ttnewton

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Feb 6, 2006

Comments

Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
On article Photo prodigy: The images of 17-year-old Taylor Gray (161 comments in total)

Also, check out the 17-year old Nicholas Lee. He hasn't been posting lately on G+, but some of his earlier work is there. He's got an obvious love for nature, a great eye, and has utterly mastered digital processing. Here's his G+ link:
https://www.google.com/+NicholasLeeLandscapePhotography

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2015 at 18:58 UTC as 29th comment
On article Canon announces 16-35mm F4L and 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 lenses (365 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttnewton: Forget the IS for wide angle lenses, if it costs a stop or more. I just don't get that. In handheld low-light scenarios involving moving subjects (wedding, photojournalism) if the moving subjects are blurry, it hardly matters if the still background is nice and sharp. Might be worse, actually. The loss of a stop requires doubling the shutter time, all else equal, so low-light moving-subject situations are going to suffer with this lens.

But what if the subject is not moving? I can definitely see a place for handheld landscape/travel enthusiasts who want the best possible optical performance without having to lug a tripod. But still, why spend big bucks on the finest optics and then compromise your landscapes by leaving the tripod home?

What Canon REALLY needs to get around to is a good competitor to Nikon's amazing 14-24mm f/2.8. Now THAT is a lens I'd buy, IS or not!! :-)

DR_Jon: That makes sense. I can see the IS being useful for video.

oselimg: Haha!! "Nikon ad". You pegged me wrong! :-) I'm a Canon shooter, 3x over. Probably will never buy a Nikon again, having been burned as a teenager, spending my box-boy earnings on their worthless 43-86 mm zoom. But would seriously consider adding to my glass if Canon would do something like the 14-28/2.8. Flash is OK for some wedding/photojournalism, but I usually prefer natural light. f/4.0 is a stop darker than f/2.8.

BarnET - What bugs me is the loss of the stop vs the f/2.8 version.

AbrasiveReducer: Don't mind the soft corners so much in wedding/photojournalism. Do appreciate the better reduction of subject motion. But for landscape I use a tripod, so IS doesn't benefit me. But, right, the 14-24 is a TANK. My shoulders thank me for not being a Nikon guy.

rrccad: Haha!! The f/4 lenses are definitely lighter/smaller. Bonus! Still, a stop is a stop.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2014 at 22:22 UTC
On article Canon announces 16-35mm F4L and 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 lenses (365 comments in total)

Forget the IS for wide angle lenses, if it costs a stop or more. I just don't get that. In handheld low-light scenarios involving moving subjects (wedding, photojournalism) if the moving subjects are blurry, it hardly matters if the still background is nice and sharp. Might be worse, actually. The loss of a stop requires doubling the shutter time, all else equal, so low-light moving-subject situations are going to suffer with this lens.

But what if the subject is not moving? I can definitely see a place for handheld landscape/travel enthusiasts who want the best possible optical performance without having to lug a tripod. But still, why spend big bucks on the finest optics and then compromise your landscapes by leaving the tripod home?

What Canon REALLY needs to get around to is a good competitor to Nikon's amazing 14-24mm f/2.8. Now THAT is a lens I'd buy, IS or not!! :-)

Link | Posted on May 13, 2014 at 19:19 UTC as 39th comment | 9 replies

Typo - The stated scoring is backwards: Rather, if 1=completely agree and 7=completely disagree as indicated, then <40 are maximizers, and >65 are satisficers.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2013 at 23:11 UTC as 87th comment | 1 reply

>>> "...pixels of white + red, white - red, white + blue, and white - blue are obtained and, using the arithmetic processing technique, are translated into normal color images without any loss of resolution."

I wonder if no resolution is lost only providing the pixels are ~1/4 the area as for the conventional filter approach, because the final light entering a pixel actually derives from that pixel plus its adjacent pixels. For the same size pixels, it seems that sharing the light between pixels should result in a loss of resolution.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2013 at 19:58 UTC as 21st comment
On article Canon EOS 5D Mark III studio samples published (284 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lu Heng: this is funny how many people are concern about pixels, high ISO etc., making a war between canon, nikon, sony.. name it. as if it is a substitute of actual photography. as if the one and only available light is a candlelight and they "desperately must" print huge billboards from every shot they take.
supposed to be that way?
boring.

I regularly shoot my daughter's soccer games at a poorly lit full-size indoor field w/ my 5d2. I use the 100-400 f/4-5.6 for reach and flexibility. Higher than 6400 even web-size views are really bad, so I keep it at 6400. But then I have to lower the shutter to 1/125 to even approach a decent exposure, so I get lots of subject motion blur. For me, the promised two-stop noise improvement was enough to put a 5d3 on order. The apparent actual 1/2 stop improvement is giving me second thoughts. Frankly, I could really use MUCH more than a two stop improvement. If I could just get two more stops, I could approach decent 4x6 or 5x7 prints from that venue. Until then, I'm stuck with web only, or else very grainy/blurry prints.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2012 at 23:35 UTC
In reply to:

aluxious: Reading through the comments, I don't notice any current 24-70 owner planning to upgrade to the mark II. I wonder how this lens will sell when it gets released...

Another current 24-70 owner here. The new lens has a 9-blade instead of 8-blade diaphragm, for smoother OOF areas, purportedly. But it appears to be compact at wide-angle, whereas the Mk1 extended. So the Mk1 lens hood better ameliorates flare and loss of contrast across the entire zoom range. So one IQ point up, one down. It's lighter & smaller, but hardly.

I find IS effects distracting when photographing moving subjects. Without a panning mode, the IS causes the image to be blurred in a 'jumpy' way instead of a smooth way, but still blurred. With a panning mode, you only get half the IS you paid for, on the other hand. They need a smarter IS that still fully stabilizes while panning. Yeah, I know, that would be really tough to design/build. But THAT would be worth the price of their new 24-70!

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2012 at 23:27 UTC
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7