Biowizard

Biowizard

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 21, 2011

Comments

Total: 689, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article The Leica CL is (almost) what the TL should have been (406 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: SERIOUS TECHNICAL POINT: quote "... 18mm F2.8 pancake, ... and the ~F4 aperture (in 35mm terms) limits ..."

No, the F rating does NOT undergo some weird "crop factor" division. F2.8 is F2.8, and never F4 or F anything else. Because it's a ratio of Focal Length divided by Lens Optical Diameter, and has nothing to do with frame size.

Jus' sayin'

Brian

Boys and Girls, no flounces needed here, but the point needs making again. The "f" number is a ratio of optical diameter to focal length. a 100mm-wide (optically) lens with a 200mm focal length (f2) will allow exactly the same amount of light through as a 50mm-wide (optically) lens with a 100mm focal length (also f2). That is the whole point of quoting "f" numbers.

This is true whether you are talking about 645 Medium format, 135 "Full Frame" format, 4/3rds format or anything else. It's simply physics. And Barney, you are simply WRONG on this occasion.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 11:17 UTC
On article The Leica CL is (almost) what the TL should have been (406 comments in total)

SERIOUS TECHNICAL POINT: quote "... 18mm F2.8 pancake, ... and the ~F4 aperture (in 35mm terms) limits ..."

No, the F rating does NOT undergo some weird "crop factor" division. F2.8 is F2.8, and never F4 or F anything else. Because it's a ratio of Focal Length divided by Lens Optical Diameter, and has nothing to do with frame size.

Jus' sayin'

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2017 at 23:29 UTC as 36th comment | 22 replies

Funny thing, if you asked the average Jo in the street, to put "Full Frame", "Medium Format", "2/3" and "4/3" into order of increasing size, most would say:

Medium (say 0.5) < 2/3 (0.6667) < Full (obviously 1.0) < 4/3 (1.3333).

Of course, if you also mixed in APS-C, Foveon, 1/1.25 more, heaven only knows where they'd rank them.

Notwithstanding which, when are we going to see a true (dare I say, "Full Frame") medium format sensor - minimally 645 format (6cm x 4.5cm) or even better, Hassy-style 6x6cm?

And why don't folks quote crop factors for any sensors bigger than 135 format?

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2017 at 10:43 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

tabloid: In film days I used to use a Contax 645, (and Hasselblad) . The reason it was called a 645 was because the film size was 6x4.5.
In digital format, what is the actual size of the sensor.
Hasselblad film size was 6x6.

Yep, I consider 6x4.5cm as the "Full Frame" of Medium Format, even though Hassy was 6x6cm and of course that enormous Pentax model, based on the shape of a typical 35mm SLR, which was 6x7cm.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2017 at 10:32 UTC
On article DJI Spark Review: Small but mighty (125 comments in total)

I taught myself to pilot quads using cheap, toy drones (no GPS, no compass), before shelling out on my first "real" drone. I was torn between Mavic and Spark, and finally went for the latter because of its tiny size. The fly-more bundle, plus an extra (third) battery duly arrived, and after charging everything up, downloading apps, doing software updates, registering the drone with DJI, ... got this baby into the air.

Needless to say, compared to a toy drone, the Spark is a complete doddle to fly. The moment you panic, just let go of the controls, and it stops and hovers in place while you figure out what you are trying to do (toy drones tend to crash when you do this).

Image quality is better than I expected from that tiny camera, and video is oily-smooth despite it only being a 2-axis gimble. And with three batteries, you can get about 45 minutes of flight time, before recharging all three in parallel with the included charging dock.

For me, the Spark gets FIVE STARS. *****

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2017 at 10:27 UTC as 4th comment

Love, Kudos and Massive Hugs to these beautiful people. Maybe they will allow future Film lovers to own a NEW SLR, that takes this wonderful, if largely obsolete, image-capture medium. FWIW, I bought my (probably!) final SLR camera (Contax S2) long after Canon's DSLRs were beginning to grab attention. Still have it, and am a little sad and embarrassed to admit, have not used it for a while - but the whole reason I have not sold it on, is that, sometime, I still WILL want to put a roll or three through it. Have the scanner. And Zeiss Planar f1.4 T*, manual of course, makes fantastic images.

I wish these guys all the luck in the world, and seriously hope they make it!

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 20:41 UTC as 3rd comment

This is the re-invention of the Kodak Instamatic. A fuss-free camera, where you paid very little for the device, but then paid a fair whack per photo (it was called film and prints in those days). No dials, no LCD - just a shutter button and wind-on lever. There is, indeed, an argument for a zero-fuss, basic camera for beginners. I used mine for several years as a kid, before my parents bought me my first SLR (Zenit-E).

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 13:27 UTC as 17th comment
On article DJI Spark Review: Small but mighty (125 comments in total)

The darkened-out bit about the remote is also WRONG. You CAN connect it to your phone/tablet should you so wish, with the appropriate OTG cable.

Notwithstanding which, the DJI Spark is an AMAZING tiny drone, which takes incredibly good photos and videos.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 00:24 UTC as 23rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Biowizard: Great piece, Barney, and entirely predictable whingeing from the souls that haunt these pages. "Overpriced", "Under-spec", whatever, #yawn. I think you expressed perfectly well why you like the M10 more than any other camera at the moment, and I have to agree with you.

One person asked, given a series of photos, could you tell which ones were taken by a Leica, and which not? Of course not, but that misses the point. Look at it this way: the time is currently 14:48 - now did I read that time from the face of a Rolex, or a Casio? Answer: it doesn't matter to you, but it might to me!

Brian

Well actually my favourite wrist watch is a lesser known Swiss brand, but my whole point was - you don't need to be able to distinguish a time stamp from a decent brand versus a budget outfit, in order to enjoy a rather better piece of kit. And the same goes for Leica vs the World and photography.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 01:38 UTC
In reply to:

Athonline: I wonder how much water it hit the camera on the photos.

I have been using my (now sold) Olympus OM-D E-M1 with either the 7-14mm f/2.8 or the 12-40mm f/2.8 for seascapes and it wasn't just once or twice that a big wave hit me and my camera.
Once my girlfriend who was a sitting at cafe near the beach asked me "did you go for a swim with your camera and clothes on?" as water was dripping off me, my camera, and tripod --even my underwear was wet! I just dried the camera with a microfiber cloth, had coffee, drove home and then cleaned it problems. No problems, no signs of corrosion anywhere. I did had to clean some salt and sand from the 12-40mm.
Obviously, everytime I see a wave hitting my camera I panic a bit. However, it is a risk I decide to take.

<3 Just gotta love Olympus! :-)

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 15:32 UTC

Great piece, Barney, and entirely predictable whingeing from the souls that haunt these pages. "Overpriced", "Under-spec", whatever, #yawn. I think you expressed perfectly well why you like the M10 more than any other camera at the moment, and I have to agree with you.

One person asked, given a series of photos, could you tell which ones were taken by a Leica, and which not? Of course not, but that misses the point. Look at it this way: the time is currently 14:48 - now did I read that time from the face of a Rolex, or a Casio? Answer: it doesn't matter to you, but it might to me!

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 14:48 UTC as 13th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Biowizard: Along with using ancient Videocon tubes to measure sensor sizes, and applying crop factors to all sensors smaller than 135, but never for sensors bigger, one more thing perplexes me about the world of photography: "GREY Imports"?!!

We live in a global economy; I can by my laptop from the USA, my wine from France, my show posters from Italy. It's up to me. So why do CAMERA manufacturers, almost uniquely, try to punish those who buy a camera in one country, for use in another? What is GREY about me picking up a new camera body while on vacation in Japan and bringing it back to the UK? Why should my warranty cease to apply?

It's high time the concepts of "GREY" imports and a "GREY" market were banned.

Brian

Not quite my point - yes, if a manufacturer closes down its entire support chain for a given territory, one might be tempted to switch to another brand - but I am talking about "grey" imports in general. If I buy a Canon in the USA, why on earth should I not be covered for warranty repairs here in the UK, where Canon are still very much in business. I know of no other consumer commodity that is treated in this way.

It stinks of market protectionism and manipulation, and of the £=$ rip-off.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 12:56 UTC

Along with using ancient Videocon tubes to measure sensor sizes, and applying crop factors to all sensors smaller than 135, but never for sensors bigger, one more thing perplexes me about the world of photography: "GREY Imports"?!!

We live in a global economy; I can by my laptop from the USA, my wine from France, my show posters from Italy. It's up to me. So why do CAMERA manufacturers, almost uniquely, try to punish those who buy a camera in one country, for use in another? What is GREY about me picking up a new camera body while on vacation in Japan and bringing it back to the UK? Why should my warranty cease to apply?

It's high time the concepts of "GREY" imports and a "GREY" market were banned.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 10:58 UTC as 57th comment | 14 replies
In reply to:

kodachromeguy: It is funny ( or pathetic). Whenever an article appears about a camera with a sensor smaller than 24*36mm, the "full frame" crowd goes into overtime claiming how their bigger sensor has more dynamic range, better photons, no equivalence, ad nauseum. Then when a camera like the Hasselblad has a sensor larger than 24*36, all of a sudden, it is indistinguishable from full frame, not needed, no one in his right mind would buy it, etc.,etc. Sigh, a bit of hypocracy perhaps? Or self justifying?

Assuming we are talking about a mirrorless future, I see no reason why rectangular "frames" and a circular sensor, could not co-exist. You'd choose 4:3. 3:2, 16:9, 1:1, or whatever else you wanted from the menu or custom settings - and (how about this) ALSO choose landscape or portrait. At which point, the camera's built in accelerometer would make sure your frame remained perfectly horizontal (or vertical) now matter how much you tilted your camera. Yes, for angled shots, there would also be an "fixed" option.

In the finder, you'd only see the rectangular image in the format you'd chosen, and this is what would be rendered, in-camera, to JPG. But the RAW files would contain the entire, full circle, complete with meta-data about the shot's original aspect ratio and orientation. This way you could change your mind later, while still benefiting from the best that the entire sensor could offer.

That would be Very Nice Indeed, IMHO!

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2017 at 10:04 UTC
In reply to:

kodachromeguy: It is funny ( or pathetic). Whenever an article appears about a camera with a sensor smaller than 24*36mm, the "full frame" crowd goes into overtime claiming how their bigger sensor has more dynamic range, better photons, no equivalence, ad nauseum. Then when a camera like the Hasselblad has a sensor larger than 24*36, all of a sudden, it is indistinguishable from full frame, not needed, no one in his right mind would buy it, etc.,etc. Sigh, a bit of hypocracy perhaps? Or self justifying?

OK, let's all agree that 36x24mm has a certain "niceness" about it, in terms of being not too small and not too big. And there is, after all, all that legacy glass out there designed for it. Lovely glass, producing an image circle of just over 43mm diameter.

Now here is a thought: that image circle has an area of around 1450mm², ((43/2)^2 * pi), whereas the 36x24mm format has an area of only 864mm², using about 59% of the image. A 34.4x25.8mm rectangle would also fit that image circle, and with an aspect ratio of 4:3 (as opposed to 3:2) would be more aesthetic to some (like me). It would also use 888mm², 61% of the image circle. Even more fun, why not 30.4x30.4mm, square format? With an area of 924mm², it would use 63% of the image circle.

But for me, the PERFECT sensor would be a 43mm diameter, circular one. From a single shot, you could extract any of the above formats, both landscape and portrait. And arbitrary tilt: you'd never have a wonky horizon ever again!

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2017 at 10:11 UTC
In reply to:

kodachromeguy: It is funny ( or pathetic). Whenever an article appears about a camera with a sensor smaller than 24*36mm, the "full frame" crowd goes into overtime claiming how their bigger sensor has more dynamic range, better photons, no equivalence, ad nauseum. Then when a camera like the Hasselblad has a sensor larger than 24*36, all of a sudden, it is indistinguishable from full frame, not needed, no one in his right mind would buy it, etc.,etc. Sigh, a bit of hypocracy perhaps? Or self justifying?

Roland, the SAD bit is that, for whatever reason, Photography has always (not just recently) been draped in jargon and obscure references to bygone technologies. Why on earth do we still describe phone camera sensors in terms of Videocon tubes? It all has the feel of a "club" whereby newbies have to pass the initiation tests of conversion factors and other claptrap before they are allowed to speak, let alone take a photo.

Perhaps the time has come to describe cameras on an absolute sensor size basis - yes, even using so-called "full frame" (24x36mm) as "1.0" on the scale, with a suffix (3/2) for the aspect ration, and then to STOP measuring lens' focal lengths in mm, but instead as a comparative ratio to the format's diagonal. So a 42mm(ish) lens for 135 "full frame" would simply be called, "1.0", as would a 25mm (or so) lens for 4/3rds format. No more crop factors: 1.0 = "standard", 0.5 = "wide angle", 2.0 = "portrait", 4.0 = "telephoto", etc.

All RELATIVE to the diagonal.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 23:26 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Reading the comments here, I am amazed at JUST how anti-DJI so many folks are. Why? Because you are jealous that your Canikons can't fly? Or that your GoPro has a lousy fish-eye lens and very laggy iOS software?

I am proud and happy to use whichever combination of Olympus, GoPro, DJI, Contax and more for my work, choosing the best tool for any given occasion. I would have added Canon AND Nikon to that, had some b'stard not stolen them from me!

Brian

AlanG - TOTAL agreement on the remote (and by implication, the wireless technologies and protocols). I would have bought my Spark earlier, had the remote been available at the start. So I asked my dealer whether I could simply by an (existing) Mavic remote to use with my potential Spark. "NO" came the answer, so I waited until the fly-more combo was available.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 23:15 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Reading the comments here, I am amazed at JUST how anti-DJI so many folks are. Why? Because you are jealous that your Canikons can't fly? Or that your GoPro has a lousy fish-eye lens and very laggy iOS software?

I am proud and happy to use whichever combination of Olympus, GoPro, DJI, Contax and more for my work, choosing the best tool for any given occasion. I would have added Canon AND Nikon to that, had some b'stard not stolen them from me!

Brian

AlanG, I agree to some extent. Yes, with DJI, it does seem that every new consumer drone model is incompatible with the last. But then again, with such different form factors, are we surprised? The Spark is so small, there is NO way it could take (for example) a Phantom battery pack or an Inspire 4/3rds camera! And the Mavic is a wonderful piece of kit, but due to its foldable nature, again needs a different form factor to the battery and camera modules that might be fine on a Phantom.

Nikon is no different: lenses you buy for the Nikon 1 J5 won't fit on the D3: they are different beasts altogether, and that's fine.

Back in film days it was no different: Pentax had an SLR for 110 mini-Instamatic film, alongside their 42mm screw fit, and later bayonet fit 35mm SLRS, and then yet another system built around their enormous 6x7cm roll film cameras.

In short, buy into whichever range you like (DJI or Nikon), but don't expect cross-platform continuity.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 02:20 UTC
In reply to:

kodachromeguy: It is funny ( or pathetic). Whenever an article appears about a camera with a sensor smaller than 24*36mm, the "full frame" crowd goes into overtime claiming how their bigger sensor has more dynamic range, better photons, no equivalence, ad nauseum. Then when a camera like the Hasselblad has a sensor larger than 24*36, all of a sudden, it is indistinguishable from full frame, not needed, no one in his right mind would buy it, etc.,etc. Sigh, a bit of hypocracy perhaps? Or self justifying?

dongle, thanks for the agreement, but I am not excluding "system" cameras. Simply pointing out that as film effectively "died" about 15 years ago, for NEARLY ALL USERS, the legacy formats are of little if any relevance to the same, "nearly all users". In truth, seriously, just what percentage of current digital camera owners, EVER attach one of their old film-era lenses to their precious new bodies? Perhaps 5%? Maybe more on this forum, but I mean the REAL population, not photo-buffs!

I have 4 gorgeous prime Zuiko lenses in pristine condition, part of my OM-1 system I originally started buying, all brand new, in 1976. But I have NEVER bothered getting an OM to 4/3 (or micro 4/3) adapter, because for my new cameras, the latest Olympus lenses offer more.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 02:04 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Olympus makes good cameras and lenses. I haven’t used the M43 system, but still have the 4/3 EM1; which in its day was a terrific camera, and still a lot of fun to use. I did have the film-era OM1 and OM4ti, which were both ground-breaking and class-leading professional cameras.

The commenters who like to disparage the M43 have a point, in that by adopting the small sensor Olympus finally left the stage as a major player for professional photographers; leaving the field clear for the full-frame Canons and Nikons.

Photographers with any genuine experience that pre-dates digital photography will recognise the photographic heritage in current Olympus products. Pixel-peeking nerds have no idea what a beautifully balanced camera feels like, or why genuine photographers will always buy an Olympus product blind. These lenses (equivalence? nerds!) will produce superb images because they’re made by a proper camera manufacturer, rather than a gadget-maker; they are made for photographers.

pdelux, agreed. Part of the reason I don't like Sony cameras, is that my early ones (Mavicas) used SUCH aggressive sharpening and compression, that the only way I could get a usable image was to add a 1-pixel Gaussian blur, then halve the size of the picture from 1024x768 to 512x384 pixels! Olympus is the extreme opposite, where even their out-of-camera JPGs are amazingly usable when you can't be bothered with RAW development.

Brian

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 14:48 UTC
Total: 689, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »