AndrewG NY

Lives in United States Chappaqua, NY, United States
Joined on Aug 29, 2006

Comments

Total: 95, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

perry rhodan: Nissin i40 anyone? It's a superb flash. Small and powerfull. 4xAA wireless and all work perfectly, on ALL platforms inclusing Fuji. For 179 a piece it is a no brainer. They even work great on multiplatform by using slave settings and if needed FEC.
It's good the Metz is here also as it is always nice to have choices.

Nissin does not support ALL platforms, they excluded Pentax...while the new Metz M400 does.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2016 at 01:08 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Canon EOS D30 (132 comments in total)
In reply to:

rfsIII: For heaven's sake, put a contemporary lens on it in the lab and add the new results to the database! It will be fascinating to compare it to current cameras for color accuracy and beauteousness.

Would be nice to compare with newer but you can see some samples here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canond30/

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 01:00 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Canon EOS D30 (132 comments in total)
In reply to:

Toselli: Are you sure the d30 could go up to iso 1600 and get good results? I remember that on my first dslr, a pentax k-7 in 2010, to have good results I had to limit to iso 1600 too, and it was more or less the same for my friends with nikon d300 and canon 50d and 7d. Maybe coming from the taste of color film there was less sensibility to grainy pictures?

Toselli, having owned and used Pentax *ist DS2, followed by K10D, K20D, K-7, and K-5ii, I can say that the older models were still pretty usable at ISO 1600 provided you have a bit more tolerance for 'grain' or luminance noise. Where they especially suffered though was if the file was underexposed. I still look back and am surprised at how good some of my Pentax K10D ISO 1600 images were -- but generally these were well exposed and didn't have too much dark shadow areas because these would likely have suffered a lot of color noise.

The 6mp *ist DS2 had a pretty much unusable ISO 3200, the K10D had a CCD that stopped at 1600 (but it was a bit better than *ist DS2's 1600), the Samsung 14mp-sensored K20D and K-7 offered actually usable 3200 (+ in-a-pinch 6400, probably better than the 3200 on the 6mp bodies), and I'd say all the later models (K-5, etc.) with the 16+ mp Sony sensors have actually usable 6400.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 00:53 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Canon EOS D30 (132 comments in total)
In reply to:

bobbarber: OFF TOPIC--

Can somebody clear up a point of confusion for me?

I shot film for years (my first camera was a Polaroid I got in the mid-1970s), and then switched to digital like the article describes.

Here's my question: In the years when digital cameras "didn't exist," how was live T.V. produced? Obviously it wasn't film. What was the technology?

...I imagine as computers became more powerful we started encoding the initial analog capture (both for audio and video, and maybe not even in real-time) into a digital ones & zeros format where it could be modified and then probably 'played back' for broadcast or re-recorded to tape.

Something else to consider is that resolution required for standard-definition TV is quite low so the sensors and processing power required were probably available much sooner. In addition, a TV station would be a friendlier environment for an emerging technology such as this because it would be more tolerant than Joe Consumer of higher prices & power consumption, bulkier sizes, complicated workflows, etc.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 00:38 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Canon EOS D30 (132 comments in total)
In reply to:

bobbarber: OFF TOPIC--

Can somebody clear up a point of confusion for me?

I shot film for years (my first camera was a Polaroid I got in the mid-1970s), and then switched to digital like the article describes.

Here's my question: In the years when digital cameras "didn't exist," how was live T.V. produced? Obviously it wasn't film. What was the technology?

I don't actually *know* the answer to this but I suspect that may have been more analog in nature -- for many of the earlier years it would probably not have ever been encoded and stored as ones & zeros anywhere, there was probably an analog storage scheme on tape. I am assuming this is similar to audio tape, whether reel-to-reel, eight-track, or cassette. Also similar is videotape such as VHS. I believe even laserdisc may have been closer to this tech than one might suppose considering the more modern-looking media. Playback would essentially be translating the precorded analog data back to a display, loudspeakers, etc...but this would not be done by translating the data into a binary encoded format....

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 00:38 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (654 comments in total)
In reply to:

sneakyracer: 4/3 sensor is dated imho. They date back to when larger sensors were really expensive. Enthusiasts demand better performance nowadays at the $1000+ pricepoint. All TV/Monitors today are 16:9 as well so the 4/3 format is a bit awkward except for more traditional applications like print (magazines). In very small form factors the 4/3" format is nice but on larger cameras it makes little sense except maybe for the smaller lenses and increased affordability (if any). That does not mean that the OM-D cameras are bad cameras. On the contrary they are excellent just that there are better options for most folks available today.

4:3 aspect ratio historically popular for medium format as well: 645 is also 4:3. The even squarer 6x7 as well as truly square 6x6 were also popular. I think there is some residual snobbery for wider aspect ratios from early digital days when compacts generally had 4:3 but non 4/3 DSLR had 3:2.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2016 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

eric greaux: Big surprise how sharp this GX85 is in comparison with larger sensor cameras. And this is coming from an owner of a Fuji XE2 and Nikon D7200. I think the only advantage APS-C and larger sensor cameras have is high iso/low performance in low light. I try to never go over 1600 but this camera seems pretty solid through 6400. With the advent of all of these f.95/f1.2 lenses and Speedboosters, the approach for low-light shooting with M43 is to have a fast lens instead of using high ISOs. I like that method much better. I use the remote app for selfie video which is not as convenient as a flippy screen but it works. The camera provides excellent video (I've rigged my own flat profile), and I plan to use with my old film lenses and Speedbooster to provide some nice bokeh in my photos & videos. Quick note: The camera is very responsive with no lag when using the menus or even during 4K photo selection. The screen is nicely visible in sunlight. Metering/WB=excellent. Focusing is superb!

Agree that the MFT solution viability is impressive. Most lenses are very good wide open, and the extra DoF is often valuable. To me one drawback is that nearly all the lenses that are fast enough to offset the sensor differences are primes. It's not like you have a lot of f/2 short zooms, f/2.8 medium telephoto zooms or f/4 longer zooms. So coming from a APS-C or FF perspective, not only do you lose 1 or 2 stops of sensor performance, the lens availability trends toward slower zooms (f/5.6 at the long end) for the most part. The speed booster solution seems a bit niche -- rather pricey, and seems more practical for someone who already owns the (Canon EF, etc.) glass.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2016 at 01:59 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (1002 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeDPR: That 16MP sensor spec should not be used for this camera. Tallest photo is 3088 pixels tall (from 4:3) and widest photo is 4480 pixels wide (from 16:9). That makes it only 4480*3088=13.8M pixels for the largest rectangle area that encompasses all aspect ratios options. I think it's fine to say it has 13.8M sensor even though not all of them is used for a given aspect ratio. But to say it has a 16MP sensor is quite misleading.

The area of the sensor used is still larger than competing 1" and might actually be cheaper for Panasonic rather than purchasing someone else's 1" sensor. It's probably also cheaper to use an off-the-shelf sensor rather than making a new sensor slightly smaller than 4/3. Covering more pixels would require a larger lens with a smaller effective aperture.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2015 at 20:00 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review (1002 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joe Spade: I own this little camera, and it is amazing. Two things that Panasonic must improve: Better EVF (the one it has is useful at best in sunlight, but not good at all). Second, better resolution. How about GX8 20MP sensor?

The LX100 is *much* smaller (http://camerasize.com/compare/#629,569), and has a much faster zoom at a considerably cheaper price (if you factor in a fast m4/3 zoom). I think these cameras are different enough.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2015 at 19:53 UTC

Metz seems to be sneaky with this unit -- quoting GN 26 at 85mm when most units are quoted at wider angles...and it's bounce angle is limited; when body is at 90°, emitter will be firing at angle. Even though it's older and not as cool looking, I think the Metz 24 AF-1 might be a more compelling unit, at least it truly bounces 0-90°.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2015 at 07:43 UTC as 7th comment
On article Canon announces 16-35mm F4L and 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 lenses (368 comments in total)

Very nice aggressive price on the new 10-18, this seems to be the first entry-level UWA zoom from any manufacturer, very travel-friendly. There were a few relatively compact examples for film, but rare. The closest I can think of for a camera OEM was the Pentax FA-J 18-35/4-5.6, plus third-party like 'Plastic Fantastic' Tokina 19-35.

Photogs shooting other-than-Canon should be jealous that this exists, even if it ends up being not quite as good as the lenses that cost 2-4 times as much. Most UWA zooms are prohibitively large and expensive for many photographers.

This is probably how Pentax should have priced their (good and tiny but pricey) Q 08 3.8-5.9 f/3.7-4 UWA zoom.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2014 at 17:16 UTC as 1st comment
On article Ricoh launches Pentax Q-mount ultra-wide-angle zoom (57 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Bravo, yes, for design achievement.
Sometimes engineers do thing simply because they love challenges, not because people really need them.
Not a single Q user ever posted a desire for a slow zoom lens for the Q. Faster wide prime lens was always users' preference, so many times confirmed around here. And for a good reason — more versatile use in all light conditions and more usable f-stops before the tiny sensor hits the diffraction limit. 01 prime lens for the Q was so good that people were eager to see more such lenses.

You're right, but I feel that Pentax/Ricoh should have done both. I think lenses like this, the fisheye, and the 06 are part of the unique selling proposition for the Q system -- no other compacts (particularly with fixed lenses) offer stuff like these (ultra-wide zoom, f/2.8 tele zoom, fisheye).

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2013 at 16:15 UTC
On article Ricoh launches Pentax Q-mount ultra-wide-angle zoom (57 comments in total)
In reply to:

Duckie: Hood is separate. Pentax would rather squeeze you more for an extra piece of plastic than include it and let you have a properly taken photo.

Pentax had always been pretty good about bundling hoods with SLR lenses. They're getting cheap with the Q lenses, following the lame practices of competitors that charge way too much for the hoods as separate accessories -- if you can even find them.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2013 at 16:12 UTC
On article Ricoh launches Pentax Q-mount ultra-wide-angle zoom (57 comments in total)
In reply to:

ebo seagrave: Sorry if this is a dumb question, but does anyone know if this lens will fit on the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera? It has a MFT mount and a rather large crop factor of 2.88x...this lens could be a nice wide solution. thx

Even if it covered your sensor, I doubt there's any adapter which would allow focusing or aperture control.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2013 at 16:11 UTC
On article Pentax Q7 Review (238 comments in total)
In reply to:

micahmedia: If there were no GX7, this might have been interesting. The only way I'd lean back towards this is if they'd seen fit to build in an EVF.

Since they don't even offer one as an option (on any mirrorless camera they make in fact), it's a dead horse that they appear to continue beating.

The GX7 is very cool but much larger and more expensive. I agree that Pentax's reluctance to embrace the EVF (even as an option) is unfortunate. I find myself hoping that Pentax will release a slightly upscaled Q-body with built-in (retractable?) EVF and enough room for another button or two. Should also increase the LCD resolution to at least 920K. Not sure about tilt LCD (a feature Pentax has also been reluctant to include in most of their models) but an argument could be made for that as well.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 16:20 UTC
On article Pentax Q7 Review (238 comments in total)

In a sense, Pentax has done themselves and Q-system shooters a disservice by not coming up with a better standard zoom -- the 02 is not terrible but it's not that small and its specs compare somewhat poorly against those built into advanced compacts (including their own MX-1). This said, much smaller wouldn't be very useable with manual zoom and focus rings -- so if the lens has to be as large as this, I would have liked at least to get a little more speed and range.

I do think Pentax deserves a bit more credit for this though -- having manual zoom and a proper manual focus ring (a pretty decent focus-by-wire) is pretty nice compared to most advanced compacts.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 16:15 UTC as 13th comment
On article Pentax Q7 Review (238 comments in total)

I think the reviewer has done potential Q-system shooters a disservice by not putting more emphasis on the 03 Fisheye and 06 tele zoom, as these better differentiate the system -- no advanced compact has a f/2.8 telezoom or fisheye available, and these lenses for larger interchangeable systems are considerably larger/heavier and/or more expensive.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 16:12 UTC as 14th comment
On article Pentax Q7 Review (238 comments in total)

"The Q7's helpful auto magnification function (available when manual focusing the 01 and 02 Standard lenses) is not available with these toy lenses. "

Not sure if reviewer is aware that magnification is still available when manually focusing by simply clicking the 'OK' button. The only thing that doesn't work is that camera doesn't detect that you're trying to use the manual focus ring.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 16:08 UTC as 15th comment
On article Pentax Q7 Review (238 comments in total)
In reply to:

RichRMA: They killed its uniqueness (ultra small sensor is now just small, so no more LONNGGG telephoto effect) and they cheaped-out on the body, replacing magnesium alloy with plastic. Bad move, Pentax.

The new sensor is just slightly bigger. There's still a large 'conversion factor' for ultra-tele with adapted lenses. There are still no alternatives that combine 1/1.7" sensor with interchangeable lenses.

I have also been a little concerned about the build materials change but those who have handled both have reported that the Q10 and Q7 still feel quite robust.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 15:43 UTC
On article Connected cameras of the future: Crossover solutions (25 comments in total)

Zoom & flash are probably the biggest differentiators between smartphones & dedicated cameras, but the Samsung with zoom seems to compromise the phone too much -- how many want a point & shoot-class camera in their phone badly enough to sway them away from a proper, more elegant, compact smartphone? This said, the idea of directly addressing the most glaring shortcomings of smartphone cameras is fairly sound.

The Sony is probably the only of the other ideas that is somewhat interesting, though it doesn't appear to have a decent flash. I also wonder how laggy the phone's display will be.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 22:55 UTC as 6th comment
Total: 95, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »