Tan68

Tan68

Lives in United States Western Slope, CO, United States
Joined on Oct 5, 2008

Comments

Total: 910, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Lensmate: If people cover their hands up, won't they just switch to retinal scanning? Eyes are usually the sharpest section in most photographs of people. [excluding nudity]

Easy enough to fix whether iris or retina
Just enable some third cousin version of red-eye removal
That should muddy things up enough

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 00:14 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: It's actually a victory sign. Hence the "V" shape. As used by Winston Churchill.

Well, in US making the victory sign and showing nails means another thing. Though both have to do with things that should best be done by adults.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 00:13 UTC
In reply to:

VirtualMirage: The bigger question is, why does she have three hands?!? ;-)

She has monkey's paw talisman

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 00:11 UTC
In reply to:

DavidNJ100: And if it had a bigger sensor with on sensor phase detection this would all be very interesting. With its best glass in is barely sharper than a kit lens APS-C camera.

I don't think he is knocking the m4/3 lenses.

He says a bigger sensor would make things interesting. I think he means either greater pixel density or greater low light performance would make things interesting.

With either fewer pixels or loss of resolution due to noise at higher ISO, the m4/3 camera, even with best glass mounted, offers no more real resolution than APS-C cameras with kit lens.

I could have taken his comment the wrong way, of course.

Pentax has native APS-C primes.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 00:49 UTC

It's a good looking camera with the harder lines and the black bumpy plastic material.

The raised ring around the silver lens mount stands out and looks a little odd with no lens mounted. The lens mount would look small without it and mounting a lens makes the raised ring not too much ..there.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 00:44 UTC as 11th comment
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (292 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vegetable Police: Kit lenses are lame. There has never been a good photo in the history of the world taken with a kit lens. You need at least f1.8 or you might as well just throw your camera in the trash. When I see someone taking a picture, I ask them if that's the kit lens. If they say yes, I throw my tea at their camera in hopes to short circuit the lens and save them the hassle of having to look at those awful pictures.

Unfortunately, some of these lenses are now weather sealed. I find a combination of tea and sand still works pretty well though.

You'd think it would.. :^(

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 20:03 UTC
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (292 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kaso: "the best quality telephoto zooms tend to be the ‘constant aperture’ models, which maintain the same F-number throughout their zoom range"

My daughter is learning photography with her first interchangeable-lens camera. Intelligent as she is, she has great trouble making practical sense of the statement above. Do they mean 'constant maximum aperture'? Why haven't I seen any best-quality f/7.1 zoom lenses? But of course I can set the aperture to any f-number within the designed range at any focal length in the zoom range! What do they mean by the lens maintaining the same f-number throughout its zoom range?

I would add that 'constant aperture' is not some magical characteristic.

I suppose a constant aperture zoom could be a dog, but Onur touches on the fact that most of these lenses are of higher quality. This is because the constant aperture design costs more anyway so more attention may as well be paid to other performance characteristics. Who wants to pay more for a constant aperture lens that is still a dog :^)

A benefit to constant aperture lenses is that exposure doesn't change as the lens is zoomed in.. whichever aperture the user has selected will remain the same as focal length is changed and this is most desirable when using Manual mode or working with flashes.

So, the long end of the zoom is faster, the lens is generally higher quality, and you gain convenience depending on how you work, as noted in the paragraph above.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 18:40 UTC
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (292 comments in total)
In reply to:

VadymA: I like the summary of different lens characteristics, but I don't like the premis - so you bought an interchangeable lens camera with one lens and wonder why would you need more? What a stupid person that might be. I just refuse to believe that anyone would buy an ILC without any understanding why it even exists. But maybe I am too naive about mankind intelligence. Anyways, I think it would make much more sense if you said - so you are considering an ILC camera and wondering what benefits you can get from different lens types.

If it is not possible to, with one lens, take advantage of benefits offered by most ILC (larger sensors or focus or viewfinder or frame rate *), how many lenses are needed ?

If a person travels with 6 lenses, does that person 'get it' more than the person traveling with only 2 lenses?

I often use only two lenses and sometimes add a third for animals. Often, I wonder why I need the shelf full of lenses I went through to find the ones I like. I easily imagine there exists a person who uses only one lens on an ILC :^)

* some of the benefits I tossed out for consideration are offered by compact cameras now but there are still reasons to use a typical ILC even if with only one lens.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 18:27 UTC
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (292 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aroart: Just a little info.. I tested the Sony rx10m3 against Canon 70-200 2.8 v2 with an 80d and the Sony blew it away in clarity... No, I am not a Sony fan boy... Just want to let people know if your not a pro you just might want to get the Sony and not worry about spending $ on lenses... Dave Dougdale even tested it against a zeiss lense and the rx10m3 was sharpers...

What is an RX10 >?

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 18:16 UTC
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (292 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vegetable Police: Kit lenses are lame. There has never been a good photo in the history of the world taken with a kit lens. You need at least f1.8 or you might as well just throw your camera in the trash. When I see someone taking a picture, I ask them if that's the kit lens. If they say yes, I throw my tea at their camera in hopes to short circuit the lens and save them the hassle of having to look at those awful pictures.

Unfortunately, some of these lenses are now weather sealed. I find a combination of tea and sand still works pretty well though.

Veg, you're doing it wrong.
In order to DIR, you must up your game.

The typical weather sealed kit lens is built to withstand occasional puddles of beer but the key is the pressure at which the liquid is delivered.. unlock that door and the field is your Oyster.

Eject forcefully from the orifice of your choice a stream of tea directed to the lens/body join and you got yourself a winner.

For your health, I recommend no addition of abrasive agents such as sand...

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 17:23 UTC
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (292 comments in total)
In reply to:

tinternaut: I'd say telephoto, but one of those needs to come with some education about what a telephoto is for (i.e. possibilities for creatively playing with perspective, and a reminder that the best way to get closer or further from a subject is often something most of us are equipped with).

In both pictures, the subject is clearly the candlestick because it fills the picture. However, for same subject size, WA shows more background and tele shows less.

Unless I am trying to 'get it all in' the picture, I usually use tele when I go to a cathedral because I typically like the subject to be more isolated. Another person might like to get close to the candlestick yet use either an UWA or a fish eye lens to show much of the church behind it.

My picture would be a candlestick with colorful blobs of out of focus stained glass behind and the other picture would show where the candlestick lives.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 17:07 UTC
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (292 comments in total)
In reply to:

tinternaut: I'd say telephoto, but one of those needs to come with some education about what a telephoto is for (i.e. possibilities for creatively playing with perspective, and a reminder that the best way to get closer or further from a subject is often something most of us are equipped with).

rfsIII, I thought to write about that and decided to not.. I add this now in case the example helps make the point.

In a gross sense, the wide angle lets me 'get it all in' and the short tele lets me 'get closer' to things.

However, using the example below of touring Europe, if I am in a cathedral and my subject is something I can approach, I can decide to use either the wide angle lens or the tele.

If my subject is a candlestick, I will get two different pictures depending on whether I use wide angle or tele. Think about the candle stick being the same size in the picture for both lenses. I move so it fills the frame top to bottom for each shot.

With the wide angle lens, the background of my candlestick picture might show all the choir. With my tele lens, the background might show only part of a stained glass window.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 17:01 UTC
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (292 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: "Why do I need another lens", doesn't this headline imply that the interchangeable lens body you just bought comes with a lens automatically?

Yes, I realize this article is directed at those who most likely bought an ILC kit of some type. However it is quite possible to buy cameras like the D750 or A7II without any lens. (There are plenty of Leica, Pentax, Fuji, Canon, Olympus and Panasonic examples that can of course also be purchased absent a lens.)

RAW, I am not sure I can help answer your questions.

You first were first concerned with the implication "...that the interchangeable lens body you just bought comes with a lens automatically?" Later, you noted that the DPR article failed to "...discuss in detail what the normal kit lens would be in a "normal" introductory ILC camera/lens system?" Following that, "...both the Nikon Df and D750 say otherwise. So does the kit zoom on the 5DIII from Canon". I presume this anthropomorphism is also about lenses bundled with cameras.

The multiverse is a big place and sometimes there are not answers to the questions that perplex us most. If this sounds stupid and impossible, consider lawsuits. If it were possible to give complete and total and maximal answers, there would be no lawsuits because there would be no loop holes. think about that...

If the multiverse contained of complete answers, there would be no room for poking, prodding, nitpicking & what-iffing.. and what fun is that?

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 16:43 UTC
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (292 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: "Why do I need another lens", doesn't this headline imply that the interchangeable lens body you just bought comes with a lens automatically?

Yes, I realize this article is directed at those who most likely bought an ILC kit of some type. However it is quite possible to buy cameras like the D750 or A7II without any lens. (There are plenty of Leica, Pentax, Fuji, Canon, Olympus and Panasonic examples that can of course also be purchased absent a lens.)

Mars, I think you stumbled upon a word, 'bundled', that can help sort things over and out. While kit lenses are indeed bundled, they are really are part a ..kit intended to make the cameras they come with minimally usable.

Other lenses may be bundled with cameras and this is the manufacturers way of offering a little savings when a new camera is purchased and, more importantly, drive lens sales. This custom goes back even to the 80's (when the table with sample pics was developed) and camera shops (what is that) would offer a 'deal' on a camera+lens purchase.

A 'kit' lens is typically the lesser spec'd lens in its class. The class may be broadly defined by either prime or zoom and then by focal length. Any of the lenses bundled with cameras (and usually not the basic, intro camera) are lenses with higher specifications and this means it could be faster, have different coatings, or even include a hood. These are not kit lenses and it doesn't matter if they are bundled or not :^|

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 16:31 UTC
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (292 comments in total)
In reply to:

britepixels: The one thing I learned was to not be cheap, spend the most money you can afford and save up if you have to a good lens can be $400 to a $1000 dollars or more.. The second lens I bought was a single focus Prime lens 50mm 1.4 and the third was 55-210mm telephoto. I also have a 10-18 Wide angle.

'Prime' just means one focal length so 'single focal length' can be omitted.

A single focus lens is not the same as single focal length lens

'Single focus' sounds some like 'fixed focus'. A fixed focus lens can not focus at different distances. These are usually the type of lens in cheaper cameras.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 15:19 UTC
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (292 comments in total)
In reply to:

tinternaut: I'd say telephoto, but one of those needs to come with some education about what a telephoto is for (i.e. possibilities for creatively playing with perspective, and a reminder that the best way to get closer or further from a subject is often something most of us are equipped with).

That all written, I use two lenses most of all: a wide angle lens and a short telephoto.

I know there will be some pictures I would like to take that I will not get. Sometimes I can try to stitch. Sometimes I walk away. Not zooming.. leaving :^)

I like the focal lengths I use and can almost always find something interesting.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 15:02 UTC
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (292 comments in total)
In reply to:

tinternaut: I'd say telephoto, but one of those needs to come with some education about what a telephoto is for (i.e. possibilities for creatively playing with perspective, and a reminder that the best way to get closer or further from a subject is often something most of us are equipped with).

'zoom with your feet' can be misleading to people first working with prime lenses... with prime lenses, there will be some scenes you will just not be able to photograph. This is neither good not bad but is a thing to understand.

zooming with the feet can work within small ranges. Beyond that, you are changing your perspective more and that may or may not be acceptable. Standing in the same spot with my chosen perspective, a zoom lens let me widen or narrow the ..stage. Like opening window blinds, I can see more or less of the view but I still have the same perspective or relationship between objects in the pic.

Zooms can be very helpful at times..

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 14:54 UTC
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (292 comments in total)
In reply to:

vesa1tahti: I need a telephoto lens e.g. for bird photography. But can't make a decision: an APS (D7200) or a MFT (E-M10 II) lens. There are e.g. a couple of 150-600 mm APS-C lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.). For MFT, there is an excellent 300mm/4 prime lens. Zoom or not? Difficult.

... you ask this question because you have both cameras and want to know which will pair better with the available telephoto lenses for your goal to take bird pics ?

or

You ask this question because you have neither camera and want to know which to buy ?

If you plan to buy and only ever want to use the camera and the telephoto lens for taking pictures of birds, you have asked a good question.

If you plan to use the camera for other things and with other lenses, you might want to consider other things as well... a purchase decision based on one use may leave you dissatisfied in other areas.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 14:32 UTC
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (292 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul B Jones: There are two kinds of lenses. Normal and super telephoto. After you've mucked about with a normal lens for a day or two - it's time to purchase a super-telephoto, 300mm minimum, preferably something north of 400mm. Then you can get down to the whole point of photography - taking pictures of birds.

Tomi, some things depend on sensor size and this might be one.

You might be happy with 300mm and this might act as super telephoto if you use 4/3 or APS-C.. people using full frame sensors might buy a 400mm lens. As illustrated in the table with sample pics above.

Either way, it is all poo on the wing. Can you imagine how many tons of garbage pigeons in a large city pick up from the streets and deposit on cars and cats ?

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 14:20 UTC
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (292 comments in total)
In reply to:

sdgreen: I notice the table of lenses stops at 21mm or equivalent. There are the wider ultra wides / extreme wides. Down to 10 / 11/ 12mm or equivalent now

The table illustrates ranges...

Wide Angle = 24 to 35 mm and this is conventional

Ultra Wide Angle either starts or ends at 21mm depending if you are a morning person or a night person.

The table tells us 21mm (and shorter) is UWA

There is no sample image less than 21mm
There is no sample super tele above 400
It's OK

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 14:12 UTC
Total: 910, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »