guyfawkes

guyfawkes

Lives in Birmingham, UK
Works as a Retired.
Joined on Feb 20, 2012

Comments

Total: 599, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

kodachromeguy: The original Kodak Retina Reflex used a similar lens system with changeable front components or convertible lenses (German: Wechselobjektiv). The rear unit contained the leaf shutter. I wonder if these new Lomo lenses use the same Schneider formulas as those older convertible lenses?

Yes, it was the DKL mount system, also used in the Voigtlander Bessamatic. I say "system" but the basic mount was altered slightly to prevent the lenses being used on different makes of camera. However, with a little machining, it is possible to achieve.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2017 at 14:14 UTC
In reply to:

lylejk: Yeah; giving no attribution to the actual person(s) that took the original photo and passing this work as your own for commercial gain is, well, criminal. :)

An interesting essay on plagiarism.

http://www.ithenticate.com/resources/6-consequences-of-plagiarism

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 13:33 UTC
In reply to:

neo_nights: The worst thing is not that he used copyrighted material "unkowingly". But he LIED because he said HE took the pictures, HE interviewd the passers-by and so on.

Maybe, just MAYBE, if he had said "Oh, I spent some days interviewing people and added their quotes to some random pictures I've found online" you could excuse him for his ignorance... but no. He lied all along.

No, No, No! The visual work would still not have been his own. No excuses, he stole the images for his own personal aggrandisement.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 15:46 UTC
In reply to:

Lobbamobba: Its amazing how many non photographers hang out here just to bash products they dont understand.

I dont want this camera but I get why some do.
Are people doing this in restaurants as well, screaming it at the other tables and calling them idiots for ordering different kinds of food?

Alan, really odd.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 10:39 UTC
On article The Leica CL is (almost) what the TL should have been (421 comments in total)
In reply to:

TMW: It's a Leica with... video. I am baffled.

Why would the Leica fan club need video? It's the second Leica with video, but still.

Why?

Does it say something about the market or something about Leica?

Despite what die-hard stills photographers need, the market has been moving closer to video for some time. Leica isn't daft, they know this, but a Leica rangefinder isn't a suitable body in which to incorporate video. So, plonk it in a camera which Leica hopes will have more mass market appeal. Still pricey for what it is, but this is Leica world.

And we shouldn't overlook the number of households that either have, or are, moving to 4K TV. So they won't need further investment to play 4K files.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 15:18 UTC
On article The Leica CL is (almost) what the TL should have been (421 comments in total)
In reply to:

james s. kennedy: My favorite Bible verse is Ecclesiastes 9:11, and I regard the Bible as fiction. I cant wait to read how much this Leica costs. I own 11 Leicas, but all film. Great history but PITA ergonomics until the M series came along in 1954.

Hi, Michiel. I do wonder just how many, outside of the collector market, do lust after Nikon S.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 15:11 UTC
On article The Leica CL is (almost) what the TL should have been (421 comments in total)
In reply to:

daleeight: And it isn't that outrageous of a price, really.....

@Eloise. This is why looking at the actual depreciation, as opposed to percentages, nearly always works out against the higher priced option.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 14:45 UTC
On article The Leica CL is (almost) what the TL should have been (421 comments in total)
In reply to:

LDunn1: you sure those two knobs on top are not for film advance? ;-)

You mean, they're not? :D) Actually, I do wonder if they, including the LCD, are not a design clue throwback to the old Leica IIIf and which has these little rangefinder window surrounds either side of the small optical viewfinder.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 14:29 UTC
On article The Leica CL is (almost) what the TL should have been (421 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: SERIOUS TECHNICAL POINT: quote "... 18mm F2.8 pancake, ... and the ~F4 aperture (in 35mm terms) limits ..."

No, the F rating does NOT undergo some weird "crop factor" division. F2.8 is F2.8, and never F4 or F anything else. Because it's a ratio of Focal Length divided by Lens Optical Diameter, and has nothing to do with frame size.

Jus' sayin'

Brian

(continued) I'm not sure really why the equivalence argument is pushed with such vigour. Again, using the FZ200 example, it is true that its equivalent FoV for its sensor size and focal length setting at 600mm, eq., will not give the same DoF as a genuine 600mm lens on FF, but this is solely because at its max. zoom setting its true focal length is 108mm.

The nod I will give to equivalence being of some use to some photographers is that if they regularly shoot images based on DoF, and swap between different formats, for the same FoV, then knowing what to set the apertures to to achieve roughly the same DoF is a quick ready reckoner.

But, IMO, the whole equivalence argument, save for equivalence in focal length, merely serves to obfuscate and is of practically little importance to most.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 14:23 UTC
On article The Leica CL is (almost) what the TL should have been (421 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: SERIOUS TECHNICAL POINT: quote "... 18mm F2.8 pancake, ... and the ~F4 aperture (in 35mm terms) limits ..."

No, the F rating does NOT undergo some weird "crop factor" division. F2.8 is F2.8, and never F4 or F anything else. Because it's a ratio of Focal Length divided by Lens Optical Diameter, and has nothing to do with frame size.

Jus' sayin'

Brian

@Biowizard. When it comes to practical exposure, you are correct. And I concur. I've posted a number of times here on dpr about equivalence and its effect on exposure and invariably get shot down when I do. If we keep matters really simple and say an f1.8 lens is an f1.8 lens irrespective of its focal length and sensor it is used with, exposure will be the same across all formats. For practical purposes, and using my Sony A7, which can be set to shoot FF or APS-C, I shot two images with the same FoV and using the same lens, and the exif data showed identical exposure. So much for the equivalence argument here.

The equivalence argument was once taken to extremes to "prove" that Panasonic were liars by saying that the lens on their FZ200 was not a constant f2.8 throughout its zoom range (focal length equivalent) of 25-600mm. It was, and is. As the camera uses a tiny 1/2.33 sensor, the true focal length is much shorter, hence far greater DoF per equivalent focal length setting.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 14:09 UTC
On article The Leica CL is (almost) what the TL should have been (421 comments in total)

"Disappointingly, but not surprisingly at this point, the CL offers .....(no) automatic sensor cleaning." What??? This thing costs, body only, $2,800 or £2,250 in the UK. And DPR finds it unsurprising not to have sensor cleaning.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 13:31 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

John Bean (UK): "a clickless manual focusing ring"

Now why don't they all adopt this? Oh, wait... :-)

Ooops, yes, I did. Clearly my next appointment with the optician is due! :D) Given dpr's typo, does it have a clickless aperture ring, though?

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 12:36 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: "...how Kodak is making the economics of Ektachrome work by creating it in smaller, more sustainable batches."

It is interesting that a 4'x6,000' roll is considered a smaller batch. What size batches were they making before?

I suppose it makes it easier to adapt production rates to market demand. If the demand isn't really there, then either they cease or move to the easier process of B/W.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 12:19 UTC
In reply to:

Sdaniella: kodak had never got their ektachromes to overcome color degradation over time
to match color stability of its kodachromes

so, better digitally scan your ektachrome images just in case you want the images many decades later

@ Doug Pardee. By 1988 I'd mainly stopped using slide film, and prior to that I primarily used K25/64 as I did have some issues with some Ektachrome films I used from the mid-1960's to early 1980's. So, the new Ektachrome film came too late! But 220 years versus 185? Does it really matter? Based on where we're heading will mankind even be around then?

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 12:15 UTC
In reply to:

LightBug: Kodak please bring back Kodachrome processing, I got many rolls still in my possession.

If I've understood correctly, LightBug was asking for processing for his Kodachrome films.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 12:00 UTC
In reply to:

FelixC2013: I shoot all important photos on film because I can archive it and know that 40 years later I will still have it. Have not been able to say that about digital files. All the early digital files I had have all been lost. I scanned some 40 year old Kodachrome slides recently and they looked like I took them yesterday.

@ppg677 Whilst very unfortunate for you, and I greatly sympathise, with respect this is not a natural occurrence to argue against film archival properties or versus digital. Archival discussions are normally concerned with a film emulsion's ability to resist or susceptibility to fading.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 11:58 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: As silly as I find this to be, because really when you can get a Nikon D3300 kit for $300 (I got mine for $200 last August 2017) and it easily outdoes what 35mm SLRs gave us, what's the point, there is this--it is promising in that-people who are worried that smartphones will cause the SLR market to dry up can look at this as evidence that it won't.

I read it only once and didn't get the logic of the argument.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 11:46 UTC
In reply to:

Jim Salvas: I look forward to seeing all the slide shows. Anyone want to buy a working Carousel?

This is a potential problem. For slides to be seen at their best they need to be projected, and with a high quality projection lens, onto a screen. Even screens impact on image quality. For the brightest image glass beaded screens were preferable, but suffered from a narrower viewing angle and slight loss in projected resolution. Matt screens could, depending upon quality, provide the best resolution with a wider viewing angle, but a slightly less bright image.

But is a modern audience so used to the convenience of digital going to put up with the hassle of setting up a slide projector and screen to go through the rigmarole of viewing a few slides?

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 11:40 UTC
In reply to:

Mateus1: Why not also Ektachrome 120 format?
My Horseman VH 6x9 waits for it.

Ektachrome in 35mm was more the amateur film as it was considered too small for commercial publications, for which 120, as a minimum was demanded. It was thus favoured by professionals. But today it makes more sense to release it in 35mm where the demand will be. I agree, though, MF slides look fantastic when projected, but I would doubt their commercial application today when a scanned MF slide has to compete with MF digital.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 11:27 UTC
In reply to:

probert500: Ektachrome is OK and may be the best film for cross processing - good on them. If they brought back kodachrome, that would be headline news. Kodachrome is the only archival color format - that means something.

"Kodachrome excels in dark storage but degrades while projected." As I understand it, all colour reversal films degrade to some extent from being projected. I wasn't constantly projecting my slides enough for any degradation to become noticeable, so the ability of the film to excel in storage would be more important.

However, whilst none of my K25/64 slides going back to 1966 presently exhibit any issues some, but by no means all, of my Ektachromes are showing some signs of fading. This doesn't prove it is the film per se, but could be down to the processing and perhaps some labs pushed too many films through a batch of chemicals. So from my personal experience Kodachrome has proven to be the better archival storage medium.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 11:10 UTC
Total: 599, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »