LensBeginner

LensBeginner

Lives in Italy Italy
Joined on Jan 23, 2012

Comments

Total: 809, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ovlov: Artists are lazy.

Trite Statement of the month.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2017 at 06:37 UTC

Pentax's marketing department /is/ my friend.
Without a botched attempt at a "designer's item" I would never have bought the camera I presently own - which I will probably use until it dies - at a rock-bottom price, lens included.

OTOH someone trying to convince me that I /need/ x, y features will have a hard time with me...

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2017 at 14:00 UTC as 130th comment
On article Five USB-C memory card readers compared (14 comments in total)

Which one is the kind that doesn't break after a year? -_-

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2017 at 11:06 UTC as 1st comment

Paranoia, making your life harder for no tangible benefit since ancient Greece...

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 19:33 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

Rensol: Stopped reading his article after this:
////
No, this effect would only be possible if light wasn’t the fastest object in the universe — if there was something faster that raced ahead of the light, then rebounded on the glass to block part of the incoming light. And that something is the ether.
////
ETHER! Really?
Article should sound like -" Do you believe Ether helps lenses to catch 3D pop?"

If not then you did not smoke enough of this amazing ether like substance auto smoked.

Oh rly?
goodness gracious...

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 20:24 UTC
In reply to:

dutch3dmaster: Very interesting article. Fortunately my stereoscopic imagery still has "3D pop", hahaha...

But seriously, I believe there has been made point. When I received my Panasonic 7-14mm lens last week I was truly puzzled reading that there are 16 lens elements in 12 groups. Now, a group must be 2+ so the whole description in itself is already quite a mess. It is a nice lens though :-)

The article might also explain why so many old lenses (like the "Emil Busch’s 1910 Glaukar portrait lens") return through kickstarter projects. I did not understand before, but maybe now I know.

I do still own some old lenses. Have to experiment a little. Maybe mounted on a stereoscopic camera it might deliver a "4D pop" (...).

@BadScience
I know that...

Banderras wrote that "a lens element can be part of more than one group", and I've never seen that happening.

He probably meant that one group can be composed of more than one lens (which is a platitude by the way)

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 18:21 UTC
In reply to:

dutch3dmaster: Very interesting article. Fortunately my stereoscopic imagery still has "3D pop", hahaha...

But seriously, I believe there has been made point. When I received my Panasonic 7-14mm lens last week I was truly puzzled reading that there are 16 lens elements in 12 groups. Now, a group must be 2+ so the whole description in itself is already quite a mess. It is a nice lens though :-)

The article might also explain why so many old lenses (like the "Emil Busch’s 1910 Glaukar portrait lens") return through kickstarter projects. I did not understand before, but maybe now I know.

I do still own some old lenses. Have to experiment a little. Maybe mounted on a stereoscopic camera it might deliver a "4D pop" (...).

@Banderras
?

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 15:15 UTC
In reply to:

Rensol: Stopped reading his article after this:
////
No, this effect would only be possible if light wasn’t the fastest object in the universe — if there was something faster that raced ahead of the light, then rebounded on the glass to block part of the incoming light. And that something is the ether.
////
ETHER! Really?
Article should sound like -" Do you believe Ether helps lenses to catch 3D pop?"

If not then you did not smoke enough of this amazing ether like substance auto smoked.

That was a goofy attempt at being humorous.
It's the point where the whole thing jumped the shark IMHO.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 15:13 UTC

I still think that some optical defects can lead to better subject isolation.

For instance, some old lenses I own tend to produce a subtle cyan fringing on high-contrast borders, and that - while imperceptible when looking at the whole picture - certainly helps with isolation.

Other factors, like composition, naturally play their part, e.g. if the cat and the porch wood in the first picture were angled the opposite way, then you'd have the most in-focus part of the cat standing out over the most out-of-focus part of the porch (just like the fence in the second picture). That should be obvious.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 12:23 UTC as 17th comment
In reply to:

Eric Calabros: I understand tendency towards perfection. But shooting in a way that eventually abandons %99 of audience from enjoying that perfectionism​ should no longer be acceptable. Don't like to sound leftist, but this intentional practice divides people into elite art consumers and .. the rest.

Yeah, let's make the Capital decide for the artists.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 11:38 UTC
In reply to:

Bombastic: This is just a reproduciton. Just imagine how was the original. 77 years ago.

But there were no IMAX camera back then!

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 08:23 UTC
In reply to:

AstroStan: Fantastic! (want one)

Side note: it is not fully "distortion free" because that is strictly not geometrically possible for a planar sensor/screen/print (ask any cartographer). The correct term is "rectilinear". But I'm sure that few really care and those who do already know.

They /don't/ want to be too explicit, I believe, hoping that potential buyer will confuse one thing with the other and buy this one hoping that it has no "distortion" of any kind, even distance-induced XD

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2017 at 20:57 UTC

I see that there still is a great deal of confusion between perspective "distortion" and lens-induced distortion...

...if only our peripheral vision could be as sharp as our central one, just once and for like 5 minutes, we could clear a lot of this mess once and for all...

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2017 at 08:28 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

TwoMetreBill: If one has Lightroom to edit the image then the image can be opened in Lightroom and the edits checked. This has got to be one of the most useless pieces of software ever.

...so it's main use should not be your pictures but other's? yeah, that's the gist of it! :-P

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2017 at 06:57 UTC

mmmh... 07/7 =|= 01/4... :-/

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 13:20 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

Gatoraied: Samsung hardly needs to sell cameras and despite the S7 disaster 2016 revenue was $174,000,000,000.00! The gross revenue this company made in total camera sales was less than 1/4 what they wrote off on the S7. With over 27 subsidiaries and many of them much larger than any camera company, camera sales are not necessary. Samsung has known that stand alone cameras will soon be relegated to the same status as film cameras did not long ago. In public 95% of people are shooting with a cell phone. They come home with more photos than most guys with DSLRS/mirrorless strapped to their neck. The ability to edit & share photos instantly is very powerful and the need to carry a clunker around all day, come home to D/L, edit and share photos with family & friends is, quite frankly, a total waste of time. Sure, for some photography, a DSLR or mirrorless is needed, however after seeing what most people on these websites produce with such big & expensive gear, Id say they wasted a lot of money.

I take pictures mainly for myself, not for uploading at web-size on some website.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

DGrinb: "....the company never entirely managed to shed its 'they make fridges, don't they?' image"
I heard some rumors they got into mobile industry as well :))))
Yamaha makes watercrafts, bikes and contactors. Mitsubishi makes cars and electric motors...
Funny...funny guy...

The Yamaha Corporation (the parent company of Yamaha Motor) is also world-famous for its top-notch production of musical instruments as well, among which there are very nice pianos and wind instruments (flutes and saxophones among others).

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 16:03 UTC
In reply to:

Sacher Khoudari: How do high speed cameras work? Do they also produce rolling shutter artifacts at very fast moving objects? Or do they have a *real* global shutter?

They work by costing thousands of dollars... XD

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 13:00 UTC
In reply to:

photomedium: Great video for the abstract concept impaired, rolling shutter is one of the easiest concept to understand.
Only remaining question: why don't they make every camera a high speed one and solve the problem?

Cost.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 12:41 UTC

...if it's really "Complimentary", then those should be given away for free...

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 11:43 UTC as 26th comment
Total: 809, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »