Enginel

Joined on Jun 9, 2011

Comments

Total: 245, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

safford1977: Would love an adapter like this to use my 300mm f/4 Pentax 67 lens on an aps-c. Wouldn't that refocus the light field down to aps-c size (~22x15mm) from 60x70mm? So it'd be like f/1.0 at 300mm? Or do I have the concept/math all wrong? BTW, the 300mm, while manual focus, goes for like $100 bucks so it'd be the fast prime deal of a century if it'd work.

del

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 14:17 UTC

A radioactive spider bit them

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 06:56 UTC as 14th comment
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (284 comments in total)
In reply to:

WGVanDyck: Why on Earth would I want to do that to my film cameras in a market that is flooded with every conceivable form of camera to fulfill my digital compulsion? And, offers virtually nothing new for my lingering film addiction?

Now compare this Olympus Pen F to its film predecessor (which used much larger 24x18 frame rather than 18x13!!) X-T2 is as large as FF SLR of the past.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 09:38 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (284 comments in total)
In reply to:

Enginel: I think there is much worse problem not mentioned in text: most of film camera shutters were not made for tens of hundreds of actuations like those in digital cams.
And in cameras with leaf shutter it's closed by default so with you're not liveview option like with a real digital cam.

@GrahamHO
Lol you're comparing expensive yesterday's cameras with cheapest modern ones.
Maybe they had stronger hull. But I am talking about shutter cycles here, not years.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 09:33 UTC
In reply to:

zeratulmrye: The problem is that their lenses have no focus ring, which clearly indicates that DJI has no plan for competing with the other camera makers

@BlueBomberTurbo
Well, it appears that manufacturers are stuck with older ideas like they make black boxes with fake pentaprism hump. Back in 1970s it made sense.

USB 3.0 provides bandwiths upto 5 Gbit/second, and over distances with is meters long. So it isn't the same for USB2.0 480 Mbit/s.
Lenses don't need that much, and only over much shorter distance.
What would you use so much bandwidth for?

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 09:14 UTC
In reply to:

zeratulmrye: The problem is that their lenses have no focus ring, which clearly indicates that DJI has no plan for competing with the other camera makers

@BlueBomberTurbo
It doesn't depend on number of pins. USB 1.0-2.0 does everything with just four.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 20:23 UTC
In reply to:

walker2000: I know every companies want their own proprietor lens mounts. Besides that, what's the technical advantages of this DL mount that other existing mounts cannot do?

Open means not covered by NDA, at least.
M43 is still a closed club, no matter how many members joined.
If the canon drink has 10% sugar and the olympus has 8% sugar, the olympus is "lite" compared to the canon but still not sugarfree.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 20:21 UTC
In reply to:

walker2000: I know every companies want their own proprietor lens mounts. Besides that, what's the technical advantages of this DL mount that other existing mounts cannot do?

@walker2000: old 43 system was marketed as 'open' thought it was not. New m43 is not marketed as 'open' -- good that they stopped lying about this. It is 'open' only compared to Canikon.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 18:36 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: Adapters that Metabones should actually make:
-60x45mm to 44x33mm reducer for the Fuji x50s mount
-60x45mm to 36x24mm reducer for Sony FE mount
-EF to EF-M mount reducer

I didn't ask him about the Q. Well, also I can speculate that they were doing a version for blackmagic camera (2.7 crop sensor), then decided it has too bad IQ on the edges and decided to slap Q-mount on it.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 06:10 UTC
In reply to:

Enginel: Focal reducers would have been much more interesting in 2008-2010 when FF was still pricey and even aps-c sensors generally.

It has only one "optimal for m43" trait, focal reduction ratio. It is not designed and will not work with m43 cameras

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 06:07 UTC
In reply to:

Franz Weber: This is what I can not understand: when the image sensor has a aspect ratio of 16:9 why do they use circular lenses? Wouldn’t it be better to use oval lenses in order to safe weight and cost?

@Alec
85/1.2 in Canon EF mount suffer more from clipping by a mirror box (which is not part of the lens), if anything.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 16:38 UTC
In reply to:

Enginel: Focal reducers would have been much more interesting in 2008-2010 when FF was still pricey and even aps-c sensors generally.

I do not understand. This speedbooster is for using FF (Nikon) lenses on a Q.
generally, such things could have gotten much more interest before sub $1k FF cameras appeared.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 14:42 UTC
In reply to:

walker2000: I know every companies want their own proprietor lens mounts. Besides that, what's the technical advantages of this DL mount that other existing mounts cannot do?

DJI does has some (two IIRC) cameras with m43 mount. They even rebranded one Panasonic lens. Probably they will be fined heavily if they leak any info which is 'restricted'.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 12:08 UTC

<joke>is it a cacodemon?</joke>

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 11:12 UTC as 13th comment

I am a Russian hacker and thereby confirm I deleted the review.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 10:39 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

vscd: Can I get a Speedboster from largeformat to fullframe? I love to get real f0.3 equiv on my 5D ;)

@vscd
Nope. You apparently have never drawn anything in optical CAD. BTW with existing Metabones reducers you can't get even f/0.33 of MFT. Also f/0.33 would kinda require rear element of your reducer to be glued to sensor (where your 5D has focal plane shutter).

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 10:08 UTC
In reply to:

vscd: Can I get a Speedboster from largeformat to fullframe? I love to get real f0.3 equiv on my 5D ;)

Mirrorbox clips the rays and you can't get f/0.33 on your 5D unless you remove the mirror.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 09:15 UTC
In reply to:

safford1977: Would love an adapter like this to use my 300mm f/4 Pentax 67 lens on an aps-c. Wouldn't that refocus the light field down to aps-c size (~22x15mm) from 60x70mm? So it'd be like f/1.0 at 300mm? Or do I have the concept/math all wrong? BTW, the 300mm, while manual focus, goes for like $100 bucks so it'd be the fast prime deal of a century if it'd work.

No, it'd be 75mm f/1.0. (quite close to Canon FD 85/1.2).
And you're asking for 0.25x reducer rather than 0.5x. This, and greater frame coverage (and low volume) would raise cost a lot. Would you like to buy a $2000 focal reducer for $100 lens?

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 07:42 UTC
In reply to:

wildpig1234: They need to have standardized lens mounts. ... no pro will move to them with a non standardized proprietary dji only mount

@panther fan
oh, they could have used mft mount, and there is adapter for ef lenses so ef lenses would work too.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 18:28 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: Adapters that Metabones should actually make:
-60x45mm to 44x33mm reducer for the Fuji x50s mount
-60x45mm to 36x24mm reducer for Sony FE mount
-EF to EF-M mount reducer

It pretty weird EF to EF-M reducer doesn't exist. AFAIK such adapter doesn't need protocol translator, only wires connecting pins.
I've asked Brian Caldwell (on this forum) about MF reducers and he said there is not enough market demand to justify.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 17:36 UTC
Total: 245, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »