LensBeginner

LensBeginner

Lives in Italy Italy
Joined on Jan 23, 2012

Comments

Total: 841, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (16 comments in total)

I said I felt that the subscription model "runs counter to the longevity benefit of building a database around my images"

You don't say? :-P

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 22:10 UTC as 14th comment
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (404 comments in total)

It looks like a swell camera, with big enough sensor and reasonable zoom range (no 10-1000 nonsense)... to bad the price is a wee bit too high for my liking :P

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 21:21 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

AKH: The PT Cruiser should have been designed by Italians. It is one of the worst designs I have ever seen. But I sort of understand and agree with you on the camera. On the other hand why not let people do whatever they want?

Ouch! we see plenty of those here! XDXD
OTOH it was displayed at the MoMA... so bad taste on the part of the Americans too! :D

I would tolerate that silly wrinkle above the hood, problem with that car is that it was terrible unreliable (like most FIATs anyway).

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 07:24 UTC
In reply to:

AKH: The PT Cruiser should have been designed by Italians. It is one of the worst designs I have ever seen. But I sort of understand and agree with you on the camera. On the other hand why not let people do whatever they want?

Sorry, misunderstood your comment.
Yes, you're right,

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 11:33 UTC
In reply to:

AKH: The PT Cruiser should have been designed by Italians. It is one of the worst designs I have ever seen. But I sort of understand and agree with you on the camera. On the other hand why not let people do whatever they want?

...I gather either you don't like or have no clue about Pininfarina, Bertone or Giugiaro, just to name three Italian people at the forefront of automotive design in the last century...

The "should have" is appropriate, because one of the people that contributed in a substantial way to the PT Cruiser's design was American designer Bryan Nesbitt...

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 10:53 UTC
In reply to:

Chris2210: "Attach an f/1.2 lens and stop down a little to see how Stanley Kubrick made do with f/0.7 for filming those famous candle-lit scenes in “Barry Lyndon”. Or open up all the way to f/0.666 and probe the darkness in a way that no photographer has ever been able to do until now."

Pure marketing hype. Total light gathered is still severely limited by the tiny sensor. Put your f1.2 lens on a D5 [or indeed just about any modern 35mm sensor] and you'll be able to get far more usable imagery in very low light situations.

While the Metabones speedboosters are interesting and useful for APSc and MFT formats, why on earth anyone would want to spend so much on one to team it with a cheap, limited and obsolete camera is way beyond me. Perhaps why they have to make such outrageous claims in their marketing.

Oh my... I wasn't comparing a FF lens on APS-C to a FF lens on APS-C with a speedbooster; I said that a FF lens on APS-C with a speedbooster will _at best_ have the same performance of the same lens ON FF.

What's so transcendent about it, and which part of it you don't get?

Regarding the magnifying glass, it's the wrong analogy, unless you look at your pictures the size of the burn on an ant... are you paid by Metabones, in order to pretend not to understand what others have wrote so clearly?

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 15:08 UTC
In reply to:

Chris2210: "Attach an f/1.2 lens and stop down a little to see how Stanley Kubrick made do with f/0.7 for filming those famous candle-lit scenes in “Barry Lyndon”. Or open up all the way to f/0.666 and probe the darkness in a way that no photographer has ever been able to do until now."

Pure marketing hype. Total light gathered is still severely limited by the tiny sensor. Put your f1.2 lens on a D5 [or indeed just about any modern 35mm sensor] and you'll be able to get far more usable imagery in very low light situations.

While the Metabones speedboosters are interesting and useful for APSc and MFT formats, why on earth anyone would want to spend so much on one to team it with a cheap, limited and obsolete camera is way beyond me. Perhaps why they have to make such outrageous claims in their marketing.

Aberrations might be reduced, but are enlarged again when printing or viewing on screen... I give up, it's no use...

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 19:53 UTC
In reply to:

Chris2210: "Attach an f/1.2 lens and stop down a little to see how Stanley Kubrick made do with f/0.7 for filming those famous candle-lit scenes in “Barry Lyndon”. Or open up all the way to f/0.666 and probe the darkness in a way that no photographer has ever been able to do until now."

Pure marketing hype. Total light gathered is still severely limited by the tiny sensor. Put your f1.2 lens on a D5 [or indeed just about any modern 35mm sensor] and you'll be able to get far more usable imagery in very low light situations.

While the Metabones speedboosters are interesting and useful for APSc and MFT formats, why on earth anyone would want to spend so much on one to team it with a cheap, limited and obsolete camera is way beyond me. Perhaps why they have to make such outrageous claims in their marketing.

@cosinaphile apologies accepted.

However I still believe your approach to be factually wrong.

You're right, the difference between FF and APS-C is negligible: given the same sensor tech & generation, it's about one stop. The same stop you gain with a speed booster (minus the additional glass).

The total light gathered by a given lens & projected on a given image circle _cannot be altered_, it can be concentrated, but you'll still need to expand it again when going to viewing size, negating the advantage.

_Maybe_ your APS-C Fuji sensors are so much better than Nikon's FF ones, that you make up for the losses due to the adapter and then some (I doubt it), but here we are talking about a system whose latest camera was launched in 2014! I use Pentax gear, but I'm not blind...

You _cannot_ go past the light capabilities of a lens in its intended format. This adapter is convenient, sure, but it itsn't magical.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 08:37 UTC
In reply to:

Chris2210: "Attach an f/1.2 lens and stop down a little to see how Stanley Kubrick made do with f/0.7 for filming those famous candle-lit scenes in “Barry Lyndon”. Or open up all the way to f/0.666 and probe the darkness in a way that no photographer has ever been able to do until now."

Pure marketing hype. Total light gathered is still severely limited by the tiny sensor. Put your f1.2 lens on a D5 [or indeed just about any modern 35mm sensor] and you'll be able to get far more usable imagery in very low light situations.

While the Metabones speedboosters are interesting and useful for APSc and MFT formats, why on earth anyone would want to spend so much on one to team it with a cheap, limited and obsolete camera is way beyond me. Perhaps why they have to make such outrageous claims in their marketing.

@Matpan
Most people just decide to ignore the truth, so it's no use, I'm afraid...

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 20:59 UTC
In reply to:

Chris2210: "Attach an f/1.2 lens and stop down a little to see how Stanley Kubrick made do with f/0.7 for filming those famous candle-lit scenes in “Barry Lyndon”. Or open up all the way to f/0.666 and probe the darkness in a way that no photographer has ever been able to do until now."

Pure marketing hype. Total light gathered is still severely limited by the tiny sensor. Put your f1.2 lens on a D5 [or indeed just about any modern 35mm sensor] and you'll be able to get far more usable imagery in very low light situations.

While the Metabones speedboosters are interesting and useful for APSc and MFT formats, why on earth anyone would want to spend so much on one to team it with a cheap, limited and obsolete camera is way beyond me. Perhaps why they have to make such outrageous claims in their marketing.

Wow... calling me names, taking a patronizing attitude and making all kinds of grammar blunders just didn't cut it for you...
You _had_ to forget viewing size... because _obviously_ you see images on the very same sensor you use to record them!

So... let's see... I take the same quantity of light, and project it a) on a big sensor and b) through _additional glass_ on a smaller sensor, thus concentrating light _just to have to spread it out again in order to fill the same monitor/printing medium_

Yup, I'm ignorant, legit!

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 20:01 UTC
In reply to:

Chris2210: "Attach an f/1.2 lens and stop down a little to see how Stanley Kubrick made do with f/0.7 for filming those famous candle-lit scenes in “Barry Lyndon”. Or open up all the way to f/0.666 and probe the darkness in a way that no photographer has ever been able to do until now."

Pure marketing hype. Total light gathered is still severely limited by the tiny sensor. Put your f1.2 lens on a D5 [or indeed just about any modern 35mm sensor] and you'll be able to get far more usable imagery in very low light situations.

While the Metabones speedboosters are interesting and useful for APSc and MFT formats, why on earth anyone would want to spend so much on one to team it with a cheap, limited and obsolete camera is way beyond me. Perhaps why they have to make such outrageous claims in their marketing.

Maybe some people will like to use their Nikon lenses on another camera they own.

Other people, well, maybe they like to be convinced that you can bend the Laws of Physics, and create light where there is only so much.

From a FF f/1.2 lens, you will at best get the performance of a FF f/1.2 lens, it's that simple.
Moreover any manipulation, in the form of additional lenses in the optical path, will reduce total ligth transmitted and degrade quality.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 10:46 UTC
In reply to:

JBrown86: Yashica, Look
If you had
One shot
Or one opportunity
To seize everything you ever wanted
In one moment
Would you capture
Or just let it slip?

What a waste of an opportunity!

Nope, there would be copyr-8 issues :-P

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 08:25 UTC
On photo DSC_0031s in the Apples challenge (9 comments in total)
In reply to:

stevo23: Not sure what these things all have to do with each other.

No, it doesn't... never drank wine nor ate apples at a classical music concert XD

OTOH, there's quite a tradition of still lifes with musical instruments...

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2017 at 15:40 UTC
On photo DSC_0031s in the Apples challenge (9 comments in total)
In reply to:

stevo23: Not sure what these things all have to do with each other.

At least Bach's Chaconne and the violin do... the rest, well, not so sure :-P

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2017 at 07:02 UTC
On article How I almost lost a Nikon D850 to an eBay scam (23 comments in total)

L'arroseur (presque) arrosé :-P

Jokes aside, good for you that you were vigilant, and did not fall for it ;-)

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2017 at 11:04 UTC as 11th comment

...I hope this is not a repeat of the "airplane in the stepladder" thing XD

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2017 at 15:43 UTC as 33rd comment
In reply to:

PanoMax: I never make misteaks.

I always make beefsteaks.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 11:58 UTC

The mistake is not putting multiple subjects in a picture, but failing to establish a relationship and/or a hierarchy between them (e.g. gaze -> relationship, degree of focus -> hierarchy).

BTW, it's not a tangent when you're using the preposition "through", it's a secant.
That of course assuming we're talking about the bidimensional plane of the picture, because in the 3D reality, it's obviously neither.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 11:57 UTC as 31st comment
In reply to:

zeratulmrye: gopro
xiaoyi
panasonic
iphone
dji
even Canon

they all have 4k60P now

what are you doing SONY??

@ShakiKhulud
I gather zeratulmrye was referring to Sony's action cams, like the FDR-X3000...

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 17:57 UTC
In reply to:

ChickenBalls: doubt you get a good GPU if any at 2.4k
which means you'll have to pay another 6k for a Nvidia Quadro
It would be perfect for 8K gaming though :D

...gaming? o_O

...and I thought this was a photography website talking about a workstation! XD

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 12:56 UTC
Total: 841, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »