Joined on Nov 1, 2011


Total: 74, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

The Jigokudani hot spar pools comatose the macaques. Anyone can take a picture like no.3.
When I was there a decade ago the macaques came down from the hills to be feed in the early morning by a guy who worked at the lodge I was staying at which is situated right by the pools.
If I had run into Alain Mafart I would of thrown his gear into the spar...

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2016 at 23:47 UTC as 18th comment | 3 replies
On article LensRentals tests the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 FL ED (122 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Silver Nemesis: And now, for something completely different: the price tag of the (soon to be launched) Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM L III - mark my words, it will be something around 3300$.
It will be the sharpest 70-200 f/2.8 ever produced, but at what price...

Probably $2999. The price of Japanese made optics does not fall in the same way electronics do. The Canon was a hefty $2499 when introduced in 2010

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 13:12 UTC
On article LensRentals tests the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 FL ED (122 comments in total)
In reply to:

noflashplease: Nikon's unreasonably high pricing undermines this lens, especially after the disappointment of the extreme vignetting of the first generation VR and the extreme focus breathing of the VR II. After losing the professional market to Canon, Nikon needed to produce a 70-200mm F2.8 lens with exceptional optics and outstanding value Nikon missed the mark on both counts. I've seen accounts of unexpectedly heavy vignetting at 200mm, and quite frankly, this sort of pricing is absolutely insane. Granted, high prices like these are good for the business model of a lens rental house, which is exactly why I take these reviews with a grain of salt. Roger Cicala needs to generate enthusiasm for this lens to maximize rentals, and since he'll need to resell his inventory, he needs to maintain used values as well. That's why you don't see LensRentals pushing less expensive lenses that are more reasonable to buy outright than rent.

The launch price of the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II was $2499 in 2010 which equates to $2770 inflation adjusted. noflashplease's post about pricing is insane.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 13:04 UTC
On article LensRentals tests the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 FL ED (122 comments in total)

Er...not really. The launch price of the VRII was $2400 in 2009. Run that through the inflation calculator and that is $2700.
The better specification of a large fluorite glass element would easily account for that extra $100 !

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 12:04 UTC as 8th comment

so, any tests online yet ?

Is the lens made in Japan ?

Is it a compensator shift focus design like the VRII ?

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2016 at 10:34 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

spbStan: The complaints about pricing would get more sympathy from me if there were not excellent alternative with good performance and build quality for casual or hobby use. There are more great choices than ever at all price points.
The ne 70-200 is no more expensive than prior models relative to the buying power of the currency. I am still using my 70-200VR1 and still love it, and do not plan to upgrade because this old workhorse has paid for itself many times over and still does what I need it to. If I did not have one, I would weight the price performance performance ratio of the various offering and be glad there are so many options that are very good. Comparing to the relative costs of housing, health insurance and other items that go up a great deal more each year, the higher price of the E model becomes understandable. Lens last a long time and retain more of their resale value than bodies, and are more important to the results, yet people upgrade cameras every 18 months.

You are wrong, it is the same price. The launch price of the VRII was $2400 in 2009. Using the US inflation calculator that is $2700.30
The street price will of course be less soon after launch.
Why should the lens be the same price anyway ? All sorts of factors change over time including exchange rates and Japanese inflation levels etc.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2016 at 08:53 UTC
In reply to:

nebulla: but why is Nikon remaking most of their lenses? Is this a marketing hype by adding fluorine and then charging premium prices? and Nikon is not the only one. The whole photography industry has gone completely wild with high prices . My 70-200mm VR1 is still a very sharp, and completely useful lens so I really do not care, but I am very much put off by these steep prices , and if by chance this has to do with video, this makes even better for me as I do not do video.

At launch in 2009 the list price of the VRII was $2400 USD. Plug that figure into the Government inflation calculator and you get $2700.03. There is no price increase. The large and expensive fluorite crystal element means the lens is less expensive in real terms !

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2016 at 22:34 UTC
In reply to:

Scoobaru: Any comment on focus breathing for the 70-200mm ?

I wonder if it is another design using focusing by compensator shift rather than by moving focusing elements ?
By reading this article fluppeteer will be able to confirm the VRIII has some focusing breathing.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2016 at 22:22 UTC

The article seems to imply Nittoh made the Hasselblad X-Pan/ Fuji TX-1 cameras and not just their lenses ?
Nittoh is an optical company involved in things like satellite imagery. I certainly found the old TX-1 lenses to be superb. The quality control level seemed at a higher level than the subsequent Canon and Nikon lenses I've owned which often seem to have basic centering and tilt alignment issues.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2016 at 00:56 UTC as 5th comment
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tiefenunschärfe: If I could afford it, I would buy it.

Wild Light: Hasselblad introduced focal plane shutters in 1948
The 2000 series in 1977 which predates the Contax 645 by many years.
All these focal plane Hasselblads had shutter shake in comparison to the totally smooth and reliable mechanical leaf shutter Zeiss lenses.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 12:40 UTC
In reply to:

lacikuss: I don't understand this move from Fuji unless they want to lead the MF market. Obviously they can't lead in the MFT, APSC and FF so they choose to focus on MF. Let's see how that pans out.

Well, most of the time they have had a selection of MF cameras available in the market. The G690 came out in 1968

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 11:04 UTC

Good aesthetics here:

The Fuji seems more technical, optional swiveling VF and tilt screen.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 10:52 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

Steve Photographer: This is the first (digital) medium format camera that I am seriously considering purchasing when it becomes available. Very pleased that Fuji is developing this and hope that the more "affordable"* MF segment expands with even more manufacturers coming on board. Like the fact that Fuji has already published its intentions with respect to lens development. Personally, in the coming years I would like to see a 150mm f/4 or 200mm f/4.

*Appreciate that this is a very relative term, but I'm comparing with Hasselblad and Phase One.

The Hasselblad with 50Mp back but no lens is $35,000

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 10:24 UTC
In reply to:

FD: What about Tilt and Shift lenses for studio and architecture work ?
I'm very happy with my 17/24/90 TS-E lenses from Canon but there is no such set for other brands and certainly not in the medium format.
It doesn't make sense to use f32 on a 100MP camera to get a product sharp in the studio from front to back.
Same in architecture; why waste those pixels to correct perspective in software.

They make one. The 120 TS

Schneider also used to make the 55 PCS tilt-shift lens for 6x6

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 19:28 UTC
In reply to:

iudex: Maybe it´s too early to judge just by this pictures but it seems to me the camera is pretty big (thick) for a mirrorless. I am sure it will be much smaller than SLR like the Pentax 645Z (not that sure about Leica S), but Hsselblad showed how a mirrorless camera should look like (or how thin it can be) despite having MF sensor.
And the price surprised me too (in a negative way): well under 10000 USD can be 9000 USD. I was hoping for "under 5000 USD", given the Hasse is 9000 USD.

The Pentax is large compared to mirrorless. See

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 11:50 UTC

Presumably, that bulge on the back is so the tilting screen can clear the EVF ?

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 11:46 UTC as 134th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

King of Song: I agree that it doesn't look as good as the new Hasselblad X1D, but it may very well be the superior camera?

For me personally, I care far more about the images my camera gives me, rather than the image my camera gives me. I'd rather show off my photography, than show off my camera.

The Hasselblad is really small

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 11:34 UTC
In reply to:

Wild Light: LOL. No frills for $45K inc. back, body and one lens - With this current aggressive march of technology and pricing from other brands I see Phase One lasting another 5 years at the most.

Shouldn't you have said 'typical of the UK industry right now', what percentage of Phase One sales are in the UK ?
According to Leica the MF market is circa 6000 cameras a year Worldwide.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 11:10 UTC
In reply to:

noflashplease: Not a big surprise after that Hasselblad. Much like the X-Pan, which as produced by Fujifilm, and also sold under the Fuji name, there's nothing mysterious about this Fujifilm medium format body. I welcome competition in the tiny MF segment and I'm infinitely more likely to buy a Fujifilm body, made by Fujifilm, than something from a Private Equity Firm that just happens to own an old-line name. So long Hasselblad.

Interestingly, the old Hasselblad X-pan lenses (Fuji Tx-1), which were excellent, were made by this company not Fujifilm

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

great Javier: What can you do with MF that you can't do with FF?

Have 8256 x 6192 pixels with larger photosites and cleaner images than miniature formats.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 20:07 UTC
Total: 74, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »