LJ - Eljot

LJ - Eljot

Lives in Berlin
Joined on Oct 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 603, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On article Nikon D3: The camera that changed everything (283 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chuck Yadmark: At that time major switches to Canon were occurring due to the advantages the 1D2 1Ds had over the D2X/H. I think to this day that advantage is being felt. If the D3 hadn't come along Nikon might have become Pentax.

P.S. Paul Simon defines how I pronounce Nikon.

The one half of Simon & Garfunkel. Here is the mentioned Nikon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4ltLp30KVs&t=56s

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 15:07 UTC
On article Nikon D3: The camera that changed everything (283 comments in total)
In reply to:

Impulses: Wow, all this time I'd been pronouncing it right? Nick-on was just my inclination when I read it phonetically as a Spanish speaker, but I'd long noticed no Americans seemed to pronounce it that way...

Nippon Kogaku

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 14:58 UTC
In reply to:

Jacob the Photographer: Welcome back Hy6 !
Although not in name it will bear the top quality of Rolleiflex from years by-gone.
For those who are not familiar with Rolleiflex: since the 1930's it was the number one professional camera brand in the world ( see rolleiclub.com ) , in 1966 they came with the most unique medium format SLR ever the Rolleiflex SL66 , followed in the '70's by the Rolleiflex SLX and later the still highly usable Rolleiflex 6006 , 6008 series. Another interesting site to go is sl66.com , I used the Rolleiflex 6000 series for about 20 and still would have had the mother company of Rollei not stuffed up their marketing and technical service so badly. Still : the exceptional craftmanship to build high quality cameras still resides in DW Photo of Braunschweig and I only can hope and wish then good luck !! Once a Rolleiflex fan always a Rolleiflex fan :-)

I still have two SL66. Both broken and unrepareable du to lack of spare parts. Maby I can get them fixed now.
And yes: Very good system.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 21:15 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (828 comments in total)

There are more very good cameras from Nikon wich can be purchased for very little money. The F-801s has everything you need and is also well compatible with non-AF lenses. The F-80 is a very modern camera wich is also very quite and can be bought for next to nothing. Beware of cheap 90s models like F-50, F-60, F-70! They lack the spot metering.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 19:22 UTC as 279th comment
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (828 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jeff Peterman: Three classics missing from this list: The Canon A1 - the successor to the AE1, with aperture and shutter priority options, and the two smallest SLRs: something from the Olympus OM series (OM-1, 2, 3, or 4), and the Pentax ME. The Olympus cameras were relatively tiny marvels: robust, with great functionality, commonly used by professionals. I owned several versions of the OM2 (I still have an OM2P).

For novelty, I'll through in the Pentax 110 SLR, which probably is the smallest SLR ever made (I was tempted to buy the 3 lens kit)- but the "sensor" size (110 film) was too small for it to really be practical.

By the way, I bought an Olympus XA when they first came out. A great little camera that I carried everywhere for over a decade. But the seals on the back cover dried up and started cracking, so if you buy one, test it for light-tightness.

It is an interesting camera, but no recomendation. 110 cartriges are incredably hard to find nowadays.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 19:10 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (828 comments in total)
In reply to:

Old Cameras: The Nikon 8008s is ridiculously giveaway cheap, I bought one in excellent condition for less than $20. Big, bright viewfinder and it works very well with manual focus lenses and gives you focus confirmation, also takes AA batteries and is a little lighter than the N90. But the N90 is also a fantastic bargain and very durable. If they advertise it as "sticky surface" that makes it cheaper - just spend an hour rubbing off the rubberized surface on the film door down to slick plastic. They all get that way sooner or later.
The later Canon New F1 with the AE prism is the best older Canon in FD mount you can buy. Very durable and long lasting, uses the PX28/4LR44 six volt battery, aperture priority, good meter and a very well made, satisfying camera to hold and use with a great feel of mechanical precision.
The Nikkormat EL is also a good choice. Very durable and solid, very reliable all metal Copal shutter, the CDS meter probably still works and it uses the still available PX28/4LR44 battery - accepts only non-AI lenses, but they're cheaper so: bonus. Any Nikkormat is almost impossible to kill but earlier models use the PX625/PX13 mercury cell which generated 1.35V from its chemistry. Modern replacements are alkaline and put out 1.5-1.6V and throw off the meter. Hearing aid batteries will work but last only a month once activated, requiring you to remove the battery cover too often.

You mean Nikon F-801s. It is called 8008s in US makret only. And yes, that is a very good camera indeed.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 19:05 UTC
On article Hasselblad launches A6D 100MP aerial camera (9 comments in total)

It looks so much nicer than the H6D.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 20:18 UTC as 4th comment
On article Canon EOS M6 Review (376 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonby: If I've understood correctly, in manual mode you are forced to use the dial on the rear face of the camera to change either shutter speed or aperture? Why? That dial looks tiny, fiddly and hard to reach. Why wouldn't Canon allow you to use the far better-placed dial on the rear shoulder to change these? Seems a strange choice to go to the trouble of having two well-placed top dials and then force you to use the poor rear one on the back if you use manual mode. Perhaps it's to keep it in line with their DSLR user interface, but the rear dials on their DSLRs are a different ball game compared to this tiny thing.

The other thing that ticks me off is that manufacturers are asking this much money for a camera without a viewfinder. The rise of mirrorless cameras seems to be edging the viewfinder into the 'enthusiast' and even 'pro' feature bracket. An LCD screen is simply a hopeless tool for composing photographs in a large number of real situations. Just a bit exasperated by this trend.

But most comact cameras do not have a viewfinder either. I prefer the screen over the EVF in most circumstanses, but would not forgo one. By the way, there is an optional viewfinder for the Ms. Allmonst all but the oldest mFTs from Olympus could be equipped with an optional viewfinder. I even found myself in favor of it over the fixed EVF of the OM-D series. I miss the ability to tilt it.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2017 at 20:37 UTC
On article Canon EOS M6 Review (376 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ivan Paganacci: The combo dial / function pad must die on all cameras henceforth and forevermore.

I don't think so. Ok, if there are only two dials, then it would be better to make a proper one instead. But if you want to have more, there are not so many options. It could be worse.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2017 at 18:48 UTC
On article Canon EOS M6 Review (376 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: DPR: In the Specs, you should have "Viewfinder Optional" rather than "Viewfinder No".

For most cameras without a viewfinder there is no optional one.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2017 at 18:38 UTC
On article Canon EOS M6 Review (376 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: I have the M5 now and I have to admit, I'll probably swap it out for the M6 my next swing through a first world country.

I miss the compact size of the M3/M6 camera bodies - I actually wish they would take the M6 guts and put it back into an M soapbar to be honest.

Sony usually gets the praise for how small they can back in technology, but the M's are about as small as you can get and still maintain a 3:2 aspect ratio LCD monitor. Which is certainly very important when you don't necessarily have an EVF.

I'm liking the new review format - I have to admit though, there's two sections of any review i look over most closely, one is usually the camera ergonomics and the other is usually the pros and cons. While there's usually some debate over the pros and cons I usually find it a good summary of what dpreview thinks - perhaps not what each fanboy thinks ;)

is there any thoughts to adding that back into the short review format?

There is an optional view finder for the M cameras. The EVF-DC2.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2017 at 18:37 UTC
On article Canon EOS M6 Review (376 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bambi24: The battery life on mirrorless remains poor imo.

M6 = 295 shots
T7i = 600 shots

Priced the same, same brand, yet the rebel offers over twice the battery life.

295 shots is not a lot.

Smartphone are still not at par with conventional phones when it comes to battery lifetime.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2017 at 18:34 UTC
On article Canon EOS M6 Review (376 comments in total)

I would never buy a camera without viewvinder again, because you are in trouble when the sun is shinig bright. It would be fair to mention, that there actually is a optional view finder for that camera, the EVF-DC2.
The cell in that table shoult not say "No" but "optional" instead.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2017 at 18:20 UTC as 74th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Arastoo Vaziri: I stopped reading when I hit the chart and read "equivalent F-number". The nonsense doesn't seem to ease away.

You really don't understand, are you? Of course you don't see any difference because with the same relative aperture the illuminance on the sensor is allways the same. Thats why we use it all the time instead of absolute aperture. But if you use the same exposure settings (shutter speed, f-number) with different sized sensor and a corresponding focal lenght that gives the same DoF as the one on the other sensor, then you yield the same illuminance but different luminous flux and a differnt DoF. If you want to compensate, you have to change the apperture to a different f-number and get different expossure setting (and, if not compensated, a different brighness of the picture). If you have copensated for the same DoF, then you have a different illuminance but the same luminous flux. The signal noise ratio is mainly determined by the luminous energy wich, in that case, will be the same. The brightness can be adjusted thrue the ISO setting.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 20:57 UTC
In reply to:

Arastoo Vaziri: I stopped reading when I hit the chart and read "equivalent F-number". The nonsense doesn't seem to ease away.

@mgrum: With mft at f/1.4 small picture frame at f/2.8 you have the same DoF and if shutter speed is the same you have the same total amount of light and the same amount of noise (shot noise, from light). ISO does not matter that much. Take ISO 400 with the mft and ISO 1600 with the other one to get the same brightness in the jpg!

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 18:05 UTC
In reply to:

Arastoo Vaziri: I stopped reading when I hit the chart and read "equivalent F-number". The nonsense doesn't seem to ease away.

@Arastoo Vaziri Yes, right. But you don't want to compare the same lens on different cameras. You want to know which lens at which aperture gives you the same AoV and same DoF with different sized sensors. This is a slightly different question. And the calculations are rather simpel than endless.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 17:48 UTC
In reply to:

Arastoo Vaziri: I stopped reading when I hit the chart and read "equivalent F-number". The nonsense doesn't seem to ease away.

Yes, unfortunalty people don't use AoV and entrance pupil as terms for comparison. They are independent from a referenced sensor format and therefore much more usefull.

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

Arastoo Vaziri: I stopped reading when I hit the chart and read "equivalent F-number". The nonsense doesn't seem to ease away.

Of course, a 35mm/2.8 lens, for example, will be a 35mm/2.8 lens, no matter what size the senor is. And if a handheld light meter is used the ISO and the relative aperture (our 2.8) is needed. But if we want to compare different sensor sizes with different focal lenght. If I want to know wich focal lenght and aperture I need for two different sensor sizes to get the same AoV and DoF, I have to calculate. It would be nice to have just two values to make it easy. These two numbers are the equivalent focal lenght and aperture. "Equivalent" might not be the best term, but it happens to the commonly used one.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 15:34 UTC
In reply to:

mgrum: If you look at the lens diagrams for the Sony RX1, Fuji X100F, Sigma DP2 you'll see they all have a very large rear element that sits only a few mm above the sensor. This is impossible to replicate in an interchangeable lens camera (unless you make the mount enormous) and provides a clear optical advantage (when compared to interchangeable pancake lenses).

So if you want compactness just get a fixed lens camera, ILCs just can't compete.

For example?

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 13:22 UTC
In reply to:

Kiril Karaatanasov: 8K nice! So Panasonic will ditch m43 finally? Nice to know GH5 is last of it's kind.

8K simply requires bigger sensor, probably bigger than APS-C. The only 8K camera sensor today is in Sony A7R2 although it cannot shoot 8K video. However e see the need for 42MP in 3:2 ratio. 43 ratio would need to be around 50MP which means diffraction artifacts at f/2.8......

But these are to different subjects. The one is diffraction limit at a certain f-numer and the other is DoF. The diffraction limit is still at the same f-number. Regardless the different DoF. And of course you get less DoF if you call for smaller airy discs. But that is true, independeltly from sensor size. You can not acieve the same DoF with 8k as you get with 4k, regardless sensor size, without geting diffraction limited. Yes, you can not use a 8k system the same way you can use a 4k system. That is a general statement about 8k vs. 4k.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2017 at 08:43 UTC
Total: 603, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »