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: 184, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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 42nd 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 (96 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 (2141 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 (2141 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 (2141 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 414th comment | 2 replies
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (446 comments in total)
In reply to:

tvstaff: Canon claims the 1DX MKII is weather sealed for extreme conditions. I find this to be false and misleading. Through my own experience and by conversations I've had with Canon. As a professional water sports photographer i can tell you this camera is not sealed for " extreme weather" as Canon claims in their ads.

See numerous rants by Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals on the hype about "weather sealing".

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 13:00 UTC

Well, do they allow the kinds of basic post-processing you can do in ACR/LR?

I can see a reluctance for allowing "spot removal", maybe even for "dust bunnies".

You can easily give a lot of extra "pop / wow factor" to a sunrise / sunset with slider adjustments.

The Adjustment Brush can be used to take years on a person's wrinkles in seconds, along with blemishes.

What about balancing the light-balance with mixed lighting, which isn't difficult to do with gradients and/or Brush.

It's not difficult to have a "virtual spotlight" with the Radial Brush.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 21:01 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Interesting footage.

Maybe they make too much of some details. I mean, who do not know how to expose the moon? Interesting to see the non manipulated image though. And nice to see the old man himself.

Regarding this image. I have never been able to decide what I think about it. It has something, but it is not my favorite. Interesting also that the old man himself was a bit surprised that this image is one of the favorites.

I'd think the "Looney 11" would apply to all phases of the moon. The issue is that the surface of the moon is receiving full sunlight, regardless of phase. That would be if you want to see some details like large craters.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2016 at 12:16 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Interesting footage.

Maybe they make too much of some details. I mean, who do not know how to expose the moon? Interesting to see the non manipulated image though. And nice to see the old man himself.

Regarding this image. I have never been able to decide what I think about it. It has something, but it is not my favorite. Interesting also that the old man himself was a bit surprised that this image is one of the favorites.

Here's a link to the "Looney 11 Rule":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looney_11_rule

Basically, it is the "Sunny 16 rule", but opened up one stop since the surface of the moon is about a stop darker than the earth.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 22:03 UTC
On article Setting new standards: Nikon D5 Review (505 comments in total)
In reply to:

mr.izo: d5 look lik a fine camera, no doubt, but what is happening here:
http://shrani.si/f/h/q/2e6IIAEw/dr.jpg

nikon downgrading its famous dr latitude, while canon is significantly better?

Do you have a link with valid measurements that shows the Canon 1Dx-2 has better DR than the 1st Gen? So far, I haven't seen the 2nd gen on Bill Claff's excellent PhotonsToPhotos site.

My speculation is that the Canon 2nd gen should incorporate tech from the D80 with improved APS-C DR, but that may be wishful thinking to infer the 2nd gen would have correspondingly better DR.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 20:00 UTC
On article Setting new standards: Nikon D5 Review (505 comments in total)

Great that DPR reviewed the D5 in a relatively timely manner. IIRC, the D4 never received a full review.

To me, the flagship model[s] from CaNikon provide something of a "road map" and "preview of coming attractions"

And now the 1Dx-2?
The Mark-1 never had even an entry in the NR drop-down combo-box, but the D4 did.

Suggestions:
DPR should directly or indirectly incorporate charts from Bill Claff's PDR (Photographic Dynamic Range).

There could also be references to Jim Kasson's in-depth (geeky?) articles on his TLW (The Last Word) blog.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 19:55 UTC as 134th comment
In reply to:

Peter62: The D5 may be fast, but in terms of dynamic range it seems to be a desaster!

Look here:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Fujifilm%20X-E2,Nikon%20D3200,Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D750

Agree that both cameras will be "at home" from ISO 1600 and above.

Another advantage of good vs very good DR vs Greeeeaaaaaat involves avoiding HDR. This "Canon f.f. semi-defector" went from routinely using HDR with my 5d2 and then 6d, to essentially never with my a7Rii with Exmor.

IIRC, I played with HDR just for testing during my first month of ownership, and then none since ... and that is with panos, which are inherently high contrast.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D4,Nikon%20D5

When you examine the Nikon D4 vs D5 dotted lines, they are very close. The D4 is actually 0.4 EV better at ISO 100. They are essentially the same ISO 1600. From ISO 2000 and above the D5 is consistently about 0.7 EV higher than the D4, where it counts. That would be visible if you know what to look like.

Note that charts from the PhotonsToPhotos.net web-site use PDR, which tends to be from 1 to 2 EV lower than DxoMark's EDR.

PhotonToPhotos.net doesn't have data for Canon 1Dx-2

Link | Posted on May 31, 2016 at 19:16 UTC
Total: 184, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »