noirdesir

Lives in Switzerland Switzerland
Works as a Engineer
Joined on Nov 4, 2006

Comments

Total: 1012, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Retzius: the "dreaded" display notch?

my my, we have become spoiled

We also have flat-tire smartwatches. Then there are the camera bumps (not just on iPhones). In fact, most cameras have 'camera bumps' (called lenses). Some cars have notches in their rear windows (eg, for brake lights). Or externally mounted spare tires that effectively act like a notch in the rear window. Should I go on?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2018 at 10:01 UTC
In reply to:

georgievv: As if face unlock is not bad enough, now one has to slide the camera up first. Kind of like Sony's popping up viewfinder ...

Sony's pop-up and then pull-out viewfinder.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2018 at 09:59 UTC
In reply to:

Kuzmabrik: I wonder why Sigma doesn't make lenses for Fuji system? They make good products for a reasonable price. All my lenses for Pentax were made by Sigma.

Yet a lot of Sigma lenses are not available in K-mount.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2018 at 11:12 UTC
In reply to:

ChickenBalls: wow 10fps... but how many photos can you take with a roll of film?
can you squeeze in 1000 photos in a roll of film?

Since there are apparently people who still prefer film over digital in 2018 how about telephones or computers?
Are there still people who would rather use a 1980s IBM desktop running DOS or Windows 3.1? or 1G wireless telephones instead of 4G smartphones?

In still photography as well (still as in opposed to video), there are larger film formats in use than the largest sensors (outside of very specialised products like this Canon sensor).

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2018 at 13:25 UTC
In reply to:

Alex Armani: I could be happy to see 4 x5 digital sensor. If they have respect to large format photographers at least can make 4 x 5 digital back with live view.

Sure, that is why MF companies are making insane profits and didn't need rescuing by Chinese drone manufacturers.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 20:44 UTC
In reply to:

Fotoni: So this Canon sensor can match Sony 35mm sensor noise performance? Can we expect Canon cameras with this sensor anytime soon?

P.S.: Googling, I've discovered that in the second half of the 19th century there were several large format SLRs. The 'Graflex Reflex' from 1898 being one of them. They appear to have died out at the beginning of the second half of the 20th century.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 13:13 UTC
In reply to:

Alex Armani: I could be happy to see 4 x5 digital sensor. If they have respect to large format photographers at least can make 4 x 5 digital back with live view.

Let's extrapolate from the price of 53.4 x 40 mm sensors ...

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 12:31 UTC
In reply to:

Fotoni: So this Canon sensor can match Sony 35mm sensor noise performance? Can we expect Canon cameras with this sensor anytime soon?

I'm curious what the largest SLR (in terms of film/mirror size) ever built is. The Fuji GX680 is the largest I am aware of.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 12:27 UTC
In reply to:

KrampusClaus: so does this yet again show that using the term 'Full Frame' is idiotic at best and obfuscation at worse.

the author even wasted words by stating '35mm Full Frame' redundant and even MORE stupid.

35mm says what is needed, one of the dimensions of the sensor size OR originally the FILM size - 35mm !

but even worse is the '1"' sensor term, not 1" in ANY dimension but an area, at best term, sadly even worse obfuscation.

engineers hate the PR/marketing types which hype up a thing, while usually confusing it and confusing the customer.

but like those that bought Snake Oil or a politician's lies, is it not the audience's fault for Believing the LIES ?

So is this the NEW 'Full Frame' sensor ? why not just as stupid as using FF for a 35mm sensor no ?

FF also refers to using the full frame a mirrorbox (and lens mount diameter) was built for. With new mirrorless mounts that definition has lost some meaning but names often have historical reasons that might not apply anymore.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 12:25 UTC
In reply to:

yslee1: This is a lens I wouldn't mind paying $2000 for. Where's that damn active m4/3 adapter for F mount?

And what do I win when in a couple of months (when Nikon reveals the price) you'll be proven wrong and I'll be proven right? An admission that you don't understand the world but that I do?

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2018 at 10:25 UTC
In reply to:

yslee1: This is a lens I wouldn't mind paying $2000 for. Where's that damn active m4/3 adapter for F mount?

If (maximum) focal length & f-stop vs price were the only considerations, then yes. But they obviously aren't, just compare the prices of Sigma's 500 mm f/4 and Nikon's (or Sony's) 500 mm f/4 ($6000 vs $10'300 and $13'000). And that is for lenses that would have been designed to compete head-to-head, a 200-500 mm zoom and a 500 mm PF prime have certainly different design priorities. Or compare the two Sigma 150-600 mm zooms with the same f-stops, one costs $900 the other $1800. Here you have it, two identical lenses (on paper) that have a price differential of a factor of two.

And if you really want to see price discrepancies between different lenses of the same focal length and f-stop, start comparing 50-ish mm f/1.4 primes. Even from Nikon itself you have two lenses with a price differential of a factor of three.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2018 at 13:05 UTC
In reply to:

yslee1: This is a lens I wouldn't mind paying $2000 for. Where's that damn active m4/3 adapter for F mount?

The Nikon 200-500 mm f/5.6 is exceptionally low-priced by Nikon standards. The Nikon 80-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 is shorter at long end and thus has a smaller entrance pupil (71 vs 89 mm) and costs $2300 (it has a wider zoom range though).

The Canon 400 mm f/4 DO has an entrance pupil of 100 mm can cost $6900. If we spaced the 500 mm f/5.6 PF (89 mm e.p.) between Nikon's own 80-400 mm (71 mm e.p.) and the 400 mm f/4 (100 mm e.p.), it's price would be expected to be between $2300 and $6900. In terms of front element size (as area) the 500 mm f/5.6 would be at 80% of that of the 400 mm f/4, whereas the 80-400 mm would be only at 50%. Then there is also Pentax offers a (conventional) 560 mm f/5.6 that is 12% longer at the same f-stop and costs $4000.

Based on that, I'd very surprised if the 500 mm f/5.6 were priced below $3000.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2018 at 12:09 UTC
In reply to:

NickBPhotoUK: Would not all photographers benefit from the 'phase fresnel' design, or is there a reason for the design to be restricted to a few lenses, and relatively slow ones at that?

There are a few image quality compromises with 'fresnel' lens elements that Nikon and Canon are reluctant to introduce to $6000+ lenses (ie, to the fastest tele lenses). Minimising those compromises is still an on-going process which is why only a handful of such lenses have been released so far.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2018 at 08:39 UTC
In reply to:

Matsu: If we set aside the typical over-reactions, for instance we really have no information about the price, only guesses, and look at what’s on offer: 500mm reach at f/5.6, in something smaller and lighter than a 200-500. On an FX sensor, it’s guaranteed to smoke any equivalent crop frame telephoto, where they even exist at all. That would be a 250mm f/2.8 4/3rds or a 333mm f/3.7 DX/APSC... best you can do in DX/APSC is use some shorter FX glass, but you’ll pay a lot for apertures larger than f/4. Compact full frame mid-aperture telephoto seems like a smart play. They’ll sell well.

The 200-500 mm is significantly shorter at 200 mm then when zoomed out to 500 mm (45 cm vs 27 cm). I wonder how much of a size advantage the 500 mm PF will have in regard to transporting it. Or could they even make it a collapsable design? But probably that adds extra moving parts that are a source of 'misalignments' as well as extra cost and weight. And maybe the handling while shooting is the more important aspect than transport length.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2018 at 15:15 UTC
In reply to:

JeffNYC: How about a replacement, or an updated version of a 135mm focal length.. It's time...... Maybe a 135mm f/1.8E. 500mm sounds nice, but too specialized.

I got the sales numbers from here:
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html

It's not necessarily always up-to-date but over long time periods that shouldn't matter too much.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2018 at 15:04 UTC
In reply to:

JeffNYC: How about a replacement, or an updated version of a 135mm focal length.. It's time...... Maybe a 135mm f/1.8E. 500mm sounds nice, but too specialized.

135 mm primes are also rather specialised. The 135 mm f/2 DC sold about 45k over the last 28 years. The 300 mm f/4 AF (pre-PF) sold almost 3x that over almost the same period. In comparison the 500 mm f/4 sold about 16k over a 24-year period. And the 200-500 mm sold over 90k in only three years. And all the 70/80-200 mm f/2.8 versions sold 1.5 million over the last 31 years.

It's probably the price that will decide if the 500 mm f/5.6 PF is sold more at 300 mm f/4 than 135 mm f/2 levels.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2018 at 13:55 UTC
In reply to:

yslee1: This is a lens I wouldn't mind paying $2000 for. Where's that damn active m4/3 adapter for F mount?

Yeah, I should have written "proportional to front element size". The point is the 0.8x factor, not the actual area. And the missing factor, for the actual area, isn't π but π/4.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2018 at 13:31 UTC
In reply to:

lonewolf1983: will be a boon for wildlife people who hike a lot to location or travel.
wont replace the flexibility of the 200-500, nor offer an aperture benefit so you'll likely see the size/weight benefit and probably faster AF.

I also expect an image quality benefit (at 500 mm) compared to the 200-500 mm.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2018 at 10:12 UTC
In reply to:

yslee1: This is a lens I wouldn't mind paying $2000 for. Where's that damn active m4/3 adapter for F mount?

(500 / 5.6)^2 = 7972 mm^2 (minimum size of front lens element)
(400 / 4)^2 = 10'000 mm^2
In other words, 80% of the price of the Canon lens is certainly imaginable.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2018 at 10:11 UTC
On article Review: Peak Design Capture Clip V3 (229 comments in total)
In reply to:

Merowech: One headsup: I bought the capture clip V3 after reading this article and reading the PDF data sheet which says it will fit any strap up to 3in or 7.6cm wide. It doesn't fit any of my 3 backpack's straps, which are all about 6.5-7cm wide. I measured the distance between the clamping bolts: It's only 5.6cm, so I have no idea why peakdesign claim otherwise, even the printed manual says 7.6cm. Though I just discovered the website says 6.4cm (contrary to the downloadable PDF) which is still almost 1cm more than the measured 5.6cm.
Too bad, I'll return it. If somebody could point me to a slightly wider product that does the same, I would appreciate it.

You simply have to squeeze the strap horizontally (along the width of the strap) such that fits between that 5.6 cm. It can be a bit of a pain depending how thick the strap is. See this post of mine for pictures of the whole setup:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61229700

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2018 at 13:08 UTC
Total: 1012, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »