Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Works as a Academic Philosopher
Has a website at www.dbm305.smugmug.com
Joined on Feb 24, 2008


Total: 82, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Woof! Sony a6500 sample images are here (364 comments in total)
In reply to:

iamatrix: And as always they have the hallmark Sony look - poor color, too much noise and limited dynamic range. And yet they always score incredibly well.

Poor colour? A lot of people don't like it, but it's photometrically accurate colour. It's an interesting question whether you should cook the colour so that - on average - people with find it pleasing (Fuji and Canon do this) or leave it accurate and to be adjusted to taste. I can see a case for the cooking in the case of JPEG, where it's harder to change it loslessly, but I'm not sure it's the right thing.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2016 at 01:34 UTC

Great article!

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 11:27 UTC as 23rd comment
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (762 comments in total)

A plastic Diana in the late sixties when I was a very small boy. Then nothing until the I was at grad school: an Olympus OM 40 rapidly followed by an OM 4

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 20:20 UTC as 367th comment | 2 replies

Zeiss say never keep lenses in anything made of leather, as it's inclined to support the spores that lead to lens fungus...

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 10:20 UTC as 53rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

dbm305: Tough to make lenses that do both APSC and m43; m43 requires higher sharpness per area over less area, so APS lenses will tend to perform less well.

But the Sigma is pretty even; of course the sweet spot effect applies to some extent. But the magnification effect is profound it's why many lenses that produce tremendous system resolution on full frame give poor measurements on APSC, despite the sweet spot effect. And it's not the competition in the 30mm space on Sony mirrorless is weak (Zeiss touit, and the very good Sony). So while there are indeed very good lenses in m43 at this fl, And the Sigma does quite well against them, I'm in fact surprised it does at well as it does being designed for APSC. Or another way of thinking is that if it was designed to do well on M43 to begin with while not losing it in the corners on FF, it's going to be AMAZING on APSC. Which it apparently is,

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2016 at 10:40 UTC

Tough to make lenses that do both APSC and m43; m43 requires higher sharpness per area over less area, so APS lenses will tend to perform less well.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2016 at 22:22 UTC as 45th comment | 3 replies
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art real world sample gallery (215 comments in total)
In reply to:

Indohydra: I assume that Sigma will soon release a Sony Emount soon enough? I would like to see side by side comparison tests of the two lenses

Except that in an interview last week the CEO of Sigma said that they will be making FE lenses, and that the MC-11 sold a few to begin with but then stopped, so that they now think they have to make then because of the 'glowing' future of Full frame E...

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2016 at 12:06 UTC
In reply to:

Anastigmat: A mirrorless camera that seems to be about as deep as a SLR. Looks like they did not take full advantage of the design and reduce the lens flange to sensor distance. Nevertheless, the lack of mirror flap should contribute to sharper images, especially at slow shutter speeds.

But it's medium format: the depth is much less than a MF SLR, so I guess it does take advantage of the flange distance advantage. Of course it's not as close to the sensor as FF mirrorless: but getting that close on MF would create ray angle issues if lenses took advantage of it. So you'd just get bigger lenses at the prince of a slightly thinner camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 23:26 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: the Samsung NV10 (75 comments in total)

Yep. I had been away from photography for a few years after moving somewhere I couldn't set up a darkroom. I thought I should buy a digital camera. I was ignorant about digital and did little research. I was tempted by the Nikon 8400: it had a 24-70 equivalent lens, and was relatively small. The guy in the photo shop where i was trading in my film gear tried to persuade me to get the first digital rebel (or maybe the Canon 10d). Ignorant me didn't know about sensor sizes, and I thought the only advantage of the Canon was interchangeable lenses, and I figured I could live for a while with a non-interchangeable lens while I learned digital. I got the thing, and was very disappointed. Terrible DR over smoothed JPEGst if you used that (which I did for a while - remember how ignorant I was). Ugh. Eventually I got a Canon 5D and things were back how they were in film days. In retrospect I can't believe that I didn't realise there was a lot to learn about digital.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2016 at 23:00 UTC as 30th comment
In reply to:

probert500: If my Olympus zuiko OM 50mm f3.5 macro wasn't so incredibly sharp and distortion free, I'd definitely give this a look.

The OM 3.5/50 is plenty sharp for macro, but doesn't have the contrast of a good modern lens

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 03:28 UTC
In reply to:

OvinceZ: Today I searched for a Sigma 50 mm macro lens for Canon mount but they are no longer available. Imagine my delight to see a Sony FE version. I would prefer a 35 mm macro lens for flowers. Have been successfully using a Sony FE 30 mm macro lens but there is significant vignetting. I can use it handheld even with a Nissin 40 flash attached. Great flower lens on my A7Rii. I removed the rear flange to reduce vignetting. I have the Sony 90 mm macro. Great lens of course but I need more depth of field.

The focal length on this goes down to 40mm at 1:1 so it's fine for your use!

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 03:26 UTC
In reply to:

Androole: Now that copy stands are not really used anymore to reproduce documents, do people actually buy macros in this focal range?

I mean, I guess they're useful enough as walkaround lenses because of the shorter FL, but they're slower and more expensive than the ubiquitous fast normal lenses, and they have a very short working distance for doing actual macro work that can be challenging even for inanimate objects due to shading from the lens.

I have a 55/2.8 Macro that I quite enjoy using, but I'm using it on a 2x crop camera...

Shorter macros have a different perspective which for some subjects is more involving than the flattened perspective of a longer macro. Heck, ibsometimes put tubes on A 28mm just to get that perspective ( at considerable cost to working distance of course)

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 13:27 UTC
On article Sony Planar T* FE 50mm F1.4 ZA Sample Gallery (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: For $1000 one can acquire a Sigma 50/1.4 plus the Sigma MC-11 adapter for Sony E mount. The MC-11 allows full auto control and works with many of the Art lenses.
If one happens to shoot Fuji, their 35/1.4 (50mm crop value) is $600. If one doesn't mind manual focus a Zeiss Contax 50/1.4 in mint condition can be had for $350. Like several others here I'm not certain I get the $2000 price tag.

The fuji is a fine lens; but in DOF terms it's a 50mm f2 equivalent and is not much cheaper than a good price on the 55 1.8 Zony -- and the total light gathering difference means the Fuji is never better than the Zony in those terms (i.e. when light limited) and of course, due to FF, better when you aren't light limited.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 02:28 UTC

Hmm. It's a similar size and weight to something like the Batis FF FE 25/2; which has a roughly equivalent AOV, DOF and light gathering capacity and which will therefore be no worse at high ISO and better when not light limited due to the larger sensor.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy it: if you want a compact M43 system with slower compact lenses, and have an occasional need for lower DOF or low light work, sure. But it does mean I think there is little point in the format if you intend to mainly have lenses like this (except perhaps on cost grounds) since these fast M43s don't give you much saving of weight against FF.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 07:55 UTC as 119th comment

RIP; been learning from Michael for twenty years.
Maybe I still will be able to.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2016 at 11:29 UTC as 59th comment

First fast aperture 85 with stabilisation? Zeiss Batis Sonnar 85mm 1.8 T*!!!!!

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 13:09 UTC as 28th comment | 6 replies
On article Zeiss unveils super-wide Batis 18mm F2.8 (178 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aldian: Official sample from zeiss. looks like my samyang 14 mm quality. hmm..

Yep the 18 3.5 is in another league; a considerably worse one according to Lloyd chambers.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 12:48 UTC
On article Zeiss unveils super-wide Batis 18mm F2.8 (178 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wild Light: 18??? Why not 35 or 50??????

Whoah just looked at the shootout. Hard to say without a direct comparison, but that is not performance I recognise from my FE 35 1.4. Wide open it's awful rather than not-quite-as-good-as-Sigma-orCanon, and it never really gets great stopped down. Whereas I'm used to really decent if not super sharp wide open, and as good as it gets stopped down.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 11:01 UTC
On article Zeiss unveils super-wide Batis 18mm F2.8 (178 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wild Light: 18??? Why not 35 or 50??????

I too wonder if Rishi had a bad copy of the FE 35 1.4; buy all accounts they abound - skewed, decanted or just plain softer everywhere. Maybe that's a reason not to get a ticket in the FE 1.4 lottery, but a good one is perhaps not as sharp as the new Canon wide open, but by f2 is up there with the Sigma and at all smaller apertures. Yes it has onion rings, but on the other hand the structure and smoothness of the bokeh otherwise is really lovely.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 10:57 UTC
On article Zeiss unveils super-wide Batis 18mm F2.8 (178 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: We need a Batis 35mm 1.8 now!

The 1.4 is pretty sharp at 1.8; or at least sharp enough. And very sharp stopped down. Agreed it's not the lens that the new Canon is. And it's a lot of size and heft and dollars for 1.4 when the 1.4 is fine but not stellar (I do like the bokeh though). And the 2.8 is a great hiking lens... But for all that a great 35 1.8 that was a lot smaller than a 1.4, but fully sharp wide open, would give you the effective usefulness of the 1.4 with less size and weight. I often aperture bracket, and blend in an f2.2 exposure of the subject to an f1.4 exposure of the b/g...

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 06:39 UTC
Total: 82, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »