ddd - rrr

Joined on Sep 9, 2013

Comments

Total: 16, showing: 1 – 16
On article Samyang teases 'summer blockbuster' lens announcements (124 comments in total)
In reply to:

ddd - rrr: Not to be TOO much of a "wet blanket" here, but Samyang has a problem that, at least to this point, has not been resolved in my experience. While their lenses are often both brilliant in design and also relatively very inexpensive compared with other brands, their manufacturing inconsistency is notorious. I now avoid Samyang (and their rebranded versions, such as Rokinon, etc.) unless a lens is desirable enough for me to go through several samples to find a good one (as many as six of them with one lens I bought, and three with another - and with the latter, I "settled" for an imperfect one that served well enough for its intended purpose). I tried two samples of a third lens before giving up on it (the first sample was terrible, the second was good except in the lower right corner, but both had unacceptable levels of CA, so I gave up on trying to find a better sample of that lens). More is here in my MFT-Lenses reviews:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm
--DR

To "fatdeeman": Unfortunately, lens sample variation is a "fact of life", regardless of brand or price - although with a "ton" of Nikkors I've checked on film (see: http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/slemn.html ), there was far less variation than I've encountered with Samyang lenses on MFT. In the above, I didn't have the space to add the one (terrible!) sample I also tried of the 8mm f3.5 Samyang. Among many Panasonic MFT lenses, I've found a bit of generally mild sample variation, but nothing like what I've found with Samyang lenses. Still, some of the Samyang lenses, with good samples, are really excellent - and, given the prices, they can be worth the trouble of sample-checking to get "the good ones"...
--DR

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2016 at 20:39 UTC
On article Samyang teases 'summer blockbuster' lens announcements (124 comments in total)

Not to be TOO much of a "wet blanket" here, but Samyang has a problem that, at least to this point, has not been resolved in my experience. While their lenses are often both brilliant in design and also relatively very inexpensive compared with other brands, their manufacturing inconsistency is notorious. I now avoid Samyang (and their rebranded versions, such as Rokinon, etc.) unless a lens is desirable enough for me to go through several samples to find a good one (as many as six of them with one lens I bought, and three with another - and with the latter, I "settled" for an imperfect one that served well enough for its intended purpose). I tried two samples of a third lens before giving up on it (the first sample was terrible, the second was good except in the lower right corner, but both had unacceptable levels of CA, so I gave up on trying to find a better sample of that lens). More is here in my MFT-Lenses reviews:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm
--DR

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2016 at 12:08 UTC as 26th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

ddd - rrr: Hey, I've got a 1,200mm-equivalent lens that is a bit slower at f5.6, but it includes zooming, AF, and stabilization - and it's hand-holdable (in good light), weighs only 1.25 pounds, is only about seven inches long, and it costs under $600! Image quality is decent, too!
More on it is here:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm#O
--DR 8^)

Um, do note the the general "tone" of my post, and the "8^)" at the end... But, seriously, the Panasonic body plus (a good sample of) the 100-300mm Panasonic zoom does in fact offer a decent-quality hand-holdable 1.200mm-equivalent option (in good light, with digital-2X, used at 300mm), and I do use it often that way - and with good results!
--DR

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:03 UTC
In reply to:

cgarrard: 70lbs... okay ....Yeah but it weighs nothing in space!

Yeah but it would still have mass...!;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 12:38 UTC

Hey, I've got a 1,200mm-equivalent lens that is a bit slower at f5.6, but it includes zooming, AF, and stabilization - and it's hand-holdable (in good light), weighs only 1.25 pounds, is only about seven inches long, and it costs under $600! Image quality is decent, too!
More on it is here:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm#O
--DR 8^)

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 03:30 UTC as 12th comment | 3 replies
On article Looking Sharp: A focus stacking tutorial (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

ddd - rrr: [I tried to write about this here earlier, but my "piece" was too long to post with DPReviews' limited character allowance...] I have a "cobbled" tilting *zoom* lens that is excellent - and it was "dirt" cheap! Required for its use, though, is a good MFT mirrorless camera with a good electronic eye-level VF with focus peaking - but with that it is also practical to use hand-held. More on this (including more on lens-tilting) is here:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm#28-70mmN
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm#U

--DR

This looks excellent, but "pricey"...;-) For WA lenses on MFT, "f8.5" gives great DOF without tilting, and the cheap Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f2.8 works well (with a good sample!!!) for this on a cheap shift adapter:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm#D
As for the tilting adapter with the Nikkor 28-70mm f3.5-4.5, that lens has no CA or sharpness issues with JPGs on MFT (with a good sample!), and the lens is well under $100-US used, in fine condition... (I prefer "cheap-and-good" to "expensive-and-good" when possible...!;-).
As for the 10mm Samyang, I was tempted to try it for shifting, but its limited coverage and somewhat high CA discouraged this for me.
Thanks for the information and URL - the photos there are also excellent!
--DR

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 12:33 UTC
On article Looking Sharp: A focus stacking tutorial (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

stevevelvia50: First,a great and well explained article, thanks for the tips. I must say though, that I believe diffraction is hugely overrated. Using well thought out sharpening techniques with apertures of f16..f18....f20, I get absolutely sharp, prints,of 20 x30 and more! Mirror lock up is far more important up to 125th sec. and I use it for every landscape image on a tripod. For this image I may do two exposures at f18 and brush in the background or forground and ot takes just a couple of minutes. Choosing and testing for the "best" aperature, each to their own.

I agree with this, and while most good lenses peak in performance over most of the frame around f8 regardless of lens speed, it may take a smaller stop to achieve optimum corner performance and also the desired DOF (including with a tilting lens). With MFT, I most often use f10 with short FL lenses, but I generally stay at f14 or wider with longer FLs (unless I'm using an achromat on the lens for macro work - and then I often go to f20 with good results). Also, with mirrorless cameras and with using their electronic shutters, there is no issue with camera shake with either tripod use or hand-holding.
--DR

Link | Posted on May 31, 2016 at 11:22 UTC
On article Looking Sharp: A focus stacking tutorial (223 comments in total)

[I tried to write about this here earlier, but my "piece" was too long to post with DPReviews' limited character allowance...] I have a "cobbled" tilting *zoom* lens that is excellent - and it was "dirt" cheap! Required for its use, though, is a good MFT mirrorless camera with a good electronic eye-level VF with focus peaking - but with that it is also practical to use hand-held. More on this (including more on lens-tilting) is here:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm#28-70mmN
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm#U

--DR

Link | Posted on May 31, 2016 at 11:04 UTC as 22nd comment | 5 replies
On article Looking Sharp: A focus stacking tutorial (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ramjager: And the problem with using a tilt shift lens is?
The serious photography companies all make them why not just learn to use one of those they have benefits that far outweigh simply infinite depth of field..

[I tried to write about this here earlier, but my "piece" was too long to post with DPReviews' limited character allowance...] I have a "cobbled" tilting *zoom* lens that is excellent - and it was "dirt" cheap! Required for its use, though, is a good MFT mirrorless camera with a good electronic eye-level VF with focus peaking - but with that it is also practical to use hand-held. More on this (including more on lens-tilting) is here:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm#28-70mmN
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm#U

--DR

Link | Posted on May 31, 2016 at 11:02 UTC
On article Great Eight: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 review (549 comments in total)
In reply to:

berni29: Hi

It is a great camera for sure, but having experienced SS on an EM5, and rolling shutter effects on a GM5, there is no way I am going to buy a GX8 and potentially suffer both.

You can see rolling shutter on straight lines even with quite slow movement. It s sad fact.

Having shot about 165,000 frames, mostly hand-held, with several Panasonic bodies in the last three and a half years (several G5s, a G6, a G7, and a GH4), always using the electronic shutters (except when shooting with flash, and when hand-holding VERY long FL lenses when shooting distant buildings), I have very rarely encountered a problem with rolling shutter distortion. I have enjoyed the absence of noise and shake from the shutter (and the [missing] mirror!;-) - and even with hand-holding absurdly long FL lenses (such as 1,200mm-equivalent), there have been few problems. Many examples are here, with the longer lenses near the end...:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm
--David Ruether

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 04:02 UTC
On article Adapted Lens Talk: Readers' Showcase and new forum! (201 comments in total)
In reply to:

DF58: Thinking about mechanical adaptors (i.e. for legacy lenses where electronics etc. are not relevant) Such mounts are not much more than tubes with the required mounts at either end.

Effectively looking for quality of mounts and correct infinity focusing (i.e. right depth of tube)

So why such a huge range of prices? Do you actually get what you pay for?

1) The metal from which they are made. Is aluminium cheaper than brass? If so do you pay extra for brass. If the fit is good, I would have thought that brass is best. But if the fit is poor a brass adaptor could damage the lens or camera - which is less likely with aluminium - where the adaptor is more likely to be damaged.

2) Is European or N American or Japanese manufacture so very much more expensive than China etc.? Is the price worth it or can China make to the required tolerances?

3) If you have to start compounding adaptors how much greater are the mechanical problems - are they sufficiently great to give optical problems?

Only some are simple adapters. The rest use the space between the mounts to add more functions: a "preset" diaphragm ring for opening/closing the diaphragm of a lens with an aperture ring; an aperture ring for adapted lenses without one; a lens shifting (PC) mechanism; a lens tilting mechanism for increasing DOF at a given aperture and focus distance under some conditions; a macro-focusing tube to extend the available focus range of the adapted lens; and, optics to offer "lens-speed booster"/FL-reduction functions. These vary in price from under $15US to around $700US, with little in the price indicating the level of the construction quality. As for correct infinity focus, I've found it better to have the adapters permit focus slightly beyond infinity to better accommodate lenses with inherent inaccurate infinity focus, those that vary a bit in infinity focus with zooming, and those that change infinity focus with temperature (and all of these are more common than you might expect!).

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 14:53 UTC
On article Adapted Lens Talk: Readers' Showcase and new forum! (201 comments in total)

I've been using lenses adapted to Panasonic MFT bodies for a bit over three years now. Adapted lenses have included the Voigtlander 12mm f5.6, Rokinon 14mm f2.8 on a PC (shift) adapter, Nikkor 16mm f3.5 fisheye, Nikkor 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 on a tilt-adapter, Tamron 28-135mm f4-4.5, reversed Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon 50mm f2.8, Nikkor 50mm f1.8E, Nikkor 100mm f2.8E, Nikkor 400mm f5.6 ED non-IF, Nikkor 500mm f8 mirror, plus others that were not as successful. To see samples and brief reviews of these (and others), go here:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm
Surprising to me was finding that all of the above worked well on MFT with JPGs, but NONE did on a recently-purchased Sony a6000 body (and I returned the camera)!
--DR

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 22:36 UTC as 7th comment
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Review (483 comments in total)

I've shot over 5,000 photos with the Panasonic G7 since it arrived, and I LIKE THIS CAMERA! Here's why:

- EVERYTHING on this camera is adjustable/customizable, so I can work out how I want to assign buttons, wheel operations, etc. for the way I like to use the camera. I change the white-balance presets to be what I want and then I change the settings for both the EVF and the rear screen to show me what I'm getting. I set up each photo mode using its adjustment controls for a specific purpose.

- I can use the electronic shutters at all times (except for flash photos), with no sound and no shake from the shutter.

- Carrying and using this small and light MFT gear is just plain FUN!

- I can work on the resulting images in Gimp to get results that print SHARPLY and well for tonality, color, and smoothness to 16.5"x22"+ image area.

What more could anyone want? BTW, brief MFT lens reviews (with some surprise lenses!) are at:
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/MFT-Lenses.htm

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2015 at 13:24 UTC as 83rd comment | 1 reply
On article Rare Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM goes on sale in UK (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

Albert Silver: I have one of these. Awesome lens for street photography.

Aw, a 1200mm f5.6 thet AFs ain't nuttin'...!;-) How about a 1200mm-equivalent f5.6 that not only AFs, but also includes a stabilizer, weighs only a little more than one pound, is less than 5" long, takes 67mm front glass filters, costs less than $600, AND can be successfully *hand-held* (in good light...;-)! Samples are here:
http://donferrario.com/ruether/MFT-Lenses.htm#O
It is the Panasonic 100-300mm f4-5.6, using in-body digital 2X, and, with some settings in the camera and some work on the images in post, quite decent 1920x1440 images can be had from this lens. But wait! There's more...!;-) How about an inexpensive 2,000mm equivalent f16?!;-) Tripod required (there is no stabilizer, and it's slow (and it requires MUCH work in post), but it is fairly compact and results can be "decent"...;-) Samples are here:
http://donferrario.com/ruether/MFT-Lenses.htm#P
The main MFT-lenses review article is here:
http://donferrario.com/ruether/MFT-Lenses.htm
--David Ruether

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2014 at 01:53 UTC
On article Mount St. Helens images found decades later (28 comments in total)

I don't often remember where I was on a particular day, but I do know about where I was on May 18, 1980. I was hiking not far from Mount St. Helens on a miserable day and on a miserable “trail”. When we finally reached the destination lake with ice floating in it, I shed my clothes (as most others did in the group), and went into the freezing water to wash off the mud and to wash the scratches from the thorns. We heard, felt, and saw nothing unusual on the hike. On the return trip, the only thing unusual was seeing no traffic on the 4-lane highway we were on while returning to Seattle. At dinner in Seattle, the waitress told us about what had happened! She felt the explosion when it happened, which surprised us, given our location that was much nearer to it when it occurred. Surprising to me while watching the incredible video images of what had happened (and was continuing to happen) on local TV, was the almost non-existent coverage on the national TV networks until days later!
--DR

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2014 at 16:14 UTC as 14th comment

This story was particularly interesting to me as an Asperger (that syndrome is a high-functioning sub-set of autism). It never occurred to me that my "voracious" picture-taking (now up to about 30,000 photos per year), and the photos I tend to take (whatever I see around me, generally not of people, often of nature, and often "quirky") may be related to my Asperger syndrome. I have been lucky, and have had many museum shows and I could also teach photography for several years - and I was also able to make a small living with photography. It was good to see this article on someone far worse off than I who could also use photography for communication.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 13:28 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies
Total: 16, showing: 1 – 16