Joseph S Wisniewski

Lives in United States Detroit, MI, United States
Works as a Speech and sensor scientist
Has a website at
Joined on Jul 12, 2002
About me:

I've been in love with photography for over 40 years.

My favorite form of photography is macro, and much of my gear is of my own design.

I've done professional photography on and off for over 20 years.
Taught 8 years at Midwest Photography Workshops.
Designed 3 scientific digital cameras and 6 lenses.

Author of mImage and (coming soon to the App Store and Google Play) ColorForEveryone.


Total: 654, showing: 361 – 380
« First‹ Previous1718192021Next ›Last »
In reply to:

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

Google koni-omega

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2012 at 16:50 UTC
In reply to:

igorschutz: Will it have an anti-aliasing filter? Hope not.

@GabrielZ why would you "suspect that it does"?

Why would Leica do something that costs more and would alter the "Leica look" that they've had on DMR, M8, M9, and S2?

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2012 at 23:12 UTC
In reply to:

igorschutz: Will it have an anti-aliasing filter? Hope not.

@Clint Dunn, you are totally wrong about that. The AA blur needed for video is about 18 microns, while 24mp cameras with AA filters use < 6 microns (4 is typical). A still camera AA does absolutely nothing, which is why companies like Mosaic Engineering make an 18 micron filter that you can slide into the mirror box of a DSLR after locking the mirror up.

Video shot with just the normal AA filter on the D800 is indistinguishable from video shot on the AA filterless D800e.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2012 at 23:11 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: In 5 years, even Hasselblad will have SONY sensors.

Fuji's own sensor operation died with the S5. It's a pity, some of their sensors were amazing.

"In 5 years, even Hasselblad will have SONY sensors."

My prediction is that, in 18 months, Hasselblad will be liquidated, and their assets bought up by Phase One, just like Leaf and Mamiya were.

If they survive, expect to see CMOSIS sensors, because Blad would be much more comfortable with an European source.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2012 at 23:03 UTC
In reply to:

alexpaynter: Does it really cost anything to leave movie mode in?

They removed it just to make the leap to the M9 justified.

Is that a second viewfinder mounted on top. Perhaps if Leica feels the centre is the best position for a viewfinder, they should put it there in the first place.

There never was a movie mode to "leave in" before. Leica used Kodak CCD sensors for DMR, M8 and M9, and those sensors don't do movies. This is their first movie mode sensor, from a new player called CMOSIS.

There is no "leap to the M9", because the M9 is discontinued. The M-E uses up the old M9 sensors.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2012 at 22:58 UTC
In reply to:

wattoinni: live view , CMOS, not leica anymore...

Liveview for macro and tele came to the M in 1935 with the PLOOT, which then became the Visoflex, and continued through five models.

This most certainly IS Leica, and continues a near 100 year tradition. The new Visoflex EVF is the best Visoflex ever.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2012 at 20:15 UTC
In reply to:

Retzius: LOL at the picture with the R-mount lens, the extra electronic finder, and grip. Its possibly BIGGER than a DSLR!

One way of looking at it, it's both smaller than an R with a Visoflex unit, and a lot more functional.

It may be bigger than say a Nikon D600 or Canon 6D, but it's smaller and lighter than D800, let alone D3. And, although you can pop gadgets onto the M to make it into a tele/macro/zooming thing, you can't pull parts off a D800 or 1DX to make an M rangefinder.

And there's nothing philosophically wrong with this. Don't forget, Leica has been turning M rangefinders into awkward SLRs with five different versions of the Visoflex for 60 years now. (nearly a century, if we count the PLOOT). I'm glad to see that name carry over onto the new EVF attachment. It's the ultimate evolution of Visioflex.

They've never stopped coming up with creative ways to turn the M into Frankenstein's camera. Ever seen their geared binocular polarizers, closeup kits with viewfinder prisms, or auxiliary rangefinders and viewfinders?

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2012 at 20:03 UTC
In reply to:

kayone: So does the inclusion of HD video intrigue or infuriate Leica fans and purists?

I don't even shoot w Leica and I think this is wholly pointless, but there will be some rich a**holes out there who will plunk down the cash for this, simply because they can.

They came full circle. A company founded on the idea of affordable cameras using movie film totally lost sight of "affordable" but regained the "movie" in total.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2012 at 19:56 UTC
In reply to:

Deleted-pending: So Sony sold billions of its new FF CMOS 24MP sensor to multiple brands, even Leica... I actually liked the colors and details coming from the 18MP CCD sensor very much, I hope that they simply removed the AA filter from the Sony CMOS 24MP sensor bu then, video will become useless too, so I guess Leica will scarify global still imagery IQ to make videos look smoother...

This one's not a Sony, it's a CMOSIS, the fellows I've been talking about for some time that essentially reduced both DALSA (now Teledyne) and Kodak's sensor division (now TrueSense) to scrap.

They're essentially the only "indie" FF (and larger) sensor provider for people who don't have enough budget to deal with Sony.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2012 at 19:48 UTC
In reply to:

BrightEyesOnFire: $4500 for a slow medium prime...LOL okay maybe like five people will buy it.

Actually, yes. The Oly 50mm f2 is one of the finest macros I've ever used, and can stand comfortably with the Cosina-Zeiss 50mm and 100mm, which are both also f2. (I bet the 100mm would have no trouble covering the 55mm diagonal of a 645D, if CZ brought out one in that mount). And don't forget the Tamron 60mm f2.0.

I also have some microscope objectives (really high performance macros) that are a lot faster than f2, like f1.1 fast.

There's a lot of technical reasons for shooting macros at f2.8, including maximum resolution when using focus stacking to increase DOF. And don't forget, f2.8 extended to 1:1 magnification is f5.6, and that's closing in on where you'll lose resolution due to diffraction on smaller sensors, although 645D should be safe.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2012 at 16:25 UTC
In reply to:

BrightEyesOnFire: $4500 for a slow medium prime...LOL okay maybe like five people will buy it.

Sorry, Andrew, but the physical sizes of the aperture is totally relevant, and it is you who are making the dumb arguments.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 13:56 UTC
In reply to:

makofoto: For a treat, you can rent one. But, beware. Once I used the H4D with a 60 meg back ... 180 meg tiffs ... everything else looked very coarse! Some of the things on these 'Blads are very primitive. LiveView is B&W with 1 second updates ... hardly Live!?

Fuji did it almost 10 years ago on a medium format CCD.

The "technical limitation" comes from using a 15 year-old application note as your reference design with zero additional R&D.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2012 at 20:53 UTC
In reply to:

mitko256: I don't get the part where you have to pay more for a camera WITHOUT AA filter. So, ok we are left to suppose that removing it means other components need to be improved.. but the way the news is written is like the AA filter grows on the camera by itself and removing it is an added value :)
(I'm a newbie owning K-5, its fine, compact and great value for money, I wonder why they didn't adopt a proximity sensor to switch the display off - even cheap new smatphones have that now, but I guess it is because of keeping the same housing - it looks like the only change is the K-5 II label)

It's about quantities. Smaller quantities mean more expensive distribution, cut the quantity in half and prices go up roughly 5%. I'm not sure what Pentax anticipates the quantities on this camera at, but obviously somewhere between 1/2 and 1/10 that of the "mainstream" version.

Nikon got surprised on D800, from what I'm seeing, the "e" version is a much higher percentage of sales than I'd have anticipated.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2012 at 13:28 UTC
In reply to:

offertonhatter: Nice lens and great focal length.
Anyone who has used a 55mm on film and APS-C (such as the Takumar 55mm range and the Mamiya 55mm) will have found it a great lens to use.

The only fly in the ointment for Zeiss is the plentyfull supply of Tak 55mm's M42 lenses out there, and with an adapter, work superbly on DSLR's. Even if most are F1.8 and F2
Still, they are producing mirrorless versions of them and on an EOS-M, MFT etc, will provide the tog a great versatile lens.

Kudos to Zeiss for bringing back this focal length back.

Because 55mm ≠ 50mm.

The fields of view aren't all that similar.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2012 at 14:02 UTC
In reply to:

Baxter Bad: Only m4/3 and NEX are open spec, right? If so, isn't it likely those are the only systems Zeiss will support?

Or that it's simply not a big enough market to interest them, much the same way that Tamron and Cosina Voigtlander both withdrew from the Pentax mount lens market.

Ocham's razor...

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2012 at 13:59 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: 55 seems like a random number for full framers.

And how is the DSLR version distinct from the existing Planar 50/1.4?

> the super-takumar/s-m-c takumar 50mm F1.4 is not a fail.

1) It's not being promoted as a FF lens.

2) 50mm is not 55mm

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2012 at 13:57 UTC
In reply to:

twoeggmedia: Don't forget Pentax!

Is the Pen tax one of those European taxes, like the VAT, that makes camera gear cost 30% more over there?

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2012 at 13:51 UTC
In reply to:

G Davidson: In case anyone is wondering (I know I was) why Zeiss don't make AF lenses for Nikon or Canon, here's the real reason-

"Due to international licences, it is not possible at the moment for companies outside Japan to offer AF lenses with EF- or F - mount. So we will concentrate on high-end manual focus lenses with those mounts within the next future.

Best regards

Carl Zeiss Lenses Team"

> Is this really true?

Of course it's not. It's the same sort of lie that Leica gave us about why there would never be a digital M, a lie so transparent that it's actually insulting. Hopefully, they'll do exactly what Leica did, can the managers involved, make what the last guys said couldn't be made, and survive.

Aside from decades of precedence that reverse engineering of interfaces for interoperability is legal (how do you think Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Foxconn, and Cosina all do it?), both Nikon's and Canon's interface patents expired some five years ago.

I do love the part about "companies outside Japan", as if the "Zeiss" lenses weren't being made inside Japan.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2012 at 13:48 UTC
In reply to:

summicronf2: Normal lens 135 format: 47mm is diagonal of FF. Some american 35mm cameras had 47mm normal lenses. Camera industry in 50's/60's was almost all German; i.e..the 35mm inventor Leica, Contax, Voightlander etc. Until the cheap Japan made cameras took over the market. A round -up to 50mm became the,"normal, what the human eye sees", lens. Rangefinder and dual lens cameras were the standard cameras. Then a great breakthrough in camera technology came upon the scene along with, SPUDNIK! "SINGLE LENS REFLEX", TA DAN TA LA!The greatest milk cow that NIKON and CANON, "have ever invested in"! Hang on to this SPUDNIK, 50'S Era GOLD MINE AS LONG AS YOU CAN,
Because of the long "flange-back" of the SLR cameras, caused by the mirror, it became necessary to make the 55mm, the normal, 135 format lens,"Normal".
Cameras are tools. When you go to the hardware store to buy a tool to do a job, ask the pro which is the best tool!


There isn't one.

But there is a connection between "back focus", the distance from the rear element of the lens to the focal plane. On a 35mm slr, that's 39mm, to allow for a 34mm mirror and 5mm of shutter mechanism. The f1.4 Planar and double Gauss designs have focal lengths about 1.5x their thicknesses. This means the shortest one that works on a 35mm SLR is 58mm. It's some 38mm thick, with 19mm of that behind the essentially coincident "nodal points", which puts the rear element 58-19=39mm, just clearing the mirror.

To make it shorter, like the 52mm lenses that Nikon, Canon, or Pentax call 50mm, they have to break the symmetry of the high performance 58mm designs, increasing aberrations and decreasing resolution. In general, pictures from a 50mm "suck less" than pictures from a 58mm, so photogoraphers were eager to dump the 58mm in favor of a 50mm.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2012 at 01:58 UTC
In reply to:

NancyP: kewl. Walk-in least that beats the equivalent in my general line of work, the walk-through model COLON, a promo gimmick for colon cancer screening.

Flashback to Patrick Stewart and "the visible rectum" on SNL many years ago.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2012 at 21:48 UTC
Total: 654, showing: 361 – 380
« First‹ Previous1718192021Next ›Last »