deep7

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Works as a writer/photographer/ecologist
Has a website at deeppics.com
Joined on May 10, 2008
About me:

God makes it, I see it and photograph it. Sometimes that works well!

Comments

Total: 706, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: A 1000mm F4.0 telescope costs about $650 and weighs about 25 pounds. This lens has a lot of cool history but no way it will be worth the price it finally sells for.

No. The buyer on the day sets what he/she think the value is. If that highest bidder agrees to sell at a later date for significantly less, then the "worth" of the lens on the subsequent day is less. The worth of such an item is by no means set in stone, and especially not by armchair experts who likely know almost nothing about it (an assumption it is reasonable to make about the first poster!).

To know the real value of this sort of item requires a lot more information! If it is optically excellent and usable on a current camera body, one should expect a very high value as the options are severely limited.

If, however, it is, optically, no better than adapting a cheap telescope, well....

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 05:43 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: A 1000mm F4.0 telescope costs about $650 and weighs about 25 pounds. This lens has a lot of cool history but no way it will be worth the price it finally sells for.

What size is the image circle of your tiny telescope?? You're not comparing like with like.

The thing about an auction is that the sale defines the worth of the item. It will be worth exactly what it sells for.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 18:41 UTC
On article Raw capture coming to iPhone in iOS 10? (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

DFPanno: For those with existing phones I reccomend PureShot. It will generate a "dRAW" file.
"The term “developed RAW”—dRAW—is used to describe a TIFF image that has had no in-app post-processing applied and, critically, no JPEG compression at any stage."

http://jag.gr/pureshot/

That seems likely. I went outside and took an equivalent photo, both with the built in software and with 645 Pro. The latter image has very different processing applied - it still "looks" normal but there is far less smearing/noise reduction and the file is flatter and better to work with.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 02:14 UTC
On article Raw capture coming to iPhone in iOS 10? (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

DFPanno: For those with existing phones I reccomend PureShot. It will generate a "dRAW" file.
"The term “developed RAW”—dRAW—is used to describe a TIFF image that has had no in-app post-processing applied and, critically, no JPEG compression at any stage."

http://jag.gr/pureshot/

I have 645 Pro, which does just that. It has quite a nice, if slightly complex, interface and the output on my old iPhone 4S was very good. I just tried it on my new 6S and it looks even better! Not that I tend to use my iPhone for "fussy" photography but it's nice to have the option.

Surely these programmes are already accessing the RAW data on the phone? These TIFFs are clearly not re-processed jpg files.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 20:56 UTC
On article Apple Photos gets smarter in iOS 10, macOS 'Sierra' (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

El Chubasco: Glad to see the improvements for Apple Photos. Contrary to what many have said Apple is taking its application very seriously and it has become a real tool for photographers and photo enthusiasts like me. I left Aperture about a year ago and switched to LR. I never enjoyed Adobe's interface and was not really enjoying my workflow at all. I switched to Apple Photos recently as it has become much more robust with plugins and editing capabilities. The interface is really intuitive and so simple that I can see how many will be using this great piece of software.

That's bizarre. I have never had that problem! Years ago, I set the equivalent preference in iPhoto and it must have carried over. I just looked around my computer. In Aperture (which I have but don't actually use...) it also has a preference for "When a camera is connected, open no application". I can't see a similar option in Photos. That's amazing!

If you are lucky enough to still have iPhoto or Aperture on your computer, you can set that preference in them and you'll find Photos won't open without you wanting it to.

I just don't use Photos. I've played with it and realised it wasn't any good as a RAW converter and fell way behind even iPhoto for my simple jpg shooting (iPhone, etc.). I'm glad it doesn't open itself!

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 20:39 UTC

A preview of what Earth will look like if people carry on with our current levels of indulgence...

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2016 at 20:50 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Xentinus: Panasonic FZ1000 is almost as good as old Canon 7D at high ISO values.I know 7D is not famous with its high ISO capabilities,but 1600 ISO photos were not that bad.
So while more megapixel and with a smaller sensor is that good,I don't know why they just don't make a 12 mp 1 inch sensor camera with a decent image quality.Even 8mp would be enough for me (considering 4K video).

That's half right. It was the Canon XC10. But also half wrong. Image samples I have hear are excellent, despite the limitations of being jpg files. And video quality is broadcast standard - it does exactly what it's supposed to do.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2016 at 21:17 UTC
In reply to:

Xentinus: Panasonic FZ1000 is almost as good as old Canon 7D at high ISO values.I know 7D is not famous with its high ISO capabilities,but 1600 ISO photos were not that bad.
So while more megapixel and with a smaller sensor is that good,I don't know why they just don't make a 12 mp 1 inch sensor camera with a decent image quality.Even 8mp would be enough for me (considering 4K video).

Canon have a 12Mp 1" sensor - if they stuck that in a G3X type body with built in viewfinder, I'd be in like a shot!

I think....

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2016 at 05:42 UTC
On article Waterfails: We test Pentax K-1's Pixel Shift (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

Smitty1: One way to use this would be to take the PixShift image then another regular shot. Blend in photoshop. At least then you get the detail in the non-moving portions of the scene.

This is the obvious approach and one that has been discussed in relation to the Olympus system. It might be a tad time-consuming but any big print benefits from some detailed work!

Link | Posted on May 31, 2016 at 19:46 UTC
In reply to:

Vitruvius: Interesting that Sony isn't even considered. Typical. I have used Canon and Nikon for sports. My Sony A77ii with Minolta 80-200mm f2.8 HS and a 2X teleconverter is much better than both these cameras. The Sony has IS built into the body, 12FPS with RAW and full time phase detect AF linked to real time object tracking. It also has adjustable front and back focus limiters. And the high speed shaft drive AF is much faster than any Canon or Nikon lens. All this with an old lens.
And of course everyone is going to spam me now with all the Canon an Nikon propaganda defending their investment. I love(d) Canon but they stopped innovating many years ago and now I have to use what works best and that is my Sony. I know there is very little chance that DPreview will ever take Sony seriously either. Oh well.

A99.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2016 at 10:53 UTC
On article 2016 Roundups: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (114 comments in total)
In reply to:

jimmy.walsh: It's impressive that Sigma offers a range of cameras with a wide range of focal lengths. I wish other manufacturers would do this with their large-sensor compacts. It would be great to see a few options with 50mm-equivalent lenses.

What on earth is this rubbish about a 50mm/1.8 not being sharp? These fixed lens, single focal length cameras can have a lens perfectly tuned to the sensor, with no compromises necessary to allow for lens removal. It should be easier to make a standard focal length (the 40-50 "equivalent" range) than a wider angle lens. If Sony can make a great 35mm and Leica a great 28mm, a (say) 45mm should be easy. I once had a Leica Minilux with a lens close to that and it was super-sharp.

Clearly, market research says to make the lens on these cameras fairly wide (possibly because you can still crop if need be). However, I wouldn't be alone in saying that's not for me. Surely there'd be room in the market for a more normal focal length?

Link | Posted on May 28, 2016 at 06:59 UTC
On article 2016 Roundups: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (114 comments in total)
In reply to:

jimmy.walsh: It's impressive that Sigma offers a range of cameras with a wide range of focal lengths. I wish other manufacturers would do this with their large-sensor compacts. It would be great to see a few options with 50mm-equivalent lenses.

And yet you are still wrong.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2016 at 21:23 UTC
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (485 comments in total)

Great test, thanks. It would be very interesting to extend the test to an object that was much closer. That's because a lot of people use a very long lens for wildlife, not landscapes, and some lenses do a terrible job at long distance but work better closer in, especially budget telezooms. Two that I have experience with, that do this, are the Canon 55-250 and the m4/3 Olympus 75-300.

Go on, stick a stuffed toy on a chair on the back lawn and go for it! Ta.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 19:38 UTC as 134th comment
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

ChrisKramer1: I don't think it "destroys" the competition at all. Look at it! It is a Bismarck of a camera. With a price to match. The killer feature of the G3x is VERY good image quality at 600m and a compact form. After owning the Sony RX10 for little under a year, I sold it mainly because of its bulk. That and the fact that the f2.8 was little more than a marketing gimmick. I had to stop down to f4 to get decent results.

This is a very informative test and, no doubt, the Sony does extremely well in it. Well done Sony. Yet .... I'm still seriously considering the Canon, not the Sony, simply because the point of a camera like this is to have something really flexible to carry around when I don't want the bulk of my main camera. The Sony effectively retains that bulk!

On the other hand, the Canon has no viewfinder...

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 19:32 UTC
On article 2016 Roundups: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (114 comments in total)

Hmm, looking through the sample images, those Sigmas sure look good in this company. I must try to find one!

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 01:44 UTC as 26th comment | 2 replies
On article 2016 Roundups: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (114 comments in total)
In reply to:

jimmy.walsh: It's impressive that Sigma offers a range of cameras with a wide range of focal lengths. I wish other manufacturers would do this with their large-sensor compacts. It would be great to see a few options with 50mm-equivalent lenses.

Yup, I would seriously (very seriously) consider buying a fixed lens camera with a more normal field of view. All those wide lenses just don't do it for me. And, no, I don't want to crop all my photos.

The Sigmas look interesting, brilliant concept to have a series, but I've never seen one in the flesh. Do they actually exist? (Just kidding..)

Link | Posted on May 25, 2016 at 22:15 UTC
In reply to:

Vitruvius: Interesting that Sony isn't even considered. Typical. I have used Canon and Nikon for sports. My Sony A77ii with Minolta 80-200mm f2.8 HS and a 2X teleconverter is much better than both these cameras. The Sony has IS built into the body, 12FPS with RAW and full time phase detect AF linked to real time object tracking. It also has adjustable front and back focus limiters. And the high speed shaft drive AF is much faster than any Canon or Nikon lens. All this with an old lens.
And of course everyone is going to spam me now with all the Canon an Nikon propaganda defending their investment. I love(d) Canon but they stopped innovating many years ago and now I have to use what works best and that is my Sony. I know there is very little chance that DPreview will ever take Sony seriously either. Oh well.

It's easy to mock but it is true that the Sony SLT cameras separate focus and image capture in a way that the autofocus doesn't stop when you take the picture (the mirror doesn't have to come up). That gives the on-board computer more time and, in theory at least, should give an advantage. Likewise, with no flapping mirror, high frame rates have to be physically easier. I've used an A99 but not the other cameras so can't comment on the effectiveness of these systems in practice but Sony have a sound foundation if they want to go that way.

On the other hand, I've used those screw drive lenses, even that same Minolta. Compared to more modern lenses, they are dead slow to focus...

Link | Posted on May 25, 2016 at 20:07 UTC
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: 14 fps sounds nice until you read the laundry list of restrictions required to get that speed, including battery type, battery charge percentage, ISO selection, AF modes, lens choices, and a variety of other camera settings.

Yup, "DualSystemGuy", time to give up. Especially if you are going to twist my words to make it seem I said what I, in fact, didn't say (or maybe you just didn't actually read what I wrote?). The Canon is faster, end of story.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2016 at 04:09 UTC
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: 14 fps sounds nice until you read the laundry list of restrictions required to get that speed, including battery type, battery charge percentage, ISO selection, AF modes, lens choices, and a variety of other camera settings.

Maybe you are very young then. I've seen plenty of tests to verify frame rate, even on this site.

Note that NO camera with a high frame rate can shoot that frame rate under all conditions without restriction. For example, if there is a mirror to flap it takes a fixed amount of time, restricting the time available for lower shutter speeds. That's physics. Likewise, it takes time to focus between frames, so that will be a strong limit with certain lenses and is why frame rates can be higher if focus is fixed at the first frame.

As for your assumption - that's all it is, a rather pointless (and unnecessarily negative) assumption. And who cares anyway? The article states what it does, the camera IS capable of an even higher frame rate. End of story.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 20:25 UTC
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: 14 fps sounds nice until you read the laundry list of restrictions required to get that speed, including battery type, battery charge percentage, ISO selection, AF modes, lens choices, and a variety of other camera settings.

The text stated that 14 fps was used a lot, which I believe so I don't have to point to any sequence of images to indulge anyone.

Further, I note that MORE than 14 fps is also possible in certain cases! It's quite clear that this speed thing is done better by the Canon.

On the other hand, the auto-focus advantage shown by the Nikon may vanish when the full range of settings is exploited (see an early comment on this page). So that one isn't as clear yet.

(I currently own neither Canon nor Nikon but have had both, so no bias here.)

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 09:56 UTC
Total: 706, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »