ptox

Joined on Dec 18, 2011

Comments

Total: 243, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article This film camera is 100% 3D-printed, including the lens (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

RobbertJan: Very impressive and intriguing, I would say. This is obviously not about image quality, but about showing potential for doing things very differently, in this case innovating camera production. As a first step this is very admirable and to be applauded.

What! Aren't you forgetting the headache-inducing image quality, the limited practical usage, and the fact that working 35mm SLRs with lens are a dime a dozen on ebay?

Like most other fun and interesting projects done purely for personal enjoyment, this really should never have been attempted!

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 21:29 UTC
On article This film camera is 100% 3D-printed, including the lens (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

CopCarSS: Meyer-Optik is reportedly getting a Kickstarter campaign together to sell these lenses for $2200 a piece.

HA HA HA KICKSTARTER JOKE GOOD ONE

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 21:27 UTC
On article This film camera is 100% 3D-printed, including the lens (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

cosinaphile: it is a complete failure as far as i can see .... he should have committed to further development especially in the matter of the lens

Considering it made the front page of dpreview, I'd hardly consider this a "failure".

Anyway .. where's your sense of fun ?

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 21:26 UTC
On article This film camera is 100% 3D-printed, including the lens (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: Working 35mm SLRs with lens are a dime a dozen on ebay so this was a waste of time and money IMHO. 3D printed parts that are hard to find is better use of it.

I really don't get the point or sentiment behind replies like this.

Takes all kinds, I guess.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 21:24 UTC
On article This film camera is 100% 3D-printed, including the lens (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

Steve in GA: 3D printing has the potential to completely change how we get things. Instead of having goods manufactured in one place, and then shipped to you or to a store, you will order something and it will be 3D printed at a location near you.

Someday.

But, cameras are not there, yet.

villagranvicent: so, according to you, printing a cellphone case is "amazing", but this printed camera and lens is "Completely waste of time, resources (and internet space)" ?

That's... weird.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 21:21 UTC

My first digital was an Apple QuickTake 100! Woo!

It sucked. I used it for about six months after the digital photo ID contract I had got it for was done, then went back to film.

The first digital I _liked_ was the Canon S10, purchased in '99. I got it on the strength of the DPR review: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons10

I had it for three years, then upgraded to the S400. Ahh, memories...

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 17:56 UTC as 45th comment
On article Real world test: The Panono is a 108MP spherical camera (157 comments in total)
In reply to:

JordanAT: Until it produces a view which is rectilinear and nearly free of wide angle distortion, it will remain a gimmick. To be immersive the viewing experience needs to be like turning your head. It's like 3D content - so much of it is exaggerated to make you say "woah, look at that 3D effect" instead of "wow, that looks like real life".

Huh? The view _is_ rectilinear.

And the visible wideangle distortion is entirely dependent on the zoom level; zoom in enough and there's no distortion at all.

(How would you project a wideangle view in a narrow viewport without distortion, anyway?)

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2016 at 16:29 UTC
In reply to:

racenviper: Ha Ha Ha, show me a picture with all of that. Please include the purchased cables and batteries to run all of that. It will be a rats nest of cables.

I have something similar target shooting on a 300 yard range.

It requires exactly one cable: a USB connection between the router and camera.

And the router has a rechargeable integrated battery.

All of which I learned within one minute of clicking on the link.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 18:01 UTC
On article Faster flagship: Hands-on with the Fujifilm X-T2 (122 comments in total)
In reply to:

Beckler8: I'd like to know how this compares to Sony a6300, esp. video wise. I don't care for the retro looks though - seems like with these two you have to choose between ridiculous ergonomics or random retro.

"It's like saying who cares what a car looks like, just drive it."

No, it's not like that.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 17:41 UTC
In reply to:

davev8: why is this lens so big and heavy....at 70mm by 70mm with a 62mm filter thread and 330g the canon FF equiv is the 24 F2.8 is ,at just over 68mm x 55mm and a 58mm filter thread and 280g ..the Nikon FF 24mm F2.8 AF D is 46mm x 55.5mm a 52mm filter thread and 267g

Maybe it's a better performing lens than the Canon 24mm f/2.8?

That would be the obvious possibility.

Or, maybe its internals are made of granite. That's also possible. I suppose.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 21:02 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: $1300 for an F/2.8 equivalent lens....... to each their own I suppose.

... because the only important attributes of a lens are its focal length and maximum aperture, amirite?

(Why bother posting anything interesting when you can make the same tedious comment that dozens before you have made?)

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 20:47 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: Even if you want to talk equivalence, I still don't see how FF is coming out ahead.

Canon 5D3 with 24mm f2.8 is $3050 and over 1200g
Panasonic GH4 with 12mm f1.4 is $2600 and 900g.

Canon 6D with 24mm f2.8 is $2000 and 1050g
Panasonic G7 with 12mm f1.4 is $2000 and 750g (Also comes with free kit zoom)

Sony A7II with Batis 25mm f2 is $3100 and 940g
Panasonic GX85 with 12mm f1.4 is $2100 and 760g

Terkwoiz: and the light that falls on those sensors passes through what ? ...

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 16:39 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: Even if you want to talk equivalence, I still don't see how FF is coming out ahead.

Canon 5D3 with 24mm f2.8 is $3050 and over 1200g
Panasonic GH4 with 12mm f1.4 is $2600 and 900g.

Canon 6D with 24mm f2.8 is $2000 and 1050g
Panasonic G7 with 12mm f1.4 is $2000 and 750g (Also comes with free kit zoom)

Sony A7II with Batis 25mm f2 is $3100 and 940g
Panasonic GX85 with 12mm f1.4 is $2100 and 760g

Terkwoiz: "And no, the panny 12mm 1.4 can't hang with this Sony combo, are you kidding? The Sony IQ would crush it."

How do you know? Have you got an advance copy of the production lens?

No? Then you have no idea. So why are you making things up?

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 00:11 UTC
In reply to:

String: LOL, 384 replies in less than a day and the majority of them from FF users slagging the system and no interest in m43... Oh I so love DPR!

But thanks anyway guys because we m43 users never knew the system was so big/heavy, expensive and not able to even take mediocre images before you pointed it out... for the 1000th time.

Terkwoiz just wants the best IQ!

I assume you shoot with a Phase One, then?

Come on. What you meant was: "I just want the best IQ... in a price/size/feature range that makes sense to me."

Which is what we all want.

What you fail to realize--even with String making the point clear as day--is that what makes sense to you does not make sense to everyone else.

I mean, duh. What's with the solipsism?

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 00:08 UTC
In reply to:

PerL: OK - so I found the comparison I was after.
This Pana 12 1.4 weighs 355g and costs 1300 dollars.
The eqv Canon 24 2.8 for FF weighs 281g and costs 550 dollars. (B&H)
The much faster eqv Nikon 24 1.8 for FF weighs 355g and costs 700 dollars.
Fast primes simply seems to be weak point for small formats, and you have to pay a significant extra cost if you want to go there. And there is no size advantage - rather the opposite - despite the small sensor.

You don't even know how well the lens performs!

You have no basis for the claim that it's not worth the money!

<smashes head against desk>

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 00:05 UTC
In reply to:

quangzizi: Hum let see:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_24_2p8_is&products=nikon_24_1p8g_ed&products=panasonic_12_1p4

Canon 24 2.8: 7 bladed - 11 elements in 9 groups - No sealing - Plastic construction - Heck, even the 24 1.4 only have 8 blades - 13 elements in 10 groups

Nikon 24 1.8: 7 bladed - 12 elements in 9 groups - No sealing - Plastic construction

Nikon 24 2.8: 1990s lenses - 7 bladed - 9 elements in 9 groups (no ED or any special element, questionable coating compared to modern lense) - No sealing - Plastic construction

Panasonic 12: 9 bladed - 15 elements in 12 groups - Weather sealing - All metal construction

Ah let me throw this in as well. Panasonic gives you a metal hood.

Any objection here?

tko: Don't be tiresome. If one picked MFT for _its_ small size and weight, there are plenty of options... obviously including the tiny (and quite good) Oly 12mm f/2.

(I know that's a couple of thoughts beyond what's right in front of your face, so if you need a bit of time before replying sensibly... no worries.)

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 20:38 UTC
In reply to:

Trk: Panasonic will have hard time to sell such a lens for this price, because aperture equivalence knowledge is now wide spread. Also I suppose that Panasonic lens will have brutal aberrations similar to 25mm f1.4 For 600usd ok lens, for 1300usd no go lens.

@Trk Yeah, purple fringing sucks.

But I still don't get why you're already convinced this lens won't be worth the money. It might be the sharpest and best-corrected lens in the entire history of lensmaking... for all any of us knows at this point.

With 15 elements, I'd at least expect it to be optically corrected to a higher degree than most m43 lenses.

But in the end, all that matters is the image -- not how it got made.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 17:53 UTC
In reply to:

Trk: Panasonic will have hard time to sell such a lens for this price, because aperture equivalence knowledge is now wide spread. Also I suppose that Panasonic lens will have brutal aberrations similar to 25mm f1.4 For 600usd ok lens, for 1300usd no go lens.

@Trk I shot the 25mm f/1.4 for years. Your comment still makes no sense.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 16:41 UTC
In reply to:

Trk: Panasonic will have hard time to sell such a lens for this price, because aperture equivalence knowledge is now wide spread. Also I suppose that Panasonic lens will have brutal aberrations similar to 25mm f1.4 For 600usd ok lens, for 1300usd no go lens.

Why on earth would this lens have "brutal aberrations similar to" a lens designed over five years ago for a different focal length and which is sold for (around) half the price? That makes no sense.

As for having a hard time selling... d'you suppose a multi-billion dollar company does market research first? D'you suppose they've gained confidence from the success of the 42.5 Nocticron?

They're not going for volume here. They're going for people who are already heavily invested in m43 and who are practising the art/craft/whatever of photography instead of hemming and hawing about equivalence.

You know, photographers. Not gearheads.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 15:45 UTC

PLEASE: everyone who is thinking of posting a snarky / patronizing / concern-trolling comparison with another system's lens JUST. NOT. BOTHER.

The math is simple. We all get it. We've all got it for years.

And unless you have a quality report on this new lens, you simply have no idea how well it works, relative to those others. Not that you care...

Thanks but no thanks -- we're sticking with m43!

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 15:11 UTC as 90th comment
Total: 243, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »