jhinkey

jhinkey

Lives in United States Seattle, WA, United States
Works as a Aerospace Engineering Consultant
Has a website at www.hinkey.zenfolio.com
Joined on Dec 27, 2005

Comments

Total: 445, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

TTLstalker: Don't understand the need for such a fast wide angle lens. Could have just given me a 12mm F2.8 with excellent performance at a much cheaper price.

Well, m43 sensors need all the light they can get and all the low DOF they can get - someone willing to shell out this amount of $$ for a lens would expect.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 18:03 UTC

Looks great. If it's anything like the 42.5/1.2 PL then I'll likely get one at some point when the price is a bit lower.
Still looking for a 20/1.2 PL from Pany - now that would be a killer lineup:
12/1.4
20/1.2
42.4/1.2

those along with the most excellent 75/1.8 Oly and it's a killer combo for us m43 users. Small and light - not so much, but the fast AF and excellent across the frame sharpness of these lenses (assuming a hypothetical 20/1.2 would be equally sharp) is awesome to work with.

Yes, m43 is not as clean as APS-C or FF, but it's more than good enough for much of what I like to do and the AF reliability for me has been fantastic compared to my D800 & AF Nikkors.

Not for everyone for sure, but for those that can use these types of lenses they are great stuff.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 15:45 UTC as 30th comment | 11 replies
In reply to:

Mac McCreery: I love these little cameras. I might be tempted one day when the battery life is improved.

Don't let having to carry a couple of extra small batteries dissuade you from grabbing one of these excellent cameras.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 03:42 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: Hyped as the fastest 35mm full-frame lens and only one of the photos above is shot wide open?

Let's see the coma for night shots with some point light sources in the frame or some star shots . . . . .

I take that back - it looks like a lot of the images are shot wide open or near it judging from the amount of blur in the background - any exif data on these shots?

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 15:00 UTC

Hyped as the fastest 35mm full-frame lens and only one of the photos above is shot wide open?

Let's see the coma for night shots with some point light sources in the frame or some star shots . . . . .

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 14:51 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies

Excellent! Thanks for posting this.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2016 at 19:59 UTC as 39th comment
In reply to:

Sugarsnapphotos: Hopefully this news will bring down prices for used Leica lenses on ebay.

In about 50 years . . . then you won't necessarily care.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2016 at 21:40 UTC

It's not the drones that can be dangerous and harmful, but rather the drone operators that can be dangerous and harmful when they do stupid things.

Nice creativity though combining new and shiny tech with old analogue tech.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 03:52 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

Lan: Executive summary: Centre sharp, but corners soft.

High levels of astigamatism/coma appear to be the reason for the relatively poor showing at the corners; so this is not the lens of choice for astrophotography.

That said the A7R2 is a harsh test for any lens. Based on my experiences on a 5D2, I suspect the Samyang 14mm f2.8 might be a better option, but I haven't tried it on an A7R2...

Or, it's a perfect 16mm/4.5 after you crop those sometimes soft, but extreme corners out of the image.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2016 at 17:26 UTC
In reply to:

cdembrey: The new Voigtlander 15/4.5 III Aspherical Super Wide Heliar is a telephoto compared to the Voigtlander 10/5.6 Heliar-Hyper Wide. NO Interest in Sony FE camera or lenses, I'm waiting for the Leica M-Mount version.

Yes, but I don't think anyone knows how this lens will perform - especially in the corners that the 15/4.5 -III seems to have problems with on many copies. You might have to crop it back down to 15mm equivalent FOV . . . hopefully not.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2016 at 19:33 UTC

The other thing that this lens excels at is flare/ghosting control. It's capable of making great sun stars when stopped down just a bit.

That and it's so darned small/light compared to some of the faster UWA alternatives.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2016 at 19:23 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

jhinkey: The question is how good of a copy does the author have?
Over on FM there is a great thread that shows there is a huge variation in these lenses regarding the corner softness - some of the new E-mount versions have very very poor corners while a few have very very good corners.

I have the -III VM version with very very good corners and a few people have a new E mount version with very very good corners.

So this lens, if you can find a good copy, does very well in the corners. Not pin sharp, but sharp enough for sure. I can't quite tell if the author has one of the good copies or one of the bad copies.

Yep. And the killer is those corners don't change at all upon stopping down - if you get a "good" copy the corners are good no matter what while if you get a "bad" copy the corners are really bad and they stay that way even at f/11.
As I said I seemed to have lucked out with my M-mount -III copy to get pretty decent corners and am putting off trying to get an E-mount version (for my A7RII) until this high copy-to-copy variation has been resolved.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2016 at 19:20 UTC

The question is how good of a copy does the author have?
Over on FM there is a great thread that shows there is a huge variation in these lenses regarding the corner softness - some of the new E-mount versions have very very poor corners while a few have very very good corners.

I have the -III VM version with very very good corners and a few people have a new E mount version with very very good corners.

So this lens, if you can find a good copy, does very well in the corners. Not pin sharp, but sharp enough for sure. I can't quite tell if the author has one of the good copies or one of the bad copies.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2016 at 14:12 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies

Having been a climber for quite a few years now I immediately distrust any outdoor gear that claims to be "waterproof" unless it's rubber coated on the outside and/or inside. Sounds good, looks good, but highly doubt it.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2016 at 21:12 UTC as 60th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

MikeDPR: Nice shots overall.
But were the lady's feet okay after the hike? Her shoes look a bit too lightweight for the job. Ouch.

Nah, it's a fallacy that one must use heavy-weight and bulky footwear for such things - I long ago lost the hiking boots and went the light weight route - not quite as light weight as what she's wearing, but not far from it. You hike a lot your feet, ankles, etc. get in shape and you can get away with such footwear, especially on dry trails.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 23:03 UTC

I can see the attraction, but having spent a lot of time using the RX10-II for technical work (high speed video on the cheap) I would not want to get caught in a rainstorm, sweat a lot on it while hiking, get it dusty/dirty as the build quality is just not there for the rigors that hiking in the PNW put on a camera.

Need to give that hike a try!

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 23:00 UTC as 59th comment | 1 reply
On article Making a splash: Nikon D500 real-world sample gallery (228 comments in total)

Nice! You managed to catch the ubiquitous old motor home that is constantly parked on Harbor Avenue along that stretch - one of many mobile homeless homes in Seattle that have become part of the urban landscape.

Although these pictures are great and all, really did anyone expect anything but great image quality from such a well refined camera that is the latest in an evolution from previous models from Nikon. Never quite sure how these images would sway anyone to buy the D500 over something else, especially since it's their advanced flagship DX body that a pro would know all about anyways.

Nice images though.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 16:24 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

jhinkey: DPR - Unfortunately the image is of the A7R which I don't think is the target of the firmware . . .

Ah my bad.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 02:04 UTC

DPR - Unfortunately the image is of the A7R which I don't think is the target of the firmware . . .

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 23:52 UTC as 16th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

jhinkey: Great. I can sleep better at night now.
But seriously there are at least a 1/2 dozen other things that could be improved/fixed via firmware on the A7RII alone - where are those?

How so? You don't agree with my list?
I don't see the A7RII on your gear list . . .

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 23:41 UTC
Total: 445, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »