dbm305

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

Comments

Total: 75, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
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 (77 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 29th 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 118th 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 (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aldian: Official sample from zeiss. looks like my samyang 14 mm quality. hmm..
https://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/26057717012/sizes/o/

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 (177 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 (177 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 (177 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
On article Zeiss unveils super-wide Batis 18mm F2.8 (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: We need a Batis 35mm 1.8 now!

There is a nice 90mm 2.8: but it's an internal focus macro and therefore large. A 90-100 2.8 can be tiny if it's not macro. It'd be a great thing to bring out in the

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2016 at 23:09 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2164 comments in total)
In reply to:

markie_jan61: USB charging is a deal-breaker, regardless of a camera's capabililties.

Don't know why Sony continues to travel down that road.
--

If it's that important buy a charger.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2016 at 21:35 UTC
On article Hands on: Sony FE 50mm F1.8 and 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

peeyaj: The 50mm f/1.8 is seriously tempting and at $249, will quell the complaints of FE lenses having no cheap options.. Good job, Sony.

As someone else has said they are rounded: but also the shorter the lens, and the slower the lens (i.e. the smaller the absolute, non-relative aperture) the less need for massive number s of blades to keep the bokeh balls round. Seven rounded is plenty for a 50mm 1.8

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 02:16 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2164 comments in total)
In reply to:

dbm305: On the comparison tool the A6300 seems a bit sharper at base ISO than the A6000. That's odd. Is there are weaker AA filter? Is it a different lens? Am I fooling myself?

The corners vary; top right A6300 is much worse, not much difference in the lower ones. So the corners must surely be lens symmetry differences. Of course the centre could be lens differences as well - I'll look to see if they say they used the same lens.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 10:08 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2164 comments in total)

On the comparison tool the A6300 seems a bit sharper at base ISO than the A6000. That's odd. Is there are weaker AA filter? Is it a different lens? Am I fooling myself?

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 07:20 UTC as 338th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

left eye: Master of wavy distortion?

Check the s.steel edge at the front of the kitchen shot, and the next, the front of the swimming pool.
Not just simple barrel or pin, which I don't mind seeing (esp at wide angle) this looks like the distortion of the various lens elements - are fighting against each other!
So a new term to add to barrel and pin, wavy.
Sure ACR in time will be able to map this complex geometry out, but if like me you don't always want to remove distortion - this will be impossible for this lens - unless wavy is suddenly the mark of the professional, cool and the way to go?

All this agonising about distortion! What matters is how much resolution is left after distortion correction (whether that's optical or software). And to find that out we have to wait for controlled tests. There are lots of things that handheld sample photos framed in an uncontrolled way with objects not parallel to the sensor plane tell you: but information about resolution and especially post correction resolution is not amongst them.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2016 at 10:14 UTC
In reply to:

Stanchung: Definitely something special. and nice review.

Since it's a shift lens, is it able to get front to back sharp of say a field of lilies? Something impossible with a non shift lens even when stopped down?

Hi goufawkes
I think I read that this lens only has vertical shift, so the anti lamp post strategy you describe would only work in portrait orientation.

If I were to use this lens for perspective correction in full frame I think I'd just hold it parallel to the building I shifted and crop out the foreground (which would give a similar effect to shifting in APSC.

I think, though, that you bought his lens if the effect you can get from ultra wide macro is your principl interest. It's infinity performance is fun, perhaps useful in an emergency, but no substitute for a regulat UW.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2016 at 19:57 UTC
Total: 75, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »