Henning W

Lives in Canada Vancouver, Canada
Works as a Architect/Photographer
Joined on Dec 13, 2003
About me:

Own/use Leica M, Canon EOS, Nikon MF, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Noblex, Roundshot,
Camboo, Sinar and some others. Lots of lenses.

Comments

Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Sony a9 shooting experience: Here's why I'm impressed (709 comments in total)
In reply to:

sandy b: The Nikon D5 buffer vs the Sony buffer. The D5 can shoot 200 jpgs and clear the buffer in one second. Or 180 14 bit raw and clear the buffer in 5 seconds. At 12 FPS, full AF

That horrible blackout time? .13 seconds. Barely a flicker. the blink of your eye, in contrast, is .333 seconds.

And an incredible AF where the subject can actually leave the frame and stay in focus when it comes back in.

And it can do it in a monsoon or after driving nails.

And NEF (RAW): 12 or 14 bit, lossless compressed, compressed, or uncompressed, L/M/S; RAW+JPEG; TIFF.

The Sony looks cool, and sooner or later Nikon will introduce some or all of its features. But it has ways to go where it can compete with D5 multi media monster.

The D5 does some things better, the A9 other things better. Multi-media? not really the D5's forte.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 03:35 UTC
In reply to:

steviewa: Too small and too light

Right. Whatever for did we get rid of lead-acid batteries? Peter Gowland had the right concept with his 8x10 twin reflex.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 02:53 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (391 comments in total)

I got an Agfa 6x9 folder on my 8th birthday in 1953. Guess exposure, guess focus. The latter was a bit difficult with a 105mm (probably) focal length. Prints were contacts from Verichrome Pan, a very forgiving film. My dad had a couple of Robots at the time with 3 lenses, and my grandfather also photographed quite a bit. During this time he got a couple of Braun Paxettes also with 3 lenses. Then, when I was 15 I was graduated to a Yashica 44LM, a 127 format twin lens with built in light meter. All the conveniences, and now all I needed was a decent film budget and access to my dad's enlarger. In grade 11 I inherited a couple of Leicas and I've carried a camera with me everywhere ever since.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 22:56 UTC as 63rd comment
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)

If I were shooting sports professionally, I would go with an optical viewfinder on a DSLR. That still has advantages. For the few jobs I still do (construction, architecture) the Sony A7RII is much more useful with its EVF, and the system I use mostly for 'SLR type' shooting, the Olympus OM-D system now has a model that is as quick as anything and way faster than most, including reducing viewfinder lag. But the system I enjoy the most is the Leica M with a fantastic optical finder unlike anything else. So I like both.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 19:36 UTC as 256th comment
In reply to:

Paul Amyes: I'd like to see a reliable auto- focus system for video. 4K isn't worth a thing if you can't focus. I'd also like to see m4/3 actually improve image quality, better dynamic range 14bit lossless RAW. There has been no significant improvement since the EM5 came out.

I have no interest in 60fps or 18fps with AF. I want a well speccified camera with PDAF, reliable AF for stills and video and good video for about the price of the EM1 mki. The mkii is double the price here and gives me nothing in terms of video, or image quality.

I don't know about the autofocus performance of the Panasonic GH5, but in general the video performance of that camera is top of class for a video/stills camera. So if you want a more strongly video focussed camera that does decently with stills, look there. Or if you want to save money and are satisfied with somewhat less video capability, get a G85. On the other hand, if you want a more strongly stills focussed camera, especially in the area of responsiveness and overall speed, with decent video performance, the EM-1 MkII is for you and there is nothing else like it.

I have different cameras for different purposes. My Sony A7rII yields impressive low noise, high resolution, high DR files with the right (mostly quite large) lenses. But it's a real slug in comparison to the Olympus, and cost a lot more. They are not interchangeable. Sometimes I take both cameras, but mostly just one or the other because I have a specific use in mind.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2017 at 18:23 UTC
On article Have Your Say: Best Zoom Lens of 2016 (75 comments in total)
In reply to:

grasscatcher: My vote is for Pana-Leica 100-400 zoom.

Mine as well. An outstandingly good, compact lens with amazing reach and first rate stabilization.

Many of the lenses above aren't even available yet, so what's the point of the list?

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 06:05 UTC
In reply to:

marike6: These are such beautiful cameras they could cover them in wall paper and astro turf and they'd sell.

Those models will come out in the next year or two.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 19:49 UTC
In reply to:

Michael J Davis: In my days of using Leicas - from the IIIc to the M3 - I took pride in knowing that each was a 'special edition' checked and tested by hand. "Special Editions" were made to give away, to people like Queen Elizabeth (in 1958) and other world leaders and influential people.
Financially they have been struggling for many years (and through changes of ownership) I just hope they get their wagon back on track.

Actually, Leica is one of the very few interchangeable lens camera companies (or camera divisions) to make a profit consistently over the last number of years.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 19:46 UTC
In reply to:

OhWeh: Big feet on a tripod are obviously nonsense. If you are in the nature, the optimum are three spikes. If you are in the at home studio, three normal feet are fine., if the tripod feet don't wobble.

But wait! The tripod on the right side of the image is nobad joke? 5 pullouts? NOW I understand, why you need the big feet, they should have suction cups.

Get serious Gitzo!

Yeah, spikes are the answer in nature, especially on soft ground, where they start sinking and never stop. Spikes are great on rough rock, but nature isn't that consistent.

Also, if you're shooting on a slope often one or two legs have to be a lot longer than the other, so having extra height is sometimes essential, but you don't necessarily want to carry a collapsed tripod that is 4 feet or more long. 5 sections can be the answer.

I don't believe you have experience in using tripods nor have you thought this through.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 19:53 UTC
In reply to:

PanoMax: I still have the Gitzo Tele -Studex that I used with my 8x10 view camera that I bought back in 1974

I still have 3 aluminum Gitzos from the late 60's and early 70's including a Geant (up to 11' high) for using LF cameras in urban settings to shoot over cars, among other things. I'm not sure that it would suffer more than a car would if it tried to drive over it.

I now also have 3 carbon fibre Gitzos that are much better for carrying, plus size for size, never mind weight, they are a lot better at damping vibrations. Good to see Gitzo continuing to update their line.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 19:46 UTC
In reply to:

Peter Cockerell: For the 65mm "macro", where are they measuring the minimum focus distance from? If it's the focal plane, as is usual, then the magnification will be 0.43 (1:2.3), far short of a true 1:1 macro. That's actually the best case. If they're measuring it from, say an effective lens plane about halfway through the lens, the magnification will be around close to 0.31 (1:3.2). To be a true macro lens, the minimum focal distance would need to be 0.26m or less (4x the focal length). I always thought that if a lens mentioned "macro" in its name, then it's a true macro lens.

Magnification is 1:2 in the mount as shown. Whether or not it is a 'macro' lens depends rather more on optical correction and intent than actual basic magnification, but 1:2 has always generally been accepted as 'macro'.

As it has a rather complex formula, it almost certainly has floating elements for closeup correction, so is almost certain to change its focal length to some degree as it is focussed closer. Magnification calculations based on closest focussing distance or lens extension thus become pointless.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 19:32 UTC
In reply to:

wakaba: Full frame iq is maxed out. Die pricings coming down. FF Dlsr pricing is down. Next step is going MF for makers. Big sensors rule since APS and FF Are too similar.

@Azimuth46: the 'crop factor' is just 1.26, not 1.7. The area advantage is a little under 1.7. The advantage of the Fuji sensor over 24x36 is quite small, as the Fuji sensor is at the lower sized end of what is now termed 'medium format'. Therefore the DOF 'advantage', or 'disadvantage' depending on your aims, is barely noticeable.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 20:52 UTC
On article New kid on the block: YI M1 review (710 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bhima78: This camera just needed a tilting screen and it would have been absolutely perfect for what it is.

Its sort of comical that the best IQ from an m43's camera is coming from one that costs $300. Clearly, Panasonic choosing to not use the 20MP sensor in their GX85 or G80 has absolutely ZERO to do with cost, and everything to do with making sure they don't kill sales of the GX8. Its a very Canon-like move and I don't like it.

Bhima78: you've had time to analyze the image quality from the Yi already then../.?

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 20:13 UTC
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (469 comments in total)
In reply to:

mgblack74: How did we get to the point of mixing fractions with decimals? 1 over 2.3? 1 over 1.7? How is that possible? It's like saying 1.3 miles. Its either 1.3 kilometres or 1 1/3 miles. Imperial is idiotic (don't get me started on Fahrenheit). Saying a sensor is 1/1.7 means what? It's 0.7" larger than 1? Or rather it's 7/10ths larger than an inch? It's bizarre that we have 1" or less measured in fractions of an inch. We even have view cameras measure in inches; 4x5, 8x10. But APS-C, full frame ("35mm format. Millimetre), crop frame medium format (44x33) and full frame medium format (60x45) are measured in millimetres. We have standard hotshoes. Standard film/sensor sensitivity. Standard focal length nomenclature. But come sensor size..... it's all over the map. mm is just more accurate too. Anyway. :-)

Sensor sizes and their descriptions are all based on historical antecedents, with no consistency. 'FF' has come to mean the 24x36mm frame size as developed by Leica in the 1920's from 35mm wide double sprocket movie stock, APS-C comes from the misguided attempt to increase photofinishing profits 25 years ago and most smaller sizes are described by the outside dimension of the glass tube holding the analog video sensor of the video camera of 40 years ago, therefrom we get the stupid mixed decimal/fraction nomenclature.

Describing everything in metric dimensions makes sense, but would break with historic naming conventions, and it's hard to disrupt conventions.

Link | Posted on Feb 29, 2016 at 22:13 UTC
In reply to:

belle100: FF 10mm for rectilinear UWA lens must be quite difficult to be designed well despite with aperture of F5.6. I wonder what the quality would be.

The Voiglander 10mm lens is about as wide as you can go with a rectilinear optical lens, just as f/0.6 is about as fast as you can go. It's quite an achievement. Any wider rectilinear projection image has to be computer created at this time, by stitching or de-fishing.

For the most part, fisheye lenses are lenses that at the limits of their image circle have 100% distortion and are of equidistant projection. This convention was established for 35mm photography by Nikon, whose first fisheye was the 7.5mm f/8 lens. Various other ones followed, including the 8mm f/2.8 (also 180 degrees) and the 6mm f/5.6 and f/2.8 lenses covering 220 degrees, and the 10mm f5.6, which was an orthographic projection lens.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2015 at 03:40 UTC
On article Best Camera of 2012: And the Winner is... (1413 comments in total)

I was a rather reluctant convert to m43, but now it's become my main travel and casual photo system. The OM-D is definitely the class of the genre for still photography, and I'm delighted with mine. Whether it's the best camera of 2012 is debatable, but this is a unscientific poll, and the results are not unreasonable.

I have two other digital systems, as well as a number of recent fixed lens cameras, and while no camera does everything, the OM-D does really a lot well. My FF SLR stuff is reserved for those things that truly need it, and my other system is Leica, which lives in it's own world, and is not likely to be displaced any time soon. I've printed up to 22x30 from the OM-D, and some of those prints replaced Mamiya and Hasselblad 645 film images. The technical quality was comparable. Should I aim higher with my casual and even some of my professional work?

My FF DSLR is used for system capability not available with the OM-D, not for technical quality.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2013 at 05:57 UTC as 242nd comment
In reply to:

Nublover: Leica is not good at digital (same as Germany cars). A Sony FF Nex plus Leica lenses will be my dream. Cheers! Anyone agree with this pls reply. Thx.

Leica is not better (or worse) than any other quite small company with respect to digital. They have to buy the components or make alliances. Remember, they are a tiny percentage the size of Canon or even Nikon.

German cars, as Japanese cars, have had some issues with electronics and especially UI's. On the other hand, the BMW S1000RR has electronics (that work very well, thank you) that has left the Japanese bikes manufacturers scrambling.

NEX cameras have many good points, but ergonomics are questionable. Let's see if Sony can stick with something long enough, and listen to users well enough to develop something that really doesn't get in the way of photography.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2012 at 20:57 UTC
In reply to:

nathanleebush: This company sure has chutzpah. Repackaging an ancient camera (replete with 230k screen) as a new one with a premium price while keeping a straight face takes some balls.

Cheaper price. Seems reasonable, although I don't know why the M9 isn't just kept in the program at the new price. A new exterior is hardly needed to let everyone know you didn't and don't want to spring for the premium model.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2012 at 20:49 UTC
In reply to:

shahid11235: This is the ugliest camera I've ever seen.

But part of the ugliness of the Koni-Omega was what made it work so well.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2012 at 18:14 UTC
In reply to:

Raist3d: Very very interesting. So Sony is doing a crop on the sensor to give 49mm and 70 mm focal lengths. I predicted years ago the moment would come when camera with high pixel count could instead of having an optical zoom provide something like that. I wonder what the megapixel count is at 49mm… 17 megapixels? That's still pretty high (maybe more like 16? still very good).

I can only hope they allow that in RAW.

12Mp at 49mm and 6Mp at 70mm, just from the math. But then at 70mm you have the equivalent of a micro 4/3 6Mp camera, but the high ISO performance would beat that of a 16Mp m43 camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 05:55 UTC
Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »