l_d_allan

l_d_allan

Lives in United States Colorado Springs, CO, United States
Works as a retired software composer
Has a website at berean.zenfolio.com
Joined on Jan 16, 2009

Comments

Total: 191, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article UPDATED: Sony a7R III is still a star eater (471 comments in total)
In reply to:

l_d_allan: My impression is that for what might be considered "entry level" astro-photography of star-trails and wide angle captures of the Milky Way (including panos), the star eater issue is a minor to negligible matter.

It may come into play with deep space captures with longer focal lengths and a star tracker.

This may be over-simplistic from an less-than-informed entry-level astro-photographer, but a fuzzy logic yes-no decision tree might be:

* using star tracker ... star eat'ing may matter
* otherwise ... probably doesn't matter

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 01:59 UTC
On article UPDATED: Sony a7R III is still a star eater (471 comments in total)

I wonder: might the a7Riii's capability of ultra-resolution using sensor-shift make a difference wrt star eat'ing?

Jim K ... to the rescue ... yet again?

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 01:48 UTC as 41st comment | 1 reply
On article UPDATED: Sony a7R III is still a star eater (471 comments in total)
In reply to:

l_d_allan: My impression is that for what might be considered "entry level" astro-photography of star-trails and wide angle captures of the Milky Way (including panos), the star eater issue is a minor to negligible matter.

It may come into play with deep space captures with longer focal lengths and a star tracker.

Sort of agree, but at least to me, it is a "who cares" to have 100...00 stars vs 100...01 stars vs 100...02 stars captured by the sensor of my 42 Mpix a7R2 when doing star trail photos. Same with Milky Way.

Actually, with star trails, you can probably have too many stars tracing out arcs. I'll tweak ACR sliders to tune how many arcs are involved, with some or many being suppressed.

I suppose if you were really doing serious stuff like exo-planet detection, it would definitely matter. However, my impression is that use case requires specialized gear, as well as that much more "attention to detail".

But I agree that the option to eat or not-to-eat being an in-camera menu choice would make sense, partnered with post processing enabled or disabled.

I can understand the default being the current behavior.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 01:45 UTC
On article UPDATED: Sony a7R III is still a star eater (471 comments in total)

My impression is that for what might be considered "entry level" astro-photography of star-trails and wide angle captures of the Milky Way (including panos), the star eater issue is a minor to negligible matter.

It may come into play with deep space captures with longer focal lengths and a star tracker.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 01:31 UTC as 44th comment | 4 replies
On article Nikon D850 Review (2112 comments in total)
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: I don't understand the analysis...Are you saying that when I buy a D850 I should routinely set my camera meter's exposure compensation to +2/3 of a stop? Or has Nikon recalibrated the meter to automatically set everything at 2/3 over?
If I shoot at ISO 64 where should I set my exposure for best noise? Are you saying underexpose and push in post, shoot at the indicated exposure, or overexpose and pull back in post?
Finally, I use an incident meter quite a bit; should I recalibrate my Sekonic for the 2/3 stop differential? Or just shoot at the indicated exposure?

I own a Sony a7Rii rather than a Nikon, but it has a similar "Aptina conversion gain changing trick".

My practice is to that 99% of my captures use either ISO 100 (first choice if enough light) or failing that, ISO 640 and work with ISO-less capability from 640 thru 12,800+.

ISO 640 on the a7Rii is where the "trick" happens ... that would be ISO 400 on the Nikon D850.

I especially tend to very rarely use Auto-ISO. The exception would be when I might show people who are the subjects the image in the LCD ... they could be understandably concerned if the image is perceived to be significantly under-exposed (and greenish from UNI-WB).

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2017 at 18:05 UTC

* Read the manual for the equipment.
* Re-read the manual some months later to gain insights into subtle features you may have missed on first reading.
* Get photography related books thru your local library.
* Join forums related to general and specifics and ask plenty of questions.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 00:12 UTC as 10th comment

And I thought "talking head" videos were boring ...

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 20:50 UTC as 10th comment
On article Now we know: Sony a9 is sharper than we thought (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

turvyT: Thank you so much for this article. A very interesting piece of reading. But, at least for me, it raises some questions: how do we know that many other cameras from this or other brands tested by dpr did not have this same/similar phocusing problem? Are you guys going to check every other camera in this same way? Until which point can dpr studio test results be trusted, at least in terms of phocus accuracy?

Perhaps it makes sense to work with Roger C. at LensRentals to out-source quantitative measurements? IIRC, he is already working with another web-site that provides tests of multiple lenses from OLAF.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 23:23 UTC

I've got very little video experience but ...
* seemed like CGI
* abrupt transitions

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 23:37 UTC as 6th comment

This Sony a7rii owner has zero interest in a what is now misleadingly called a "medium format camera".

Back in the film days, "medium format" was typically 6x6 or 6x7. I had a Mamiya C33 TLR that used 120 or 220 film. The frame size was ~ 60mm x 60mm, or 3600 sq.mm.

Doing the math, a full frame sensor is ~ 36mm x 24mm = 864 sq.mm. A "real" medium format 6x6 had > 4x more surface area.

Now ... the Pentax 645 series gets it's model name because it can use the old 645 lenses. However, the Sony "medium format" sensor is actually 44mm x 33mm = 1452 sq.mm.

So, it really isn't that much of an increase in sensor size to go from f.f. to m.f. My impression is that you have to at least double the sensor area to see a real, dramatic difference. Instead, you pay a LOT of $$$ for less than 70% increase, and many more $$$ for compatible lenses of high enough IQ to realize the potential.

That's about equivalent of going from m43 (225 sq.mm) to Nikon APS-C (368 sq.mm) = +64%

No thanks.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 22:48 UTC as 43rd comment
On article 2016 Challenge of Challenges winners announced (62 comments in total)

Nice images, but it would help if there was a "Slideshow" capability to view them in succession, one after another.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 02:51 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Super Bowl Halftime lit up by choreographed drone show (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

waltsfotographics: My wife left the room, refusing to watch the halftime show
She missed a thirteen minute Pepsi commercial

Same here. I went outside and walked around the block. I am relieved that the NFL was able to restrain her from anti-Trump statements and LGBT-Q endorsements.

I guess I have lots of room for improvement on "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 02:34 UTC

I've been waiting for Sony to release an affordable portrait lens, preferably about 100mm or 135mm.

However, I'll probably continue to somehow make due with my mini-Otus FE55 f/1.8. For this retired hobby'ist on a budget, 85mm is too close to 55mm.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 01:15 UTC as 32nd comment
In reply to:

TN Args: Wait till you see the size of the files.

DNG's and CR2's are typically close in file size.

But this Huge Fan of ML is puzzled at what real utility this delivers. I'd rather see the Dev team announcing ports for 5DS[r], 5D4, etc.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 05:00 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

fPrime: Personally the 35L Mk I is a better choice for me than the 35L Mk II. I prefer the older lens for it's well known ability to produce superb 3D pop.

Sure, at pixel level the 35L Mk II is slightly sharper and has better correction for CA. But these same optical corrections have also robbed a little of the 3D magic from it. This was the penalty for adding 3 more elements to the design. The lower element count rendering of the older 35L Mk I contributes to its ability to create a deeper illusion of depth.

Wish DPR would have included some comparative examples of real three dimensional objects so the depth rendering could have been studied. The examples here are unfortunately flat, distant objects and therefore only useful for comparing sharpness and CA.

Rishi: > I think there's a lot of room for improvement [for reviews]

I'm a fan of the DPR widget that shows resolution graphs with user-adjustable aperture (and focal length for zooms).

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2016 at 00:42 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (338 comments in total)

The review adds to my satisfaction and appreciation of the cost effective EF 35mm f2 IS.
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-35mm-F2-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Canon-EF-35mm-F14L-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Canon-EF-35mm-F14L-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1086_1009_1589_1009_797_1009

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2016 at 00:37 UTC as 17th comment

These may be non-USA models. A model code ending in ##2# usually indicates USA, and ##50# typically indicates non-USA.

I didn't find any information about these printers on the Canon USA website.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 12:10 UTC as 4th comment
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2157 comments in total)
In reply to:

TMW: I was wondering something. Maybe I missed it, maybe it is just self-evident.

The Dual Pixel RAW thing only works with Canon DPP, right?

Does it work with Sigma lenses?

Seems like it will eventually work with Adobe's ACR / Ligntroom.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 14:12 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2157 comments in total)
In reply to:

l_d_allan: AA filter? (sorry if already asked or in the specs)

Could the Dual-Pixel implementation be tweaked to provide Pixel-Shift like improvements to Resolution and/or Dynamic Range? A'la Pentax K-1?

Intervalometer? (seems like there was a mention)

More flexible BULB, like being able to specify 150 seconds? (a'la MagicLantern)?

Dual or Single SD card slot[s]?

> The three buttons above the top plate LCD control the same functions as those on the Mark III, but Canon has flipped the order of each button's functions. This change aside, the Mark IV looks exactly like a Mark III from above.

Changing the button locations seems really dumb. I found it annoying how much my 6d UI changed from my 5d2, and this seems "more of the same". Was there a compelling reason to change these locations?

I can speculate I might be interested in this camera about the time the Devs at MagicLantern implement a version for this (hint hint) ... by then "early adapter predatory pricing" might have come down.

More questions, related to existing MagicLantern capabilities:

Possible to do something like star-trails ... 300 count at BULB of 4 minutes with 4 minutes 2 seconds between captures?

Anything comparable to MagicLantern's Dual-ISO that improves DR?

Any chance of RAW based histogram, blinkies, zebras, Preview, Review, etc. a'la MagicLantern?

Any chance of auto-ETTR and/or Auto-Dot-Tune-MFA a'la MagicLantern?

My suggestion: Canon should hire the ML guru Dev's ... YESTERDAY.

Here's a link to photonstophotos.net with DR comparisons for the 6d, 80d, 1Dx, 1Dx-ii, the Sony a7Rii:
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201DX,Canon%20EOS%201DX%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%2080D,Sony%20ILCE-7RII

I'm unclear how the higher resolution 5D-iv will compare to the lower res 1Dx-ii.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 14:11 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2157 comments in total)

AA filter? (sorry if already asked or in the specs)

Could the Dual-Pixel implementation be tweaked to provide Pixel-Shift like improvements to Resolution and/or Dynamic Range? A'la Pentax K-1?

Intervalometer? (seems like there was a mention)

More flexible BULB, like being able to specify 150 seconds? (a'la MagicLantern)?

Dual or Single SD card slot[s]?

> The three buttons above the top plate LCD control the same functions as those on the Mark III, but Canon has flipped the order of each button's functions. This change aside, the Mark IV looks exactly like a Mark III from above.

Changing the button locations seems really dumb. I found it annoying how much my 6d UI changed from my 5d2, and this seems "more of the same". Was there a compelling reason to change these locations?

I can speculate I might be interested in this camera about the time the Devs at MagicLantern implement a version for this (hint hint) ... by then "early adapter predatory pricing" might have come down.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 13:55 UTC as 418th comment | 2 replies
Total: 191, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »