TFD

Lives in Canada Canada
Joined on Jul 27, 2009

Comments

Total: 70, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

looks like the dumbest thing yet.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2018 at 07:57 UTC as 31st comment

The selling point for these lens is their "retro-ness" and not their photographic capabilities. If this were simply another non-OEM 50MM f0.95 autofocus lens it could never be sold at $3000.

Another point, when shooting with film, ISO ranges were low, really low. Kodachrome 25/64 maybe a color negative film or Tri-X B/W at ISO 400 and there was no stabilization. Having a f0.95 lens would have given better picture taking reach in low light.

In the Digital world ISO ranges are whatever you want them to be (quality a variable but shooting film at ISO 400 was certainly not like shooting Kodachrome at ISO 64) plus thrown in a few stops of optical stabilization that did not exist in the film domain.

Yes I am aware of the Bookah argument but given the narrow depth of field at f0.95 and manual only focusing something will be in focus - it just may not be the subject.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2018 at 09:39 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
On article Canon G1 X III vs. Sony Cybershot RX100 V (593 comments in total)
In reply to:

TFD: The difference here is that one of these cameras is more or less pocketable. The other is not. If you are going to carry a camera on a strap or in a bag in might just as well be a DLSR which would take better pictures and be cheaper...

Size matters, if you have to carry it in a bag or on a strap around your neck it might just as well be a DSLR. it would take better pictures, be more versatile and cheaper.

The Canon is a solution looking for a problem, it is a marketing exercise to see what sticks.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2017 at 01:44 UTC
On article Canon G1 X III vs. Sony Cybershot RX100 V (593 comments in total)

The difference here is that one of these cameras is more or less pocketable. The other is not. If you are going to carry a camera on a strap or in a bag in might just as well be a DLSR which would take better pictures and be cheaper...

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 10:07 UTC as 67th comment | 5 replies

This sounds like a solution looking for a problem to solve. Adobe has too much market clout in this space allowing them to use a heavy hand.

For me this does not work, I use different applications and plug-ins to edit files and I bracket every photo making lots and lots of files. Having 2TB of files on a local drive (mirrored) works for me. The idea of a remote back-up in the cloud would be useful just a question of cost. Working remotely in the cloud not so interesting.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 08:49 UTC as 92nd comment

One solution to all of the lens complexities is to keep the same flange to sensor distance - no new lens required, no adaptors. Bigger body but maybe worth the trade off. Especially if is the replacement for D5 it is so big a mirror even with the same body depth would be smaller.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 08:46 UTC as 91st comment | 1 reply

I suspect what this means is that they will release the most expensive mirrorless camera ever and not try to complete on price. They will test the waters and will be wary to avoid eating their own DSLR market, releasing cheaper models only when sales in their DSLR market tank.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 08:32 UTC as 93rd comment | 1 reply

Film photography was mostly daylight photography, This article does not say what film speed they will be reissuing probably ASA 100. Exposure latitude of < 1 stop - better get the exposure right. Lets say digital photographers are spoiled with ISO of 800-1600-10000 shot 100 images at least one will be good.

I always found Extachrome to be flatter than Kodachrome ASA 25/64! I would bet that Kodachrome in particular could out resolve any 50M sensor. But as one of the other comments said without equal print processes i.e. cibachrome it is a little pointless.

One place where sliver photography still exists is at Walmat those $0.12 prints are sliver prints. The last generation of photo printers of the film era scanned the film first, applied digital color correction before imaging them on the prints - these printers now just drop out the scanning step.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 08:32 UTC as 22nd comment | 2 replies

I still have a pair of A700s and now a pair of A77s. I bought my First Sony after having been just too annoyed by my Nikons awful user interface.

Personally I find the Sony UI, which was partially lifted from Minolta as being the best. My Sony new camera open box process is; remove camera, install battery and throw out the instruction manual.

Hoping there is an A78 coming at some point,

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2017 at 08:43 UTC as 30th comment

In the film world you would do a lot for any light gathering remembering that ASA400 was about the top speed available without push processes something that led to not very good results and additionally stabilization was not in the picture.

Today in the stabilized digital world and with even at a moderate ISO (800-2000) you have several stops more reach than film can achieve, making a decision on F1.2 vs. F1.4 insignificant.

If you really need to shot in the pitch black select a higher ISO, and if necessary choose a multi-frame approach like Sony uses to noise cancel, there is almost nothing that is too dark for this solution.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 08:50 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply

I have used various versions of PSP, I still keep a copy of X2 which for me is the most user friendly and speediest, I have X8 it is ok but I like X2 better. I will probably try X9 to see if it is worth it.

I much prefer the UI of PSP over Photoshop.

Not sure how PS works but PSP offers a 32 and 64 bit version which sounds good except most of the plug-ins I use only run in 32 bit mode anyway.

The biggest concern about PSP is plug-in compatibility.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 08:43 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply

I can't tell if recycling a 50 year old optical design is a good thing or a bad thing.

Part of me thinks that this is a short cut, dust off an old optical design, create a little marketing hype cache, and it is manual focus.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 08:45 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply
On article Google will no longer develop Nik Collection (392 comments in total)

I have used the Nik plugins for years, I find the control point function extremely useful in doing selective area editing; brightness, contrast, saturation, etc. I do not know of any other plugins that have this functionality,

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2017 at 08:45 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (506 comments in total)

The A9 body is what the A7 always should have been, more controls, bigger battery. The A7 evolved out of the NEX which probably explains why they valued size over usability.

The A7 series one performance miss is their speed, while not everyone needs the A9 speed the A7 series are slow my A77 is twice as fast as any A7.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 09:06 UTC as 31st comment
On article The Leica Summaron 28mm F5.6 is old-fashioned fun (192 comments in total)

it would be a good choice at $50 on ebay.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2017 at 08:58 UTC as 15th comment
On article Oberwerth launches Donau line of leather lens pouches (56 comments in total)

Nylon has replaced leather for many applications and I think here as well, While it may not smell or feel as nice nylon works better for this application, stronger, more durable, etc. and cheaper.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 14:07 UTC as 5th comment

4/3 was born when DLSR's had 6M APS-C sensors and the pixel wars had not started and at a time when sensors were more costly and difficult to make. 4/3 was perhaps a reasonable size to squeeze 5-6M pixels into.
With the advent of APS-C and FF sensors in the 24-50M range the 4/3 is now penalized in its ability to complete (this applies to the M4/3 as well). What make the current M4/3 cameras doubly disadvantaged is they are not cheaper than their APC-C competition either from a camera or system perspective.

The one advantage 4/3 had was to offer smaller lenses and larger zoom ranges. Given that you can find multiple APS-C zoom lenses in the 18-250 and 16-300 range it should have been possible to make a 4/3 lens in the 12- >250mm (eq. 24-500++) range. As a travel camera a 4/3 camera with a long range zoom lens could have been an appealing product, sadly no one ever built one...

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 09:53 UTC as 35th comment | 3 replies

Time to market and having a competitive offering is a make or break. The 24-500 was designed to out reach the Panasonic FZ1000 however once Sony released their 600mm RX10 that market position was lost. As for the other two Nikons they needed to be better and/or cheaper than Sony to enter a market 3 years late.

It goes without saying that in the non-DSLR space that smartphones are seriously eating into the market causing the shrinkage.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 11:10 UTC as 85th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta's prosumer DiMAGE 7 (215 comments in total)

I still have my A2 tucked way, after having sold my A1 . In some respects it was a very sophisticated camera looking externally like the 7 series. with a 8 M sensor and high resolution EVF. The versatility of the controls was beyond most of today's cameras. Its shot to shot times were a problem I think the electronics had not been scaled up to handle the 3M extra pixels. Image quality was ok, never quite got it perfect not withstanding all of the available settings.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2017 at 14:25 UTC as 106th comment | 1 reply

We this is one useless idea. I am not sure why anyone would want to pay $400 for a housing to take bad pictures underwater. Might just buy an underwater point a shoot good to 50 feet and save $150. At 100 Meters got to think there would be serious lack of light making this concept pointless.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2017 at 16:54 UTC as 3rd comment
Total: 70, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »