that looks like a very nice upgrade.

methinks its a typo LOL, otherwise that would be some lens!

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 04:24 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: hello its me ...... china

how are they different from western corp that not only mine you personal lives , but are then routinely hacked ?

... you meant "routinely hacked by China" right? So they are different, with this app at least China doesn't have to hack western corporations to obtain the same information.

This a was just a bit of fun and sarcasm, take it as such :)

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 15:13 UTC
In reply to:

AngularJS: I'm wondering what circle those lenses can cover? Are they "future proof"?
The GFX throat diameter is 65mm, more than enough to cover the 44x33 (55mm diagonal) 50MPx Sony sensor. The new 100MPx Sony sensor is 67.2mm diagonal (53.7x40.4), so theoretically the throat is just ~3 mm short to cover it. Does it mean if Fuji one day decides to go with a slightly "more medium format" sensor, it's going to be another mount, another lenses? Any ideas folks (who knows math and optics :)? I've pre-ordered the 63mm and planning to buy the 110 when available, just wondering what to expect from the G mount in a few years :) Thanks.

I think it would be silly for them not to be able to cover the full 645 image circle

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 00:07 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: Surprised to see the Macro only go 1:2. I know the sensor's bigger but 1:1 on FF is actually more sensor area than 1:2 on this format and those lenses certainly don't go north of $2,000. Are there no other medium format 1:1's out there?

One thing you shouldn't forget is the magnification factor on apparent resolution when printed... a 33 x 44mm sensor regardless of resolution (don't go to some silly extreme now) is enlarged by a much lower factor than a m43rds sensor is when printed at the same size. This ultimately means the m43rds lens has to out resolve the medium format lens by a large margin likely beyond what is capable in modern optics. If you choose to enlarge the images the same amount the medium format will get you an 9x12 print where the m43rds will only be a 4.7x3.5, the content when compared will look identical in the zone the m43rds sensor captured except that the m43rds photo will have more pixels (not necessarily more resolution). This is the whole reason medium format lenses of the past didn't need to be high resolving, the sensor (film) was so large even bad lenses looked good. the smaller the format the higher resolving the lens has to be so it doesn't look like junk.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 00:05 UTC
In reply to:

MightyMike: Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the medium format system being a 0.75x crop factor doesn't that make the 63mm F2.8 offer a similar result to a 47mm F2.1 (50mm F2.1) on a FF setup? or even for that matter a 31.5mm F1.4 (similar to a 35mm F1.4) on an APS-C setup. I don't doubt the lens will be top notch, I'm just suggesting the end result can be duplicated on a smaller sensor system so that diminishes some of the benefit of going to a larger sensor system. Also the 32-64mm F4.0 (24-48mm F3.0 on FF, or 16-32mm F2.0 on APS-C) I suppose any 24-70mm F2.8 would compete on FF and the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 would compete on APS-C. Same issue, no doubt its going to be a top notch but the end result can be matched by a lesser system. Don't jump on me as I'm not bashing, I'm just questioning the benefit of these 2 lenses and the medium format system over an existing lesser system.

I agree, DOF isn't the be all and end all however beyond the widest apertures all systems are equal. sure you can stop down more before diffraction but you still end up with the same DOF as the smaller system has at the same diffraction limitation (with some minor variations based on pixel density and print size)... I stopped getting exited about larger formats unless they were really large, my film Pentax 645 is certainly a lot nicer to play with in regards to the film negatives and positives over my film 35mm cameras, and my film Fuji GSW690III is that much more spectacular. However those large differences aren't so spectacular in the digital era and though there are some small advantages its very hard to justify a larger format over a smaller format in any way but the extreme ends of the spectrum.... so I may yawn at this and other may have a differing opinion, its just not getting me exited anymore, the differences are too small.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 21:00 UTC
In reply to:

MightyMike: Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the medium format system being a 0.75x crop factor doesn't that make the 63mm F2.8 offer a similar result to a 47mm F2.1 (50mm F2.1) on a FF setup? or even for that matter a 31.5mm F1.4 (similar to a 35mm F1.4) on an APS-C setup. I don't doubt the lens will be top notch, I'm just suggesting the end result can be duplicated on a smaller sensor system so that diminishes some of the benefit of going to a larger sensor system. Also the 32-64mm F4.0 (24-48mm F3.0 on FF, or 16-32mm F2.0 on APS-C) I suppose any 24-70mm F2.8 would compete on FF and the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 would compete on APS-C. Same issue, no doubt its going to be a top notch but the end result can be matched by a lesser system. Don't jump on me as I'm not bashing, I'm just questioning the benefit of these 2 lenses and the medium format system over an existing lesser system.

I never said there wasn't any benefit, but with those 2 lenses the benefit is less than it could be. I know the system is brand new so more is to come but come on, give us something to drool over, not something that can be similarly matched by existing systems.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 20:15 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: Surprised to see the Macro only go 1:2. I know the sensor's bigger but 1:1 on FF is actually more sensor area than 1:2 on this format and those lenses certainly don't go north of $2,000. Are there no other medium format 1:1's out there?

1:1 is 1:1 regardless of the format size, if your sensor is 7mm across then 1:1 should give you 7mm across the frame, that same 1:1 will give you 36mm across the frame on FF and of course more with a larger format. That said the Pentax 645-A/645-FA 120mm F4.0 may actually be the only 1:1 macro lens for a medium format camera, but there may be one out there that we're forgetting.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 20:11 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: Surprised to see the Macro only go 1:2. I know the sensor's bigger but 1:1 on FF is actually more sensor area than 1:2 on this format and those lenses certainly don't go north of $2,000. Are there no other medium format 1:1's out there?

The Pentax 645-A and 645-FA 120mm F4.0 does 1:1, likely one of the few that does

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 18:52 UTC
Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »