tedolf

tedolf

Lives in United States Seattle, United States
Joined on May 12, 2010
About me:

Admiral, Tedolph Undersea Command

Comments

Total: 385, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (376 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: Only saves about 100g and 5-10mm of thickness vs mid-range mirrorless and a pancake zoom. Not sure what you are really gaining for all that extra money and lost flexibility.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#723,720.409,673.397,656.360,ha,t

Lots of people use the 16mp MFT sensor.

TEdolph

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 22:52 UTC
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (376 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: It does look way nice - but here are 2 fails for my needs - 1) No Lens Cap 2) folding Lens Design, it doesn't seem there is a addon Lens Hood being avialable, and even if so - no filter thread for serious photography? And i do fear, the Lens is not being far away (albeit a bit faster) than the 15-45/3.5-5.6 Lens, which was tested by Ming Thein whileas he reviewed the EOS M6 (APS-C also, DSLM) and that lens is really being flawed, to quote Ming here:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2017/10/02/review-the-2017-canon-eos-m6/

@jeftan,

Nothing is worse than the Sony 16-50mm kit lens.

tEdolph

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

tedolf: Thirteen hundred bucks?

Are they insane?

Do you know what you can do with $1300.00 in the m4/3 world right now?

Tedolph

Olympus PEN F?

20mp, 400gr. body, 50mp landscape mode, IBIS, 4k video and some of the best lenses ever made.

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 20:42 UTC

Thirteen hundred bucks?

Are they insane?

Do you know what you can do with $1300.00 in the m4/3 world right now?

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 16:51 UTC as 64th comment | 8 replies

There is a lesson in this.

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 00:21 UTC as 101st comment | 1 reply
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (274 comments in total)
In reply to:

Steven Sandler: Take a look at the Nikon DF, it's basically a brand new full frame digital equivalent of the classic Nikon F with the controls all in the same place as the original film model. Not my cup of tea, but for those cats who still haven't gone digital and who are clutching onto their old film SLR's, it's a viable option.

It is a humongous, bloated, Frankenstenian Monstrosity.

A parody of a Nikon F2.

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 21:38 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (274 comments in total)
In reply to:

tedolf: What makes all of this interesting is why this is even still considered desirable. It is because existing DSLRs are obese, overly complex monsters. Everybody says, "why can't they just make an Olympus OM-1 sized digital SLR with a shutter speed dial, an aperture ring, a focus ring (manual) and that's all".

Nikon chickened out and came up with the horrendous Df.

Fuji gets some credit for aping the old control layout.

Lieca M10 comes closest but is way too expensive.

If Pany/Olympus would make a m4/3 Leica clone with three f/1.7 manual only lenses, 14mm, 20mm and 42.5mm it would sell like hot cakes. This could be done but it would take some corporate courage-or an angel investor.

Tedolph

I understand what you are saying. My point wasn't very clear. What I am trying to say is that when Nikon tried to emulate a film camera in a digital format it came out with a monstrosity. They would make the same type of monstrosity even if they modeled it after an FTn, Nikkormat, etc.

They can't resist throwing in all the features and larding up the camera. Nikon never really did understand the desirability of compactness.

Olympus? Rollie? Pentax?

Yes.

TEdolph

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 20:39 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Hallelujah!!! The laws of physics have been changed. Thanks to Metabones. An f/1.2 becomes an f/0.7 after inserting a chunk of glass, with multiple elements, between it and the camera.
Give them the Nobel Prize for physics!!!

This isn't that complex. Ever set a fire with a magnifying glass? The Speedbooster concentrates the photon flux into a smaller area which is equivalent to a larger amplitude signal.

Got it?

And there isn't anything wrong with sarchasm. Read Galileio's Dialoges sometime.

tedolph

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 20:34 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (274 comments in total)
In reply to:

tedolf: What makes all of this interesting is why this is even still considered desirable. It is because existing DSLRs are obese, overly complex monsters. Everybody says, "why can't they just make an Olympus OM-1 sized digital SLR with a shutter speed dial, an aperture ring, a focus ring (manual) and that's all".

Nikon chickened out and came up with the horrendous Df.

Fuji gets some credit for aping the old control layout.

Lieca M10 comes closest but is way too expensive.

If Pany/Olympus would make a m4/3 Leica clone with three f/1.7 manual only lenses, 14mm, 20mm and 42.5mm it would sell like hot cakes. This could be done but it would take some corporate courage-or an angel investor.

Tedolph

Isn't that what the Df was supposed to be?

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 19:21 UTC

Now that Panasonic has given up on the GM series, Pentax should wise up and throw a 4/3 sensor in that puppy with an m4/3 mount.

It would make a great m4/3 camera.

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 19:20 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

sh10453: Hallelujah!!! The laws of physics have been changed. Thanks to Metabones. An f/1.2 becomes an f/0.7 after inserting a chunk of glass, with multiple elements, between it and the camera.
Give them the Nobel Prize for physics!!!

@sh10435,

I've got some bad news for you. I just spoke to the Noble Committee-they are not giving you the prize in Physics (or Mathematics for that matter either).

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 19:18 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (274 comments in total)

What makes all of this interesting is why this is even still considered desirable. It is because existing DSLRs are obese, overly complex monsters. Everybody says, "why can't they just make an Olympus OM-1 sized digital SLR with a shutter speed dial, an aperture ring, a focus ring (manual) and that's all".

Nikon chickened out and came up with the horrendous Df.

Fuji gets some credit for aping the old control layout.

Lieca M10 comes closest but is way too expensive.

If Pany/Olympus would make a m4/3 Leica clone with three f/1.7 manual only lenses, 14mm, 20mm and 42.5mm it would sell like hot cakes. This could be done but it would take some corporate courage-or an angel investor.

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 17:56 UTC as 44th comment | 10 replies

Huh?

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 17:05 UTC as 208th comment
In reply to:

tripler6: People seriously misunderstand the concept of sensor size.

With FF you're getting about a stop better noise due to the larger sensor. You're also getting about a stop shallower DOF, at equivalent FOV, due entirely to the longer focal length required on FF to maintain the same framing as crop.

That's all. A portrait shot at 2.8 can be replicated at 1.8 with crop. A portrait shot at something like f/8 can be shot on most anything. But when you put a 1.4 lens on a FF body.. you're not replicating that on smaller sensor size.. unless you have some crazy fast lens on crop. There's no faster lens left to shoot. That's the major benefit from FF. That's the look. If you don't care, don't waste your money.

"the A9 photos at F2.8, and the A6500 photos were taken wide open at F1.8"

In real life you'd just shoot the A9 at 1.8 as well, and the difference would be obvious.

Now you are starting to cheat. We started off with a 55mm lens at ten feet for a full body image on a full frame camera. Now you are shooting portraits with a 50mm lens at 15 feet on Canon 7d. Nobody shoots portraits like that. If you are that far away your are going to be shooting with an 85mm lens and the DOF will be even shallower.

So let's start over. Canon 5d, 55mm, ten feet, f/1.0 =0.59 feet (about six inches).

QED

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 21:18 UTC
In reply to:

tripler6: People seriously misunderstand the concept of sensor size.

With FF you're getting about a stop better noise due to the larger sensor. You're also getting about a stop shallower DOF, at equivalent FOV, due entirely to the longer focal length required on FF to maintain the same framing as crop.

That's all. A portrait shot at 2.8 can be replicated at 1.8 with crop. A portrait shot at something like f/8 can be shot on most anything. But when you put a 1.4 lens on a FF body.. you're not replicating that on smaller sensor size.. unless you have some crazy fast lens on crop. There's no faster lens left to shoot. That's the major benefit from FF. That's the look. If you don't care, don't waste your money.

"the A9 photos at F2.8, and the A6500 photos were taken wide open at F1.8"

In real life you'd just shoot the A9 at 1.8 as well, and the difference would be obvious.

Sorry, at 10 feet, or 3.5 meters, 55mm lens Canon 5d at f/1 I still get about 6 inches regardless of units used.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

You are starting to cheat. You increased the distance to 15 feet/4.5 meters and you reduced the focal length of the lens down to 50mm. These are not portrait conditions and you know it.

On a full frame camera you will typically be shooting a head and shoulders at 85mm, not 50mm, at about ten feet, closer with a 50mm lens to get a full body image. In either case, the DOF is even shallower that what I posted if the aperture is at f/0.95.

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 21:13 UTC
In reply to:

tripler6: People seriously misunderstand the concept of sensor size.

With FF you're getting about a stop better noise due to the larger sensor. You're also getting about a stop shallower DOF, at equivalent FOV, due entirely to the longer focal length required on FF to maintain the same framing as crop.

That's all. A portrait shot at 2.8 can be replicated at 1.8 with crop. A portrait shot at something like f/8 can be shot on most anything. But when you put a 1.4 lens on a FF body.. you're not replicating that on smaller sensor size.. unless you have some crazy fast lens on crop. There's no faster lens left to shoot. That's the major benefit from FF. That's the look. If you don't care, don't waste your money.

"the A9 photos at F2.8, and the A6500 photos were taken wide open at F1.8"

In real life you'd just shoot the A9 at 1.8 as well, and the difference would be obvious.

@mgrum,

Changing the units to meters, and the F stop to f/1 with that camera and a 55mm lens gives a DOF of 0.11 meters-again less than six inches.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Same as the distance when the units are feet.

You need to stop this.

tEdolph

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 19:49 UTC

This is not needed. If you have your copyrights registered, the prevailing party is entitled to an award of attorney's fees as part of costs.

17 USC Sec. 505.

Tedolph, Esq.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 19:44 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

tripler6: People seriously misunderstand the concept of sensor size.

With FF you're getting about a stop better noise due to the larger sensor. You're also getting about a stop shallower DOF, at equivalent FOV, due entirely to the longer focal length required on FF to maintain the same framing as crop.

That's all. A portrait shot at 2.8 can be replicated at 1.8 with crop. A portrait shot at something like f/8 can be shot on most anything. But when you put a 1.4 lens on a FF body.. you're not replicating that on smaller sensor size.. unless you have some crazy fast lens on crop. There's no faster lens left to shoot. That's the major benefit from FF. That's the look. If you don't care, don't waste your money.

"the A9 photos at F2.8, and the A6500 photos were taken wide open at F1.8"

In real life you'd just shoot the A9 at 1.8 as well, and the difference would be obvious.

Well, it would be useful if you put your model 300 meters from the camera, then you would have plenty of DOF to fit her in with an f/0.95 lens on a full frame camera!

I think it is time to shut down this thread and stop responding to mgrum's non-sense.

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

jackspra: Full frame looked better to me.Great shots.

Hmmmm.......

silence.

Tedolph

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 17:40 UTC
In reply to:

tripler6: People seriously misunderstand the concept of sensor size.

With FF you're getting about a stop better noise due to the larger sensor. You're also getting about a stop shallower DOF, at equivalent FOV, due entirely to the longer focal length required on FF to maintain the same framing as crop.

That's all. A portrait shot at 2.8 can be replicated at 1.8 with crop. A portrait shot at something like f/8 can be shot on most anything. But when you put a 1.4 lens on a FF body.. you're not replicating that on smaller sensor size.. unless you have some crazy fast lens on crop. There's no faster lens left to shoot. That's the major benefit from FF. That's the look. If you don't care, don't waste your money.

"the A9 photos at F2.8, and the A6500 photos were taken wide open at F1.8"

In real life you'd just shoot the A9 at 1.8 as well, and the difference would be obvious.

This just false. You get 0.5 feet, not meters!

Six inches.

TEdolph

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 17:39 UTC
Total: 385, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »