Joined on Feb 9, 2012


Total: 182, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Chris Yates: Nice, but hardly game-changing like Sony Alpha Rumors proudly claimed.

That rather depends on what you thought the game was, doesn't it?

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 19:57 UTC
In reply to:

AstroStan: If it ever come to fruition the f/0.9 will be a massive lens and a challenge for the sensor. That light cone and FOV will likely preclude micro-lens design and is probably specific to a BSI sensor.

And if any short lens could be called "astro" (& IMHO none are) then this could be it unless the huge number of glass surfaces conspire to produce star reflections. Nightscapes could capture fairly deep sky in exps short enough to minimize star trailing.

Theoretically, at least, a BSI sensor can have wider acceptance angles at the sensel positions for a given "well depth" since they don't require lit-side circuitry between the sensels. Realistically, though, that would make a lot more of a difference with a monochrome sensor than it would with a colour filter array. It's far more likely that a large part of the collimation will be handled by the rear elements of the lens, mooting the issue.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 20:29 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: Sounds a bit like bezier. I'm surprised there isn't more contrasting it with bezier.

Sounds like good old-fashioned splines to me. The existing pen tool uses Bezier curves. With a spline, you just put in constraint points - it's essentially like putting nails in a board, then bending a springy ruler around the nails, except without the nasty real-world physics stuff getting in the way like it did with drawing pins and spline rulers on a drawing board in the old days (been there, did that). It's a lot more intuitive than a Bezier curve, but you need more constraint points when the curves get especially tight or complex.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 19:59 UTC
In reply to:

jwasturias: These would probably be for Product Photography.
I wonder if the 90mm and 135mm have a floating element. If they do, that may be the reason that the use of an extension tube was not mentioned. (They did mention it as option for the 50mm). Lenses with Floating element don't work well if you move the whole lens out.

That's tilt, but it seems you've completely ignored what shift/rise/fall bring to the table. Focus stacking cannot and will not let you work around the ability to divorce your framing from your point of view (admittedly, to a somewhat limited degree) without cropping or keystoning (which works out to being nearly the same as cropping once you've made corrections) that movements get you. No, a TS/pc lens is not quite the same thing as a camera with full movements, but it's a darned sight better than a fixed tube for products.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2017 at 01:58 UTC
On article Don't buy another lens, buy a flash instead (347 comments in total)
In reply to:

Geekapoo: The good news about using a flash is that in the digital age, you can experiment extensively and figure out how enabling it is and how best to use a flash for your purposes. Sure beats the heck out of paying film/development costs!

Frenemy, I'd say. It beat the heck out of speed-souping test frames, but you needed to know both your "real" emulsion and the Paranoid you were using pretty well to be able to translate between them - and there was always something lost in translation.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2017 at 23:29 UTC
On article Don't buy another lens, buy a flash instead (347 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jumpster: Never seen a flash bounced off a 30 foot ceiling create light like that. Doesn't seen possible?

It wasn't possible when flash guide numbers were around 28-32 (metres at ISO 100) and, say a wedding photographer had a choice between VPS and VPH shooting in colour. These days, your guide number is going to be closer to 60 on a "full sized" speedlight, and the only way a modern camera's ISO 6400 penalizes you, if you need it, is if you like pixel-peeping and think any noise reduction is of the devil. You point the flash where you want the light to be coming from; it doesn't need to be straight up/shortest path. Nor does it have to be all of the light you're using.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 20:19 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: The flash has only one contact on the hot shoe, which makes is compatible with any camera that has a hot shoe. Why Canon/Nikon only? What am I missing?

At this price level, they're probably just trying to avoid complaints/returns from people with older Sony/Minolta cameras that used a proprietary shoe, etc. Never underestimate the cost of servicing clueless bargain hunters; they'll kill you every time.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 00:29 UTC
In reply to:

DaveClark: "compressed from 52MB to just 15MB, and you would be hard-pressed to spot the difference between the two versions." DL Cade 7/19/2017

That's about as positive an endorsement as dpreview is going to give. Damien's December 3, 2015 review suggested that they are holding off from giving a full endorsement - which may or may not come in the future.

"More tests will be required to see exactly what is lost and what is at stake,.. If you can't wait for the results of my testing you can download the $19.99 standard standalone version of JPEGmini for a free trial." Damien 12/3/2015

No, the Pro is essentially a re-write of the Standard using different memory allocation and multi-threading/multi-processor. It happened after a "side project" that was meant to make a small additional income turned out to be a little more in demand than the author had imagined, with demands for better performance. (I also believe it's 64-bit only, so it won't run on some older machines, but I could be wrong there.) It's more of a GUI-enable port of the server version than an enhanced version of the Standard, as I understand it. (I'm not connected with it; I've just been following the project for a long time.) There just wasn't a good reason to back-port the changes to the budget/free option and then cripple it if a bargain version with pretty reasonable limitations could still sell and a free "good will" version was still a useful introduction - $20 is better than a lost sale, and while the code base is clever, it's not big (apart from the UI), so maintenance stays reasonable as well.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 20:33 UTC
In reply to:

DaveClark: "compressed from 52MB to just 15MB, and you would be hard-pressed to spot the difference between the two versions." DL Cade 7/19/2017

That's about as positive an endorsement as dpreview is going to give. Damien's December 3, 2015 review suggested that they are holding off from giving a full endorsement - which may or may not come in the future.

"More tests will be required to see exactly what is lost and what is at stake,.. If you can't wait for the results of my testing you can download the $19.99 standard standalone version of JPEGmini for a free trial." Damien 12/3/2015

If you can live within the standard version's limits, it's a $20 no-brainer. Heck, if you can stay within the trial version's limits (it's an images-per-day limit; I haven't heard about them adding a time limit or anything), it's a free no-brainer. Start-up time sucks (it's a .NETapplication), but it does what it says on the tin - quickly, once it's started - so even if you're just looking to get email attachment sizes down without killing your pics every now and then, you can probably use it.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 18:44 UTC
In reply to:

newe: Why do you need to save space... Get a larger hard drive. Why trash your pictures.

...and it's not so much "higher compression" as "variable compression". JPEG can use different compression levels in each image block, but most JPEG compressors/encoders do a single global compression (where each 8x8 block is compressed at the same level). If you want more compression, you get worse results in parts of the image that can't stand it. JPEGmini (and similar programs) go through an existing (high-quality/low-compression) JPEG image looking for blocks that can be compressed more without damaging them, while leaving high-detail blocks alone. In general, you hand it a "12" or a "100" (depending on the program you used to do the original JPEG), and it gives you back a file that looks the same (you literally have to do a diff in order to spot anything), but is about the size of an "8" or a "70". Results vary by image, of course; not every image has areas that can take a lot of additional compression. I find it as useful for sending stuff to a print service as I do for the web.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 18:33 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: There is a lot of weird complaining and speculative assumptions here. Plus people who relish displaying their ignorance in public.

What we do know is the photographer had a contract with P&G that specified terms of license. What we don't know is what was written in that contract... especially anything that stipulates that a violation of its terms would constitute copyright infringement. Presumably the images were registered with the copyright office in a timely manner.

For instance it is common for a license to say that usage is only granted upon payment in full. Otherwise it might just be a contract dispute and not a copyright issue at all.

By entering into a licensing agreement, P&G is estopped from claiming they didn't know about the copyright. And this is both a contract dispute (provided P&G try to make a claim that the license was somehow extended) *and* copyright violation. There is no "or".

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 18:15 UTC
On article Nikon reshuffles management structure (248 comments in total)
In reply to:

tomjar: I know zero about corporate management and I know Nikon is involved in different areas of industry. I can only comment as a consumer of let's say cheaper "prosumer" cameras. I have been on a lookout for new cameras to replace my two Nikons, D5000 and P7700 (an exchangeable lens camera and one highly capable and versatile compact camera), since more than a year now. I don't have money to throw around and for trying out this and that. I would love to stay with Nikon since I don't like changing platforms if not necessary, but I don't think I will be buying another Nikon anytime soon. It will be a Panasonic mirrorless camera and a Canon compact instead, most likely and soon.

To me Nikon's decisions in the "prosumer" segment (except for the DSLRs) over the last years look like those of a headless chicken. South Park episode Margaritaville comes to mind...

"Prosumer" is a contraction of producer/consumer (and not a "somewhere between professional and consumer" idea). "Prosumer gear" is affordable and accessible (for varying definitions of both), allowing consumers of the gear to produce their own high-quality content. It goes back to things like home audio recording studios and desktop video production. It's about having the ability to produce "professional quality" results, not about looking like and pretending to be a pro.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 23:54 UTC
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 (540 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 (57 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:

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?
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
Total: 182, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »