Hubertus Bigend

Hubertus Bigend

Joined on Sep 13, 2011

Comments

Total: 248, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

The major problem with any backpack – even those of the sling style – seems to be you can't access your gear in a quick and easy way. This backpack is no solution, either – on the contrary, it adds a new level of difficulty to the problem...

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 15:48 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
On article Yongnuo reveals YN 60mm F2 MF macro lens (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

AlexBoo: For crop there is Tamron 60 mm F/2.0 which is AF (not really fast but better then MF anyway).

Actually, for a Macro lens, I would say it is really fast; thanks for the reminder.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 10:14 UTC

The Internet has to go.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2018 at 05:37 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

derfotograf: And again:

Meyer Optik had been liquidated June, 30th, 1991. Years later the name had been acquired by Globell Germany, an investment and trading company without any prior experience in lens design.

From what I read, they do work with capable optical engineers, including at least one person who formerly was working for the real Meyer Optik Görlitz. And some of their lenses are original designs made either by the old company or themselves.

That said, it very much seems the new 'Meyer' brand started their business selling re-badged (maybe self-assembled, from imported parts) Mitakon lenses under the 'Nocturnus' name.

See https://petapixel.com/2017/04/29/meyer-optik-gorlitz-nocturnus-50mm-f0-95-ii-based-mitakon-zhongyi-speedmaster-50mm-f0-95/ ...

It's interesting to see, though, that this time there is not already a matching Mitakon lens for the new 'Nocturnus' design. Perhaps Zhongyi have stopped marketing their stuff themselves after seeing that they can make much more money selling them in parts to 'Meyer'?

Whether it's the Mitakon clones or their own lenses, I think no one knows yet where they actually manufacture them and what that manufacturing process actually includes.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2018 at 13:20 UTC

Thanks! Although I neither care for that kind of photography nor the editing, I'll have a look into it because I haven't really gotten into Gimp yet (because I usually don't need more than what my Raw Developer does). Nice to see Linux gets some attention here. Not so nice to see that it immediately starts the operating system wars in the comments ;-)

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2018 at 20:26 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

JohnyP: He forgot to post the 60 hour video of how to install linux, apt-get apps and install with all dependencies, manage patches, drop down to command line to adjust good stuff in /etc/conf, troubleshoot your video drivers while trying to push them for 4K dual monitor setup...
Then you spend 25 minutes in Gimp editing a single image

and spend next 10 hours wiping the machine, installing windows and all new set of applications (or replacing it with a Mac) because there is no application to control your camera remotely, can't upgrade your camera firmware from linux or load/review images on the fly in tethered mode as you shoot for work and not just for making youtube videos to make a point.

@Gmon750:

"There is a reason Linux has not penetrated to the desktop for the masses. For folks like us, Linux is a breeze. For non-PC-saavy users, it is not."

I don't think that's true. In my surroundings, there are quite a number of "non-PC-savvy users" who switched to Linux and have found it to be intuitive and easy to use and offering all they need and don't want to go back. I rather think it's only the "folks like us" who want to tweak things because they know it can be done, who find themselves venturing into the depths of the system and getting the impression that Linux can't be used without such efforts. But it does.

As long as you don't need to do things which can't be done on Linux. And that's still its foremost problem, which either can't be solved or can only be solved with more effort than on a Windows PC or Mac. Still, with the help of Wine and VirtualBox for the three or four Windows applications I still need, I really find myself liberated after making the jump.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2018 at 20:21 UTC
In reply to:

Nat123: "This lens will be build to become a legend" of loosing value on secondary market :)

If the market had any sense, it would. In reality, though, the new Meyer Optik reincarnations of cheap and simple old lenses gave even the real old lenses a price boost no owner would ever have dreamt of.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 21:45 UTC
In reply to:

Hubertus Bigend: Wonder how long Fuji will be able to keep up those price levels for an undoubtedly attractive camera system, after Nikon and Canon will have entered the full-frame mirrorless market. Right now, the lens and the converter might still be adequately priced for what currently goes for medium format. $ 329 for a simple hollow cylinder, on the other hand, is overdoing it even under such considerations.

"Why are you insisting that what I am saying is false?"

Read again – I don't. I'm just saying what you now say yourself, that the differences are only significant in specific, critical situations, while your first post on the matter, though, at least implicitly claimed that it was always significant.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2018 at 07:55 UTC
In reply to:

Hubertus Bigend: Wonder how long Fuji will be able to keep up those price levels for an undoubtedly attractive camera system, after Nikon and Canon will have entered the full-frame mirrorless market. Right now, the lens and the converter might still be adequately priced for what currently goes for medium format. $ 329 for a simple hollow cylinder, on the other hand, is overdoing it even under such considerations.

@lawny13:

"Only if you push the ISO high enough, it will start playing a factor for IQ" (umeet)

"the difference matters only unter critical circumstances" (me)

"one stop advantage at high ISOs [...] a ISO 6400 on the fuji is like a 12800 on the D750" (lawny13)

Why do you even think you are saying something there that would invalidate anything we said?

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2018 at 15:48 UTC
In reply to:

SiFu: what is a camera "boom"????

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boom#Etymology_2

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2018 at 06:24 UTC
In reply to:

Hubertus Bigend: Wonder how long Fuji will be able to keep up those price levels for an undoubtedly attractive camera system, after Nikon and Canon will have entered the full-frame mirrorless market. Right now, the lens and the converter might still be adequately priced for what currently goes for medium format. $ 329 for a simple hollow cylinder, on the other hand, is overdoing it even under such considerations.

@lawny13: You can talk about your "pure physics" all the way, it just isn't as relevant for the problem we have at hand as you suggest. Because, for the real image we look at in our photographic practice, the difference matters only unter critical circumstances. And, with today's sensor technology in, say, Four Thirds sensors and larger, we really only have critical circumstances if there's extremely little light and/or we want to enlarge prints to very large sizes. And the further technology advances, the less relevant the differences become.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2018 at 14:27 UTC
In reply to:

Hubertus Bigend: Wonder how long Fuji will be able to keep up those price levels for an undoubtedly attractive camera system, after Nikon and Canon will have entered the full-frame mirrorless market. Right now, the lens and the converter might still be adequately priced for what currently goes for medium format. $ 329 for a simple hollow cylinder, on the other hand, is overdoing it even under such considerations.

@Everyone ;-) – as I said, I find the Fuji product lines very attractive, both the APS-C and the MF lines. And indeed I think that it was perfectly sensible for Fuji to not add FF, but MF to their portfolio instead, as the distance between APS-C and FF is too small to make a substantial enough difference, at least today, with the performance even smaller sensors have now reached.

That said, the distance between FF and the "small MF" format Fuji implements is very small, too, so who's evaluating their options rationally, will take that into account when comparing the GFX with existing and yet-to-come FF cameras.

Oh, and demanding $ 329 for a hollow tube is ridiculous – for virtually any format. While smaller formats have the advantage that third-party manufacturers have now become rather quick to fill the gap with affordable products...

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2018 at 08:53 UTC

Wonder how long Fuji will be able to keep up those price levels for an undoubtedly attractive camera system, after Nikon and Canon will have entered the full-frame mirrorless market. Right now, the lens and the converter might still be adequately priced for what currently goes for medium format. $ 329 for a simple hollow cylinder, on the other hand, is overdoing it even under such considerations.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2018 at 05:21 UTC as 22nd comment | 18 replies
In reply to:

Constantin V: sad, but predictable

@Clint Dunn: So is ADOX. One would think that if one company can profitably manufacture B&W film, others could, too. Sometimes, though, it's not a question of being able to, but of wanting to.

@Others: I agree that Fuji's history of discontinuing films is a valid base for such a prediction. I wrote my objection under the impression the prodiction had been based on more general grounds...

As someone wrote in another forum: At the rate Fuji keeps discontinuing films, it won't be long before they'll have none left to discontinue.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2018 at 16:28 UTC
In reply to:

mod2001: like always with Fuji...I ignore this company both for film and digital since they stopped Neopan 1600 and later Neopan 400. Ignorant company, even worst than Sony.

@Revenant: of course, but profitability is the result of many variables and how much effort a company is willing to invest into adjusting them. As I wrote elswhere in this forum, while Fuji is removing one film after another from production and while we're discussing that, others are even building new factories for film (ADOX).

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2018 at 13:44 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: sad, but predictable

I wouldn't say that ('predictable'). It has been my impression for the last three years or so that the analog photography sector has more or less stopped shrinking, now being something like a stable niche. Actually, while Fujifilm (having been renamed from Fuji to Fujifilm, of all possibilities, only in 2006) keeps discontinuing more and more of their remaining films except instant film, others cannot even fulfill the demand and actually build new production sites for film, like Adox (http://www.adox.de/Photo/category/new-factory-building-2017/).

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2018 at 13:37 UTC
In reply to:

Coliban: People who are complaining about Leica prices what are they thinking when people from very poor countries who have only their smartphones would say if they look at the prices of our Canon or Nikon equipment. I don´t complain, i only think that such concepts are really relative.

When i was a child (we didnt had money), i´d never complained about the prices of the, at that times, unaffordable Canons, Nikons, and Olympus or even Hasselblads. I wanted them badly and when i had the money, i made my choices.

I think that many of the people here which are complaining about Leica prices can easily afford one - if they would save some money or rearrange expenditures. So what is the reason? Do you complain about the price-performance? Then buy sony, Nikon or Canon. If i think that a Porsche 911 has a bad price-performace then i buy an Audi but i don´t whine about the price tag.

So, I don't quite get exactly why, but because we could afford something if we'd "save some money" or so, we should stop discussing whether its price tag is justified? Sorry to disappoint you, but you won't make everyone else shut up who thinks otherwise.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2018 at 08:22 UTC

Nice reading, thanks. Having a similar approach to B&W myself (rarely doing B&W either, mostly when I'm using a film camera loaded with B&W film – which is extremely rare these days to begin with), it makes me want to go out and try again.

Just one remark: Moiré does not come from demosaicing, it comes from the regular structure of a digital sensor in contrast to the random arrangement of film grain. The M Monochrom cannot be free from moiré – but from what I remember, I think it implements some digital post processing that automatically tries to alleviate it if it sees some.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2018 at 13:33 UTC as 84th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Magnar W: A caption says: "The 300mm F4 PRO behaves like a 600mm on full-frame, giving Olympus shooters a powerful and sharp telephoto option at a fraction of the size and weight of a 'true' 600mm lens."

No, it doesn't. With digital you should compare pixel pitch to find what a telephoto lens will resolve at a given distance. For wildlife/birds in flight etc., you have to take your picture at a certain distance.

If the subject doesn't fill more than the 4/3 area, resolution depends on how many pixels the subject is filling, not the crop factor. If the subject fills more, a larger format sensor will be better.

@Dr_Jon: "Obviously 36/42/45 MP FF cameras have greater resolution gaps to a 20MP m43 at the same focal length (although with ever better pixel quality), but it's never 2x unless you have a 20MP FF" – of course it isn't. There are quite a number of 12, 16 and 24 MP FF cameras around, though (with the 24 vs. 20 MP difference also being small enough for not being an issue, mostly), so a significantly smaller "effective crop factor" than 2 for tele photography is not a safe default assumption.

And my comment about the obvious implications on subject visibility and AF precision still holds. After all, using the same focal length, your objects are four times smaller, which does demand *much* more from the FF camera's AF than from the MFT camera's AF, however good or bad a specific MFT camera may be in that regard. That is, if you even see the four times smaller object on the FF viewfinder's screen. ;-)

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2018 at 12:48 UTC
In reply to:

Magnar W: A caption says: "The 300mm F4 PRO behaves like a 600mm on full-frame, giving Olympus shooters a powerful and sharp telephoto option at a fraction of the size and weight of a 'true' 600mm lens."

No, it doesn't. With digital you should compare pixel pitch to find what a telephoto lens will resolve at a given distance. For wildlife/birds in flight etc., you have to take your picture at a certain distance.

If the subject doesn't fill more than the 4/3 area, resolution depends on how many pixels the subject is filling, not the crop factor. If the subject fills more, a larger format sensor will be better.

@Dr_Jon: "for a high-MP FF camera (e.g. 5Dsr) the Canon 300mm f4 will give you about the same reach" – not quite; for a current MFT camera you would need an 80 MP full-frame sensor to achieve that. And then you and the camera would still face the situation that you would need to frame and focus within a tiny quarter of the viewfinder sceen area, with the obvious implications on subject visibility and AF precision.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2018 at 20:57 UTC
Total: 248, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »