StanRogers

Joined on Feb 9, 2012

Comments

Total: 170, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

fenceSitter: A battery operated tripod head sounds like a Rube Goldberg contraption to me, and an obvious point of failure to boot. Proprietary, nonstandard batteries add insult to injury. Combined with Manfrotto's p!ss poor customer service, it's an absolute dealbreaker for me.

The battery is neither non-standard nor proprietary either, for that matter.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 22:05 UTC
On article Nikon D7500: What you need to know (533 comments in total)
In reply to:

felix from the suburbs: As a long time Sony user I was looking for a secondary camera that would let me use some of the newer Sigma Art and Tamron lenses that only seem to be available for Nikon or Canon mounts. I have read some of the negative comments here, but, in my case, the 7500 seems to be just what I was looking for. Hopefully it will be available in Toronto at the same time as it's available in the rest of the world.

Vistek's saying end of June, FWIW.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 21:48 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Nikon D70 (220 comments in total)
In reply to:

TacticDesigns: I picked up a used Nikon D70s back in 2008 after reading about how you could do high speed sync flash on the cheap on the blog of The Strobist.

I already had a dSLR, so I was just getting this Nikon to test out this high speed sync flash thing. LOL. I figured, I'd play around with that, and then that would be it for me and Nikon.

But as I got familiar with the camera, I realized how effective the AF system was. And how nicely laid out the user interface was. It was so logical, sensible and effective.

When my daughter got into gymnastics and cheer, having actually used the Nikon and its AF system, I thought it would be my best bet to get keepers. So I dusted it off and started to chase my daughter around at her competitions.

Since the D70s, I've gotten the D5100, D7000 and now the D750.

Powerful cameras! And lots and lots of keepers!

I'm glad I picked up that D70s just to goof around with high speed sync flash! LOL.

:)

The D70's focal plane shutter never went higher than 1/250. The so-called "X sync" was only in effect if you were using iTTL flashes, and that limitation was there simply because of the flash duration of some Nikon speedlights at full power. The only "tricks" to higher-speed flash sync were to avoid TTL flash connections and to make sure the flash duration was shorter than the sensor exposure time. (F'rinstance, you *could* try to sync a speedlight at full power using 1/8000, but you'd only get the equivalent of, say, 1/32 flash power; the same sort of thing would happen on older-style variable-charge studio strobes set to lower power levels.) If you've got the global shutter set to 1/16000 somehow but your full-power flash duration is 1/900s (typical for a GN 60-class small flash) *and* the flash doesn't actually fire until after the sensor is made active, you're kidding yourself if you think you're getting a full-power exposure.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2017 at 19:23 UTC
In reply to:

digilt: " The minimum focus distance of the 24-70 is 37cm/1.5in and it uses 82mm filters."

37cm is closer to 14.6in. , not 1.5in.

Remember that the close focusing distance is from the film/sensor plane, not from the front of the lens, so 14.5 inches ain't bad. A 1.5" close focus would put your subject somewhere inside the lens, near the back, except with a "body cap" pancake lens or pinhole on an SLR.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 19:38 UTC
On article Fotodiox LED100WB-56 quick review (56 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: It looks like the Throwback Thursday found its way here by some coding error.

No, it's an example of a video shot using those lights.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 19:06 UTC
In reply to:

philm5d: This sort of ill informed cr@p has been spread in differing versions over the last 30+ years I've been involved in professional photography and by the sound of it by the type of silly bint who these days probably sells the advertising, makes the coffee and delivers the magazine. Previous versions include : "No need to book an expensive professional photographer just hand out disposable cameras to your guests and collect them after the wedding for a full record of your special day", however the best was : make sure your photographer uses lenses which have "built-in depth of field" for those dreamy romantic shots" - I admit that's going back to the late 70s but you get the drift....

...and that's why I had to give up using Waterhouse stops and a cabinet plate camera and move to an RB67. It had built-in depth of field.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 20:39 UTC
In reply to:

UncheckedError: Wow, the headshots coming out of this lens are awesome.

For example:

https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS1800x1200~sample_galleries/5004187909/4006410149.jpg

Has a really impressive combination of fine detail and smooth bokeh.

I didn't realize that Tamron's 90mm was this good.

It always has been, really, even going back to the f/2.5 Adaptall 2 version. Even with this one being a complete optical redesign, with IF and VR replacing the old unit-focus design, I don't think they would have let it out of the barn if it wasn't an improvement on the previous (quite good) version. It's kinda been their "signature" lens, even if they haven't shouted that very loudly, to the point that if they ever release a 90mm macro stinker, it'll be safe to say they've given up.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2016 at 02:10 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (805 comments in total)
In reply to:

jorg14: So, what's next?
2-1/4 square?
4X5?
Full frame is so yesterday.
I mean how could you even take a serious shot with APS-C or 4/3's right?

9x12cm would be one sensor chip on an oversized wafer, so "not astronomical" is "not happening", at least not anytime soon. A scanning back wouldn't be out of the question, but they are limited in a lot of ways (sort of like a focal plane shutter on a press camera at high speed). Synthetic large format images from multiple simultaneous smaller-format captures look intriguing, though, except I can't help thinking that parallax would be a major issue except in landscapes and such where the closest details are hundreds of focal lengths distant.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 10:37 UTC
In reply to:

Toni Salmonelli: As another puzzle piece for success Sigma, should try to initiate some kind of cooperation with Adobe to make Lightroom fully compatible.

I highly doubt Adobe would be interested AT ALL unless the Foveon gets an unexpectedly huge burst in market share. It's not a matter of adjusting what LR/ACR do just a little bit; it would be a completely different engine than is used for a colour matrix (Bayer or Xtrans) raw image. Even with a complete set of specs in front of them, that's still a lot of money to spend on a sensor that, statistically speaking, nobody uses. And despite the image quality, the fact that you can't shoot 30 FPS under a moonless sky, miss your exposure by six stops and still post "masterpieces" to Flikr (or whatever it is that gearheads do these days) means that not many Foveons are going to sell.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 10:09 UTC
In reply to:

s_grins: What about AF?

You can't do phase detection AF properly with an apodized lens; AF would pretty much be contrast-only. The Sony 135 is also manual focus only.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2016 at 21:35 UTC
In reply to:

Matsu: Nice update, brings them in line with the other systems, will be interesting to see if they incorporate a hypersonic style function or stick to traditional high speed sync. Range seems a bit limited.

Well, okay, glad you think so. It means you've got an especially slow speedlight (like, say, a Godox 180/360).

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 13:58 UTC
In reply to:

Matsu: Nice update, brings them in line with the other systems, will be interesting to see if they incorporate a hypersonic style function or stick to traditional high speed sync. Range seems a bit limited.

"Hypersync" loses more power than HSS; it basically means opening the shutter after the flash has fired and relying on the tail of the light, so you miss the most powerful part of the flash's output, and you still lose most of the light to the shutter curtains. (With variable-charge studio lights - the sort where you need to dump power when you turn the flash down - it gets more efficient as you turn down the flash power.) It's a lose-lose technology.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 00:43 UTC
In reply to:

Dan DeLion: So what ever happened to using a cheap filter and some Vaseline to get the same effect? For most of us, that’s a zero cost option.

It's not the same thing at all. Nor is it the same thing as a diffusion filter, star filter or net. If you want it as a screw-on, you're looking for something in the Softar family.

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2015 at 01:23 UTC
In reply to:

huyzer: Wow. Her eye color. Is that gold?

As an eye colour, it's usually called "hazel".

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2015 at 01:21 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: I'm a big believer in smooth apodization (as opposed to the sink-strainer things Fuji is historically known for). It actually works to give good bokeh, as opposed to all the other tricks (like undercorrected SA). It also slightly enhances sharpness in focus (by reducing contribution from outer rays that generally suffer more aberrations and avoiding diffraction artifacts from blade edges).

However, I think the Minolta/Sony 135mm STF is still king. The annoying thing is that the 135mm STF is a manual-focus A-mount lens because A-mount does not do CDAF. I don't know why Sony hasn't made a CDAF E-mount version, but I'd think it would be worthwhile for the bragging rights alone...?

Anyway, you can make your own apodization filter for most lenses (although it is a bit trickier than one would guess) and you also can synthesize STF by varying the aperture in a multiple exposure (as Minolta did in the Maxxum 7).

Wasn't the sink strainer more of a Rodagon (soft focus) thing? I'm with you on the STF, but apart from being manual focus, it was/is an intimidating piece of kit as well, what with the dual irises and all. Even putting the wide-open T-stop in the model name threw some people for a loop, since they'd never had to deal with T-stops in all of their TTL-metering experience. Thanks to cine, that's probably not a problem anymore, but a redesign with a single iris and CDAF wouldn't hurt at all.

Link | Posted on Dec 24, 2015 at 16:42 UTC
In reply to:

helltormentor: @Richard Butler

I never had a chance to check the idea of "equivalence" myself so I'd appreciate it if you could give me some information on that. I know that DOF of a 56mm lens on an APS-C camera is similar to that of a 85mm lens on a full frame. The point is, some photographers believe that although DOF is similar, the out of focus rendition (profile) is quite different. They believe that the transition between in focus and out of focus is more abrupt when a longer lens is used. In other words, it is impossible to get the same result by using a short lens on a cropped sensor. Is this true or it's just a myth?

The biggest single difference is the magnification. On an 8x10 camera, for instance, a tight head shot is essentially a macro (half life size or better). The "macroness" (for want of a better term) for the "same" shot (same field of view, same camera-to-subject distance, etc.) decreases with the size of the image sensor (film or digital sensor), and it's that bellows factor (old-school term; it means how far the lens needs to be moved away from the sensor compared to infinity focus, or how much the focal length of the lens needs to be reduced in an internal focus lens) that determines the distribution of the sizes of the circles of confusion. At 1:1, things in front of and behind the plane of focus get blurry at the same rate. As the magnification goes down, you get closer to the classic "1/3 in front, 2/3 behind" depth of field. The closer your subject, the more difference you'll see between larger and smaller formats.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 17:57 UTC
In reply to:

Timbukto: Let me guess...patent pending? If the output is standard jpeg...and it works in all standard jpeg browsers and devices...it IS standard jpeg. JpegMini is a *brand* and is a jpeg *encoder* but not a unique *format*. This is no different from various flavors of Mp3 encoders with LAME being the best and open source. There used to be other variant mp3 encoders that costed money and well isn't that weird...they don't exist any more and I can't even remember their name.

In addition it is highly doubtful that there is truly any unique patentable technique applied in this standard format that any other unbranded run of the mill jpeg encoder cannot also apply.

It may be very well that JpegMini is a good encoder but that will require more thorough analysis than this marketing bit.

Also the bits about it using 'perceptual' encoding as unique is hogwash as the jpeg standard is all about perceptual encoding just like MP3 is all about perceptual encoding. Silly to claim this is the only one.

The only difference is the chunking and variable compression - something the JPEG standard has always allowed, but which isn't effectively implemented in many places (and isn't implemented at all natively in any of the popular image editors/raw processors). It is computationally expensive to make the local compression-level decisions (comparatively speaking), which is why it hasn't been the default method since the beginning; you certainly wouldn't want to be doing this on a 486SX-25 with 16MB of RAM. "Patentable" depends on the current state of patent law; it's only the decision algorithm that's unique and not described in the JPEG standard. In Photoshop terms, you get a file that's the size of a "6" or a "7" that looks like a "10" or an "11" that is readable by everything. Where bandwidth and/or storage space count, that makes a huge difference. Your complaint should be "why isn't everybody doing this?".

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2015 at 17:50 UTC
In reply to:

Xeexon: I'm with all those who say it's a new format altogether-why else would they go on and on about all the firsts of this company and then use 'brand new format' (all errors notwithstanding)? As improbable as it seems, I think it's even more improbable that whoever wrote this press release has the capacity to be ironic.

Ricoh/Pentax isn't afraid to innovate, beyond even what was already mentioned. There's the Theta, Q series, (nearly) disruptively inexpensive medium format, pro level features in a reasonably priced consumer camera, all the games they play with IBIS, etc... Not all these are great, but you cannot accuse Pentax of being afraid to try something new.

A new sensor format niche would also seem logical vis a vis competing in a nearly saturated full frame market.

Call me what you will, but here's hoping that this is more than just a stall tactic. At least for this bleeding heart Pentaxian, something new (and good) would be a very welcome concession after years of waiting.

I'm sure the 645 medium format people appreciate being told they're running just shy of a "pro" aspect ratio ;-)

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2015 at 19:40 UTC
In reply to:

Xeexon: I'm with all those who say it's a new format altogether-why else would they go on and on about all the firsts of this company and then use 'brand new format' (all errors notwithstanding)? As improbable as it seems, I think it's even more improbable that whoever wrote this press release has the capacity to be ironic.

Ricoh/Pentax isn't afraid to innovate, beyond even what was already mentioned. There's the Theta, Q series, (nearly) disruptively inexpensive medium format, pro level features in a reasonably priced consumer camera, all the games they play with IBIS, etc... Not all these are great, but you cannot accuse Pentax of being afraid to try something new.

A new sensor format niche would also seem logical vis a vis competing in a nearly saturated full frame market.

Call me what you will, but here's hoping that this is more than just a stall tactic. At least for this bleeding heart Pentaxian, something new (and good) would be a very welcome concession after years of waiting.

@RedFox88: Not necessarily. A 26mm x 34.5mm 3:4 format sensor will fit in the same image circle as a 24mm x 36mm 2:3 sensor with a modest boost in "gross" pixel numbers at the same pixel pitch and a slightly less modest boost in linear resolution along the short dimension, with only a slight change in the requirements for mirror and shutter sizes. (K will *just* accommodate the mirror height increase. *Just*. Going square with the K and filling the image circle would mean a loss unless they also choose to go mirrorless.) I'm not suggesting that's what's planned or anything, since that would mean commissioning a specialty fab, just that a new format (something other than 135) doesn't necessarily mean a new lens mount.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2015 at 14:59 UTC
On article Nikon announces development of flagship D5 DSLR (442 comments in total)
In reply to:

stratplaya: Serious question for the pro and semi-pro Nikon shooters. What would you like to see in the D5? What do you feel is lacking with the D4s?

@RPJG - It's a Yiddishism, and it's proper. It implies that you *could* care less, but that caring less would require a degree of effort or caring *about* the caring that isn't warranted. It's actually a stronger statement than "I couldn't care less", but with a bit of biting humour thrown in as well. (The phrase isn't just American either. Just as importantly, English isn't a system of formal logic. Why, for example, would "head over heels" mean anything other than "largely unaffected by the circumstances and going about business as usual"? Your head is normally over your heels.)

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2015 at 08:35 UTC
Total: 170, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »